Skip to main content

Full text of "Saint Paul's epistle to the Galatians a revised text with introduction, notes, and dissertations"

See other formats











The original of this book is in 
the Cornell University Library. 

There are no known copyright restrictions in 
the United States on the use of the text. 


published COMMENTARIES. 8vo. 12s. 


Reprinted from Bishop Lightfoot's Commentaries. With Preface by the 
Bishop of Durham. Fcap. 8vo. is. net. 


Revised Text, with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations. 8vo. 12s. 


Revised Text, with Introduction, &c. 8vo. 12s. 


TO PHILEMON. A Revised Text, with Introductions, Notes, and Disser- 
tations. 8vo. 12s. 


printed from the editions of St Paul's Epistles. 8vo. 14^. 


OF ROME. A Revised Text, with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and 
Translations. 2 vols. 8vo. 32s. 


ST POLYCARP. Revised Texts, with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, 
and Translations. 2 vols, in 3. 8vo. 48s. . 

THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. Abridged Edition. With 

short Introductions, Greek Text, and English Translations. 8vo. i6s. 



TESTAMENT. Crown 8vo. 7^. 6ii. 


CLERGY. Crown 8vo. 6s. 

CAMBRIDGE SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 6s. 



Crown 8vo. 6s. 

HISTORICAL ESSAYS. Globe 8vo. 6s. net. 

[Eversley Series. 

Homilies of Clement. 8vo. $s. 

A CHARGE, delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of 

Durham, November 25. 1886. 8vo. Sewed. 2s. 

BISHOP LIGHTFOOT. Reprinted from TAe Quarterly 

Review. With a prefatory note by the BISHOP OF DURHAM. With Portrait. 
Crown 8vo. 3J. 6d. 




8vo. zos, 6d. 

THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH: A popular account of the Collec- 

tion and Reception of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Churches. Pott Svo. 4s. 6d. 


Crown Svo. 10s. 6d. 


tion to Reason and History. Crown Svo. 6s. Globe Svo. as. net, 

THE HISTORIC FAITH: Short Lectures on the Apostles' Creed. 

Crown Svo, 6s. Also Svo. sewed, gd. 

THE REVELATION OF THE FATHER. Short Lectures on the 

Titles of the Lord in the Gospel of St John, Crown Svo. 6s. 

CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR and other Sermons. Crown Svo. 6s. 
GIFTS FOR MINISTRY. Addresses to Candidates for Ordination. 

Crown Svo. u. 6d. 

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. The Greek Text, with Notes 

and Essays. Svo. 14;. net. 


with Notes and Addenda. Svo. xoj. 6d. 

THE EPISTLES OF ST JOHN. The Greek Text, with Notes and 

Essays. Svo. 12^. 6d. net. 



THE GOSPEL OF LIFE: Thoughts introductory to the Study of 

Christian Doctrine. Crown Svo, 6s. Also Svo. sewed, gd, 


WEST. Globe Svo. \Eversky Series. 


Crown Svo. 6*. 


UNIVERSITIES. Crown Svo. 4J. 6d. 


from the Writings of Bishop Westcott. Arranged and Edited by Rev. Stephen Phillips. 
Crown Svo. dr. 

THE OBLIGATIONS OF EMPIRE. A Sermon. Crown Svo. zd. net. 

LESSONS FROM WORK. Crown Svo. 6s. 

ADDRESS TO MINERS, July, 1901. Crown Svo. Sewed. 6d. 

WORDS OF FAITH AND HOPE. Crown Svo. 4J. 6d. 


COMMON PRAYERS FOR FAMILY USE. Crown Svo. is. 3d. net. 

VILLAGE SERMONS. Crown Svo, 6,f. 


BIBLE. Revised by William Aldis Wright. Svo. z2s. 6d, 


By his son, the Rev, Arthur Westcott. With Portraits and other Illustrations, a vols. 
Extra crown Svo. 17^, net. Abridged Edition. Extra crown Svo. &i. 6d. net. 



3 1924 075 537 088 














MiMHT^f MOY rfNecee K^edjC K^r^ XPICT07« 

IlauXos yevofufos /Uyiffros inrorypaiifios. 


Oix '■>! IlaSXos Siwrdiriroiuu i/ily' iKftyos irotrroXos, 
iyi) KaraKptTos' iKea>os fKei$epos, iyi> Si /u^x/" "'''' SoC\ou 


OSre lyi) ovre aXXos d/ioios i/iol Sivarai KaTaKoKov$rjffM 
rS (roiplf ToO iMKaplov xal ^vSofou IlailXov. 



J'trsi Edition printed 1865, Second 1866, Third 1869, Fourth, 1874, Fifth 1876, 

Sixth 1880, Seventh 1881, Eighth 1884, iVmM 1887, 7>«tt rSgo, 

Reprinted \&gi, 1896, 1900, 1902, 1905, 1910, 1914, ipit. 






Preface to the First Edition, 

nPHE present work is intended to form part of a complete 
-■- edition of St Paul's Epistles which, if my plan is ever 
carried out, will be prefaced by a general introduction and 
arranged in chronological order. To such an arrangement the 
half-title of the present work refers, assigning this epistle to 
the second chronological group and placing it third in this 
group in accordance with the view maintained in the intro- 
duction. Meanwhile, should this design be delayed or aban- 
doned, the present commentary will form a whole in itself. 

The general plan and execution of the work will commend 
or condemn themselves : but a few words may be added on one 
or two points which require explanation. 

It is no longer necessary, I trust, to offer any apology for 
laying aside the received text. When so much conscientious 
labour has been expended on textual criticism, it would be 
unpardonable in an editor to acquiesce in readings which for 
the most part are recommended neither by intrinsic fitness nor 
by the sanction of antiquity. But the attempt to construct 
an independent text in preference to adopting the recension 
of some well-knoA^n editor needs more justification. If I had 
pursued the latter course, I should certainly have selected 
either Bentley or Lachmann. These two critics were thorough 
masters of their craft, bringing to their task extensive know- 
ledge and keen insight. But Bentley's text' was constructed 

' His text of this epistle is given in Bentleii Oritica Sacra, p. 94 sq., edited 
by the Bev. A. A. Ellis. 

viii Preface to the First Edition. 

out of very imperfect materials, and Lachmann only professed 
to give results which were approximate and tentative. Of the 
services of Tischendorf in collecting and publishing materials 
it is impossible to speak too highly, but his actual text is 
the least important and least satisfactory part of his work. 
Dr Tregelles, to whom we owe the best recension of the 
Gospels, has not yet reached the Epistles of St Paul*. But 
apart from the difficulty of choosing a fit guide, there is always 
some awkwardness in writing notes to another's text, and the 
sacrifice of independent judgment is in itself an evil ; nor will 
it be considered unseemly presumption in a far inferior work- 
man, if with better tools he hopes in some respects to improve 
upon his model. Moreover I was encouraged by the promise 
of assistance from my friends the Rev. B. F. Westcott and the 
Rev. F. J. A. Hort, who are engaged in a joint recension of the 
Greek Testament and have revised the text of this epistle for 
my use. Though I have ventured to differ from them in some 
passages and hold myself finally responsible in all, I am greatly 
indebted to them for their aid. 

The authorities for the various readings are not given except 
in a few passages, where the variations are important enough to 
form the subject of a detached note. They may be obtained 
from Tischendorf or any of the well-known critical editions. 
Here and there, where the text may be considered fairly doubtful, 
I have either offered an alternative reading below or enclosed 
a word possibly interpolated in brackets ; but these are for the 
most part unimportant and do not materially affect the sense. 

In the explanatory notes such interpretations only are dis- 
cussed as seemed at all events possibly right, or are generally 
received, or possess some historical interest. By confining 
myself to these, I wished to secure more space for matters of 
greater importance. For the same reason, in cases of disputed 
interpretations the authorities ranged on either side are not 
given, except where, as in the case of the fathers, some interest 

' The part containing the Epistle to the Galatians has since appeared 

Preface to the First Edition. ix 

attaches to individual opinions. Nor again have I generally 
quoted the authorities for the views adopted or for the illus- 
trations and references incorporated in my notes, when these 
are to be found in previous commentaries or in any common 
book of reference. I have sometimes however departed from 
this rule for a special reason, as for instance where it was best 
to give the exact words of a previous writer. 

As the plan of this work thus excludes special acknow- 
ledgments in the notes, I am anxious to state generally my 
obligations to others. 

What I owe to the fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries 
will appear very plainly in the notes and in the appendix on 
the patristic commentators. After these, my obligations are 
greatest to English and German writers of the last few years. 
The period from the fifth century to the Reformation was an 
entire blank as regards any progress made in the interpretation 
of this epistle. And from that time to the present century, 
though single commentators of great merit have appeared at 
intervals, Calvin for instance in the sixteenth century, Grotius 
in the seventeenth, and Bengel in the eighteenth, there has 
been no such marked development of interpretational criticism 
as we have seen in our own time. The value of Luther's work 
stands apart from and in some respects higher than its merits 
as a commentary. 

To more recent critics therefore I am chiefly indebted. 
Among my own countrymen I wish to acknowledge my obliga- 
tions chiefly to Professor Jowett who has made the habits of 
thought in the Apostolic age his special study, and to Bishop 
Ellicott who has subjected the Apostle's language to a minute 
and careful scrutiny. Besides these I have consulted with 
advantage the portions relating to this epistle in the general 
commentaries of Dean Alford and Dr Wordsworth. Among 
German writers I am indebted especially to the tact and scholar- 
ship of Meyer and to the conscientious labours of Wieseler. 
Ewald is always instructive ; but my acknowledgments are due 
more to the History of this truly great biblical scholar than to 

X Preface to the First Edition. 

his edition of St Paul's Epistles. Roman Catholic theology is 
well represented in the devout and intelligent commentary of 
Windischmann : and the Tubingen school has furnished an able 
and learned expositor in Hilgenfeld. I have found both these 
commentators useful though in a widely different way. Besides 
the writers already mentioned I have constantly consulted 
Winer, Olshausen, De Wette, and Schott ; and to all of these, 
to the first especially, I am indebted. 

I need scarcely add that my obligations to these various 
writers differ widely in kind. Nor will it be necessary to guard 
against the inference that the extent of these obligations is a 
measure of my general agreement with the opinions of the 
writers. He who succeeds signally in one branch of biblical 
criticism or interpretation will often fail as signally in another. 
I do not feel called upon to point out what seem to me to be 
the faults of writers to whom I am most largely indebted, and 
I have certainly no wish to blunt the edge of my acknowledg- 
ments by doing so. 

Besides commentaries, great use has been made of the com- 
mon aids to the study of the language of the Greek Testament. 
The works to which I am most indebted in matters of grammar 
will appear from the frequent references in the notes. The 
third English edition of Winer (Edinburgh, 1861) has been 
used'. I have also availed myself constantly of the well-known 
collections of illustrative parallels by Wetstein, Schbttgen, 
Grinfield, and others; of indices to the later classical writers 
and earlier fathers ; of the Concordances to the Septuagint and 
New Testament; and of the more important Greek Lexicons, 
especially Hase and Dindorfs edition of Stephanus. 

My thanks are due for valuable suggestions and corrections 
to the Rev. F. J. A. Hort, late Fellow of Trinity College, and 
to W. A. Wright, Esq., Librarian of Trinity College; and also to 
other personal friends who have kindly assisted me in correcting 
the proof-sheets. 

' The refeiences to Winer have since been alteied and adapted to Moulton'g 
Translation, Edinburgh, 1870. 

Preface to the First Edition. xi 

Though I have taken pains to be accurate, experience gained 
in the progress of the work has made me keenly alive to a con- 
stant liability to error ; and I shall therefore esteem any correc- 
tions as a favour. I should wish moreover to adopt the language 
of a wise theologian, whose tone and temper I would gladly take 
for my model, and to 'claim a right to retract any opinion which 
improvement in reasoning and knowledge may at any time 
show me is groundless' (Hey's Lectures on the Articles). 

While it has been my object to make this commentary 
generally complete, I have paid special attention to everything 
relating to St Paul's personal history and his intercourse with 
the Apostles and Church of the Circumcision. It is this feature 
in the Epistle to the Galatians which has given it an over- 
whelming interest in recent theological controversy. Though 
circumstances have for the moment concentrated the attention 
of Englishmen on the Old Testament Scriptures, the questions 
which have been raised on this Epistle are intrinsically far 
more important, because they touch the vital parts of Christi- 
anity. If the primitive Gospel was, as some have represented 
it, merely one of many phases of Judaism, if those cherished 
beliefs which have been the life and light of many generations 
were afterthoughts, progressive accretions, having no foundation 
in the Person and Teaching of Christ, then indeed St Paul's 
preaching was vain and our faith is vain also. I feel very 
confident that the historical views of the Tubingen school 
are too extravagant to obtain any wide or lasting hold over 
the minds of men. But even in extreme cases mere denun- 
ciation may be unjust and is certainly unavailing. Moreover, 
for our own sakes we should try and discover the element of 
truth which underlies even the greatest exaggerations of able 
men, and correct our impressions thereby. 

' A number there are,' says Hooker, 'who think they cannot 
admire, as they ought, the power of the Word of God, if in 
things divine they should attribute any force to man's reason.' 
The circumstances which called forth this remark contrast 
strangely with the main controversies of the present day ; but 

xii Preface to the First Edition. 

the caution is equally needed. The abnegation of reason is not 
the evidence of faith but the confession of despair. Reason and 
reverence are natural allies, though untoward circumstances 
may sometimes interpose and divorce them. 

Any one who has attempted to comment on St Paul's 
Epistles must feel on laying down his task how far he has 
fallen short even of his own poor ideal Luther himself ex- 
presses his shame that his ' so barren and simple commentaries 
should be set forth upon so worthy an Apostle and elect vessel 
of God.' Yet no man had a higher claim to a hearing on such 
a subject; for no man was better fitted by the sympathy of 
like experiences to appreciate the character and teaching of 
St Paul. One who possesses no such qualifications is entitled 
to feel and to express still deeper misgivings. 


February i8, iSCs. 



L The Galaticm People i — 17 

IL The ChweAet of Oalatia 18 — ^35 

III. The Date of the .Epistle 36—56 

rV. Oenuineneti of the Epistle 57 — 62 

V. Character and Contents of the .Epistle 63 — 68 


i. I — ^L 24 71 — 86 

St PauFs sojourn in Arabia 87 — 90 

St PaiiFs first visit to Jerusalem 9ii 92 

The name and office of an Apostle 92 — loi 

ii. I— ii. 21 102—120 

Various readings in ii. 5 I2i — 123 

The later visit of St Paul to Jerusalem 123 — 128 

Patristic accounts of the collision at Antioch 128—132 

iiL I — iii. 29 133 — 151 

The interpretation of Dewt. xxi. 23 152 — 154 

The words denoting 'Faith' 154 — 158 

The faith of Abraham 158 — 164 

xiv Contents. 


iv. I — ^v. I 165—185 

St PauTa mfwmity in the flesh 186 — 191 

The variovs readings in iv. 25 192, 193 

The meaning of Maga/r in iv. 25 193—198 

Philo'g Allegory of Hagar and Sarah 198 — 200 

The vwriouB readings in v. i 200 — 202 

V. 2— vi. 18 203 — 226 

Patristic Commentaries on this Epistle 227 — 236 


I. Were the Galatians Celts or Teutons? 239 — 251 

II. The Brethren of the Lord 252—291 

III. St Paid and the Three 292—374 

INDEX. 375—384 


TTTHEN St Paul carried the Gospel into Galatia, he was The Gala- 

^ ' thrown for the first time among an alien people dififering *^°^ ^° 
widely in character and habits from the surrounding nations. 
A race whose home was in the far West, they had been torn 
from their parent rock by some great social convulsion, and 
after drifting over wide tracts of country, had settled down 
at length on a strange soil in the very heart of Asia Minor. 
Without attempting here to establish the Celtic affinities of 
this boulder people by the fossil remains of its language and 
institutions, or to trace the path of its migration by the scores 
imprinted on its passage across the continent of Europe, it will 
yet be useful, by way of introduction to St Paul's Epistle, to 
sketch as briefly as possible its previous history and actual 
condition. There is a certain distinctness of feature in the 
portrait which the Apostle has left of his Galatian converts. It 
is clear at once that he is dealing with a type of character 
strongly contrasted for instance with the vicious refinements 
of the dissolute and polished Corinthians, perhaps the truest 
surviving representatives of ancient Greece, or again with 
the dreamy speculative mysticism which disfigured the half- 
oriental Churches of Ephesus and Colossse. We may expect 
to have light thrown upon the broad features of national 
character which thus confront us, by the circumstances of the 
descent and previous history of the race, while at the same 
time such a sketch will prepare the way for the solution 


of some questions of interest, which start up in connexion with 
this epistle. 
The The great subdivision of the human family which at the 

Celtffi^Ga- <^^"*"^ of European history occupied a large portion of the 
lata, and continent west of the Rhine with the outlying islands, and 
which modern philologers have agreed to call Celtic, was known 
to the classical writers of antiquity by three several names, 
GeltcB, Oalatce, and GalliK Of these, Celtce, which is the most 
ancient, being found in the earliest Greek historians Hecat aeus 
and Herodotus", was probably introduced into the Greek 
language by the colonists of Marseilles', who were first brought 
in contact with this race. The ter m Oalatce is of late intro- 
duction,^„gSSlirring first in Timseus, a writer of the third 
century B.C.* This latter form was generally adopted by 
the Greeks when their knowledge was extended by more direct 
and frequent intercourse with these barbarians, whether in 
their earlier home in the West or in their later settlement in 
Asia Minor. Either it was intended as a more exact repre- 
sentation of the same barbarian sound, or, as seems more 
probable, the two are diverging but closely allied forms of the 
same word, derived by the Greeks from different branches of 
the Celtic race with which at different times they came in 
contact'. On the other hand, the Romans generally designated 

' On these terms see Diefenbach ference from the confused notices in 

Oeltiea n. p. 6 sq., Ukert Geogr. der ancient writers. The most important 

Griech. u. Rom. Th. n. Abth. i, p. 183 passage is Diod. v. 32, Tois yhp itrip 

sq., Zeuss die Deutschen u. die Nach- MavffaXlav KaroLKovvTas iv rif iiecroyelif 

barstdmme p. 6 sq., Thierry Histoire dei Kal rois irapi. tAs "AXtths ft-t di rois iirl 

Gaulois I. p. 28. rASe tuv Jlvpiivaloiv dpur KeXTois 6vo- 

' Hecat. Fragm. 19, ii, 22, ed. Mill- pA^ovcn- toOs d' ivip roiinjs r^s Ke\- 

ler ; Herod, ii. 33, iy. 49. Both forms tik^s els tA irpos i'6to)> veiovra pApri, 

KeXrol and K^Xrat occur. irapi re tov liKearbv Kal To'EpKimop tpos 

•' Diod. V. 32, quoted in note 5. xaBiSpviUvovs koX irdvrai roils i^ijs fi-ixpi- 

* Timseus Fragm. 37, ed. Mtiller. ttjs SkvSUs, ToXdros npoirayopsjouiri 

Pausanias says (i. 3. 5) ixj/i S4 irore ai- k.t.\. See also Strabo iv. p. 189, and 

rods Ka\eur6ai Takdras i^evlxritre- KeX- other passages cited in Ukert n. 2, 

Tol yitp Kwrd re ff^as to &pxatov Kal p. 197 sq., Diefenbach Celt. n. p. 10 

jrapaToisoXXoisiii'o/idfoi'To. See also the sq. At all events it seems certain that 

passages in Diefenbach Gelt. 11. p. 8. the Gauls in the neighbourhood of Mar- 

5 This seems the most probable in- seilles called themselves Celtffi. 


this people Galli. Whether this word exhibits the same root 
as CeltaB and Galatse, omitting however the Celtic suffix', or 
whether some other account of its origin is more probable, it 
is needless to enquire. The term Galli is sometimes adopted Usage of 
by later Greek writers, but, as a general rule, until some time Eoman*"^ 
after the Christian era they prefer Galatae, whether speaking ^^i^e". 
of the people of Gaul properly so called or of the Asiatic 
colony*. The Romans in turn sometimes borrow Galatse from 

^ See Zeuss Gramm. Celt. p. 758. 

' Owing to the bearing of this fact, 
vrhioh has not been sufficiently noticed, 
on such passages as 2 Tim. iv. 10, I 
have thought it worth while to collect 
the following particulars, (i) Before 
the Christian era, and for two centuries 
afterwards, the form Galatia (Galatse) is 
almostuniversally used by Greek writers 
to the ezclnsion of GalUa (GalU), when 
they do not employ Celtice (Celtee). It 
occurs on the Monumentnm Anoyranum 
(Boeckh Corp. Inter. lu. pp. 89, 90) 
erected by Augustus in the capital of 
Asiatic Gaul, where to avoid confusion 
the other form would naturally have 
been preferred, if it had been in use. It 
is current in Polybiue, Diodorus , Strabo, 
Josephus, Plutarch, Appian,PausaniaE, 
and Dion Cassius. It appears also in 
Athen. p. 333 d, Clem. Alex. Strom, i. 
p. 359 (Potter), and Origen c. CeU. p. 
335 B. Even ^lian {Nat. An. xvii. 19, 
referring however to an earlier writer) 
when speaking of the Asiatto people is 
obliged to distinguish them as TaXdras 
Toii iuo6s. On the other hand St Basil 
{Op. I. p. 28, Gamier) describes the 
European Gauls as rois i<rireplovs TaM- 
ras Kal KeXroiis. In Boeckh C. I. no. 
9764 the Asiatic country is called fwcpi 
raXarfa, 'Little Gaul.' (s) The first in- 
stance of Gallia (Galli) which I have 
found in any Greek author is in Bpicte- 
tus (or rather Arrian), Dissert, ii. 20. 17, 
wirvcp Tois TaXXoiSs i) /tavla Kal oTvos 
{probably not before A.D. 100). It occurs 

indeed in the present textof Dioscoridea 
(1. 92, ivo PoXXios Kal Tvpprii'las) , per- 
haps an earlier writer, but the reading 
is suspicious, since immediately after- 
wards he has dsro roXarios t^s irpot 
rats 'AXttcctii'. Later transcribers were 
sorely tempted to substitute the form 
with which they were most familiar, as 
is done in 2 Tim. iv. 10 in several msb. 
See below, p. 31, note i. The substitu- 
tion is so natural that it is sometimes 
erroneously made where the eastern 
country is plainly meant: e.g. Pseudo- 
Doroth. Chron. Patch, n. p. 136, ed. 
Dind. The form TaXKla occurs again 
in the Ep. of the Churches of Vienne 
and Lyons (Euseb. v. i) A..D. 177, and in 
Theophil. ad Autol. ii. 32 ras Ka\oviUvas 
TaXXfas. It is also common in Herodian. 
(3) In the 4th and 5th centuries the 
form 'Gallia'hadtoa very great extent 
displaced Galatia. See Agathem. ii. 4, 
p. 37, Twv raXXiaJK ds irp&repov roXaWoj 
fttYoc, and Theod. Mops, on 2 Tim. iv. 
10, ras vCv KaXovnivat PoXXios" o&riiis 
7dp (i.e. roXoT(oi') air&s rivres ^(cdXow 
oi TraXatoL Accordingly Athanasius 
{Apol. c. Arian. § i, pp. 97, 98) in the 
same passage uses TaXarla of Asiatic 
Gaul, TaXKLai of the European pro- 
vinces. At a much earlier date than this 
Galen says (xrv. p. 80, Kuhn), KoKodn 
•/ovv airois ivioi /iiv PaXdra: &iot Si 
TaWois, cvvtiffiffrepov 6i to t&v KeXT(3i» 
tvoiM, but he must be referring in the 
first two classes to the usage of the 
Greek and Boman writers respectively. 



the Greeks, but when they do so it is applied exclusively to 
the Celts of Asia Minor, that is, to the Galatians in the modem 
sense of the term. The word Celtse still remains in common 
use side by side with the Galatffi of the Greek and Galli of the 
Eoman writers, being employed in some eases as coextensive 
with these, and in others to denote a particular branch of the 
Celtic race\ 
Celtic mi- The rare and fitful glimpses which we obtain of the Celtic 
peoples in the early twilight of history reveal the same restless, 
fickle temperament, so familiar to us in St Paul's epistle. They 
appear in a ferment of busy turmoil and ceaseless migration^ 
They are already in possession of considerable tracts of country 
to the south and east of their proper limits. They have over- 
flowed the barrier of the Alps and poured into Northern Italy. 
They have crossed the Khine and established themselves here 
and there in that vague and ill-defined region known to the 
ancients as the Hercynian forest and on the banks of the 
Danube. It is possible that some of these were fragments 
sundered from the original mass of the Celtic people, and 
dropped on the way as they migrated westward from the 
common home of the Aryan races in central Asia: but more 
probable and more in accordance with tradition is the view that 
their course being obstructed by the ocean, they had retraced 
their steps and turned towards the East again. At all events. 

See siinilar notices in Strabo iv. p. 195, ^ e.g. in Caesar Bell. Gall, i i. See 

Appian Bell. Hisp. % i. The form To- on the main subject of the preceding 

Xarlo of European Gaul still continued paragraph a good paper by M. D'Arbois 

to be used oocasionally, when TaXKla de Jubainville, Les Celies, Les Galates, 

had usurped its place. It is found for Les Gaulois, from the Bevue ArcMo- 

instance in Julian Epist. Ixxiii, and in logique, Paris 1875. 
Libanius frec[uently : oomp. Cureton '^ For the migrations of the Celts see 

Corp.Ign.p.jsi. Ammianus(xv.9)oan the well-kno-wn work of Thierry if istof re 

still say, ' Galatas dietos, itaenim Gal- des Gaulois {4th ed. 1857), or Contzen 

los sermo GraeousappeUat.' Even later Wanderungen der Kelten (Leipz. 1861). 

writers, who use TaXXfai of the Eoman They are considered more in their philo- 

provinces of Gaul, nevertheless seem to logical aspect in Diefenbaeh's Celtica, 

prefer TaKarla when speaking of the and in Priohard's Celtic Nations edited 

western country as a whole, e.g. loann. by Latham. The article ' Galli ' by 

Lydus Ostent. pp. 52, 54 (Wachsmuth), Baumstark in Pauly's Real-Encyclopa- 

Hierocl. Sj/necd. app. p. 313 (Parthey). die is a careful abstract of all that 


as history emerges into broad daylight, the tide of Celtic 
migration is seen rolling ever eastward. In the beginning of Sacting of 
the fourth century before Christ a lateral wave sweeps over the b.o. 390. 
Italian peninsula, deluging Rome herself and obliterating the 
landmarks of her earlier history. Three or four generations 
later another wave of the advancing tide, again diverted south- 
ward, pours into Macedonia and Thessaly, for a time carrying 
everything before it. The fatal repulse from Delphi, invested Attack on 
by Greek patriotism with a halo of legendary glory, terminated b.o. 279. 
the Celtic invasion of Greece. 

The Gaulish settlement in Asia Minor is directly connect- 
ed with this invasion'. A considerable force had detached The Ganls 

in Asia 
themselves from the main body, refusing to take part in Minor. 

the expedition. Afterwards reinforced by a remnant of the 
repulsed army they advanced under the command of the chiefs 
Leonnorius and Lutarius, and forcing their way through Thrace 
arrived at the coast of the Hellespont. They did not long 
remain here, but gladly availing themselves of the first means 
of transport that came to hand, crossed over to the opposite 
shores, whose fertility held out a rich promise of booty. Thence 
they overran the greater part of Asia Minor. They laid the 
whole continent west of Taiirus under tribute, and even the 

relates to the subject. See also Le Bas Bobion Eistoire des Gaulois d'Orient 

Asie Mineure (Paris, 1863). (1866). The existing monuments of 

1 The chief authorities for the history Galatia are described by Teiier, Asie 

of the Asiatic Gauls are Polybins v. 77, Mineme (1839— 1849), i. p. 163 sq. An 

78, iii.xxii. 16 — 24,Livyxxxviii. i2sq., article in the Eevue des Deux Mondei 

Strabo xii. p. 566 sq., Memnon (Geogr. (i84l),iv.p.574,bythesamewTiter,con- 

Min. ed. Miiller, ni. p. 535 sq.), Justin tains an account ofthe actual condition 

XXV. 2 sq., Arrian Syr. 42, Pausanias i. of this country with a summary of its 

4.5. See other references in Diefenbach history ancient and modern. See also 

Celt. n.p. 250. It formed the main sub- his smaller book, Asie Mineure (1862), 

ject of several works no longer extant, p. 453 »<!• ^o^^e recent is the impor- 

the most important of which was the tant work Exploration ArcUologique 

raXoTiKcl of Eratosthenes infortybooks. de la Galatie et de la Bithynie etc. by 

The monograph of Wemsdorff, De Be- Perrot and Guillaume. The account 

publica Galatarum (Nuremb. 1743), to of the MonumentumAneyranumin this 

which all later writers are largely in- work is very complete and illustrated 

debted, is a storehouse of facts relating by numerous plates. The ancient his- 

to early Galatian history. See also tory of Galatia is also given at length. 


Syrian kings, it is said, were forced to submit to these humi- 
liating terms*. Alternately, the scourge and the allies of 
each Asiatic prince in succession, as passion or interest dictated, 
they for a time indulged their predatory instincts unchecked. 
At length vengeance overtook them. A series of disasters, 
B.C. 130. culminating in a total defeat inflicted by the Pergamene prince 
Attalus the First, effectually curbed their power and insolence*. 
Limits of By these successive checks they were compressed within 
* * '*■ comparatively narrow limits in the interior of Asia Minor. 
The country to which they were thus confined, the Galatia of 
history, is a broad strip of land over two hundred miles in 
length, stretching from north-east to south-west. It was 
parcelled out among the three tribes, of which the invading 
Gauls were composed, in the following way. The Trocmi 
occupied the easternmost portion, bordering on Cappadocia and 
Pontus, with Tavium or Tavia as their chief town. The Tolis- 
tobogii, who were situated to the west on the frontier of 
Bithynia and Phrygia Epictetus, fixed upon the ancient Pessinus 
for their capital. The Tectosages settled in the centre between 
the other two tribes, adopting Ancyra as their seat of government, 
regarded also as the metropolis of the whole of Galatia*. 
Galatia But though their power was greatly crippled by these 

by'the*'^* disasters, the Gauls still continued to play an important part 
Bomans, jq ^\^q feuds of the Asiatic princes. It was while engaged in 
these mercenary services that they first came into collision 
with the terrible might of Rome. A body of Galatian troops 
fighting on the side of Antiochus at the battle of Magnesia 
attracted the notice of the Romans, and from that moment 
their doom was sealed. A single campaign of the Consul 
B.C. 189; Manlius sufficed for the entire subjugation of Galatia. 

* Livy xxxviii. 16. inscriptions, Boeckh in. nos. 40 10,4011, 

" The olironology is somewhat unoer- 4085. Memnon is therefore in error 

tain. See Niebuhr Kl. Sehrift. p. 286. (0. 1 9), when he assigns the chief towns 

The date given is an approximation. differently. The names of the three 

' So Strabo xii. p. 567, Pliny H. N. tribesarevariou8lywritten(seeContzen, 

V. 42, in accordance with ancient au- p. 221), but the orthography adopted 

thorlties generally and confirmed bythe in the text is the best supported. 


From that time forward they lived as peaceably as their 
restless spirit allowed them under Roman patronage. No 
humiliating conditions however were imposed upon them. 
They were permitted to retain their independence, and 
continued to be governed by their own princes. The con- 
querors even granted accessions of territory from time to time 
to those Galatian sovereigns who had been faithful to their 
allegiance. It was not the policy of the Romans to crush a race 
which had acted and might still act as a powerful check on its 
neighbours, thus preserving the balance of power or rather of 
weakness among the peoples of Asia Minor. At length, after becomes a 
more than a century and a half of native rule, on the death of b.o. 25. 
Amyntas one of their princes, Galatia was formed by Augustus 
into a Roman province. 

The limits of the province are not unimportant in their 

bearing on some questions relating to the early history of the 

Grospel. It corresponded roughly to the kingdom of Amyntas, Extent of 
IT T ' All •! i"/v« tliGRoman 

though some districts of the latter were assigned to a different province. 

government. Thus Galatia, as a Roman province, would include, 

besides the country properly so called, Lycaonia, Isauria, 

the south-eastern district of Phrygia, and a portion of Pisidia'. 

Lycaonia is especially mentioned as belonging to it, and there 

is evidence that the cities of Derbe and Lystra in particular' 

were included within its boundaries. When the province was 

' The extent of the kingdom of This sweeping statement however must 

Amyntas may be gathered from the be qualified. See Dion Cass. liii. 26, 

following passages: Strabo xii. p. 568, toO 5' 'A/iivrov TeXeurijo-oKroi oi rois 

Dion Cass. xlix. 32 (Lycaonia), Strabo iraialv airou riji' ipx^P iviTpetj/s/ , dW 

xii. p. 569 (Isauria), p. 571 (Pisidia), ei's tV iirrJKoov iariyayc Kal oCtu koL 

p. 577 (part of Phrygia), xiv. p. 671 ^ TaKaria jiterck ttjs AvKaovlas "Sufxatov 

(Cilicia Traoheia), Dion Cass. xlix. 32 apxovra Itx^' tA Si x'^P'" ™ ^^ ''^s 

(part of Pamphylia). See Becker iJom. IlafiipvKlas vpdrepov t^' Aixivri/, irpoave- 

Alterth. lu. i. p. 155, CeUarius Not. liitdivra tQ ISUf vS/itp dreS60ii. Cilicia 

Ori. Ant. n. p. 182. Of the formation Traoheia was also separated and as- 

of the Boman province Strabo says, signed to Archelaus, Strabo xiv. p. 671. 

xii. p. 567, »0i» 5' fx""" 'Pwyuoiot Kal On the subject generally see Perrot de 

rairtiv [t'Jjv TaXaTlav] Kal t^v iiro r$ Gal. Frov. Mom. Paris 1867. 

'A/xivrg, yevo/iivTiv irao-oc els idav <rwo- ° The Lystreni are included by Pliny 

yaybvres iwapxiav, and similarly p. 569. among the Galatian peoples, H. N. v. 


formed, the three chief towns of Galatia proper, Ancyra, 
, Pessinus, and Tavium, took the name of Sebaste or Augusta, 
being distinguished from each other by the surnames of the 
respective tribes to which they belonged*. 
Ambiguity Thus when the writers of the Boman period, St Paul and 
name. St Luke for instance, speak of Galatia, the question arises 
whether they refer to the comparatively limited area of 
Galatia proper, or to the more extensive Roman province. 
The former is the popular usage of the term, while the latter 
has a more formal and official character. 
Other ele- Attention has hitherto been directed solely to the barbarian 
^eVala- Settlers in this region. These however did not form by any 
tian popu- mgans the whole population of the district. The Galatians, 
whom Manlius subdued by the arms of Rome, and St Paul by 
the sword of the Spirit, were a very mixed race. The substra- 
tum of society consisted of the original inhabitants of the 
Phry- invaded country, chiefly Phrygians, of whose language not much 
" ■ is known, but whose strongly marked religious system has a 
prominent place in ancient history. The upper layer was 
composed of the Gaulish conquerors: while scattered irregularly 
Greeks, through the social mass were Greek settlers, many of whom 
doubtless had followed the successors of Alexander thither and 
were already in the country when the Gauls took possession of 
it*. To the country thus peopled the Romans, ignoring the old 
Phrygian population, gave the name of Gallograecia. At the 
time when Manlius invaded it, the victorious Gauls had not 
amalgamated with their Phrygian subjects; and the Roman 
consul on opening his campaign was met by a troop of the 
Phrygian priests of Cybele, who clad in the robes of their 
order and chanting a wild strain of prophecy declared to him 
that the goddess approved of the war, and would make him 

47. That Derbe also belonged to Ga- Alterth. ui. i. p. 156. 
latia may be inferred from Strabo xii. a It might be inferred from the in- 

p. 569. See Bottger Beitrdge, Suppl. Boription, Boeckh in. p. 8i, 'louXfou 

p. 26. 2eou)}pow ToO wpiirou twc 'BXXTji'uy, that 

' ZejSoo'T'J) TeKTovayuv, 2. ToXiitto- the Greeks in Galatia werereoognised as 

Puylun, 2. tfJiKiMv. See Becker Rom. a distinct olasB even under the Eomans. 


master of the country^ The great work of the Koman conquest 

was the fusion of the dominant with the conquered race — the fusion of 

GaulB ana 

result chiefly, it would appear, of that natural process by which Phry- 
all minor distinctions are levelled in the presence of a superior ^^'^^ 
power. From this time forward the amalgamation began, and 
it was not long before the Gauls adopted even the religion of 
their Phrygian subjects'. 

The Galatia of Manlius then was peopled by a mixed race 
of Phrygians, Gauls, and Greeks. But before St Paul visited the Eomans. 
country two new elements had been added to this already 
heterogeneous population. The establishment of the province 
must have drawn thither a considerable number of Komans, 
not very widely spread in all probability, but gathered about 
the centres of government, either holding official positions 
themselves, or connected more or less directly with those who 
did. From the prominence of the ruling race in the Galatian 
monuments" we might even infer that the whole nation had 
been romanized. Such an impression however would certainly 
be incorrect. I cannot find in St Paul's epistle any distinct 
trace of the influence, or even of the presence, of the masters 
of the world, though the flaunting inscriptions of the Sebasteum 
still proclaim the devotion of the Galatian people to the worship 
of Augustus and Rome. 

More important is it to remark on the large influx of Jews Jews. 
which must have invaded Galatia in the interval*. Antiochus 

I Polyb. xxii. 20, Li^y xxxYui. 18. In 2 Maoo. viii. 20 there is an obscure 

' A Brogitarus is mentioned as priest allusion to an engagement with them in 

of the mother of the gods at Pessinns; Babylonia. In i Mace. viii. 2 it is said 

Cicero de Arusp.Besp. 28, pro Sext. 26. that Judas Macoabrous 'heard of the 

A Dyteutus son of Adiatorix held the wars of the Eomans and the brave deeds 

same office in the temple of the goddess which they did among the Galatians (or 

worshipped at Comana, Strabo xii. p. Gauls) and how they subdued them and 

558. Other instances are given in laid them under tribute': but whether 

Thierry i. p. 41 1, Perrot Expl. Arch. we suppose the enumeration of the 

_ g,_ Boman triumphs to proceed in geo- 

s Boeckh Corp. Inacr. in. pp. 73— graphical or chronological order, the 


reference is probably to the Western 

* The direct connexion of the Gala- Gauls, either chiefly or solely, since the 
tians with Jewish history is very slight. successes of the Bomans in Spain are 




by the 
of Cralatia, 

the Great had settled two thousand Jewish families in Lydia 
and Phrygia'; and even if we suppose that these settlements did 
not extend to Galatia properly so called, the Jewish colonists 
must in course of time have overflowed into a neighbouring 
country which possessed so many attractions for them. Those 
commercial instincts, which achieved a wide renown in the 
neighbouring Phcenician race, and which in the Jews themselves 
made rapid progress during the palmy days of their national 
life under Solomon, had begun to develope afresh. The innate 
energy of the race sought this new outlet, now that their national 
hopes were crushed and their political existence was well-nigh 
extinct. The country of Galatia afforded great facilities for 
commercial enterprise. With fertile plains rich in agricultural 
produce, with extensive pastures for flocks, with a temperate 
climate and copious rivers, it abounded in all those resources 
out of which a commerce is created ^ It was moreover conveni- 
ently situated for mercantile transactions, being traversed by a 
great high road between the East and the shores of the -^gean, 
along which caravans were constantly passing, and among its 
towns it numbered not a few which are mentioned as great centres 
of commerce '. "We read especially of a considerable traffic in cloth 

mentioned in the following yerse, their 
victories over Philip and Persena in 
the 5th, and the defeat of Antiochus 
not till the 6th verse. The same nn- 
certainty hangs over the incident in 
Joseph. Ant. xv. 7. 3, Bell. Jud. i. 20. 
3, where we read that Augustus gave 
to Herod as his body-guard 400 Gala- 
tians (or Gauls) who had belonged to 

1 Joseph. Ant. xii. 3. 4. 

' An anonymous geographer [Geogr. 
Min. Miiller, 11. p. 521) describes Gala- 
tia as ' provincia optima, sibi sufficiens.' 
Other ancient writers also speak of 
the natural advantages of this country; 
see Wernsdorff p. 199 sq. A modern 
traveller writes as follows : ' Malgr^ tant 
de ravages et de guerres dfisastreuses, 

la Galatie, par la fertility de son sol et 
la richesse de ses prodnits agricoles, est 
encore nne des provinces les plus heu- 
reuses de I'Asie Mineure.' And again: 
' MalgrS tous ses malheurs, la ville mo- 
deme d' Angora est une des plus peu- 
■pl&es de I'Asie Mineure. Elle doit la 
prosp6rit6 relative dont elle n'a cessS 
de jouir k son heureuse situation, k 
nn cUmat admirablement sain, a un 
sol fertile, et surtout a ses innombrables 
troupeaux de ch^vres, etc' Texier, 
Revue dea Dewx Mondes, 1. 0. pp. 597, 

' Strabo, xii. p. 567, especially men- 
tions Tavium and Pessinus, describing 
the latter as ifiTopeiov two rairi] /t^s- 
a-Tov. Livy, xxxviii. 18, calls Gordium 
'celebre et frequens emporium.' 


goods; but whether these were of home or foreign manufacture 
we are not expressly told*. With these attractions it is not dif- 
ficult to explain the vast increase of the Jewish population in 
Galatia, and it is a significant fact that in the generation before 
St Paul Augustus directed a decree granting especial privileges 
to the Jews to be inscribed in his temple at Ancyra, the Galatian 
metropolis ^ doubtless because this was a principal seat of the 
dispersion in these parts of Asia Minor. Other testimony to Their in- 
the same effect is afforded by the inscriptions found in Galatia, 
which present here and there Jewish names and symbols' 
amidst a strange confusion of Phrygian and Celtic, Roman and 
Greek. At the time of St Paul they probably boasted a large 
number of proselytes and may even have infused a beneficial 
leaven into the religion of the mass of the heathen population. 
Some accidental points of resemblance in the Mosaic ritual may 
perhaps have secured for the inspired teaching of the Old 
Testament a welcome which would have been denied to its 
lofty theology and pure code of morals'*. 

^ Miiller's Geogr. Min. 1. o. 'negotia- Armenians, Asia Minor, i. p. 419. 
tur plnrimam restem.' It is interest- " See Boeokh Corp. Inscr. Vol. in. 

ing to find that at the present day a P. zviii. In no. 4129 the name'Ho-oCos 

very large trade is carried on at An- occurs with a symbol which Boeckh 

gora, the ancient Ancyra, in the fabric conjectures to be the seven-branched 

manufactured from the fine hair of the candlestick. We have also 'Iwdi/i/ou 

peculiar breed of goats reared in the 4045, "Zi&v^aros 4074, MaTarof 4088, 

neighbourhood. See Hamilton Asia, GoSeis 4092. 'AiciXasor'AiciiXasa name 

Minor, 1. p. 418, Texier, 1. c. p. 6oa commonly borne by Jews in these parts 

sq., and especially Bitter's Erdkunde occurs several times. It is possible 

XTiii. p. 505. It is to this probably however that some of these may be 

that the ancient geographer refers. Christian ; nor is it always easy to pro- 

^ Joseph. Antiq. xvi. 6. 7. The in- nounoe on the Hebrew origin of a name 
fluence of Judaism on St Paul's con- in the confusion of nations which these 
verts here does not derive the same inscriptions exhibit. 
illustration from the statistics of the * Pausanias(vii. 17. 5) mentions that 
existing population as it does in some the people of Pessinus abstained from 
other places, Thessalonica for instance, swine's flesh (ifiv oix avrdfievoi.) , a state- 
where the Jews are said to form at ment which has given rise to much 
least one half of the inhabitants. In discussion. See Wernsdorff p. 324 sq. 
1836 Hamilton was informed that out Some have attributed this abstinence to 
of about 11,000 houses in Ancyra only Jewish influence, but the aversion to 
IRC were Jewish, the majority of the swine's flesh was common to several 
population being Turks or Catholic Eastern peoples. Instances are given 


The Celtic Still with all this foreign admixture, it was the Celtic blood 
domi- which gave its distinctive colour to the Galatian character and 
nates. separated them by so broad a line even from their near neigh- 
bours. To this cause must be attributed that marked contrast 
in religious temperament which distinguished St Paul's disciples 
in Galatia from the Christian converts of Colossje, though edu- 
cated in the same Phrygian worship and subjected to the same 
Jewish influences. The tough vitality of the Celtic character 
maintained itself in Asia comparatively unimpaired among 
Phrygians and Greeks, as it has done in our own islands among 
Saxons and Danes and Normans, retaining its individuality of 
type after the lapse of ages and under conditions the most 
The Gala- A very striking instance of the permanence of Celtic insti- 
tain their tutions is the retention of their language by these Gauls of Asia 
language jji^or. More than six centuries after their original settlement 
in this distant land, a language might be heard on the banks of 
the Sangarius and the Halys, which though slightly corrupted 
was the same in all essential respects with that spoken in the 
district watered by the Moselle and the Rhine. St Jerome, 
who had himself visited both the Gaul of the West and the 
Gaul of Asia Minor, illustrates the relation of the two forms of 
speech by the connexion existing between the language of the 
Phoenicians and their African colonies, or between the different 
dialects of Latin'. 

in Milman'a Hist, of the Jews i. p. 177 les yeux bleux rappellent le caraotSre 

(3rd ed.). des populations del'ouestcle la Prance.' 
1 Modem travellers have seen, or ^ Hieron. in EpUt. ad Gal. lib. n. 

imagined they saw, in the physical f ea- prtef . ' Galatas exoepto sermone Graeco, 

tures of the modern inhabitants of Ga- quo onmis Oriens loquitur, propriam 

latia traces of their Celtic origin. So linguam eandem pene habere quam 

Texier, 1. c. p. 598, ' Sans ohercher k se Treveros, neo referre si aUqua exinde 

faire illusion, on reoonnalt quelquefois, corruperint, quum et Afri Phoenicnm 

surtout parmi les pasteurs, des types linguam nonnulla ex parte mutaverint, 

qui ae rapportent merveilleusement k et ipsa Latinitas et regionibus quotidie 

certaines races de nos provinces de mutetur et tempore' (vn. P. i. p. 430, 

France. On voit plus decheveux blonds ed. Vallarsi). By 'excepto sermone 

en Galatie qu'en aucun autre royaume Graeco ' he means that they spoke 

de I'Asie Mineure ; lea tStes carries et Greek in common with the rest of the 


With the knowledge of this remarkable fact, it will not be and their 
thought idle to look for traces of the Celtic character in the essentially 
Galatians of St Paul's Epistle, for in general the character of"?' , 
a nation even outlives its language. No doubt it had under- 
gone many changes. They were no longer that fierce hardy 
race with which Rome and Greece successively had grappled in 
a struggle of life and death. After centuries of intercourse 
with Greeks and Phrygians, with the latter especially who were 
reputed among the most effeminate and worthless of Asiatics, 
the ancient valour of the Gauls must have been largely diluted. 
Like the Celts of Western Europe, they had gradually dete- 
riorated under the enervating influence of a premature or 
forced civilisation\ Nevertheless beneath the surface the Celtic 
character remains still the same, whether manifested in the 
rude and fiery barbarians who were crushed by the arms of 
Csesar, or the impetuous and fickle converts who call down 
the indignant rebuke of the Apostle of the Gentiles. 

St Paul's language indeed will suggest many coincidences, Minor co- 


which perhaps we may be tempted to press unduly. His de- in st 
nunciation of ' drunkenness and revellingsV falling in with the e^stle. 
taunts of ancient writers, will appear to point to a darling sin 
of the Celtic people °. His condemnation of the niggardly 

East, as well as Celtic. Thierry (i. p. bly an anachronism in the mouth of 

415) strangely mistakes the meaning, Manlius, but it was doubtless true when 

'les Galates dtaieut les seuls, entre Livy wrote and when St Paul preached, 

tons les peuples asiatiques, qui ne se On the degeneracy of the Western 

servissent point de la langue grecque.' Gauls, see Csesar Bell. Gall. vi. 24, Tao. 

It is probable that they understood St Ann. xi. 18, Agric. 11, Germ. 28. 

Paul's epistle as well as if it had been 2 Gal. v. 21. 

written in their original tongue. None ' Diod. Sic. v. 26 Kdroivoi Si ovres 

of the Galatian inscriptions are in the KaS' {nrep^oMiv rbv daaybixevov iiri tup 

Celtic language. The people of Anoyra i/iirbpay otvov aKparov ifi^opoOvrai Kcd 

were perhaps 'trilingues' like the Celts Si& r^v ivi.6vii.lav \dppif xP'^f^'""' '''<? 

of Marseilles. irori} Kal fieBvffffivres els Ihrvoy ■^ /mvidi- 

1 Livy, xxxviii. 17, represents Man- Sets dia84<ras Tpivovrai k.t.X. ; Bpictet. 

lius as saying ' Bt illis majoribus nos- Dissert.ii. 20. 17, referred to in thenote 

tris cum haud dubiis GaUis in terra p. 3. Compare also the jest, ' Gallos 

sua genitis res erat. Hi jam degeneres post haeo dilutius esse poturos,' quoted 

sunt, mixti et Gallograeci vere, quod from Cicero by Ammian. Marc. xv. 12, 

appellantur.' This language is proba- and the account Ammianus himself 



of resem- 

spirit with which they had doled out their alms, as a ' mockery 
of God',' will remind us that the race is constantly reproached 
with its greed of wealth, so that Gaulish avarice passed almost 
into a proverb". His reiterated warning against strife and vain- 
glory" will seem directed against a vice of the old Celtic blood 
still boiling in their veins and breaking out in fierce and rancor- 
ous self-assertion*. His very expression, ' if ye bite and devour 
one another,' will recall the angry gesticulations and menacing 
tones of this excitable people'. But without laying too much 
stress on these points of resemblance, which however plausible 
do not afford ground enough for a safe inference, we may con- 
fidently appeal to the broader features of the Galatian charac- 
ter, as they appear in this Epistle. In two important points 
especially, in the general temperament and the religious bias of 
his converts, light is shed on the language of St Paul by the 
notices of the Gauls found in classical authors. 
I. Gene- I. The main features of the Gaulish character are traced 
perament with great distinctness by the Roman writers. Quickness of ap- 
G *^ prehension, promptitude in action, great impressibility, an eager 
craving after knowledge, this is the brighter aspect of the Celtic 
character. Inconstant and quarrelsome, treacherous in their 
dealings, incapable of sustained effort, easily disheartened by 
failure, such they appear when viewed on their darker side. It is 
curious to note the same eager inquisitive temper revealing itself 
under widely different circumstances, at opposite limits both of 
time and space, in their early barbarism in the West and their 
worn-out civilisation in the East. The great Roman captain relates 

gives of the intemperance of the 

1 Gal. vi. 6, 7. 

' Diod. Sic. V. 17 ivTuv t&v Kc\- 
tCiv (pCKaprflipwv Kad' ijrepPoX'qi', Livy, 
xxxviii. 17, calls the Galatians ' avidia- 
sima rapiendi gens.' Compare Labb. 
CoTic. T. 49 (ed. Colet) itpupieiiiaav 
TwH Karb, TUP VaXaTwv 6\LyiapovvT€i Kal 
vapa^alvovres iC alrxpoKipSaar Kal <t>i\- 
apyvplav k.t.\., in the encyclical letter 

against simony, a,d. 459. 

' Gal. V. 15, 26; comp. v. 20, 11, 
vi. 3. 

♦ Ammian. 1. 0. ' avidi jnrgiorum et 
sublatius insolescentes,' Diod. Sio. v. 

' Diod. Sio. V. 31 &w€i\)iTal di xal 
ivaraTtKol Kal TerpayifSriiUvoi iwipxou- 
<n, Ammian. 1. c. 'Metuendae voces 
complurium et minaoes, plaoatorum 
juxta et irascentium.' 


how the Gauls would gather about any merchant or traveller 
who came in their way, detaining him even against his will and 
eagerly pressing him for news\ A late Greek rhetorician com- 
mends the Galatians as more keen and quicker of apprehension 
than the genuine Greeks, adding that the moment they catch 
sight of a philosopher, they cling to the skirts of his cloak, as 
the steel does to the magnet'. It is chiefly however on the more 
forbidding features of their character that contemporary writers 
dwell. Fickleness is the term used to express their tempera- Their 
ment'. This instability of character was the great difficulty 
against which Caesar had to contend in his dealings with the 
Gaul*. He complains that they all with scarcely an exception 
are impelled by the desire of change'. Nor did they show 
more constancy in the discharge of their religious, than of 
their social obligations. The hearty zeal with which they em- 
braced the Apostle's teaching followed by their rapid apostasy 
is only an instance out of many of the reckless facility with 
which they adopted and discarded one religious system after 
another. To St Paul, who had had much bitter experience of 
hollow professions and fickle purposes, this extraordinary levity 
was yet a matter of unfeigned surprise. ' I marvel,' he says, 
'that ye are changing so quickly*.' He looked upon it as some 
strange fascination. 'Ye senseless Gauls, who did bewitch you' ?' 
The language in which Roman writers speak of the martial 
courage of the Gauls, impetuous at the first onset but rapidly 
melting in the heat of the fray*, well describes the short-lived 

> OsBsar Bell. Gall. iv. 5. ejdatimavit.' Comp. Motley United 

' Themistius Or. xxiii. p. 299 a Netherlands m. p. 326, 'Aa has al- 

(referred to by Wetstein on Gal. i. 6) ready been depicted in these pages, 

ol Si dvSpes tare Sn <5fetr xal iyxlvoi. the Celtic element had been more apt 

Kol ei/jMSiarepoi tuv Ayav "KK^vuv ■ xal to receive than consistent to retain the 

Tpi^uviov irapa^avhTos impiirnvrai. cA- generous impression which had once 

m uairep rrjs Xldov rh acd-^pM. been stamped on all the Netherlands.' 

» Bell. Gall. U. i ' Mobilitate et le- ' H. iii- 10 ' Quum intelligeret om- 

vitate animi' ; comp. Tac. Germ. 29. nes fere GaUos novis rebus studere.' 

* Bell. Gall. iv. s 'Infirmitatem Gal- * Gal. i. 6. 

lomm veritus quod sunt in consiliis ' Gal. iii. i iv6^Tm ToKdrai, rfe 

capiendis mobiles et novis plerumque i/ias ip&OKavev ; 

rebus student, nihil his committendum » Livy x. 28 ' Gallorum quidem etiam 


prowess of these converts in the warfare of the Christian 
4. Their 2. Equally important, in its relation to St Paul's epistle, 

tenancies is the type of religious worship which seems to have pervaded 
the Celtic nations. The Gauls are described as a superstitious 
people given over to ritual observances*. Nor is it perhaps 
a mere accident that the only Asiatic Gaul of whom history 
affords more than a passing glimpse, Deiotarus the client of 
Cicero, in his extravagant devotion to augury fully bears out 
the character ascribed to the parent race'. 

The colours in which contemporary writers have painted 
the religion of the primitive Gauls are dark and terrible enough, 
passionate A gross superstition, appealing to the senses and the passions 
istio, rather than to the heart and mind, enforcing rites of unexam- 
pled cruelty and demanding a slavish obedience to priestly 
authority, such is the picture with which we are familiar. It 
is unnecessary here to enquire how far the religious philosophy 
of the Druids involved a more spiritual creed'. The Druids 
were an exclusive caste with an esoteric doctrine, and it is with 
the popular worship that we are concerned. The point to be 
observed is that an outward material passionate religion had 
shown in grown up among the Gauls, as their own creation, answering to 
thenwor- ^ome peculiar features of their character. Settled among the 
ship. Phrygians they with their wonted facility adopted the religion 
of the subject people. The worship of Cybele with its wild 
ceremonial and hideous mutilations would naturally be attrac- 
tive to the Gaulish mind. Its external rites were similar 
enough in their general character to those of the primitive 
Celtic religion to commend it to a people who had found satis- 

coipora intolerantiasima laboris atque nibus,' Bell. Gall. vi. i6; oomp. Diod. 

aestus fluere; primaque eorum praelia Sic. v. 27. 

plusquam virorum, postrema minus ^ Cicero de Div. i. 15, ii. 36, 37. 

quam feminarum esse.' Comp. Florus ' The nobler aspect of the Druidioal 

ii. 4. To the same effect CsBSar J3. Q. system has been exaggerated. See the 

iii. 19, and Polyb. ii. 35. remarks of M. de Pressensfi, Trois Pre- 

1 Csesar's words are, 'Natio est om- mien SiicUs, ime sfirie, 1. p. 52. 
nls Gallorum admodum dedita religio- 


faction in the latter. And though we may suppose that the 
mystic element in the Phrygian worship, which appealed so 
powerfully to the Grseco-Asiatic, awoke no corresponding echo 
in the Gaifl, still there was enough in the outward ritual with 
its passionate orgies to allure them. Then the Gospel was 
offered to them and the energy of the Apostle's preaching took and infect- 
their hearts by storm. But the old leaven still remained. The chiistian 
pure and spiritual teaching of Christianity soon ceased to ^^' 
satisfy them. Their religious temperament, fostered by long 
habit, prompted them to seek a system more external and 
ritualistic*. ' Having begun in the Spirit, they would be made 
perfect in the flesh'.' Such is the language of the Apostle 
rebuking this unnatural violation of the law of progress. At 
a later period in the history of the Church we find the Gala- 
tians still hankering after new forms of Christianity in the 
same spirit of ceaseless innovation, still looking for some 
'other gospel' which might better satisfy their cravings after 
a more passionate worship. 

1 Compare the language of a modern 
historian describing the western race 
in a much later age; Motley Dutch 
Bepublic iii. p. t6 ' The stronger in- 
fusion of the Celtic element, which 

from the earliest ages had always been 
so keenly alive to the more sensuous 
and splendid manifestations of the de- 
votional principle.' 
* GaL iii. 3. 




What is XN what sense do the sacred writers use the word Galatia? 

Galatia? Has it an ethnographical or a political meaning ? In other 

words, does it signify the comparatively small district occupied 

by the Gauls, Galatia properly so called, or the much larger 

territory included in the Roman province of the name ? This 

question must be answered before attempting to give an 

account of the Galatian Churches. 

Consider- Important consequences flow from the assumption that the 

favour of fterm covers the wider area'. In that case it will comprise not 

man'pro- °^^y ^^^ towns of Derbe and Lystra', but also, it would seem, 

vince. Iconium and the Pisidian Antioch : and we shall then have in 

the narrative of St Luke' a full and detailed account of the 

founding of the Galatian Churches. Moreover the favourite 

disciple and most constant companion of the Apostle, Timotheus, 

was on this showing a Galatian*; and through him St Paul's 

communications with these Churches would be more or less 

close to the end of his life. It must be confessed too, that this 

view has much to recommend it at first sight. The Apostle's 

account of his hearty and enthusiastic welcome by the Galatians, 

as an angel of God", will have its counterpart in the impulsive 

warmth of the barbarians at Lystra, who would have sacrificed 

to him, imagining that ' the Gods had come down in the like- 

' The warmest advocates of tliis view ' See above, p. 7, note 2. 

are Bottger Beitrage i. p. 28 sq., iii. ' Acts xiii. 14 — xiv. 24. 

p. I sq., and Eenan Saint Paul p. 51, * Acts xvi. i. 

etc. See more on this subject in Coloi- ' Gal. iv. 14. 
siaw p. 24 sq. 


ness of men'.' His references to • the temptations in the flesh,' 
and 'the marks of the Lord Jesus' branded on his body", are 
then illustrated, or thought to be illustrated, by the perse- 
cutions and sufferings that 'came unto him at Antioch, at 
Iconium, at Ljrstra*.' The progress of Judaizing tendencies 
among the Galatians is then accounted for by the presence of a 
large Jewish element such as the history describes in these 
Churches of Lycaonia and Pisidia*. 

Without stopping however to sift these supposed coinci- Objections 
dences, or insisting on the chronological and historical difiicul- yie^.'* 
ties which this view creates, there are many reasons which 
make it probable that the Galatia of St Paul and St Luke is 
not the Roman province of that name, but the land of the 
Gauls". By writers speaking familiarly of the scenes in which 
they had themselves taken part, the term would naturally be 
used in its popular rather than in its formal and official sense. 
It would scarcely be more strange to speak of Pesth and Pres- 
burg, of Venice and Verona, as 'the Austrian cities,' than to 
entitle the Christian brotherhoods of Derbe and Lystra, Iconium 
and Antioch, 'the Churches of Galatia.' Again, analogy is 
strongly in favour of the popular use of the term°. Mysia, 
Phrygia, Pisidia, are all ' geographical expressions ' destitute of 
any political significance ; and as they occur in the same parts 
of the narrative with Galatia', it seems fair to infer that the 
latter is similarly used. The direct transition for instance, 
which we find from Galatia to Phrygia, is only explicable if the 
two are kindred terms, both alike being used in a popular way. 
Moreover, St Luke distinctly calls Lystra and Derbe ' cities of 

1 Acts xiv. II. yisited the district. 
' Gal. iv. 14, vi. 17. ' Tha case of ' Aaia' however is an 

' 2 Tim. iii. 11. exception. The foundation of this pro- 

* Acts xiii. 14, 43, 45, xiv. i, xvi. 3. vinoe dating very far back, its official 

» On the other hand in i Peter i. i , name had to a great extent superseded 

where the enumeration seems to pro- the local designations of the districts 

ceed by provinces, Galatia is probably which it comprised. Hence Asia in the 

used in its political sense. This is New Testament is always Proconsular 

not unnatural in one who was writing Asia, 
from a distance, and perhaps had never ' Acts xiv. 24, xvi. 6 — 8, xviii. 13. 


Lycaonia'/ while he no less distinctly assigns Antioch to Pisidia^; 
a convincing proof that in the language of the day they were 
not regarded as Galatian towns. Lastly, the expression used in 
the Acts of St Paul's visit to these parts, 'the Phrygian and 
Galatian country',' shows that the district intended was not 
Lycaonia and Pisidia, but some region which might be said 
to belong either to Phrygia or Galatia, or the parts of each 
contiguous to the other. 
Probable It is most probable therefore that we should search for the 

ofGalatfa Churches of Galatia within narrower limits. In the absence of 
all direct testimony, we may conjecture that it was at Ancyra, 
now the capital of the Roman province as formerly of the 
Gaulish settlement, 'the most illustrious metropolis,' as it is 
styled in formal documents*; at Pessinus, under the shadow 
of Mount Dindymus, the cradle of the worship of the great 
goddess, and one of the principal commercial towns of the dis- 
trict* ; at Tavium, at once a strong fortress and a great empo- 
rium, situated at the point of convergence of several important 
roads'; perhaps also at Juliopolis, the ancient Gordium, for- 
merly the capital of Phrygia, almost equidistant from the three 
seas, and from its central position a busy mart'; at these, 
or some of these places, that St Paul founded the earliest 
' Churches of Galatia.' The ecclesiastical geography of Galatia 
two or three centuries later is no safe guide in settling ques- 
tions relating to the apostolic age, but it is worth while to 

' Acts xiv. 6. Galatia. 

" Acts xiii. 14. 7 Pliny v. 41 'Caputque quondam 

» Aotsxvi.6. See below, p. 12, note 3. ejus (i.e. Phrygiae) Gordium.' Comp. 

4 Boeokh Corp. Itisct. no. 4015 4 Livyxxxviii. 18 'Haud magnum quidem 

Pov\i] Kal 6 Srjiws rrp Xo/47rpordrijs w oppidum est, sed plusquam mediter- 

T/oo?r6\e(i)s 'Ar/Kipas. It is frequently raneum, oelebre et frequens emporium : 

styled the ' metropolis ' in inscriptions tria maria pari ferme distantia inter- 

and on coins. vallo habet.' See Eitter Erdkunde 

' Strabo xii. p. 567. xvni. p. 561. The identity of Gordium 

* Strabo 1. 0. See Hamilton's Asia and Juliopolis however, though aa- 

Minor p. 395. Perhaps however Ta- sumed by Eitter, Porbiger, Kiepert, 

vium lay too much to the eastward of and others, is perhaps a mistake : see 

St Paul's route, which would take him Mordtmann in Sitzungsber. der KonigU 

more directly to the western parts of hayer. Akad. i860, p. 169 sq. 


observe that these are among the earliest episcopal sees on 
record in this country'. 

In Galatia the Gospel would find itself in conflict with two 
distinct types of worship, which then divided the allegiance 
of civilised heathendom. At Pessinus the service of Cybele, 
the most widely revered of all pagan deities, represented, 
perhaps more adequately than any other service, the genuine 
spirit of the old popular religion. At Ancyra the pile dedi- 
cated to the divinities of Augustus and Rome was one of the 
earliest and most striking embodiments of the new political 
worship which imperial statecraft had devised to secure the 
respect of its subject peoples. We should gladly have learnt Silence o( 
how the great Apostle advocated the cause of the truth against and St 
either form of error. Our curiosity however is here disappointed. ^'^^■ 
It is strange that while we have more or less acquaintance with 
all the other important Churches of St Paul's founding, with 
Corinth and Ephesus, with Philippi and Thessalonica, not a 
single name of a person or place, scarcely a single incident of 
any kind, connected with the Apostle's preaching in Galatia, 
should be preserved in either the history or the epistle. The 
reticence of the Apostle himself indeed may be partly accounted 
for by the circumstances of the Galatian Church. The same 
delicacy, which has concealed from us the name of the Corinth- 
ian offender, may have led him to avoid all special allusions in 
addressing a community to which he wrote in a strain of the 
severest censure. Yet even the slight knowledge we do possess 
of the early Galatian Church is gathered from the epistle, with 
scarcely any aid from the history. Can it be that the historian 
gladly drew a veil over the infancy of a Church which swerved 
so soon and so widely from the purity of the Gospel ? 

St Luke mentions two visits to Galatia, but beyond the bare Two visits 
fact he adds nothing to our knowledge. The first occasion was 
during the Apostle's second missionary journey, probably in the 
year 51 or 52'. The second visit took place a few years later, 
perhaps in the year 54, in the course of his third missionary 

1 Le Quien Oriens Christ. 1. p. 456 sq. ' Acta xvi. 6. 


journey, and immediately before his long residence in Ephesus'. 

The epistle contains allusions, as will be seen, to both visits; 

and combining these two sources of information, we arrive at 

the following scanty facts. 
First visit, I. After the Apostolic congress St Paul starting from 
A.D. SI or ^j^^-Qjjjj ^j^jj g^ia^g revisited the churches he had founded in 


Syria, Cilicia, and Lycaonia. At Lystra they fell in with Tmio- 
theus, who also accompanied them on their journey". Hitherto 
the Apostle had been travelling over old ground. He now 
entered upon a new mission-field, ' the region of Phrygia and 
Galatia'.' The form of the Greek expression implies that 
Phrygia and Galatia here are not to be regarded as separate 
districts. The country which was now evangelized might be 
called indififerently Phrygia or Galatia. It was in fact the land 
originally inhabited by Phrygians, but subsequently occupied 
by Gauls: or so far as he travelled beyond the limits of the 
Gallic settlement, it was still in the neighbouring parts of 
Phrygia that he preached, which might fairly be included 
under one general expression*. 

St Paul does not appear to have had any intention of 
preaching the Gospel here". He was perhaps anxious at once 
to bear his message to the more important and promising dis- 
trict of Proconsular Asia". But he was detained by a return 

1 Acts xviii. 23. latia before Phrygia, but it is quite con- 
* Acts XV. 40 — xvi. s. Bisteut with the expression in the first, 
' Acts xvi. 6 SiTiKSov Si Tijv ^pv- where the two districts are not sepa- 
ylav Kal [rijv] raXaTiuV x''/""'- '^^^ rated. If we retain the received read- 
second tV of the received reading ought ing, we must suppose that St Paul went 
to be omitted with the best mss, in from west to east on the first occasion, 
which case ipvylav becomes an adjec- and from east to west on the second. 
tive. Thisvarietyofreadinghasescaped * Colossee would thus lie beyond the 
the notice of commentators, though it scene of the Apostle's labours, and the 
solves more than one difficulty. On the passage correctly read does not present 
occasion of the second visit the words evenaBeemingcontradictiontoCol.i.4, 
are (xviii. is), diepxS/ievos /caflel'?! ttji' 6, 7, ii. 1. See on the whole subject 
TaXciTiK^v x^P^^ 'f''^ ^pvylav. The Colossians p. 23 sq. 
general direction of St Paul's route on « I see no reason for departing from 
both occasions was rather westward the strictly grammatical interpretation 
than eastward, and this is expressed of Gal. iv. 13, St' itrSivaav Tqs aapKos, 
in the second passage by naming Ga- ' Acts xvi. 6. 


of his old malady, 'the thorn in the flesh, the messenger of St Paul's 
Satan sent to buffet him',' some sharp and violent attack, it hearty re- 
would appear, which humiliated him and prostrated his physical q^""^ '" 
strength. To this the Galatians owed their knowledge of 
Chiist. Though a homeless stricken wanderer might seem but 
a feeble advocate of a cause so momentous, yet it was the 
divine order that in the preaching of the Gospel strength should 
be made perfect in weakness. The zeal of the preacher and the 
enthusiasm of the hearers triumphed over all impediments. 
'They did not despise nor loathe the temptation in his flesh. 
They received him as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. 
They would have plucked out their very eyes, if they could, and 
have given them to him".' Such was the impression left on his 
heart by their first affectionate welcome, painfully embittered 
by contrast with their later apostasy. 

It can scarcely have been any predisposing religious sym- Attitude of 
pathy which attracted them so powerfully, though so transi- tians to-' 
ently, to the Gospel. They may indeed have held the doctrine ^nanni*^ 
of the immortality of the soul, which is said to have formed 
part of the Druidical teaching in European Gaul'. It is pos- 
sible too that there lingered, even in Galatia, the old Celtic 
conviction, so cruelly expressed in their barbarous sacrifices, 
that only by man's blood can man be redeemed*. But with 
these doubtful exceptions, the Gospel, as a message of mercy 
and a spiritual faith, stood in direct contrast to the gross and 
material religions in which the race had been nurtured, whether 
the cruel ritualism of their old Celtic creed, or the frightful 
orgies of their adopted worship of the mother of the gods. Yet 
though the whole spirit of Christianity was so alien to their 
habits of thought, we may well imagine how the fervour of the 
Apostle's preaching may have fired their religious enthusiasm. 
The very image under which he describes his work brings 

' 2 Cor. xii. 7. * Bell. Gall. vi. 16 'Pro vita homi- 
" Gal. iv. 14, 15. nis nisi hominis vita reddatur, non 
* They believed also in its transmi- posse aliter deorum immortalium mi- 
gration. See CsBsar Bell. Gall. vi. 14, men plaeari arbitrautur.' 
Diod. Sic. v. 28. 


Earnest- vividly before us the energy and force with which he delivered 
Apostle's ^^^ message. He placarded Christ crucified before their eyes', 
preaching, arresting the gaze of the spiritual loiterer, and riveting it on 
this proclamation of his Sovereign. If we picture to ourselves 
the Apostle as he appeared before the Galatians, a friendless 
outcast, writhing under the tortures of a painful malady, yet 
instant in season and out of season, by turns denouncing and 
entreating, appealing to the agonies of a crucified Saviour, 
perhaps also, as at Lystra, enforcing this appeal by some 
striking miracle, we shall be at no loss to conceive how the 
fervid temperament of the Gaul might have been aroused, 
while yet only the surface of his spiritual consciousness was 
ruffled. For the time indeed all seemed to be going on well 
'Ye were running bravely,' says the Apostle", alluding to his 
favourite image of the foot-race. But the very eagerness with 
which they had embraced the Gospel was in itself a dangerous 
symptom. A material so easily moulded soon loses the im- 
pression it has taken. The passionate current of their Celtic 
blood, which flowed in this direction now, might only too easily 
be diverted into a fresh channel by some new religious impulse. 
Their reception of the Gospel was not built on a deeply-rooted 
conviction of its truth, or a genuine appreciation of its spiritual 
Hisde- This visit to Galatia, we may suppose, was not very pro- 

par ure. tj-acted. Having been detained by illness, he would be anxious 
to continue his journey as soon as he was convalescent. He 
was pressing forward under a higher guidance towards a new 
field of missionary labour in the hitherto unexplored continent 
of Europe. 
Second 2. An interval of nearly three years must have elapsed 

Td. 54 before his second visit. He was now on his third missionary 
journey ; and according to his wont, before entering upon a new 
field of labour, his first care was to revisit and ' confirm ' the 
churches he had already founded. This brought him to 'the 
Galatian country and Phrygia.' From the language used in 
^ Gal. iii. i, ir/joeypd^ij. See the note. ' Gal. v. 7. 


describing this visit we may infer that not a few congregations 
had been established in Galatia. 'He went through the dis- 
trict in order, confirming all the disciples*.' 

Of the second visit to Galatia even less is known than of the Danger- 
former. It would seem however that some unhealthy symp- to^s. 
toms had already appeared, threatening the purity of the 
Gospel At all events certain expressions in the epistle, which 
are most naturally referred to this visit, imply that cause for 
uneasiness had even then arisen. He was constrained to address 
his converts in language of solemn warning". He charged tha m 
to hold accursedany one who perverted the Gospel as heJ iad 
taught _it^__ Writing to them afterwards, he contrasts the 
hearty welcome of his first visit with his cold reception on this 
occasion, attributing their estrangement to the freedom with 
which he denounced their errors. ' Have I become your enemy,' 
he asks, ' because I told you the truth* ? ' 

The eiastl e was, written, nfi I-h»pA t.9„;jitifty, ^ifr^Wtii ^^^'"'^ "'^ Subse- 
four years after the second visit.. b^ l^3,m,,,tbs,.^^ea^qKhilfi.StLE2JJ^ commuui- 
doubtless kep t up his interc ourse with the Galatian Churches °^fa°°^- 
bymessengers or otherwise^ A large portion of the interveniag___ 
time was spent at Ephesus, whence communication with Ga- 
latia would be easily maintained. An incidental allusion in the 
First Epistle to the Corinthians throws light on this subject. It Collection 
there appears that St Paul appealed' to the Churches of Galatia, ° * '"^" 
as he did also to those of Macedonia and Achaia, to contribute 
towards the relief of their poorer brethren in Palestine, who 
were suffering from a severe famine. By communication thus 
maintained St Paul was made acquainted with the growiag 
corruption of the Galatian Churches from the spread of Juda- 
izing errors. 

The avidity with which these errors were caught up im- Jewish in- 
plies some previous acquaintance with Jewish history and some Galatia. 
habituation to Jewish modes of thought. The same inference 

1 Acts xviii. 23. * Gal. iv. 13 — 16. See the notes. 

" Gal. V. 21. " I Cor. xvi. 1—6. 

" Gal. i. g. 


may be drawn from the frequent and minute references in the 
epistle to the Old Testament, assuming no inconsiderable know- 
ledge of the sacred writings on the part of his converts. It has 
been shown already that there was in Galatia a large population 
of Jews to whom this influence may be traced'. 
The Ga- The Apostle had probably selected as centres of his mission 

Churches those places especially where he would find a sufficient body of 

contained Jewish residents to form the nucleus of a Christian Church, 
a nucleus 

of Jewish It was almost as much a matter of missionary convenience, as 
of religious obligation, to offer the Gospel ' to the Jew first and 
then to the Gentile'.' They were the keepers of the sacred 
archives, and the natural referees in all that related to the 
history and traditions of the race. To them therefore he must 
of necessity appeal. In almost every instance where a detailed 
account is given in the Apostolic history of the foundation of 
a Church, we find St Paul introducing himself to his fellow- 
countrymen first, the time the sabbath-day, the place the 
synagogue, or, where there was no synagogue, the humbler 
proseucha. Thus in the very act of planting a Christian 
Church, the Apostle himself planted the germs of bigotry and 
but were Not however that the Gospel seems to have spread widely 

chiefly of among the Jews in Galatia, for St Paul's own language shows 
GeiitileB. ^Y^s,t tlie great mass at least of his converts were Gentiles', and 
the analogy of other churches points to the same result. But 
Jewish influences spread far beyond the range of Jewish circles. 
The dalliance with this ' foreign superstition,' which excited the 
indignation of the short-sighted moralists of Rome, was certainly 

^ See above, p. g sq. therefore, as his epistles are addressed 

' Eom. i. i6, ii. 9, 10. to the Galatians among others, there 

' Gal. iv. 8 'Then not knowing was a large number of converts from 

God, ye did service to them which by Judaism in the Churches of Galatia. 

nature are no gods.' See also Gal. iii. His own language however shows that 

29, V. i, vi. 12, and the notes on i. 14 heiswritingohieflytoGentUes(iPet.ii. 

iv T<f yhei iiov, ii. 5 irpjs iiias. It has 9, 10) and that therefore the Siaairopi, 

been assumed that St Peter, as the of the opening salutation is the spiri- 

Apostle of the Circumcision, must have tual dispersion. Comp. i Pet. ii. 1 1 

written to Jewish Christians, and that 12. 


not less rife in the provinces than in the metropolis. Many a 
man, who had rot cast off his heathen religion, and perhaps 
had no intention of casting it off, was yet directly or indirectly 
acquainted with the customs and creed of the Jews, and pos- 
sibly had some knowledge of the writings of the lawgiver and 
the prophets. Still there were doubtless some Jewish converts 
in the Galatian Church*. These would be a link of communi- 
cation with the brethren of Palestine, and a conducting medium 
by which Jewish practices were transmitted to their Gentile 

For whatever reason, the Judaism of the Galatians was Violent 

1 /^ -1 /-(I 1 character 
much more decided than we find m any other Gentile Church, of Gala- 

The infection was both sudden and virulent. They were checked ^^^^ 
all at once in the gallant race for the prize ^ Their gaze was 
averted by some strange fascination from the proclamation of 
Christ crucified'. Such are the images under which the Apo- 
stle describes their apostasy. It was a Judaism of the sharp 
Pharisaic type, unclouded or unrelieved by any haze of Essene 
mysticism, such as prevailed a few years later in the neigh- 
bouring Colossian Church. The necessity of circumcision was Strict ob- 
strongly insisted upon*. Great stress was laid on the observ- <,£ tj^e \^^ 
ance of ' days and months and seasons and years'.' In short, 
nothing less than submission to the whole ceremonial law 
seems to have been contemplated by the innovators'. At all 
events, this was the logical consequence of the adoption of the 
initiatory rite'. 

This position could only be maintained by impugning the St Paul's 
credit of St Paul By some means or other his authority must impugned. 
be set aside, and an easy method suggested itself They re- 
presented him as no true Apostle. He had not been one of 
the Lord's personal followers, he had derived his knowledge of 
the Gospel at second hand. It was therefore to the mother 

1 See the note on vi. 13, where the ' Gal. iii. i. 

various readings A TtifiTirii-riidvai and * Gal. v. 2, 11, vi. 12, 1. j. 

oJ Trepi-Tenvoiievoi. have some bearing on ' Gal. iv. 10. 

this point. ' '^al- i"- '> "• '^^' v- 4. 18. 

2 Gal. V. 7. ' Gal. V. 3. 


Church of Jerusalem that all questions must be referred, to 
the great Apostles of the Circumcision especially, the ' pillars 
of the Church,' to James in the forefront as the Lord's brother, 
to Peter who had received a special commission from his Master, 
to John the most intimate of His personal friends'. This dis- 
paraging criticism of his opponents St Paul has in view from 
first to last in the Epistle to the Galatians. He commences 
His de- by asserting in the strongest terms his immediate divine com- 
mission as an Apostle ' not of men neither by man",' and this 
assertion he emphatically reiterates'. He gives in the body of 
the letter a minute historical account of his intercourse with 
the Apostles of the Circumcision, showing his entire independ- 
ence of them*. He closes, as he had begun, with a defence of 
his office and commission. 'Henceforth,' he exclaims indig- 
nantly, 'let no man trouble me, for I bear in my body the 
marks of the Lord Jesus'.' He felt that there was a heart- 
less mockery ia the denial of his Apostleship, when he had 
been marked as the servant of Christ for ever by the cruel 
brand of persecution. 
He is But the attacks of his enemies did not stop here. They 

vSthli^ charged him with inconsistency in his own conduct. He too, 

consist- it was represented, had been known to preach that circumcision 

which he so strenuously opposed". It was convenient to him, 

they insinuated, to repudiate his convictions now, in order to 

ingratiate himself with the Gentiles'. There must have been 

doubtless many passages ia the life of one who held it a sacred 

duty to become all things to all men, especially to become as 

1 The participles tois Sokovviv (ii. 2), * Gal. i. 15 — ii. 21. 

Tuv doKoOvTOjv elvai ri, ol doKovfTes (ii. ' Gal. Ti. 17. 

6), ol SoKovvres ariXoi elvai (ii. 9), ought ' Gal. V. 1 1. See Lechler Apost. u. 

probably to be translated as yrescnJj, Nachapost.Zeitalter(ei.2),y.384. The 

referring to the exolusiTe importance case of Titus (Gal. ii. 3), however we 

which the Juclaizers in Galatia attached explain it, seems to be introduced in 

to the Apostles of the Circumcision. order to meet this charge. 

See the notes. ' See the notes on Gal. i. 10, 'Do I 

' Gal. i. I. tiow persuade men?' 'Do 1 seek to 

' Gal. i. II, II. please men ?' and on ii. 3, v. 3, n. 


a Jew to the Jews\ to which bigoted or unscrupulous adver- 
saries might give this colour. Such for instance was the 
circumcision, of Timothy"; such again was the sanction given 
to Jewish usages during his last visit to Jerusalem, when at 
the instigation of James he defrayed the expenses of those 
who had taken Nazarite vows'. To concessions like these, I 
imagine, continued throughout his life, and not, as some have 
thought, to any earlier stage of the Apostle's teaching, when his 
Christian education was not yet matured, and some remnants 
of Judaism still hung about him (for of such a stage there 
is no evidence), are we to look for the grounds on which his 
opponents charged him with inconsistency. 

The instigators of this rebellion against St Paul's autho- These er. 
rity and teaching seem not to have been Galatian residents.|,^yii,]j. 
His leading antagonists were most probably emissaries fronj°"*" 
the mother Church of Jerusalem, either abusing a commissioq 
actually received from the Apostles of the Circumcision, or 
assuming an authority which had never been conferred upon 
them. The parallel case of the Corinthian Church, where 
communications between the Judaic party and the Christians 
of Palestine are more clearly traced, suggests this solution, and 
it is confirmed by the Epistle to the Galatians itself. When 
St Paul refers to the dissimulation at Antioch occasioned by the 
arrival of ' certain who came from James',' we can scarcely resist 
the impression that he is holding up the mirror of the past to 
the Galatians, and that there was sufficient resemblance between 
the two cases to point the application. Moreover, the vague 
allusions to these opponents scattered through the epistle seem 
to apply rather to disturbances caused by a small and com- 
pact body of foreign intruders, than to errors springing up 
silently and spontaneously within the Galatian Church itself 
They are the tare's sown designedly by the enemy in the night 
time, and not the weeds which grow up promiscuously as the 
natural product of the soil. 'A little leaven leaveneth the 

> I Cor. ix. 20, 2 J. ' Acts xxi. 20 — 26. 

» Acts xvi. 3. * Gal. ii. 12. 


whole lump*.' 'There be some that trouble you'.' It would 
even seem that there was a ringleader among the Judaizing 
teachers, marked out either by his superior position or his 
greater activity : ' He that troubleth you shall bear his judg- 
ment, whosoever he be'.' 
The Gala- But howsoever they were disseminated, these errors found 
congenial in Galatia a congenial soil. The corruption took the direction 
^owth^ which might have been expected from the religious education 
of the people. A passionate and striking ritualism expressing 
itself in bodily mortifications of the most terrible kind had 
been supplanted by the simple spiritual teaching of the Gospel. 
For a time the pure morality and lofty sanctions of the new 
faith appealed not in vain to their higher instincts, but they 
soon began to yearn after a creed which suited their material 
cravings better, and was more allied to the system they had 
abandoned. This end they attained by overlaying the simpli- 
city of the Gospel with Judaic observances. This new phase 
of their religious life is ascribed by St Paul himself to the 
temper which their old heathen education had fostered. It was 
a return to the ' weak and beggarly elements ' which they had 
outgrown, a renewed subjection to the " yoke of bondage ' which 
they had thrown ofP in Christ*. They had escaped from one 
ritualistic system only to bow before another. The innate fail- 
ing of a race ' excessive in its devotion to external observances" 
was here reasserting itself 

To check these errors, which were already spreading fast, 
the Apostle wrote his Epistle to the Galatians. What effect 
his remonstrance had upon them can only be conjectured, for 
from this time forward the Galatian Church may be said to 
disappear from the Apostolic history. If we could be sure that 
the mission of Crescens, mentioned in the latest of St Paul's 

' Gal. V. 9. ira'Kiv avu>9ev Sov\eiea> SAtTe, and 

" Gal. i. 7. See also iv. 17, vi. 11. v. i //.ri wiXiv fu7(? SovXclas if^ecrBe. 

* GaL V. 10. » Cffisar Bell. Gall. vi. 16, quoted 

* Gal. iv. 9 TTws iTujTpiipeTi vi.\i« p. 16, note i. 
iuX Tct ittrdevrj Kal imaxa aroix^ta ols 


epistles, refers to the Asiatic settlement, there would be some 
ground for assuming that the Apostle maintained a friendly 
intercourse with his Galatian converts to the close of his life ; Efieot of 
but it is at least as likely that the mother country of the ^^^^.^Xi^'f 
Gauls is there meant \ Neither from the epistles of St Peter 
can any facts be elicited ; for as they are addressed to all the 
great Churches of Asia Minor alike, no inference can be drawn 
as to the condition of the Galatian Church in particular. In 
the absence of all information, we would gladly believe that 
here, as at Corinth, the Apostle's rebuke was successful, that 
his authority was restored, the offenders were denounced, and 
the whole Church, overwhelmed with shame, returned to its 
allegiance. The cases however are not parallel. The severity 
of tone is more sustained in this instance, the personal appeals 
are fewer, the remonstrances more indignant and less affec- 
tionate. One ray of hope indeed seems to break through the 
dark cloud, but we must not build too much on a single ex- 
pression of confidence", dictated it may be by a generous and 
politic charity which ' believeth all things.' 

It is not idle, as it might seem at first sight, to follow the 

1 2 Tim. iv. 10. 'Galatia' in this 3888 Kp^fffceyro iirtTpoiroi> AovySoivov 

passage was traditionally interpreted of TaWias. I attribute some weight to the 

European Gaul. It is explained thus tradition in favour of Western Gaul, 

by Buseb. S. E. iii. 4, Epiphan. adv. because it is not the prima facie yiew. 

Eaeres. li. 11, p. 433, Jerome (?) Op. Supposing St Paul to have meant this, 

II. p. 960 (ed. Vallarsi), and by Theo- he would almost certainly have used 

doreofMopsuestiaandTheodoretcom- TaXaHav and not TaWtar ; see the 

menting on the passage. It is so taken note, p. 3 ; and to the authorities there 

also by those mss which read TaWlav quoted add Theodoret on 2 Tim. iv. 10, 

for Td\aTlav, for the former reading ras TaWias oStws iKiXea-ev' ovtu yap 

may be regarded as a gloss. The iKaXovvro irdXai- ovtw di Kal vSv ai- 

Churohes of Vienne and Mayence both rds dvoniibvcriv ol t?s Ifu iroiSeios /xer- 

claimed Crescens as their founder. The etXTOoVes. A passage in the Monumen- 

passage in the Apast. Const, vii. 46 turn Ancyranum (Boeckh Inter, no. 

Kp^ffKrjs Twv Kara TaXarlav inKXtiiriuv 4040) presents a coincidence with 2 

perhaps points to Asiatic Gaul, but is Tim. iv. 10, in the juxta-position of 

ambiguous. Later writers made Ores- Galatia (i. e. European Gaul) and Dal- 

cens visit both the European and the matia, ^| 'laTarlas Kai TaXarias koI 

Asiatic country. A curious coincidence irapa AaXfuiTuv. 

of names occurs in Boeckh Inscr. no. ' Gal. v. 10. 



of the 

stream of history beyond the horizon of the Apostolic age. 
The fragmentary notices of its subsequent career reflect some 
light on the temper and disposition of the Galatian Church in 
St Paul's day. To Catholic writers of a later date indeed the 
failings of its infancy seemed to be so faithfully reproduced ia 
its mature age, that they invested the Apostle's rebuke with a 
prophetic import^ Asia Minor was the nursery of heresy, and 
of all the Asiatic Churches it was nowhere so rife as in Galatia. 
The Galatian capital was the stronghold of the Montanist re- 
vivaP, which lingered on for more than two centuries, splitting 
into diverse sects, each distinguished by some fantastic gesture 
or minute ritual observance*. Here too were to be found 

' Euseb. c. Marcell. i. p. 7 A uiWep yip 
6e(rirliuiv ri /teXXoi' airoU raXdrais ttjx 
Tou Xunijpos i^TjKpi^ov 6eo\oyiav, /c.t.X., 
Hieron. ad Gal. ii. praef. (vi. p. 427, ed. 
Vallarsi) ' ...quomodo apostolus unam- 
quamqueprovinciam suis proprietatibus 
denotarit ? Usque hodie eadem vel vir- 
tutum vestigia permanent vel errorum.' 

* An anonymous writer quoted by 
Euaeb. H. E. v. 16. 3. Comp. Epiphan. 
Haer. Jtlviii. 14, p. 416. 

^ Hieron. 1. 0. p. 430 'Soit meoum 
qui vidit Ancjnram metropolim Galatiae 
oivitatem, qaotnuncusqueschismatibus 
dilacerata sit, quot dogmatum varieta- 
tibus constuprata. Omitto Cataphry- 
gas, Ophitas, Borboritas, et Manichaeos; 
nota enim jam haec humanae calamita- 
tia vocabula sunt. Quis unquam Passa- 
lorynchitas et Ascodrobos et Artotyritas 
et caetera magis portenta quam nomiaa 
in aliqua parte Bomani orbis audivit? ' 
The Passalorynohites and Artotyrites 
wereofE-shootsof Montani3m,theoneso 
called from their placing the forefinger 
on the nose when praying, the other 
from their offering bread and cheese at 
the Eucharist: Epiph. Hacres. xlviii. 14 
sq., p. 416 sq., Philastr. Haeres. Ixxiv, 
Ixxvi. In the word Asoodrobi there is 
perhaps some corruption. Theodoret, 

Haeret. Fab. i. 10, speaks of the Asco- 
drupi or Ascodiupitae, as a Marcosian 
(Gnostic) sect. Epiphanins, I.C., men- 
tion s Tascodrugitae as a barbarous equi- 
valent toPassalorynchitae. Jerome how- 
ever seems to have had in view the sect 
called Ascodrogitae by PhUastrius.f a«- 
res. Ixxv. The account of Philastrius well 
exhibits the general temper of Galatian 
heresy: 'Alii sunt Ascodrogitae in Ga- 
latia, qui utrem inflatum ponunt et co- 
operiunt in sua ecclesia et circumeunt 
eum insanientes potibus et bacchantes, 
sicut pagani Libero patri. . .Et cum suis 
caecitatibus properant inservire, alien! 
modis omnibus Christianaesalutisrepe- 
riuntur, cum apostolus dejiciat justifi- 
cationem iUam Judaicam carnalemque 
vanitatem.' After aU allowance made 
for the exaggerations of orthodox wri- 
ters, the orgiastic character of the wor- 
ship of these sects is very apparent. 
The apostasy of St Paul's converts 
is still further illustrated by Phi- 
lastrius' account of theQuartodecimani, 
Ixxxvii; 'Alia est haeresis quae ad- 
serit cum Judaeis debere fieri pascha. 
Isti in Galatia et Syria et Phrygia 
eommorantur, et Hierosolymis; et oum 
Judaeos sequantur, simili eum eis er- 
rore depereunt. ' 


Ophites, Manichseans, sectarians of all kinds. Hence during 
the great controversies of the fourth century issued two succes- 
sive bishops, who disturbed the peace of the Church, swerving 
or seeming to swerve from Catholic truth in opposite directions, 
the one on the side of Sabellian, the other of Arian errorS A 
Christian father of this period denounces 'the folly of the 
Galatians, who abound in many impious denominations*.' A 
harsher critic, likewise a contemporary, afiirms that whole 
villages in Galatia were depopulated by the Christians in their 
intestine quarrels'. 

From these painful scenes of discord it is a relief to turn to Final 
a nobler contest in which the Galatian Christians bore their ^tlfpa. 
part gallantly. A sketch of their final struggle with and victory g^^i^m. 
over heathendom will fitly close this account of the first preach- 
ing of the Gospel among them. 

The Galatian Churches furnished their quota to the army of 
martyrs in the Diocletian persecution, and the oldest existing 
church in the capital still bears the name of its bishop Clement, 
who perished during this reign of terror*. The struggle over 

1 Marcellus and Basilius ; Le Quien tain neighbouring districts) ApSriv dva- 

Oriene Christianus i. p. 458. Eusebius Tpairrji>at iropSiiBelffas xii/ias, is a painful 

wrote two elaborate treatises against comment on St Paul's warning, Gal. v. 

Marcellus, which are extant. On the 15, 'If ye bite and devour one another, 

other hand, his orthodoxy was defended take heed ye be not consumed one of 

at one time by several of his Catholic another.' Julian,howeyer,atnotimean 

contemporaries, but his reputation suf- unprejudiced witness, has here a direct 

fered from the more decided SabeUian- interest in exaggerating these horrors, 

ism of his pupil the hsresiarch Pho- as he is contrasting the mutual in- 

tinus, likewise a Galatian. Basilius tolerance of the Christians with his 

presided at the semi-Arian Synod of own forbearance. 
Ancyra, held in 358. See Hefele Con- * Texier Asie Mineure i. pp. 195, 

ciiiengesch. i. p. 655. 200, describes and figures the Church 

" Greg. Naz. Orat. xxii. (i. p. 422 A of St Clement at Ancyra. He is wrong 

ed. Ben.) ^ Ta\aTwv dvoia irKovroiv- however in mentioning the Decian per- 

Twi/ iv TToXXois TTis iffe^elns dvSfiaffi, seoution. The legend speaks of that 

doubtless alluding to St Paul's ivlnfroi. of Diocletian ; Acta Sanct. Jan. xxiii. 

TaXirai. Compare Basil. Epist. 237 In a Syrian martyrology published 

(ill. p. 365, sq. ed. Gamier), Hilar, de by Dr W. Wright (in the Journal 

J^rin. vii. 3 (11. p. 176, ed. Ben.). of Sacred Literature, Got. 1865 and 

* The Emperor Julian's language Jan. 1866) the Galatian martyrs meu- 

{Epist. 52, speaking of Galatia and cer- tioned are numerous. 

GAL. 3 


and peace restored, a famous council was held at Ancyra, a 
court-martial of the Church, for the purpose of restoring 
discipline and pronouncing upon those who had faltered or 
deserted in the combat'. When the contest was renewed under 
Julian, the forces of paganism were concentrated upon Galatia, 
as a key to the heathen position, in one of their last desperate 
struggles to retrieve the day. The once popular worship of the 
mother of the gods, which issuing from Pessinus had spread 
throughout the Greek and Roman world, was a fit rallying 
point for the broken ranks of heathendom. In this part of the 
Efforts of field, as at Antioch, Julian appeared in person. He stimulated 
the zeal of the heathen worshippers by his own example, 
visiting the ancient shrine of Cybele, and offering costly gifts 
and sacrifices there'. He distributed special largesses among 
the poor who attended at the temples. He wrote a scolding 
letter to the pontiff of Galatia, rebuking the priests for their 
careless living, and promising aid to Pessinus on condition that 
they took more pains to propitiate the goddess '. The Chris- 
tians met these measures for the most part in an attitude of 
defied by fierce defiance. At Ancyra one Basil, a presbyter of the church, 
tians. fearlessly braving the imperial anger, won for himself a martyr's 
crown. Going about from place to place, he denounced all 
participation in the polluting rites of heathen sacrifice, and 
warned his Christian brethren against bartering their hopes of 
heaven for such transitory honours as an earthly monarch 
could confer. At length brought before the provincial governor, 
he was tortured, condemned, and put to death*. At Pessinus 

' About the year 314 ; Hefele Con- taken the worship of the mother of the 

ciliengesch. i. p. 188. See the note on gods under his special protection. An 

Gal. V. ■20. elaborate oration of his (Orat. 3) is de- 

" Ammian. xxii. 9, Liban. Or. xii, TOted to this subject. Comp. Gregor. 

I. p. 398, xvii. 1. p. 513 (Eeieke). Naz. 1. p. 109 (ed. Ben.). 

' Julian Epist. 49 'kpaoKlif ipx'-^P^'i * Sozom. v. 11. The Acta of the 

TaKaHas, preserved in Sozom. v. 16. Martyrdom of St Basil of Ancyra 

The ' high priest ' is mentioned in the (Euiuart Acta Mart. Sine. p. 510) are 

Galatian inscriptions, Boeckh nos. less exaggerated than most, and per- 

4016, 4020, 4026. Julian seems to have haps entitled to respect. 


another zealous Christian, entering the temple, openly insulted 
the mother of the gods and tore down the altar. Summoned 
before Julian, he appeared in the imperial presence with an air 
of triumph, and even derided the remonstrances which the 
emperor addressed to him\ This attempt to galvanize the 
expiring form of heathen devotion in Galatia seems to have 
borne little fruit. With the emperor's departure paganism 
relapsed into its former torpor. And not long after in the 
presence of Jovian, the Christian successor of the apostate, who 
halted at Ancyra on his way to assume the imperial purple °, 
the Galatian churches had an assurance of the final triumph of 
the truth. 

• Gregor. Naz. Oral. v. i. p. 175 A. tortnrea. One or othej; of these may 

Gregory at the same time mentiona be that BuBiris, of whom Sozomen 

another Christian — apparently in Ga- (I.e.) speaks as a Christian confessor 

latia, though this is not stated — whose at Ancyra ander Julian, 
bold defiance was visited with extreme * Ammian. zzv. 10. 




. Absence 
of direct 

of opinion 

TT has been already noticed that the epistle itself contains 
-*- singularly few details of St Paul's intercourse with the 
Churches of Galatia, and that the narrative of St Luke is 
confined to the bare statement of the fact of his preaching there. 
Owing to this twofold silence, there is a paucity of direct 
evidence bearing on the date of the epistle. A few scattered 
notices, somewhat vague in themselves and leading only to 
approximate results, are all that we can collect : and the burden 
of the proof rests in consequence on an examination of the style 
of the letter, and of the lines of thought and feeling which may 
be traced in it. With this wide field open for conjecture, there 
has naturally been great diversity of opinion. The Epistle to the 
Galatians has been placed by different critics both the earliest 
and the latest of St Paul's writings, and almost every inter- 
mediate position has at one time or the other been assigned to 
it. The patristic writers are for the most part divided between 
two views. Some of these, as Victorinus' and Primasius, suppose 

' Mai Script. Vet. Coll. vol. in. 
Victoriuua, who wrote about a.d. 360, 
mentions tbisasan opinion entertained 
hy others, so that it dates farther back. 
' Epistola ad Galatas inissa dicitur ab 
apostolo ab Epheso oivitate.' I suspect 
it was first started by Origen. In the 
Canon of Marcion (Tertull. adv. Marc. 
V. 2, Epiphan. Haer. xlii. p. 350) the 
Epistle to the Galatians stood first, but 
I cannot think that his order was chro- 

nological. At all events, supposing it to 
be so, the fact of his placing the Epistles 
to the Thessalonians after the Bomans 
diminishes the respect which would 
otherwise be felt for the opinion of a 
writer so ancient. Tertullian'slanguage 
however clearly points to a different 
principle of arrangement in Maroion's 
Canon: 'Prinoipalem adversus Judais- 
mum epistolam nos quoque oonfite- 
mur, quae Galatas dooet.' He placed 



it to have been writt en from Ephesus ^. Others, among whom 
are Eusebius of Emesa', Jerome', TheodoretVand Euthalius, 
date it from Rome, in accordance~wilBTEi"suhscE^)tioB-. found, -in 
some MSS and in the two Syriac and tbs, Coptic vjrswc^. Of 
these two opinions, the former was doubtless a critical inference 
from the statement in the Acts" that St Paul visited EphesusI 
immediately after leaving Galatia, combined with his own men-! 
tion of the suddenness of the Galatian apostasy" ; the latter is 
founded on some fancied allusions in the epistle to his bonds '. 
The former view has been adopted by the vast majority of 
recent critics, who agree in dating the epistle during the three 
years of St Paul's residence in the capital of Asia (A.D. 54 — 57), 
differing however in placing it earlier or later in this period, 
according as they lay greater or less stress on the particular 
expression ' ye are so soon changing.' 

Before stating my reasons for departing from this view, 
I shall give a brief summary of the events of the period, which 




of the 

this epistle in the forefront aa the 
most decided in its antagonism to Ju- 
daism. At the same time where no 
such motive interposed, and where the 
connexion was obvious, as in the Epi- 
stles to the Colossians and Philemon 
(on the juxtaposition of which Wieseler 
lays some stress, as establishing the 
principle of a chronological arrange- 
ment in Marcion's Canon Chron. p. 
230), he would naturally follow the 
chronological order. Volkmar (Credner 
Neutest. Kanon, p. 399) accepts the in- 
terpretation of TertulHan which I have 
given, but denies the accuracy of his 
statement. The author of the Mura- 
torian fragment (e. a.d. 170) seems to 
give as the chronological order, Corin- 
thians, Galatians, Eomans (see Tre- 
geUes Can. Murat. p. 42), which corre- 
sponds with the view I have adopted ; 
but his language is very obscure, and 
his statements, at least on some points, 
are obviously inaccurate. 
1 So Florus Lugdun. and Claudius 

Altissiod. who copy the words of Pri-I 
masius. Ohrysostom(Prooe»i.adiJom.)l 
says merely that the Galatians was\ 
written before the Bomans, but does/' 
not define the time or place of writing.! 
Theophylaot (Argum. ad Rom.) repeats!^ 

' About 3go A.D. Cramer Caten. ad 
Gal. Iv. 20 ; ' He was a prisoner and io 
confinement at the time.' This com- 
ment is ascribed simply to ' Eusebius ' 
in the Catena, but the person intended 
is doubtless the bishop of Emesa, whose 
commentary on the Galatians is men- 
tioned by Jerome ( Coram, in Ep. ad Gal. 
Lib. I. Fraef.). He naturally represents 
the tradition of the Syrian Churches. 

» As may be inferred from his com- 
mentary on Gal. iv. 20, vi. 11, 17 (vii. 
pp. 468, 529, 534), Philem. i (vii. 

P- 747)- 

* Fraef. ad Mom. 

' Acts xviii. 23, xix. i. 

• Gal. i. 6. 

' Gal. iv. 20, vi. 17. 


it will be necessary to bear in mind, in order to follow the 
course of the argument. 
Sojourn at St Paul's long sojourn at Ephesus is now drawing to a close, 
p eaus. jjjg labours there have been crowned with no ordinary success. 
' The word of God prevailed and grew mightily'.' So we read 
in the historian's narrative. He says nothing of persecutions. 
But we must draw no hasty conclusions from this silence. For 
the same historian records how the Apostle, in his farewell to 
the Ephesian elders a year later, speaking of his labours among 
them, reminded them of his ' many tears and temptations, which 
befel him by the lying in wait of the Jews'.' In his own 
epistles St Paul speaks in stronger language of the persecutions 
of this time. He compares his sufferings to those of the con- 
demned slave, thrown to the beasts in the amphitheatre, and 
struggling for life and death — angels and men witnessing the 
spectacle'. The Apostles, he says, were made as the filth of 
the world, as the offscouring of ail things *. 

It was now the spring of the year fifty-seven, and he con- 
templated leaving Ephesus after Whitsuntide'. Friends had 
arrived from Corinth and drawn a fearful picture of the feuds 
and irregularities that prevailed there. He at once despatched 
I Corinth- a letter to the Corinthians, reprobating their dissensions and 
ten A.D. 57 exhorting them to acquit themselves of guilt by the punishment 
(Spring). Qf g^ flagrant offender. But he was not satisfied with merely 
writing: he sent also trusty messengers, who might smooth 
difficulties, by explaining by word of mouth much that was 
necessarily omitted in the letter'. Titus was one of these : and 
he awaited his return in great anxiety, as he had misgivings of 
the reception of his letter at Corinth. And now a tumult broke 
out at Ephesus. The opposition to the Gospel came to a head. 
His companions were seized and violently hurried before the 
people. He himself was with difficulty persuaded to shelter 
himself by concealment till the storm was over. The storm 

' Acts xix. 20. * I Cor. iy. 13. 

' Acts XX. 19. » I Cor. xvi. 8. 

' I Cor. iv. 9, XV. 31. < I Cor. xvi. 11, 2 Cor. xii. 18. 


passed, but the sky was still lowering. It was evident that his 
presence at Ephesus could now be of little use, and might only- 
exasperate the enemies of the Gospel. Besides the time was 
near, perhaps had already arrived, when he had intended under 
any circumstances to turn his steps westward. So he left 
Ephesus'. But Titus had not yet come, and his anxiety for the 
Church at Corinth pressed heavily upon him. He hastened to 
Troas, hoping to meet Titus there. 'A door was opened' to 
him at Troas. But Titus came not. He was oppressed at once 
with a sense of loneliness and an ever growing anxiety for the 
Corinthian Church. He could no longer bear the suspense. He St Paul 
left Troas and crossed over to Macedonia. Still Titus came not. aonja. 
Still the agony of suspense, the sense of loneliness remained". 
Time only increased his suffering. ■ Every day brought fresh 
troubles ; gloomy tidings poured in from all sides ; church after 
church added to his anxiety'. Nor had persecution ceased. 
The marks of violence imprinted on his body about this time 
remained long after — ^perhaps never left him *. Probably too his 
constitutional complaint visited him once more — the thorn in 
the flesh to which he alludes in his letter to the Corinthians — 
the weakness which years before had detained him in Galatia. 
He seemed to be spared no suffering either of body or mind. 
There were fightings without and fears within. At length Titus 
arrived'. This was the first gleam of sunshine. The tidings 
from Corinth were far more cheerful than he had hoped. His 
mind was relieved. He wrote off at once to the Corinthians, 2 Corinth- 
expressing his joy at their penitence, and recommending mercy Jen a.d. 57 
towards the offender. The crisis was now over. He breathed (^'^*™™)- 
freely once more. From this time his troubles seem gradually 
to have abated. A single verse in the sacred historian conveys 
all we know beyond this point of his sojourn in Macedonia. 

'He went over those parts,' we are told, ' and exhorted the _ . 

^ . . Vieitto 

people in many words'.' From thence he visited Greece, where Greece. 

1 Acts xix. 21 — 41, XX. I. * Gal. vi. 17. 

» 1 Cor. ii. 12, 13. " 2 Cor. vil. 5—16. 

» 2 Cor. xi. 28. ' Acts xx. z. 


he remained three months. While at Corinth he wrote the 

Eomans Epistle to the Romans. These are almost all the particulars 

AD.^'eT known of his movements at this period. Of persecutions and 

(early). sufferings we read nothing: and so far we are left in the 

dark. But when we contrast the more tranquil and hopeful 

tone of the Roman Epistle, interrupted occasionally by an 

outburst of triumphant thanksgiving, with the tumultuous 

conflict of feeling which appears in the Second Epistle to the 

Corinthians, we can scarcely avoid the inference, that the 

severity of his trials had abated in the interval, and that he was 

at length enjoying a season of comparative repose. 

It will be seen then that according to the generally received 
opinion, which dates this epistle from Ephesus, the chrono- 
logical order of the letters of the period will be Galatians, 
1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Romans, the Epistle to the Galatians 
preceding the First Epistle to the Corinthians by an interval of 
a few months according to some, of nearly three years accord- 
Probable ing to others. On the other hand, I cannot but think that 
Galatians. there are weighty reasons, which more than counterbalance 
any arguments alleged in favour of this opinion, for interposing 
it between the Second to the Corinthians and the Romans. 
In this case it will have been Avritten from Macedonia or Achaia, 
in the winter or spring of the years 57, $8 A.D. I shall proceed 
to state the successive steps of the argument by which this 
result is arrived at. 
Direct L A few Scattered historical notices more or less distinct 

notices, must be put in evidence first, as fixing the date of the epistle 
later than the events to which they refer. These notices are 
twofold, referring partly to St Paul's communications with the 
Apostles of the circumcision, partly to his intercourse with the 
Galatian Church. 
Jerusalem (i) In the opening chapters St Paul mentions two distinct 
ooh. visits to Jerusalem'. For reasons which will be given else- 

where, it seems necessary to identify the second of these with 
the third recorded in the Acts, during which the Apostolic 
' Gal. i. 1 8, ii. i. 


Council was held The epistle moreover alludes to an interview 
with St Peter at Antioch, in language which seems. to imply 
that it took place after, and probably soon after, their con- 
ference at Jerusalem'. If so, it must have occurred during 

St Paul's stay at Antioch, recorded in the fifteejath chapter, of 
the Acts'. On the most probable system of chronology these 
events took place in the year 51, before which date therefore 
the epistle cani>ot have been written. 

(ii) The epistle apparently contains an allusion to two Galatia. 
separate visits of St Paul to Galatia. 'Ye know,' says the 
Apostle, 'that through infirmity of the flesh, I preached to you 
before, and.. .ye received me as an angel of God. ..What then... 
have I become your enemy by telling you the truth'?' He is 
here contrasting his reception on the two occasions, on the 
second of which he fears he may have incurred their enmity 
by his plain-speaking. If this interpretation be correct, the 
two Galatian visits thus alluded to must be the same two 
which are recorded in the Acts*. The epistle therefore must 
be later than the second of these, which took place in 54 A.D. 

Thus we have established the earliest possible date of the 
epistle, as a starting point. On the other hand an incidental 
expression has been rigorously pressed to show that it cannot 
have been written much after this date. 'I marvel,' says St 'So soon 
Paul, 'that ye are so soon, or so fast, changing from Him that ' 

called you to another Gospel".' It is necessary to estimate the 
exact value of this expression. 

The generally received view, which fixes the writing of the 
epistle at Ephesus, is founded on two assumptions with regard 
to this expression, both of which seem to me erroneous. First, wrongly 
It is supposed that in speaking of the rapidity of the change ®^^ *""* ' 
St Paul dates from his last visit to Galatia, 'so soon after I 
left you.' This however seems at variance with the context. 
The Apostle is reproaching his converts with their fickleness. 

> Gal. ii. II. * Aots xvi. 6, xviii. 23. 

a Acts XV. 30 — 40. ° G-al. i. 6. See the note on oifrwi 

» Gal. iv. 13 — 16. See the notes. raxiias. 


'They have so soon deserted their Christian profession, so soon 
taken up with another Gospel.' Here the point of time from 

which he reckons is obvx^D'sly the timeoTtEiu: convers ion, not 
Its real 1 the time of his second visit. His surpriseTi^ot that they have 
*"™ ■ \ go lightly forgotten his latest instructions, but that they have 
so easily tired of their newly obtained liberty in Christ. 'I 
marvel,' he says, 'that ye are so soon changing from Him that 
called you.' Whatever interval therefore is implied by 'so 
soon,' it must reckon from their first knowledge of the Gospel, 
i.e. from A.D. 51. Secondly, It is insisted that the period 
cannot be extended beyond a few months, or at the outside 
two or three years. But quickness and slowness are relative 
terms. The rapidity of a change is measured by the import- 
ance of the interests at stake. A period of five or ten years 
would be a brief term of existence for a constitution or a 
dynasty. A people which threw off its allegiance to either 
within so short a time might well be called fickle. And if so, 
I cannot think it strange that the Apostle, speaking of truths 
destined to outlive the life of kingdoms and of nations, should 
complain that his converts had so soon deserted from the faith, 
even though a whole decade of years might have passed since 
they were first brought to the knowledge of Christ. So long a 
period however is not required on any probable hypothesis as 
to' the date of the epistle ; and therefore this expression, which 
has been so strongly insisted upon, seems to contribute little or 
nothing towards the solution of the problem*. 
Thisepi- . 2. On the other hand the argument from the style and 
to \he 2^n< character of the epistle is one of great importance. It may 


now be regarded as a generally recognised fact that St Paul's 
epistles fall chronologically into four groups, separated from 

— "v 

^ The problem of the date of the to find the resultant. I think that the 

Galatian Epistle, as it is generally con- former consideration may be elimin- 

oeived, maybe stated thus: Given on ated, as will be seen from the text, 

the one hand the expression 'so soon,' while at the same time some further 

tending towards an earlier date, and on conditions which have been overlooked 

theother the resemblance to the Epistle must be taken into account. 
to the Bomans tending towards a later, 


one another by an interval o f five years roughly speak ing, andlj 
distinguished also by their internal character. The second o| 
these groups comprises (exclusively of the Galatians) the 
Epistles to the Corinthians and Romans, written at the close of 
the third missionary journey, in the years 57 and 58. Now it 
appears that while the Epistle to the Galatians possesses no 
special features in common with the epistles of the preceding or 
succeeding groups, either in style, matter, or general tone and 
treatment, it is most closely allied in all these respects to the 
epistles of the third missionary journey. It was a season of 
severe conflict with St Paul, both mental and bodily, and the 
traces of this conflict are stamped indelibly on the epistles 
written during this period. They exhibit an unwonted tension Charac- 


of feeling, a fiery energy of expression, which we do not find in of this 
anything like the same degree in either the earlier or the later 2™"P" 
epistles. They are marked by a vast profusion of quotations irom 
the Old Testament, by a frequent use of interrogation, by great 
variety and abruptness of expression, by words and images not 
found elsewhere, or found very rarely, in St Paul. They have 
also their own doctrinal features distinguishing them from the 
other groups — due for the most part to the phase which the 
antagonism to the Gospel assumed at this time. Justification 
by faith, the contrast of- law and grace, the relation of Jew and 
Gentile, the liberty of the Gospel — these and kindred topics are 
dwelt upon at greater length and with intense earnestness. 
All these characteristic features the letter to the Galatians 
shares in an eminent degree, so much so indeed, that it may be 
considered the tjrpical epistle of the group; and by those who 
have made St Paul's style their study the conviction arising 
from this resemblance will probably be felt so strongly, that 
nothing but the most direct and positive evidence could over- 
come it. 

3. It seems to follow then that some place must be found It closely 
for the Galatian Epistle in the group which comprises the f Corinth- 
Epistles to the Corinthians and Romans. We have next to Bo^^ns 
enquire whether there is sufficient evidence for determining its 


exact position in this group. I think this question can be 
answered with some degree of probability. 

Pursuing the examination further we find that the resem- 
blance is closest to the Second Epistle to the Corinthians and 
the Epistle to the Romans. 

2 Corinth- In the case of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, the 
ians. ... . 1*11 

Similarity consists not so much m words and arguments as m 

Eesem- timeaniLfeelins'. "In both there is the same sensitiveness in 


general ^^6 Apostle to the behaviour of his converts to himself, the 
*°°^" same earnestness about the points of difference, the same 
remembrance of his 'infirmity' while he was yet with them, 
the same consciousness of the precarious basis on which his 
own authority rested in the existing state of the two Churches. 
In both there is a greater display of his own feelings than in 
any other portion of his writings, a deeper contrast of inward 
. exaltation and outward suffering, more of personal entreaty, a 
J^ greater readiness to impart himself." If it were necessary to 
add anything to this just and appreciative criticism, the 
Apostle's tone in dealing with his antagonists would supply an 
instructive field for comparison. Both epistles exhibit the same 
combination of protest and concession in combating the exclusive 
rights claimed for the elder Apostles, the same vehement con- 
demnation of the false teachers guarded by the same careful sup- 
pression of names, the same strong assertion of his Apostolic office 
tempered with the same depreciation of his own personal merits. 
Special Besides this general resemblance, which must be felt in order 

dences. ^0 ^^ appreciated, a few special affinities may be pointed out. 
For instance the expression 'Christ redeemed ns from the curse 
of the law, being made a curse for us',' has a close parallel in 
the allied epistle, 'He made Him to be sin for us, who knew no 
sin, that we, etc." The image, 'Whatsoever a man soweth that 
shall he also reap',' is reproduced in almost the same words, 

' Jowett, I. p. 196, ist ed. It is Mopsuestia, Spicil. Solesm, i. p. 50. 

interesting to find that tlie resemblance ' Gal. iii. #3. 

between the two epistles was observed ' 2 Cor. v. 21. 

by a writer as early as Theodore of * Gal. vi. 7. 



'He that soweth sparingly shall reap sparingly'.' Again, the 
two epistles have in common the peculiar phrases, 'another 
gospel,' 'a new creature,' 'zealously affect you,' 'persuade men*.' 
And other instances might be brought". On these special coin- 
cidences however I do not lay any great stress. 

The resemblance to the Epistle to the B.omans is much Eomana. 
more striking and d^nite. letting aside the personal matter 
and the practical lessons, and excepting here and there a 
digressive illustration, almost every thought and argument in Close re- 
the Epistle to the Galatians may be matched from the other in thought 

epistle. The following table of parallels will show how remark- *°^ '*°' 
... giage. 

able this coincidence is. In the first instance I have taken an 
almost continuous passage, in order better to exhibit the nature 
of this resemblance. 

(i) iii. 6. Even as Abraham 
believed God, and it was account- 
ed to him for righteousness. 

iii. 7. Know ye therefore that 
they which are of faith, the same 
are the children of Abraham. 

iii. 8. And the Scripture fore- 
seeing... preached before the Gos- 
pel unto Abraham, saying, 'In 
thee shall all nations be blessed.' 

iii. 9. So then they which are 
of faith, are blessed with faithful 

iii. 10. Forasmanyasareof the 
works of the law are under a curse. 

1 2 Cor. ix. 6. 

2 Gal. i. 6, 2 Cor. xi. 4 ; Gal. yi. 15, 
■2 Cor. V. 17 ; Gal. iv. 17, 2 Cor. xi. 2 ; 
Gal. i. 10, 2 Cor. v. n. 

3 Compare Gal. i. 9, v. 21, with 
2 Cor. xiii. i, and Gal. iii. 3 with 2 Cor. 
viii. 6. Again, the expressions dTro- 
pe'i(rBai, Kardiv, Kvp&oi, roivavHov, tjio^ov- 
fiai i^Virois, and the metaphoi KoreaBUiv, 


iv. 3. What saith the Scrip- Parallel 
ture 1 Abraham beUeved God, passages. 
and it was accounted to him for 

iv. 10, II. How then was it 
accoun+ed ? ... in uncircum cision . . . 
that he might be the father of all 
them that believe. 

iv. 17. As it is written, 'I 
have made thee a father of many 
nations.' iv. 18. 'So shall thy 
seed be.' 

iv. 23. It was not written for 
his sake alone... but for us also to 
whom it shall be accounted, who 
believe, etc. Comp. iv. 12. 

iv. 15. Because the law work- 
eth wrath. 

Gal. V. 15, 2 Cor. xi. 20, are peculiar 
to these epistles ; and this list is pro- 
bably not complete. On the other hand, 
the Galatian Epistle presents a few 
special coincidences with i Corinthians, 
the most remarkable being the proverb, 
'A little leaven etc.,' occurring i Cor. 
V. 6, Gal. V. 9. 


Parallel iii. ii. But that no man is 

paasages. justified by the law in the sight 
of God it is evident, for 

' The just shall live by faith.' 

iii. 12. And tiie law is not of 
faith : but ' The man that doeth 
them shall live in them.' 

iii. 13, 14. [From this curse 
Christ ransomed us.] 

iii 15 — 18. [Neither can the 
law interpose] to make the pro- 
mise of none efifect : for if the 
inheritance be of the law, it is no 
more of promise : but God gave 
it {KexaLpurTai) to Abraham by 

iii. 19 — 21. [But the law was 
temporary and ineffective : for] 

iii. 22. The scripture hath con- 
cluded all under sin, that the pro- 
mise by faith of Jesus Christ 
might be given to them that be- 

iii. 23 — 26. [We are now free 
from the tutelage of the law and 
are sons of God through Christ.] 

iii. 27. For as many of you 
as have been baptized into Christ 
have put on Christ. 

iii. 28. [There is no distinc- 
tion of race or caste or sex.] 

iii. 29. If ye-be Christ's, then 
are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs 
according to the promise. 

iv. I — 5. [We have been hither- 
to in the position of an heir still 
in his minority. Christ's death 
has recovered us our right.] 

i^- Si 6, 7. That we might re- 
ceive the adoption of sons. And 
because ye are sons, God hath 


iii. 21. But now the right- 
eousness of God without the law 
is manifested, being witnessed by 
the law and the prophets. 

i. 17. As it is written, 'The 
just shall live by faith.' 

X. 5. Moses describeth the 
righteousness which is of the law : 
that ' The man that doeth them 
shall live in them.' 

[iv. 23, 24. The same thought 
expressed in other language.] 

iv. 13, 14, 16. For the pro- 
mise that he should be the heir 
of the world was not made to 
Abraham. . .through the law. . .for 
if they which are of the law be 
heirs, faith is made void, and the 
promise made of none effect... 
therefore it is of faith, that it 
might be by grace (x^p's). 

[Comp. Bom. viiL 3, 4.] 

xi. 32. God hath concluded 
them all in unbelief, that he might 
have mercy upon aU. iiL 9, 10. 
They are all under sin, as it is 
written. Comp. iii. 25; v. 20, 21. 

[The same thought illustrated 
differently. Rom. vii. 1 — 3.] 

vi. 3. As many of us as have 
been baptized into Christ. 

xiii. 14. Put ye on the Lord 
Jesus Christ. 

ix. 8. The children of the pro- 
mise are counted for the seed. 
(See the passage cited next.) 

viii. 14 — 17. For as many as 
are led by the Spirit of God, they 
are the sons of God. For ye have 



sent forth the Spirit of his Son 
into your hearts, crying, Abba, 
Father. Wherefore thou art no 
more a servant, but a son ; and if 
a son, then an heir of God through 

(2) ii. 16. For 'by the -works 
of the law shall no flesh be justi- 
fied (Ps. cxliii. 2).' 

not received the spirit of bond- Parallel 
age again to fear, but ye have passages, 
received the Spirit of adoption, 
whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 
The Spirit itself beareth witness 
with our spirit, that we are the 
children of God : and if children, 
then heirs, heirs of God, and joint 
heirs with Christ. 

iii. 20. For 'by the works of 
the law shall no flesh be justified 
before him.' 

In both passages the quotation is oblique: in both the 
clause 'by the works of the law' is inserted by way of explana- 
tion: in both 'flesh' is substituted for 'living man' Qjrda-a aap^ 
for irat ^wv of the LXX, which agrees also with the Hebrew) : 
and in both the application of the text is the same. 

(3) ii. 19. For I through the 
law am dead to the law, that I 
might live to God. 

ii. 20. I am crucified with 
Christ. Comp. v. 24, vi. 14. 

Nevertheless I live, yet not I, 
but Christ liveth in me. 

(4) iv. 23, 28. He of the free- 
woman was by promise ... we, 
brethren, as Isaac was, are the 
children of promise. 

(5) V. 14. All the law is ful- 
filled in one word, namely, (eV tw), 
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as 


(6) V. 16. Walk in the Spirit, 
and ye shall not fulfil the lust of 
the flesh. 

V, 17. For the flesh lusteth 


vii. 4. Ye also are become 
dead to the law... that we should 
bear fruit unto God. Comp. vi, 
2— S- 

vi. 6. Our old man is cruci- 
fied with him. 

vi. 8. Now if we be dead with 
Christ, we believe that we shall 
also live with him. vi. 11. Alive 
unto God through Jesus Christ. 

ix. 7, 8. 'In Isaac shall thy 
seed be called.' That is... the 
children of the promise are count- 
ed for the seed. 

xiii. 8, 9, 10. He that loveth 
another, hath fulfilled the law;... 
it is, briefly comprehended in this 
saying, namely, {ivT<S),Thou shalt 
love thy neighbour as thyself... 
love is the fulfilling of the law. 

viii. 4. In us who walk not 
after the flesh, but after the 

vii. 23, 25. I see another law 



Parallel against the spirit, and the spirit 
pasBages. against the flesh, and these are 
contrary the one to the other. 

So that ye cannot do the things 
that ye would. 

V. 1 8. But if ye be led of the 
spirit, ye are not under the law. 

(7) vi. 2. Bear ye one another's 

in my members, warring against 
the law of my mind... with the 
mind I myself serve the law of 
God, but with the flesh the law 
of sin. 

vii. 15. What I would, that I 
do not, but what I hate, that I 
do. Comp. w. 19, 20. 

viii. 2. The law of the spirit 
of life... hath made me free from 
the law of sin and death. Comp. 
vii. 6. 

XV. I. "We that are strong 
ought to bear the infirmities of 
the weak'. 

The re- I* will be unnecessary to add many words on a similarity so 

's m^ ur-°^ great as these passages exhibit. Observe only that it is mani- 
fold, fold and various. Sometimes it is found in a train of argument 
more or less extended, and certainly not obvious: sometimes in 
close verbal coincidences where the language and thoughts are 
unusual, or where a quotation is freely given, and where the 
coincidence therefore was less to be expected: sometimes in 
the same application of a text, and the same comment upon it, 
where that application and comment have no obvious reference 
to the main subject of discussion. There is no parallel to this 
close resemblance in St Paul's Epistles, except in the case of 
Galatians the letters to the Colossians and Ephesians. Those letters were 
abouUhe written about the same time and sent by the same messenger; 

Bame time ^^^ j cannot but think that we should be doing violence to his- 
with, ° 

tone probability by separating the Epistles to the Galatians 

and Eomans from each other by an interval of more than a few 

months, though in this instance the similarity is not quite so 

great as in the other. 

• In the above extracts I have only 
altered the English version where our 
translators have given different render- 
ings for the same Greek V70rd, Besides 
these broader coincidences, the follow- 
ing words and phrases are peculiar to the 

two Epistles : /Sao-rd^eu', dovKela, i\ev- 
6ep6w, tSe, Kari, &v6pwirov "Kiyu (di'9pi6- 
invov X^w), Kardpa KarapaadaLf Ku/xoif 
HaKapur/jiis, niSr), oE ra TOiauTa rpia- 
aovres, dipeiKirris, iropa|8dT);s, rap' 0, ri 
In ; ri }\.iyei ij ypa^ ; 



But the comparison advances us yet another stage towards 
the solution of our problem. There can be no reasonable 
doubt which of the two epistles contains the earlier expression 
of the thoughts common to both. The Epistle to the Galatians 
stands in relation to the Roman letter, as the rough model to/ 
the finished statue; or rather, if I may press the metaphos 
without misapprehension, it is the first study of a single figure, 
which is worked into a group in the latter writing. To the but before 
Galatians the Apostle flashes out in indignant remonstrance the ■^°™''°'^ 
first eager thoughts kindled by his zeal for the Gospel striking 
suddenly against a stubborn form of Judaism. To the Romans 
he writes at leisure, under no pressure of circumstances, in the 
face of no direct antagonism, explaining, completing, extending 
the teaching of the earlier letter, by giving it a double edge 
directed against Jew and Gentile alike. The matter, which in 
the one epistle is personal and fragmentary, elicited by the 
special needs of an individual church, is in the other general- 
ised and arranged so as to form a comprehensive and systematic 
treatise. Very few critics of name have assigned a priority 
of date to the Roman Epistle. 

Thus connected by striking affinities with these two epistles, A connect- 

the letter to the Galatians seems naturally to claim an inter- between 

mediate position, as a chronological link between them. Its ^ Corinth- 

. . 11 -n ... i^"3 and 

claim, I thmk, is well illustrated, if it is not vindicated, by a Romans. 

comparison of the lists of sins in the three epistles, with which 

I shall close this attempt to trace their common features. 


Strife, emulation, wraths, 
/actions, backbitings, 
whisperings, swellings, 

tumults uncleanjiess 

and fornication and las- 
civiousness. xii. 20, 21. 

lasciviousness, idolatry, 
witchcraft, hatred, strife, 
emulations, wraths, fac- 
tions, seditions, heresies, 
envies, murders, drunk- 
ennesses, revellings, and 
such like. v. 19 — 21. 


Unrighteousness, wick- 
edness, covetousness, 
maliciousness, fuU of en- 
vy, murder, strife, deceit, 
malignity, whisperers, 
backbiters, etc., i. 29, 30 ; 
in revellings and drunk- 
ennesses, in chamberings 
and wantonnesses, in 
strife and emulation. 
xiii. 13. 

But if on the other hand this sequence is altered by inter- 
gal. 4 



The con- 
broken in 
the receiv- 
ed order. 

The order 
best with 


posing the letters to the Corinthians between those to the 
Galatians and Romans, the dislocation is felt at once. It then 
becomes difficult to explain how the same thoughts, argued out 
in the same way and expressed in similar language, should 
appear in the Galatian and reappear in the Roman Epistle, 
while ia two letters written in the interval they have no place 
at all, or at least do not lie on the surface. I cannot but think 
that the truths which were so deeply impressed on the Apostle's 
mind, and on which he dwelt with such characteristic energy 
on two different occasions, must have forced themselves into 
prominence in any letter written meanwhile. 

4. Again, if it is found that the order here maintained 
accords best with the history of St Paul's personal sufferings 
at this period, so far as we can decipher it, as well as with 
the progress of his controversy with the Judaizers, such an 
accordance will not be without its value. I shall take these 
two points in order. 

(i) In the First Epistle to the Corinthians he alludes to his 
sufferings for the Gospel more than once. He refers to them 
in one passage at some length', to point a contrast between the 
humiliation of the teacher and the exaltation of the taught. 
•He speaks of himself as suffering every privation, as treated 
with every kind of contempt. And he alludes once and again 
to these afflictions, as witnesses to the immortality of man. 'If 
in-this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most 
miserable ^' 'Why stand we in jeopardy every hour? I pro- 
test I die daily. If I fought with beasts at Ephesus, what 
advantageth it me, if the dead rise not°?' But the mention of 
them is only occasional ; it does not colour the whole epistle. 
In the Second Epistle the case is very different. Here it is the 
one topic from beginning to end. His physical sufferings have 
increased meanwhile: and to them have been added mental 
agonies far more severe. Tribulation and comfort — strength 
and weakness — glorying and humiliation — alternate throughout 

* I Cor. iv. 9 — 13. 

' I Cor. XV. 30 — 32. 

" I Cor. XV. 19. 


the epistle'. But though the whole letter is one outpouring of 
affliction, yet we feel that the worst is already past. The first 
ray of sunshine has pierced the gloom. The penitence of the 
Corinthian Church has made him ' exceeding joyful in all his 
tribulation*.' We are not surprised therefore, when, after the 
lapse of a few months, we find the Apostle writing in a strain 
of less impassioned sorrow. In the Epistle to the Romans per- 
secution is sometimes mentioned, but in the more tranquil tone 
of one recalling past experiences, when the conflict is already 
over and the victory won. 

In the Epistle to the Galatians again he says but little of Eeference 
his own sufferings. He is too absorbed in the momentous feringg^in 
question at issue to speak much of himself Yet once or twice Galatians,. 
the subject is introduced. A sentence at the close of the letter 
especially shows how it occupies his thoughts, even when all 
mention of it is repressed. After adding in his own hand- 
writing a few sentences of earnest remonstrance, he sums up 
with these words, ' From henceforth let no man trouble me ; 
for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.' It is his 
final appeal, before which all opposition and controversy must 
give way. Does not this seem like the language of one, who 
has lately passed through a fiery trial, and who, looking back 
upon it in the first moment of abatement, while the recollection 
is still fresh upon him, sees in his late struggles a new conse- 
cration to a life of self-denial, and an additional seal set upon 
his Apostolic authority? In other words, does it not seem to 
follow naturally after the tumult of affliction, which bursts out 
in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians ? 

Perhaps this passage too, in connexion with the events of 
the year preceding, may serve to throw light on one or two 
otherwise obscure hints in this epistle. 'If I still preach 
circumcision, why am I then persecuted"?' 'If I were still 
pleasing men, I should not have been a servant of Christ*.' 

1 2 Cor. i. 3— lo, iv. 7— ii, iv. 16— ^ 2 Cor. vii. 4. 

V. 4, vi. 4—10, vii. 4—7, xi. 23—28, ' Gal. v. 11. 

xii. 7-10, 12. * Gal. i. 10. 



May we not connect these expressions with the words, 'Hence- 
forth let no man trouble me ; for I bear in my body the marks 
of the Lord Jesu.s^"i These sufferings marked a crisis in his 
spiritual life, an epoch to date from. In the permanent injuries 
then inflicted upon him, he delighted to see the tokens of his 
service to his Lord, the signs of ownership, as it were, branded 
on him. Henceforth Jesus was his Master, henceforth he was 
the slave of Christ, in a fuller sense than he had been hitherto^ 
It is at least remarkable, that in the epistle which follows next 
upon this, he designates himself 'a slave of Jesus ChristV a 
title there adopted for the first time, 
(ii) The (ii) The same result which is thus obtained from an ex- 

P^°Sj®^^?^amination of St Paul's personal history, seems to follow also 
opposi- from the progress of his controversy with his Judaizing 

In the Epistle to the Corinthians the controversy has not 
yet assumed a very definite shape. He scarcely once meets his 
opponents on doctrinal ground. He is occupied in maintaining 
his personal authority against those who strove to undermine it, 
resting their claims, in some cases at least, on a more intimate 
connexion with the Lord. Doubtless doctrinal error would be 
the next step, and this the Apostle foresaw. But hitherto he 
speaks with some reserve on this point, not knowing the exact 
position which his antagonist would take up. The heresy 
combated in the Galatian Epistle is much more matured. 
The personal antagonism remains as before, while the doctrinal 
opposition has assumed a distinct and threatening form. 

For how different is St Paul's language in the two cases. 
He tells both Churches indeed in almost the same words, that 

' Gal. vi. 17. service, that I will always call Him 

2 It is related of George Herbert that Jesxis my Master,'' eta. 'And,' adds his 

when he was inducted into the cure of biographer, 'he seems to rejoice in that 

Bemerton he said to a friend, 'I be- word Jesus, and say that the adding 

seech God that my humble and cha- these words my Master to it, and the 

ritable life may so win upon others often repetition of them, seemed to 

as to bring glory to my Jesus, whom, I perfume his mind,' etc. I. Walton's 

have this day taken to be my Master and Life of Herbert. 

Governor; and I am so proud of His ' Kom. i. i. 


'circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing V but 

then his practical comment in the two cases presents a striking 

contrast. To the Corinthians he says; 'Is any man called 

being circumcised ? let him not be uncircumcised ; Is any called 

in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised"": to the Gala- 

tians ; ' Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised 

Christ shall profit you nothing; and again I testify, etc." In 

the one epistle he is dealing with a hypothetical case; he 

speaks as if to guard against future error. In the other he is 

wrestling with an actual evil present in its most virulent form. 

If circumcision is but one point, it at least contains all 

implicitly: 'Every man that is circumcised is a debtor to do 

the whole law.' 

Corresponding to this advance on the part of his antagonists Corre- 

we find a growing fulness in St Paul's exposition of those doc- pro^esSn. 

trines with which the errors of the Judaizers were in direct ^^^ ^'^*/' 

ment of 

conflict. Such is the case with his account of the temporary doctrine. 
purpose of the law, especially in its negative effect as 'multi- 
plying sin.' In the Corinthian Epistles the subject is dismissed 
with a casual sentence, pregnant with meaning indeed, but 
standing quite alone. ' The strength of sin is the law*.' In the 
Galatian letter it is the one prominent topic. So again with 
its correlative, the doctrine of justification by faith. This doc- 
trine is incidentally alluded to more than once in the letter to 
Corinth'. In one passage especially it appears prominently; 
'God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not 
imputing their trespasses to them : for He hath made Him to 
be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the 
righteousness (SiKatoavvrj) of God'.' Here the doctrine is stated 
clearly enough, but there is no approach to the fulness with 
which it is set forth in the Galatian Epistle. The illustration, 
the antithesis, the aphorism, the scriptural sanction, are missing. 

1 I Cor. vii. 19, Gal. v. 6, vi. 15. » i Cor. i. 30, iv. 4, vi. 11, 2 Cor. 

» I Cor. vii. 18. >"• 9- 

J Gal. V. 2. '2 Cor. i. 19-21. 

* I Cor. XV. 56. 


It is not the language which St Paul would have used, had the 
doctrines been as virtually denied in the Corinthian as they 
were in the Galatian Church, 
lacidental 5. Lastly, the chronology adopted explains one or two 
a nsions. ^l^^gj[Q^g ^^ ^jjg Epistle to the Galatians which otherwise it 
is difficult to account for. 

(i) The sixth chapter commences with the exhortation, 
Treatment ' Brethren, though a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are 
tc3° ^° spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness, consi- 
dering thyself lest thou also be tempted.' There is something 
peculiarly earnest in the abruptness with which this command 
is introduced. There is a marked tenderness in the appeal to 
their brotherhood which prefaces it. An undercurrent of deep 
feeling is evident here. It is as though some care weighed on 
the Apostle's mind. Now if we suppose the Galatian Epistle 
to have been written after the Second to the Corinthians, we 
have at once an adequate explanation of this. A grievous 
offence had been committed in the Christian community at 
Corinth. In his first Epistle to the Church there, St Paul had 
appealed to the brotherhood to punish the guilty person. The 
appeal had not only been answered, but answered with so much 
promptness, that it was necessary to intercede for the offender. 
He commended their indignation, their zeal, their revenge; 
they had approved themselves clear in the matter*; and now 
they must forgive and comfort their erring brother, lest he be 
swallowed up with overmuch sorrow'. It was the recollection 
of this circumstance that dictated the injunction in the Galatian 
Epistle. The Galatians were proverbially passionate and fickle. 
If a reaction came, it might be attended, as at Corinth, with 
undue severity towards the delinquents. The epistle therefore 
was probably written while the event at Corinth was fresh on 
St Paul's mind — perhaps immediately after he had despatched 
Titus and the Second Epistle, and was still in suspense as to 
the issue — perhaps after he had himself arrived at Corinth, and 
witnessed too evident signs of over-severity. 

^ 2 Cor. vii. II. "2 Cor. ii. 7. 


(ii) A little later on another passage occurs, in which the 
vehemence of St Paul's language is quite unintelligible at first 
sight. ' Be not deceived,' he says, ' God is not mocked : for Baek- 
whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he reap... Let us do good in aims- 
unto all men\' The admonition is thrown into a general form, g'^™8- 
but it has evidently a special application in the Apostle's own 

An allusion in the First Epistle to the Corinthians supplies 
the key to the difficulty. ' As I gave orders to the Churches of 
Galatia, even so do yeV He had solicited their alms for the 
suffering brethren of Judsea. The messenger, who had brought 
him word of the spread of Judaism among the Galatians, had 
also, I suppose, reported unfavourably of their liberality. They 
had not responded heartily to his appeal. He reproves them 
in consequence for their backwardness: but he wishes to give 
them more time, and therefore refrains from prejudging the 

For the reasons given above I have been led to place the Conelu- 
Galatian Epistle after the letters to Corinth. They certainly 
do not amount to a demonstration, but every historical question 
must be decided by strikin:g a balance between conflicting 
probabilities; and it seems to me that the arguments here 
advanced, however imperfect, will hold their ground against 
those which are alleged in favour of the earlier date. In the 
interval then between the writing of the Second Epistle to the 
Corinthians and that to the Romans, the Galatian letter ought 
probably to be placed. Beyond this I will not venture to define 
the time ; only suggesting that the greeting from ' all the bre- 
thren which are with me" seems naturally to apply to the little 
band of his fellow-travellers, and to hint that the letter was not 
despatched from any of the gi-eat churches of Macedonia or 
from Corinth. It may have been written on the journey be- 
tween Macedonia and Achaia. And it is not improbable that it 
was during St Paul's residence in Macedonia, about the time 
when the Second Epistle to the Corinthians was written, that 
1 Gal. vi. 7 — lo. ^ I Cor- xvi. i. ' Gal. i. 2. 


St Paul received news of the falling away of his Galatian 
converts, so that they were prominent in his mind, when he 
numbered among his daily anxieties 'the care of all the 
churches*.' If so, he would despatch his letter to the Galatians 
as soon after as a suitable bearer could be found". 

1 2 Cor. xi. 28. by Conybeare and HowBon (n. p. 165, 

2 Thisinvestigationof thedateof the ed. 2), and by Bleek (Einl. in doe N. 
Galatian Epistle is taken from a paper T. pp. 418, 419); but otherwise it had 
which I published in the Journal of not found much favour. Since the 
Class, and Sacr. Philol. vol. iii. p. ajjipearance of my first edition it ap- 
189, altered in parts. The view here pears to have gained ground, 
maintained had also been advocated 



ri^HE Epistle to the Galatians has escaped unchallenged Getmine- 
-*- amid the sweeping proscriptions of recent criticism. Its disputed. 
every sentence so completely reflects the life and character of 
the Apostle of the Gentiles that its genuineness has not been 
seriously questioned*. 

Any laboured discussion of this subject would therefore 
be out of place. Yet it will be worth while to point to a 
single instance, as showing the sort of testimony which may be 
elicited from the epistle itself 

The account of St Paul's relations with the Apostles of the Internal 
Circumcision has a double edge, as an evidential weapon. On 
the one hand, as an exhibition of the working of the Apostle's 
mind, it lies far beyond the reach of a forger in an age 
singularly unskilled in the analysis and representation of the 
finer shades of character. The suppressed conflict of feeling, 
the intermingling of strong protest and courteous reserve, 
the alternation of respectful concession and uncompromising 
rebuke — ^the grammar being meanwhile dislocated and the 
incidents obscured in this struggle of opposing thoughts — such 
a combination of features reflects one mind alone, and can 
have proceeded but from one author. On the other hand, 
looking at the passage as a narrative of events, it seems wholly 
impossible that the conceptions of a later age should have 
taken this form. The incidents are too fragmentary and in- 
1 One exception is recorded, which may serve to point a moral. 





direct, they are almost smothered in the expression of the 
writer's feelings, there is altogether a want of system in the 
narrative wholly unlike the story of a romancer. Nor indeed 
would it serve any conceivable purpose which a forger might 
be supposed to entertain. The Gnostic, who wished to advance 
his antipathy to Judaism under cover of St Paul's name, would 
have avoided any expression of deference to the Apostles of 
the Circumcision. The Ebionite would have shrunk with 
loathing from any seeming depreciation of the cherished cus- 
toms or the acknowledged leaders of his race, as the tone of 
the author of the Clementines shows'. The Catholic writer, 
forging with a view to 'conciliation,' would be more unlikely 
than either to invent such a narrative, anxious as he would 
be to avoid any appearance of conflict between the two great 
teachers of the Church. The very unevenness of the incidents 
is the surest token of their authenticity. 

On the other hand, the external evidence, though not very 
considerable, is perhaps as great as might be expected from 
the paucity of early Christian literature, and the nature of the 
few writings still extant. 

I. The Apostolic Fathers in whose ears the echoes of the 
Apostle's voice still lingered, while blending his thoughts 
almost insensibly with their own, were less likely to quote 
directly from his written remains. Allusions and indirect cita- 
tions are not wanting. 

Clement's words (§2) 'His sufferings were before your eyes' 
with the implied rebuke may perhaps be a faint reflection of 
Gal. iii. i. 

In the second so-called Epistle ascribed to Clement (§ 2), 
which though not genuine is a very early work. Is. liv. i is 
quoted and applied as in Gal. iv. 27. 

The seven genuine Epistles of Ignatius contain several coinci- 
dences with this epistle. 

Polyc. § I, 'Bear all men, as the Lord beareth thee... Bear the 
ailments of all men,' resembles Gal. vi. 2. (See however Matth. 
viii. 17, Rom. xv. i.) 

Romans § 7, 'My passion is crucified,' recalls Gal. v. 24, vi. 14. 

^ See p. Gi. 


PMlad. § I, of the commission of the bishop, 'not of himself or 
through men but in the love of the Lord Jesus Christ' is an 
obvious reflexion of Gal. i. i. 

Bomans § 2, 'I would not have you to be men-pleasers, but to 
please God,' resembles Gal. i. 10. 

Ephes. § 18; 'The Cross a stumblingblock' may be a reminiscence 
of Gal. ii. 21. 

In Ephes. § 16 the expression 'shall not inherit the kingdom 
of God' is probably derived from Gal. v. 21. 
Compare also 

Trail. § lo with Gal. ii. 21. 

Mag ties. § 5 with Gal. v. 6. 

Magnes. § 8 with Gal. v. 4. 

Smyrn. § 10 with Gal. iv. 14. 
PoLTCAEP more than once adopts the language of this epistle ; 
c. 3 'Builded up unto the faith given you, "which is the 
mother of us all," ' from Gal. iv. 26. 

c. 5 'Knowing then that' "God is not mocked," we ought, etc' 
from Gal. vi. 7. 

0. 6 'Zealous in what is good,' may be taken from Gal. iv. 18; 
comp. Tit. ii. 14, i Pet. iii. 13 (v. 1.). 

c. 1 2 ' Qui credituri sunt in Dominum nostrum et Deum Jesum 
Christum et in ipsius patrem, qui resuscitavit eum a mortuis,' 
resembles Gal. i. i ; comp. Rom. iv. 24. 

2. The Miscellaneous Writings of the Subapostolio Age Other 
present one or two vague resemblances on which no stress can of suLapo- 
belaid. stoiioiige. 

Babnabas. a passage in the epistle bearing his name, c. 19, 
' Thou shalt communicate in aU things with thy neighbour,' re- 
flects Gal. vi. 6. 

Heemas (c. 140 A.D. ?) Sim. ix. 13 has ' They that have believed 
in God through His Son and put on these spirits.' Comp. Gal. iii. 
26, 27. 

3. The Epistle to the Galatians is found in all the known Canons of 
Canons of Scripture proceeding from the Catholic Church in the °"^ 

1 The expression 'tnowing that' scriptures or in any other extant 

(eiWres oVt) in Polyoarp seems to be a writing, they seem in force and point 

form of citation. In 0. i it introduces so far above the level of Polycarp's 

a passage from Ephes. ii. 8, in 0. 4 one own manner, that I can scarcely doubt 

from 1 Tim. vi. 7. It occurs once that he is quoting the language of one 

again in 0. 6, 'knowing that we all are greater than himself. They ring al- 

debtors of sin.' Though these words most like a sentence of St Paul, 
are not found either in the Canonical 



second century. It is contained in the Syriac and Old Latin 
versions, completed, it would appear, some time before the 
close of the century. It is distinctly recogn^ed also iu the 
Canon of the Mueatorian Fragment (probably not later than 
170 A.D.). 

Apolo- 4. The Apologists, writing for unbelievers, naturally avoided 

direct quotations from the sacred writers, which would carry no 
weight of authority with those they addressed. Their testimony 
therefore is indirect. 

The Epistle to Diognetus, c. 4, has the expression, ' The ob- 
servance {vapanqprjo-Lv) of months and of days,' derived ap- 
parently from Gal. iv. 10, 'Ye observe (iropariypeMj-fie)- days and 
months etc' In another passage, cc. 8, 9, the writer repro- 
duces many of the thoughts of the Epistles to the Galatians 
and JRomans. 

Justin Martyr seems certainly to have known this epistle'. In 
the Dial. c. Tryph. cc. 95, 96, he quotes consecutively the two 
passages, ' Cursed is eveiy one that continueth not, etc' (Deut. 
xxvii. 26), and 'Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree' 
(Deut. xxi. 23), and applies them as they are appUed in Gal. 
iii. 10, 13. Moreover, he introduces the first in language closely 
resembUng that of St Paul, ' Every race of men will be found 
under a curse (utto Karapav) according to the law of Moses ' ; and 
cites both passages exactly as St Paul cites them, though they 
diflfer both from the Hebrew and the lxx °. Again in the Apol. 
I. 53, Justin applies Isaiah liv. i, 'Rejoice, thou barren, etc' 
exactly as St Paul applies it in Gal. iv. 27. See the notes on 
iii. 10, 13, 28, iv. 27. 

Melito in a passage in the ' Oration to Antoninus,' lately dis- 
covered in a Syriac translation', uses language closely resembling 
Gal. iv. 8, 9. 

* Inc. 5oftheOrat.a(iGfraeco«,often toB vbnov tov it. airi, for the txx 

ascribed to Justin and generally as- (which is nearer to the Hebrew) jrSs 6 

signed to the second century, there are avBpoyiros Sans oix ifn/i. iv irainv tois 

two indirect q^notations frona this epi- Xo7ots toD c. toiJtou tov it. adroiSs : in 

Btle, iv. 12 and v. 20, 21. A recension Deut. xxi. 23, 'EirucaTdpoTos irSs, where 

of this treatise however, discovered of the lxx, following the Hebrew, has 

late years in a Syriac translation (Cure- Kexariipaiiims iirh GeoO iras. 
ton's Spicil. Syr. p. 61), bears the ^ Curetou's Spicil. Syr. p. 49, Spi- 

name of Ambrose, by whom proba- eil. Solesm. n. p. t. The authorship 

bly is meant the friend and pupil of however is doubted; see Otto Apol. 

Origen. Christ, ix. p. 460. A close parallel to 

' lu Dent, xxvii. 26, 8s oix inn. iv Gal. iv. 8 appears also in 'the doctrine 

iraa-iv rots yeypaixiiinois iv Tif pi^Xitf of AddsBUs' (Cureton's Anc. Syr. Doc. 


Athenagoras, Suppl. c. i6, speaks of sinking do-wti 'to the weak 
and beggarly elements,' quoting from Gal. iv. 9. 

5. The evidence oi Heretical writers, while it is more direct, Heretical 
is also more important, as showing how widely the epistle was 
received. Most of the references quoted below seem to belong 

to the first half of the century. 

The Ophites appear to have made great use of this epistle. 
Several direct quotations from it were found in their writings ; 
e.g. Gal. iv. 26, see Hippol. Haeres. v. 7, p. 106; Gal. iv. 27, 
see Hippol. v. 8, p. 114; Gal. iii. 28, vi. 15, see Hippol. v. 7, 
p. 99. 

Justin, the Gnostic, alludes to Gal. v. 17 : Hippol. v. 26, p. 155. 

The "Valentinians made use of it, Iren. i. 3. 5. A comment on 
Gal. vi. 14 is given by Irenseus from their writings, apparently 
from the works of Ptolemseus'. 

Marciok included it in his Canon and attached great import- 
ance to it. See p. 36, note i. Oomp. also the note on iii. 19. 

Tatian recognised it, quoting vi. 8 in support of his ascetic 
views : Hieron. Comm. ad Gal. ad loc.^ 

6. Neither is thei testimony of Adversaries of the second Adveraa- 
century wanting to the authenticity of this epistle. Paul_ 

Celsus, writing against the Christians, says contemptuously, 
' Men who differ so widely among themselves and inveigh against 
each other most shamefully in their quarrels, may all be heard 
using the words (\ey6vT<av to) " The world is crucified unto me 
and I unto the world." ' (Gal. vi. 14.) ' This is the only sentence,' 
adds Origen, 'that Celsus seems to have recollected from Paul' 
(Orig. c. Gels. v. 64). 

The Ebionite Adthoe op the Clementine Homilies, writing 
in a spirit of bitter hostility to St Paul, who is covertly attacked 
in the person of Simon Magus, represents St Peter addressing 
Simon thus, ' Thou hast confronted and withstood me (evavTtos 
dvdeaTTjKa.'s /xot). If thou hadst not been an adversary, thou 
wouldest not have calumniated and reviled my preaching... If 
thou callest me condemned {KaTsyvaa-fi.ii'ov), thou accusest God 

p. g); but this may be accidental, as fin., and comp. Westcott Canon, p. 

there is no other recognition of St Paul 304 (ed. 4). 

in the work. In another document of ^ To this list should be added Theo- 

the same collection (p. 56) there is dotus, Bxc. ap. Clem. Alex. c. 53, p. 

seemingly a reference to Gal. vi. 17. 982 (Potter), where Gal. iii. 19, 20 is 

See also Clem. Horn. ix. i. quoted: but the date and authorship 

' See the Latin of Iren. i. 8. 5 ad of these excerpts are uncertain. 




and Ter- 

who revealed Christ to me'; Horn. xvii. 19. See Gal. ii. 11, to 
which the allusion is obvious, and from which even the expres- 
sions are taken. Again, where Simon is accused of ' allegorizing 
the words of the law to suit his own purpose' (ii. 22), we can 
hardly mistake the reference to Gal. iv. 21 sq. In a third 
passage also St Peter maintaining the observance (■TrapaTrjprjcriv) 
complains that ' One who had learnt from the tradition of Moses, 
blaming the people for their sins, contemptuously called them 
sons of new-moons and sabbaths' (xix. 22): comp. Gal. iv. 10. 
Other resemblances, noted in Lagarde's edition (p. 31), are less 
striking: viii. 4 to Gal. i. 6; xviii. 21 to Gal. i. 8; viii. 18 
(St' dyyeX-ov vofjLOi lapLO-Or]) to Gal. iii. 19; ix. I to Gal. iv. 8. See 
more on this subject in the dissertation on 'St Paul and the 
Three ' at the end of this volume. 

7. Of Apocryphal Acts relating to St Paul one extant 

work at least seems to date from the second century : 

Acts of Paul and Thecla § 40 (apparently the work referred 
to by Tertullian, de Baptism. § 17). The sentence, 'For he that 
wrought with thee unto the Gospel wrought with me also unto 
baptism,' is moulded on Gal. ii. 8. 

8. Owing to the nature of the earliest Christian writings, 
the testimony hitherto brought forward has been for the most 
part indirect. As soon as a strictly Theological literature 
springs up in the Church, we find the epistle at once quoted 
distinctly and by name. This is the case with the writers of 
the close of the second century, Iren^eus, Clement of Alex- 
andria and Tertullian. From their position as representa- 
tives of widely separate branches of the Church, and their 
manner of quotation, which shows that the writings thus 
cited were recognised and authoritative, the importance of their 
testimony is much greater than might be inferred from their 
comparatively late date\ 

^ In compiling this account of the 
external evidence in favour of the epi- 
stle I have made use of Lardner's Cre- 
dibility, of Kirohhofer's Quellensamm- 

lung, and especially of Westeott's His- 
tory of the Canon. I have however 
gone over the ground independently, 
and added to the references. 



XN discussing the relation of this epistle to the contem- 
■*- poraneous letters, I have dwelt on those features which it 
shares in common with them. It remains to point out some 
characteristics which are peculiarly its own. 

I. The Epistle to the Galatians is especially distinguished Unity of 
among St Paul's letters by its unity of purpose'. The Galatian l""P°^®' 
apostasy in its double aspect, as a denial of his own authority 
and a repudiation of the doctrine of grace, is never lost sight 
of from beginning to end. The opening salutation broaches 
this twofold subject. The name 'Paul' has no sooner passed 
from his lips, than he at once launches into it. The long 
historical explanation which succeeds is instinct with this 
motive in all its details. The body of the letter, the doctrinal 
argument, is wholly occupied with it. The practical exhorta- 
tions which follow all or nearly all flow from it, either as 
cautions against a rebound to the opposite extreme, or as sug- 
gesting the true rule of life of which the Galatians were following 
the counterfeit. Lastly, in the postscript he again brings it 
prominently forward. The two closing sentences reflect the 
twofold aspect of the one purpose, which has run through 
the letter. 'Henceforth let no man trouble me. The grace 
of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.' Thus his last 

' Ewald Paulm, p. 55, ' Kein ande- keines ergiesst sioh wie dieses in einem 
res sendsohroiben ist so sehr wie dieses machtig stiirmischen aber unaufhalt- 
aus einem gedanken entspruugen, und samen und ununterbrochenen strome.* 


words echo his first: 'Paul an Apostle not from men'; 'God 
who called you in the grace of Christ.' 
Contrast In this respect it contrasts strongly with the two letters 

a°lied *° Corinth with which it possesses so many features in common, 
epistles. Li^g the First Epistle to the Corinthians, it was written with 
an immediate purpose to correct actual errors. But the differ- 
ence is striking. The factions at Corinth were manifold, the 
irregularities were irregularities of detail not founded on any 
one broad principle of error, and the epistle necessarily reflects 
this varied character. Like the Second Epistle to the Corinth- 
ians again, it is a complete reflection of the Apostle's inner 
life. Yet the contrast is not less marked than before. In the 
one epistle he pours out his feelings without restraint, recurring 
to his own experiences, his own sorrows, freely and without any 
definite purpose. In the other the mention of himself is 
always subordinated to the purpose of the letter; however 
tumultuous may be the workings of his soul, they are all forced 
into this one channel. He never speaks of himself but to 
enforce the authority of his oflfice or the liberty of the Gospel. . 
Its BUS- 2. The sustained severity of this epistle is an equally 

severhiy characteristic feature with its unity of purpose. The Galatians 
are not addressed as the 'saints in Christ,' 'the faithful bre- 
thren.' The Apostle has no congratulations, no word of praise, 
1 for this apostate Church. Even on the Corinthians, in spite 
1 of all their shortcomings, he could lavish expressions of com- 
mendation and love. But the case is different here. The 
' charity which ' hopeth against hope ' seems to be strained to 
the utmost. For this once only the pervading type of his 
epistles is abandoned in the omission of the opening thanksr 
giving. The argument is interrupted every now and then by 
an outburst of indignant remonstrance. He is dealing with 
a thoughtless half-barbarous people. They have erred like 
children, and must be chastised like children. Rebuke may 
prevail where reason will be powerless. 

The body of the letter seems to have been written by an 
amanuensis, but the final sentences were in the Apostle's own 


handwriting. It was his wont to add a few words at the close Postscript 
of his epistles, either to vouch for their authorship, or to im- paui's 
press some truth more strongly on his readers. Here the °'^'^ i^B,ni, 
urgency of the case leads him to do more. In a few eager 
rugged sentences he gives an epitome of the contents of the 
epistle*. These sentences are condensed beyond thfe ordinary 
compression of the Apostle's style. The language almost bursts 
with the surcharge of feeling. The very forms of the letters 
too bear witness to his intense earnestness. He writes in large 
bold characters to arrest the eye and rivet the mind. He has 
been accused of vacillation. There has been no want of firm- 
ness in the tone of the letter, and there shall be none in the 
handwriting. No man can henceforth question or misapprehend 
the Apostle's meaning. 

A rough analysis of the epistle separates it into three Threefold 
sections of two chapters each, the first couplet (i, ii) containing 'ii"'^^'°°- 
the personal or narrative portion, the second (iii, iv) the argu- 
mentative or doctrinal, and the third (v, vi) the hortatory 
or practical. It will be borne in mind however, that in a 
writer like St Paul any systematic arrangement must be more 
or less artificial, especially where, as in the present instance, he 
is stirred by deep feelings and writes under the pressure of 
an urgent necessity. The main breaks however, occurring at 
the end of the second and fourth chapters, suggest this three- 
fold division; and though narrative, argument, and exhortation, 
are to some extent blended together, each portion retains for 
the most part its own characteristic form. 

The following is a more exact analysis of the contents of the 

I, Personal, chiefly in the form of a narrative. Analysis 

1. The salutation and ascription of praise so worded as to in- epistle, 
troduce the main subject of the letter (i. i — 5). 

2. The Apostle rebukes the Galatians for their apostasy, de- 
nounces the false teachers, and declares the eternal truth of 
the Gospel which he preached (i. 6 — 10). 

^ Gal. Ti. XI — 18. See the notes on wiiXIkois •ypdiifuuTiy (ypa\j/a, 


Analysis 3. This Gospel came directly from God. 

epistle. W -^^ received it by special revelation (i. ii, 12). 

(ii) His previous education indeed could not have led up to 
it, for he was brought up in principles directly opposed to 
the liberty of the Gospel (i. 13, 14). 

(iii) Nor could he have learnt it from the Apostles of the 
Circuincision, for he kept aloof from them for some time 
after his conversion (i. 15 — 17). 

(iv) And when at last he visited Jerusalem, his intercourse 
with them was neither close nor protracted, and he re- 
turned without being known even by sight to the mass of 
the believers (i. 18 — 24). 

(v) He visited Jerusalem again, it is true, after a lapse of 
years, but he carefully maintained his independence. He 
associated with the Apostles on terms of friendly equality. 
He owed nothing to them (ii. i — 10). 

(vi) Nay more: at Antioch he rebuked Peter for his incon- 
sistency. By yielding to pressure from the ritualists, 
Peter was substituting law for grace, and so denying 
the fundamental principle of the Gospel (ii. 11 — 21). 

[This incident at Antioch forms the link of connexion between 
the first and second portions of the epistle. The error of the 
Galatians was the same with that of the formalists whom 
St Peter had countenanced. Thus St Paul passes insensibly 
from the narrative to the doctrinal statement.] 

II. Doctrinal, mostly argumentative. 

1. The Galatians are stultifying themselves. They are sub- 
stituting the flesh for the Spirit, the works of the law for 
the obedience of faith, forgetting the experience of the past 
and violating the order of progress (iiL i — 5). 

2. Yet Abraham was justified by faith, and so must it be with 
the true children of Abraham (iii. 6 — 9). 

3. The law, on the contrary, so far from justifying, did but 
condemn, and from this condemnation Christ rescued us 
(iii. 10 — 14). 

4. Thus He fulfilled the promise given to Abraham, which 
being prior to the law could not be annulled by it (iiL 

5. If so, what was the purpose of the law? (iii. 19). 

(i) It was an inferior dispensation, given as a witness against 
sin, a badge of a state of bondage, not as contrary to, but 
as preparing for, the Gospel (iii. 19 — 23). 

(ii) And so through the law we are educated for the freedom 
of the Gospel (iii. 24 — 29). 


(iii) Thus under the law we were in our lionage, but now Analysis 
we are our own masters (iv. i — 7). of the 

^iv) Yet to this state of tutelage the Galatians are bent on 
returning (iv. 8 — 11). 

At this point the argument is broken off, while the 
Apostle reverts to his personal relations with his con- 
verts, and reprobates the conduct of the false teachers 
(iv. 12 — 20). 

6. The law indeed bears witness against itself. The relation 
of the two covenants of law and of grace, with the triumph 
of the latter, are typified by the history of Hagar and Sarah, 
The son of the bondwoman must give place to the son of the 
free (iv. 21 — 31). 

'We are the children of the free.' This word 'free' is the 
link of connexion with the third part of the epistle. 

III. HoETATOET. Practical applications. 

1. Hold fast by this freedom, which your false teachers are 
endangering (v. i — 12). 

2. But do not let it degenerate into Uoense. Love is the 
fulfilment of the law. Walk in the Spirit, and the Spirit 
wiU save you from licentiousness, as it saves you from 
formalism, both being carnal. Your course is plain. The 
works of the Spirit are easily distinguished from the works 
of the flesh (v. 13 — 26). 

3. Let me add two special injunctions : 

(i) Show forbearance and brotherly sympathy (vi. i — 5), 
(ii) Give Uberally (vi. 6 — 10). 
Conclusion in the Apostle's own handwriting (vi. 11). 

4. Once more: beware of the Judaizers, for they are insincere. 
I declare to you the true principles of the Gospel. Peace 
be to those who so walk (vi. 12 — 16). 

5. Let no man deny my authority, for I bear the brand of 
Jesus my Master (vi. 17). 

6. Farewell in Christ (vi 18). 

The armoury of this epistle has furnished their keenest Its place 
weapons to the combatants in the two greatest controversies ^n™^*™ 
which in modem times have agitated the Christian Church; ^^^y* 
the one a struggle for liberty within the camp, the other a war 
of defence against assailants from without; the one vitally 
affecting the doctrine, the other the evidences of the Gospel. 




Therefor- When Luther commenced his attack on the corruptions of 
the mediaeval Church, he chose this epistle as his most efficient 
engine in overthrowing the mass of error which time had piled 
on the simple foundations of the Gospel. His commentary on 
the Galatians was written and rewritten. It cost him more 
labour, and was more highly esteemed by him, than any of his 
works'. If age has diminished its value as an aid to the study 
of St Paul, it still remains and ever will remain a speaking 
monument of the mind of the reformer and the principles of 
the reformation. 

Eatiunal- Once again, in the present day, this epistle has been thrust 
into prominence by those who deny the divine origin of the 
Gospel. In this latter controversy however it is no longer to its 
doctrinal features, but to its historical notices, that attention 
is chiefly directed. 'The earliest form of Christianity,' it is 
argued, 'was a modified Judaism. The distinctive features of 
the system current under this name were added by St Paul 
There was an irreconcilable opposition between the Apostle of 
the Gentiles and the Apostles of the Jews, a personal feud 
between the teachers themselves and a direct antagonism be- 
tween their doctrines. After a long struggle St Paul pre- 
vailed, and Christianity — our Christianity — was the result.' The 
Epistle to the Galatians affords at once the ground for, and the 
refutation of, this view. It affords the ground, for it discovers 
the mutual jealousy and suspicions of the Jew and Gentile con- 
verts. It affords the refutation, for it shows the true relations 
existing between St Paul and the Twelve. It presents not 
indeed a colourless uniformity of feeling and opinion, but a far 
higher and more instructive harmony, the general agreement 
amidst some lesser differences and some human failings, of men 
animated by the same divine Spirit and working together for 
the same hallowed purpose, fit inmates of that Father's house 
in which are many mansions. 

1 ' The Epistle to the Galatians,' See Seokendorf de Lutheran, L. i. 
said Luther, 'is my epistle; I have § Ixxxv. p. 139. 
betrothed myself to it : it is my wife.' 



J%e old order changeth, yielding place to new. 
And God fulfils Himself in many ways. 



AYA02 aTToa-ToXos ovk air dv6poo7r(av oi/Se di dv- 
dpcoTTOV, dWa Bia 'Iricrov Xpiarov kui Qeou Trarjoos 

1—5. The two threads which run 
through this epistle — the defence of 
the Apostle's own authority, and the 
maintenance of the doctrine of grace 
— are knotted together in the opening 
salutation. By expanding his official 
title into a statement of his direct 
commission from God (rer. i), St Paul 
meets the personal attack of his op- 
ponents; by dwelling on the work of 
redemption in connexion with the 
name of Christ (ver. 4), he protests 
against their doctrinal errors. See 
the introduction, p. 63. 

' Paul an Apostle, whose authority 
does not flow from any human source, 
and whose oflice was uot conferred 
through any human mediation, but 
through Jesus Christ, yea through 
God the Father Himself who raised 
Him from the dead — together with 
all the brethren in my company — to 
the Chueohes op Galatl4, Grace the 
fountain of all good things, and peace 
the crown of all blessings, be unto you 
from God the Father and our Lord 
Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for 
our sins that He might rescue us 
from the tyranny of this present age 
with all its sins and miseries, accord- 
ing to the will of our God and Father, 
whose is the glory throughout all the 
ages. Amen.' 

I. OVK car' avOpdmav ov8e 81' avBpd- 
n-ou] 'not of men, nor yet by man.' 
The first preposition denotes the foun- 
tain-head whence the Apostle's autho- 
rity springs, the second the channel 
through which it is convoyed. Thus 
in the first clause he distinguishes 

himself from the false apostles, who 
did not derive their commission from 
God at all ; in the second he ranks 
himsolf with the Twelve, who were 
commissioned directly from God. The 
prepositions therefore retain their pro- 
per sense. Am, as distinguished from 
dir6, is used consistently in the New 
Testament to denote the means or 
instrument, especially as describing 
either (i) the operations of our Lord, 
as the Word of God, e.g. i Cor. viii. 6 
fir Kvpws 'iTjcrovs Xpurrbs 8t ov ra 
TTavTa, or (2) the human agency em- 
ployed in carrying out the divine pur- 
pose, e.g. I Cor. iii. 5 8iaKovoi. St' av 
enioTeva-aTe. The change of preposi- 
tion ('of,' 'by') in this passage carries 
with it the change of number also 
('men,' 'man'). Titles and offices 
which emanate from a body of men 
will be conferred by their single re- 
presentative. The acts of the Senate 
took effect through the prince, those 
of the Sanhedrin through the high- 
priest. The transition to the singular 
moreover, independently of its own 
fitness, would suggest itself in antici- 
pation of the clause 8ta 'Itjirov Xpiorov, 
which was to follow. 

dXKa Bia 'ItjcoC XptoToC] To what 
event does the Apostle here refer? 
When did he receive his commission 
from Christ Himself? In 1 Cor. ix. i, 
he speaks of his having 'seen the Lord 
Jesus,' as a token of his apostleship ; 
and this seems naturally to refer to 
the appearance on the way to Damas- 
cus, Acts ix. 3 sq. Prom this point of 
time therefore his commission dated. 



[I. 2, 3 

Tov eyeipavTOs avrov ck veKpwv, 'kui oi aw e/iioi wav- 
T6S dSeXcjyoi, TaT^ eKKXricr'iai^ t»js Ta\aTia<s. ^^api^ 
vfXLV Kal e'lprivri airo Qeov iraTpo^ kui Kvpiou rifxwv 'lr]aov 

It was essentially tliis revelation of 
our Lord wliich set him apart for his 
high office, though the outward inves- 
titure may have taken place through 
human agency at a later date : see 
Acts ix. IS — 17, xiii. 2, 3. The inter- 
vention of the prophets and Church 
of Antioch may perhaps have given a 
colouring to the false representation 
that he was an 'Apostle of men.' See 
p. 98. 

Koi 6eov Trarpos] It might be ex- 
pected that the first preposition (otto) 
would have been resumed here, as 
more appropriate. It is incorrect 
however to say that 8ia is loosely 
used ; for if there be any laxity of ex- 
pression, it is rather in the connexion 
of the sentences than in the use of the 
prepositions. At the same time the 
Apostle's language, as it stands, is 
more forcible. By including both 
clauses under the same preposition, he 
expresses with greater emphasis the 
directness of his divine commission. 
The channel of his authority (Sw) coin- 
cides with its source (dno). The point 
of the sentence would have been 
blunted by inserting otto. Nor indeed 
is the extension of 8ia to the second 
clause a violation of its strict nienn- 
ing, which is observed perhaps with 
greater precision in the New Testa- 
ment than elsewhere, owing to its re- 
cognised function, as describing the 
mediatorial office of the Son. 'Atto, 
though by far the most common, is 
not the only preposition which may 
be used in speaking of the' Father. 
He is the beginning, middle, and 
end of all His works (c| avrov xai 
St* avTov Koi fls avTov, Rom. xi. 36), 

and may therefore be regarded as the 
instrument, ho less than the source, 
in the fulfilment of His own purposes. 
This mode of expression will be a- 
dopted especially, whore the. writer is 

speaking of God's manifestation of 
Himself in some special act, as here 
in the raising of Jesus from the dead. 
Comp. iv. 7, 1 Cor. i. 9, and see Winer, 
Gramm. § xlvii. p. 473 sq. Marcion 
(Hieron. ad I.) cut the knot by omit- 
ting Koi eeoO narpos, and apparently 
reading iavTov for avTov. 

Here the Apostle's words are 'By 
Jesus Christ and God the Father': 
immediately after he vprites 'From 
God the Father, and our Lord Jesus 
Christ.' The one expression supple- 
ments the other : ' Thou, Father, in 
Me, and I in Thee' (John xviL 21). 

TOV cyeipavTot avrov tK V€Kpav] ' who 

raised Him from the dead.' This 
expression occurs elsewhere with a 
more general reference to Christian 
faith or Christian life : Horn. iv. 24, 
viii. II ; comp. I Cor. xv. 15. Here 
it has a special bearing on St Paul's 
apostleship, as the context shows. 'I 
was commissioned by the risen and 
glorified Lord : I am in all respects an 
Apostle, a qualified witness of His 
resurrection, and a signal instance of 
His power.' 

2. 01 aiiv ifiol iravTcs aSfX^oi] ' oU 

the brethren who are with me.' Pro- 
bably the small band of his fellow- 
travellers is meant. See Phil. iv. 21, 
where he distinguishes ' the brethren 
who are with him' from 'all the 
saints,' i.e. from the resident members 
of the Church of Rome from" which 
he is writing. For the bearing of this 
phrase on the date of the epistle, see 
p. 55. This company perhaps included 
Timothy (2 Cor. i. i) and Erastus 
(Acts xix. 22). He may also at this 
time have been rejoined by Titus with 
the two brethren from Corinth (2 Cor. 
viii. 16 — 24), and may have had with 
him besides some of those who accom- 
panied him afterwards on his return 
to Asia, as Tychicus and Trophimus 




ovTOi eauTou irept Tav ccfxapTicov i^fiwUy 

XpirrTOu, ^TOv So 

OTTftj? e^iXrirai i]fxa^ eK tou aiwi/os tov eVeo-TaJros Trovrj- 

4. iirif) Twv i,ij,apnCiip, 

for instance (Acts xx. 4, 5), if indeed 
they are not to be identified with the 
two brethren already mentioned. 

The patristic writers, followed by 
several modern commentators, see in 
this expression a desire on the part of 
the Apostle to fortify his teaching by 
the sanction of others : ' Faciens eis 
pudorem, quod contra omnes sentiunt,' 
says Victorinus. Such a motive seems 
alien to the whole spirit of this epistle, 
in which all human authority is set 
aside. The Apostle in fact dismisses 
the mention of his companions as ra- 
pidly as possible in one general ex- 
pression. He then returns to the 
singular, '/marvel,' which he retains 
throughout the epistle. Paul's autho- 
rity has been challenged, and Paul 
alone answers the challenge. 

Tois fKieKrialats Trjs VaKarias] 'to the 
Churches qf Galatia.' On this mode 
of address, as marking the earlier 
epistles, see I Thess. i. i. The abrupt- 
ness of the language here is remark- 
able. Elsewhere the Apostle adds 
some words of commendation. The 
Church of the Thessalonians, for in- 
stance, is ' in God the Father and the 
Lord Jesus Christ' (i Thess. i. i, 
2 Thess. i. i) : that of the Corinthians is 
composed of those 'sanctified in Christ 
Jesus, called to be saints' (i Cor. i. 2, 
comp. 2 Cor. i. i). The omission of 
a,ny expression of praise in addressing 
the Galatians shows the extent of 
their apostasy ; see p. 64. 

3. x^P'^ ''/*''' '"'' ^'f"/""?' ''•''■■'^•] On 
this form of salutation see the notes 
I Thess. i. i. 

4. rov SovTos iavTov, K.r.\.] 'who 
gave Himself for our sins' A decla- 
ration of the true ground of accept- 
ance with God. The Galatians had 
practically ignored the atoning death 
of Christ: comp. ii. 21, v. 4. 

Iff pi Tav a/iapTiav] The MSS here, as 

in several other passages, are divided 
between mpl and virep, though here 
'the balance of authority is perhaps in 
favour of wepi. Generally it may be 
said that Trepl is used of things, vvrip 
of persons, as i Pet. iii. 18 Sri k<u 
Xpc<TTOs ana^ TTf pi dpaprtwv cmidavev 
SUaios virep aSUav, but exceptions 
are very numerous, and in Heb. v. 3 
we have nepl iavrov wpotr^fpciv jrepl 
aiiapTiav (not virep a/iapTiav, as some 
read), though just before (ver. i) the 
expression used is irpoa-(t>epjj virkp apap- 
Tiav. Where n-epl is used of persons, 
it is frequently explained by some 
clause added, e.g. Matt. xxvi. 28 to 
irepi iroWav fKxvvvojjtevov eli a(f)ea-iu 
ajMapTiav. With this compare the par- 
allel passages Luke xxii. 19, 20 (virep 
vpMv),, Mark xiv. 24 (virep iroXhau, the 
correct reading), where there is no 
explanatory clause. All this follows 
from the meaning of the prepositions, 
virep having a sense of 'interest in,' 
which is wanting to irepi. The dis- 
tinction is marked in Ath^nag. Resurr. 
I, \6yav hiTTwv TWV /lev irrep t^s aXi;- 
Oelas TOV 5e irep\ Trjs dXT/deias k.t.\. 
(comp. § 11). Neither conveys the 
idea of a vicarious act (wtCj, though 
such will frequently appear in the 
context. On virep and irep\ see Winer 
§ xlvii. p. 479, and especially Wieseler's 
note here. 

e'le'XijTai] 'deliver' strikes the key- 
note of the epistle. The Gospel is a 
rescue, an emancipation from a state 
of bondage. See esp. iv. 9, 31,7. i, 13. 

TOV al&vos TOV eveararos irovripov] the 
correct reading, in which the detached 
position oiiromipov is emphatic: 'with 
all its evils.' Comp. Arist. Hth. Nic. 
i. 13 Koi yap rdyaShv dvOpdirivov 
e^rjTovpev Kai ttju evSaipoviav dvBpta- 
irivtjv, Polit. ii. 9 Tav y' aStKruidrav 
cKova-iav to TrXeiora (rvn^alvet k.t.X. 
The reading of the received text, tou 




pov KUTa TO deXrifxa tov Qeov kul -rraTpoi i^/j-wv ^ih jj 
Zopa eU Tous aiwva^ twv alaivwv' d/ujj'i/. 

ivftTTaros alcivos wovrjpov, is gramma- 
tically simpler, but less forcible. 

The author of the Clementines, who 
was certainly acquainted with this 
epistle (see p. 6i), seems to have St 
Paul's expression in mind, Epist. Clem. 
I, €7Ti TOV ivetTT&Tos irovTjpov TOV eVo- 
ftevop dyaBov o\to Ta Kotrfx^ firjwa-as 
^aa-iXea (where alavos found in some 
texts after ironipov is evidently an in- 
terpolation). If so, he appears to have 
interpreted the words 'from the aeon, 
the dominion, of the present evil one' : 
comp. I John v. 19 o Kotrjiot o\os iv 
T& iromjpoi xfirat, Barnab. § 2. At all 
events a possible interpretation is thus 
suggested. Comp. Polyb. xviii. 38. S 
TOV fveirraTa 0ainX4a, 

TOV alavos tov ivcaraTos] The pre- 
sent transitory world, elsewhere o mv 
aidv, e.g. I Tim. vi. 17, 6 aldv tov k6(t- 
fiov TovTov Bphes. ii. 2, and most fre- 
quently o alav ovTos, e.ff. Rom. xii. 2, as 
opposed to the other world, the world 
of eternity, 6 almv ckeivos Luke xx. 35, 
o alav 6 epxo/ifvos Luke viii. 20, alav 
/icXXuv Hebr. vi. 5, and often in the 
plural, ol alaves ot firepxa/ievoi Ephes. 
ii. 7, 01 alaves Tav alavav, and 01 alavts 
simply. This age, this worid, is under 
a 'god' (2 Cor. iv. 4) or 'rulers' (i 
Cor. ii. 6) of its own, who are opposed 
to the Eternal God, the King of the 
ages, 6 /Sao-iXevf Tav aldvav, I Tim. i. 
17. See especially Bphes. ii. 2 — 7, and 
comp. [Clem. Eom.] ii. § 6 tiTTiv 8i 
OVTOS 6 alav Koi 6 /ieXXooi/ Svo i\6poL 
The Apostles speak of themselves and 
their generation as living on the fron- 
tier of two aeons, the Gospel trans- 
ferring them as it were across the bor- 
der. The distinction of time between 
the two, which is the primary distinc- 
tion, becomes lost in the moral and 
spiritual conception. 

It has been proposed to take ive- 
a-ras here in the sense of 'impending,' 
as referring to the final apostasy. In 

other passages however iveoTara is 
plainly 'present' as opposed to /itX- 
\ovTa 'future,' Rom. viii. 38, i Cor. iii. 
22 (comp. Heb. ix. 9), in accordance 
with the sense it bears in the language 
of grammar, where 6 xpovos 6 ivecrras 
is 'the present tense.' Comp. Philo 
de Plant. Noe ii. § 27, p. 346 m rpt- 
fiepovs xpo""") or (Is tov irapekrjKvBoTa 
Koi ivenTaTa Koi /leWovra rcfivecrOai 
iti<i>vKev. Even in passages where it 
seems at first sight to have the sens^ 
' impending, soora to come,' as in i Cor. 
vii. 26 fiia TTjv €ve<TTm(rav dvayiojVf 
2 Thess. ii. 2 evda-Tj/Kev 77 ^/lepa, its 
proper meaning is more appropriate. 

Kara to fleXij^a] ' by the will of GodP 
and not by our own merits. St Paul 
is still insisting on the dispensation of 
grace impugned by the false teachers. 
Compare tov KoKiaavros, ver. 6. 

TOV Qeov Koi waTpos i)fii3»] Comp. 
Phil, iv, 20. Does ^p,av refer te Qeoo 
as well as narpos, 'Our God and Fa- 
ther'? On the whole this seems pro- 
bable; for the article, not being neces- 
sary before Qtov, seems to be added 
to bind the two clauses together and 
connect both with ^nav. The same 
construction is justified in the case of 
the similar expression, o eeos rai jrarfify 
'Itjo-oC Xpurrov (2 Cor. i. 3, Ephes. i. 3), 
by John xx. 17, 'I ascend to my Fa- 
ther and your Father, and to my God 
and your God.' See Fritzsche on Rom. 
III. p. 233. In ver. i the word ' Fa- 
ther' refers especially though not 
solely to Christ, in ver. 4 to mankind, 
while in ver. 3 it seems to be used 

5. Speaking of the mercy of God, 
as shown in man's redemption through 
the death of Christ, the Apostle bursts 
out in an ascription of praise. ' In- 
finitis beneflciis infinita gloria debe- 
tur,' says Pelagius. For similar out- 
bursts of thanksgiving see Rom. vii. 25, 
ix. 5, xi. 36, 2 Cor. ix. 15, Ephes. iii. 20. 




Qavfxa^co oTt oi/Ttos Tay^ews /j.eTciTidea'de dwo tov 
KoXea-avTO^ vfias iv )(^(ipiTi Xpurrov ets eTepov evay- 

ij 86^a] 'the glory, which is pre-emi- 
nently such, the glory which belongs 
to him': comp. Joh. xvii. 5. The 
article is almost universally found 
with 8o$a in these doxologies. Con- 
trast with this the absence of the arti- 
cle in Rom. ii. 10, i Cor. xi. 15. It is 
probable therefore that we should 
supply iariv in such cases rather than 
eoTO). ' It is an affirmation rather than 
a wish. Glory is the essential attri- 
bute of God. See i Pet. iv. 11 <p 
iarlv i) So^a xaj to Kparog, and the 
doxology added to the Lord's prayer, 
Matt. vi. 13. 

fit Tovs alavas r&v aldvcuv] 'for end- 
less ages,' opposed to the present finite 
and transitory age (ver. 4). Compare 
Ephes. il 2, 7, where this opposition 
is brought out more strongly. 

6 — 9. An indignant expression of 
surprise takes the place of the usual 
thanksgiving for the faith of his con- 
verts. This is the sole instance where 
St Paul omits to express his thank- 
fulness in addressing any church. See 
the introduction, p. 64. 

' I marvel that ye are so ready to 
revolt from God who called you, so 
reckless ia abandoning the dispensa- 
tion of grace for a difierent gospel. 
A different gospel, did I say ? Nay, 
it is not another. There caimot be 
two gospels. Only certain men are 
shaking your allegiance, attempting to 
pervert the Gospel of Christ. A vain 
attempt, for the Gospel perverted is 
no Gospel at all. Yea, though we 
ourselves or an angel from heaven 
(were it possible) should preach to 
you any other gospel than that which 
we have preached hitherto, let him 
be accursed. I have said this before, 
and I repeat it now. If any man 
preaches to you any other gospel than 
that which ye were taught by us, let 
him be accursed.' 

6. ovTutsTaxiasY so quickly.' If by 

'so quickly' we understand 'so soon,' 
it must mean 'so soon after your con- 
version,' as the words following show. 
For the bearing of this expression on 
the date of the epistle see p. 41. It 
is possible however that raxeias here 
may signify 'readily,' ' rashly,' i.e. quick- 
ly after the opportunity is offered, a 
sense which the present tense (/ifTari- 
BedOe) would facilitate. See i Tim. 
V. 22 x^Xpas Tafias /iriSevi iirvriBfi, 
2 Thess. ii. 2 ds to /ifi raxcas iraKev- 
Bfivai. In this case there will be no 
reference to any independent point of 

neTaTideo-de] 'are turning rene- 
gades'; the middle voice, as may bo 
seen from the passages quoted below. 
MfTorldea-Bai is used (i) of desertion 
or revolt, i.e. of military or political 
defection, as in Polyb. xxvL 2. 6 ra- 


64(rdai jrpos T^v 'Pafiaicnv mpfciv, and 
frequently (2) of a change in religion, 
philosophy, or morals, i Kings xxi. 
25 ds neTfdrjKev avrbv 'lefo^eX ij yvvff 
avTov, Iambi. Protrept. c. 17 /lera- 
6i(r0ai airo tov dirK^OTas Koi aKoXaa-- 
T<os txovTos filov cjrl TOV Koa-fiias. Dio- 
nysius of Heraclea, who from being a 
Stoic became an Epicurean, was called 
lieTadefifvo?, 'turncoat' (avriKpvs dwo- 
diis TOV Trjs dp€Trjs ;^trava avBiva iieTr)p,- 
4>iaa-aTo Athen. vli p. 281 d). The 
word is frequently used however of 
'conversion' in a good sense, as in 
Justin Apol. IL pp. 83 B, 91 D, etc. 

TOV KoKiiravTos vjms iv ^ap'"] 'Him 
who called you in grace.' St Paul 
here states the distinctive features of 
the true Gospel which the Galatians 
had set aside: first, as regards its 
source, that conversion comes of God 
('Him that called you') and not of 
themselves ; and secondly, as regards 
the instrument, that it is a covenant 
of grace, not of works. For the omis- 
sion of GeoB, see the note on i. ij. 




yeXiov, ''o ovk eariv otWo, el fxyj Ttj/e's elcriu ol Tapacr- 
(Tovre's Ujua? Kai 6e\ouTe^ ineTao'Tpe'^ai to evayyeXiov 

Xpurrov] is generally omitted in the 
Latin authorities, while some others 
read 'hjaov Xpiarov, Xptorov 'li/o-ou, 
and even etoC. All these may possi- 
bly have been glosses to explain tov 
KaXio-avTos. Certainly the passage 
seems to gain in force by the omission. 
The implied antithesis between the 
true gospel of grace and the false gos- 
pel of works thus stands out in bolder 
relief: comp. Ephes. ii. 8 tj p^aptri ta-Tt 
(TetraxTfifvoi. It is found however in 
the best mss, and is supported by such 
passages as Acts xv. 1 1, Sia t^s x"/"- 
Tos TOV Kvpiov 'hjiTov intTTevajKv tra- 
Bfjvai,. If retained, it must be taken 
after ^apiTt, and not vrith tov KoKcaav- 
ros as in the Peshito, for o KoKea-as 
in 8t Paul's language is always the 

6, 7- fls eTfpov €vayy., /c.t.X.] 'to a 
second, a different gospel, which is 
not amoiher.' This is not an admis- 
sion in favour of the false teachers, as 
though they taught the one Gospel, 
however perverted (comp. Phil. i. 15, 
18). Sach a concession would be quite 
alien to the spirit of this passage. ' It 
is not another gospel,' the Apostle 
says, 'for there cannot be two gospels, 
and as it is not the same, it is no 
gospel at all.' The relative 5 cannot 
without harshness be referred to any- 
thing else but crepov evayyeXiov. 

mpov] implies a difference of kind, 
which is not involved in aWo. The 
primary distinction between the words 
appears to be, that aWos is another 
as 'one besides,' erepos another as 
'one of two.' The ftindamental sense 
of erepos is most clearly marked in its 
compounds, as iTspotjiBaKiios, 'one- 
eyed.' Thus aXKoi adds, while erepor 
distinguishes. Now when our atten- 
tion is confined to two objects, we 
naturally compare and contrast them ; 
hence erepoi gets to signify 'unlike, 
opposite,' as Xen. Cyrop. viii. 3. 8 

ffv pmi (coTijyopiyoTjr elcavBis Srav 

&iaKoua, mpat fioi XP^'HI S'QKOi'a), i.e. 
' changed,' wliere aXXm could not stand. 
In Exod. i. 8 avian) Se ^criXevs mpos 
eV Ai-yuTTToi/, it is a translation of 
E'ln 'novus'; and the idea of differ- 
ence is frequently prominent in the 
word as used in the lxx. Thus while 
aWos is generally confined to a nega- 
tion of identity, mpos sometimes im- 
plies the negation of resemblance. See 
2 Cor. xi. 4, where the two words are 
used appropriately, as they are here. 
In many cases however they will be 
interchangeable: comp. Matt, xi 3 
with Luke vii. 20. Hesychius explains 
erepov' aXKov' ^ aXXoIoi'' rj ev rolvSvoiv' 
^ apuTTfpov, veov, heiTepov. 

7. tl p.ri Tives, K.7-.X.] 'Only in this 
sense is it another gospel, in that it 
is an attempt to pervert the one true 
Gospel.' El firj seems always to retain, 
at least in this stage of the language, 
its proper exceptive sense, and is not 
simply oppositive, though it frequent- 
ly approaches nearly to aKKa; see the 
note on i. 19. Here the following 0i- 
XovTes, which is slightly emphatic ('at- 
tempting to, though without success'), 
justifies the exception taken by « /iij. 

Tiveg eltriv 01 rapdo-crorret] a some- 
what unusual construction for ol ra- 
pda-croviriv. It occurs however even in 
classical writers, e.g. Soph. CEd. Col. 
1023 aXXot yap oi OTreiiSoi/res, Lysias 
pro Arist. hon. § S7 e'Vi 8e' r«/er ol 
7rpoava\i(TKovTct (the latter passage is 
quoted with others by Winer, § xviii. 
p. 136), and more commonly in the 
New Testament, e.g. Col. ii. 8 /3X«'- 
Trere p,ij tls tirrai 6 <Tv\aya>yav, Luke 
xviii. g. See the note on iii. 21. For 
Ttvh applied by St Paul to his adver- 
saries, see ii. 12, i Cor. iv. 18, 2 Cor. 
iii. I, X. 2. Other interpretations of 
this clause have been proposed, all 
of which seem to do violence either to 
the sense or the grammar. 




Tov XpiCTTOV. ^dWa Kai edv ■^fxei'i rj dyyeXo^ i^ ov- 
pavov evayyeXi^riTai [y/uuv] Trap' o evriyyeXKra/neda 
vfxiVi dvaQefia ecru). 'tJs TrpoeiprjKafxev Kal dpTi TraXiv 

Tapacro-ovres] not 'troubling your 
minds,' but 'raising seditions among 
you, shaking your allegiance,' a con- 
tinuation of the metaphor of iktot'i- 
6fa-6f. The phrase Tapwrniv rrp noKiv 
is commonly used of factions, e.g. Ari- 
stoph. Eq. 863. See the note on v. 10. 

lifTourTpe^ail properly, 'to reverse, 
to change to the opposite,' and so 
stronger than Siaa-Tpiyjfai, which is sim- 
ply 'to distort,' 'wrench': com p. Arist. 
Rhet. Lis ko' to tov Sevotpavovs fiera- 
iTTpe'^avTa (ftareou K.r.\. What was 
the idea prominent in the Apostle's 
mind when he called this heresy a 
'reversal' of the Gospel may be ga- 
thered from iii. 3. 

TOV Xpia-Tov] On the genitive see 
the notes on i Thess. ii. 2. 

8, 9. The difference of moods in 
these two verses is to be noticed. In 
the former, a pure hypothesis is put 
forward, in itself highly improbable 
(evayyeXifijrai) : in the latter, a fact 
which had actually occurred, and was 
occurring (evayyeXi^erm). 

Kai fdv] preserves its proper sense 
of 'etiamsi,' as distinguished from eav 
Koi 'etsi.' See Hermann Viffer p. 
832, Jelf Gramm. § 861. In other 
words, it introduces a highly impro- 
bable supposition. With this passage 
contrast the meaning of iav kcu. as it 
occurs in vi. I, iav /cat 7rpo\rip.^6^. 

iJpfZr] 'ice.' St Paul seems never 
to use the plural when speaking of 
himself alone. Here it would include 
those who had been his colleagues in 
preaching to the Galatians, such as 
Silas and Timothy. The latter espe- 
cially would be referred to, as he 
seems to have been with the Apostle 
on both visits to Galatia, and was pro- 
bably in his company when this letter 
was written. See the note on i. 2. 

ifiiv] is doubtful, being found both 
before and after euayyeXifijrai in dif- 
ferent texts, and in some omitted en- 

irap' o] On the interpretation of 
these words a controversy on 'tradi- 
tion' has been made to hinge, Pro- 
testant writers advocating the sense 
of 'besides' for napa, Boman Catho- 
lics that of ' contrary to.' The context 
is the best guide to the meaning of 
the preposition. St Paul is here as- 
serting the oneness, the integrity of 
his Gospel. It will not brook any 
rival. It will not suffer any foreign 
admixture. The idea of 'contrariety' 
therefore is alien to the general bear- 
ing of the passage, though independ- 
ently of the context the preposition 
might well have this meaning. 

dvd6eij.a] is the common (Hellen- 
istic), avdOrifia the classical (Attic) 
form. See Lobeck Phryn. pp. 249, 
445, Paralip. p. 417. But though 
originally the same, the two forms 
gradually diverged in meaning ; dvd- 
dqfia getting to signify 'devoted' in 
a good, and dvd6ep.a in a bad sense. 
See Trench. N. T. Synon. § v. p. 14; 
Pritzsche on Rom. ix. 3. This is a 
common phenomenon in all languages, 
e.g. in English ' cant,' ' chant,' ' hu- 
man,' ' humane,' with other examples 
given in Trench Study of Words, 
p. 156; see also Max Miiller's Science 
of Language, 2nd ser. p. 262 sq. 
Such divergences of meaning are 
generally to be traced to the different 
sources from which the varying forms 
are derived. In the present instance 
the distinction seems to have arisen 
from the fact that the sense 'an ac- 
cursed thing' would be derived chiefly 
through the Hellenist writers of the 
Lxx, the sense 'an offering' mostly 


Xiytt), ei Tts v/uas evayyeXi^eTai Trap o irapeXd^ere, 
dvddeixa icrTW. "dpri yap dvdpu)Trov<s Treidoo rj tov 

through classical authors. The dis- 
tinction of meaning however is only 
general, not universal. Pseudo- Justin, 
Quaest. et resp. 121 (p. 190, Otto), 
assigns both meanings to avaSeiia, 
as Theodoret (on Kom. ix. 3) does to 
dvaSriiM. 'AvdSriiia occurs Only once in 
the New Testament, Luke xxi. 5, and 
there in the sense of ' an offering,' in 
accordance with the distinction given 

It is doubted whether dvadefia here 
means 'excommunicated' or 'accurs- 
ed'; i.e. whether it refers to eccle- 
siastical censure or spiritual condi- 
tion. The latter alone seems tenable; 
for (i) it is the lxx. translation of the 
Hebrew mn, e.g. Josh. vii. i, 12. 
This word is used in the Old Testa- 
ment of a person or thing set apart 
and devoted to destruction, because 
hateful to God. Hence in a spiritual 
application it denotes the state of 
one who is alienated from God by 
sin. But on the other hand it seems 
never to signify ' excommimicated,' a 
sense which is not found till much 
later than the Christian era. (2) In 
no passage is the sense of ecclesiasti- 
cal censure very appropriate to avd- 
Bffia, dvadeiiaTtCetv, where they occur 
in the New Testament, and in some, 
as Rom. ix. 3, i Cor. xiii. 3, it is ob- 
viously excluded. Here, for instance, 
it is inconsistent with the ayyeXos e| 
ovpca/ov. In course of time di/adc/ia, 
like the coiresponding mn, under- 
went a change of meaning, getting to 
signify ' excommunicated,' and this is 
the common patristic sense of the 
word. It was not unnatural there- 
fore, that the fathers should attempt 
to force upon St Paul the ecclesiasti- 
cal sense with which they were most 
familiar, as Theodoret does for in- 
stance, on I Cor. xvL 22, explaining 
dvdBefui twra by dXXorpiof eoro) xov 
KOivov trdnaros rijs tKKXTjalas, 

9- <»r 7rpo€ipiJKaii€v] ' at ice have 
told you b^ore^ probably on the oc- 
casion of his second visit, when he 
already discerned unhealthy sym- 
ptoms in the Galatian Church. See p. 
25. The distinction between the sin- 
gular (Xe'yo)) where St Paul is writing 
in his own person, and the plural 
(TrpoeipiJKa/iev) where he is speaking 
of the joint labours of himself and his 
colleagues, is to be observed. See the 
note on i)/ttetr ver. 8. 

KOI apn TraXtx] 'so now again.' 
apn here denotes strictly present, as 
opposed to past time — a late use of the 
word. See Lobeck Phryn. p. 18 sq. 

TroXw] ' again' is not to be referred, 
as it is taken by some, to the preced- 
ing verse, in the sense ' I repeat what 
I have just said.' Against this inter- 
pretation two objections lie: (i) St 
Paul in that case would have used the 
singular npoeiprjKa (which indeed is 
found in some texts), as throughout 
the epistle he writes in his own per- 
son alone ; and (2) The words xai apn 
mark some greater distinction of time 
than this interpretation would allow. 

v/iaf evayyfXi^fTai] In classical wri- 
ters this verb takes only a dative of 
the person, in later Greek it has in- 
differently a dative or an accusative. 
See Lobeck Phryn. p. 266 sq. and 
Ellicott on I Thess. iii. 6. 

10. 'Let him be accursed, I say. 
What, does my boldness startle you ? 
Is this, I ask, the language of a time- 
server ? Will any say now that, care- 
less of winning the favour of God, I 
seek to conciliate men, to ingratiate 
myself with men ? If I had been con- 
tent thus to compromise, I should 
have been spared all the sufferings, 
as I should have been denied all the 
privileges, of a servant of Christ.' 

SpTi yap] What is the opposition 
implied in this now F It can scarcely 
be referred, as some refer it, to the 

I. II] 



QeoV, ri ^rjTco dvdpcoTrois dpecTKeiv^ ei eVt dvdpcoTrois 
i]pe(rKOv, Xpicrrov SoiJ\os ouk av fjfxrjv. 

"rpcopi^co Be vfxiv, dSe\(j)oi, to evayyeXiov to eu- 

II. yruplj^u yap. 

time before his conversion. ' Concili- 
ation' is no fit term to apply to the 
fierce bigotry of Saul, the persecutor 
of the Church of Christ. The errors 
of his early career are the offspring 
of blind zeal, and not of worldly 
policy (i Tim. i 13). The explana- 
tion is doubtless to be found in the 
charges of inconsistency brought a- 
gainst him by the Judaizers. They 
had misrepresented certain acts of 
his past life, and branded him as a 
teniporiser. There shall be no doubt 
about his Linguage now. He had 
formerly, they said, preached the Mo- 
saic law, because forsooth he had 
become as a Jew to the Jews. Let 
them judge now whether he would 
make concessions to cenciliate those 
who had a leaning towards Judaism. 
This apri has therefore no connexion 
with the apri of ver. 9. The sup- 
pressed allusion to the Judaizers also 
explains the particle yap: 'I speak 
thus strongly, /or my language shall 
not be misconstrued, shall wear no 
semblance of compromise.' 

avdpaTrovs TreiBo) ^ rbv Qfov] 'do T 
coneillate, make friends of men or of 
God? ' Though the idea of persuasion 
is not strictly applicable in the case 
of God (comp. 2 Cor. v. 11, dv6pcmovs 
7rei6ofuv, &e£ 8e jT€(j)avepciiieda), yet 
TteWo) is fitly extended to the second 
clause in reference to the language of 
his enemies. ' You charge me with a 
policy of conciliation. Yes ; I concili- 
ate God.' ' De humane usu sumptum 
est,' says Jerome. On the article 
Bengel pointedly remarks: 'avBpw- 
novs, hom/ines ; hoc sine articulo: at 
mox Tov Oeop, Deum cum articulo. 
Dei solius habenda est ratio.' See 
also the note on iv. 31. 

avBpwTTois apia-Kfiv] 80 I Thess. ii. 4 : 

comp. dvdptawapea-Kot, Ephes. vi 6, Col. 
iii. 23 (with the note). 

m]'giUl.' After what? 'After all 
that has befallen me: after all the 
experiences I have had.' Compare the 
frt of V. II, Both passages find an 
explanation in vi. 17; 'Henceforth let 
no man trouble me.' See the intro- 
duction, p. 51. The 67-t does not im- 
ply that St Paul ever had been a 
time-server. It is equivalent to, 'at 
this stage,' 'at this late date.' The in- 
sertion of yap after el in the received 
text is one of the many attempts of 
transcribers to smooth down the rug- 
gedness of St Paul's style. 

Xpurrov 8ov\os ovk av TJfujv] 'T 
should not have been a servant of 
Christ,' perhaps with an indirect re- 
ference to the marks of persecution 
which he bore on his body (to ariy- 
p-ara rod 'hjo-ov, vL 17); 'I should 
not have been branded as His slave, 
I should not have suffered for Him,' 
Comp. V. II, 'If I yet preach cir- 
cumcision, why am I yet persecuted?' 

II, 12. 'I assure you, brethren, 
the Gospel you were taught by me 
is not of human devising. I did not 
myself receive it from man, but from 
Jesus Christ. I did not learn it, as 
one learns a lesson, by painful study. 
It flashed upon me, as a revelation 
from Jesus Christ.' 

II. Tvapl^a u/xti/] '/ declare to 
you' introduces some statement on 
which the Apostle lays special em- 
phasis, I Cor. xii. 3, XV. i, 2 Cor. viiL 
I. (Compare the similar phrase, 'I 
would not have you ignorant.') Both 
this phrase and the following, Kara 
avdpairov, are confined to the epistles 
of this chronological group. 

The best authorities are nearly 
equally divided between 8e and ydp. 



[I- 12, 13 

ayyeXicrdev vir e/Liov, oti ovk ecrTiv kuto. ctpdpwTrov. 
"ov^e yap eyta irapa dvdpioTrov irapeXafiov avTO oi/re 
eZiBd')(6riv f aWd Zi dTTO/caAu-v/rews 'Itjcrov Xpia-Tov. 
^^tiKova'are yap rnv ijxriv dva(rTpo<p'iqv iroTe ev tw 'lou- 

12. oiSi iStS&xO-nv. 

The former, resuming the subject 
which has been interrupted by his 
defence of himself, is more after the 
Apostle's manner, while the latter 
would seem the obvious connectiDg 
particle to transcribers. On the other 
hand 8e may possibly have been sub- 
stituted for yap here, because it is 
found with yvtopl^a (-fo^eK) in i Cor. 
XV. I, 2 Cor. viii. i. 

t<TTui\ is here only the copula. The 
present tense is used instead of the im- 
perfect to show the permanence andun- 
changeableness of his Gospel. See ii. 2. 

Kara avBpamov] 'after any human 
fashion or standard.' See on iii. 15. 

12. ovhk yap iya\ 'For to go a 
step farther back, neither did I my- 
self receive it from man.' The force 
of the particle ovbi is best sought for 
in the context. OuSe ey<o napiKa^v 
answers to to evayy(Ki(T6ei> vn efiov 
OVK canv, as irapa avBpdmoo answers 
to Kara ivBpamov. Others explain it 
'/ as little as the Twelve,' '7 in 
whom perhaps it might have been ex- 
pected' : but such interpretations are 
not reflected in the context. 

•napa av6p<mov TrapcXajSov] The idea 
in the preposition is suflBciently wide 
to include both the otto and 8in of 
ver. I. I do not think the distinction 
given by Winer § xlvii. p. 463, and 
others, between Xa/i/Sareo; napa Kvpiov 
and \ap,fiavfiv dirb Kvpiov (l Cor. xi. 
23), as denoting respectively direct 
and indirect communication, can be 
insisted upon. It is true, that while 
diro contemplates only the giver, n-apd 
in a manner connects the giver with 
the receiver, denoting the passage 
from the one to the other, but the 
links of the chain between the two 

may be numerous, and in all cases 
where the idea of transmission is pro- 
minent irapa will be used in prefer- 
ence to OTTO, be the communication 
direct or indirect; so Phil. iv. 18 Sf- 
^Afitpos irapa 'Eira(j>poSiTov ra trap 
vpmv: comp. Plat. SyTnp. 201 b. The 
verb irapa\ap,^aii€iv may be used either 
of the ultimate receiver or of any in- 
termediate agent, provided that the 
idea of transmission be retained; i.e. 
it may be either (i) to receive as 
transmitted to oneself, 2 Thess. iii. 6, 
or (2) to receive so as to transmit to 
others. In this latter sense it is used 
of the Apostles, who receiving the 
Gospel directly from the Lord passed 
it to others. See i Cor. xi. 23, xv. i, 
3, and compare irapayyeXia. 

ovTe (Bi8dx6riv] The authorities being 
nearly equally divided between ovre 
and ov8f, I have with some hesitation 
retained the former in the text, as 
being the less regular collocation {ov- 
8e...o87-*), and therefore more likely to 
be altered. In this case another oSrc 
is to be understood before irapiXa^ov, 
the 8e of oude having reference to the 
former sentence. See Winer § Iv. 6, 
p. 617, and esp. A. Buttmann p. 315. 

eSiSdxBriv is added to explain and 
enforce irapa dvdpdirov irapeXafiov, and 
thus to bring out the contrast with 
81 drroKoKvylffcoc : ' I received it not 
by instriiction from man but by re- 
velation from Christ.' For a some- 
what similar contrast see Cic. pro 
Mil. c. 4, ' Est enim haec, judices, 
uon scripta sed nata lex; quam non 
didicimus, accepimus, legimus, verum 
ex natura ipsa arripuimus, hausimus, 

13, 14. 'My early education is a 

I. 14] 



Baia-jntS, OTt Kad' vTrep^oXrjv ehiujKOv Ttjv iKKXrja-iav tow 
06OU Kai etropdovv avT^v, ^^kui TrpoeKOTrrov ev rw 'lov- 
Sa'i(Tiuiiv VTrep ttoAAoi)? (rvvriXiKLcorai ev tw yevei fxov, 
7repicr(roTepcos ^>7A.wtjjs vTccp'^cov tcov iraTpiKwv fxov 

proof that I did not receive the Gos- 
pel from man. I was brought up in 
a rigid school of ritualism, directly 
opposed to the liberty of the Gospel. 
I was from age and temper a staunch 
adherent of the principles of that 
school Acting upon them, I relent- 
lessly persecuted the Christian bro- 
therhood. No human agency there- 
fore could have brought about the 
change. It required a direct interpo- 
sition from God.' 

13. 'qKoiaaTf] 'ye heardi 'I told 
you, when I was with you.' The his- 
tory of his past career as a persecutor 
formed part of his preaching: see 
Acts xxii. 2 — 21, xxvi. 4 — 23, i Cor. 
XV. 8 — 10: comp. PhiL iii. 6, i Tim. L 

13. The A. v., 'ye have heard,' gives 
a wrong meaning. 

dvatrrpo^^v irore] for the more usual 
TTOTe dva(rrpo<pi}V, as ver. 23 o BiwKav 
iJ/iSr TTori. Similar displacements of 
words, which would ordinarily come 
between the article and substantive, 
are frequent in the New Testament. 
See on i Thess. L i ; and Winer § xx. 
p. 169 sq. 

'JovSaXa-fia} ' observance of Jewish 
rites' The' word does not in itself 
imply any disparagement. Comp. 2 
Mace, ii. 21 rois vrrep Toi 'lovSalV/iou 
^CKorlfuos av8paya6rt<racriv, xiv. 38 
(rtifia Kol '^vx't" '"'"'^p ''<''' 'louSaiV/toi 
irapa^e^ijpAvos, and 'lovhat^fw Gal. ii. 

14. Though perhaps originally coin- 
ed by the heathen and, as used by 
them, conveying some shadow of con- 
tempt, it would, when neutralised 
among the Jews themselves, lose this 
idea and even become a title of ho- 
nour. The case of Xpicrnavis, likewise 
a term of reproach in the first in- 
stance, is a parallel 


iiropBovv K.T.X.] '/ devastated the 
Clhureh,' as Acts ix. 21 ovx ovtos 
iariv o iropBrjiras ev 'IfpovaraKrip, toi/s 
iniKoKovp.ivovs k.tX. Compare «Xv- 
palveTO rffv iKKK-qtriav, Acts viii. 3. 

14. <rvvr{KiKuiTas\ 'of my own age,' 
who embraced the religion of their 
fathers with all the ardour of youthful 
patriotism. The Attics use the simple 
form T^XiKuirris, while the compound 
belongs to the later dialect. Com- 
pare the similar instances of n-oXtnyr 
{avfiTToXirrfs, Ephes. ii. 19), tfivXerrjs 
{(Tvix(f>v\iTTjs, I Thess. ii. 14), etc. In 
this class of words the later language 
aims at greater definiteness. The rule 
however is not absolute, but only ex- 
presses a general tendency. See Lo- 
beck Phryn. pp. 172, 471. 

iv T^ yei/M povj 'in my race^ i.e. 
among the Jews, an incidental proof 
that St Paul is addressing Gentile 
converts. See p. 26, note 3. In the 
same way, Rom. xvi. 7, 21, he men- 
tions certain Jews as his 'kinsmen' 
{(TvyyeveU). Comp. also Rom. ix. 3 
VTrep rSiv aSeXcfiwu fiav rav avYyevaiv 
ptov Kara aapxa. 

jreptaiTOTepa)! {^rjKar^s VTrdpxov] The 
adverb mepicriTOTepas, which is fre- 
quent in St Paul, seems always to re- 
tain its comparative force. Here it 
is explained by virip iroKKo-ii. For 
fijXuirijs vnapxav comp. Acts xxi. 20 
irdvres fijXaral rov vo/Knj virapxovirw. 
St Paul seems to have belonged to 
the extreme party of the Pharisees 
(Acts xxii. 3, xxiii. 7, xxvi. 5, PhiL iiL 
5, 6), whose pride it was to call them- 
selves 'zealots of the law, zealots of 
God.' To this party also had be- 
longed Simon, one of the Twelve, 
thence surnamed the zealot, ^rjkaTris 
or Kavavaios, ie. (Kjp. A portion of 



irapadoa-eoov. '^ore Se evdoKria-ev 6 d<popi(ra? fie e'/c koi- 
Xias firiTpos fxov Kal KoXecas Sta t>7s x"-P'-'^^^ avTOV 
^^ aTTOKaXu^p-ai tov vlov avrov iv e/uLol 'iva evayyeXi- 

these extreme partizans, forming into 
a separate sect under Judas of Gali- 
lee, took the name of 'zealots' par 
excellence, and distinguished them- 
selves by their furious opposition to 
the Romans: Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 
1. 1, 6. See Bwald Gesch. des Volkes 
Isr. V. p. 25 sq, p. 332, 7L p. 340. 

r^v TrarpLKcav fiov TrapaSocrewi/] Q/ 
the traditions handed dovm from 
my fathers' It is doubtful whether 
the law of Moses is included in this 
expression. In Josephus to «k napa- 
boiTfas Tav warepav (Antiq. xiii. lO. 6), 
ij irarp<fa TrapaSoais {ib. 16. 2), are the 
Pharisaic traditions, as distinguished 
from the written law. See also Matth. 
XV. 2, 3, 6, Mark vii. 3, 5, 8, 9, 13. 
These passages seem to show that the 
word irapaSoa-is, wliich might in itself 
include equally well the written law, 
signified in the mouth of a Jew the 
traditional interpretations and addi- 
tions (afterwards embodied in the 
Mishna), as distinguished from the 
text on which they were founded and 
which they professed to supplement. 

1 5 — 1 7. ' Then came my conversion. 
It was the work of God's grace. It 
was foreordained, before I had any 
separate existence. It was not there- 
fore due to any merits of my own, it 
did not spring from any principles of 
my own. The revelation of His Son 
in me, the call to preach to the Gen- 
tiles, were acts of His good pleasure. 
Thus converted, I took no counsel of 
human advisers. I did not betake 
myself to the elder Apostles, as I 
might naturally have done, I se- 
cluded myself in Arabia, and, when I 
emerged from my retirement, instead 
of going to Jerusalem, I returned to 

15. o d(j>opi(Tas} 'who set me Or 
part, devoted me to a special pur- 

pose': Bom. i. I a<j)iopi<rn4vos els ev- 
ayyeKiov Qeov. See also Acts xiii, 2 
a^op'uTare 81} ^01 K.r.X. The words o 
eeor of the received text are to be 
struck out as a gloss, though a correct 
one. Similar omissions are frequent 
in St Paul; see i. 6, ii. 8, iii. 5, v. 8, 
Rom. viiL 11, Phil. i. 6, i Thess. v. ^4. 

Observe how words are accumu- 
lated to tell upon the one point on 
which he is insisting — the sole agency 
of God as distinct from his own efforts: 
evb6iaj<Tcv, a(j>opi(ras, ex KoiKias pjjrpos 
p,ov, KoXeVay, x^P'Toi avrov. 

6K KoiXias fa)Tp6s /iou] 'from, before 
my birth, before I had any impulses, 
any principles of my own.' For the 
expression see Judges xvi. 17 ayios 
Qeov iyio elfu Arro noiKias /xijrpor iiov, 
Is, xliv, 2, 24, xlix. I, S o nXda-as fie 
CK KoiKias SovXov iavT^, Psalm Ixx. 6 

€K KOlKlaS liTjTpOS flOV (TV flOV « (TKCHa- 

arris, and frequently in the lxx. The 
preposition seems to be merely tem- 
poral. The A. v., ' who separated 
me from my mother's womb,' ob- 
scures, if it does not misinterpret, the 

KaXecras hui ttjs )(apiros avTov] See 
the note on i. 6. 

16. Three separate stages in the 
history of the Apostle's consecration 
to his ministry seem to be mentioned 
here. First, the predestination to 
his high office, which dated from be- 
fore his birth (o a^topiaas /le K,r,X,); 
Secondly, the conversion and call to 
the Apostleship, which took place on 
the way to Damascus, Acts ix, 3 sq 
(naKea-as 81a T$t ^apiros avrov); and 
Thirdly, the entering upon his min- 
istry in fulfilment of this call. Acts ix. 
20 sq, xiii. 2, 3 (diroKaXv^ai iv ejuol 
iva evayyeXlCaiuu). 

The distinction of these three stages 
seems well marked ; and if so, this de- 

L 17, 18] 



^Wfxai avTov iv Toh edvecriv, evdetos ov irpotravedefxrjv 
<rapKi Kal aifiaTi, '^oi/Se dvfjXdov ets 'lepoa-oXv/na 
TTjoos Tovs TTjOO ifJLOu cfTrotTToAovs, dWct dirriXdov ets 
'ApajSiav, Kat ttoKiv V7recrTp€-\}/-a ets AajuiaarKov 


17. oiSk dwijXdov els 'lep. 

terminea the meaning of ev iixoL It 
doea not speak of a revelation made 
inwardly to himself, but of a revela- 
tion made through him to others. 
The prepoaition eV is used in prefer- 
ence to 8ta, because St Paul was not 
only the instrument in preaching the 
Gospel, but also in his own person 
bore the strongest testimony to its 
power. He constantly places his con- 
version in this light ; see ver. 24 c'do- 
(a^ov 4v e/aol tov Ocov, I Tim. i. 16 
iSia ToiiTO i^\tij6riv tva iv efiol irpdrto 
evSei^rfrai 'X.piarros 'IijtroOs Tiyv ajTa(Tav 
(laKpoBviiiav irpog VTroTunaxTiv rmv p,c\- 
Xdin-iuv jTumveiv k.t.\., 2 Cor. xiii. 3 
TOV fv ffiol \a\ovvTos XpioToC, Phil, 
i. 30. The rendering of «V ep,o\ 
'within me,' i.e. 'in my heart,' seems 
neither to suit the context so well, 
nor to be so natural in itself. 

fvdfcis ov itpo(TavediinjV K.T.X.] ^ forth- 
with, instead of conferring with flesh 
and blood, etc., I departed to Arabia.' 
On avandtarScu see the note ii. 2. In 
the double compound npoa-avarldea-dai 
the idea of communication or consul- 
tation is stronger. The use of the 
word in heathen writers indirectly 
illustrates its sense here. It is em- 
ployed especially of consulting sooth- 
sayers, and the like, as in Chrysippus 
{in Suidas, 8.v. keottot) irpotravaBiadai 
oveipoKpiTfi, Died. Sic. xvii. 116 rois 
liavTtcri 7rpo<rava6eiievos trepl tov trq- 
nelov. Comp. Lucian Jup. Trag. § i 
(11. p. 642) ifioi jrpoa-avaBov, Xd/Se fie 
<rip.^ov\ov novatv. See the note ii 6. 

For o-apxi Koi alpLari compare our 
Lord's words to St Peter, Matt. xvi. 
17 'Flesh and blood did not reveal it 
unto thee.' 

17. dvfjKdov] '/ came up! This 

verb and ava^alveiv are used especially 
of visiting Jerusalem, situated in the 
high lands of Palestine, as naripxi- 
a-Bai, Kara^aiveiv, are of leaving it. See 
Lukex. 30, Acts.xi. 27, xii. 19, xv. i, 
2, XXL 15, XXV. I, 6, 7, and especially 
Acts xviii. 22, xxiv. i. In the two 
last passages dva^aiveiv and Kara^ai- 
v€iv are used absolutely without any 
mention of Jerusalem, this being im- 
plied in the expressions 'going up,' 
' going down.' Here the various read- 
ing dir^Xdov has great claims to' a 
place in the text. Both words occur 
in the context and it is difficult to say 
in favour of which reading the pos- 
sible confusion of transcribers may 
more justly be urged. Perhaps how- 
ever it is improbable that St Paul 
should have written ainjXdov twice 
consecutively, as the repetition makes 
the sentence run awkwardly; though 
in Rom. viiL 15, i Cor. ii. 13, Heb. xiL 
18, 22, something of the kind occurs. 

Toiis wpo efwv aTrooToXouy] ' those 
who were Apostles b^ore m,e,' pos- 
sibly including others besides the 
Twelve, especially James. See be- 
low, p. 95, note 4. For the expres- 
sion compare Rom. xvi. 7, otrivis elo-iv 
initrtifioi eV rots mroaroKois 01 koI irpo 
ifiov yiyovav iv XpuTT^, where how- 
ever the construction is doubtful. 

els Aainaa-Kov] A danger which 
threatened St Paul's life on this occa- 
sion seems to have left a deep impres- 
sion on his mind, and is mentioned by 
him in another epistle, nearly contem- 
poraneous with this, 2 Cor. xi. 32. 

18 — 24. ' Not till three years were 
past did I go up to Jerusalem. My 
object in doing so was to confer with 
Cephas. But I did not remain with 




[I. 19 

eiTu fxcTa eTr] Tpia dvfj\$ov ets 'lepo(roXviJ.a ictto- 
ptj<rai Kri^av, kui eTrefxeiva ttjOOS avTov ijfxepas oe/ca- 
Trei/re* ^^eTepov Be twv ciTroa-ToXwv ovk eJSou, ei fin 

18. /ieri rpla (t'T). 

him more than a fortnight; and of all 
the other Apostles I saw only James 
the Lord's brother. As in the sight of 
God, I declare to you that every word 
I write is true. Then I went to the 
distant regions of Syria and Cilicia. 
Thus I was personally vmknown to the 
Christian brotherhoodin Judsea. They 
had only heard that their former per- 
secutor was now preaching the very 
faith which before he had attempted 
to destroy: and they glorified God for 
my conversion.' 

18. tnevra iiera enj rpto] From 
what point of time are these three 
years reckoned? Probably from the 
great epoch of his life, from his con- 
version. The 'straightway' of ver. 16 
leads to this conclusion; 'At first I 
conferred not with flesh and blood, it 
was only after the lapse of three pears 
that I went to Jerusalem.' 

'Upoa-oXv/jui] is generally a neuter 
plural. In Matt. ii. 3 however we 
have jratra 'IfpotroXv/ia. See A. Butt- 
mann Gramm. p. 16. On the forms 
'lepoaiXvua and 'lepouo-oX^j* see the 
note iv. 26. 

ia-Topffcrai Kij^Si/] 'to visit Cephas.' 
iaroprjirai is somewhat emphatic: 'A 
word used,' says Chrysostom, ' by those 
who go to see great and famous cities.' 
It is generally said of things and places ; 
less commonly, as here, of persons: 
comp. Joseph. Bell. Jvd. vi i. 8 avT\p 
av eya Kar €KeivOp JoTopi/ora Tov jroXe- 
fwv, and Clem. Horn. viii. i, etc. St 
Peter is mentioned by St Paul only in 
this epi.stle and i Corinthians. Kij- 
(jiav is the /ight reading here, though 
there is respectable authority for Hi- 
rpov. If the existing authorities are 
to be trusted, St Paul seems to have 
used the Aramaic and Greek names 

indiflferently. Allowance ought to be 
made however for the tendency to sub- 
stitute the more usual TLerpos for the 
less common Ktjcfids, e.g. here and ii. 
9, II, 14. In the Peshito Version 
Cephas, as the Aramaic name, is not 
unnaturally adopted throughout this 

fiexajre'j/Tf] A later form for the 
more classical irevTCKmStKci. Tiiis and 
the analogous forms of numerals occur 
frequently in the mss of Greek au- 
thors of the post-classical age, but in 
many cases are doubtless due to the 
transcribers writing out the words at 
length, where they had only the nume- 
ral letters before them. The frequent 
occurrence of these forms however ia 
the Tabulae Ileracleenses is'a decisive 
testimony to their use, at least in some 
dialects, much before the Christian 
era. They are found often in the 


St Paul's visit on this occasion was 
abruptly terminated. He left on ac- 
count of a plot against his life (Acts 
ix. 29) and in pursuance of a vision 
(Acts xxii. 17 — 21). 

19. ei yai 'laKa^ov] Is James here 
styled an Apostle or not 1 Are we to 
translate, ' I saw no other Apostle save 
James,' or 'I saw no other Apostle but 
only James ' ? It will be seen that the 
question is not whether « iifj retains 
its exceptive force or not, for this it 
seems always to do (see note on i. 7), 
but whether the exception refers to 
the whole clause or to the verb alone. 
That the latter is quite a possible 
construction will appear from Matth. 
xii. 4, Luke iv. 26, 27, Gal. ii. 16, Rev. 
XXL 27; see Fritzsche on Rom. m. 
p. 195. But on the other hand the- 
sense of erepov natm-ally links it with 

I. 20 — 22] 



'laKw^ov TOP a.Se\<l>6u tov Kvplou. *°a Be ypaKJxa vfxiv, 
i^ov evcoTTiov TOV Qeou on ov yj^evdofiai. "eireiTa rjXdov 
6ts Ta KXifxara Trjs Si/jOias Kai tijs KiXiKias, "tj/mriv he 

el 11% from which it cannot he sepa- 
rated mthout harshness, and erepov 
carries rmv diroaroKaiv with it. It seems 
then that St James is here called an 
Apostle, though it does not therefore 
follow that he was one of the Twelve 
(see the detached note, p. 95). The 
plural in the corresponding account 
Acts ix. 27, ' He brought (Paul) to the 
Apostles,' is also in favour of this 
sense, but this argument must not be 

20. IBoii ivwirtov rau 6coS] A form 
of asseveration equivalent to ' I call 
you to witness,' and so followed by 
ort. See 2 Tim. ii. 14, iv. i Sia/iapru- 
peadai ivemvav row GeoS. For tfiov else- 
where in the New Testament is an in- 
terjection or adverb, never a verb, so 
that there is an objection to making it 
govern ort here. Perhaps however 
the occurrence of i8« ort in the lxx, 
Ps. cxix. 1 59, Lam. 1. 20, may justify 
such a construction here. The strength 
of St Paul's language is to be explained 
by the unscrupulous calumnies cast 
upon him by his enemies. See the 
note I Thess. v. 27. 

21. In the corresponding narrative 
of St Luke it is related that the bre- 
thren at Jerusalem, discovering the 
plot against St Paid's life, ' took him 
down to Ceesarea and despatched him 
to Tarsus' (Acts ix. 30) ; and later on, 
that Barnabas went to Tarsus and 
sought out Saul, and having found 
him brought him to Antioch, where 
they taught for a whole year before 
returning to Jerusalem (xii 25 — 30). 
The Csesarea mentioned there is 
doubtless Stratonis, and not Philippi, 
as some maintain. Not only was this 
the more probable route for him to 
take, but St Luke's language requires 
it; for (l) The words Karijyayov, i^air- 

foreiKav, imply a seaport and an em- 
barkation: and (2) Csesarea, without 
any addition to distinguish it, is always 
the principal city of the name. It 
appears therefore that St Luke repre- 
sents St Paul as sailing from Csesarea 
on his way to Tarsus ; and comparing 
this account with the notice here, we 
must suppose either (i) That St Paul 
did not go direct to Tarsus but visited 
Syria on the way; or (2) That he 
visited Syria from Tarsus, and after 
preaching there returned again to 
Tarsus where he was found by Barna- 
bas; St Luke having, on either of 
these hypotheses, omitted to record 
this visit to Syria ; or (3) That St Paul's 
words here 'Syria and Cilicia' are not 
intended to describe the order in 
which he visited the two countries. 
This last is the most probable suppo- 
sition. Cilicia has geographically a 
greater affinity with Syria than with 
Asia Minor. See Conybeare and 
Howson, I. p. 130. The less important 
country is here named after the more 
important. ' Cilicia,' says Ewald, ' was 
constantly little better than an appen- 
dage of Syria,' Gesch. des V. Isr. vi. 
p. 406. At this time however it was 
under a separate administration. The 
words TO, KKifjuiTa seem to show that 
'Syria and Cilicia' are here men- 
tioned under one general expression, 
and not as two distinct districts. 

Ta KXt'juara] Rom. XV. 23, 2 Cor. 
xi. 10. A comparatively late word, 
see Lobeck Paral. p. 418. It is found 
in Pseudo-Aristot. de Mundo c. x, and 
several times in Polybius. 

22. ^firiv ayvocyifuvos k.t.X.] ^I 
remained personally unknown! A 
strong form of the imperfect, as aKoi- 
ovTff rjcrav 'they kept hearing' (ver. 
23) : see Winer, § xlv. 5, p. 437 sq. 



[I. 23, 24 

dyvoovfJievo^ tm 7rpo(rto7ru> rais iKKXn(riai<s Ttji 'lovSalas 
Tats iv \pi(rT(S, ^^fiovov Se aKOvovTe^ riarav oti 'O Siiokiov 
i^fia^ TTore vvv evayyeXi^erai. Trju tt'kttiv hv ttotc eTrop- 
dei, '^^Kai eSo^a^ov ev efxai tov GeoV. 

Tols ekkXijo-iow K.T.X.] ' unhiown to 
the Churches of Judwa' generally, as 
distinguished from that of Jerusalem; 
comp. John iii. 22. To the latter 
he could not have failed to be known, 
as might be inferred from the ac- 
count here, even without the nar- 
rative of his energetic preaching in 
the Acts. Prom Jerusalem he was 
hurried off to Csesarea, and there em- 
barking he left the shores of Pales- 
tine. The other churches of Judaea 
therefore had no ofiportunity of know- 
ing him. Judsea is here distinguished 
from Jerusalem, as Italy is frequently 
distinguished from Rome, e.g. pro- 
bably Hebr. xiii. 24. The addition 
Tait Iv XpioT^ was necessary when 
speaking of the Christian brother- 
hoods of Judsea; for the unconverted 
Jewish communities might still be 
called ' the Churches of Judsea.' See 
the note on i Thess. IL 14, t(5k «- 
KkqtnSiv TOV SfoB rav ovirav iv rrj 
'lovSaia ev Xpitrra 'ir/Krov. 

23. oTt] introduces an abrupt change 
from the oblique to the direct mode 
of speaking, e.g. Acts xiv. 22, xxiiL 22. 

So it is used frequently in introducing 
a quotation, e.g. Gal. iii. 10. 

'O ditoKcov jy/ior ttotc] 'Our per- 
secutor of former times' ; 6 SuoKaif 
being used as a substantive, Le. with- 
out reference to time, as Matt. xxviL 
40 o KaraXvav tov vaov : see Winer, 
§ xlv. 7, p. 444. On the position of 
TTore, see the note on ver. 13. 

T^v TriaTti/] It is a striking proof of 
the large space occupied by ' faith ' in 
the mind of the infant Church, that it 
should so soon have passed into a syn- 
onym for the Gospel See Acts vi. 7. 
Here its meaning seems to hover be- 
tween the Gospel and the Church. 
For the various senses of ttiWjj, see 
the notes on iii. 23, vi. 10, and the 
detached note on the term ' faith.' 

24. iv ijioi] See the note ver. 16, 
and comp. Is. xlix. 3 douXdr /lov f? 
ail 'I(rpafi\ Koi ev <to\ evho^acrBiqiTOiiai. 
'He does not say,' adds Chrysostom, 
'they marvelled at me, they prais- 
ed me, they were struck with ad- 
miration of me, but he attributes 
all to grace. They glorified God, he 

s, in nte.' 


St Paul's sojourn in Arabia. 

A veil of thick darkness hangs over St Paul's visit to Arabia. Of Obscurity 
the scenes among which he moved, of the thoughts and occupations wMch of the in- 
engaged him while there, of all the circumstances of a crisis which must '^^ ' 
have shaped the whole tenour of his after life, absolutely nothing is known. 
'Immediately,' says St Paul, 'I went away into Arabia.' The historian 
passes over the incident without a mention. It is a mysterious pause, 
a moment of suspense in the Apostle's history, a breathless calm which 
ushers in the tumultuous storm of his active missionary life. 

Yet it may be useful to review the speculations to which this incident 
has given rise, even though we cannot hope to arrive at any definite 
result; for, if such a review bears no other fruit, it will at least bring 
out more clearly the significance of the incident itself. 

Of the place of the Apostle's sojourn various opinions have been held. Conjeo- 
Arabia is a vag^e term, and affords scope for much conjecture. JS^^^i*^ '" 

I. The Arabic translator^, whose language gives him a fictitious claim /jfEl Bei- 
to a hearing on such a point, renders the passage ' Immediately I went ka. 
to El Belka.' In like manner in Gal. iv. 25 he translates, 'This Hagar is 
Mount Sinai in El Belka, and is contiguous to Jerusalem.' Now the only 
district, so far as I can discover, which bears or has borne the name of 
El Belka, is the region lying to the east and north-east of the Dead Sea^. 
If so, how are we to account for this translation of 'Apa^la by El Belka? 
That the same rendering of the word in both passages arose from the 
translator's connecting them together in some way, can scarcely be doubted. 
Was his starting-point then a misapprehension of the meaning of o-vkotoix" 
in the second passage, which he renders 'is contiguous to',' and arguing 
from this, did he suppose that part of Arabia to be meant in both pas- 
sages, which was nearest to Jerusalem? Or on the other hand, did he 
start from some tradition of St Paul's preaching in ' El Belka,' and having 
thus defined from the first passage the meaning of 'Arabia,' did he apply 
it to the second passage also? But in any case how could he talk of 
Mount Sinai in ' El Belka'? "Was this ignorance of geography? or must we 
resort to the improbable supposition that some wandering Arab tribe, 
which gave its name to the country in the neighbourhood of the Dead Sea, 
at one time occupied the region about Sinai ? At all events the tradition 
here preserved about St Paul, if it be a tradition, is of little worth, as 
the translator seems to have lived at a comparatively late date*. 

1 The Arabic version of the Poly- sq, Stanley's Sinai and Palestine pp. 
glotts.whiehwasmade directly fromthe 95, 319. 

Greek. Thetranslatornotunfrequently ' For this rendering however he 

gives geographical comments. See Hug might plead the authority of several 

Einleit. § cix, i. p. 431. The other ancient commentators. See the notes 

Arabioversion,theErpenian,translated on iv. 25. 

from the Syriae, retains 'Arabia.' * Hug 1. e. states that the traus- 

2 See Burckhardt Trav. in Syria lator has unexpectedly revealed his 1 
App. Ill, Bitter Brdkwnde xii. p. 416 country by his rendering of Acts ii. 10, 



<2) The 
near Da- 

^3) Mount 

2. Arabia, in the widest use of the term, might extend to the gates 
of Damascus, and even include that city itselt ' You cannot any of you 
deny,' says Justin, arguing against his Jew as to the interpretation of 
a passage in one of the prophets, ' that Damascus belongs and did belong 
to Arabia, though now it has been assigned to SyrophoeniciaV Thus 
no very distant journey would be necessary to reach Arabia. A retire- 
ment in the immediate neighbourhood of Damascus would suffice, and such 
a visit, especially if it were brief, might well be passed over by the histo- 
rian as a merely temporary interruption of the Apostle's long residence in 
that city, which was unknown to him, or which knowing, he did not care to 
record. Into these wild regions then, beyond the sway of Roman dominion, 
beyond the reach of civilization, far away from all his old haunts and asso- 
ciations, it is thought that the Apostle plunged himself in the first tumult 
of his newly-acquired experiences'. 

This explanation however is open to objection. It gives to 'Arabia' 
an extension, which at all events seems not to have been common, and 
which even the passage of Justin shows to have required some sort of 
justification. It separates the Arabia of the first chapter from the Arabia 
of the fourth. And lastly, it deprives this visit of a significance which, 
on a more probable hypothesis, it possesses in relation to this crisis of 
St Paul's life. 

3. For if we suppose that the Apostle at this critical moment betook 
himself to the Sinaitic peninsula, the scene of the giving of the law, then 
his visit to Arabia becomes full of meaning. He was attracted thither 
by a spirit akin to that which formerly had driven Elijah to the same 
region^ Standing on the threshold of the new covenant, he was anxious 
to look upon the birthplace of the old : that dwelling for a while in 
seclusion in the presence of ' the mount that burned with fire,' he might 
ponder over the transient glories of the 'ministration of death,' and 
apprehend its real purpose in relation to the more glorious covenant which 

ri fi^pi) Tijs Ai;3(!iis rrjs kot4 Kvp^itv, 
'and the territories of Africa which 
is our country.' There can scarcely be 

a doubt however that here \jj .^ ' our 
country' is a corrupt reading oi\jj .A 

' Cyrene,' the change involving only a 
Blight alteration in one letter. See 
Lagarde de N. T. ad vers. Orient, fidem 
edendo, Berl. 1857, p. 3, referred to in 
Bleek's Einl. p. 737. Such geographi- 
cal notices as that of El Belka point to 
a more eastern origin. 

' Dial. c. Tryph. p. 305 A. See also 
other authorities in Oonybeare and 
Howson, i.p. 117,118. Tertullian (ado. 
Jud. 0. 9 and adv. Marc. iii. 13) ob- 
viously copies Justin and must not be 
considered an independent authority. 
The words of Justin e{ xal vvv irpoffvevi- 

/irirai Tj 'Zupoijioi.vlK-g \eyo/i4ry seem to 
refer to the arrangement of these pro- 
vinces by Hadrian. See Becker and 
Maro[uardt Bora. Alterth. in. i, p. 195 
sqq and comp. [Bardesanes] de Fato, 
in Oureton's Spicil. Syr. p. 30. On 
the limits of Arabia see also Ephx. Syr. 
Op. Syr. I. p. 464 sq. 

" See the instructive passage in 
Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Isr. vu p. 398. 
Ewald however, though he takes St 
Paul into this region, guards against 
the objections which I have alleged in 
the text, by supposing him to travel as 
far as Sinai also (p. 400). 

' I Kings xix. 8 — 18. It is worth 
noticing that this region is connected 
with Damascus in the history of Elijah 
as well as of St Paul ; * Go return on 
thy way to the wilderness of Damascus.' 


was now to supplant it Here, surrounded by the chUdren of the desert, 
the descendants of Hagar the bondwoman, he read the true meaning and 
power of the law^ In the rugged and barren region, whence it issued, Signifi- 
he saw a fit type of that bleak desolation which it created and was in- oance of 
tended to create in the soul of man. In the midst of such scenes and i„,™°" 
associations, his spirit was attuned to harmony with his divine mission, 
and fitted to receive fresh ' visions and revelations of the Lord.' Thus in 
the wilderness of Sinai, as on the Mount of the transfiguration, the three 
dispensations met in one. Here Moses had received the tables of the 
law amid fire and tempest and thick darkness. Here again Elijah, the 
typical prophet, listened to the voice of God, and sped forth refreshed 
on his mission of righteousness. And here lastly, in the fulness of time, 
St Paul, the greatest preacher of Him of whom both the law and the 
prophets spoke, was strengthened and sanctified for his great work, was 
taught the breadth as well as the depth of the riches of God's wisdom, 
and transformed from the champion of a bigoted and narrow tradition into 
the large-hearted Apostle of the Gentiles^. 

What was the length of this sojourn we can only conjecture. The Its dura- 
interval between his conversion and his first visit to Jerusalem, St Paul *i°"' 
here states to have been three years. The notices of time in St Luke 
are vague, but not contradictory to this statement'. From Damascus St 
Paul tells us he went away into Arabia, whence he returned to Damascus. 
St Luke represents him as preaching actively in this city after his con- 
version, not mentioning and apparently not aware of any interruption, 
though his narrative is not inconsistent with such. It seems probable then 
that St Paul's visit to Arabia took place early in this period before he 

' A stronger argument for St Paul's Acts ix. 43, xviii. 18, xxvii. 7. Cer- 

visit to Sinai might be drawn from his tainly the idea connected with kavis 

reference to Hagar, the supposed Ara- in his language is that of largeness ra- 

bic name of Sinai (Gal. iv. 25), which ther than smallness ; comp. Luke vii. 

he was not likely to have heard any- 12, Acts xx. 37 (koKi: icXavd^6s). In 

where but on the spot : comp. Stanley the lxz it is frequently employed to 

Sinai and Palestine p. 50. But the translate HE' 'mighty,' e.g. Euth i. 10, 

reading and the interpretation alike are 11. Again the wide use of the Hebrew 

highly doubtful. See the notes there. D*D\ which St Luke is copying, allows 

> l>he significance of Sinai, as the ofalmostanyextensionoftime. Hence 

holy place of inspiration, will be felt voWal iifiipat in the lxx denotes any 

by readers of Tancred. indefinite period however long ; Gen. 

s The notices of time in the narra- xxxvii. 34, 2 Sam. xiv. 1, 1 Kings iii. 

tive of the Acts are these: He remain- n ('a long life'). Even Demosthenes, 

ed with the disciples in Damascus som« de Cor. p. 258, can speak of the in- 

day3 {ijii4pas tikAs) and straightway {ei- terval between the battles of Haliartus 

eiws) he began to preach {iic/ipv(r<rev)... and Corinth aaoiToWal iiii4piu, though 

and Saul was the more strengthened... they were fought in different years and 

and when many days {viiipai, Ixaval) many important occurrences happened 

were accomplishing (iTrXTjpovvTo) the in the mean time. The difference be- 

Jews took counsel to slay him, in con- tween the vague 'many days' of the 

sequence of which he left and went to Acts and the definite 'three years' of 

Jerusalem (ix. 20—26). 'B/aipai Ixaval the Epistle is such as might be expect- 

is an indefinite period in St Luke, which ed from the circumstances of the two 

may vary according to circumstances ; writers. 


commenced his active labours^ 'Immediatdy,' he says, ' instead of con- 
ferring with flesh and blood, I went into Arabia.' The silence of the 
historian is best accounted for on the supposition that the sojourn there 
was short ; but as St Luke's companionship with the Apostle commenced 
at a much later date, no great stress must be laid on the omission. Yet 
on the other hand there is no reason for supposing it of long duration. 
It was probably brief — brief enough not to occupy any considerable space 
in the Apostle's history, and yet not too brief to serve the purpose it was 
intended to serve. 
Its pnr- por can we doubt that by this journey he sought seclusion from the 

V°^- outer world, that his desire was to commune with God and his own soul 

amid these hallowed scenes, and thus to gather strength in solitude for his 
active labours ? His own language implies this ; ' I conferred not with 
flesh and blood, but departed into Arabia.' The fathers for the most part 
take a different view of this incident. They imagine the Apostle hurrying 
forth into the wilds of Arabia, burning to impart to others the glad tidings 
which had so suddenly burst upon himself. ' See how fervent was his soul,' 
exclaims Chrysostom, ' he was eager to occupy lands yet untilled ; he forth- 
with attacked a barbarous and savage people, choosing a life of conflict and 
much toil'.' This comment strikes a false note. Par different at such a 
crisis must have been the spirit of him, whose life henceforth was at least 
as conspicuous for patient wisdom and large sympathies, as for intense 
self-devotion. He retired for a while, we may suppose, that 
'Separate from the world, his breast 

Might duly take and strongly keep 
The print of Heaven'.' 
And what place more fit for this retirement than that holy ground, 
'Where all around, on mountain, sand, and sky, 
God's chariot wheels have left distinctest trace*'? 

• It must in this case be placed be- nemetsanguinem.'explainingit.'idest 
fore the notice of his active preaching, ad ciroumoieionem, id est ad Judais- 
ix. 10 Koi eiSiias, k.t.\. Some have mum.' Jerome supposes that St Paul 
put it later and seen anindirect allusion preached in Arabia, but that his preach- 
to it in the expression /uSXXok iveSv- ing was unsuccessful. His comment is 
vaiMVTo, ver. 22 ; but there is no trace curious. Why, he asks, is this visit to 
of a chronological notice in these Aiabia,ofwHchweknownothing,whioh 
words, and such an allusion is scarcely seems to have ended in nothing, record- 
natural, ed at all? It is an allegory from which 

" Similarly also Vietorinus, Hilary, wemustextractadeep meaning. Arabia 

Theodore Mops., Theodoret, Primasius, is the Old Testament. In the law and 

and the CEoumenian commentator. the prophets St Paul sought Christ, and 

Some of the Latin fathers might have having found Him there, he returned to 

been helped to this view by a curious Damascus, 'hoc est ad sanguinem et 

blunder arising out of the Latin trans- passionemChristi.' So fortified, he went 

lation 'nou ao(iuievi oarui et sanguini,' to Jerusalem, 'locum vislonis et pads,' 

'I did not rest in flesh and blood,' which This interpretation is doubtless bor- 

Victorinus explains, ' Omnino laboravi rowed from Origen. 

eamaliter,' adding 'Caro enim et san- ' Christian Year, ijtA Sunday after 

guishomoexteriortotusest.' TertuUian TnJiiti/, said of Moses, 

however, de Beamr. Cam. «. 50, quotes * Christian Year, gtk Sunday after 

thepassage, 'Statimnonretuleritadoar- Trinity, said of Elijah. 


St Paul's first visit to Jerusalem. 

The Tisit to Jerusalem mentioned at the close of the first chapter of The same 
this epistle is doubtless the same with that recorded in the ninth chapter s^^"' °ar- 
of the Acts^. Whatever difficulties seem to stand in the way of our iden- p^^uf and* 
tifying them, the fact that in each narrative this is stated to have been st Luke 
St Paul's first appearance in Jerusalem since his conversion and to have 
followed after a sojourn in Damascus, must be considered conclusive. Nor 
indeed is there any inconsistency in the two narratives. Though they con- 
tain but few incidents in common, they for the most part run parallel with 
each other ; and even in particulars in which there is no coincidence, there 
is at least no direct contradiction. On the other hand the aspect of events but under 
presented in the two accounts is confessedly different. And this will different 
almost always be the case in two independent narratives. In the case of ^^P^°*^ 
St Paul and St Luke this divergence is due to two causes : owing o 

First. The different position of the two writers, the one deriving his (i) Their 
information at second-hand, the other an eyewitness and an actor in the respective 
scenes which ho describes. In such cases the one narrator will present Po^^'^o^s. 
rather the external view of events, while the other dwells on their inner 
history, on those relations especially which have influenced his own charac- 
ter and subsequent actions: the former will frequently give broad and 
general statements of facts, where the latter is precise and definite. 

Secondly. The different objects of the two writers. The one sets (2) Their 
himself to give a continuous historical account ; the other introduces inci- difference 
dents by way of allusion rather than of narrative, singling out those espe- *'"^' 
cially which bear on the subject in hand. In the particular instance before 
us, it is important to observe this divergence of purpose. St Luke dwells 
on the cuange which had come over Saul, transforming the persecutor of 
the Gospel into the champion of the Gospel. St Paul asserts his own inde- 
pendence, maintaining that his intercourse with the leaders and the Church 
of the Circumcision had been slight. The standing-point of the historian 
is determined by the progress of events, that of the Apostle by the features 
of the controversy. Thus occupying different positions, they naturally lay 
stress each on a different class of facts, for the most part opposite to, 
though not inconsistent with, each other. 

The narratives may best be compared by considering the incidents under 
two heads ; 

I. St Patd's intercourse with the Apostles. The narrative of the Acts St Paul's 
relates that when St Paul visited Jerusalem he was regarded with suspicion relations 
by the disciples; that Barnabas introduced him to 'the Apostles,' relating rV^J 
the circumstances of his conversion and his zeal for the Gospel when con- ' 

verted; and that after this he moved about freely in their company. These 
are just the incidents which would strike the external observer as import- 
ant. On the other hand St Paul says nothing of Barnabas. His relations 
with Barnabas had no bearing on the subject in hand, his obligations to 

^ ix.26 — 30. Compare St Paul's later salem. Acts xxii. 17 — 21. 
reference to this residence at Jeru- 



the Apostles of the Circumcision. In all that relates to that subject he is 
precise and definite, where the author of the Acts is vague and general. 
He states the exact time of his sojourn, fifteen days. He mentions by 
name the members of the apostolate whom alone he saw — Peter in whose 
house he resided, and James to whom as head of the Church of Jerusalem 
he would naturally pay a visit. This is suflScient to explain the account of 
his 'going in and out' with the Apostles in the Acts, though the language 
of the historian is not what would have been used by one so accurately 
informed as the Apostle himself. It is probable that the other Apostles 
were absent on some mission, similar to that of Peter to Lydda and Joppa 
which is recorded just after (ix. 32 — 43) ; for there were at this time num- 
berless churches scattered throughout 'Judsea and Galilee and Samaria' 
(ix. 31), which needed supervision. 
{2) -with 2. St Pants intercourse toith the Jewish Church at large. At first 

the Jewish sight there appears to be a wide difference between the two accounts. St 
Chns- Luke tells of his attempting to 'join himself to the disciples,' of his 'going 
in and out,' of his ' speaking boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus and 
disputing,' while St Paul himself states that ' he was unknown by face unto 
the churches of Judsea.' Yet on examining the narratives more closely 
this discrepancy is reduced to very narrow limits. St Luke confines his 
sojourn especially to Jerusalem, and his preaching to a small section of un- 
believers, not the genuine Jews but the Hellenists*. He relates moreover 
that St Paul's visit terminated abruptly*, owing to a plot against his life, 
and that he was hurried off to Csesarea, whence he forthwith embarked. 
To a majority therefore of the Christians at Jerusalem he might, and to 
the Churches of Judaea at large he must, have been personally unknown. 
But though the two accounts are not contradictory, the impression left by 
St Luke's narrative needs correcting by the more precise and authentic 
statement of St PauL 


The name and office of an Apostle. 

of the 
term in 

The word dirooroKos in the first instance is an adjective signifying 
'despatched' or 'sent forth.' Applied to a person, it denotes more than 
a77«Xos. The 'Apostle ' is not only the messenger, but the delegate of tiie 
person who sends him. He is entrusted with a mission, has powers con- 
ferred upon him^. Beyond this, the classical usage of the term gives no 

' ix. 28. The restrictions 4v [or els] 
'IepciU(roXf)/4 and vpis rois 'B\X))W<rTiij 
are the more noticeable, in that they 
interfere with the leading feature of St 
Luke's narrative, the publicity of Saul's 

" ix. 29. Compare Acts xxii. 18, 
*Make haste and get thee quickly out 
of Jerusalem.' 

• It occurs of a person in Herod. 1. 
21, V. 38. With this exception, no in- 
stances are given in the Lexicons of its 
use by classical authors even of a late 
date with any other but the Attic mean- 
ing ; nor have I succeeded in finding any 
myself, though Hesyohius explains diro- 
iTToXos' tTTparriyis Kara irKoSv ire/nr6- 
/tevos. This is probably an instance where 



aid towards understanding the meaning of the Christian apostolate. Its 
special sense denoting 'a naval expedition, a fleet despatched on foreign 
service,' seems to have entirely superseded every other meaning in the 
Attic dialect ; and in the classical Greek of a later period also, except in 
this sense, the word appears to be of very rare occurrence. 

A little more Ught, and yet not much more, is thrown on the subject by Its use 
the use of the term among the Jews. It occurs but once in the lxx, in among the 
I Kings xiv. 6, as a translation of ni7E>', where it has the general sense of ^^ ' 
a messenger, though with reference to a commission from God*. With the 
later Jews however, and it would appear also with the Jews of the Chris- 
tian era, the word was in common use. It was the title borne by those 
who were despatched from the mother city by the rulers of the race on any 
foreign mission', especially such as were charged with collecting the tribute 
paid to the temple service'. After the destruction of Jerusalem the 'Apo- 
stles' formed a sort of council about the Jewish patriarch, assisting him in 
his deliberations at home, and executing his orders abroad^ Thus in 

the Attio usage has ruled the literary 
language, the word having meanwhile 
preserved in the common dialect the 
sonse which it has in Herodotus and 
which reappears in the lxx and New 
Testament and in the official language 
of the Jews. See the notes on kotij- 
Xeu', vi. 6 ; vripeirBai, Phil, i. 28 ; 707- 
yvff/iM, Phil. ii. 14. 

1 It was also used by Symmachus to 
translate 'n*^ in Is. zviii. a : see below. 
The word oirotrroX^j occurs in a few pas- 
sages in the iixx, and iiroTTiWa is 
the common translation of m^. Justin 
therefore [Dial. e. Tryph. c. 75, p. 300 d) 
is so far justified in saying that the pro- 
phets are called apostles, koX oEyYeXoi koX 
&ir6<rToKoi rov Qeov \4yovTai ol i,yyt\- 
\€LV TO, vap aiiTov d/jroffTeKKbtievoi irpo- 
0^ai...X^764 yap (Kei & 'Hcratas iiro- 
areXXbv IK. The Syriao renders diri- 
(TToXo! by the word corresponding to 
the Hebrew. 

' Such for instance as the bearers of 
the instructions contemplated in Acts 
xxviii. 11, oSre ypd/iimra irepl ffoO 
iSe^&jieBa mrd T-i)s 'lovSalas aire irapa- 
yev6/iemf tls rwv i,de\<piiv aiTTiyyeiXev. 
Eusebius {Montf. Coll. Nov. 11. 425), 
evidently thinking o this passage, 
eays: oitoo-toXous Si clairi vSv (Bot 
iarlv 'lovSatois dvofial^eu' robs iyK^lKXta 
ypd/iliara irapa rwv dpxovTiai' avTwv 
emKofiij^ofiivovs. The passage in Isaiah 
sviii. 1,2, which is read in the lxx, 

Oial.,.i ccTroaTiWuv iv 6aXa(yti'j) ofuqpa 
Kal ijTurToXas /Si/SXioa; iiroDU rou ilSaTos, 
and in which for ofiripa Symmachus 
had oiroffToXous, was interpreted to refer 
to these 'apostles' of the Jews who 
instigated the people against the Chris- 
tians ; and some even thought that in 
the words following, iropeiaovrai yap 
&yye\oL koO</>oi irpbi ^dvos k.t.\., the 
true Apostles were referred to in con- 
trast with the false. See Froeopius in 
Esaiam, 1.0. and Eusebius, I.e. The lxx 
version is entirely wrong and the com- 
ment worthless in itself, but it affords 
a valuable illustration of St Paul's refer- 
ences to the 'false apostles,' and espe- 
cially to the commendatory letters, « 
iCor. iii. i. See also Jerome, Comm. ad 
Gal. i. 1, 'Usque hodie a patriarchis 
JudiEorum apostolos mitti etc' 

' See Cod. Theodos. XVI. Tit. viii. 14, 
* Superstitionis indignae est, ut archi- 
synagogi sive presbyteri Judaeornm vel 
quos ipsi apostolos vocant, qui ad exi- 
gendum aurum atqne argentum a pa- 
triarcha oerto tempore diriguntur etc.,' 
with the learned comment of J. Gotho- 
fred. The collection of this tribute 
was called ottoo-toXi}, Julian Epist. 25 
tV ^yonivrpi trap' u/ur diroiTToK^v icci)» 

* See the important passage in Epi- 
phanius, iToer. xxx. p. 128, tcSk Tap' 
airois a^toiiianKuiv avSpSv ivapl9iuo% tiv. 
elffl 5i ovTOi, iierd rbv irarpi&pX't'' diro' 



Mistake of 
the title 
to the 

Its use 
in the 
does not 

designating His immediate and most favoured disciples 'Apostles,' our 
Lord was not Introducing a new term^ but adopting one which from its 
current usage would suggest to His hearers the idea of a highly responsible 
mission I 

At the first institution of the ofBce the Apostles were twelve In number. 
According to the prevailing view this limit was strictly observed, an excep- 
tion however being made in the case of St Paul. Nay so far has the Idea 
of this restriction of number been carried by some, that they hold the elec- 
tion of Matthias to have been a hasty and ill-advised act, and to have been 
subsequently reversed by an interposition of God, St Paul being substituted 
In his place'. It is needless to say that the narrative of St Luke does not 
betray the faintest trace of such a reversal And with regard to the general 
question, It will I think appear, that neither the Canonical Scriptures nor 
the early Christian writings afford sufficient ground for any such limitation 
of the apostolate. 

In the Gospels the word 'Apostle ' is of comparatively rare occurrence. 
Those, whom It is customary with us to designate especially ' the Apostles,' 
are most often entitled either generally 'the disciples' or more definitely 
' the Twelve.' Where the word does occur. It is not so used as to lend any 
countenance to the idea that it is in any way restricted to the Twelve. 
In St Matthew it Is found once only, and there it is carefully defined, ' the 
twelve Apostles' (x. 2). In St Mark again it occurs in one passage alone, 
where it has a special reference to the act of sending them forth (vi 30, 
oZ oTrdoToXot, compare airotrriKKeiv, ver. 7). In St John likewise it appears 
once only, and there in its general sense of a messenger, a delegate, 
without any direct reference to the Twelve (ziil. 16). St Luke nses the 
word more frequently, and indeed states explicitly that our Lord gave this 
name to the Twelve*, and in his Gospel it is a common designation for 
them. But, if we are disposed to Infer from this that the title was in any 
way restricted to them, we are checked by remembering that the same 
evangelist elsewhere extends it to others — not to Paul only, but to Bar- 

<rro\o£ KoKoiixevoif irpo^eSpeiovin d^ rt^ 
TraTpidpxVi k.t.X. ; and p. 134, av/i^e- 
prii!e...yipas t^ 'luff'^vrif Tijs dTroffToX^s 
SoOvai rijv imxapTtav ' xal iner' imaro- 
\<iv ovTos oVoiTT^XXeTOi els riiv EitXtKuc 
"y^y, K.T.X. 

* There is no direct evidence indeed 
that the term was in use among the 
Jews before the destruction of Jeru- 
salem : but it is highly improbable that 
they should have adopted it from the 
Christians, if it had not been current 
among them before; and moreover 
Christian writers speak of this Jewish 
apostolate, as an old institution which 
BtiU lingered on. 

' Our Lord Himself is so styled Hebr. 
iii. I, *The apostle and high priest 

of our profession ' ; the best conmient 
on which expression is Joh. zvii. 18 ; 
■As thou hast sent (ir4<rTa\as) me into 
the world, even so have I also sent (dn-- 
iiFTeiKa) them into the world.' Comp. 
Justin Apol. I. 0. 63, pp. 95 D, 96 0. 

' See SchaS History of the Apo- 
stolic Church, n. p. 194. 

* Luke vi. 13 ^jcXefd/texos air' ai- 
r&v SiiSexa ois xal airoirTiXovs iivbiia- 

' Acts xiv. 4, 14. The word otto- 
ffToXos occurs 79 times in the New Tes- 
tament, and of these 68 instances are 
in St Luke and St Paul. aVotrroXj) 
occurs four times only, thrice in St 
Paul and once in St Luke. 


In the account of the foundation of the apostolate then, and in the 
language used in the Gospels of the Twelve, there is no hint that the 
number was intended to be so limited. It is true that twelve is a typical Twelve a 
number, but so is seven also. And if the first creation of the diaconate typit^l 
was not intended to be final as regards numbers, neither is there any 
reason to assume this of the first creation of the apostolate. The qualifica- 
tion for and the nature of the ofSce in the latter case necessarily imposed 
a severer limit than in the former, but otherwise they stand on the same 
footing with respect to an increase in their numbers. The Twelve were 
primarily the Apostles of the Circumcision, the representatives of the twelve 
tribes^ The extension of the Church to the Gentiles might be accompanied 
by an extension of the apostolate. How far this extension was carried, it 
may be a question to consider ; but the case of St Paul clearly shows that 
the original number was broken in upon. In the figurative language of the 
Apocalypse indeed the typical number twelve still remains^. But this is 
only in accordance with the whole imagery of the book, which is essentially 
Jewish. The Church there bears the name of Jerusalem. The elect are 
sealed from the twelve tribes, twelve thousand from each. It would be as 
unreasonable to interpret the restriction literally in the one case, as in the 
other. The 'twelve Apostles of the Lamb' in the figurative language 
of St John represent the apostolate, perhaps the general body of Chris- 
tian pastors, as the elect of the twelve tribes represent the elect of 

And as a matter of fact we do not find the term Apostle restricted Other 
to the Twelve with only the exception of St Paul'. St Paul himself seems Apostles 
in one passage to distinguish between 'the Twelve' and 'all the Apostles,' as Tviifg 
if the latter were the more comprehensive term (i Cor. xv. 5, 7). It 
appears both there and in other places^ that James the Lord's brother 

1 Matth. xix. 28, Luke xxii. 30 : generally supposed, 

comp. Bamab. § 8 oi(rir dexaSio ets /lap- * In i Cor. xv. 7, ' After that he 

ripiov Tuv ^vXtSv on BexaSio al ^v\aX was seen of James, then of all the apo- 

ToO 'I<r/)o^X. See Justin Dial. c. Tryph. sties,' St Paul certainly appears to in- 

42, p. 260 0. An Ophite writing re- elude James among the Apostles. See 

presented the Twelve as actually taken also the note on Gal. i. 19, where he is 

from the twelve tribes: Hippol. Haer. apparently so entitled. In i Cor. ix. 5, 

V. 8, p. 109. <^s xal ol \oLirol car6<rTo\oi xal ol dSe\<pol 

' Bev. xxi. 14 ' And the walls of toO Kvplov xal Kniipds, it seems probable 

the city had twelve foundations, and that St Paul is singling out certain 

in them the names of the twelve apo- Apostles in 'the brethren of the Lord' 

sties of the Lamb.' as well as in 'Cephas,' whether we 

' Those instances are here disre- suppose Xonroi to be used in distinction 
garded, where the term is used in the to the persons thus specified, or to 
sense of an apostle or delegate of a Paul and Barnabas who are men- 
church, e.g. the brethren {2 Cor. viii. tioned just after. Still it is a question 
23 dir6a-To\oi iKK\iiiriwv) and Epaphro- which of the ' brethren of the Lord ' are 
ditus (Phil. ii. 25 */""'' *•=' airoaroXos). meant. Jude is said to have been mar- 
Such persons are not spoken of as apo- ried (Euseb. S.M. iii. 20), but he seems 
sties of Christ. Yet this free use of the to disclaim for himself the title of an 
term seems to show that it had not such Apostle (Jude 17, 18). Whether Hege- 
a rigid and precise application as is sippus (Euseb. H, E. ii. 23) considered 




is styled an Apostle. On the most natural interpretation of a passage in 
the Epistle to the Romans, Andronicus and Juntas, two Christians other- 
wise unknown to us, are called distinguished members of the apostolate, 
language which indirectly implies a very considerable extension of the 
term*. In i Thess. ii. 6 again, where in reference to his visit to Thessalonica 
he speaks of the disinterested labours of himself and his colleagues, 
adding 'though we might have been burthensome to you, being Apostles 
of Clirist,' it is probable that under this term he includes Silvanus, who 
had laboured with him in Thessalonica and whose name appears in the 
superscription of the letter^. 

But, if some uncertainty hangs over all the instances hitherto given, the 
apostleship of Barnabas is beyond question. St Luke records his con- 
secration to the oGBce as taking place at the same time with and in the 
same manner as St Paul's (Acts xiii. 2, 3). In his account of their mis- 
sionary labours again, he names them together as 'Apostles,' even mention- 
ing Barnabas first (Acts xiv. 4, 14). St Paul himself also in two different 

James as an Apostle or not, may be 
questioned : his words are, AioS^erai 
Si r^v ^KK\7)fflav fierh rtov airotrToXon' 
i dSeK^iis roS Kvplov 'Idfcu/Sos (comp. 
Acts T. 29). The Clementines seem cer- 
tainly to exclude him, as do also the 
Apost. Const, viii. 46. See below note 5, 

p. ICO. 

* Bom. xvi. 7 'AffTrdffaade 'Avdpo- 
viKov Kal 'lovvLav Tois avyyeveis fwv K<d 
ffvpaiX/ia\il)Tovs fiov, oh-tv4s elaiv iwi- 
inffjuii iv Toh d,TOffr6\ois, ot Kal irpb ifjiov 
yh/ovav iv Xpurrif. Except to escape 
the difficulty involved in such an ex- 
tension of the apostolate, I do not 
think the words oh-ivii eUriv ewtarmoi 
ev Tois oTTOffToXois would have been 
generally rendered, ' who are highly es- 
teemed by the Apostles.' The Greek 
fathers took the more natural interpre- 
tation. Origen says, 'Possibile est et 
iUud inteUegi quod fortassis ex illis sep- 
tuaginta duobns qui et ipsi apostoli 
nominati sunt, fuerint : ' Chrysostom 
still more decisively, rb diroo-TiXous etyot 
fiiya' t6 5^ iy to&tols hrLff-^/xovs etvai, 
ivv6t)(7ov i}\lKov eyKii/juop, and similarly 
Theodoret. In this case 'lovviav (or 
'>) is probably 9 man's name, 
Junias contracted from Juniauus, as it is 
taken by Origen {on Rom. xvi. 21, T. rv. 
p. 582 D, and especially on xvi. 39, ib. 
p. 686 e) and by several modern critics, 
Chrysostom however, in spite of his 
interpretation, considers that it is a 
woman's name : jSa^ai, iro'o-ij t^s 710'ot- 

Kbs TOiiTijs ij <pi.\o(ro4>la, (ii Kal rrp t&» 
diroffToXuy d^i(ij67jvcu irpoaiiyopiaS' 

" Not Timothy, though Timothy 
also had been with him at Thessalonica, 
and his name, like that of Silvanus, 
is joined to the Apostle's own in the 
opening salutation. But Timothy is 
distinctly excluded from the apostolate 
in 2 Cor. i. 1, Col. i. i, 'Paul an Apo- 
stle and Timothy the brother'; and 
elsewhere, when StPaul links Timothy's 
name with his own, he drops the title 
of Apostle, e.g. Phil. i. i 'Paul and 
Timotheus, servants of Jesus Christ.' 

In I Cor. iv. 9, *I think that God 
hath set forth us the Apostles last etc.,' 
he might seem to include Apollos, who 
is mentioned just before, ver. 6. But 
Apollos is distinctly excluded from the 
apostolate by one who was a contem- 
porary and probably knew him. Cle- 
ment of Bome, § 47, speaking of the 
dissensions of the Corinthians in St 
Paul's time, says, 7rpojeK\Wi^e otto- 
(TToXots iieiiaprvp^nhiois (i.e. St Peter 
and St Paul) koX anSpX SeSiiKip.acrnivi(> 
Trap' airois (Apollos). If therefore there 
is a reference in r Cor. iv. 9 to any in- 
dividual person besides St Paul (which 
seems doubtful), I suppose it to be again 
to Silvanus, who had assisted him iu 
laying the foundation of the Corinthian 
Church (4 Cor. i. 19). For the circum- 
stance which disqualified Apollos and 
Timotheus from being Apostles, see 
below, p. 98. 


epistles holds similar language. In tlie Galatiau letter he speaks of Bar- 
nabas as associated with himself in the Apostleship of the Gentiles (ii. 9) ; 
in the First to the Corinthians he claims for his fellow-labourer all the 
privileges of an Apostle, as one who like himself holds the office of an 
Apostle and is doing the work of an Apostle (ix. J, 6). If therefore St Paul 
has held a larger place than Barnabas in the gratitude and veneration of 
the Church of all ages, this is due not to any superiority of rank or office, 
but to the ascendancy of his personal gifts, a more intense energy and self- 
devotion, wider and deeper sympathies, a firmer intellectual grasp, a larger 
measure of the Spirit of Christy 

It may be added also, that only by such an extension of the office could 
any footing be found for the pretensions of the false apostles (2 Cor. xi. 13, 
Rev. ii. 2). Had the number been definitely restricted, the claims of these 
interlopers would have been self-condemned. 

But if the term is so extended, can we determine the limit to its ex- 
tension 1 This will depend on the answer given to such questions as these : 
"What was the nature of the call ? What were the necessary qualifications 
for the office) What position did it confer) What were the duties at- 
tached to it? 

The facts gathered from the New Testament are insufficient to supply 
a decisive answer to these questions; but they enable us to draw roughly 
the line, by which the apostolate was bounded. 

(i) The Apostles comprised ihe first order in the Church (i Cor. xii. Bank of an 
28, 29, Ephes. iv. 11). They are sometimes mentioned in connexion with -Apostle. 
the prophets of the Old dispensation^, sometimes with the prophets of the 
New^. It is in the latter sense, that the Church is said to be built 'on the 
foundation of the Apostles and prophets.' The two orders seem to have 
been closely allied to each other in the nature of their spiritual gifts, 
though the Apostle was superior in rank and had administrative functions 
which were wanting to the prophet. 

(ii) In an important passage (i Cor. ix. i, 2) where St Paul is main- Tests of 
taining his authority against gainsayers and advancing proofs of his Apo- Apostle- 
stleship, he asks 'Have I not seen the Lord Jesus Christ? Are not ye our ^^* 
work in the Lord?' It would appear then ; 

First, that the having seen Christ was a necessary condition of the (i) Quali- 

* In the printed texts of Clem. Bee. abbas ' in two places. 
L 60 Barnabas is identified with Mat- ' Luke zi. 49, 2 Pet. iii. 2, and so 
thias, and thus made an Apostle, with- perh. Eev. xviii. 20 : comp. Polyo. § 6. 
out extending the number beyond " Ephes. ii. 20, iii. 5. That the 'pro- 
twelve; 'Post quem Barnabas qui et phets' in these passages are to be so 
Matthias qui in locum Judae subro- understood, appears (i) from the order, 
gatus est apostolus.' But the correct the Apostles being named before the 
reading is doubtless 'Barsabas,' which prophets ; (2) from the expression in 
is found in the ms in Trinity College Ephes. iii. 5, us vvv dir€Ka\i<p$ri to« 
Library at Cambridge, as well as in aylou aToirT6\ois airov koI wpoifyfyrais. 
several mentioned by Cotelier. Thus It is in this same epistle also (iv. 11) 
the account is a confused version of that the prophets are directly meu- 
the incident in the Acts. The Syriao tioned as the next order to the Apostles 
translation strangely enough has 'Bar- in the Christian Church. 

GAI.. 7 


ficationfor apostolic office. It may be urged indeed that St Paul is here taking 
the office. t|je ground of his Judaizing opponents, who affected to lay great stress 
on personal intercourse with the Lord, and argues that even on their own 
showing he is not wanting in the qualifications for the Apostleship. This 
is true. But independently of St Paul's language here, there is every 
reason for assuming that this was an indispensable condition (Luke xxiv. 
To be a 48, Acts i. 8). An Apostle must necessarily have been an eye-witness of 
■witness of the resurrection. He must be able to testify from direct knowledge to 
reoti^on"^ this fundamental fact of the faith. The two candidates for the vacant 
place of Judas were selected because they possessed this qualification 
of personal intercourse with the Saviour, and it is directly stated that the 
appointment is made in order to furnish ' a witness of His resurrection' 
(Acts L 21—23). This knowledge, which was before lacking to St Paul, was 
supplied by a miraculous interposition, so as to qualify him for the office. 
All the others, who are called or seem to be called Apostles in the New 
Testament, may well have satisfied this condition. Androuicus and Juuias 
were certainly among the curliest disciples (Rom. xvi. 7), and may have 
seen the Lord, if not while His earthly ministry lasted, at all events during 
the forty days after the resurrection. Barnabas was a well-known and 
zealous believer in the first days of the Christian Church (Acts iv. 36), and 
is reported to have been one of the Seventy. James and the other bretliren 
of the Lord were at least so far qualified. Silas also, who was a leading 
man in the Church of Jerusalem (Acts xv. 22), might well have enjoyed this 
ApoUos On the other hand, it is not probable that this qualification was pos- 

and Timo- gessed either by Apollos or by Timothy, who were both comparatively late 
auaUfied converts, and lived far away from the scenes of our Lord's ministry, the 
one at Alexandria (Acts xviii. 24), the other at Lystra (Acts xvi. i, 2). 
And to these, as has been pointed out, the name of an Apostle is indirectly 
denied, though from their prominent position in the Church and the energy 
and success of their missionary labours, they of all men, after St Paul and 
the Twelve, might seem to lay claim to this honourable title. 
The out- But though it was necessary that an Apostle should have been an eye- 

ward com- witness of the Lord's resurrection, it does not follow that the actual call to 
S)w civen '^* Apostleship should come from an outward personal communication with 
■ our Lord, in the manner in which the Twelve were called With Matthias 
it certainly was not so. The commission in his case was received through 
the medium of the Church. Even St Paul himself seems to have been 
invested with this highest oflSce of the Church in the same way. His 
conversion indeed may be said in some souse to have beeu his call to the 
Apostleship. But the actual investiture, the completion of his call, as may 
be gathered from St Luke's narrative, took place some years later at 
Antioch (Acts xiii. 2). It was then at length that he, together with Bar- 
nabas, was set apart by the Spirit acting through the Church, for the work 
to which God had destined him, and for which he had been qualified by the 
appearance on the way to Damascus. Hitherto both alike are styled only 
'prophets.' From this point onward both alike are 'Apostles.' 

But secondly, in the passage already referred to, St Paul lays much 
more stress on his possessing the powers of an Apostle, as a token of the 


tmthfulness of his claims. ' If I be not an Apostle to others,' he says to (i) Signs 
the Corinthians, ' at least I am to you.' Their conTersion was the seal of °^ '■^ 
his Apostleship (i Cor. ix. 2). In another passage he speaks in like manner ^ ^' 
of his having wrought the siffns of an Apostle among them (2 Cor. xii. 12). 
The signs, which he contemplates in these passages, our modern conceptions 
would lead us to separate into two classes. The one of these includes 
moral and spiritual gifts — patience, self-denial, effective preaching; the 
other comprises such powers as we call supernatural, ' signs, wonders, and 
mighty deeds.' 8t Paul himself however does not so distinguish them, but 
with more of reverence regards them rather as different manifestations of 
' one and the self-same Spirit.' 

But essential as was the possession of these gifts of the Spirit to esta- 
blish the claims of an Apostle, they seem to have been possessed at least in 
some degree by all the higher ministers of the Church, and therefore do 
not afford any distinctive test, by which we are enabled to fix the limits of 
the Apostleship. 

Such then is the evidence yielded by the notices in the New Testament 
— evidence which, if somewhat vague in itself, is sufficient to discountenance 
the limitation of the Apostolate in the manner generally conceived. 

And such for the most part is the tendency of the notices found in the Wide use 
Christian writers of the ages immediately following. They use the term °^ *he 
indeed vaguely and inconsistently, sometimes in a narrower, sometimes in "^ 
a. wider sense, than the New Testament writings would seem to warrant ; 
but on the whole the impression is left from their language, that no very 
rigid limitation of the office was present to their minds. 

The allusions in the writings of the Apostolic fathers are for the most in the 
part too general to build any inference upon. They all look upon them- ^postolio 
selves as distinct from the Apostles*. Several of them include St Paul by ' 

name in the Apostolate. Clement moreover speaks of the Apostles as 
having been sent forth by Christ himself (§ 42), and in another passage he 
obviously excludes Apollos from the number 2. More important however, 
as showing the elasticity of the term, is a passage in Hermas, where he 
represents the ' Apostles and teachers ' under one head as forty in num- 
ber^ selecting this doubtless as a typical number in accordance with the 
figurative character of his work. 

Writers of the subsequent ages are more obviously lax in their use of and sno- 
the title. At a very early date we find it applied to the Seventy, without needing 
however placing them on the same level with the Twelve. This application ^"^ *'^^' 

1 Clem. § 42, Ignat. Bom. § 4, Po- ■ Hermas Sim. ix, 15, 16: comp. 

lyo. § 6, Barnab. §§ 5, 8, Ep. ad Diogn. Via. iii. j, Sim. ix. 25. The data with 

g J i_ regard to the age of Hermas are (i) that 

' § 47. See above, note z, p. 96. Bu- he was a contemporary of Clement (Vis. 
Bebius, iii. 39, infers that Papias distin- ii. 4) ; and (1) that his work was written 
guished Aristion and John the Presby- while his brother Pius was bishop of 
ter, who had been personal disciples of Eome (oiro. 140), Fragm. Murat. in 
the Lord, from the Apostles. This may South iJeJ. Sacr. i. p. 396. He cannot 
be so ; but from his language as quoted therefore have been the Hermas men- 
it can only be safely gathered that he tioned by St Paul (Eom. xvi 14), as 
distinguished them from the Twelve. several ancient writers suppose. 




occurs even in Irenseus and Tertvillian*, the earliest extant writers who 
dwell on this or kindred subjects. About the same time Clement of Alex- 
andria not only calls Barnabas an Apostle, but confers the title on Clement 
of Rome also*. Philip the Evangelist is so styled occasionally ; but in 
some instances at least he has been confused with Philip, one of the 
Twelve^ Origen discusses the term as capable of a very wide application* ; 
and Busebius, accounting for St Paul's expression (i Cor. xv. 7), speaks of 
' numberless apostles ' besides the Twelve", 
still reoog- Nor will it weigh as an argument on the other side, that many writers 
nising speak of the Twelve as the founders of the Church, or argue on the typical 
tTO'oal *^ significance of this number in the Apostolate': for some of those, who hold 
this language most strongly, elsewhere use the term Apostle in a very 
extended application ; and the rest either distinctly acknowledge the Apo- 
stolic office of St Paul, or indirectly recognise his authority by quoting from 
his writings or endorsing his teaching. 

■■ Iren. ii. ai. i ; Tertull. adv. Mare. 
iv. 14, 'Adlegit et alios septuagiuta 
apoatolos super dnodecim,' referring for 
an illastration of the numbers to Exod. 
XV. »7, 'And they came to Elim, where 
were twelve wells of water, and three- 
score and ten palm-trees.' See also 
Origen quoted above, p. 96. In the 
Gospel the Seventy are not indeed called 
'Apostles,' but the verb aTroo-TAXeii' is 
applied to them, and they are spoken of 
as ' seventy others ' (Luke x. i), in re- 
ference to the mission of the Twelve. 
In the Aruiient Syriac Documents, edited 
by Cureton, this extension is distinctly 
and repeatedly given to the term ; e.g. 
p. 3, 'ThaddsBUS the Apostle one of the 
Seventy ' ; p. 34. ' A Jdeeus the Apostle 
one of the seventy- two Apostles.' 

' For Barnabas see Strom, ii. p. 
445, 447 (ed. Potter) ; for Clement of 
Borne, Strom, iv. p. 609. Elsewhere 
Clement calls Barnabas dTroffToKiKot, 
adding that he was one of the Seventy, 
Strom, ii. p. 489. 

° See Colossiaia, p. 45 sq. In the 
Apost. Const, (vi. 7) he is called H\tv- 
TTos 6 (rvvatroaroXos ijiKjv. 

* Origen in Joann. Tom. iv. p. 430, 
ed. Delarue. 

' H. E. i. 12 etS' in wapi, roirovt, 
kot4 idjiifiaa) Tua> SiliSeKO, irKelimtiv taw/ 
inrap^avTuv airoaT6\wv, ofos icoJ airbi 
i IlauXo: t^v, vpoaHdijiri \4yti)v ■ "EireiTO 
uipSij Tots cLToaToXois iraai. Comp. 
Theodoret on i Cor. xii. 28. There is 
however no authority for the statement 
of the latter, i Tim. iii. i, that the order 

afterwards called bishops were formerly 
called apostles. See Philippians, p. 
193 sq. 

Certain early commentators on 
Isaiah xvii. 6 saw a reference to fourteen 
Apostles, making up the number by in- 
eluding Paul and Barnabas, or Paul 
and James the Lord's brother : see Eu- 
seb. in Is. xvii. 6, and Hieron. in Is. 
IV. pp. 194, 280, ed. Vallarsi. The 
Apost. Const, (viii. 46) recognise thir- 
teen, inclnding St Paul and excluding 
St James. Of really early writings the 
Clementine Homilies and Recognitions 
alone seem to restrict the number to 
twelve. This restriction served the 
purpose of the writers, enabling them 
to exclude St Paul. At the same time 
the exclusion of St James is compen- 
sated by assigning to him the title of 
' bishop of bishops. ' 

• Bamab. § 8, referred to above, p. 
95, note I : Justin, Dial. p. 260 0: comp. 
Apol. I. p. 78 A, dird yiip 'lepovaaMjn 
ivSpes SeKoSio riv apiBpibv cirlKBov ei's rhv 
K6(rpjov: Iren. iv. 21, 3, ' dodeoastylnm 
firmamentum Eoclesiae,' ib. Fragm. p. 
843 (Stieren): Tertull. adv. Mare. iv. 
1 3 asks ' Cur autem dnodecim aposto- 
loB elegit et non alium quemlibet nn- 
merum? ', and refers in answer to the 
twelve springs at Elim, the twelve 
jewels on Aaron's breastplate, etc. 
Comp. Theodot. in Clem. Alex. p. 975 
(Potter). In Clem. Ham. ii. 23 the 
Apostles are compared to the twelve 
months of the year: comp. Clem. 
Recogn. iv. 35, 36. 


The passages referred to are, I think, sufficient to show that ancient 
writers for the most part allowed themselves very considerable latitude in 
the use of the title. Lower down than this it is unnecessary to follow the 
stream of authority. The traditions of later ages are too distant to reflect 
any light on the usage of Apostolic times. 



[II. I, 2 

II. '''ETretra Sia ^SKaTeao'dpwv erwv TrdXiv dpe/iriv 
6ts 'lepocroXviuLa fxerd Bapva^a, avvirapaXa^wv Kai Ti- 
rol/" *dve(3riv Se Kara dvroKdXv^iv, Kai dvedefirjv avroTs 

II. I, 2. ' An interval of fourteen 
years elapsed. During the whole of 
this time I had no intercourse with 
the Apostles of the Circumcision. 
Then I paid another visit to Jerusa- 
lem. My companion was Barnabas, 
who has laboured so zealously among 
the Qentiles, whose name is so closely 
identified with the cause of the Gen- 
tiles. With him I took Titus also, 
himself a Gentile. And here again I 
acted not in obedience to any human 
adviser. A direct revelation iS-om God 
prompted me to this journey.' 

Sid SeKaTfO-trapatv erwv] Are the 
fourteen years to be counted from St 
Paul's conversion, or from the visit to 
Jerusalem just recorded 1 The follow- 
ing considerations seem to decide in 
favour of the latter view: (i) The 
stress of the argument lies on the 
length of the interval during which he 
had held no communication with the 
Judaic Apostles ; and (2) Individual 
expressions in the passage tend the 
same way : the use of 81a 8. erav, in 
preference to item 8. tTq, implies that 
the whole interval was a blank so far 
as regards the matter in hand, the in- 
tercourse of St Paul with the Twelve; 
and the words iraXiv av4^r}v, 'again 
I went up,' refer us back to the former 
visit, as the date from which the time 
is reckoned. As the latter visit (sup- 
posing it to be the same with that of 
Acts XV.) is calculated independently 
to have taken place about A.D. 51, the 
date of the first visit will according 
to this view be thrown back to about 
A.D. 38, and that of the conversion 
to about A.D. 36, the Jewish mode 
of reckoning being adopted. For Sid, 
'after the lapse of,' see Acts xxiv. 17, 
and Winer, § xlvii. p. 475. 

Kol TiVoj/] Titus is included in the 
'certain others' of Acts xv. 2, and is 
specially named here on account of 

the dispute to which he gave rise (ver. 
3). He was sent from Antioch with 
others whose names are not mention- 
ed, probably as a representative of 
the Gentile Christians ; just as on the 
return of the mission the Apostles of 
the Circumcision sent back Judas and 
Silas to represent the Jewish believers, 
Acts XV. 27. The incident would pre- 
sent itself all the more vividly to St 
Paul's mind, inasmuch as Titus was 
much in his thoughts, if not actually 
in his company, at the time when this 
epistle was written. See 2 Cor. ii. 13, 
vii 6, 13 — 15, viii. 16, 23, xii. 18. 

Kara anoKoKvyjfiv] 'by revelation.' 
In St Luke's narrative (Acts xv. 2) he 
is said to have been sent by the 
Church at Antioch. The revelation 
either prompted or confirmed the de- 
cision of the Church. See the detached 
note, p. 125. 

2. 'Arrived at Jerusalem, I set 
forth the principles of the Gospel, 
as I had preached it and still preach 
it to the Gentiles — the doctrine of 
grace, the freedom from the ceremo- 
nial law. This explanation I gave in 
a private conference with the leading 
Apostles of the Circumcision. In all 
this I had one object in view; that 
the Gospel might have free course 
among the Gentiles, that my past and 
present labours might not be thwarted 
by opposition or misunderstanding.' 

dvcdefiTiv] The middle dvaTiBea-dcu 
has the sense 'to relate with a view 
to consulting,' 'to refer,' as 2 Mace, iii 
9 ; see also Acts xxv. 14, r^ /Sao-iXa 
avidero ra Kara rbv Qavkov, where the 
idea of consultation is brought out 
very clearly in the context, w. 20, 26. 
' Inter conferentes,' says Jerome here, 
'aequalitas est; inter docentem et 
discentem minor est ille, qui discit' 
See the notes on n-poa'avaTWeo-Batyi. 16, 
ii. & 




TO evayyeXiov o KT]pv(r<ra) ev rots edvetriVy /car' 'ihiav 
Se TOts ZoKovcriVi fxri irw^ eU Kevov Tpe^u) h edpa/ULOv. 

b Ki/pi/irtro)] ' / preach,' not fK^pvtr' 
aov, 'I preached,' for his Gospel had 
not changed. See the note on ovk eoriv, 
L II. 

KOT Ihiav be roils Sokoicth'] ' but in 
private to those 0/ reptUe.' The fore- 
going avTois is best referred to the 
Christians of Jerusalem generally, as 
implied from ■lepo(rdXv/iia(ver. l). If so, 
this clause, which foUows, is inserted 
not to exclude a public conference, but 
to emphasize his private consultations. 
These priyate communications pro- 
bably preceded the general congress, 
which occupies the prominent place 
in St Luke's narrative (Acts xv. 6 sqq) 
and seems to be alluded to in the Acts, 
though not very distinctly, in the words 
(xv. 4), 'They declared what things 
God had done with them.' The pri- 
vate consultation was a wise pre- 
caution to avoid misunderstanding: 
the public conference was a matter of 
necessity to obtain a recognition of 
the freedom of the Gentile Churches. 

rots SoKoia-tv] 'the men qf repute, of 
position.' See Bur. Hec. 294 Xdyoj 
yap en r dSo^ovvrav lav Kax rav doKovv- 
rav, with Pflugk's note ; Heracl. 897 
evTvxiav IbcaBai Tap irapos ov 8okovvt<ov, 
Herodian vi. i t^s a-vyxKijTov ^ovXijs 
Toiis doKOVVras xai ijXi/cia o-e/ivordrovf 
K.T.K. The expression itself therefore 
is a term of honour, and conveys no 
shadow of depreciation. So far as it 
is coloured with any tinge of dispar- 
agement here, this is due (i) to the 
repetition of the word Sokovvtcs, (2) to 
the addition of a-rvKoi ehai, civai Ti, the 
latter especially, and (3) to the contrast 
implied in the whole passage, between 
the estimation in which they were 
held and the actual services they ren- 
dered to him. On the other hand, 
it will be seen (i) That this dispar- 
agement is relative, not absolute; a 
negation of the exclusive claims urged 
for them by the Judaizing party, not 

a negation of their Apostolic rank and 
worth ;. (2) That the passage itself con- 
tains direct evidence of mutual respect 
and recognition between St Paul and 
the Twelve (vv. 8, 9, 10). 

On the tense of toU SoKovartv see the 
note on ver. 6. 

/iij JTCoy els Kfvbv Tpexa K.r.X.] ' lest I 
might be running, or had run, to no 
purpose.' The kindred passage i Thess. 
iii 5) P'^'tos eiTflpacrev vpas 6 netpd^av 
Koi els Kevov yhnrrai 6 Ktmos fip&v, seems 
to show that rpexai is here the sub- 
junctive rather than the indicative, this 
being moreover the more likely mood 
in itself. See the note there. The use 
of the subjunctive (rpfx") here, rather 
than the optative {rpexoipi), is in ac- 
cordance with the spirit of the later 
Greek, which prefers the more direct 
mode of speech in all such cases. In 
the New Testament the optative seems 
never to occur with particles of design 
etc. ; see Winer § xli. p. 360. In the 
second clause the change of mood from 
the subjunctive (rpc^u) to the indi- 
cative (eSpapov) is rendered necessary 
by the change of tense, since the conse- 
quences of the past were no longer 
contingent but inevitable : comp. iv. 1 1 . 

Tpex<o] is a reference to St Paul's 
favouritemetaphorof the stadium; see 
V. 7 and the note there. For the ex- 
pression els Kevov rp^xetv COmp. Phil, 
ii. 16, where, as here, it refers to his 
missionary career. 

But what is the drift of the passage ? 
Is it a natural expression of misgiving 
on the part of St Paul, who was not 
altogether satisfied with the soundness 
of his teaching, until he had consulted 
with the Apostles of the Circumcision? 
80 TertuUian takes it, adv. Marc. i. 20, 
V. 3, and esp. iv. 2. This is perhaps 
the prima facie sense of the passage, 
slightly favoured by ovdev npo(ravi- 
devTo, ver. 6. But on the other hand 
such an admission would be so entirely 



PL 3 

*a\\' ovSe T/tos d auv ifxoi '^EWrjv top tivayKacrdr] 

alien to the spirit of the passage, so 
destructive of St Paul's whole argu- 
ment, and so unlikely under the cir- 
cumstances, that this interpretation 
must be abandoned. The words there- 
fore must be taken to express his fear 
lest the Judaic Christians, by insisting 
on the Mosaic ritual, might thwart his 
past and present endeavours to esta- 
blish a Church on a liberal basis. By 
conferring with them, and more espe- 
cially with the Apostles of the Circum- 
cision, he might not only quiet such 
lurking anxiety (/tijVmr) as he felt, but 
also, if there were any lack of unanim- 
ity, win them over to his views. 

3. St Paul is here distracted be- 
tween the fear of saying too much and 
the fear of saying too little. He must 
maintain his own independence, and 
yet he must not compromise the 
position of the Twelve. How can he 
justify himself without seeming to 
condemn them ? There is need of 
plain speaking and there is need of 
reserve. In this conflict of opposing 
aims and feelings the sense of the 
passage is well-nigh lost. The mean- 
ing of individual expressions is ob- 
scure. The thread of the sentence is 
broken, picked up, and again broken. 
From this shipwreck of grammar it is 
even difiScult to extricate the main in- 
cident, on which the whole controversy 
hinges. Was Titus circumcised or was 
he not 1 This is not only a reasonable 
question, but a question which thought- 
ful vrriters have answered in different 
ways. On the whole, the following rear 
sons seem to decide for the negative. 
(1) The incident is apparently brought 
forward to show that St Paul had 
thi-oughout contended for the liberty 
of the Gentiles ; that he had not, as his 
enemies insinuated, at one time con- 
ceded the question of circumcision. 
It is introduced by way of evidence, 
not of apology. (2) It is difficult to 
reconcile the view that Titus was cir- 
cumcised with individual expressions 

in the passage. St Paul could scarcely 
say 'we yielded no not for an hour' in 
the same breath in which he confessed 
to this most important of all conces- 
sions : he could hardly claim for such 
an act the merit of preserving 'the 
truth of the Gospel,' i.e. the liberty of 
the Gentile Christians, which it was 
most calculated to compromise. In 
order to maintain that view, it is ne- 
cessary to lay undue stress on the 
words i^vayitcur6ri,a,ndT^ i^orayB) wbich 
from their position seem qvute unem- 
phatic : as if the former signified that 
the circumcision of Titus was an act of 
grace, not of compulsion ; and the latter, 
that the Apostle in yielding was not 
doing homage to superior authority. 
(3) Taking into account the narra- 
tive in the Acts, both the occasion 
and the person were most inopportune 
for such a concession. There was an 
agitation among the Judaizers to 
force the rite of circumcision on the 
Gentile converts. Paul and Barnabas 
had gone up from Antioch in order to 
protect them from this imposition. 
They were accompanied by certain 
representatives of the Gentile Church, 
of whom Titus was one. No act could 
be conceived more fatal to the inter- 
ests of St Paul's clients at such a mo- 
ment, or less likely to have been per- 
mitted by him. Accordingly the vast 
majority of early writers take the view 
that Titus was not circumcised, even 
though in many instances they adopted 
a reading (the omission of off ou'fie in 
ver. 5) most unfavourable to this con- 
clusion. See p. 122. 

St Paul is here indirectly meeting a 
charge brought against him. Shortly 
before he visited Galatia the first time, 
he had caused Timothy to be circum- 
cised (Acts xvi. 3). This fact, which 
can scarcely have been unknown to 
the Galatians, for Timothy accompa- 
nied him on his visit, may have afforded 
a handle to the calumnies of his ene- 
mies. There was a time, they said. 

11. 4] 



TrepiTmrjdfjvai' *5tct Be tows "jrapeurccKTOVi -^ei/SaSeX- 

when he himself insisted on circumci- 
sion. Comp. T. II and the note on 
i. 10. By stating how he acted in 
the case of Titus, who was truly a 
Gentile, he rebuffs this assertion. 

3 — S. 'But while I held confer- 
ences with the Apostles of the Cir- 
cumcision, I did not yield to the cla- 
mours of the disciples of the Circum- 
cision. An incident which occurred 
will show this. Titus, as a Gentile 
who was intimately acquainted with 
me, was singled out as a mark for 
their bigotry. An attempt was made 
to have him circumcised. Concession 
was even urged upon me in high quar- 
ters, as a measure of prudence to dis- 
arm opposition. The agitators, who 
headed the movement, were no true 
brethren, no loyal soldiers of Christ. 
They were spies who had made their 
way into the camp of the Gospel 
under false colours and were striving 
to undermine our hberty in Christ, to 
reduce us again to a state of bondage. 
I did not for a moment yield to this 
pressure. I would not so compromise 
the integrity of the Gospel, the free- 
dom of the Gentile Churches.' 

3. ou8e Tiros} 'not even Titus.' 
Why 'not even'? Is it (i) 'not even 
Titus, who as my fellow- labourer would 
be brought constantly in contact with 
the Jews, and therefore might well 
have adopted a conciliatory attitude 
towards them'? Compare the case of 
Timothy, Acts xvi. 3, 'Him would 
Paul have go forth with him, and 
took and circumcised him on account 
of the Jews, etc' In this case o <n)v 
cfwl is emphatic. Or is it (2) 'not 
even Titus, though the pressure ex- 
erted in his case was so great'? A 
more exact knowledge of the circum- 
stances than we possess would alone 
enable us to answer this question. 
Perhaps both ideas may be combined 

"EXXi/v av] 'being a Greek,' perhAT^s 
giving the reason why the point was 

not conceded. There seems to be a 
tacit allusion to the case of Timothy. 
'You maintain,' St Paul seems to ar- 
gue, 'that I allowed the validity of 
the Mosaic lawincircumcisingTimothy 
(Acts xvi. 1, 3). But Timothy was half 
of Jewish parentage. How did I act 
in the case of Titus, a true Gentile ? 
I did not yield for a moment.' 

In 'eXXijv all idea of nationality is 
lost : comp. Mark vii. 26 'EXXijws S«- 
po<l)oivlKi<T(ra (or S-upa ^oiviKi<T<ra) r^ 
yevet. Thus the Peshito sacrificing 
the letter to the spirit frequently 
translates "EWrjv ' an Aramaean,' e.g. 
here and iii. 28. See Colossians, p. 390. 

^vayKaa-dr]] ' was compelled,' though 
the pressure was extreme. This pres- 
sure doubtless came from the more 
bigoted Judaizers, the conveHed Pha- 
risees mentioned in Acts xv. 5. 

4. What part was taken in the dis- 
pute by the Apostles of the Circum- 
cision? This question, which forces 
itself upon us at this stage of St 
Paul's narrative, is not easily answer- 
ed. On the whole it seems probable 
that they recommended St Paul to 
yield the point, as a charitable con- 
cession to the prejudices of the Jew- 
ish converts : but convinced at length 
by his representations, that such a 
concession at such a time would be 
fatal, they withdrew their counsel 
and gave him their support. Such 
an account of the transaction seems 
to accord alike with the known facts 
and with the probabilities of the case. 
It is consistent with the timid con- 
duct of Peter at Antioch shortly after 
(GaL ii. 11), and with the politic ad- 
vice of James at a later date (Acts 
xxi 20). It was the natural conse- 
quence of their position, which led 
them to regard tenderly the scruples 
of the Jewish converts. It supplies 
probable antecedents to the events of 
the Apostolic congress. And lastly, 
it best explains St Paul's language 
here. The sensible undercurrent of 



[II. 5 

<povs, diTive^ 7rapei<rfj\6ov KaTaa-KOvfja'ai rrjv e\eu6epiav 
ilfjLwv, r)v eypfxev ev XpicTTw 'Iricov, 'iva i^fxa^ KaTaSovXia- 
cova-iv, ^ois ovBe 7rpo<s wpav e'l^afxev Ttj viroTa'yijy 'iva 

feeling, the broken grammar of the 
sentence, the obvious tenour of parti- 
cular phrases, all convey the impres- 
sion, that though the final victory 
was complete, it was not attained 
without a struggle, in which St Paul 
maintained at one time almost single- 
handed the cause of Gentile freedom. 

bia be Toiit irapfuraKTOvs K.r.X.] ' Sut 
to satisfy, to disarm, the false bre- 
thren, the traitorous spies of the Gos- 
pel' — At this point the connexion of 
the sentence is snapped, and we are 
left to conjecture as to the conclusion. 
It seems as if St Paul intended to 
add, ' the leading Apostles urged me 
to yield.' But instead of this a long 
parenthesis interppses, in the course 
of which the main proposition of the 
sentence is lost sight of. It is again 
resumed in a different form, 'from 
those then who were held in repute,' 
ver. 6. Then again it disappears in 
another parenthesis. Once more it is 
taken up and completed, transformed 
by this time into a general statement, 
'well, they of reputation added no- 
thing to me in conference.' The 
counsels of the Apostles of the Cir- 
cumcision are the hidden rock on 
which the grammar of the sentence 
is wrecked. For Sia rovr Trap. i/»eud. 
compare Acts xvi. 3 irepierfiiev avTov 
dia Tois 'lovSaiovs. 

Of other possible explanations two 
deserve to be considered; (i) That 
there is an ellipsis of ouk i/i/ayKao-flij 
ireptTiiTiBfjval or ov 7repieTjtt?Jdij after 6td 
Toiis irapfKT. ^euSaS, So Pritzsche, 
Opusc. p. 181. (2) That the paren- 
thesis flows back into the main pro- 
position, so that the regular construc- 
tion would have been bia tovs rrapeur. 
^evbab. ovbf irpbs apav ei^apLCV, the 01s 
being redundant. See the note, ver. 6. 
So Winer, § Ixiii. p. 711 sq. But as 

Titus would not have been circum- 
cised under any circumstances, the 
refusal to yield could scarcely be at- 
tributed to the pressure from the 
false brethren. If either of these 
explanations were adopted, St Paul's 
meaning must be : 'To the scruples 
of the weaker brethren I would have 
conceded the point, but the teaching 
of the false brethren made conces- 
sion impossible.' So in fact Augus- 
tine takes it, de Mendac. § 8 (vl p. 
424, ed. Ben.). 

irapeuTOKTOvs, jrapeurfiKBov] The me- 
taphor is that of spies or traitors in- 
troducing themselves by stealth into 
the enemy's camp, as in Jude 4 irap- 
fi.<r4bv<Tav yap rives avBpamoi. See 
Plui Popl. 17 eiriliovKevov be Tov 
TIop(rivav aveXeiv irapeuripidev els to 
(rrparoTrebov, Polyb. L 7. 3, ii. 55. 3. 
For napeurayeiv see 2 Pet. ii. I. The 
adjective occurs in Strabo, xvii. p. 
794 wapeiaaieros eiriicXiydctc nToXepiaios, 
The camp thus stealthily entered is 
the Christian ChurcL Pharisees at 
heart, these traitors assume the name 
and garb of believers. 

KaTaa-KOTrijirm] ' tO OCt OS spies Otl.' 

KaTaa-KOTtetv generally signifies ' to ex- 
amine carefully,' the form Korao-Ko- 
ireiieiv being most frequently used 
where the notion of treachery is pro- 
minent. For instances of the sense 
in the text however see 2 Sam. x. 3, 
I Chron. xix. 3. 

KaTabovkiicrova-ivl 'reduce to abject 
slavery.' The reading of the received 
text, KarabovKda-avTai, is a correction 
of some classicist, introduced for two 
reasons : (i) To substitute the middle 
voice, which is more common in clas- 
sical writers ; the transcriber not see- 
ing that the sense here requires the 
active; 'enslave not to themselves, 
but to an external power, the law of 




»f d\f]6€ia rod evayyeXlov Ziafxeivri ttjOOS u/JLcii' 
8e Ttov ZoKOvvTcov eivai ti' ottoToi ttotc rirrav. 

6 ' ^ 

Moses.' (2) To restore the usual 
classical government of Iva with the 
conjunctive. 'Iva however is found 
several times in the New Testament 
with the indicative future, and some- 
times even with the indicative pre- 
sent, as in iv. 17 : see Winer, § xli. 
p. 360 sq. This, though not a classical 
usage, is justified by similar con- 
structions of oTTur, 5(^pa, in classical 

5. oXs ov8i K.T.X.] 'to wlwm we' 
Paul and Barnabas, who were sent to 
Jerusalem to plead the cause of the 
Gentile Christians, ' yielded no not for 
an hour.' For the omission of oXs 
ov8e in some texts see the detached 
note, p. 122. 

rjj vTTOTay^] ' by the submission which 
was required of us,' or possibly ' the 
submission with which we are taunted,' 
as in 2 Cor. i. 17 ioiti apa rg f\a(t>pi^ 

1] aX-^6em tov tvayyeXiov] ' the truth 
cf the Gospel^ i.e. the Gospel in its in- 
tegrity. This expression in St Paul's 
language denotes the doctrine of grace, 
the maintenance of Christian liberty, 
as opposed to the false teaching of the 
Juduizers. See ii. 14, and comp. CoL i. 
5, 6, where the same idea seems to be 
indirectly involved. 

diaiielvji iTpos 11 pus] 'may abide with 
you,' the' Gentile Churches. See the 
introduction, p. 26. The idea oifirm 
possession is enforced by the com- 
pound verb, by the past tense, and by 
the preposition. 

6 — 9. 'The elder Apostles, I say, 
who are so highly esteemed, whose 
authority you so exclusively uphold— 
for myself, I care not that they once 
knew Christ in the flesh : God does 
not so judge men ; He measures them 
not by the outward advantages they 
have had, not by the rank they hold, 
but by what they are, by what they 
think and do— well, these highly es- 

teemed leaders taught me nothing 
new ; they had no fault to find with 
me. On the contrary, they received 
me as their equal, they recognised 
my mission. They saw that God had 
entrusted to me the duty of preaching 
to the Uncircumcision, as He had 
entrusted to Peter that of preach- 
ing to the Circumcision. This was 
manifest from the results. My Apo- 
stleship had been sealed by my work. 
God had wrought by me among the 
Gentiles, not less than He had 
wrought by Peter among the Jews. 
This token of His grace bestowed 
upon me was fully recognised by 
James and Cephas and John, who are 
held in such high esteem, as pillars of 
the Church. They welcomed myself 
and Barnabas as fellow-labourers, and 
exchanged pledges of friendship with 
us. It was agreed that we should go 
to the Gentiles and they to the Jews.' 

Much force is lost in the A. V. by 
translating ol SoKovvres throughout 
this passage as a past tense instead 
of a present. St Paul is speaking not 
of the esteem in which the leading 
Apostles of the Circumcision were 
held by the Christians of Jerusalem 
at the time of the conferences, but 
of the esteem in which they are held, 
while he is writing, by his Galatian 
converts. The mistake seems to have 
arisen from following tlie Vulgate 
' qui videbantur.' The Old Latin ap- 
parently had the present in most re- 
censions, though not consistently in 
all foiu" places. Of the older English 
Versions, Tyndale's alone translates 
by a present in this verse, and the 
Genevan in verse 9. 

rav SoKovvrav eival Tt] 'those who 
are looked up to as authorities.' The 
expression is sometimes used in a de- 
preciatory way, as iu Plat. Apol. 41 b 
iav SoKoia-i ti eivai pajdev ovres, Euthyd. 
303 tUv ttoXXcSv avBpairtov Kai rav 



[II. 7, 8 

fxoi ^laipepei, Trpoa-toTrov Oeds divSpwirov ov XafJL^dvef 
ifxoi yap oi BoKOvvTe^ ovdev irpocravedevTO, 'aWa 
TOvvavTiov Idovres bri m-eiricrTevfxai to evayyeXiov 
T»js dKpo^varTLa<i Kadia^ UeTpos t^s TrepiTOfxfj^f 

8 < ^ 
o yap 

(re/ivav Sfj xai SoKoviiTcov rt eu<ai ovSiu 
Vfiiv fieXei, Gorg. 472 A fvioTt yap av 
Koi KaTa^€v8ofiapTvpri8eirj tis viro jroX- 
\mv Km 80K01VTCOV civaL rt, and passages 
from later writers quoted in Wetstein : 

COmp. Gal. vi. 3 el yap fioKei TK eivai ri 

liriScv av, and Ignat. Polyc. 3. The 
exact shade of meaning which it bears 
must always be determined by the 
context. Here it is depreciatory, not 
indeed of the Twelve themselves, but 
of the extravagant and exclusive 
claims set up for them by the Juda- 
izers. Thus it is nearly an equivalent 
to 0( vitepKiav diroirroXot of 2 Cor. XL 5i 
xii. II. 

oiroioi iTore ^trav\ Does imoioi tots 
here mean ' qualescunque,' or has jrore 
its proper temporal sense 'in times 
past' 1 In a classical writer we should 
decide for the former : in St Paul the 
latter seems more probable, as n-ore 
never occurs with the meaning ' cun- 
que' in the New Testament, and ac- 
cordingly it is rendered in the Latin 
versions 'aliquando.' This decides 
the import of the whole phrase. It 
does not mean ' what reputation they 
enjoyed,' but 'what was their posi- 
tion, what were their advantages in 
former timeg,' referring to their per- 
sonal intercourse with the Lord. The 
'knowing Ohrist after the flesh' (2 Cor. 
T. 16) is in itself valueless in the 
sight of God. The same reproach is 
conveyed by the words here, as in 
2 Cor. X. 7 T-a Kara irpoo'airov jSXejrere. 

Trpoa-oDTTov Xa/ifiavei] A translation 
of the Hebrew W3S SB'S which signi- 
fies properly 'to accept the face' 
(Gescnius Thes. p. 916, s. v. NB'3), or 
perhaps better, 'to raise the face' of 
another (opposed to D*:s ^*Bn 'to 
make the countenance fall,' e.g. Job 
xxix. 24 ; comp. Gen. iv. ;), and hence 

' to receive kindly,' 'to look favourably 
upon one.' In the Old Testament 
accordingly it is a neutral expression 
involving no subsidiary idea of par- 
tiality, and is much oftener found in 
a good than in a bad sense. When it 
becomes an independent Greek phrase 
however, the bad sense attaches to it, 
owing to the secondary meaning of 
irpoaamov as ' a mask,' so that irpotno- 
TTov Xafi^avfiv signifies ' to regard the 
external circumstances of a man,' his 
rank, wealth, etc., as opposed to his 
real intrinsic character. Thus in the 
Kew Testament it has always a bad 
sense. Hence a new set of words, 
7rpo<ra)7roXif ^Tmjr, wpocrairoXrifiiTTcip, etc. 
which appear to occur there for the 
first time. 

Of ot avBpcmov] The natural order is 
altered for two reasons; (i) To give 
Beoc an emphatic position, and (2) To 
keep the contrasted words Oeot dv- 
Bpamov together. 

c/ioi yap K.r.X.] The sentence, which 
was begun in diro he rav SoKoivrmv 
eivai r( and then broken off by the 
parenthesis, is here resumed, but in 
a different form, 'well, to me those 
of reputation communicated nothing.' 
See the note on ver. 4. Othei'wise the 
yap may be attached to oiroioi Trore 
^(rav ovdev /loi hiaipepei, the paren- 
thesis running back into the main 
proposition of the sentence, 'whatever 
position they once held makes no 
matter to me : for to me they com- 
municated nothing': Winer § IxiiL 
p. 7 1 1 sq. But the interposition of the 
words irpocr. 6. av6p. ov Xap.^, is an 
objection to this construction. 

npo<ravedevTo'\ * communicated' see 
the note on i. 16. VLpotravaTiBeirBax is 
' to communicate, to impart,' whether 
for the purpose of giving or of obtain- 




ivepyria'a^ HeTpo) ets a.7ro(rTo\riv Trj? TrepiTO/ULrj^ evtipyt^- 
trev Kai ipLOi ets Ta eOvrj, ^Kal yvovre^ Trjv %a'jOti' Ttjv 
Sodela-dv fxoi, 'laKw/Sos Kal K.ri(pa'i Kal 'Iwdwrj?, 01 
S0KOVVT6S (TTvXoi eivai, Se^jots eSwKau ejuLoi Kai Bapva/Sa 

ing instruction. In this passage the 
former meaning prevails, in i. 16 the 
latter. The context here decides its 
sense : 'they imparted no fresh know- 
ledge to me, they saw nothing defect- 
ive or incorrect in my teaching ; but 
on the contrary, they heartily recog- 
nised my mission.' 

7. Tteit'uTTfvpju. TO €t)ayy.] 'Z hwee 
'been entrusted teith the Oospel,' a 
common construction in St Paul : see 
the note on i Thess. ii. 4. The perfect 
here, implying a permanent commis- 
sion, contrasts with the aorist in 
Rom. iii. 2 eVtoTfiJ^ijo-av to Xoyui tov 

TO evayy, Trjt aKpojSuor/as] denotes 
a distinction of sphere and not a dif- 
ference of type : see Tertul. Praescr. 
Haer. 23 'Inter se distributionem 
officii ordinaverunt, non separationem 
evangelii, nee ut aliud alter sed ut 
aliit alter praedicarent.' 

8. o eWpyiJtrar IIcTpo] ^ He that 
worked for Peter.' For the omis- 
sion of o Geos comp. i. 6, 15; for ivtp- 
yeiv see the note on i Thess. ii. 13. 
The dative IteVpo) ought probably to be 
translated 'for Peter,' not 'in Peter'; 
comp. Prov. xxxi. 12 ivepyei yap Tt^ 
dvSpi (yvvii dvSpeia) els dyada iravra tov 
^lov. As ivepyeiv is an inseparable 
compound, it is doubtful whether the 
preposition could govern Hirpia, and 
accordingly the construction elsewhere 
is ivepyeiv ev Ttvu Comp. Acta Paul, 
et Thecl. § 40 o yap <ro\ crvvepytjiras 
tls TO evayyiXiov xd/iot avv^pyrjaev els 
TO 'kov(raa'6ai. 

9. Of the two words iSon-er and 
yvovTcs, the former describes the ap- 
prehension of the outward tokens of 
his commission, as evinced by his suc- 
cessful labours; the latter the convic- 
tion arrived at in consequence that the 

grace of God was with him : see iv. 8, 9. 

'XaKa^os K.a\ Ki)0ar Kai 'laxifi'ijt] The 
best supported and doubtless the right 
reading. The variation IleVpoy Kal 
'ldK(u/3os Kai 'laavvTjs arose from the 
desire of maintaining the precedence 
of St Peter. On the other hand the 
correct text presents two coincidences 
with the narrative of the Acts, which 
deserve notice. First. In i. 19 James 
is styled the Lord's brother, while here 
and in ver. 12 this designation is drop- 
ped. St Luke's narrative explains this 
omission. In the interval between 
St Paul's two visits James the son of 
Zebedee had been put to death. No 
term of distinction tlierefore was now 
needed, as there was no likelihood of 
confusion, James the son of Alphaeus 
though an Apostle not holding any very 
prominent rank. Secondly. The re- 
lative positions here assigned to Peter 
and James accord exactly with the 
account in the Acts. When St Paul 
is speaking of the missionary office of 
the Church at large, St Peter holds 
the foremost place (ver. 7, 8); when 
he refers to a special act of the Church 
of Jerusalem, St James is mentioned 
first (ver. 9). See Acts xii. 17, xv. 13, 
xxi. 18. 

<TTvKoi\ 'pillars' A natural meta- 
phor occurring now and then in clas- 
sical writers (e.g. Bur. Iph. T. 57 
iTTvKoi yap oiKav flat iraibes Hpirevfs, 
and iEsch. Agam. 897), but commonly 
used by the Jews in speaking of the 
great teacliors of the law. See the 
examples given in Schottgen: comp. 
Clem. Horn, xviii. 14 iwra. vtvKovs 
iirap^avras Kocrpta, said of the patri- 
archs. So in Clem. Rom. § 5 the Apo- 
stles Peter and Paul are called ol 
p,eyi<TT0i nai SiKawTaroi arvKoi ; Comp. 
Iren. iv. 21. 3. In this metaphor the 



[II. 10 

KOivcovia^, 'iva rifiel^ eU Ta edvri, avTol Be ££S Tr}U irepi- 
TOfJiriv ^°ix6vov Twv TTTw^wu 'iva ixvrifjiOvevtoixeVf 6 
etnrovhacra avTO tovto Troifj(rai. 


Church is regarded as the house or 
temple of God; as Rev. iii. 12 nou^a-t} 
avTov trrvKov iv r© va^ rov Of ou fiov \ 
comp. I Tim. iiL 15. The accent of 
oTvKos is doubtfiiL On the one hand 
the V is universally long in poetry even 
of a late date (see Host u. Falm, 
Griech. Worterb. s. v., and comp. 
Orac. Sib. iii. 250, 251). On the 
other, the authority of the oldest ac- 
cents in the mss, and the quantity of 
the Latin 'stylus,' are ia favour of 
<rrv\os. The latter not improbably 
represents the common pronunciation 
of the Apostolic age. See Lipsius 
Gramm. Unters. p. 43. 

Sf|iar eSoMcai/] 'gave pkdges! The 
outward gesture is lost sight of in this 
expression, as appears from the fact 
that the plural he^ias Sovvai, Sepias 
Xa/nj3d«n', is often used of a single 
person; i Mace. xi. 50, 62, xiii. 50. 
As a symbol of contract or itiendship 
tliis does not appear prominently in 
the Old Testament (Ezr. x. 19, and 
perhaps 2 Kings x. 15 ; see below on 
Koivtoviaij, nor is it especially Jewish. 
In the patriarchal times the outward 
gesture which confirmed an oath was 
different. Gen. xxiv. 2. The giving the 
right hand however was a recognised 
pledge of fidelity with other Eastern 
nations, with the Persians especially 
(Corn. Nep. Dat. c 10 'fidemque de 
ea re more Persarum dextra dedisset,' 
Diod. xvi. 43 ecTTi 8e ij irioTis av-nj j3e- 
fiaioToni irapa Tails Uepcrais, COmp. Jus- 
tin XL 15. 13); and from Persian in- 
fluence the symbol and the phrase may 
have become more common among 
the Jews. Even Josephus (Ant. xviii. 
g. 3) speaks of this not as a Jewish 
practice, but as fieyurrov napit iTa<n 
rois cKtivjj fiap^apois irapaSeiyiia rov 
Bapireiv rois d/uXovtrti', in reference to 
Artabanus the Parthian king. Where 

personal communication was inconve- 
nient, it was customary to send images 
of right hands clasped, as a token of 
friendship: Xen. Anab. ii 4. i Se- 
lla; irapa ffaa-iKiajs (fiipovTfS, Age$. 3. 
4; comp. Tacit. Hist. i. 54, ii. 8. 

Koivavtai] ' of fdlowsMp,' not a su- 
perfluous addition, for 'to give the 
hand' (n» jnj) in the language of the 
Old Testament, like the Latin 'do 
manus,' generally signifies 'to surren- 
der,' e.g. Lament v. 6, 2 Chroa xxx. 8 : 
see Gesen. Thes. p. 566. 

Iva li/icir] The ellipsis of the verb 
occurs in St Paul under various con- 
ditions. A foregoing Iva is one of 
these; see i Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. viii. 13, 
BiOm. iv. 16: comp. 2 Cor. viii. ii. 

10. 'Henceforth our spheres of 
labour were to be separate. One re- 
servation however was made. They 
asked me to continue, as I had done 
hitherto, to provide for the wants of 
the poor brethren of Judsea. Inde- 
pendently of their request, it was my 
own earnest desire.' 

/lovor] 'otdy they asked us': comp. 
Ignat. Bom. 5 p.ovov Xva 'lijirm XpKrrov 
eiriTvxa. For similar instances of an 
ellipsis after jtovov, see vi. 12, 2 Thess. 
ii. 7 fiovov 6 KaTe)(<uv apn eais ex pAaov 
yevTiTcu. The latter passage presents 
an exact parallel also in the derange- 
ment of the order for the sake of em- 

Two occasions are recorded, on which 
St Paul was the bearer of alms from 
the Gentile converts to the poor of 
Jerusalem ; (i) on his second journey 
to Jerusalem, Acts xi. 29, 30, some 
years before the interview of which he 
is speaking; and (2) on his fifth and 
last journey, Eom. xv. 26, 27, i Cor. 
xvi. 3, 2 Cor. ix. i sq. Acts xxiv. 17, 
shortly after this letter was written. 
These facts throw light on the incident 

U. II, 12] 



"''Ore Se rjXQev Kjj^as eU 'AvTio^eiav, kuto. 7rp6<r- 
toTTOv avTW dvT£<TTriVf OTi KaTCyvoocfxevo^ rjv. ^"Trpo 

in the text. His past care for their 
poor prompted this request of the 
elder Apostles. His snbsequent zeal 
in the same cause was the answer to 
their appeal 

o Kal f(r7rovda(ra k.t.X.] ' this wag my 
oicn heartfelt desire.' 'I needed no 
prompting to do this.' The Galatians 
had personal experience of this zeal, 
for their own alms had been solicited 
by St Paul for this very purpose 
shortly before, i Cor. xvi. i — 3. See 
the introduction, pp. 25, 55. 

The transition from the plural (jan)- 
fiovcvafiev) to the singular {fOirovdatTa) 
is significant Before St Paul had any 
opportunity of fulfilling this request, 
he had parted from Barnabas ; Acts 
XV. 39. 

avTo rofro] is best taken in apposi- 
tion with o, see Winer§xxiii.p. i84Bq; 
a construction not without example in 
classical Greek, but more frequent in 
the Lxx and Ifew Testament, inas- 
much as it reproduces the common 
Hebrew idiom: comp. Mark vii. 25, 
Acts XV. 17, I Pet. ii. 24. 

II — 14. 'At Jerusalem, I owed no- 
thing to the Apostles of the Circumci- 
sion. I maintained my independence 
and my equality. At Antioch I was 
more than an equal. I openly rebuked 
the leading Apostle of the Circumci- 
sion, for his conduct condemned itself. 
He had been accustomed to mix freely 
with the Gentiles, eating at the same 
table with them. But certain persons 
arrived from James, and he timidly 
withdrew himself. He had not cou- 
rage to face the displeasure of the 
Jewish converts. The rest were car- 
ried away by his example. Even Bar- 
nabas, my colleague, and fellow- 
apostle of the Gentiles, went astray.' 

1 1. "Ore 8e] This occurred probably 
during the sojourn of Paul and Barna- 
bas at Antioch, immediately after the 
Apostolic congress (Acts xv. 30—40). 

The inconsistency which St Peter thus 
appears to have shown so soon after 
his championship of Gentile liberty 
at the congress, is rather in fa\our of 
than against this view; for the point 
of St Paul's rebuke is his inconsist- 
ency. But in fact there is scarcely 
an alternative. An earlier residence 
at Antioch (Acts xiiL i — ^3) is out of 
the question, for St Paul is plainly 
narrating events in chronological or- 
der. Neither again is it probable 
that a later occasion (Acts xviii. 23) 
can be intended ; for after the sepa- 
ration of Paul and Barnabas, there is 
no notice of their meeting again. 

To this passage is probably to be 
attributed the ecclesiastical tradition 
that 8t Peter founded the Church 
of Antioch (Buseb. Chron. A.B. 44). 
Jerome (ad loc.) states still more de- 
finitely that he was bishop of this 
see first, whence he was translated to 
Rome. See also Euseb. H. E. iii. 22, 
36, Chrysost. Op. iii. p. 70, ed. Ben. 

Kar€yv<a(Tiievos\ not 'reprehensible,' 
but 'condemned.' His conduct carried 
its own condemnation with it, as St 
Paul shows vv. 15 sq : comp. Bom. 
xiv. 23 o SiaKpivonevos, iav ^ayji, Ka- 
TOKeKpirai, Joh. iii. 18 o iifj irurTfvav 
i]St) KtKpirai, Bamab. 10 KiKpi/ievot 
^817 T^ Bavara, Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 6 
^81; yap KoTtyvaaBai i^aai k.tX, The 
condemnation is not the verdict of 
the bystanders, but the verdict of the 
act itself. 

This passage was made the ground 
of an attack on St Paul in an Ebionite 
fiction of the second century, where 
St Peter says to Simon Magus (whose 
name is used as a mask for St Paul), 
' Thou hast withstood me to the face 
...If thou callest me condemned, thou 
accusest God who revealed Christ to 
me.' See the whole passage Clem. 
Horn. xvii. 19 : comp. p. 61, and the 
notes on ii. 13, iv. 16, 24. 



[11. 13 

Tou fyap iXBeiv Tivas aTro 'Iukw^ov jueTci rwv edvwv 
(rvvritrdiev' ore Se ^Xdov, vTrecTeWev kuI dcpwpi^ev 
iavTov, (po^ovfj-evo^ toi/s 6k TrepiTOfxri^, ^^Kai (rvvvir- 
eKpi6r](rav avTw ^Kat^ ol Xoittoi 'lovBaiot, w(rTe Kai 

12. Sre ik ^\8ev. 

12. eKdftu rival amb 'laKoS/Sou] 'cer- 
tain came from James.' Of these 
nothing more can safely be inferred 
than that they belonged to the Church 
of Jerusalem. It is not improbable 
however, that they came invested with 
some powers from James which they 
abused. Compare the expression in 
the Apostolic letter (which seems to 
have been drawn up by him) Acts xv. 

24, Tiues f^ ^fiav e^(\66vTes irapa^av 
vixas...ols ov SieareiKafieBa, and XT. I 
Ttv€s KaTeXOovTGS OTTO Trjs 'louSa/as. The 
terms on which St James stood with 
believers of this stamp may be ga- 
thered from the language in Acts xxi. 
20 sq. 

a-vvtladievl The Judaizers who trou- 
Med the Church at this time are de- 
scribed, Acts XT. 5, as converts be- 
longing to the sect of the Pharisees. 
The prohibition against eating meat 
with the impure was one of the lead- 
ing principles of this sect, Luke xv. 2. 
As the agape was the recognised bond 
of brotherhood in the infant Church, 
this separation struck at the very root 
of Christian life. St Peter's vision 
(see especially Acts x. 27, xi. 3) had 
taught him the worthlessness of these 
narrow traditions. He had no scru- 
ples about living iBvinas. And when 
in this instance he separated himself 
from the Gentiles, he practically dis- 
sembled his convictions. 

oTc Sf rjXdov] 'but when they cam,e.' 
The reading ?j\6ei> yields no good 
sense, whether we refer it to St 
James with Origen (c. Gels. ii. i eX- 
60VT0S 'laKm^ov) or to St Peter with 
other writers. I have given it a place 
nevertheless, as an alternative read- 
ing, on account of the weight of au- 

thority in its favour : for though it 
can scarcely have been the word in- 
tended by St Paul, it may possibly be 
due to an error of the original amanu- 
ensis. For a similar instance of a 
manifestly false reading highly sup- 
ported and perhaps to be explained 
in this way, see Phil. ii. i fins <nr\ay- 
xva Koi oiKTipfioi. Such readings are 
a valuable testimony to the scrupulous 
exactness of the older transcribers, 
who thus reproduced the text as they 
found it, even when clearly incorrect. 
In this passage the occurrence of the 
same words ore 8e f/XSev, ver. II, is 
the probable cause of the mistake. 

vneiTTeWfV Kai d(f>api(ev\ 'gradually 
withdrew and separated himself.' 
Both verbs govern eavrov. compare 
Polyb. vii. 17. I vn-etrreiXav iavToiis 
vno Tiva wponfTTTaKviav 6(f>pvv. The 
words describe forcibly the cautious 
withdrawal of a timid person who 
shrinks from observation, vncartWev 
denoting the partial, aijtapt^fv the 
complete and final separation. The 
word vTroariWeiv is frequently used, 
as in the passage quoted, in describ- 
ing strategical operations ; and so far 
as it is metaphorical here, the me- 
taphor seems to be derived from 
military rather than from nautical 
matters. Comp. uTeWea-dai, 2 Thess. 
iii. 6. 

Toir fK 7r€piTop.fjs] not 'Jews' but 
• converts from J'udaism,' for this 
seems to be the force of the preposi- 
tion : Acts X. 45, XL 2, Col. It. i i, 
Tit. i. 10. 

13. oi XoiTTot 'lovSaioi] i.e. the rest 
of the Jewish converts resident at 
Antioch, who, like St Peter, had 
mixed freely with the Gentiles until 

II. 14] 



OT6 elSor OTt ovK 6pdo7ro^ov(riv irpo^ ttjv d\n6eiav tov 
evayyeXiov, eiTrou tw Yi.t](pa efj-irpoo'dev iravToyv Et <rv 

the arrival of their brethren from Je- 
rusalem. The observance of Phari- 
saic practices with the latter was a 
genuine expression of bigotry, but 
with the Jews of Antioch and with 
St Peter it was vironpurK, the assump- 
tion of a part which masked their 
genuine feelings and made them ap- 
pear otherwise than they were. The 
idea at the root of viroKpia-n is not 
a false motive entertained, but a false 
impression produced. The writer of 
the epistle prefixed to the Clement- 
ines, doubtless alluding to this pas- 
sage, speaks of some who misrepre- 
sented Peter, as though he believed 
that the law was abolished, 'but did 
not preach it openly'; Ep. Petr. § 2. 
See on ver. 1 1. 

Kcu Bapvd^as] 'even Barnabas my 
own friend and colleague, who so 
lately had gone up to protect the in- 
terests of the Gentiles against the 
pressure of the Pharisaic brethren.' 
It is not impossible that this inci- 
dent, by producing a temporary feeling 
of distrust, may have prepared the 
way for the dissension between Paul 
and Barnabas which shortly after- 
wards led to their separation : Acts 
XV. 39. 

From this time forward they never 
again appear associated together. 
But on the other hand, whenever St 
Paul mentions Barnabas, his words 
imply sympathy and respect. This 
feeling underlies the language of his 
complaint here, ' even Barnabas.' In 
I Cor. ix. 6 also he connects Bar- 
nabas with himself, as one who had 
laboured in the same disinterested 
spirit and had the same claims upon 
the Gentile converts. Lastly in Col. 
iv. 10 he commends Mark to the 
Colossian Church, as being the cousin 
of Barnabas. 

<TVvawfj-)(0ri airav rfj xmoKpitrti] 'was 


carried away with their dissimula- 
tion,' as the A. V. rightly. Their 
dissimulation was as a flood which 
swept every thing away vrith it. 
Comp. 2 Pet. iii. 17 Iva p,rj rfj t£v dditr- 
ftwv nXavT] (rvvaTTax6ivT€g (Kniarrfrt 
k.tX., Zosimus Hist. v. 6 km avrri be ^ 
SjrapTi) (TwanriyfTO rrj noivjj t^s 'EXXa- 
80s aKcia-ei. In all these passages the 
dative seems to be governed by the 
preposition, and cannot without harsh- 
ness be taken as the instrumental 

14, 15. ' Seeing that they had left 
the straight path and abandoned the 
true principles of the Gospel, I re- 
monstrated with Cephas publicly. 
Thou thyself, though born and bred a 
Jew, dost nevertheless lay aside Jew- 
ish customs and livest as the Gentiles. 
On what plea then dost thou constrain 
the Gentiles to adopt the institutions 
of the Jews?' 

14. OVK dpdoiroltov(riv irpos K.r.X.] 
i.e. 'they diverge from the straight 
path of the Gospel truth.' The word 
6p6o7ro8elv appears not to occur else- 
where, except in later ecclesiastical 
writers, where its use may be traced to 
this passage of St Paul. Its classical 
equivalent is evdxmopeiv. The prepo- 
sition irpos here denotes not the goal to 
be attained, but the line of direction to 
be observed : see Winer § xlix. p. 505. 
For rj d\tjdeia tov euayyeXi'ov see the 
note on ii. 5. 

elirov] Were all the concluding 
verses of the chapter actually spoken 
by St Paul at the time, or is he add- 
ing a comment while narrating the 
incident afterwards to the Galatians; 
and if so, where does the text cease and 
the comment begin ? To this question 
it seems impossible to give a defi- 
nite answer. St Paul's narrative in 
fact loses itself in the reflexions sug- 
gested by it. Text and comment are so 




[II. 15, 16 

'lovSaloi VTrdp'xiav idviKws Kai oux 'lovdaiKw? ^s, Trtos 
Ta 'iduri dvayKa^ei'i 'louSai^eiv; '^ij^tets (pvarei 'lovBaioi 
Kai ovK i^ edvoov dfiapTtoXoi, '"eiSoVes Be oti ov BiKai- 
ovTai dvOpcuTTOi i^ kpyiau vojuov, eav /x»j hia Tricrrews 

blended together that they cannot be 
separated without violence. The use 
of the word afiapToKol, w. 1$, 17, 
marks the language of one speaking 
as a Jew to Jews, and therefore may 
be regarded as part of the original 
remonstrance ; and yet, though there 
is no break in the continuity from 
that point onward, we find at the end 
of the chapter that St Paul's thoughts 
and language have drifted away from 
Peter at Antioch to the Judaizers in 
Galatia. For similar instances where 
the direct language of the speaker is 
intermingled with the after comment 
of the narrator, see John i. 15 — 18, 
where the testimony of the Baptist 
loses itself in the thoughts of the 
Evangelist, and Acts 1. 16 — 21, where 
St Peter's allusion to the death of 
Judas is interwoven with the after 
explanations of St Luke. 

'lovfiaior virapxav] almost equiva- 
lent to (t)va-ei 'lovSatoi below; see 1. 
14. In such cases wrapxav Implies a 
contrast between the original and the 
after state, e.g. in Phil. ii. 6. Here it 
is very emphatic ; ' If you, born and 
bred a Jew, discard Jewish customs, 
how unreasonable to impose them on 

etiviKai i50 i'6. ™ix freely with 
the Gentiles and thus of necessity 
disregard the Jewish law of meats. 
The present tense describes St Peter's 
general principles, as acted upon long 
before at Csesarea (Acts x. 28), and 
just lately at Antioch (ver. 12), though 
at the exact moment when St Paul 
was speaking, he was living 'lovhaiKws 
and not iffvixms. 

ovx 'lovSaUas] The best mbs agree 
in reading the aspirated form ov'^. 
For other examples of anomalous 
aspirates in the Greek Testament see 

Winer § v. p. 48, and comp. the note 
on Phil. iL 23 a^/dra. In this parti- 
cular instance the aspirate may per- 
haps be accounted for by the yh with 
wMch the Hebrew word (DniiT) re- 
presented by 'lovSaioi commences. 

dvayKa^eis] i.e. practically oblige 
them, though such was not his inten- 
tion. The force of bis example, con- 
cealing his true principles, became a 
species of compulsion. 

'louSutffte] 'to adopt Jewish cus- 
toms,' opposed to iBviKws f^r which in 
connexion with 'lovSalos xmapxav is 
equivalent to iKkqvl^fK; comp. Esth. 

VliL 17 *ai TToXXot TIBJ' fdvwv 7rtpi€T€IU)V- 

To Koi 'lovSai^ov dia tou (fto^ov rav 'lou- 
Baiav, Plut. Vit. Cic. 7 fvoxos tw 'lovbat- 
£eiv. See the note on 'louSaiV/xos, i. 13. 

15,16. 'Only consider our own case. 
We were bom to all the privileges of 
the Israelite race: we were not sin- 
ners, as we proudly call the Gentiles. 
What then? We saw that the ob- 
servance of law would not justify any 
man, that faith in Jesus Christ was 
the only means of justification. There- 
fore we turned to a belief in Christ. 
Thus our Christian profession is itself 
an acknowledgment that such obser- 
vances are worthless and void, be- 
cause, as the Scripture declares, no 
flesh can be justified by works of law.' 

Of many constructions proposed, 
the simplest and best is to under- 
stand the substantive verb In ver. 15, 
' We (are) Jews by birth etc.' The 
8e of ver. 16, which is omitted in the 
received text, is certainly genuine. 

15. (j)va-€t 'lovSaioi] 'Jeics by 
birth, not only not Gentiles, but not 
even proselytes. We inherited the 
Jewish religion. Everything was done 
for us, which race could do.' See 
especially Phil. Hi. 4, 5. 

II. i6] 



'Ir](rou Xpia-Tov, Kai fjjuets ets XpurTOV 'lri(rovv e7ri(rrev- 
crafxev, 'Iva BiKaicadcojULev eK Tr/o-rews XpicTTOv Kai ovk 
i^ epywv uofiovy oti i^ epywv vojxov oy AiKAia>9HC6TiM 

i6. Ji4 Tl<rreitis ZptirroS 'IijiroB. 

e'l iBvmv] Not 'of Gentile descent,' 
but 'taken from, belonging to the 
Gentiles ' ; comp. Acts zt. 23. 

d/uipr<uXoi] 'sinners' The word 
was almost a synonyme for (dvr) in 
the religious phraseology of the Jews. 
See I Mace. ii. 44, Clem. Horn, xi 16 

ovras as ovx^ 'lovdaios, a/xapr(aXar 
tcr.X.; and compare Luke vi. 32, 33 
with Matt. y. 47, and especially Matt. 
xxvi 45 with Luke xviii. 32. Here 
aiiaproKoi is used in preference to 
fSvri, not without a shade of irony, as 
better enforcing St Paul's argument- 
See the note on ver. 17. 

16. dav fir/] retains its proper 
meaning, but refers only to ov dtxat- 
oSrai, 'He is not justified from works 
of law, he is not justified except 
through faith.' See the note on i. 19. 

Koi )7H"s] '«'« ourselves,' notwith- 
standing our privileges of race. Com- 
pare (cai avToi, ver. 17. 

eVKTreuwa/Mw] 'became believers' 
See the note on 2 Thess. i. 10. The 
plirase iria-Tcvetv sir or tm nva is pe- 
cuUarly Christian ; see Winer § xxxi 
p. 267. The constructions of the 
LXX are ma-Tevtiv nvi, rarely irurrcvav 
itri Tivi or tv Tivif and once only erri 

TlVa, Wisd. Xii. 2 jrUTTCVflV fTTl OfOV. 

The phrase, which occurs in the re- 
vised Nicene and other creeds, m- 
<TTev€tv els iKKKifulav, though an intel- 
ligible, is yet a lax expression, the 
propriety of which was rightly dis- 
puted by many of the fathers, who 
maintained that irKrrevtiv els should 
bo reserved for belief in God or in 
Christ. See the passages in Suicer 
Thesatir. s. v. ina-Tevea/, and Pearson 
On tlhe Creed Art. rx. 

« triareas Xpurrov] It seems al- 
most impossible to trace the subtle 

process which has led to the change 
of prepositions here. In Rom. iiL 30, 
on the other hand, an explanation is 
challenged by the direct opposition of 
« TTtoTcmf and SiaTrjs TriVretor. Both 
prepositions are used elsewhere by 
St Paul with SiKaiovv, SiKaioaivrj, in- 
differently; though where very great 
precision is aimed at, he seems for an 
obvious reason to prefer Bid, as in 
Ephes. ii. 8, 9, Phil iii. 9 iifj c^odv 
e/i^v SiKauurvvTiv r^v ex vofiov oKXa 
rfiv 8ia TrioTeas XpioTov K.r.X,, which 
words present an exact parallel to the 
former part of this verse, ovk e'l epyav 
voiMov, eap fi^ 8ia irifn'eas 'lijcroC Xpi- 
oTov. Faith is strictly speaking only 
the means, not the source of justifi- 
cation. The one preposition (Sia) 
excludes this latter notion, while the 
other (ex) might imply it. Besides 
these we meet also vrith eVi mirrei 
(Phil. iii. 9), but never Sia viariv, 
• propter fidem,' which would involve 
a doctrinal error. Compare the care- 
ful language in the Latin of our Arti- 
cle xi, 'per fidem, non propter opera.' 

OTI.] is the best supported, and 
doubtless the correct reading. The 
reading of the received text Sim has 
probably been imported from the pa- 
rallel passage, Rom. iii. 20. 

oTt e^ epyav K.r.X.] A quotation 
from the Old Testament, as appears 
from the Hebraism ov iraa-a, and 
from the introductory Sri. This sen- 
tence indeed would be an unmeaning 
repetition of what has gone before, 
unless the Apostle were enforcing his 
own statements by some authoritative 
declaration. The words are there- 
fore to be regarded as a free citation 
of Psalm cxliii 2 ov 8iKaua6^treTai 
ivairtot) trov nas C^v, For nas (av, a 



nicA C(\'p2. ''et Se ^>jtoi/j/t6s SiKaiwdfjvai ev XpicTTiS 
evpedri/meu Kai avTOi dfiapTcoXol, apa XpiCTTOi afxapriai 

very common Hebrew synonyme, jrao-a 
<rap| (nK'3"bD) is substituted by St 
Paul. In Bom. iii. 20 the passage is 
quoted in the same form as here. In 
both instances St Paul adds e| epyatv 
vofiov as a comment of his own, to de- 
scribe the condition of the people 
whom the Psalmist addressed. In 
the context of the passage in the Ro- 
mans (iii. 19) this comment is justified 
by his explanation, that 'whatever is 
stated in the law applies to those 
under the law.' 

For ov n-So-a see Winer § xxvi. 
p. 214 sq. 

17, 18, 19. ' Thus to be justified in 
Christ, it was necessary to sink to the 
level of Gentiles, to become ' tinners ' 
in fact. But are we not thus making 
Christ a minister of sin ? Away with 
the profane thought. No ! the guilt is 
not in abandoning the law, but in seek- 
ing it again when abandoned. Thus, 
and thus alone, we convict ourselves 
of transgression. On the other hand, 
in abandoning the law we did but 
follow the promptings of the law it- 
self. Only by dying to the law could 
we live unto God.' 

1 7. Among a vast number of inter- 
pretations which have been given of 
this verse, the following alone deserve 

First; We may regard Xpto-ror 
aiutprlas Siaxovos as a conclusion 
logically inferred from the premisses, 
supposing them to be granted; 'If in 
order to be justified in Christ it was 
necessary to abandon the law, and if 
the abandonment of the law is sinful, 
then Christ is made a minister of 
sin.' In this case apa is preferable to 


If the passage is so taken, it is an 
attack on the premisses through the 
conclusion which is obviously mon- 
strous and untenable. Now the as- 
sumptions in the premisses are two- 

fold: (i) 'To be justified in Christ it 
is necessary to abandon the law,' and 
(2) ' To abandon the law is to become 
sinners'; and as we suppose one or 
other of these attacked, we shall get 
two distinct meanings for the pagsas;e, 
as follows : (i) It is an attempt of the 
Judaizing objector to show that the 
abandonment of the law was wrong, 
inasmuch as it led to so false an infer- 
ence: 'To abandon the law is to com- 
mit sin; it must therefore be wrong 
to abandon the law in order to be jus- 
tified in Christ, for this is to make 
Christ a minister of sin': or (2) It is 
an argument on the part of St Paul to 
show that to abandon the law is not 
to commit sin; 'It cannot be sinfid 
to abandon the law, because it is ne- 
cessary to abandon the \a,w in order to 
be justified in Christ, and thus Christ 
would be made a minister of sin.' 

Of these two interpretations, the 
latter is adopted by many of the 
fathers. Yet, if our choice were re- 
stricted to one or other, the former 
would seem preferable, for it retains 
the sense of d/uapr&iXoi ('sinners' from 
a Jewish point of view), which it had 
in ver. 15, and is more consistent with 
the indicative evpedimev, this proposi- 
tion being assumed as absolutely true 
by the Jewish objector. But on the 
other hand, it forms an awkward in- 
troduction to the verse which follows. 

It is probable therefore that both 
should be abandoned in favour of 
another explanation : For 

Secondly; We may regard Xpioror 
afiaprias bioKovos as an illogical con- 
clusion deduced from premisses in 
themselves correct; 'Seeing that in 
order to be justified in Christ it was 
necessary to abandon our old ground 
of legal righteousness and to become 
sinners (i.e. to put ourselves in the 
position of the heathen), may it not be 
argued that Christ is thus made a 


StaKOi/os? ju»7 yevoiTO' **et yap a KareXva-a TauTa 
TToXiv olKodofjiw, TrapafiaTriv ifxavTOv (rvvia-TOLvW '^eyw 

minister of sin?' This interpretation 
best developes the subtle irony of 
a/xaprcoXoi ; 'We Jews look down upon 
the Gentiles as sinners: yet we have 
no help for it but to become sinners 
like them.' It agrees with the indi- 
cative evp46t)ij,ev, and with St Paul's 
usage. of /iv yeVoiTo which elsewhere 
in argumentative passages always ne- 
gatives a false but plausible inference 
from premisses taken as granted. And 
lastly, it paves the way for the words 
81a vofwv vofia aTv46avov which follow. 
In this case apa is to be preferred to 
Spa, because it at once introduces the 
inference as a questionable one. It 
may be added also iu favour of apa, 
that elsewhere yivoLTo follows an 
interrogation. 'Apa expresses bewil- 
dennent as to a possible conclusion. 
Any attempt further to define its 
meaning seems not to be justified 
either by the context here, or by its 
usage elsewhere. *Apo hesitates, while 
ipa concludes. 

(vpi6r)p.ev] involves more or less 
prominently the idea of a surprise: 
comp. Rom. vii. 10, 2 Cor. xi. 12, xii. 
20. Its frequent use however must 
be traced to the influence of the Ara- 
maic dialect: see Cureton Corp. Ign. 
p. 271. 

aiiapTias BiaKovos] while yet He 18 
biKai,o<Tvvrts SiaKovos, thus making a 
direct contradiction iu terms. 

nfj yfvoiTo] 'Nay, verily,' 'Away with 
the thought.' This is one out of 
several lxx renderings of the Hebrew 
rh'hn ('ad profana' and so ' absit,' see 
Gesenius Thes. p. 478). Another ren- 
dering of the same is iXeas (sc. 6 &ebs) 
which occurs Matt. xvi. 22 iXemr trot 
Kvpie, 'far be it from thee, Lord' : see 

Glass. Phil. Sacr. p. 538. Mi) yevoiro 

is not however confined to Jewish 
and Christian writings, but is frequent 
for instance in Arrian; see Raphel 
Annot. Rom. iii. 4. 

18. 'If, after destroying the old 
law of ordinances, I attempt to build 
it up again, I condemn myself, I 
testify to my guilt in the work of 
destruction.' The pulling down and 
building up have reference doubtless 
to the Mosaic law, though expressed 
as a general maxim (Toira). The dif- 
ficulty however is to trace the con- 
nexion in yap. 

With the interpretation of ver. 17 
adopted above, it seems simplest to 
attach yap to /iij yevoiro, ' Nay verily, 
for, so far from Christ being a minis- 
ter of sin, there is no sin at all in 
abandoning the law: it is only con- 
verted into a sin by returning to the 
law again.' For this use of yap after 
pJi yevoiTo comp. Rom. ix. 14, 15, xi. i. 

Tuapa^arriv tfiavTOV a'vvuTTava)] '/ 
make myself out, establish m/yself, a 
transgressor! It will have been seen 
that much of the force of the passage 
depends on the sense which the Jews 
attached to ofuipraKos. Having passed 
on from this to lifiapria, St Paul at 
length throws off the studied ambi- 
guity of afiapToKos (' a non-observer of 
the law,' and 'a sinner') by substitut- 
ing the plain term irapafiarris. 

ijiavTOV (TviiiCTTava) is Opposed to 
XptOTOf ifiaprlas 8ia<ovos, though from 
its position ijiavTov cannot be vei7 

orvvio-Toi'ia] ' I prove' like (rvp.0i^a- 
(a>, as Rom. iii. 5, v. 8 ; comp. 2 Cor. 
iii. I. 

19. Establishing the statement of 
the foregoing verse : ' Fc/r in aban- 
doning the law, I did but follow the 
leading of the law itself.' 

eyd] Not ' 1 Paul' as distinguished 
from others, for instance from the 
Gentile converts, but 'I Paul, the 
natural man, the slave of the old 
covenant.' 'The emphasis on eym is 
explained by the follovring verse, (a 
8e ovKeri eyd k.t.\. 



[II. 20 

yap ^la vofiov vojuua aTreOavov, 'iva Qew ^ritrW '^Xpicrrto 
(rvvetTTavpcoixm' ^w 5e ovkcti iyw, ^ Be ev e^ot Xpiar- 

dia vofunj vofxa aiTi6avov\ In vvhat 
sense can one be said throvigh law to 
have died to law ? Of all the answers 
that have been given to this question, 
two alone seem to deserve considera- 
tion. The law may be said in two 
diflferent ways to be 7rai8ayc»yos «s 
XpioTov. We may regard 

i. Its economical purpose. 'The 
law bore on its face the marks of its 
transitory character. Its prophecies 
foretold Christ. Its sacrifices and 
other typical rites foreshadowed 
Christ. It was therefore an act of 
obedience to the law, when Christ 
came, to take Him as my master in 
place of the law.' This interpretation 
however, though quite in character 
with St Paul's teaching elsewhere, does 
not suit the present passage; For (i) 
The written law — the Old Testament 
— is always 6 vo/xo:. At least it seems 
never to be quoted otherwise. Nopios 
without the article is ' law ' considered 
as a principle, exemplified no doubt 
chiefly and signally in the Mosaic law, 
but very much wider than this in its 
application. In explaining this pas- 
sage therefore, we must seek for some 
element in the Mosaic law which it 
had in common with law generally, 
instead of dwelling on its special cha- 
racteristics, as a prophetic and typical 
dispensation. Moreover, (2) the in- 
terpretation thus elicited makes the 
words Sia vofjLOV vofia ajredavov an ap- 
peal rather to the reason and intellect, 
than to the heart and conscience; but 
Lhe phrases ' living unto God,' * being 
crucified with Christ,' and indeed the 
whole tenour of the passage, point ra- 
ther to the moral and spiritual change 
wrought in the believer. Thus we 
are led to seek the explanation of this 
expression rather in 

ii. Its moral effects. The law re- 
veals siu) it also provokes sin; nay, in 

a certain sense, it may be said to cre- 
ate sin, for ' sin is not reckoned where 
there is no law' (Rom. v. 13). Thus 
the la,w is the strength of sin (i Cor. 
XV. 56). At the same time it provides 
no remedy for the sinner. On the con- 
trary it condemns him hopelessly, for 
no one can fulfil all the requirements 
of the la.w. The law then exercises a 
double power over those subject to it; 
it makes them sinners, and it punishes 
them for being so. What can they do 
to escape? They have no choice but 
to throw off the bondage of the law, 
for the law itself has driven them to 
this. They find the deliverance, which 
they seek, in Christ. See Rom. vii. 
24, 25, and indeed the whole passage, 
Rom V. 20 — viii. 11. Thus then they 
pass through three stages, (i) Prior to 
the law — sinful, but ignorant of sin ; 
(2) Under the law — sinful, and con- 
scious of sin, yearning after better 
things; (3) Free from the law— free 
andjustified in Christ. This sequence 
is clearly stated Rom. v. 20. The se- 
cond stage (Sia vdjuov) is a necessary 
preparation for the third (vo/xa> dn-t- 
6avov). ' Proinde,' says Luther on iii. 
19 (the edition of 1519), 'ut remissio 
propter salutem, ita praevaricatio 
propter remissionem, ita lex propter 

What the Mosaic ordinances wero 
to the Jews, other codes of precepts 
and systems of restraints were in an 
inferior degree and less efficaciously 
to other nations. They too, like the 
Jews, had felt the bondage of law in 
some form or other. See iv. 9, v. i, 
and the note on iv. 11. 

vofiM OTredavov] 'I died to law.' 
For the dative comp. Rom. vi. 2, 11 
(tj afiapTia), and for the idea of ' dying 
to the law' Rom. vii. i — 6, esp. ver. 4 
KOI viiels iBayaTciBrjTf t^ vofia, and ver. 
6 KarripyTJSriiiev dirt) tov vofiov diro6a- 

II. 20] 



Tos* o §6 vvv (w €V (TapKif iv TTia-Tei ^(S ry tov vlov 
Tov Qeov TOV dyaTrrjcravTOs fie kuI TrapaSovTOS iavrov 

20. TB ToO GeoB ica2 X/KcrroC toC iyairiiiravToi. 

vovTes iv ^ Kareixofitda (literally, 'we 
were nullified, i.e. discharged, by 
death from the law in which we were 

20, 21. '"With Christ I have been 
crucified at once to the law and to sin. 
Henceforth I live a new life — yet not 
I, but Christ liveth it in me. This 
new life is not a rule of carnal ordi- 
nances ; it is spiritual, and its motive 
principle is faith in the Son of God 
who manifested His love for me by 
dying for my sake. I cannot then 
despise God's grace. I cannot stultify 
Christ's death by clinging still to a 
justification based upon law.' 

20, An expansion of the idea in 
the last verse. 

XpioTffl mivfirravpcoiiai] 'T have 
been criicified with Christ! A new 
turn is thus given to the metaphor of 
death. In the last verse it was the 
release from past obligations ; here it 
is the annihilation of old sins. The 
two however are not unconnected. 
Sin and law loose their hold at the 
same time. The sense of feebleness, 
of prostration, to which a man is re- 
duced by the working of the law, the 
process of dying in fact, is the moral 
link which unites the two applications 
of the image: see Rom. vii. 5, 9 — 11. 
Thus his death becomes life. Eeing 
crucified with Christ, he rises with 
Christ, and lives to God. 

The parallel passage in the Romans 
best illustrates the difi'erent senses 
given to death. See also, for a similar 
and characteristic instance of working 
out a metaphor, the difi'erent applica^ 
tions of ij^epa in i Thess. v. 2 — 8. 

For the idea of dying with Christ 
etc., see Bom. vi. 6 6 TroKaws fniav 
avOpemos irvveaTavpddr] : comp. Gal. v. 
24, vi 14, Rom. vi. 8, Col. ii. 20, dn-o- 
Baveiv aiv Xpiar^, and Rom. vi 4, CoL 

ii. 12, o-vvrat^^rat. Comp. Ignat. Rom. 
§70 eiios Upas €OTavpa>Tai. The cor- 
relative idea of rising and reigning 
with Christ is equally common in St 

f« 8e ovKiri tyia] The order is sig- 
nificant; 'When I speak of living, I 
do not mpan myself, my natural being. 
I have no longer a separate existence. 
I am merged in Christ' See on iya 
ver. 19. 

o de vvv fm] Not exactly ^v vvv (m 
^(uifv, but o limits and qualifies the 
idea of life: 'So far as I now live in 
the flesh, it is a hfe of faith': comp. 
Rom. vi. 10 o yap diredavfv, rp a/iaprlcf 
OTredavev f<j)aTTa^, b 8e f^, (^ r^ ®*¥» 
Plut. Mor. p. 100 r S KaBf-iSova-i, tov 
cdfiaTOS TJTTVos ioTi Koi avanaviTis. 

vvvl ' now ' : his new life in Christ, 
as opposed to his old life before his 
conversion; not his present life on 
earth, as opposed to his future life in 
heaven; for such a contrast is quite 
foreign to this passage. 

iv rnVret] 'in faith,' the atmosphere 
as it were which he breathes in this 
his new spiritual life. 

Tiie variation of reading here is per- 
plexing. For TOV viov TOV Beov may be 
pleaded the great preponderance of 
the older authorities : for tov Qfov koX 
XpuTTov, the testimony of a few ancient 
copies, and the difficulty of conceiving 
its substitution for the other simpler 

/ie...eVoi)] 'loved me, gave Himself 
for me.' He appropriates to himself, 
as Chrysostom observes, the love which 
belongs equally to the whole world. 
For Christ is indeed the personal 
friend of each man individually; and 
is as much to him, as if He had died 
for him alone. 

21. ovK adeToS K.r.\.] '/ do not set 
at nought the grace qf God. Setting 



[II. 31 

VTrep ifjLOv. "ouk ddeTiiS Trjv %ajOti/ tou Qeov' el yap 
ha vofxov SiKaiocrvvr] , apa XjOtcrros Zoapeav aTredavev. 

at nought I call it : for, if righteous- 
ness might be obtained through law, 
then Christ's death were superfluous.' 
For aOera ' to nullify' see Luke vii. 30, 
I Cor. i. 19: its exact sense here is 
fixed by Sapeav dircdavev. ' The grace 
of God' is manifested in Christ's 
death. The connexion of yap is with 
the idea of aBera, and may be ex- 

plained by a supplied clause, as above. 
dapeav] not ' in vain,' but ' uselessly, 
without sufficient cause,' or, as we 
might say, 'gratuitously,' John xv. 25 
ilii<ni<Tav fxt 8<opedu (Ps. xxxiv. 19); 
comp. LXX of Ps. xxxiv. 7 Saptav 

iKpvfjfcw fioi 8i,a(l>6opav, Hebr. Din> 
where Symmachus had dmtTias; Ec- 
clus. XX. 23. 


Various Headings in ii. 5. 

The reading which is given in the text, oir oiSe npbg Spav, is doubtless 
correct. Two variations however occur, which deserve notice. 

I. The omission of ovbi. (i) The 

The negative is found in all the Greek uncial mss (i.e. in NABCBP negative. 
GKLP) except D, in which however it is inserted by a later hand, and mg^^tg^g 
apparently in all or nearly all the Greek cursive mss. It is expressly 
mentioned by the Ambrosian Hilary^ and by Jerome^, as the reading of 
the Greek copies. It is found also in the Gothic, Memphitic, Thebaic, both 
Syiiac and other versions, and was unquestionably the original reading of 
the Vulgate, as it appears in all the best manuscripts of this version. It 
was read moreover by Marcion', Ephraem Syrus, Bpiphanius*, Chrysostom, 
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, the Pseudo- Ignatius^, and perhaps also 
by Origen', among the Greeks; and by Ambrose', Augustine', Jerome, 
Felagius (in his text, though he comments on the other reading), and Fri- 
masius, among the Latins. 

On the other hand, it is omitted in D (both Greek and Latin), and in 
the Latin of E ; and the text is read without it by the translator of Irenaeus", 
by Tertullian", Victorinus, the Ambrosian Hilary, Felagius (in his com- 
mentary), and apparently Sulpicius Severus ^. We have it moreover on the 
authority of Jerome^'', of Frimasius", and of Sedulius**, that the negative 
was not found in the Latin copies, and the same is implied by the language 
of the Ambrosian Hilary. 

In the face of this testimony, the statement of Victorinus, that it was Omitted in 
omitted ' in plurimis codicibus et Latinis et Crraecis^ is not worthy of credit. ^""^^ ^*^' 
He may indeed have found the omission in some Greek MS or other, but 
even this is doubtfoL No stress can be laid on the casual statement of a 
writer so loose and so ignorant of Greek, 

It appears from these facts that the omission is due to some Western Omission 
MS or MSS alone. The author of the Old Latin version used one of these. ^^"5^3*° 
And to the Old Latin version all or nearly all the existing authorities for Latjn 
the omission may be traced. Its absence in the Greek text of D is au 
exception, unless the charge of Latinising sometimes brought against this 

^ ad loe. ' Grafici e contra dicunt : * ad loc. and Epist. Ixxzii. (11. p. 

Neo ad horam cessimus, et hoc aiunt 194, ed. Bened.). 

convenire causae etc' ' Iren. iii. 13. 3. 

" ad loc. 'juxta Graecos codices est " adv. Marc. v. 3. 

legendum: Quibus neque, etc' " Dial. iii. 13, p. 219 b (Migne). 

^ Tertull. adv. Marc. v. 3. " ad loc. ' hoc esse quod in codioi- 

' Haer. p. 112 and p. 814. bus legitur Latinis : Quibus ad horam 

» Ep. ad Tars. § 2. etc' 

' Orig. c. Gels. vii. 21 (i. p. 709, ^ od ioc. ' Latinus habet, Quibus ad 

Delarue) oiHirore ip X'^Pf iiroreray- horam cessimus.' Primasius does not 

IJ.4I/0S ivOpiiirots u)S Kpelmav yeyo/ievos, himself omit it, as represented in Tisch. 

where the conjecture oidi vphs upav is " Magn. Bibl. Vet. Patr. v. 498, 

possibly correct. 'Male in Latinis codicibus legitur, Qui- 

' Epist. 37. bus ad horam cessimus.' 








how ac- 

MS can be substantiated. Irenseus is also to be accounted for, but in this 
case the omission may perhaps be ascribed not to the author himself, but 
to his translator. 

A correction however would appear to have been made in that re- 
cension which was circulated in North Italy, for the negative is found both 
in Ambrose and in Augustine, the former of whom used the ' Itala ' as a 
matter of course, and the latter by choice ^ 

TertuUian indeed accuses Marcion of interpolating the negative ; but 
no weight attaches to his assertion. The African father, not finding it 
in his own Latin copy and finding it in Marcion's recension, caught at what 
appeared the simplest way of accounting for the variation. He would not 
stop to consider whether his own copy was correct. It was enough for him 
that the text with the negative was more favourable to Marcion's peculiar 
views than without it. TertuUian makes no appeal to mss or external 
authority of any kind. He argues solely on grounds of internal evidence. 

The omission in the first instance is not easily accounted for. It may 
have been an oversight. Or possibly the Latin translator, or the tran- 
scriber of the MSB which he used, intentionally left it out, thinking, as some 
later critics thought, that the sense of the passage or the veracity of the 
Apostle required the omission. At all events the expedient of dropping 
the negative, as a means of simplifying the sense, is characteristic of the 
Latin copies. For other instances in St Paul see GaL v. 8, Bom. t. 14, 
I Cor. V. 6, [Col. ii. 18] : comp. Joh. vi. 64, ix. 27 ^. 

The omission once made, arguments were not wanting to support it. 
TertuUian found that the negative vitiated the sense of the passage. 
He objected to it moreover as at variance with history, which showed that 
St Paul did yield on occasions, in circumcising Timothy for instance, and in 
paying the expenses of those who had taken Nazarite vows. The same 
arguments are brought forward by Victorinus and the Ambrosian Hilary'. 
With much greater justice Jerome maintains that it is required for the 
sense. But feeble as were his reasons, doubtless the authority of TertuUian, 
and the prejudice thus raised against this as the reading of Marcion, 
were fatal to its reception with many who otherwise would have conformed 
to the Greek text. 

It is not uninteresting to observe how little influence this important 
various reading has had on the interpretation of the passage. The omission 
or insertion of ov8e might have been expected to decide for or against the 
circumcision of Titus. This however is not the case. The Latin Fathers, 
who left out the negative, generally maintained that he was not circum- 
cised*. Several modern critics, who retain it, hold that he was. 

2. The omission of ols. 

' De Doctr. Christ, a. ig. 

* For these references I am indebted 
to Eeiohe Comm. Grit, 11. p. 13. 

' 'Litterae enim hoc indicant quia 
cesslt, et historia factum exolamat.' 
The passage is based on TertuUian. 

* So YictoiinuB and the Ambrosian 

Hilary. This is also the opinion of Ter- 
tuUian {adv. Marc.'v. 3), if I understand 
him rightly: though Banr,PaMZtM p. na, 
interprets him differently. The only 
exception that I have remarked is Pe- 
lagius, who however has not the same 
reading in the text as in the notes. 


The relative is omitted in some few texts which retain ov$e, and (2) The 
retained in 8ome few which want ovde ; but for the most part the two are relative, 
omitted or retained together. Here again the Greek texts are as unani- 
mous as in the former case. The obvious motive of this omission is the 
improvement of the grammar by the removal of a redundant word. 

This assumed necessity of altering the text somehow, in order to 
correct the grammar, may have been the first siep towards the more 
importuut omission of the negative. 

The later visit of St Paul to Jerusalem. 

The later of the two visits to Jerusalem mentioned in the Epistle has The same 
from the earliest times been identified with the visit recorded in Acts xv. "i*^ t^^ 
This view is taken by Ireneeus *, the first writer who alludes to the subject ; ^^J* °^ 
and though it has not escaped unchallenged either in ancient' or modern 
days, the arguments in its favour are sufficiently strong to resist the pres- 
sure of objections to which it is fairly exposed'. 

I. In support of this view may be virged the positive argument from Argu- 
the striking coincidence of circumstances, and the negative argument from ^^'^^^ ™ 
the difiiculty of finding any equally probable solution, or indeed any pro- ^j^jg ^jg^^ 
bable solution at all besides. 

(i) The later visit of the Galatian Epistle coincides with the third visit (i) Posi- 
of the Acts, when the so-called Apostolic Council was held, in all the most J^"? • . 
important features. The geography is the same. In both narratives the ^enoe of 
communications take place between Jerusalem and Antioch : in both the circum- 
head-quarters of the false brethren are at the former place, their machina- stances. 
tions are carried on in the latter : in both the Gentile Apostles go up to 
Jerusalem apparently from Antioch, and returo thence to Antioch again. 
The time is the same, or at least not inconsistent. St Paul places the event 
IS or 16 years after his conversion: St Luke's narrative implies that they 

1 Iren. iii. 13. 3 'Si quia igitur di- visits of the Acts, 
ligenter ex Actibus Apoetolorum scru- ' The view adopted is that of most 

tetur tempus de quo scriptum est, recent critics. It is well maintained by 

Auendi Bierosolymam, propter praedio- Schott, De Wette, Conybeare and How- 

tamquaestionem,invenieteos,quiprae- son, Jowett, and others. The argu- 

dioti sunt a Paulo, annos conourrentes ments in favour of the second visit of 

etc' So also apparently Tertullian, the Acta are best stated by Fritzsohe 

adv. Marc. v. 2, 3. Opuic. p. 223 sq. The fourth visit of 

" This visit is placed after the third the Acts finds its ablest champion in 

in the Acts by Chrysostom, but not Wieseler, Galat. p. 553 sq. The fifth 

further defined. It is identified with visit has been abandoned by modern 

the fifth by Epiphanius Boer, xxviii, critics, as the epistle was clearly writ- 

4, p. 112. The CAron. Poicft. (I. p. 435 ten before that time. Some few, e.g. 

sq. ed. Dind.) places it after the inoi- Paley Horae Paulinae ch. v. no. 10, 

dents of Acts xiii. i — 3, and before suppose this to be a journey to Jerusa- 

those of Acts xv, thus apparently inter- lem omitted in the Acts, 
polating it between the second and third 



(ii) Nega- 

of other 

took place about the year 51 \ The persons are the same : Paul and Bar- 
nabas appear as the representatives of the Gentile Churches, Cephas and 
James as the leaders of the Circumcision. The agitators are similarly 
described in the two accounts : in the Acts, as converted Pharisees who 
had imported their dogmas into the Christian Church ; in the Epistle, as 
false brethren who attempt to impose the bondage of the law on the 
Gentile converts. The two Apostles of the Gentiles are represented in 
both accounts as attended : ' certain other Gentiles ' (e'l avrav) are men- 
tioned by St Luke ; Titus, a Gentile, is named by St Paul. The sidiject of 
dispute is the same ; the circumcision of the Gentile converts. The cfia- 
racter of the covference is in general the same ; a prolonged and hard- 
fought contest^. The result is the same ; the exemption of the Gentiles 
from the enactments of the law, and the recognition of the Apostolic com- 
mission of Paul and Barnabas by the leaders of the Jewish Church. 

A combination of circumstances so striking is not likely to have oc- 
curred twice within a few years. 

(ii) Nor indeed can this visit be identified with any other recorded in 
St Luke. It has been taken by some for instance for the second visit of 
the Acts. To this supposition the date alone is fatal. The second visit of 
the Acts synchronizes, or nearly so', with the persecution and death of 
Herod, which latter event happened in the year 44. But at least 12 or 13, 
probably 15 or 16 years, had elapsed since St Paul's conversion, before he 
paid the visit in question. And no system of chronology at all probable 
will admit of so early a date for his conversion as would thus be required. 
But again, according to the narrative of the Acts St Paul's Apostolic mis- 
sion commenced after the second visit*, whereas the account in the Epistle 

• This is calculated by a back reck- 
oning of the time spent from the Apo- 
stolic Council to the appointment of 
FestuB, the date of which is fixed inde- 
pendently at A.D. 60; see Wieseler 
Ghronol. p. 66 sq. 

' St Luke's notices are, xv. » ywo- 
fiivTjs ffTdaeus Kal ^i;r^ffea)s oix dX£- 
yrji T^ UaiXfp Kal ti^ Bapi'd/Sgt irp69 
airois, at Antioch ; xv. 5 i^aviaTqaav 
Si nvcs, at Jerusalem before the con- 
gress ; XV. 7 iroXX^s Si fi)r7)(rews 7O'0- 
liivrjs, at Jerusalem at the congress. 

* The order of events in St Luke's 
narrative is as follows ; (i) the notice of 
St Paul's setting out from Antioch for 
Jerusalem, xi. 30 ; (2) the persecution 
of Herod, the death of James, and the 
imprisonment and escape of Peter, xii. 
I — 19; (3) the death of Herod, and 
the spread of the word, xii. ao — 24; 
(4) St Paul's business at Jerusalem and 
his departure thence, xii. 25. The nar- 
rative itself suggests the motive of this 

order, which is not directly ohrouolo- 
gioal. Having mentioned in (i) St 
Paul's mission to Jerusalem, the writer 
is led in (2) to describe the condition 
of the Church there, kot' iKetpov t4i» 
Kaipbv. This obliges him to pass on to 
(3) in order to show that God defeated 
the purposes of man, the persecutor dy- 
ing ignominiously, and the persecuted 
Church continuing to flourish. He then 
resumes the subject of (i) in (4). Thus 
it may be assumed, I think, that the 
Church was suffering from Herod's 
persecutions when St Paul arrived, but 
not that Herod was already dead. In 
other words, the chronological order 
was probably (2), (i), (4), (3). 

* His career as an Apostle com- 
mences with Acts xiii. He had before 
this held a subordinate place, and his 
preaching had been confined to Damas- 
cus (ix. 22), Jerusalem (ix. 28), and the 
neighbourhood of Tarsus and Antioch 
(ix. 30, xi. 25 sq. ; oomp. also Gal. i 21). 


clearly implies that his Apostolic ofBce and labours were well known and 
recognised before this conference. 

Still more serious objections lie against identifying it with any later 
visit in the Acts — ^the fourth for instance. It is perhaps a sufficient answer 
to such a solution, that St Paul's connexion with Barnabas seems to have 
ceased before. A more fatal difficulty still would be his silence respecting 
the third visit, so marked with incidents, and so pregnant with consequences 
bearing directly on the subject of which he is treating. 

II. On the other hand the identification adopted involves various diffl- Objectiona 
culties, which however, when weighed, do not seem sufficient to turn the answered. 
scale. These difficulties are of two classes : 

(i) Discrepancies appearing to exist between the two narratives. (i) Disore- 

On the whole however the circumstances of the writers and the different panoies. 
purposes of the narrators seem sufficient to explain the divergences, real 
or apparent, in the two accounts : and the remarks made in comparing the 
two records of the former visit apply with even more force to this (see 
p. 91). The alleged discrepancies are these : 

(a) In the Acts St Paul is represented as sent to Jerusalem by the (a) Motive 
Christians of Antioch to settle some disputes which had arisen there : in ?^ *^^ 
the Epistle he states that he went up by revelation. 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 1 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. 

The following parallel cases suggest how the one motive might supple- 
ment the other. 

(a) In Acts ix. 29, 30, it is said, ' They went about to slay him, 
which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Csesarea, 
and sent him forth to Tarsus.' St Paul's own account of this incident. 
Acts xxii. 17 sq., is as follows: 'While I prayed in the temple I was 
in a trance, and saw him saying unto me. Make haste and get thee 
quickly out of Jerusalem, for they will not receive thy testimony con- 
cerning nie, etc' 

(fi) In Acts xiii. 2 — 4 the mission of Paul and Barnabas is attri- 
buted both to the Holy Spirit and to the Church of Antioch : ' The 
Holy Ghost said. Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work where- 
unto I have called them ; and when they had fasted and prayed, and 
laid their hands on them, they sent them away {aiT(kv(Tav). So they 
being sent forth by the Holy Ghost {iKneysjiBivTes vno tov ayiov trvei- 
ftaros) etc.' 

(y) Acts XV. 28, ' It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.' 
(6) St Paul speaks of his communications as made to the Apostles in (6) Cha- 

private : St Luke's narrative describes a general congress of the Church, raoter of 
The divergence is due to the different aims of the two writers. St Paul fg^®g^°gg 

is dwelling on what he owed or did not owe to the Twelve. St Luke de- 



(c) Eela- 
tions of 
with the 

(ii) Omis- 

Bcribes the results as affecting the interests of the Church at large. 8t Paul 
mentions or rather alludes to the private history which led to the public 
transactions, the secret springs, as it were, which set the machinery in 
motion. This history can have been but partially known to 8t Luke, nor 
did it lie within his province to record it. 

But in fact, while each narrative thus presents a different aspect of this 
chapter of history, each also contains indications that the other aspect 
was recognised, though not dwelt upon, by the writer. The very form of 
St Paul's expression, avf6ifiriv avrols, kut Idiav 8f vols BoKovcriv, implies 
something besides the private conference ; the transactions themselves — 
the dispute about Titus for instance — involved more or less of publicity: 
the purpose sought to be attained could scarcely be effected in any other 
way : and the fragmentary character of the Apostle's account leaves ample 
space for the insertion of other incidents besides those given. On the other 
hand St Luke alludes in a general way to conferences and discussions pre- 
ceding the congress (zv. 4, 5, 6) : and the speeches there delivered, the 
measures there proposed, are plainly the result of much wise forethought 
and patient deliberation on the part of the Apostles. 

(c) Again, it is said, the account of St Luke leaves the impression of 
perfect and unbroken harmony between St Paul and the Twelve; while 
St Paul's narrative betrays, or seems to betray, signs of dissatisfaction 
with their counsels. In the Acts the leading Apostles of the Circumcision 
stand forth as the champions of Gentile liberty : the writer of the Epistle 
on the other hand implies or appears to imply, that they owed to himself 
and Barnabas alone their emancipation from the bondage sought to be 
imposed upon them. 

But here again the difficulty diminishes, when we try to picture to our- 
selves what was lilcely to have been the course of events. The articles of 
the so-called Apostolic Coimcil were ' Articles of Peace.' To infringe no 
principle and yet to quiet opposition, to concede as much as would satisfy 
the one party and not enough to press heavily on the other — this was the 
object to be attained. Thus the result was a compromise. Long discus- 
sions, many misgivings, some differences of opinion, must have arisen on a 
question so delicate and yet so momentous; and though the unanimity of 
the final decision was indeed the prompting of the Holy Ghost, it would be 
not less contrary to all analogies of the Apostolic history, than to all human 
experience, to suppose that uo error or weakness or prejudice had revealed 
itself in the process. It would seem moreover, that by the time the con- 
gress met, St Paul's work was already done. His large experience gained 
in contact with the Gentile Churches had told upon the Twelve. If they 
hesitated at first, as they may have done, they hesitated now no longer. 
Opinions in favour of liberal measures towards the Gentiles would come 
with more force from the leading Apostles of the Circumcision. His own 
voice raised in their cause might only inflame the passions of the bigoted 
and prejudice the result. So we find that when the council meets, Paul 
and Barnabas confine themselves to narrating the success of their labours 
among the Gentiles. As regards the matter under dispute they are en- 
tirely passive. 

(ii) More startling at first sight than these apparent discrepancies 


are the direct omissions of St Paul, on the supposition that he is speaking 
of the visit of Acts xv. 

(a) Above all, how comes it, that while enumerating his visits to Jeru- (a) 2nd 
salem, St Paul should mention the first and third, and pass over the second ^'^i* *° 
recorded in the Acts? Jerusalem. 

The answer is to be sought in the circumstances under which that visit 
was paid. The storm of persecution had broken over the Church of Jeru- 
salem. One leading Apostle had been put to death ; another rescued by 
a miracle had fled for his life. At this season of terror and confusion Paul 
and Barnabas arrived. It is probable that every Christian of rank had 
retired from the city. No mention is made of the Twelve; the saluta- 
tions of the Gentile Apostles are received by ' The Elders.' They arrived 
charged with alms for the relief of the poor brethren of Judsea. Having 
deposited these in trustworthy hands, they would depart with all convenient 
speed. Any lengthened stay might endanger their Uves. Nor indeed was 
there any motive for remaining. Even had St Paul purposed holding con- 
ferences with the Apostles or the Church of the Circumcision, at this 
moment of dire distress it would have been impossible ^ Of this visit then, 
so brief and so hurried, he makes no mention here. His object is not to 
enumerate his journeys to Jerusalem, but to define his relations with the 
Twelve ; and on these relations it had no bearing. 

(b) The omission of all mention of the Apostolic decree is a less con- (&) The 
siderable difficulty. The purport of the decree itself, and the form of ^P"^*"''* 
opposition which 8t Paul encountered in Galatia, sufficiently explain his ^'^^' 

(i) The provisions of this decree seem to have been, as I have already 
mentioned, 'Articles of Peace.' The Apostolic letter was only addressed to 
the Gentile brethren ' in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia' (xv. 23), that is, to 
the churches more directly in communication with Palestine, and therefore 
materially aflfected by the state of feeling and practice among the 
Jewish Christians. There is no reason for supposing that the decree was 
intended to be permanent and universal. It was drawn up to meet a 
special emergency, and its enactments accordingly are special. The Gen- 
tiie Apostles seem to have delivered it scrupulously in those churches 
which had been already founded and which had felt the pressure of Jewish 

1 St Iiuke dismisses this visit in a remain at Jerusalem. It is mentioned 

very few words ; xi. 30 iiroiTTelXavTes by ApoUonius (oiro. A.D. 200, ap. Eu- 

rpbs Tois irpeapvT^povs 5tct x«P*5 Bap- seb. H. E. v. 18, liis ix irapadoceus), and 

v&^a Kal ZoiiXou, xii. 25 Bapva^as Si by Clem. Alex. Strom, vi, p. 762, ed. 

Kal 2oCXos iiiriiTTpefav 4^ 'lepovcrdKiiii, Potter. The latter gives, as his author- 

v\ripii<raiiTes ri)V Siaxovlav, av/iirapa- ity, the Praedieatio Petri, and quotes 

XafloxTes 'luavvriv rbv iiri.K\riB4vTa Map- the words fierd, SwSeKa ft-j; i^4\6eTe els 

Kov. It seems probable then that all top KOff/iov. This carries the tradition 

the Apostles, perhaps even James, back to an early date. On the sequence 

■were away. Of Peter this is aU but of events in this portion of the Acts, 

directly stated, xii. 17. This inference see above, p. 124, note 3. 

accords with an ancient tradition, that " Paley has some good remarks on 

twelve years was the limit of time pre- this decree, Hor. Paul. oh. v. § 11. 
ecribsd by our Lord for the Apostles to 


prejudice (Acts xvi. 4). But in the brotherhoods afterwards formed and 
lying beyond the reach of such influences, no notice was taken of it. 
St Paul's instructions for instance to the Corinthians and to the Romans^ 
entirely ignore one of its provisions, the prohibition against eating meats 
offered to idols. He speaks of this as a matter of indifference in itself, 
only important as it affected each man's conscience. 

(2) The object of the decree was to relieve the Gentile Christians 
from the burden of Jewish observances. It said, ' Concede so much and 
we will protect you from any further exactions.' The Galatians sought no 
such protection. They were willing recipients of Judaic rites ; and 
St Paul's object was to show them, not that they need not submit to these 
burdens against their will, but that they were wrong and sinful in sub- 
mitting to them. 

(3) The power of the Apostles of the Circumcision, and the prece- 
dence of the mother Church, had been unduly and exclusively exalted by 
the Judaizers in Galatia at the expense of St Paul's authority. The Epistle 
to the Galatians is from beginning to end a protest against these exagge- 
rated claims. He refuses to acknowledge any human interference, he takes 
his stand throughout upon his direct commission from the Lord. By aj)- 
pealing to a decree of a Council held at Jerusalem for sanction on a point 
on which his own decision as an Apostle was final, he would have made the 
very concession wliieh his enemies insisted upon 2, 

Patristic accounts of the collision at Antioch. 

The inei- The conduct of St Peter at Antioch has been a great stumblingblock 
dent is ex- jjotji in ancient and modern times. It has been thought strange that the 
St^ter's"^ very Apostle, to whom was specially vouchsafed the revelation that there is 
nharacter. nothing common or unclean, and who only a short time before this meet- 
ing at Antioch had declared himself plainly in favour of Gentile liberty, 
should have acted in a manner so inconsistent with all that had gone before. 
Accordingly some have sought to wrest St Paul's language here, and others 
have denied the accuracy of the narrative in the Acts. But in fact St 
Peter's character, as it is drawn in the Gospels, explains every difficulty. 

* I Cor. X. 27 sq., Eom. xiv. 2 sq. portant recent works will be given in 

This question will be considered more the notes to the dissertation on ' St 

at length in the dissertation on 'St Paul and the Three.' Since the ist 

Paul and the Three.' edition of this volume was published 

" The accounts of this crisis in the I have read the articles of Beuss, La 

ApostoUo history given by Neander ConfirencedeJ4rusalem,,iiitheNouvelU 

Fflanz. I. p. 205 sq., and de PressensS Revue de TMologie, xn. p. 324, xm. p. 

Trois Premiers Siecles, ire s6rie, i. p. 62. Though they contain many things 

457 sq., seem to me on the whole with which I cannot agree, I gladly 

among the most truthful, preserving recognise the spirit of fairness in which 

a just mean between exaggerations on they are written, 
either side. Other references to im- 


It is at least no surprise, that he who at one moment declared himself 
ready to lay down his life for his Lord's sake and even drew his sword in 
defence of his Master, and the next betrayed Him with a thrice repeated 
denial, should have acted in this case, as we infer he acted from the 
combined accounts of St Luke and St Paul There is the same impulsive 
courage followed by the same shrinking timidity. And though St Paul's 
narrative stops short of the last scene in this drama, it would not be rash 
to conclude that it ended as the other had ended, that the revulsion of 
feeling was as sudden and complete, and that again he went out and wept 
bitterly, having denied his Lord in the person of these Gentile converts. 

The history of the patristic interpretations of this passage is painfully BeeomeB a 
instructive. The orthodox fathers of the early Church were sore pressed oontrover- 
both by heretics and unbelievers. On the one hand Ebiouite writers, like ^ 
the author of the Clementines, made it a ground for a personal attack on 
St Paul*. On the other, extreme Gnostics such as Marcion used it to 
prove the direct antagonism of Christianity to Judaism as represented by 
the opposition of the Gentile to the Jewish Apostle^. And lastly. Por- 
phyry and other writers availed themselves of the incident as an engine of 
assault on Christianity itself, impugning the characters of both Apostles in 
language which the fathers describe as coarse and blasphemous'. How 
were these diverse attacks to be met? TertuUian, arguing against the 
Marcionites, resisted all temptations to wrest the plain meaning of the 
passage*. Cyprian and Ambrose moreover took it in its obvious sensed 
The same is done also by the commentators Yictorinus and Hilary. But 
the majority of early writers fell into the snare. Two disingenuous expla- Solutiona 
nations were put forward to meet the attacks of heretics and unbelievers ; proposed 
each originating, it would appear, in one of the great fathers of Alexandria, ^ 
and dividing between them the allegiance of subsequent writers. 

I. Clement of Alexandria maintained that the Cephas here mentioned (i) Cle- 
was not the Apostle Peter, but one of the seventy disciples bearing the nient. 
same name. Though the passage itself absolutely excludes such a view, it 
nevertheless found several adherents, and is mentioned by Ensebius' with- 

1 See above, p. 61, and the notes ii. thage too (held under Cyprian), 'Zosi- 

11,12, ™"^ ^ Tharassa dixit: Bevelatione 

' Tertull. adv. Marc. i. ao, v. 3, de facta veritatis cedat error veritati, quia 

Praescr. o. 13 : comp. Iren. iii. 12. 15. et Petrus, qui prius circumoidebat, 

' See esp. Hieron. in Ep. ad Gal. cessit Paulo veritatem praedioanti ' ; 

praef. (vn. p. 371, ed. Vallarsi) 'Vo- Condi. Carthag. Ivi, Cypriani Op. p. 

lens et iUi maeulam erroris inurere et 239, ed. Pell. 

huio prooacitatis, et in commune ficti « Euaeb. H.E. i. 12, referring to the 

dogmatis aocusare mendacium, dum 5th book of Clement's Hypotyposeis. 

inter se ecolesiarum principes disore- The amount of support that this view 

pent,' and p. 410. obtained may be gathered from Hieron. 

* Seethe passages of TertuUian re- Oj). vii. p.408 'Sun«guiCepham...non 

ferred to, note 2. putent Apostolum Petrum etc., ' Chry- 

» Augustin. ap. Hieron. Op. i. sost. Op. iii. p. 374 irws ouk rty^s t^k 

Epitt. cxvi. The passage in Cyprian, l^riinv rairriv iXvaav, Gregor. Magn. 

to which Augustine appears to refer, is in Ezech. Lib. ii. H. 6 ' Sunt vero nan- 

in Epist. Ixxi. At the Council of Car- nulli qui etc' Jerome, Chrysostom, 

GAL. 9 



out condemnation. Even in modem times it has been revived^, but has 
not been received with any favour. 
(ii}Origen. 2. OrigCn started the theory* that the dispute between Peter and Paul 
was simulated ; in other words, being of one mind in the matter, they 
got up this scene that 8t Paul might the more effectually condemn the 
Judaizers through the chief of the Apostles, who, acknowledging the justice 
of the rebuke, set them an example of submission. Thus he in fact sub- 
stituted the much graver charge of dishonesty against both Apostles, iu 
order to exculpate the one from the comparatively venial offence of moral 
cowardice and inconsistency. Nevertheless this view commended itself to 
a large number of subsequent writers, and for some time may be said to 
have reigned supreme'. It was enforced with much perverse ingenuity and 

and Gregory all show from St Paul's 
context how untenable this view is. 
Claudius AltisB. (ad loc.) simply copies 
the words of Gregory, and his language 
must not he taken as evidence of the 
prevalence of the opinion in his time. 
CBcomenius however, or a commenta- 
tor in the CEcumenian Catena, favours 
this view, which he incorrectly attri- 
butes to Eusebius. On the authority 
of Clement it became customary to in- 
sert the name Cephas in the hsts of the 
seventy disciples, e.g. those ascribed to 
Hippolytus (ed. Fabrioius, i app. p. 42) 
and to Dorotheas Tyrius (piintedinDin- 
dorf B Ghron. Pasch. n. p. 120), and that 
of the Ghron. Pasch. (i. p. 400, ed. Dind.). 

Other attempts also were made in 
the same direction. In the Armenian 
Calendar Cephas is called a disciple of 
St Paul: Sept. 25, 'Apollo et Gephae 
diBcipulorum Fauli,' Assemann. Bibl. 
Orient, m. p. 648. In the Apostolic 
Constitutions of the Egyptian Church 
he is represented as one of the Twelve, 
but distinguished from Peter (ed. Xat- 
tarn, p. 2). 

' By the Jesuit Harduin. See Har- 
duini Pp. Sel, (Amst. 1 709) p. 920. The 
treatise is entitled 'Cepham a Paulo 
rcprehensum Petrum non esse,' a 
strange specimen of criticism. It pro- 
voked repUes from Boileau, Disquisit. 
Theolog. in Galat. ii. 10, Paris, 1713 ; 
Oalmet, Dissert, iii. p. 519, Paris, 1 720 ; 
Deyling, 068. Sacr. 11. p. 520, Lips. 
1737. The first of these I have not 
seen : the last two might be called 
satisfactory, if there were any case on 
the opposite side. 

^ Hieron. Epist. cxii (i. p. 740) 
' Eanc explanationem qnam primus Ori- 
genes in decimo Stromateon libro ubi 
epistolam Paul! ad Galatas interpreta- 
tur, et caeteri deincepg interpretes sunt 
secuti, etc' In an extant work however 
(c. Gels. ii. i), where Origen alludes to 
the incident, there is no trace of this 

• See Hieron. 1. 0. In this letter, 
addressed to Augustine, he defends him- 
self by appealing to the authority of 
previous writers. He also quotes the 
passage in his preface to the Galatians, 
where he mentions that in writing his 
commentary he has made use, besides 
Origen, of Didymus of Alexandria, of 
the Laodicene (i.e. Apollinaris), of one 
Alexander, ' an ancient heretic' (see 
Cave, Hist. Lit. i. p. loi), of Eusebius 
of Bmesa, and of Theodore of Heraclea. 
Augustine in reply (Hieron. Op. Epist. 
cxvi, p. 775) understands him to say 
that the view of Origen was held by aU 
these writers, whom he confesses him- 
self never to have read. In the case of 
Jerome's master Didymus however this 
seems questionable; for in two passages 
in his extant works he speaks of St 
Peter's conduct as an instance of hu- 
man infirmity, de Trin. ii. 13, p. 168, 
iii. 19, p. 387. Another of Jerome's 
masters also, Gregory Nazianzen, had 
taken the honest view, attributing St 
Peter's error however not to cowardice 
but to mistaken policy, Carm. 11. p. 
J22, ed, CaiUan, i>s awTpdTetos oi 
KoKQs fjv (8veira>, el Kal t6S' ifier ci^eXi)- 
ffav Tov 'Koyov. Unless his text is here 
mutilated, Gregory's memory has failed 


misapplied eloquence by Chrysostom in his exposition of this epistle, and Chiyso- 
in a separate homily devoted specially to the subject 1. And about the stom. 
same time that these discourses were delivered, it found another inde- 
pendent and equally able advocate in Jerome, who maintained it in his 
commentary on the Galatians with characteristic vigour. The advocacy of 
Jerome gave rise to a controversy between the two great Latin fathers, Contro- 
which became famous in the history of the Church 2. Augustine wrote to ^^™y °' 
remonstrate with Jerome. To admit that the two leading Apostles con- ^^^^ ^y. 
spired to act a lie, he represented, was in fact to undermine the whole gustine. 
authority of Scripture. He therefore entreated Jerome, like Stesichorus 
of old, to sing a palinode, adding that the truth of Christendom is incom- 
parably more beautiful than the Helen of Greece, for offending whom the 
heathen poet had been struck blind*. Jerome replied by another classical 
allusion. Let Augustine beware of provoking a contest, so he hinted, in 
which the crushing blows of aged Entellus, if once provoked, might prove 
more than a match for the youth and nimbleness of Dares*. In the cor- 
respondence which ensued Augustine had much the best of his adversary 
both in argument and in temper. It closes with a letter from Augustine 
in which he exposes Jerome's subterfuges and demolishes his appeal to 
authority'. The glory of Augustine's victory however is somewhat tar- 
nished by a feeble attack made at the same time on those noble labours in 
Biblical criticism which have earned for Jerome the gratitude of after ages. 
To this letter of Augustine Jerome seems to have made no reply. His 
pride had been deeply wounded by the successful assaults of a younger 
rival, as he regarded Augustine : and a direct confession of wrong could 
only be expected from a nature more frank and chivalrous than Jerome's. 
But at a later date he tacitly adopted Augustine's view, and whether from 
accident or design, in the same writing, though on a different topic, made 
honourable mention of his former opponent". With this sequel the whole 

him as to the particular act which of Augustine. The references here given 

oaUed forth St Paul's rebuke. are to Vallarsi's edition of Jerome. 

Still there was doubtless a vast array Owing to the extraordinary delay and 

of authorities on Jerome's side. He consequent complication in the corre- 

ohallenges Augustine to produce a sin- spondence, it is not easy to determine 

gle writer in his favour. Augustine in the order of the letters, and in this 

reply can only name Cyprian and Am- respect none of the editions which I 

l)fose. have consulted seem altogether satis- 

1 The I/atin title of this homily is factory. Augustine discusses the pas- 
'In illud, in faoiem Petro restiti ' (111. sage again more briefly, de Mendacio, 
p. 362, ed. Ben.). The opinion of Chry- § 8, vi. p. 424. 

sostom is alluded to by Jerome, Epist. ' Hieron. Op. i, Ep. Ixvii. 

exii, and by Augustine in reply, Hie- * lb. Ep. oii. See Augustine's re- 

ron. Op. Epist. civi. ply, Ep. ex. 

2 An account of this controversy is ' lb. Ep. oxvi. 

given in Mohler, Gesammelte Schriften, ' Hieron. c. Pelag. i. 12 (11. p. 718). 

p. I sq. For a summary of the points This treatise (iii. 19, ib. p. 804) ends 

of dispute, see the commentary of Tho- with an honourable mention of Augus- 

mas Aquinas on this epistle. The cor- tine, who had written against the same 

respondenee itself may be found in any heresy which Jerome is combating. It 

edition of the works either of Jerome or is just possible that Jerome, while 





controversy, as well in the nature of the dispute itself, as in the courageous 
rebuke of the younger father and the humble penitence of the elder, has 
seemed to some to reflect the original dispute of the Apostles at Antioch, 
and thus to be a striking illustration of and comment on the text out of 
which it arose^ 

The great name of Augustine seems to have swayed later writers to- 
wards the reasonable view of the incident, and from this time forward the 
forced explanation of Origen finds but little support''. Theodore of Mopsu- 
estia indeed, a contemporary of the two Latin fathers, does not pretend 
to arbitrate between their opinions, and perhaps not more than this was to 
be expected from the friend of Chrysostom. And by Greek commentators 
even of a later date the false interpretation is once and again revived'. 
But in the West the influence of Augustine was more powerful; and it 
is much to the credit of writers of the Latin Church, that even when 
directly interested in maintaining the supremacy of St Peter, they for the 
most part reject this perverted account of the passage, content to draw 
from it the higher lesson of the paramount claims of truth over respect 
for rank and oflSce, and to dwell on St Peter's conduct as a noble example 
of humility in submitting to rebuke from an inferior in age and standing*. 

writing this, had in mind the tribute of 
respect paid to St Paul in 2 Pet. iii. 15. 
Other passages in which Jerome has 
been thongbt tacitly to surrender his 
former view are, adv. Jovin. i. 15 (n. 
p. 264), c. Bufin. iii. 2 (11. p. 532), 
Comm. inPhilem. (vii. p. 755); but the 
inference is scarcely borne out by the 
passages themselves. Jerome's change 
of opinion did not escape Augustine, 
who alludes to it in a letter to Ocea- 
nus, August. Epist. clxxx (i. p. 634, 
ed. Ben.). 

' e.g. Mohler Gesamm. Schr, p. 18. 

" Primasius (circ. 550), commenting 
on this epistle, omits to notice the opi- 
nion of Origen and Jerome. Strangely 
enough the commentary of Theodoret 
(circ. 450) on those verses is wanting in 
the Mss. What view he took cannot 
with safety be gathered from the extant 
context. It might be inferred however 
from another passage of Xheodoret, in 

E2ecft.xlviii.35 (n.p. 1046, ed. Schulze), 
that he gave a straightforward explana- 
tion of the incident. In the Dial, de 
S. Tri/n. i. 24, falsely ascribed to Atha- 
nasius (Athan. Op. n. p. 421, ed. Ben.), 
this is plainly the case, but the ground 
for attributing this work to Theodoret 
is very slender indeed ; the probabl» 
author being Maximus monachus (circ. 

' It is maintained by one of the 
commentators in the (Ecumenian Ca- 
tena and by Theophylact. Both these 
writers would derive their opinions 
from Chrysostom rather than from 

* See especially Gregor. Magn. in 
Ezech. Lib. 11. Hom. 6 'quatenus qui 
primus erat in apostolatus onlmine, 
esset primus et in hnmilitate, ' and Pope 
Agapetus, Baron. Ann. sub ann. 535: 
comp. EaounduB x. 2 (Oallandi n. p. 

III. I] 



III. *'Q dvorjTOi FaXaTai, rts u/uas i^cKTKavev, oTs 
KUT ocpdaXjULOvs 'Ijjtroys XjOitrros Trpoe'ypd,(br\ eaTavpta- 

III. I. In the last paragraph of 
the foregoing chapter St Paul began 
by speaking of the incident at Antioch, 
but his thoughts have been working 
round gradually to the false teachers 
in Galatia, and have moulded his lan- 
guage accordingly. He is thus led to 
dwell on the direct antagonism to the 
Gospel involved in the conduct of the 
Judaizers, which tacitly assumes that 
a man may be justified by his own 
works. It is a practical denial of 
the efficacy of Christ's death. This 
thought is intolerable to him, and he 
bursts out into the indignant remon- 
strance with which this chapter opens. 

'Christ's death in vain? O ye sense- 
less Gauls, what bewitchment is this ? 
I placarded Christ crucified before 
your eyes. You suffered them to wan- 
der from this gracious proclamation 
of your King. They rested on the 
withering eye of the sorcerer. They 
yielded to the fascination and were 
riveted there. And the life of your 
souls has been drained out of you by 
that envious gaze.' 

f^aanavev] 'fascinated you.' St 
Paul's metaphor is derived from the 
popular belief in the power of the evil 
eye. Comp. Ignat. Bom. § 3 oibi- 
iroTf e^aa-KovaTe ovSeva (or ovSevi), 
Wisd. iv. 12 ^cuTKavia yap ^auXdrijror 
ifiavpoi TO Ka\a, and see especially 
the discussion in Plutarch, Symp. v. 
7, p. 680 TTfpl T&v Kara^aa-Kaivfiv 
Xeyofievav Koi ^iurKavov ex^"" o<^^<i^/'o» 
flxirea-ovTos Xoyou k.t.\. If the deri- 
vation of ^aaKaivciv now generally 
adopted (see Benfey Wurzel. il p. 
104), from /Safo), /Sao-Ko) ((/)a<r(c<»), be 
correct, the word originally referred 
to witchery by spells or incantations 
('mala fascinare lingua'); but as it 
occurs in actual use, it denotes the 
blighting influence of the evil eye, of 
which meaning indeed the popular 
but now exploded derivation (fim 

^atav, Katvova-av Tzetz.) is an evidence. 
See Bacon's Essays ix. This belief is 
not confined to the East or to ancient 
times, but is common in some coun- 
tries of Europe even now. In parts 
of Italy the power (rf the ' oochio cat- 
tivo' or 'jettatura' is said to be a 
deeply rooted popular superstition. 
On its wide prevalence see the refer- 
ences in Winer's Sealworterb. s. v. 
Zauherei, and in an article by O. 
Jahn, iiber den Aherglauhen des bo- 
sen Blicks etc. in the Verhandl. der 
Sachs. GeseUseh. 1855, P- 3i- The 
word ^aanaiveiv then in this passage 
involves two ideas; (i) The baleful 
influence on the recipient, and (2) 
The envious spirit of the agent. This 
latter idea is very prominent in the 
Hebrew J'y jfT ('envious' or 'covet- 
ous,' e.g. Prov. xxiii. 6, Tobit iv. 16, 
Ecclus. xiv. 10, and compare the d(^- 
SaKfios irovrjpos of the Gospels) ; and 
in the Latin invideo it has swallowed 
up every other meaning. The false 
teachers envy the Galatians this liber- 
ty in Christ, have an interest in sub- 
jecting tbem again to bondage : see 
iv. 17, vi. 12, and 2 Cor. xi. 20. This 
idea however is subordinate to the 
other, for where ^aa-xaivciv signifies 
directly 'to envy,' it generally takes 
a dative like the Latin 'invideo' : see 
Lobeck Phryn. p. 463. Jerome be- 
sides sees in the metaphor here an 
allusion to the spiritual 'infancy' of 
the Galatians. It is true indeed that 
children were regarded as most sus- 
ceptible of liaxTKavia (SwTt jroXXiji' e^ov- 
(rcv evTraSeiav xal Tpmrov tt]s (jivireas, 
Alej.. ^3: see 
also the passages in Jahn, p. 39), and 
such an allusion would be very signi- 
ficant here ; but the metaphor must 
not be overcharged. 

i^a(TKav(v (for which some copies 
read efSaa-Ktivev) is probably the first 
aorist with a; see Ignat. 1. c. On 



[III. 3 

fxevo<i ; "toCto fiovov deXto juadeTv a.(p' vfitov, i^ ep- 
ytov vo/JLov TO TTveufia i\d/3eTe h e^ wko/Js 7rto"Tews ; 

forms in i; and a, see Buttmann Ansf, 
Spraehl. § loi. 4, A. Buttmann p. 35, 
and Lobeck Phryn. p. 25, Paral. 
p. 22. 

The words tj ahjdeta nfj ireidfo-dat 
of the received text have no place 
here, but are added from v. 7. 

off KOT o^6a\iiovi} ' before whose 
eyes' : comp. Arist Ban. 626 Ji/a o-ol 
kot' 6(t)6dS.iiovs Xtyj. This expression 
is slightly stronger than irpb o4>6aK- 
fkav, as bringing out the idea of a 

As the blighting influence passed 
from the eye of the bewitcher, so also 
was the eye of the recipient the most 
direct channel of communication : see 
esp. Alexand. Aphrod. Prohl. Phys. 
ii. S3 •"T'Tfp Iwhr] Tiva Km <f)6opo7rocov 
aKTiva f^iaiTLv dno t^s Koprjs avrav koI 
avTTj eloriovaa fita Tcav oi^OaKfiav row 
(jiBovoviifvov Tpeiffci T^v ^ruxv" Kai tt\v 
i^tia-iv (C.T.X., Heliod. Mth. iii. 7 hui 
T&v 6<f>6aKpMv ra wadr) rais ■^uj^als 
(la-To^evovrai (these references I owe 
to Jahn, p. 33); and comp. Bcclus. 
xvlii. 18 S6<Tis /Sacrxavov exrijicci 6(l)da\- 
p.ovs, xiv. 8, Test, xii Pair. Is. 4. To 
let the eye rest on the sorcerer there- 
fore was to yield to the fascination. 
This the Galatians had done; 'So 
deeply had they drunken in That look, 
those shjTinken serpent eyes. That all 
their features were resigned To this 
sole image in their mind.' 

jrpoeypo0T;] ^tcas posted up, pla- 
carded.' The verb npoypd<j)eiv is ca- 
pable of two meanings ; (i) 'To write 
beforehand,' as Rom. xv. 4 oa-a yap 

irpoeypdcf)!] els TXiv fiperepav bibaiTKaKiav 

iypax^T). This sense however is ex- 
cluded here, as the words (car o^BoK- 
fiovs forbid the supposition that the 
Apostle is here speaking of the pre- 
dictions of the Old Testament, even 
if such a sense were otherwise likely. 
(2) ' To write up in public, to placard.' 
It is the common word to describe 

all public notices or proclamations, 
e.g. Arist. Av. 450 5 n av 7rpoypd<j)a- 
litv iv Tois irivaxiois : comp. Justin 
Apol. iL p. 52 B iau de vfifis tovto 
npoypdij/tire, ^/lets row Train ^avepov 
noiria-oiuv. These would sometimes 
be notices of a trial or condemnation ; 
comp. Jude 4 o( TroXat irpoyeypap.fUvoi 
eh TOVTO TO Kpifia, with Demosth. p. 
II51 Tovs irpvraveis irpoypd<l>eip avTa 
rijv Kplcrw «Vl &vo ^/lipas, Plut. Camill. 
9 T^i h'lKijs irpoyeypap.p.ivrjs : and this 
meaning is assigned to the word here 
by several ancient commentators. 
The context however seems to re- 
quire rather the sense 'placarded, 
publicly announced as a magisterial 
edict or proclamation.' This placard 
ought to have kept their eyes from 
wandering, and so to have acted as 
a charm (jSao-Kanov or TrpofiaiTKanov, 
Epist. Jer. 6g) against all Judaic sor- 
ceries. The compound verb npoyp» 
<j>eiv seems never to be used of paint- 
ing, as some take it here. 

fv viiLv is omitted after irpoeypd^ 
in deference to the best authorities. 
It is difficult however to account for 
its insertion in some early copies, un- 
less it crept in from ver. 5. If retained, 
it ought probably to be regarded as 
a redundant expression enforcing the 
idea of oh kot 6(p6dK)i,ovs, and to be 
taken with wpofypdcfiri. 

2, 3, 4. 'I have only one question 
to ask you. The gifts of the Spirit 
which ye have received, to what do 
ye owe them? To works performed 
in bondage to law, or to the willing 
hearing that comes of faith '/ What 
monstrous folly is this then ! Will 
you so violate the divine order of 
progress 1 After taking your earliest 
lessons in the Spirit, do you look 
to attaining perfection through the 
Jlesh ? To what purpose then did ye 
suflfer persecution from these carnal 
teachers of the law? Will ye now 


^o'vTios dvoriTOi icrre', evap^afxevoi irvevixaTL vvv 
aapKi eTTiTeXelcrde ; *TO(ravTa eirddeTe eiKrj ; ei ye 

stultify your past sufferings ? I can- 
not belieye that ye will.' 

2. aKoijs] in itself may mean either 
'a hearing' or ' a report.' For the latter 
sense see Bom. x. i6, quoted from 
the Lxx of Is. Uii. i. The former 
meaning however is more probable 
here, as presenting a better contrast 
to cpymv, which requires some word 
expressing the part taken by the Ga- 
latians themselves : comp. i Thess.ii. 13. 

TTio-reais] ' which comes of faith,' 
the subjective genitive. The parallel- 
ism of Rom. X. 17, apa i; Triortr «| 
dKofjs, 1} Se aKofi 8ia pij/iaTos, is only 
apparent. A true parallel is the phrase 
VTraKofj jrio-Temy, Hom. i. Sj xvi. 26. At 
all events iria-Teas cannot be consi- 
dered equivalent to t!js jriorfoos (see 
on i. 23), taken as an objective geni- 
tive, with the sense ' listening to the 
doctrines of the faith.' 

3. ovTas] refers to what follows : 
' How senseless to reverse the natural 
order of things ! ' 

ivap^aiievoi eViTfXei(r^e] These words 
occur together 2 Cor. viii. 6, Phil. i. 6. 
Both of them, the former especially, 
are employed of religious ceremonials, 
and it is possible that the idea of a 
sacrifice may underlie their use here. 
For ivapxf<r6ai, of the initiatory rites 
see Pollux viii. 83, and comp. e.g. 
Eur. Iph. Aid. 147 1 ; for iiriTeKelv 
Herod, ii. 63 [Bvcrlas, evxo^as), iv. 1 86 
(tiri<rreias Kal oprds). 

iirireXe'iade is perhaps the middle 
voice rather than the passive, as in 
Clem. Rom. §55 ttoXXoI yvvaiKes ivSvva- 
litt>6ei<Tai. . .eTTereXecravTo woWa avSpe7a, 
and frequently in classical writers, 
e.w. Plat. Phil. 27 KciKKiov ai> koI tijv 
Kpia-iv iniTe\e(Talp,i6a. A comparison 
of the parallel passages 2 Cor. viii. 6, 
Phil. i. 6, seems to point to a transi- 
tive verb. On the other hand the 
middle voice is not found elsewhere 
iu the LXX or New Testament. 

4. TO(ravTa inadert elKrj ;] ' did ye 
suffer so much in vain?', referring 
to the persecutions endured by them. 
For similar appeals to sufferings un- 
dergone see GaJ. v. 11, i Cor. xv. 32, 
and comp. i Thess. ii 14. The history 
indeed says nothing of persecutions in 
Galatia, but then it is equally silent 
on all that relates to the condition of 
the Galatian Churches : and while the 
converts to the faith in Pisidia and 
Lycaonia on the one side (Acts xiv. 
2, 5, 19, 22), and in proconsular Asia 
on the other (2 Cor. i. 8, Acts xix. 23 
sq.), were exposed to suffering, it is 
improbable that the Galatians alone 
should have escaped. If we suppose, 
as is most likely, that the Jews were 
the chief instigators in these per- 
secutions, St Paul's appeal becomes 
doubly significant. 

On the other hand, eVa^ere has 
been interpreted in a good sense, as 
if referring to the spiritual blessings 
of the Galatians : but Trdcrxetv seems 
never to be so used in the New Testa- 
ment ; and indeed such a rendering 
would be harsh anywhere, unless the 
sense wefre clearly defined by the con- 
text, as it is for instance in Jos. Ant. 
iii. 15. I Tov Beov vnofivrifrai /iiv oaa 
naBovres i^ avTov Koi TrijXiKmv evepye- 
<na>v fieToKaPivTes /c.T.X. 

flKTj] ' in vain.' ' You despise that 
liberty in Christ for which you then 
suffered ; you listen to those teachers, 
whom you then resisted even to per- 

ci y€ KOI elKT]] 'if it be really in 
vain.' It is hard to beUeve this ; the 
Apostle hopes better things of his 
converts. Et ye leaves a loophole for 
doubt, and koI widens this, implying 
an unwillingness to believe on the part 
of the speaker. Hermann's distinction 
{ad Viger. p. 834) that eiye assumes 
the truth of a proposition while tlwfp 
leaves it doubtful, requires modifying 



[III. 5-7 

Kal e'lKfj, *d ovv e'7ri')(ppr]<ywv v/jllv to Trvev/uia kui ivep- 
ywv huvdfiei^ iv vfjiiv, e^ epycou vofxov rj i^ aKofjs 
Tr/ffrews ; ^Kudcos 'ASpAiiM en/creyceN rto Qeut ka'i 
eAoficeH AYT<|> eic aikaiocVnhn. "^ yiuuxTKeTe apa 

before it is applied to the New Testa- 
ment, where finep is, if anything, more 
directly affirmative than e'ye. The 
alternative rendering, ' If it is only in 
vain and not worse than in vain,' 
seems harsh and improbable. 

5. The question asked in ver. 2 in- 
volved the contrast of faith and works. 
This contrast suggests two other 
thoughts ; (i) The violation of the law 
of progress committed by the Gala- 
tians (ver. 3) ; (2) Their folly in stulti- 
fying their former suflferings (ver. 4). 
The question has meanwhile been lost 
eight of. It is now resumed and the 
particle oiv marks its resumption ; 
' Well then, as I said, etc' 

o emxoprjyav] 'He that gupplieth 
bountifully' ; comp. Phil. i. 19 fwi-xo- 

priylas roC irvfifxaTOi 'l-qtrov Xpi<TTOV. 

Even the simple word implies more 
or less of liberality, and the com- 
pound fmxopt)yeiv expresses this idea 
more strongly. See 2 Pet. i. 5 eVixo- 

pryyrja'aTe €v T3 TTiOTft vpav r^v aperrjv, 

and compare the use of the substan- 
tive imxop^yrfpa in Athen. iv. p. 140 
tTraiicKa fiev XeyfTai ravra, ivra oiov 
eVi^opijyiJfiaTa rov mivTerayiuvov rots 
^iMrais oikKov, i.e. the luxuries, the 
superfluities of the meal. 

ivepymv bwapLtK iv ipXv\ Comp. 
I Cor. xii. 10 eufpy^para dvvafieav 

(with w. 28, 29), Matt. xiv. 2 al 8vvd- 
fifis ivfpyoitriv iv aura (comp. Mark vi. 
14). These passages favour the sense 
'worketh miraculous power in you,' 
rather than ' worketh miracles among 
you' ; and this meaning also accords 
better vrith the context : comp. i Cor. 
xii. 6 Koi o avTos Scoi o ivepywv ra 
wavTa iv iramv. What was the exact 
nature of these ' powers,' whether they 
were exerted over the physical or tlie 

moral world, it is impossible to deter- 
mine. The limitations implied in 
I Cor. xii. 10, and the general use of 
Svvaii€is, point rather to the former. 
It is important to notice how here, as 
in the Epistle to the Corinthians, St 
Paul assumes the possession of these 
extraordinary powers by his converts 
as an acknowledged fact. 

The verb which disappears in the 
ellipsis is to be supplied from the 
foregoing participles ; ' does He do so 
from works etc.,' as in 2 Cor. iii 11, 
Rom. xii. 7 sq. 

6. The following passage w. 6 — 9 
was omitted in Marcion's recension of 
the epistle, as repugnant to his lead- 
ing principle of the antagonism be- 
tween the Old and New Testaments : 
see TertulL adv. Marc. v. 3 ' ostendi- 
tur quid supra haeretica industria 
eraserit, mentionem scilicet Abrahae,' 
and Hieron. ad loc. 

Kadms] The answer to the question 
asked in the former verse is assumed, 
' Surely of faith : and so it was with 
Abraham.' KaSas, though not a good 
Attic word, is common in later Greek; 
see Lobeck Phryn. p. 425. 

'Afipnap. iTricTTtvo-ev k.t.X.] from the 

Lxx of Gen. xv. 6. The Hebrew has 
in the second clause nplS 1^ nacri'l 
'and (He) imputed it to him (for) 
righteousness.' It is quoted as in the 
LXX also in Bom. iv. 3, James ii. 23, 
Clem. Rom. § 10, Justin Dial. c. Tryph. 
§ 119. The passage is cited also in 
Barnab. § 13, but too loosely and with 
too obvious an infusion of St Paul's 
language to allow of any inference as 
to the text used by the writer. 

On the use made of this passage 
by Jewish writers and on the faith of 
Abraham see p. 1 58 sq. 

III. 8—10] 



OTt ol eK 7n'<rT€ft)s, ovtoi vloi e'uriv 'A^padfx. ^irpo'i- 
oouaa §6 »i 'Ypa(j)ri oti eK irio'Teui'i ZiKaiaii to. edvri 6 
06OS, TrpoevriyyeXio'aTO tco 'Kj^paajj, oti eNeyAorH- 

ericONT&l 6N Co) HA'nTA T a' eONH. 'a)0"T6 ol €K 

Tria-Tecos evXoyovuTai aiip tm 'ttio'tm 'Afipadfx. '°ocrot 

7. ovTol elaiv viol 'Appauiii 

7. The promise to Abraham, which 
in the passage of Genesis introduces 
the words just quoted, is the link of 
connexion with what follows. 

7, 8, 9. ' An oflfspring, countless as 
the stars, was promised to Abraham. 
Abraham believed, and his faith was 
accepted as righteousness. Who then 
are these promised sons of Abraham? 
Those surely who inherit Abraham's 
faith. Hence the declaration of the 
scripture that all the Gentiles should 
be blessed in him. These are the 
words of foresight discemiug that God 
justices the Gentiles by faith; for 
so only could they be blessed in Abra- 
ham. We conclude therefore that the 
faithful and the faithful alone share 
the blessing with him.' 

yiu<iiiT<€Te] 'ye perceive,' the indica- 
tive rather than the imperative. The 
former mood is perhaps more suited 
to the argumentative character of the 
sentence generally, as well as to the 
special argumontative particle Spa, 
and possibly also to the meanhig of the 
verb yu/aicr/ceu' ('to perceive' rather 
than 'to know ' ; see the note iv. 8, 9); 
coiiip. I John ii. 29 eav eJS^re on Sl- 
Kuwt eVrte, yivaaKfTe oti ttus o irouoi' 
Trjv biKaioavvrfV t^ avrov yfyevmiTai. On 

the other hand, for the imperative see 
Heb. xiii. 23. 

01 fK jriaTcas] ' they whose starting- 
point, whose fundamental principle is 
faith.' Comp. Rom. ii. 8 ol e^ ipiBeias, 
Kom. iv. 14 ol fK vojxov. 

8. 17 ypai^i;'] 'the scripture' per- 
sonified. This instance stands by itself 
in the New Testament, the personifi- 
cation elsewhere not going beyond 

\iyei or ilirev, or such expressions as 
crvveK\fi<7fv, ver. 22. The attributing 
'sight' to the sacred writings is how- 
ever found in a not uncommon Jewish 
formula of reference nXT no, ' Quid 
vidit?' see Sehottgen here. On the 
meaning of ypa(f)rj, 'a passage of Scrip- 
ture,' see the note iii. 22. 

fiiKaiot] The tense denotes the cer- 
tainty of God's dealings, the sure ac- 
complishment of His purpose, as if it 
were actually present : see on i Thess. 
v. 2, and Winer § xi. 2, p. 280. 

irpoevr)yye\ia-aTo} The promise tO 

Abraham was an anticipation of the 
Gospel, not only as announcing the 
Messiah, but also as involving the 
doctrine of righteousness by faith. 

fVfvKoyqdricrovTai K.T.X.] A fusion 

of the two passages, Gen. xii. 3 km 

\iv\evKor/Tf6'q<TOVTai iv trol waaat al <jiv- 
Xal rfjs yfji, and Gen. xviii 18 koI 
ivfvXoyrjB'jcrovTai iv avT^ (^A^paap.) 
TTOLura TO eSmi ttjs yijs, in both of which 
the Lxx agrees with the Hebrew. 
Comp. Clem. Rom. § 10. 

cV croi] ' in thee,' as their spiritual 

10, II, 12. Having shewn by po- 
giiim proof that justification is of 
faith, he strengthens his position by 
the negative argument derived from 
the impossibility of maintaining its 
opposite, justification by law. This 
negative argument is twofold : First, 
It is impossible to fulfil the require- 
ments of the law, and the non-fulfil- 
ment lays us under a curse (ver. 10) : 
/Secondly, Supposing the fulfilment 
possible, still the spirit of the law is 
antagonistic to faith, which is else- 


fyap i^ epyiov vofxov ei<riv, vtto Kardpav el<nv. ye- 
ypaiTTai yctp OTi eniKATAp&Toc hac, oc oyk 6m- 
MeNei nACiN toTc rerpAMMeNoic en t4> BiBAi'co 

TOY No'mOYi toy nOlHC&l AYTii. "OTl Be iu VOfJUp 

ovSets ZiKaiovTai wapa tw Gew SijAoj/, OTi 6 A 1 k a 1 c 

where spoken of as the sovirce of life 
(vv. II, 12). 

10, 1 1. 'On the other hand all who 
depend on works of law are under a 
curse. This the Scripture itself de- 
clares. It utters an anathema against 
all who fail to fulfil every single or- 
dinance contained in the book of the 
law. Again the same truth, that the 
law does not justify in the sight of 
God, appears from another Scripture 
which declares that the just shall live 
by faith." 

I a o<roi e| epyav vo/iov elaiv] ' those 
who are of works of law I whose char 
racter is founded on works of law. 

iiriKardpaTos K.T.X.] A quotation from 
Deut. xxvii. 26. The passage is the 
closing sentence of the curses pro- 
nounced on Mount EbaJ, and as it 
were the summary of the whole. The 
words run in the lxx, iitiKarapaTos 
iras avBpamos os ovK ifiiUvei iv iraaai 
TOK Xoyois ToC v6p,ov rovTov Tov iroirjaai 
avTois. For Tolt Xoyotr tov vofuiv tou- 
rov a slight modification is introduced 
by St Paul, that the sentence may ex- 
plain itself. The words ttSi, Traa-m, 
are absent in the Hebrew, though the 
former is found in the Peshito, and 
the latter in the Samar. Pentat. Je- 
rome in this passage, referring to 
the Samaritan reading, attributes the 
omission to a wilful corruption of the 
text on the part of the Jews, ' ne vi- 
dereutur esse sub maledicto.' The 
charge is of course unfounded, but it is 
an interesting notice of the state of the 
text in his day. Justin, Dial. § 95, 
p. 322 c, quotes the passage exactly in 
the words of St Paul, though differing 
from Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, and 8a- 
mai'itan texts, and applies it in the 

same way : see above, p. 60, and the 
note on ver. 13. 

II. The same proposition proved 
in another way ; Se, ' Then again.' 

6 dUaios K.r.X.] From Habak. ii. 
4, quoted also Bom. L 17, Heb. x. 38. 
In the Hebrew the words run, 'Be- 
hold, his soul is uplifted (proud, stub- 
born), it is not right (calm, even) ; but 
the just man shall live by his steadfast- 
ness (fidelity), n»n» in3iDS3 pnx.' 

What is the correct rendering of the 
first clause, whether it refers to the 
Chaldean invader or to the heedless 
Jew, may be questioned ; but the se- 
cond clause without doubt describei 
the attitude of the faithful Israelite in 
the season of danger. The lxx have 
cav vnoareiXrirai, ovk fvSoKti ij V"'X'/ 
fiov iv avrm, o 5e dixator /lov ex irltrrftos 
(or c K jri(rTf<it fiov) fijirerac : see below, 
p. 156. The author of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews, who gives both clauses 
of the verse, though reversing the or- 
der, quotes from the Lxx (see Bleek, 
Heb. 1. c). 

It will thus be seen that in the first 
clause of the verse, the lxx, though it 
makes excellent sense, differs widely 
from the Hebrew. In the second 
clause again the Hebrew word njIDX 
is not directly ' faith,' meaning ' trust, 
belief,' but 'steadfastness, faithful- 
ness.' The context however justifies 
iri'o-Ttr, even in the sense ' trust,' as a 
paraphrastic rendering, and it was so 
translated by Symmachus, Aquila, and 
Theodotion, and in the other Greek 
versions. Seep. 156, note 4. Targum 
Jon. has JintiB'lp, 'their truth.' In its 
original context the passage has refer- 
ence to the temporal calamities in- 
flicted by the Chaldean invasion. Here 

III. 12, 13] 



Ik nlcreojc zhcctai" "d Se vo/no^ ovk 'e<rTiv e/c 
TTiVrews, a\A' 6 noihicAC 6.y-ri zHcexAi eN A-fToTc. 
'^XjOtcTTOS jj^as e^iryopaceu ex t^s KUTapas tov vo/jlov, 
yevofxepoi vTrep rifjuav Kardpa, on yiypuTrrai e n 1- 

a spiritual meaning and general ap- 
plication are given to words referring 
primarily to special external incidents. 
Another portion of this same pro- 
phecy of Habakkuk (i. 5, comp. ii. 5) 
relating to the Chaldeans is similarly 
applied in a speech of St Paul, Acts 
xiii. 41, in which context (ver. 39, ev 
rovrat nag 6 Trtcrrcucoi/ diKaiovToi) there 
ia perhaps a tacit allusion to the words 
o dUaios K.T.X. quoted here. 

12. ' Faith is not the starting-point 
of the law. The law does not take 
faith as its fundamental principle. On 
the other hand, it rigidly enforces the 
performance of all its enactments.' 

o woi^aas K.r.X.} Quoted from Lev. 
xviii. 5, substantially the same as in 
Heb., Syr., Sumar. Pent, and lxx. 
The Targums define the meaning of 
'living' by 'life eternal.' The aura is 
explained by the words which in the 
original text precede the passage 
quoted, Travra ra irpoa-Taynara fiov kcu, 
navra ra KpifiaTa jiov, and with which 
St Paul assumes a familiarity in his 

13. ' Christ ransomed us from this 
curse pronounced by the law, Himself 
taking our place and becoming a curse 
for our sakes : for so says the Scrip- 
ture, Cursed is every one that hang- 
eth on the gibbet.' 

ij/iar] The Apostle is here thinking 
of the deliverance of himself and the 
Jewish race : see ra cdvt], ver. 14. 

e^riyopaaev'] This verb has two 
meanings, (i) 'To redeem, ransom,' 
especially from slavery: this is its 
general signification : see the refer- 
ences in Bindori's Steph. Thes. (2) 'To 
buy up,' as Polyb. iii. 42. 2, a some- 
what exceptional sense. The former 
meaning is required here and iv. 5 : 
the latter seems best suited to Ephes. 

V. 16, Col. iv. S, roK Kaipov i^ayopa- 

Kardpa] as 2 Cor. V. 2 1 tov pj] yvovra 
apapriav virep Tj/ttov apapTiav eiroirjafv : 
comp. Protev. Jac. § 3, where Anna, 
complaining of her barrenness says, 

Kardpa eyevi^drjv iyto evtairiov Tciv v'uoy 

*I<7-pai;\. The expression is to be ex- 
plained partly by the Hebrew idiom, 
the paucity of adjectives frequently 
occasioning the use of a substantive 
instead, but still more by the religious 
conception which it involves. The 
victim is regarded as bearing the 
sins of those for whom atonement is 
made. The curse is transferred from 
them to it. It becomes in a certain 
sense the impersonation of the sin 
and of the curse. This idea is very pro- 
minent in the scape-goat, Lev. xvL 
5 sq. : see especially the language of 
the Epistle of Barnabas, § 7, where 
the writer explains the scape-goat as a 
type of Christ. Compare also Lev. iv. 
25 ajro TOV dip,aTos tov Trjs d/iapTias, 
and iv. 29 eniBijo'ei T^v x^'P" avTov 
€7ri rfiv KeipaKrjv tov dpapT^paros 
avTov. In Hebrew riNDn is both a 
'sin' and a 'sin-offering.' Counter- 
parts to these types of the Great 
Sacrifice are found also among hea- 
then nations, e.g. the Athenians, Arist. 
Jian. 733, Lysias Andoc. p. 108 <^dp- 
ItaKov dironcpireiv koI dXirripiov diraK- 
XoTTEo-flai, and especially the Egyp- 
tians, Herod, ii. 39 KeCpdKjj 8f Keiyg 
(i.e. of the victim) woWa KOTaptf- 
adpevoi ^ipovai..,KaTapeovTai Se 
rdSe \eyovTes Tjjo'i. Kfi^aXjcri, el ri ^eX- 
Xot rj a-(j>i<ri Toij 6vov<ri rj AiyvirTia TJ 
wvandaji kukov yeveirOai, (Is Ke<j>aK^v 
TavTtjV rpairiadai. 

yeypawrai] in Deut. xxi. 23, where 

the LXX runs KeKaTr)pap,ivos viro Qeov 
iras Kpepdp,evos e'lri ^v'Xov. The passage 



[III. 14 

K&T&pATOC n<)ic 6 KpeMiiiweNoc en) lyAoy, ^*'iva 6ts 
TO. edvr\ >j evXoyia tov 'A/Bpaa/j, yevrjTai ev XpicrTM 

14. iv 'l7)(roS ^piarif. 

is quoted by Justin, Dial. p. 323 0, 
exactly as by St Paul ; see p. 60, 
and the note on ver. 10. Our Lord 
had died the death of the worst 
malefactors : He had undergone that 
punishment, which under the law be- 
tokened the curse of God. So far He 
had become Korapa. But He was in 
no literal sense Karaparos vno 6cou, 
and St Paul instinctively omits those 
words which do not strictly apply, and 
which, if added, would have required 
some qualification. 

14. ' Thus the law, the great bar- 
rier which excluded the Gentiles, is 
done away in Christ. By its removal 
the Gentiles are put oa a level with us 
Jews ; and, so united, we and they 
alike receive the promise in the gift 
of the Spirit through our faith.' The 
sequence of thought here is exactly 
the sume as in Bphes. ii. 14 — 18 : see 
also Gal. iv. 5. 

As regards the construction, either 
(i) The two clauses introduced by 
iva are coordinate, as in 2 Cor. ix. 3, 
expressing the coincidence in time of 
the extension of the blessing to the 
Gentiles and the introduction of the 
dispensation of the Spirit ; or (2) The 
second clause with ha is attached to 
the first, expressing the moral de- 
pen dence of the one on the other. The 
passage from the Ephesians already 
referred to favours the latter. 

TTiv fnayysKiav k.t.X.] 'we, ie. all 
the faithful, whether Jews or Gentiles, 
may receive the promise.' The divine 
promise in the New Testament is 

always fwayyeKta not lijroo-pffo-JS, 'pol- 

licitum' not 'promissum,' a gift gra- 
ciously bestowed and not a pledge 
obtained by negotiation. Indeed the 
substantive enayyeXla is scarcely ever 
used (Acts xxiii. 21 is an excep- 
tion) of anything else but the divine 

promise. The phrase Xa/i/Sawtv -njv 
eirayyekiav is employed not of those 
to whom the promise is given, but 
of those to whom it is fulfilled; as 
Acts ii. 33, Heb. ix. 15. So also eVi- 

Tvyxaveiv Trjs tVayyfXiay Heb. vl. 15, 
Trepifieveiv rifv ejrayycKiav, Acts i. 4 
With this use of eVayyeXm, compare 
that of iXnis, tt'uttis, etc., for the ob- 
ject of faith, of hope, etc 

1 5 — 18. 'Brethren, let me draw 
an illustration from the common deal- 
ings of men. Even a human covenant 
duly confirmed is held sacred and in- 
violable. It cannot be set aside, it 
cannot be clogged with new conditions. 
Much more then a divine covenant. 
Now the promise of God was not 
given to Abraham alone, but to his 
seed. What is meant by ' his seed ' ? 
The form of expression denotes unity. 
It must have its fulfilment in some 
one person. This person is Christ. 
Thus it was unfulfilled when the law 
came. Between the giving of the 
promise then and the fulfilment of 
it the law intervened. And coming 
many hundred years after, it was 
plainly distinct from the promise, it 
did not interpret the terms of the 
promise. Thus the law cannot set 
aside the promise. Yet this would 
be done in effect, if the inheritance 
could only be obtained by obedience 
to the law; since the promise itself 
imposed no such condition.' 

IS- 'A8«Xi^oi]'5r-e«A/-«».' There is 
a touch of tenderness in the appeal 
here, as if to make amends for the 
severity of the foregoing rebuke, iii. 
I sq. : comp. iv. 31, vi. i. 

Kara avOpamov Xcyo)] ' / speak afte/f 
the manner of men, I arg^e from 
the practice of men ' ; see Bom. iii. 5, 
I Cor. ix. 8, and Rom. vi. 19 avSpm- 
mvov X6y'»- Comp. also I Cor. iii. 3 




'lri<rov, 'iva Trjv eTrayyeXiav tov TrveufxaTOi Xafiwfxev 
Sia Trjs TricTTetos. 

^^'ASe\(poi, Kara ctvdpoaTrov Xeyu). b/uco^ dvdpcoTrov 

Kara avBpairov irepmartlTe, Gal. i. II, 
I Cor. XV. 32 el Kara avBpunrov i6r]pio- 

liaxno-a k.tX., 'If from nothing more 
than worldly motives I fought with 
beasts etc.,' where the false interpre- 
tation of Kara avBpamov, 'metaphori- 
cally,' has been Bupported by the 
mistaken analogy of the passage 
in our text. For the usage of Kara 
avdpairov in profane authors see the 
quotations in Wetstein on Rom. 
iii. S. 

ofKBs avBpamov] The force is well 
given in the A. V., 'though it be but 
a man's covenant,' i.e. Kolirep avSpdnov 
ovaav, Sfiat k.tX. ; comp. I Cor. xiv. 7 
Sfuos TO a'^vx" 't'oivfiv SiSovra, Pausan. 
L 28. I Kv\ava...avi6c<Tav rvpavviha 
Sfiios /SovXciicravra. In classical writers 
this displacement of Sfims, so as to 
connect it with the word or clause to 
which it applies, appears to occur 
chiefly, if not solely, with participles, 
and not as here and i Cor. xiv. 7. 

The argument is here an a fortiori 
argument, as those of our Lord drawn 
from the afiEection of a human father 
(Luke xi. 11 sq) and from the com- 
pliance of a human judge (Luke xvili. 
I sq). See esp. Heb. vi. 16. The 
a fortiori character of the reasoning 
however is dismissed in the single 
word ofias, except so far as it is 
picked up again in tov Qeoi (ver. 17), 
and does not reappear, as some have 
thought, in or e<mv Xpicnos. 

Scad^Ktiv] 'a covenant.' This word 
(frequently in the plural BiaBJjKm) in 
classical writers almost always signi- 
fies 'a will, a testament.' There are 
some few exceptions, however, e.g. 

Arist. Av. 439 fjv n^ SiaOavrai y oiSe 
ita0rJKriP eftoL On the other hand in 
the Lxx it is as universally used of 
a covenant (most frequently as a trans- 

lation of n*ll), whether as a stipula- 
tion between two parties (o-wfli/io;, 
'a covenant' in the strict sense) or 
as an engagement on the part of one. 
Nor in the New Testament is it 
ever found in any other sense, with 
one exception. Even in this excep- 
tional case, Heb. ix. 15 — 17, the sa- 
cred writer starts from the sense of a 
'covenant,' and glides into that of a 
'testament,' to which he is led by two 
points of analogy, (i) the inheritance 
conferred by the covenant, and (2) the 
death of the person making it. 'The 
disposition in this case,' he says in 
eflfect, 'was a testamentary disposition, 
a will.' In the passage before us, on 
the other hand, the mere mention of 
the inheritance (ver. 18) is not suffi- 
cient to establish the sense 'a testa- 
ment,' which is . iU suited to the con- 
text: comp. Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. 
§ II, p. 228 B. Owing partly to the 
passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews 
and partly to the influence of the Latin 
version, which ordinarily rendered the 
word by 'testamentum' (as here), the 
idea of a testament connected itself 
inseparably with htaOijKt). ks, a name 
for the sacred books, 'testamentum' 
had not firmly established itself at 
the close of the second century, and 
Tertullian frequently uses 'instrumen- 
tum' instead; see esp. adv. Marc. 
iv. I, and comp. K aye's Tertvillian 
p. 299. The LXX translators and the 
New Testament writers probably pre- 
ferred 8ia6^Kt] to (TvvBiJKt) when speak- 
ing of the divine dispensation, be- 
cause the former term, like enayyt- 
\ia, better expresses the/r«« grace 
of God. The later Greek translators 
frequently substituted avvOriKq, where 
the LXX has Siad^Kr), sometimes per- 
haps not without a polemical aim. 



[III. i6 

'"rft) Se 'Al3paafi ippe6ri(rav al iirayyeXiaiy ka) t^ 
c n e p M A T I avTOU. ov Xe<yei ka) to?c cnepMACiN aSs 

afleTfl] Comp. Philo Fragm. ii. p. 

675 M oKKa oTi 77 huiBriKr) aBeTflrai. 

cViSiaTdortTfToi] ^adds fresh clauses.' 
Virtually the doctrine of the Judaizers 
was the annulling of the promise (a6c- 
Tri<Tis) ; apparently it vf as but the im- 
posing new conditions {iiriSiara^ig). 
On either shewing it was a violation 
of the covenant. The meaning of tm- 
8iaTa(nTf<r8ai is partially illustrated by 
firtbtaB^io), which signifies 'a second 
will,' Joseph. B. J. ii. 2. 3 d^imv t^s 
itnhiaSriKrjs Tr/v 8ta6iJKr]V tipai KvpuoTf- 

pav, and § 6, Ant. xvii. 9. 4. 

16. eppedria-av] For the form see 
Lobeck Phryn. p. 447, Buttmann 
Ausf. Sprachl. n. p. 165. 

tVayyeXi'at] The plural, for the pro- 
mise waa several times repeated to 
Abraham: comp. Rom. ix. 4, and esp. 
Clem. Bom. § 10. A question has 
been raised as to the particular pas- 
sage to which St Paul refers. In an- 
swering this question it should be 
observed, (i) Tliat the words must be 
spoken to Abraham himself, and not to 
one of the later patriarchs ; (2) That koI 
must be part of the quotation. These 
considerations restrict the reference 
to Gen. xiii. ij, xviL 8, either of which 
passages satisfies these conditions. It 
is true that in both aUke the inherit- 
ance spoken of refers primarily to 
the possession of the land of Canaan, 
but the spiritual application here is 
only in accordance with the general 
analogy of New Testament interpreta- 
tion. See above on ver. 11. 

ov Xe'yfi] seems to be used imper- 
sonally, like the Attic </)i;o-i in quoting 
legal documents, the nominative be- 
ing lost sight of. If so, we need not 
-enquire whether 6 Beos or ij ypa<i>ri is 
to be understood. Comp. Xe'yet, Rom. 
XV. 10, Ephes. iv. 8, v. 14; and t^ijcr/v, 
I Cor. vi. 16, 2 Cor. x. 10 (v. 1.). 

Ka\ Tois awip/iaaiv K.r.X.] This com- 

ment of St Paul has given rise to much 
discussion. It has been urged that the 
stress of the argument rests on a gram- 
matical error; that as the plural of 
J?^T (the word here rendered mripiid) 
is only used to signify 'grain' or 'crops,' 
e.g. I Sam. viii. 15, the sacred writer 
could not under any circumstances 
have said 'seeds as of many.' Nor is 
it a complete answer to this objection 
that the same word in Chaldee is 
several times used in the plural in the 
sense which it has here; Gen. x. 18, 
Josh. vii. 14, Jer. xxxiii. 34. But the 
very expression in St Paul, which starts 
the objection, supplies the answer also. 
It is quite as unnatural to use the 
Greek o-jrfp/iara with this meaning, as 
to use the Hebrew D'Vlt. No doubt 
by a forced and exceptional usage 
a-irepiiara might be SO employed, as 
in Plato Zegg. ix. 853 HvBpoTroi re 
Koi av6pd>na>v trirepiuuri voiioBeTovfiev, 
4 Mace. § 1 7 <! Tav 'A^pa/uaiav inrep- 
ixarav anoyovot waiSes 'iCT-pai/Xirat, but 
so might the corresponding word in 
almost any language. This fact points 
to St Paul's meaning. He is not lay- 
ing stress on the particular word used, 
but on the fact that a singular noun 
of some kind, a collective term, is 
employed, where to rdKva or oi djro- 
yovoi for instance might have been 
substituted. Avoiding the technical 
terms of grammar, he could not ex- 
press his meaning more simply than 
by the opposition, 'not to thy seeds, 
but to thy seed.' A plural substan- 
tive would be inconsistent with the 
interpretation given; the singular col- 
lective noun, if it admits of plurality 
(as it is interpreted by St Paul him- 
self, Rom. iv. 18, ix. 7), at the same 
time involves the idea of unity. 

The question therefore is no longer 
one of grammatical accuracy, but of 
theological interpretation. Is this a, 

III. 17] 



eTTi TToWiov, dW aJs i<p' ivo^ kai xtji cnepiwATi' coy, 
OS icTTiv XjOttTTOs. '^Toi/To Se Xiya)' ^laOtiKviv irpo- 
KeKvpwjjLevnv vtto toO Qeou 6 fierce TerpaKocria kui 

legitimate sense to assign to the seed 
of Abraham ? Doubtless by the seed 
of Abraham was meant in the first 
instance the Jewish people, as by the 
inheritance was meant the land of 
Canaan; but in accordance with the 
analogy of Old Testament types and 
symbols, the term involves two second- 
ary meanings. First; With a true spi- 
ritual instinct, though the conception 
embodied itself at times in strangely 
grotesque and artificial forms, even 
the rabbinical writers saw that 'the 
Christ' was the true seed of Abra- 
ham. In Him the race was summed 
up, as it were. In Him it fulfilled 
its purpose and became a blessing to 
the whole earth. Without Him its 
separate existence as a peculiar peo- 
ple had no meaning. Thus He was 
not only the representative, but the 
embodiment of the race. In this way 
the people of Israel is the type of 
Christ; and in the New Testament 
parallels are sought in the career of 
the one to the life of the other. (See 
especially the application of Hosea 
xi. I to our Lord in Matt ii. 15.) In 
this sense St Paul used the 'seed of 
Abraham' hera But iSecowdZg// Ac- 
cording to the analogy of interpreta- 
tion of the Old Testament in the New, 
the spiritual takes the place of the 
natural ; the Israel after the flesh be- 
comes the Israel after the spirit ; the 
Jewish nation denotes the Christian 
Church. So St Paul interprets the 
seed of Abraham, Eom. ir. 18, ix. 7, 
and above, ver. 7. 

These two interpretations are not 
opposed to each other; they are not 
independent of each other. Without 
Christ the Christian people have no 
existence. He is the source of their 
spiritual life. They are one in Him. 
By this link St Paul at the close of 

the chapter (w. 28, 29) connects to- 
gether the two senses of the ' seed of 
Abraham,' dwelling once more on the 
unity of the seed: 'Ye are all one 
man in Christ; and if ye are part of 
Christ, then ye are Abraham's seed 
and heirs according to promise.' 

See especially the remarks of Tho- 
luck. Das Alte Test, im Neuen Test. 
p. 44 sq. 

cTTi iroXXffii/] See Winer § xlvii. p. 393. 

or iiTTiv Xpjo-ros] Por the attrac- 
tion see Winer § xxiv. p. 206 sq. 

17. Tovro hi Xcyiu] 'Now what I 
mean, what I wish to say, is this.' 
The inference has been hitherto only 
hinted at indirectly; it is now stated 
plainly. Comp. i Cor. i. 12 Xiya 8e 

TOVTO, OTl f/Ca(7T0r K.T.\. lU both paS- 

sages the A.V. gives a wrong turn to 
the expression, translating it, ' this I 
say.' See also [Clem. Rom.] ii. §§ 2, 8, 1 2. 

irpoKfKvpaiiimjvl The confirmation 
spoken of is not an act separate in 
time and subsequent to the covenant 
itself The idea present to St Paul's 
mind is explained by Heb. vi. 17, 18. 

fls XpiiTTov found in the received 
text after tov &cov must be struck 
out as a gloss. The balance of autho- 
rity is decidedly against it. 

TerpaKotria k.t.X.] In the prophetic 
passage, Gen. xv. 13, the length of the 
sojourn in Egypt is given in round 
numbers as 400 years : in the historical 
statement, Exod. xii. 40 sq., it is de- 
fined more exactly as 430 years. The 
Hebrew text in both passages implies 
that the residence in Egypt occupied 
the whole time. In the latter how- 
ever the liXX inserts words so as to 
include the sojourn of the patriarchs in 
Canaan before the migration, thus re- 
ducing the actual term of residence in 
Egypt to about half this period. In 
the Vat. MS the passage runs, 1; Si kut- 



[III. i8 

TpiuKOVTa erri yeyovco^ vofxo'S ovk aKvpoi eU to kut- 
apyfjcrai Trjv iirayyeXiav. '®et yoip Ik vo/hov »j 
KXripoi/o/ULia, ovkbti i^ eTrayyeX'ia^' tw §€ 'AfSpaafx 

oUrjiTK tSu uiiSi' 'icpaqX ^ v KormKriaav 
iv yj) AlyvTiTto Kai iv yrf %avaav fTtj 
rrrpoKoiTta TpiaKoura itcvre (the last 
word however being erased). The 
Alex. M3 reads irapoiKT](rts, irapt^Krjtrav, 
adds after Xavaav the words avroi xm 
o! naripes avr&v, 80 as to bring out the 
revised chronology more clearly, and 
omits rrivTf. The Samar. Pent, takes 
the same view, agreeing in its reading 
with the Alex. Ms. This seems in fact 
to have been the receivtd chronology. 
It is adopted not only by St Paul here, 
but by Josephus Ant. ii. 15. 2, by the 
Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, and sub- 
stantially by the Book of Jubilees 
(Bwald Jahrh. iii. p. 77). On the other 
hand in St Stephen's speech (Acts vii. 
6),and in Philo {Quis rer. div. her. § 54, 
p. 511 m). Gen. XV. 13 is referred to, 
which extends the sojourn in Egypt 
over 400 years; ami this is the chrono- 
logy adopted in other passages of Jose- 
phus {Ant. ii. 9. I, B. J. v. 9. 4), who 
is thus inconsistent with himself. The 
LXX translators may have inserted the 
explanatory clause on grounds of inter- 
nal criticism, or in deference to chrono- 
logical records to which they had ac- 
cess in Egypt. The difScultiea which 
attend both systems of chronology 
need not be considered here, as they 
do not affect St Paul's argument and 
cannot have entered into his thoughts. 

18. « yap K.T.X.] 'To abrogate and 
annul the promise I say, for this is 
the effect of making the inheritance 
dependent on law.' The yap justifies 
the expressions ' abrogate,' ' annul,' of 
the previous verses. No/aos and iiray- 
yeXia are used without the article, as 
describing two opposing principles. 

oJ/ce'ri] is here logical, 'this being 
once granted, it is not etc.,' as Rom. 
vii. 17, XL 6. *Eti is so used fre- 

Kexapiarai] 'hath bestowed it (the 
inheritance) as a free gift.' The per- 
fect tense marks the permanence of 
the effects. 

19, 20. ' Had the law then no pur- 
pose ? Yes : but its very pm'pose, its 
whole character and history, betray 
its inferiority to the dispensatinn of 
grace. In four points this inferiority 
is seen. First ; Instead of justifying 
it condemns, instead of giving life it 
kills : it was added to reveal and mul- 
tiply transgressions. Secondly ; It was 
but temporary; when the seed came 
to whom the promise waa given, it 
was annulled. Thirdly; It did not 
come direct from God to man. There 
was a double interposition, a twofold 
mediation, between the giver and the 
recipient. There were the angels, who 
administered it as God's instruments; 
there was Moses (or the high-priest) 
who delivered it to man. Fourthly ; 
As follows from the idea of mediation, 
it was of the nature of a contract, 
depending for its fulfilment on the ob- 
servance of its conditions by the two 
contracting parties. Not so the pro- 
mise, which, proceeding from the sole 
fiat of God, is unconditional and un- 

19. rt oiJi' o vd/iof ;] ' what then is the 
law?', as I Cor. iii. j W o^v eWJv 
ATToXXrar ; T» he iariv IlavXot ; the cor- 
rect reading. Comp. also Rom. iii. i. 

T&v irapa^aa-fav X^P'"] How is this 

to be interpreted ? Is it (i) ' To check 
transgressions'? comp. Clem. Horn. xi. 
16 n'apairna/idrmv x^P*" V Tiptapia or*- 
rm; or is it rather (2) ' To create trans- 
gressions'? for 'where there is no law 
there is no transgression' (Rom. iv. 1 5). 
Thus law reveals (Rom. iii. 20), pro- 
vokes (Rom. vii. 7, i3),multiplies(Rom. 
V. 20) sin or traui^gression. The use 
of xapiv (comp. I Joh. iii. 12) is suffi- 

III. 19] 



St' iTrayyeXiai Keyapia-TaL 6 0eos. ^^t'l ovv 6 vojulo^ ; 
Twv Trapa^dcewv %ajOti' TrpoceTedr], a'^pi's ov eXdij 
TO ffirepfia a> eTrrtyyeXTai, ^laTayek St' dyyeXiav ev 

ciently wide to admit either meaning. 
But the latter is to be preferred here ; 
for (i) The language of the Epistle to 
the Romans shows this to be St Paul's 
leading conception of the purposes 
and functions of the law; and (2) This 
sense seems to be required by the 
expressions in the context, 'able to 
give life' (ver. 21), 'included all under 
sin' (ver. 22). Comp. ii. 19. 

Trpoo-ereflij] This reading, which is 
much better supported than eVe'flij, 
expresses more strongly the adven- 
titious character of the law; comp. 
eViStaTao-o-sTat ver. 15, and Rom. v. 20 
vo/ios 8c TraptiirflXdev tva vKeovaaij 
TO napairratjui. 

fkBri] For the omission of av see 
A. Buttmann § 33, p. 198 ; for the con- 
junctive, the note on rpixo ii. 2. 

TO tTTrepixa ic.r.X.] ' the seed to whom 
the promise lias been given,' i.e. Christ. 
iwqyyfkTai is probably a passive, as 
2 Mace. iv. 27. 

hiaTaytis S»' dyyeXffli'] 'ordered, or 
administered by the medium 0/ 
angels.' The first mention of angels 
in connexion with the giving of the 
law is in the benediction of Moses, 
Deut. xxxiiL 2 ^ip T\22-tO nnxi, 
literally, 'and He came from (amidst) 
myriads of holiness,' i.e. countless 
angels who attend Him. Some modern 
commentators (see Knobel in loc.) 
obliterate the mention of angels by 
translating, ' He came from the heights 
of Kadesh,' pointing the word t^np 
with the Lxx; but though the paral- 
lelism gains by this, the sense thus 
assigned to nD3T is unsupported: and 
Ewald, Gesch. des V. Isr. 11. 257, still 
further changes num into rano. 
The LXX render the words a-iiv fwpiairi. 
KdSris, but introduce the angels in the 
following clause e'/c Sf^iiiv avrov ayyeXoi 
IxfT avrov, where they must have had 


a different reading from our present 
Hebrew text (see Gesen. Thes. p. 358). 
Aquila, Symmachus, the Targums, 
and Jewish expositors generally, a- 
gree in the common rendering of n3!n 
Clp. Other allusions in the New 
Testament to the angels as adminis- 
tering the law are Acts vii. 53 iXd- 
jSfTe Tov vd/iov eh Siaraycts dyyeXav 
(comp. TV. 35, 38), Heb. ii. 2. See 
also Joseph. Ant. xv. 5. 3 iJ/«Si/ 8e ra 
xaXXiora rav doypAriov Kat ra diric^ 
Tara rmv iv rois vo/ioir fij' dyyeKiav 
Tiapa Tov QeoC p.a66vTa>v, Philo de 
JSomn. p. 642 M, and the Book of Ju- 
bilees c. I (Ewald's Jahrb. 11. p. 233, 
III. p. 74). The angels who assisted 
in the giving of the law hold a very 
important place in the later rabbinical 
speculations. See the interpretation 
of Deut. xxxiii. 2 in the Jerusalem 
Targum, and the passages cited by 
Gfrorer Jahrh. des HeUs i. p. 226, 
p. 357 sq, and by Wetstein here. 
The theology of the schools having 
thus enlarged upon the casual notices 
in the Old Testament, a prominence 
was given to the mediation of angels, 
which would render St Paul's allusion 
the more significant. 

In St Stephen's speech (Acts vii. 53), 
as in the passage of Josephus, the 
angels are mentioned to glorify the 
law, being opposed to mere human mi- 
nisters. Here the motive is different. 
The interposition of created beings is 
contrasted with the direct agency of 
God himself. So also in Heb. ii. 2, 
where an a fortiori argument is drawn 
from the superiority of the salvation 
spoken by the Lord over the word 
spoken by angels (81' dyytKav). St 
Paul's contrast here between the di- 
rectness of the one ministration and 
the indirectness of the other has a 
i in 2 Cor. iii. 12 sq. 




[III. 20, 21 

X^tpi fJiea-lroV *°d Se necriTm ei'os ovk ea-riv, oe 
06OS els ia-Tiv. " 6 ovv v6jJL0<i Kara twv eTrayye- 

iv x"?"] ^ Hebraism or Arama- 
ism, nearly eqtdvalent to bia: comp. 
Acts vu. 35. It is a frequent lxx trans- 
lation of 1*3, occurring especially in 
the expression iv x"pi MmScr^, e.g. 
Num. iv. 37, 41. 45, etc. In Syriac we 
meet with such phrases as (-wO J j-i-S 
(i.e. iv x*'P' mifiiuiTos, Acts iv. 25, 
Pesh.), IZn 1 V) .OT fj.£3 (i.e. iv x«pJ 
TTio-rEciif, Hab. ii 4, Hexapl.). 

^eo-tVou] The mediator is Moses. 
This is his common title in Jewish 
writers. In the apocryphal ava^aais 
or 01/0X171/^ »f Moses says to Joshua trpo- 
fOemraTo fie 6 Oeos npb learajSoX^i (tdcr- 
IJ.OV elvai fte t^s Sta^ijfojr avTov fietri- 
Tjfv, Fabric. Cod. Pseud. V.T. i. p. 845. 
See the rabbinical passages in Wet- 
stein, and Philo Vit. Mays. iii. 19, 
p. 160 M ola iifa'vn}! Koi dtaXXaKri;;. 
There would appear to be an allusion 
to this recognised title of Moses also 
in Heb. viii. 6 (comp. ix. 15, xii. 24), 
where our Lord is styled ' a mediator 
of a better covenant.' Though the 
word itself does not occur in the Mo- 
saic narrative, the mediatorial func- 
tions of Moses appear clearly, e.g. 
Exod. XX. 19, and Deut. v. 2, 5, Ku- 
pios 6 Bcoc ifjMV Si46eTO wpoi vfj^s 8ia- 
O^Krjv. ..Kaym e'urriJKfiv dva fiitrov Kvpiov 
(tm viiwv K.T.\. The reference in St 
Paul seems to be to the first giving 
of the law : if extended to its after 
administration, the jueo-tTijs would then 
be the high priest; see Philo Mon. 
iL 12, p. 230 M fiedopiov diitfio'iv Iva Sia 
p,i(Tov TLvos avBpanoi iKdaKiovTai Qcov : 
but this extension does not seem to 
be contemplated here. 

On the other hand Origen (iv. p. 692, 
ed. Delarue), misled by i Tim. ii. 5, un- 
derstood the mediator of Christ, and, 
as usual, carried a vast number of 
later commentators with him. Thus 
it is taken by Victorinus, Hilary, Je- 
rome, Augustine, and Chrysostom. So 

also Conoil. Antioch. (Routh Bel. Sacr. 
m. p. 29s), Euseb. Ecd. Th. i 20. 1 1, 
Athan. e. ApoU. i. 12. Much earlier 
than Origen, Marcion would seem to 
have entertained this view, HippoL 
Haer. vii. 31, p. 254. Basil however 
clearly showed that Moses was meant, 
referring to Exod. xx. 19, de Spir. 
Sanct. xiv. 33 (in. p. 27, Gamier), and 
it was perhaps owing to his influence 
that the correct interpretation was 
reinstated. So Theodore Mops., Theo- 
doret, Genuadius; and comp. Didym. in 
Ps. pp. 1571, 1665 (Migne). Pelagius 
gives the alternative. 

It will be seen that St Paul's argu- 
ment here rests in effect on our Lord's 
divinity as its foundation. Otherwise 
He would have been a mediator in 
the same sense in which Moses was a 
mediator. In another and a higher 
sense St Paul himself so speaks of our 
Lord (i Tim. ii. 5). 

20. The number of interpretations 
of this passage is said to mount up 
to 250 or 300. Many of these arise 
out of an error as to the mediator, 
many more disregard the context, 
and not a few are quite arbitrary. 
Without attempting to discuss others 
which are not open to any of these 
objections, I shall give that which 
appears to me the most probable. 
The meaning of the first clause seems 
tolerably clear, and the range of pos- 
sibility with regard to the second ia 
not very great. 

o 8c fiecriTTjs ivos ovk eoTtv] 'no me- 
diator can be a mediator of one.' 
The vei-y idea of mediation supposes 
two persons at least, between whom 
the mediation is carried on. The law 
then is of the nature of a contract 
between two parties, God on the one 
hand, and the Jewish people on the 
other. It is only valid so long as 
both parties fulfil the terms of the 
contract It is therefore contingent 

III. 22] 



\iiov [tou 0€oi/]; firj yevoiTO. ei yap i^odn vo/ixo^ 
6 Bvvdfxevoi ^ioo7roifj<raiy oi/tws eK vofxov [aV] riv ^ 
^iKaiO(rvvri' '*aAAa o-uveKXeKrev »j ypatprj tci irdvra 

and not absolute. The definite article 
with netrirris expresses the idea, the 
specific type, as 2 Cor. xii. 12 to, ot]- 
fieia Tov aTTOiTToKov, Joh. X. 1 1 o iroi/t^v 
d KoXds: see Winer § xviii. p. 132. 

d Se Qebs ets faTiv] 'biM God (the 
giver of the promise) w om«.' Unlike 
the law, the promise is absolute and 
unconditional It depends on the sole 
decree of God. There are not two 
contracting parties. There is nothing 
of the nature of a stipulation. The 
giver is everything, the recipient no- 
thing. Thus the primary sense of 
'one' here is numerical The further 
idea of unchangeableness may per- 
haps be suggested; but if so, it is 
rather accidental than inherent. On 
the other hand this proposition is 
quite unconnected with the funda- 
mental statement of the Mosaic law, 
' The Lord thy God is one God,' though 
resembling it in form. 

21. 'Thus the law difi«rs widely 
from the promise. But does this dif- 
ference imply antagonism ? Did the 
law interfere with the promise ? Far 
otherwise. Indeed we might imagine 
such a law, that it would take the 
place of the promise, would justiiy 
and give life. This was not the effect 
of the law of Moses.' 

Twv errayytXiav] The plural Seethe 
note on ver. 16. 

vo/j.os 6 Svvaiievos] 'a law, such as 
could.' For the position of the arti- 
cle see note i. 7, and comp. Acts iv. 12. 

^aoTroirja-ai] including alike the spi- 
ritual life in the present and the glo- 
rified life in the future, for in the 
Apostle's conception the two are 
blended together and inseparable. 
The 'inheritance' applies to both. 
Compare the scriptural use of ' salva- 
tion,' ' the kingdom of heaven,' etc. 

22, 23. In this metaphor, which 

describes the position of the Jews 
before Christ, two ideas are involved. 
First, that of constraint or oppres- 
sion. They were brought under the 
dominion of sin, were locked up in 
its prison-house, and so were made 
to feel its power. Secondly, that of 
watchful care. They were fenced 
about as a peculiar people, that in 
due time they might become the de- 
pository of the Gospel and the centre 
of its diffusion. The first idea is pro- 
minent in ver. 22, the second appears 
in ver. 23. 

22. ' On the contrary, as the pas- 
sage of Scripture testifies, the law con- 
demned all alike, yet not finally and 
irrevocably, but only as leading the 
way for the dispensation of faith, the 
fulfilment of the promise.' 

avviiCKtiafv ij ypat^ij] The Scripture 
is here represented as doing that 
which it declares to be done. 

The passage which 8t Paul has in 
mind Is probably either Ps. cxUii. 2, 
quoted above il 16, or Deut. xxviL 
26, quoted iii. 10. In Rom. iil lo — 
18 indeed the Apostle gathers toge- 
ther several passages to this same 
purport, and it might therefore be 
supposed that he is alluding here 
rather to the general tenour of Scrip- 
ture than to any special text. But 
the following facts seem to shew that 
the singular ypa<j>fi in the N.T. always 
•means a. particular passage of Scrip- 
ture ; (i) where the reference is clearly 
to the sacred writings as a whole, as 
in the expressions, 'searching the 
scriptures,' 'learned in the scriptures,' 
etc., the plural ypacjtai is universally 
found, e.g. Acts xvii. 11, xviii 24, 28. 
(2) We meet with such expressions 
as 'another scripture' (Joh. xix. 37), 
'this scripture' (Luke iv. 21), 'every 
scripture' (2 Tim. iil 16). (3) 'H 

10 — 2 



[III. 23, 24 

VTTO dfXapTiav, 'iva »j eTrayyeXia bk TrKrrew? '\rf<rov 
XpKTTOv ^odfj TOts TTKTTevova-iv. '^TTjOO Tov Be i\6eiu 
Trjv tt'kttiv, vtto vofxov e<ppovpovfxe6a (ruvKXeiojULevoi ets 
Tt]u neX\ov(rav rrla-Tiv d7roKa\v(p6fjvai. ^^wcrre 6 vo- 
fxov Traidaytoyoi ^fxwv yeyoveu els XpiaTOVf 'iva e'/c 

ypa^fi is most frequently used in in- 
troducing a particular quotation, and 
in the very few instances where the 
quotation is not actually given, it is 
for the most part easy to fix the pas- 
sage referred to. These instances are 
Joh. ii 22 (Ps. xvi 10; see Acts iL 
27), Joh. xvii. 12 (Ps. xli. lo; see 
Joh. xiii. 18), Joh. xix. 28 (Ps. Ixix. 
22), Joh. XX. 9 (Ps. xvi. 10). The 
biblical usage is followed also by the 
earliest fathers. The transition from 
the 'Scriptures' to the 'Scripture' is 
analogous to the transition from to. 
/3t/3X/a to the 'Bible.' 

ovviieKeiiTtv vno afiaprlav] i.e. sub- 
jected to the dominion of sin without 
means of escape, a pregnant expres- 
sion: comp. Bom. xi. 32 trvviiCKeuTtv 
yap 6 Oeos Tovs jravras els arreldeiav tva 
Tovs TravTas eAeTjVj. The word crvyiAfi- 
tiv seems never to mean simply 'to 
include.' The A.V. has the more 
correct but somewhat ambiguous ren- 
dering 'conclude' here. 2vyK\eieiv ds is 
a common construction ; see Fritzsche 
Rom. u. p. 545. 

TO iravTo] The neuter is naturally 
nsed where the most comprehensive 
term is wanted: comp. i Cor. L 27, 
Col. i. 20, Ephes. i. 10. 

ipa] The consciousness of sin is a 
necessary step towards justification. 
See note ii. 19, and comp. Rom. I.e. 

e'lt 7ri'oT«o)r k.t.X.] Not a mere tauto- 
logy after toZs Tria-Ttvovtriv. St Paiil's 
opponents agreed with him that only 
a believer could obtain the promise. 
They differed in holdiog that he ob- 
tained it not by his faith but by his 

23 — 25. 'Before the dispensation 
of faith came, we were carefully 

guarded, that we might be ready for 
it, when at length it was revealed. 
Thus we see that the law was our 
tutor, who watched over us as chil- 
dren till we should attain our man- 
hood in Christ and be justified by 
faith. But, when this new dispensa- 
tion came, we were liberated from the 
restraints of the law.' 

23. fCJipovpoviieSa <TVVK\fi6iifvoi] 
'were shut up and kept in ward': 
comp. Wisd. xviL 15 f<j>povpe~iTo els 
Tfjv dciSripov eipKTr/v KaraK\ei(Tdfis, 
Plut. de D^. Orac. p. 426 b oihe 
^povpeXv iTvyKkelaavTas rji i/Xj. 

The use of niarK in these verses 
(vv. 22, 23, 25) links together its ex- 
treme senses, passing from the one to 
the other, (i) Faith, the subjective 
state of the Christian, (2) The faith, 
the Gospel, the objective teaching, the 
system of which ' faith ' is the leading 
feature. See the note i. 23, and p. 157. 

24. iraiSoymyos] Comp. I Cor. iv. 15. 
The paedagogus or tutor, frequently a 
superior slave, was entrusted with the 
moral supervision of the child. Thus 
his office was quite distinct from that 
of the hihatrKoKos, 80 that the English 
rendering, 'schoolmaster,' conveys a 
wrong idea. The following passage of 
Plato (Lysis p. 208 0) is a very com- 
plete illustration of the use which St 
Paul makes of the metaphor; St ai5Toi» 
iaiTiv apxfiv ireavTOV, tj ov8e tovto iiri- 
Tpcwoviri trot; II<i5r yap, t^i), imrpi- 
TTOvuiv; 'AXX* ap\ei tIs <rov; '08e nai- 
dayaiydr, €<^i;. McaK SoCXor mv; 'AXXa 
ri joiiJk ; rifierepos yt, e<l>')- H 8eiv6v, ^i> 
8' e'yoS, iKevdtpov Svra ujro fiovXov cLpxf 
o6ai ' tI he TTOi&v av ovtos naibaymyos 
<rov ap^fi ; 'Ayai/ SiJttow, ft^ij, tls Matr- 
KaXov. Man ;ui) Kai ovToi irov &pxov<nv. 

III. 25—27] 



TTurreoDi SiKaiwdiSfiep' ^^iXdova-ri^ Se t»js irifrrew's 
oi/KCTt VTTO TraiSaytoyov eafxev, '*7rai/T€s yap viol 
Qeov e(TTe Zia t>js irlcrTewi iv Xpia-rw 'Iijcrou* '*^6(roi 
yap 6ts Xpiarrov ifia7rTi<r6riTe, Xpia-TOP iveSva-acrde. 

ol8iSd<TKa\oi; Tlavras Si^irov. IlafiiroX- 
\ovs apa (rot dctTTTorar Koi &p)(OVTas fKwv 

6 nwrfip i<j>i<m)<riv. On the ' paedago- 
gns' see Becker and Marquardt Rom. 
Alt. V. I, p. 1 14, and Smith's Diet, of 
Antiq. s. v. As well in his inferior 
rank, as in his recognised duty of en- 
forcing discipline, this person was a fit 
emblem of the Mosaic law. Therabbin- 
ical writers naturalised the word jrat- 
fiaymydr, 3ins (see Schottgen here), 
and in the Jerusalem Targum it is 
used to translate jDS (A.V. ' a nursing 
father') Numb.xi. 12. 

The tempting explanation of n-aiSa- 
yayos els Xpurrov, ' one to conduct us 
to the school of Christ,' ought pro- 
bably to be abandoned. Eveu if this 
sense did not require wpos Xpiarov or 
els Xpiarov, the context is unfavour- 
able to it There is no reference here 
to our Lord as a teacher. 'Christ' 
represents the freedom of mature age, 
for which the constraints of childhood 
are a preparation ; compare Ephes. iv. 
13 els &v8pa riKeiov ('full grown'), els 
fierpov ijXiKt'as tov irKijptinaTos tov 
Xpiarov. The metaphor of the pseda- 
gogus seems to have grown out of 
ttppovpovfieOa and thus the main idea 
is that of strict supervision. The wai- 
dayayyos had the whole moral direction 
of the child, so that iratdayayia became 
equivalent to ' moral training,' and the 
idea conveyed by the term need not 
be restricted to any one function. 
Compare Plut. Num. 1 5 ck Se ToiavTr/s 
TraiSayayias wpos to 6eiov ovtcds 17 iroXis 
eyeyovei xeipoTjdris (c.r.X., and Liban. IV. 
437 ed. Eeiske (quoted in Wetstein) 
irparov fiev vu/ko iTaidayay4(rofiev avrav 
Tr}v irpoalpeaiv, as au Tf)v airb tov vofiov 
Crjiiiav dvaBvofievai tra^pove'iv avayKa- 

25, 26. eV/iev, eare] See a similar 

instance of the interchange of the first 
and second pei'sons in i Thess. v. 5 
iravres yap vp.e'is viol (jxoTos eWe Kal 
v'uH ^nepas' ovK etrjiev vvktos ovbe a-<6- 


26. iravTes yap lurX^ 'for ye all 
are sons of God by your faith, sons of 
God in Christ Jesus' The stress of 
the sentence lies on ncuiTes and vi'oi; 
'ail^ Jews and Gentiles alike, those 
under the law and those without the 
law; 'sons' {vioi), claiming therefore 
the privileges, the liberty of sons, so 
that the rigorous supervision of the 
tutor ijTai&ayayos) Ceases when you 
cease to be children {iraibit). 

viol ©eoC] In St Paul the expres- 
sions, ' sons of God,' ' children of God,' 
mostly convey the idea of liberty, as 
iv. 6, 7, Bom, viii. 14 sq (see how- 
ever Phil. ii. 15), in St John of guUe- 
lessness and love, e.g. i Joh. iii. i, 2, 
10. In accordance with this distinc- 
tion St Paul uses ujot as weU as TiKva, 
St John TcKva only. 

ev Xpiara 'lijcrou] The context shoW8 
that these words must be separated 
from bia TTjs wiarems. They are thrown 
to the end of the sentence so as to 
form in a manner a distinct proposi- 
tion, on which the Apostle enlarges in 
the following verses: 'You are sons 
by your union with, your existence in 
Christ Jesus.' 

27. ' In Christ Jesus, I 8ay,yor all 
ye, who were baptized into Christ, did 
put on Christ': yap introduces the 
explanation of the foregoing eV Xpiar^ 

evfSva-aa-de] The metaphor has been 
supposed to be taken from the white 
garments in which the newly baptized 
were clothed; see Bingham Christ, 
Antiq. xi. 11, § i. It is scarcely pro- 
bable however that the ceremouial of 



[III. 28, 29 

'^ouK ew 'lovdaioi oi/'Se ''EWjji/, ovk evi SovAos ovoe 
iXeidepo?, ovk evi apcrev kui driXv Trai/res lyap vfiei^ 
eh ia-re iv Xpia-Tut 'lr]<rov. *'et Se ly/xets Xpia-roO, 

48. aTraxres yctp u/tei?. 

baptism had become so definitely fixed 
at this early date, that such an allusion 
would speak for itself. The metaphor 
in fact is very common in the Lxx, e.g. 
Job viii. 22 (ala-xvvrjv), xxix. 14 (SiKUio- 
irivriv), xxxix. 19 {4>6^ov), Ps. xxxiv. 26 
{al<Txvt>riv Kai evrpoiriju), xcii. I (fvrrpe- 
Vftav, Svvaiiiv), ciii. I, etc. ; COmp. e'yicofi- 

fiova-Sai I Pet. V. 5. See also Schott- 
gen on Rom. xiii. 14. On the other 
hand in the context of the passage of 
Justin quoted below (ver. 28) there is 
apparently an allusion to the baptismal 

28, 29. ' In Christ ye are all sons, 
all free. Every barrier is swept away. 
No special claims, no special disabili- 
ties exist in Him, none can exist The 
conventional distinctions of religious 
caste or of social rank, even the natu- 
ral distinction of sex, are banished 
hence. One heart beats in all : one 
mind guides all : one life is lived by 
all. Ye are all one man, for ye are 
members of Christ. And as members 
of Christ ye are Abraham's seed, 
ye claim the inheritance by virtue of 
a promise, which no law can set aside.' 

OVK fKt] 'there is no room /or, no 
place forj negativing not the fact 
only, but the possibility, as James i. 17 
Trap' oa ovk. tvi jrapaXXayij. The right 
account of evi seems to be given by 
Winer § xiv. p. 96. It is not a con- 
traction of Hvfo-Ti, but the preposition 
eV, evi, strengthened by a more vigor- 
ous accent, Uke eni, irapa, and used 
with an ellipsis of the substantive verb. 

"EXXijc] See the note ii. 3. 

ipaev Kai fl^Xu] The connecting par- 
ticle is perhaps changed in the third 
clause, because the distinction now 
mentioned is different in kind, no 
longer social but physical. There may 

be an allusion to Gen. i. 27 Spa-tv koI 

6ri\v iiToiqaev avTovt, and if SO, this 

clause will form a climax: 'even the 
primeval distinction of sex has ceased.' 
Comp. Col. iii 11. 

Either on this passage, or on some 
unrecorded saying of our Lord similar 
in import (comp. Luke xx. 35), may 
have been founded the mystical lan- 
guage attributed to our Lord in the 
apocryphal Gospel of the Egyptians 
(Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. p. 553, ed. 
Potter). Being asked by Salome when 
His kingdom should come, He is re- 
ported to have answered, ' When the 
two shall be one, and the male with 
the female, neither male nor female.' 
These obscure words were much dis- 
cussed in early times and diversely in- 
terpreted, e.g. by the Ophites (Hippol. 
Haer. v. 7), by the Pseudo-Clement 
of Rome (Epist. 2, § 12), by Cassianus 
(Clem. Alex, he.), and by Theodotiis 
(Clem. Alex. p. 985). Comp. also the 
remarks of Clement of Alexandria 
himself, pp. 532, 539 sq, besides the 
passage first cited. See the note on 
Clem. Rom.l.c. Poranotherooincidence 
of St Paul's language with a saying 
attributed to our Lord, but not found 
in the Gospels, see i Thess. v. 21. 

eis iarre] 'are one man.' Comp. 
Ephes. ii. 1 5 tovs Svo ktiotj iv aur^ fir 
eva Kaivov avBpwnov, and Justin Dial, 
§ 1 16, p. 344 B ovTtas ij/xets 01 Sta tow 
'Irjcrov ovofiaros as els SvSparros nurrei- 
<TavTes...Ta pvirapa l/iaTia aTnipiCJiita- 
lievoi K.T.X., which seems to be a re- 
miniscence of this passage of St PauL 
The neuter ck, found in some texts, 
destroys the point of the expression, 
the oneness as a conscious agent. 

29. XpKTTov] ' are part of Christ, 
are members of Christ,' not merely 

m. 29] 



apa Tov 'A^pad/JL (nrep/JLa iaTe, kut eTrafyyeXiav 

' are the property of Christ, are serv- 
ants of Christ.' The argument turns 
on the entire identity of the Christian 
brotherhood with Christ. 

apa TOV 'AjSpaaji] Ufwn being one 
with Christ, ye are Abraham'i seed'; 

for He is that seed of Abraham, to 
whom the promise was given. See the 
note on ver. 16. 

KaT tirayyeXiav] emphatic; 'heirs 
indeed, but heirs by promise, not by 
law.' See ver. 18. 



The interpretation of Deut. xxi. 23. 

This passage occupied an important place in the early controversies 
between the Christians and the Jews. Partly owing to this circumstance, 
and partly from the ambiguity of the Hebrew, it was variously interpreted 
and applied. 

Ambiguity The words of the original are *17n DTl^S rhh\> *3, 'for (the) curse of 

of the (jod (is) he that is hanged.' The ambiguity arises out of the construction 
of D'n?K, since the case attached to n?7p may denote either the person 
who pronounces the curse, as Judges ix. 57. (DHI' Tmp) and 2 Sam. xvi. 12 
{^^h'?p in the Q'ri), or the person against whom the curse is pronounced, as 
Gen. xxvii. 13 (-\rhhp) i in other words, it represents either a subjective or 

Two ren- an objective genitive. As we assign one or other sense therefore to the 

deringB. dependent case, we get two distinct interpretations. 

i)Lxxand I. 'He that is hanged is accursed in the sight of God.' This is the 
it Paul, rendering of the lxx, KiKaTtipafiivos virb rov Oeov, adopted in substance, it 
would appear, by St Paul ; and seems to have obtained the suffrages of 
most recent commentators whatever their opinions. It is certainly sup- 
ported by a more exact parallel (Judges ix. 57) than the alternative render- 
ing, and seems to suit the context better, for the sense will then be, ' Do 
not let the body hang after sunset ; for the hanging body (of a malefactor) 
defiles the land, since the curse of God rests upon it.' 

(ii) Judaic 2. The other rendering is, ' He that hangeth is a contempt of, a 

writers, reproach or insult to God.' This seems to have been the popular Jewish 
interpretation (shared therefore by Jewish Christians) at all events from 
the second century of the Christian era. The passage was so taken by 
the Jewish or Bbionite translators, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus\ 
It is explained in this way in the ancient Jewish commentary on Deutero- 
nomy, Siphri% and in the so-called Targum of Jonathan'. This rendering 
appeared also In the Ebionite Gospel*. And in one of the earliest Chris- 
tian apologies, a Jewish interlocutor brought forward this text, quoting it 
in the form, ' He that hangeth is a reviling of God V It is found more- 

' Aquila and Theodotion rendered * At least so I understand the Ian- 
it Kardpa Qeov Kpefiifievos ; see Field's guageof Jerome,l.o.,'Haeo verbaEbion 
Hexapla i. p. 304. The rendering ille baeresiarches semichristianus et se- 
of Symmaohus, as given in Latin by niijudaeusitainterpretatusest,STiii;8pis 
Jerome, was,' quiapropterblasphemiam 6eoS 6 Kpefiinevos, id est, quia injuria 
Dei suspenstts est.' Dei est suspensus. ' 

' 'Qua de causa iste suspenditur? " Hieron. l.o., 'Memini me in alter- 

Quia maledixit nomini (Dei) ' : see Ugo- catione lasonis et Fapisoi quae Graeco 

Un. Thei. xv. p. 766. sermone conscripta est ita reperisse, 

» 3l'?SD^ Hihn mp Nni^*p \oidopta eeoO 6 Kpendiiepos, a est, 'maie- 
133, 'it is contempt before God to dictio Dei qui appensuB est.' See bo- 
hang a man.' l°w, p. I53i note 5. 


over in the Feghito Syriac\ The same also would seem to be the interpre- 
tation adopted in the older Targum', where the passage runs, ' Since for 
what he sinned before God he was hanged,' but the paraphrastic freedom 
of this rendering leaves room for some doubt. Though these writers differ 
widely from each other as to the meaning to be put upon the words, they 
agree in their rendering so far as to take D'il^N as the object, not the sub- 
ject, of rkhp. 

It may be conjectured that this rendering obtained currency at first 
owing to the untoward circumstances of the times. Jewish patriots were 
impaled or crucified as rebels by their masters whether Syrians or Romans. 
The thought was intolerable that the curse of God should attach to these. 
The spirit of the passage indeed impUes nothing of this kind, but the 
letter was all powerful in the schools of the day : and a rendering, which 
not only warded off the reproach but even, if dexterously used, turned it 
against the persecutor, would be gladly welcomed'. An interpretation 
started in this way would at length become traditional*. 

But it was especially in controversies with the Christians, as I have The text 
mentioned, that the Jews availed themselves of this passage. In whatever ?^^y^^ 
way interpreted, it would seem to them equally available for their purpose, aoainst 
The ' offence of the cross ' took its stand upon the letter of the lawgiver's Chris- 
language, and counted its position impregnable. Again and again doubt- tiana, 
less, as he argued in the synagogues, St Paul must have had these words 
cast in his teeth, 'accursed of God,' or ' an insult to God,' or ' a blasphemer 
of God, is he that is hanged on the tree.' More than once the early 
Christian apologists meet and refute this inference, when writing against 
the Jews. This is the case with Ariston of Pella*, with Justin Martyr*, 
with Tertullian^ In Jerome's time the same argument was brought by 
the Jews against the leading fact on which the faith of a Christian rests ^; 
and later literature shows that Christ crucified did not cease to be ' to the 
Jews a stumbliugblock.' 

^ 'Because whosoever blasphemeth pretation of a learned rabbi of our own 

God shall be banged.' time : ' L'impiccato b (produce) impreca- 

' So it may be inferred from a com- zione contro Dio (ciod : 11 lasciare il ca- 
parison with the translations of Sym- davere esposto lungo tempo aUa pub- 
machus, of the Peshito, and of the blioa vista non pu6 che irritare gli 
Ebiouite Gospel. Otherwise the same animi, e indurli ad esecrare i giudici e 
meaning might be got from the other le leggi) : e (oltraooid) non devi rendere 
rendering, ' acoursed of God,' and so ' a impura la tua terra etc.,' Luzzatto II 
sinner in the sight of God.' Pentateuco, Trieste 1858. 

' Thus the Targum of Psendo-Jona- " In the 'Dispute of Jason and Pa- 

than, after rendering the passage as piscus'; see above, p. 152, note 5, and 

given above, p. 152, note 3, adds ' unless Eouth Rel. Sacr. i. p. 95. 

his sins have occasioned it to him.' It ' Dial. c. Tryph. 0. 96, p. 313 0. 

is possible however that this is aimed ' Adv. Jvdaeos § 10. 

at Christianity. At all events it pre- * Hieron. I.e. 80 too in the work 

sents a curious contrast to the inter- of Evagrius (o. 430 A.D., see Gennad. 

pretation of the older Targum. Vir. III. 50) entitled Altercatio inter 

* See the passages quoted in Schott- TheophilumGhristianumetSimonemJu- 

gen here. The following is the inter- daeum, Migne's Patr. Lat. xx. p. 1 1 74 B. 



»nd ap- 
plied to 
death by 

The passage in Douteronomy, it is true, does not refer directly to cruci- 
fixion as a means of execution, but to impaling bodies after death. It has 
been said indeed that Philo* speaks of the impalement there mentioned as 
a mode of putting to death, but this seems to be a mistake. Philo says, 
that Moses would have put such malefactors to death ten thousand times 
over if it were possible, but not being able to kill them more than once, he 
adds another penalty, ordering murderers to be gibbeted (niKopiav aXXi^v 
irpoa-diaTOTTeTai kcXcvoiv roiic aviKmiras avaa-RoKoiri^eir6ai). Nor, SO far as I 
am aware, is there any evidence to show that the Jews at the time of the 
Christian era interpreted the passage of death by crucifixion. Crucifixion 
was not a Jewish punishment. The evangelist (J oh. xviii. 32) sees a pro- 
vidence in the delivering over of our Lord to the Romans to be put to 
death, so that He might die in the manner He himself had foretold. It 
had been employed occasionally in seasons of tumult by their own princes*, 
but was regarded as an act of great atrocity. Even the Roman looked 
upon crucifixion with abhorrence'. To the Jew it was especially hateful, 
owing in part no doubt to the curse attaching to this ignominious exposure 
of the body in the passage of Deuteronomy. For though this passage did' 
not contemplate death by crucifixion, the application was quite legitimate. 
It was the hanging, not the death, that brought ignominy on the sufferer 
and defilement on the land. Hence the Ohaldee paraphrase of Deutero- 
nomy employs the same word (3^V) which is used in several places in the 
Feshito Syriac to describe the crucifixion of our Lord (e.g. Glal. iii. i). 
Hence also later Jews, speaking of Jesus, called Him by the same name of 
re[iroach (*1^n, 'the gibbeted one'), which they fovmd in the original text 
of the lawgiver*. It was not that they mistook the meaning of the word, 
but that they considered the two punishments essentially the same. No 
Jew would have questioned the propriety of St Paul's application of the 
text to our Lord. The curse pronounced in the law was interpreted and 
strengthened by the national sentiment. 

The words denoting 'Faith' 

Active and The Hebrew njIDS, the Greek maris, the Latin ' fides,' and the English 

passive ' faith,' hover between two meanings ; trustfulness, the frame of mind 

^^FftiSi ^ which relies on another ; and trustworthiness, the frame of mind which 

can be relied upon. Not only are the two connected together grammati- 

> de Spec. Leg. § 28, n. p. 3S4 m. 

* Joseph. Ant. xiii. 14. 2, referred 
to in Winer Bealw. s. v. Kreuzigung. 
On this question see Garpzoy Appar. 
Cri(. p. 591. I have not seen the trea- 
tise of Bornitius mentioned by Winer, crucenum Ebraeor. suppl.fuerit, 
Wittenb. 1644. Those who maintain 
that crucifixion was a Jewish punish- 

ment rely mainly on this passage of 
Galatians : see Lange Ob$. Sacr. p. 163 

" Cio. Verr. v. 64 ' crudelissimum 
teterrimumque supplioium.' 

* Eisenmenger'B Entd. Judenth. i. 
pp. 88 sq, 287, 496. On the Greek 
terms aravpovv, aK6\oTri^€LV, etc., see 
Lipsius de Cnice i. 4 sq {Op. u. p. 769). 


cally, as active and passive^ senses of the same word, or logically, as sub- 
ject and object of the same act; but there is a close moral affinity between 
them. Fidelity, constancy, firmness, confidence, reliance, trust, belief— 
these are the links which connect the two extremes, the passive with the 
active meaning of ' faith.' Owing to these combined causes, the two senses 
will at times be so blended together that they can only be separated by 
some arbitrary distinction. When the members of the Christian brother- sometimes 
hood, for instance, are called 'the faithful,' ot wia-Toi, what is meant by combmed. 
this ? Does it imply their constancy, their trustworthiness, or their faiti), 
their belief? . In all such cases it ia better to accept the latitude, and 
even the vagueness, of a word or phrase, than to attempt a rigid definitioii, 
which after all can be only artificial. And indeed the loss in grammatical 
precision is often more than compensated by the gain in tlieological 
depth. In the case of ' the faithful ' for instance, does not the one quality 
of heart carry the other with it, so that they who are trustful are trusty 
also' ; they who have faith in God are stedfast and immovable in the path 
of duty 1 

The history of the terms for 'faith' ia the three sacred languages of 
Christian theology is instructive from more points of view than one. 

1. The Hebrew wordsignifying 'to believe, to trust,'isthe^ipAi7pt3Nn. i- Hebrew, 
The Kal ps would mean 'to strengthen, support, hold up,' but is only found '^^"'"^S 
in the active participle, used as a substantive with the special sense, ' one 
who supports, nurses, trains a child ' (rraiSayayos, see note. Gal. iii. 24), and 
in tlie passive participle 'firm, trustworthy.' The Niphal accordingly 
means, 'to be firm, lasting, constant, trusty'; while the HiphU pOKH, with 
which we are more directly concerned, is, 'to hold trustworthy, to rely 
upon, believe ' (taking either a simple accusative or one of the prepositions, 
3 or ^), and is rendered tnaTtva in the Lxx, e.g. Gen. xv. 6. But there is 
in biblical Hebrew no corresponding substantive for 'faith,' the active 
principle. Its nearest representative is nilDN, ' firmness, constancy, trust- 
worthiness.' This word is rendered in the lxx most frequently by aXi;- 
Bfia, akrjdivos (twenty-four times), or by rnvTis, wuttos, i^iajrurros (twenty 
times); once it is translated iirrrjpiyiiivos (Bxod. xvii. 12), once jrXovT-or 
(Ps. xxxvi. 3, where Symm. had birivcKas, Aq. ir'umv). It will thus be seen 
that njIDK properly represents the passive sense of Triorir, as indeed the 
form of the word shows. But it will at times approach near to the active 
sense; for constancy under temptation or danger with an Israelite could 
only spring from reliance on Jehovah. And something of this transitional 
or double sense it has in the passage of Habakkuk ii. 4'. The lati- 
tude of the LXX translation, ttiotw, in that passage has helped out this 
meaning ; and in St Paul's application it is brought still more prominently 

Thus in its biblical usage the word nJIOS can scarcely be said ever to 
have the sense 'belief, trust,' though sometimes approaching towards it. 

J Throughout this note I have used would of course change places, 

the terms 'active' and 'passive' in " 'Qui fortis est, idem est fidens,' 

reference to the act of believing. If says Cicero, Tusc. iii. 7. 

referred to the act of persuading they ' See the note on Gal. iii. 11. 



ii. Greek. 


The influence of the Greek rendering however doubtless reacted upon the 
original, and in the rabbinical Hebrew it seems decidedly to have adopted 
Aramaic, this meaning (see Buxtorf Lex. Rabbin, s. v.). The Aramaic dialects did 
something towards fixing this sense by an active form, derived from the 
same root JOK, but from the conjugation Ap/iel (corresponding to the 
Hebrew Hiphil). Thus in the Chaldee of the Targura of Jonathan, the 
word denoting the faith of Abraham, Gen. xv. 6, is Nni3I3*n, and the 
Syriac renders wloris in the New Testament by the same word |Z. O 1 V) l OI. 

2. Unlike the Hebrew, the Greek word seems to have started from 
the active meaning. In its earliest use it is opposed to ' distrust' ; Hesiod 
Op. 342 it'urreis 8' ap rot ojums koI aTUTTiai £\€<rav avdpas (comp. Theogn. 
831 ma-rei xpi//fa7-' awcSKea-' aTriariTj 8' eVaoxra); and this is perhaps the sense 
most favoured by analogy'. But even if it had not originally the passive 
sense of faith side by side with the active, it soon acquired this meaning also, 
e.g. iEscb. Fragm. 276 ouk avhpoi SpKoi niims dW op<uov avTjp : and maris 
became a common technical term for a ' proof.' The transition was aided 
by the indefiniteuess of the grammatical form, and such phrases as Trttmx 
i'xetv Ttvos formed a link of connexion between the two. The English word 
' persuasion ' will show how easily the one sense may pass into the other. 
In the same manner ma-Tos has both meanings, ' trusty,' as Hom. II. xvi. 
147 maTOTOTos 8e oi ea-Ke, and 'trustful,' as Mach. Prom. 917 rots weSapa-ioK 
KTxmois jTHTTos. So also airuTTos means both 'incredulous' (Hom, Od. xiv. 
150), and 'incredible' (jEsch. Prom. 832). 

With this latitude of use these words passed into the language of 
theology. In the Old Testament, there being no Hebrew equivalent to the 
active meaning 2, nia-ris has always the passive sense, ' fidelity,' ' constancy V 
unless the passage in Habakkuk be regarded as an exception*. So again 
there is no clear instance of nia-Tos with any but the passive sense. 

Old Testa- 

* Compare Xriarit, ioitjittis, Buttm. 
Ausf. Sprachl. § 119. 24. 

» As illustrating this fact, it is worth 
noticing that the word ' faith ' occurs 
only twice in the Authorised Version 
of the Old Testament, Deut. xzxii. 20 
('children in whom is no faith,' ]pXj 
where it is plainly passive), and Hab. ii. 
4 ; see note 4. 

' Besides nSIDK, it occurs as a ren- 
dering of \\CH, n30K> riDK> and once 
as a paraphrase of m3J??i Prov. xv. 28. 
In all these words the passive sense is 

* ii. 4. The original reading of the 
liXX is not clear. In the Tat. and Sin. 
Mss it is di dlxaios ix TrtaTetbs /uov, in 
the Alex, and others i di SUaiSs /lov ix 
T/ffTcws. In Hebr. x. 38 too (though 
not without various readings) /mv fol- 
lows Sfxaios. Comp. also Clem. Alex. 

Strom, ii. p. 431, Potter. With these 
data it is difficult to decide between 
two solutions ; either (i) It may be in- 
ferred from the varying position of nov 
that the word had no place in the ori- 
ginal text of the lxx ; in this case St 
Paul (Gal. iii. ii,Bom.i 17) may have 
quoted directly from the lxx ; or (2) 'Ek 
irlcTTeiis iiov was the original reading, 
afterwards altered into /lou ix vlirreuii to 
remove any ambiguity as to the sense. 
In this latter case the lxx translators 
must have read TIJIDKa 'my faith' (for 
in31DK3 'his faith,' the present He- 
brew text), and perhaps intended their 
rendering ix wlrTedis /mu to be under- 
stood, 'by faith in me' (see however 
Bom. iii. 3 rijy wUrriv toS 6eoS). That 
the Hebrew text was the same in the 
first and second centuries as at present, 
may be inferred not only from St Paul's 


The usage of the Apocrypha is chiefly valuable as showing how diflBcult Apocry- 
it is to discriminate the two meanings, where there is no Hebrew original P""** 
to act as a check, and how easily the one runs into the other ; e.g. Ecclus. 
xlvi. 15 ev irloTfi avTOv fjupi^acrOrj 7rpo(^^Tj;i Kol iyvdaBri iv wiiTTti avTov 
TTKrros opatrtatt, I Macc. ii. 52 'A^paaii ov^i ev ireipaa-ii^ exipeBi) iritrros kcu 
fKoyitrSti at3r<p «r SiKaioavvrjV ; Ecclus. xlix. 10 fKvrptiaaTo avrovs iv viirrei 
fKwi&os. In these passages the active sense seems to be forcing itself into 
notice; and the writings of Philo, to which I shall have to refer presently, 
show that at the time of the Christian era w'ums, 'faith,' 'belief,' had a 
recognised value as a theological term. 

In the New Testament ■n-'ums is found in both its passive and its active New Tea- 
sense. On the one hand it is used for constancy, trustworthiness, whether tanient. 
of the immutable purpose of God, Rom. iii. 3 t^w ir'urTLv roC Beov Karap- 
■yi/<r«, or of good faith, honesty, uprightness in men. Matt, xxiii. 23 d^T/Kar* 
Ta ^apvTfpa tov vo/iov, rfiv Kpitriv Koi to eKeos koi Trjv nlariv (see the note on 
Gal. V. 22). On the other hand, as 'faith,' 'belief,' it assumes in the teach- 
ing of our Lord, enforced and explained by St Paul, the foremost place in 
the phraseology of Christian doctrine. From tliis latter sense are derived 
all those shades of meaning by which it passes from the abstract to the 
concrete ; from faith, the subjective state, to the faith, the object of faith, 
the Gospel, and sometimes, it would appear, the embodiment of faith, the 
Church (see Gal. i. 23, iii. 22 — 26, vi. 10). 

All other senses however are exceptional, and wia-ris, as a Christian 
virtue, certainly has the active meaning, ' trust,' ' belief.' But the use of 
the adjective oi iriaroi for the Christian brotherhood cannot be assigned xitrxAj. 
rigidly either to the one meaning or the other. Sometimes the context 
requires the active, as Joh. xx. 27 /xfi ylvov ama-Tos aXKa ttio-tos (comp. 
Gal. iii 9), sometimes the passive, as Apoc. ii. 10 yhov ttuttos axpi davarov. 
But when there is no context to serve as a guide, who shall say in which of 
the two senses the word is used ? For the one it may be urged that the 
passive sense of iria-ros is in other connexions by far the most common, 
even in the New Testament ; for the other, that its opposite ajrurros cer- 
tainly means an ' unbeliever.' Is not a rigid definition of the sense in such 
a case groundless and arbitrary t For why should the sacred writers have 
used with this meaning only or with that a term whose very comprehensive- 
ness was in itself a valuable lesson' 1 

application of the passage (supposing the looseness of St Paul's language 

him to quote from the Hebrew), but an entire mistake ; but as a protest 

also from the fact that all the Greek against the tendency of recent criticism 

Versions collected by Origen so read it. to subtle restrictions of meaning, un- 

See Jerome on Gal. iii. 11, and on Hab. supported either by the context or by 

ii. 4, Op. VI. p. 608 sq (ed. Vail.). confirmed usage, this essay seems to 

'" The difficulty of exact definition me to be highly valuable. The use of 

in similar eases is pointed out in a sug- 0! iriurol is an illustration of this dilfi- 

gestive essay in Jowett's Epistles of St culty. The expression rb eiioTv^wK 

Paul II. p. 101 {2dA ed.). With Prof. toC XpurroO is another. What is meant 

Jowett's applications of his principles I by 'the Gospel of Christ'? Is it the 

am far from agreeing in many cases. Gospel which speaks of Christ, or the 

and I consider his general theory of Gospel which was delivered by Christ, 



ui. Latin. 3. It has been seen that the meaning of the Greek iriaris was reflected 
•A^^- on its Hebrew original. No less was this meaning infused into its Latin 

rendering. The verb TFurrfva was naturally translated by ' credo,' but this 
root supplied no substantive corresponding to wiaris, no adjective (for 
'credulus' was stamped with a bad meaning) corresponding to Treoros. 
Words were therefore borrowed from another source, 'fides,' 'fidelis.* Now 
' fides,' as it appears in classical writers up to the time when it is adopted 
into Christian literature, is not so much ' belief, trust,' as ' fidelity, trust- 
worthiness, credit.' Its connexion in some expressions however led the 
way toward this active meaning, at the very threshold of which it had 
already arrived^. In the absence therefore of any exact Latin equivalent 
to the active sense of nians^, the coincidence of 'fides' with some meanings 
of the Greek word, and the tendency already manifested to pass into the 
required sense ' belief, trust,' suggested it as the best rendering. Its intro- 
duction into Christian literature at length stamped it with a new image 
and superscription. lu the case of the adjective ' fideles ' again, the passive 
sense was still more marked, but here too there was no alternative, and the 
original Tna-roi was, as we have seen, 8u£Sciently wide to admit it as at all 
events a partial rendering. 
English. The English terms ' faith, faithful,' derived from the Latin, have Inhe- 

rited the latitude of meaning which marked their ancestry ; and it is 
perhaps a gain that we are able to render triaris, rrurroi, by comprehensive 
words which, uniting in themselves the ideas of ' trustfulness ' and ' trust- 
worthiness,' of ' Glauben' and ' Treue,' do not arj^itrarily restrict the power 
of the original 

Tlie faith of Abraham. 

Besults of From the investigation just concluded it appears that the term ' Faith ' 
the fore- can scarcely be said to occur at all in the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old 

or the Gospel which belongs to Christ? 
or rather, does it not combine all these 
meanings in itself? 

1 Instances of suoh expressions are, 
'facere fidem alicui,' ' habere fidem ali- 
oui' ; oomp. Ter. ifeaut. iii. 3. 10 'Mihi 
fides apud hunc est me nihil facturum.' 
The trustworthiness, demonstrability, 
proof of the object, transferred to the 
subject, becomes'assurance, conviction,' 
and so Cicero Parad. 9, in reference to 
arguments in public speaking says, 
■fides est firma opinio.' See the whole 
passage. This sense of ' conviction ' is, 
I believe, the nearest approach to the 
Christian use of the term. It never, 
so far as I am aware, signifies trustful- 
ness, confidence, as a quality inherent 
or abiding in a person. To assert a 
negative however is always dangerous, 
and possibly wider knowledge or re- 

search would prove this position un- 
tenable. At aU events the ordinary 
sense of 'fides' in classical writers is 
' trustworthiness, credit, fidelity to en- 

' The Latin language indeed offered 
two words of a directly active meaning, 
' fidentia ' and < fiduoia ' ; but the former 
of these seems never to have obtained 
a firm footing in the language (see Cic. 
de Inv. ii. 163, 165, Tuse. iv. 80), and 
the signification of both alike was too 
pronounced for the sense required. 
* Fidentia ' does not occur at aU in the 
Latin translations (if the Concordance 
to the Vulgate is sufficient evidence); 
' fiduoia ' is not uncommon, frequently 
as a rendering of irap/ni<rla, less often 
of veiroiSritris, Sdpros, but never of rl- 
iTTts. fides, fiduoia, ooonr together in 
Seneo. Ep. 94. 


Testament. It is indeed a characteristic token of the difference between going in. 
the two covenants, that under the Law the 'fear of the Lord' holds very vestiga- 
much the same place as 'faith in God,' 'faith in Christ,' under the Gospel. *""■ 
Awe is the prominent idea in the earlier dispensation, trust in the later. 
At the same time, though the word itself is not found in the Old Testament, 
the idea is not absent ; for indeed a trust in the Infinite and Unseen, sub- 
ordinating thereto all interests that are finite and transitory, is the very 
essence of the higher spiritual life. 

In Abraham, the father of the chosen race, this attitude of trustfulness Lesson of 
was most marked. By faith he left home and kindred, and settled in a Abra- 
strauge land : by faith he acted upon God's promise of a race and an inhe- ^^ 
ritauce, though it seemed at variance viith all human experience : by faith 
he offered up his only son, in whom alone that promise could be fulfilled'. 
Thus this one word 'faith' sums up the lesson of his whole Ufe. And when, 
during the long silence of prophecy which separated the close of the 
Jewish from the birth of the Christian Scriptures, the Hebrews were led 
to reflect and comment on the records of their race, this feature of their 
gi-eat forefather's character did not escape notice. The two languages, 
which having supplanted the Hebrew, had now become the vehicles of 
theological teaching, both supplied words to express their meaning. In 
the Greek ttIittis, in the Aramaic iiniJD^n, the hitherto missing term was 
first found. 

As early aa the First Book of Maccabees attention is directed to this 
lesson: 'Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was im- 
puted unto him for righteousness''?' Here however it is touched upon very 
lightly. But there is, I think, sufficient evidence to show that at the time becomes 
of the Christian era the passage in Genesis relating to Abraham's faith had ^ thesis 
become a standard text in the Jewish schools, variously discussed and Ljiooig 
commented upon, and that the interest thus concentrated on it prepared 
the way for the fuller and more spiritual teaching of the Apostles of 

This appears to have been the case in both the great schools of Jewish 
theology, in the Alexandrian or Graeco-Judaic, and the Rabbinical or 
Jewish proper, under which term we may include the teaching of the 
Babylonian dispersion as well as of Palestine, for there does not seem to 
have been any marked difference between the two. 

Of the Alexandrian School indeed Philo is almost the sole surviving (i) Alez- 
representative, but he represents it so fully as to leave little to be desired, andrian 
In Philo's writings the life and character of Abraham are again and again ''"''"^™- 
commented upon'. The passage of Genesis (xv. 6), doubly familiar to us 
from the applications in the New Testament, is quoted or referred to at 

1 Acts vii. 2 — 5, Eom. iv. i6 — 2i, the direct subject of comment in the 

Heb. xi. 8 — 12, 17 — 19. works of Philo entitled De Migrat. 

' I Maoo. ii. 52. Other less distinct Abrah. i. p. 436 (Mangey), De Abrah. 

references in the Apocrypha to the 11. p. i, Quaett. in Qen. p. 167 (Auoher), 

faith of Abraham are 3 Mace. i. 2, £c- besides being discussed in scattered 

olus. xliv. 19 — 21. In both passages passages, especially in Quii Rer. Div. 

rurros occurs, but not irlans. Mer. I. p. 473, De Mutat. Nom. i. p. 

s The history of Abraham is made 578. 



on Gen, 
XT. 6. 

The story 
of Abra- 
ham an 

His mi- 

least ten times*. Once or twice Philo, like St Paul, comments on the 
second clause of the verse, the imputation of righteousness to Abraham, but 
for the most part the coincidence is confined to the remarks on Abraham's 
faith. Sometimes indeed faith is deposed from its sovereign throne by 
being co-ordinated with piety^, or by being regarded as the reward' rather 
than the source of a godly life. But far more generally it reigns supreme 
in his theology. It is 'the most perfect of virtues^,' 'the queen of virtues^.' 
It is 'the only sure and infallible good, the solace of life, the fulfilment of 
worthy hopes, barren of evil and fertile in good, the repudiation of the 
powers of evil, the confession of piety, the inheritance of happiness, the 
entire amelioration of the soul, which leans for support on Him who is the 
cause of all things, who is able to do all things, and willeth to do those 
which are most excellent'.' They that ' preserve it sa«red and inviolate' 
have 'dedicated to God their soul, their senses, their reason'.' Such was 
the faith of Abraham, a ' most stedfast and unwavering faith,' in the pos- 
session of which he was 'thrice blessed indeed V 

But in order to appreciate the points of divergence from, as well as of 
coincidence with, the Apostolic teaching in Philo's language and thoughts, 
it is necessary to remember the general bearing of the history of Abraham 
in his system. To him it was not a history, but an allegory ; or, if a 
history as well, it was as such of infinitely little importance. The three 
patriarchs represent the human soul' united to God by three different 
means, Abraham by instruction, Isaac by nature, Jacob by ascetic disci- 
pline°. Abraham therefore is the type of SiSao-KoXtK^ apenj, he is the man 
who arrives at the knowledge of the true God by teaching fxii. 6)'°. And 
this is the meaning of his successive migrations, from Chaldaea to Charran, 
from Charran to the promised land^. For Chaldeea, the abode of astrology, 
represents his uninstructed state, when he worships the stars of heaven 
and sets the material universe in the place of the great First Cause. By 
the divine monition he departs thence to Charran. What then is Charran } 

' Leg. Alleg. i. p. 132, Quod Deui 
Imm. I. p. 273, de Migr. Abr. i. p. 443, 
Quis Rer. Div. Her. i. pp. 485, 486, de 
Mut. Norn. I. pp. 605, 606, 611, deAbr. 
II. p. 39, de Proem, et Poen. n. p. 413, 
de Nob. II. p. 443. 

" de Migr. Abr. i. p. 456 tLs otv ij 
K6\\a (i.e. which unites him to God) ; 
tIs; eiffi^eia StJttou koX ttIjtl^. 

* de Praem. et Poen. ii. p. 412 ix ri- 
ipou /icBoptMri/ievos irpoi dXiJdetax, SiiaK- 
""D XP'7'"^Mf''<'S dpfj TTphi Te\elioati> 
a$\oi> alpeTrai riiv wpos rbv Qeiv irUrTiy, 

* Quis Ber. Div. Her. t. p. 485 tj)>> 
Te\eiOTdTriv iperuv irlanv. 

" de Abr. 11. p. 39 Tr)C ^oaiKlSa tui> 

' de Abr. I.e. I am not sure that I 
have caught the meaning of the words, 
KaKoSaifiOvlas AiriynoKris, eiffepdas yvd- 

ais, eiSaip.oi'las k\tjpos, nor is it easy to 
find an adequate English rendering for 

' Quis Ber. Div. Her. i. p. 487. 

' de Praem. et Poen. 11. p. 413 dicXt- 
vovs Kal ^e^aLordTi^s wfoTCUs K.r,\,, 
comp. de Nob. 11. p. 442. 

' AiSa<rKa\la, 0i)<7is, aaxriais, de Mut. 
Nam. I. p. s8o, de Abr. i. p. 9, de Praem. 
et Poen. 1. p. 412. 

10 The change of name from Abram 
to Abraham betokens this progress, de 
Cherub. 1. p. 139, de Mut. Nom. i. p. 
588, de Abr. 11. p. 13, Quaest. in Gen. 
p. 213 (Aucher). 

" On the meaning of Chaldaea and 
Charran see de Migr. Abr. i. p. 463 sq, 
de Somn. 1. p. 626 sq, de Abr. n. p. 11 
sq, de Nob. 11. p. 441, Quaest, in Gen. 
p. 167 (Aucher). 


The name itself, signifying 'a cave,' supplies the answer : the genses are 
denoted thereby*. He must submit to be instructed by these, and thus to 
learn by observation the true relations and bearings of the material world. 
This however is only a half-way house on his journey towards his destined 
goal. From Charran he must go forward to the land of promise ; from the 
observation on the senses he must advance to the knowledge of the one 
true invisible God. And the rest of the story must be similarly explained. 
For what is meant by his leaving home and kindred) Surely nothing else 
but his detaching himself from the influence of the senses, from the domi- 
nation of external things^. What again by the inheritance and the seed 
promised to him ? The great nation, the numerous progeny, are the count- His race 
less virtues which this frame of mind engenders': the inheritance is the andinhe- 
rich possession of wisdom, the lordship of the spirit over the domain of the ^^ *°''®' 
senses*. And are not its very boundaries significant 1 The region com- 
prises all that lies between the river of Egypt on the one hand, the symbol 
of material, and the river Euphrates on the other, the symbol of spiritual 

If as full a record had been preserved of the Rabbinical Schools of (ii) Bab- 
Palestine and Babylonia during the Apostolic age, we should probably binioal 
have found that an equally prominent place was assigned to the faith of 
Abraham in their teaching also. The interpretation put upon the passage, 
and the lessons deduced from it, would indeed be widely diflFerent ; but the 
importance of the text itself must have been felt even more strongly where 
the national feeling was more intense. The promise to Abraham, the 
charter of their existence as a people, was all important to them, and its 
conditions would be minutely and carefully scanned. 

In the fourth Book of Bsdras, one of the very few Jewish writings which 4 Esdras. 
can be attributed with any confidence to the Apostolic age, great stress is 
laid on faith. In the last days, it is said, 'the land of faith shall be barren' 
(or 'the land shaU be barren of faith,' iii. 2). The seal of eternal life is 
set on those who 'have treasured up faith' (iv. 13). The wicked are de- 
scribed as 'not having had faith in God's statutes and having neglected 
His works' (v. 24). Immunity from punishment is promised to the man 
'who can escape by his works and by his faith whereby he has believed* 
(ix. 8). God watches over those 'who have good works and faith in the 
Most High' (xiii. 31)'. 

There is however other evidence besides. For though the extant works 
of Rabbinical Judaism are, as written documents and in their present form, 
for the most part the productions of a later age, there can be little doubt 
that they embody more ancient traditions, and therefore reflect fairly, 
though with some exceptions, the Jewish teaching at the Christian era. 
Thus the importance then attached to faith, and the significance assigned 

1 de Migr. Abr. I.e. p. 465 rpuiykti * QuisRer.I>vo.Her.i.y.^%'j,QiuiesU 

rb TTJs alcrOiiaeui xw/j'o"! oomp. de Sorrm. in Gen. p. 216 (Ancher). 

1, 0, ' Qiuiest. in (Jen, p. 188 (Aucher). 

» de Migr. Abr. 1. p. 437. ' The references are taken from the 

' ib. p. 444, comp. Quaest. in Gen. text as printed in Gfrorer's PropTiet. 

pp. 1 1 1 , 229 (Aucher). Vet. Pseudepigr. 

GAL. 1 1 

1 62 



to Abraham's example, may be inferred from the following passage in the 
Meohilta. MechiUa on Exodus xiv. 31': 'Great is faith, whereby Israel believed on 
Him that spake and the world was. For as a reward for Israel's having 
believed in the Lord, the Holy Spirit dwelt on them.. .In like manner 
thou findest that Abraham our father inherited this world and the world 
to come solely by the merit of faith whereby he believed in the Lord ; for 
it is said, and he believed in the Lord, and He counted it to him for right- 
eousness... Ksibhi Nehemiah says : He that taketh unto himself one precept 
in firm faith, on him the Holy Spirit dwelleth ; for so we find in the case of 
our fathers, that, as a reward for their believing on the Lord, they were 
deemed worthy that the Holy Spirit should dwell on them.. .So Abraham 
solely for the merit of faith, whereby he believed in the Lord, inherited 
this world and the other... Only as a reward for their faith were the Israel- 
ites redeemed out of Egypt, for it is said. And the people believed...Wha,t is 
the cause of David's joy (in Ps. xci. i) ? It is the reward of faith, whereby 
our fathers believed... So Jeremiah (v. 3), O Lord, thine eyes look upon 
faith, and Habakkuk (ii. 4), The righteous liveth of his faith ...GresA is 
faith' ; with more to the same effect. This passage should be taken in 
connexion with the comment in Siphri on Deut. xi. 13^. 'The sacred 
text means to show that practice depends on doctrine and not doctrine 
on practice. And so wo find too that (God) punishes more severely for 
doctrine than for practice, as it is said (in Hosea iv. i). Hear the word of 
the Lord etc.' Gfrorer, to whom I am indebted for these passages, illus- 
trates their bearing by reference to the opinions of later Jewish doctors 
who maintain that 'as soon as a man has mastered the thirteen heads of 
the faith, firmly believing therein, he is to be loved and forgiven and 
treated in all respects as a brother, and though he may have sinned in 
every possible way, he is indeed an erring Israelite, and is punished accord- 
ingly, but still he inherits eternal lifeV 

It were unwise to overlook the coincidences of language and thought 
which the contemporaneous teaching of the Jews occasionally presents to 
the Apostolic writings. The glory of the scriptural revelation does not 
pale because we find in the best thoughts of men 'broken lights' of its 
own fuller splendour. Yet on the other hand the resemblance must not be 
exaggerated. It is possible to repeat the same words and yet to attach 
to them an entirely different meaning : it is possible even to maintain the 
same precept, and yet by placing it in another connexion to lead it to an 
opposite practical issue. In the case before us the divergences are quite 
as striking as the coincidences. 

and di- 

1 Ugolin. Thes. xrv. p. 202. 

In marked contrast to these earlier 
comments is the treatment of the text. 
Gen. XV. 6, by some later Jewish writers. 
Anxious, it would appear, to out the 
ground from under St Paul's infer- 
ence of ' righteousness by faith,' they 
interpreted the latter clause, 'And 
Abraham counted on God's righteous- 
ness,' i.e. on His strict fulfilment of 

His promise. See the references in 
Beer's Leben Abrahams p. 147 ; comp. 
p. 33. Such a rendering is as harsh 
in itself, as it is devoid of traditional 

" Ugolin. Thes. xv. p. 554. 

' Abarbanel Bosh Amanah p. 5 a, 
Maimonides on Miihna Swnhedr. p. 
121 a, referred to in Gfrdrer Jahrh. des 
Heils II. p. 162. 


If we look only to the individual man, faith with Philo is substantially St Paul 
the same as faith with St Paul The lessons drawn from the history of ^'i*^^^^"' 
Abraham by the Alexandrian Jew and the Christian Apostle differ very 
slightly. Faith is the postponement of all present aims and desires, the 
sacrifice of all material interests, to the Infinite and Unseen. But the 
philosopher of Alexandria saw no historical bearing in the career of 
Abraham. As he was severed from the heart of the nation, so the pulses 
of the national life had ceased to beat in him. The idea of a chosen people 
retained scarcely the faintest hold on his thoughts. Hence the only lesson 
which he drew from the patriarch's life had reference to himself Abraham 
was but a type, a symbol of the individual man. The promises made to 
him, the rich inheritance, the numerous progeny, had no fulfilment except 
in the growth of his own character. The Alexandrian Jew, Uke the 
heathen philosopher, was exclusive, isolated, selfish. With him the theo- 
cracy of the Old Testament was emptied of all its meaning : the covenant 
was a matter between God and his own spirit. The idea of a Church did 
not enter into his reckoning. He appreciated the significance of Abraham's 
faith, but Abraham's teed was almost meaningless to him. 

On the other hand Judaism proper was strong where Alexandrian St Paul 
Judaism was weak, and weak where it was strong. The oppressive rule of ^^^ '^'^' 
Syrians and Romans had served only to develope and strengthen the ^^^^ 
national feeling. 'We are Abraham's sons, we have Abraham to our 
father' : such was their religious war-cry, full of meaning to every true 
Israelite. It was a protest against selfish isolation. It spoke of a 
corporate life, of national hopes and interests, of an outward community, 
a common brotherhood, ruled by the same laws and animated by the same 
feelings. In other words, it kept alive the idea of a Church. This was the 
point of contact between St Paul's teaching and Rabbinical Judaism. But 
their agreement does not go much beyond this. With them indeed he 
upheld the faith of Abraham as an example to Abraham's descendants. 
But, while they interpreted it as a rigorous observance of outward ordi- 
nances, he understood by it a spiritual state, a steadfast reliance on the 
unseen God. With them too he clung to the fulfilment of the promise, he 
cherished fondly the privileges of a son of Abraham. But to him the link 
of brotherhood was no longer the same blood, but the same spirit : they 
only were Abraham's sons who inherited Abraham's faith. 

Thus the coincidences and contrasts of St Paul's doctrine of faith and of Summary, 
his application of Abraham's history with the teaching of the Jewish doctors 
are equally instructive. With the Alexandrian school it looked to the growth 
of the individual man, with the Rabbinical it recognised the claims of the 
society : with the one it was spiritual, with the other it was historical On 
the other hand, it was a protest alike against the selfish, esoteric, individual- 
ising spirit of the one, and the narrow, slavish formalism of the other. 

This sketch is very far from doing justice to St Paul's doctrine of faith. Other ele- 
In order fully to understand its force, or indeed to appreciate its leading ™®^*^ JP 
conception, it would be necessary to take into account the atoning death *gagj^„* 
and resurrection of Christ as the central object on which that faith is 
fixed. This however lies apart from the present question, for it has no 
<lireot bearing on the lesson drawn from Abraham's example. In a cer- 

II — 2 



tain sense indeed the Messiah may be said to have been the object of 
Abraham's faith ; for He, as the fulfilment of the promise, must have been 
dimly discerned by Abraham, as by one 'looking through a glass darkly.' 
And to this vague presentiment of a future Triumph or Redemption we 
may perhaps refer our Lord's words (John viii. 56), 'Your father Abraham 
rejoiced to see My day : and he saw it and was glad.' But however this 
may be, St Paul makes no such application of Abraham's example. He 
does not once allude to the Christ, as the object of the patriarch's faith. 

To return once again to the passages from Jewish writers already cited : 
they are important in their bearing on the interpretation of the Apostolic 
writings in yet another point of view. The example of Abraham is quoted 
Compari- both by St Paul and St James ; while the deductions which the two Apostles 
8on of St draw from it are at first sight diametrically opposed in terms. 'We con- 
St J^ ^^^ ''^^^^ *^** * °*^° '^ justified by faith apart from (x<»p's) works of law,' says 
' St Paul (Bom. iii. 28). 'A man is justified of works and not of faith only, 
are the words of St James (ii. 24). Now, so long as our range of view is 
confined to the Apostolic writings, it seems scarcely possible to resist the 
impression that St James is attacking the teaching, if not of St Paul him- 
self, at least of those who exaggerated and perverted it. But when we 
realise the fact that the passage in Genesis was a common thesis in the 
illustrated schools of the day, that the meaning of faith was variously explained by 
by the the disputants, that diverse lessons were drawn from it — then the case is 
j'"'^ °°^* altered. The Gentile Apostle and the Pharisaic Rabbi might both maintain 
the supremacy of faith as the means of salvation : but faith with St Paul 
was a very different thing from faith with Maimonides for instance. With 
the one its prominent idea is a spirittial life, with the other an orthodox 
creed : with the one the guiding principle is the individual conscience, with 
the other an external rule of ordinances : with the one faith is allied to 
liberty, with the other to bondage. Thus it becomes a question, whether 
St James's protest against reliance on faith alone has any reference, direct 
or indirect, to St Paul's language and teaching; whether in fact it is 
not aimed against an entirely different type of religious feeling, against the 
Pharisaic spirit which rested satisfied with a barren orthodoxy fruitless in 
works of charity. Whether this is the true bearing of the Epistle of St 
James or not, must be determined by a close examination of its contents. 
But inasmuch as the circles of labour of the two Apostles were not likely 
to intersect, we have at least & prima fctcie reason for seeking the objects 
of St James's rebuke elsewhere than in the disciples of St Paul, and the 
facts collected above destroy the force of any argument founded on the 
mere coincidence of the examples chosen''. 

1 This view of the Epistle of St 
James is taken by Michaelis (vi. p. 301, 
Marsh's 2nd ed.). It is also adopted by 
Neander: see especially his P/ZanzMMi; 
p. 567 (4te aufl.). He there refers, in 
illustration of this Jewish mode of 
thinking against which he supposes 
the epistle to be directed, to Justin 
Dial. e. I'ryph. p. 370 n oix in i/ieis 

diraTwre iavrois Kal iXKoi nvh i/fuf 
o/WLOi (i.e. Judaizing Christians) xari 
ToOro, ot \iyov<ra> on, Kav i/iapTuiXoi iln 
6(bv Si yivibsKOvatv, oi iii) \oylaiiTcu 
a^Tois Kiptos ct/jtaprtav : and to the 
Clem. Horn. iii. 6. Several later writ- 
ers have maintained the same view. 
For more on this subject see the Disser- 
tation on ' St Paul and the Three.' 

IV. I] 



IV. ^Aeyco Se, e(p' oarov "x^povov 6 KXripovofno^ v^ttio^ 

IV. I — 7. In the former para- 
graph St Paul starting from the figure 
of the psedagogus had been led to 
speak of the sonship of the faithful in 
Christ. The opening verses of this 
chapter are an expansion of the same 
image. The heir in his nonage re- 
presents the state of the world before 
the Gospel In drawing out the com- 
parison, St Paul seems to include 
Gentiles as well as Jews under this 
'tutelage,' all having more or less 
been subject to a system of positive 
ordinances, and so far gone through a 
disciplinary training. In the image 
itself however there are two points to 
be cleared up. 

First. Is the father of the heir re- 
presented as dead or living ? On the 
one hand individual expressions point 
to the decease of the father; a very 
unnatural meaning must otherwise be 
forced upon the words, ' heir,' ' guar- 
dian,' 'lord of all.' On the other 
hand the metaphor in its application 
refers to a living Father. The latter 
consideration must yield to the former. 
The point of the comparison lies not 
in the circumstances of the father, 
but of the son. All metaphors must 
cease to apply at some point, and the 
death of the father is the limit here 
imposed by the nature of the case. 
Our Father never dies; the inherit- 
ance never passes away from Him : 
yet nevertheless we succeed to the 
full possession of it 

Secondly. It has been questioned 
whether St Paul borrows the imagery 
here from Roman or from Jewish law, 
or even, as some maintain, from a spe- 
cial code in force in Galatia. In the 
absence of very ample information, 
we may say that, so far as he alludes 
to any definite form of the law of 
guardianship, he would naturally refer 
to the Roman ; but, as the terms are 
not technically exact (e.g. vijniog, irpo- 
ee<T(i,ia), he seems to put forward rather 
the general conception of the oflice of 

a guardian, than any definite statute 
regulating it. His language indeed 
agrees much better with our simpler 
modern practice, than with Roman 
law, which in this respect was artificial 
and elaborate. 

'I described the law as our tutor. 
I spoke of our release from its re- 
straints. Let me explain my meaning 
more fully. An heir during his mi- 
nority is treated as a servant. Not- 
withstanding his expectations as the 
future lord of the property, he is sub- 
ject to the control of guardians and 
stewards, until the time of release 
named in his father's will arrives. In 
like manner mankind itself was a 
minor before Christ's coming. It was 
subject, like a child, to the discipline 
of external ordinances. At length 
when the time was fully arrived, God 
sent His own Son into the world, bom 
of a woman as we are, subject to law 
as we are, that He might redeem and 
liberate those who are so subject, and 
that we all might receive our destined 
adoption as sons. Of this sonship 
God has given us a token. He sent 
forth into our hearts the Spirit of 
His Son, which witnesses in us and 
cries to Him as to a Father. Plainly 
then, thou art no more a servant, but 
a son; and, as a son, thou art also 
an heir, through the goodness of 

I. Aey<B bi\ 'But what I would 
say is this,' introducing an expansion 
or explanation of what has gone be- 
fore: see V. 16, Rom. xv. 8, and for 
the more definite tovto be Xtym, Gal. 
iii. 17 (with the note), i Cor. i. 12. 

KijTTtor] 'an infant.' As this does 
not appear to have been a technical 
term in Greek, or at least in Attic 
law (where the distinction is between 
rrcils and avrip), it probably represents 
the Latin ' infans.' If so, its use here, 
though sufiSciently exact for the pur- 
poses of the comparison, is not tech- 
nically precise. The 'infantia' of a 



[IV. 2 

iarTiv, ovdev dia(pepei BovXov Kvpio^ irdvTtov wv, 'dWa 
VTTO eTTiTpoTTOv^ ecrTiv Kal o'lKovo/ixovs d-xpt T^s Trpodea- 

Bomau child ended with his seventh 
year, after which he was competent to 
perform certain legal acts, but he 
was not entirely emancipated from a 
state of tutelage till he entered on 
his twenty-fifth year, having passed 
through several intermediate stages. 
See Savigny Bmn. Eecht. iii. p. 25 
sq. NijTTtoy seems to be here 'a 
minor' in any stage of his minority. 
The word is opposed to avrip, i Cor. 
xiii. II, Ephes. iv. 13, 14: comp. Dion. 
Hal. iv. 9, Gruter Inscr. p. 682. 9. 
See Philo Leg. ad Cai. 4, 11. p. 549 
vrjiTiov ert ivra ko/uS^ koi xfyg^ovra 
iiriTpoTrav Kal hiSaaKoKtov km iraiha- 

oihtv Sia(j)epei fiovXov] The minor 
was legally in much the same position 
as the slave. He could not perform 
any act, except through his legal re- 
presentative. This responsible per- 
son, the guardian in the case of the 
minor, the master in the case of the 
slave, who represented him to the 
state, and whose sanction was neces- 
sary for the validity of any contract 
undertaken on bis behalf, was termed 
in Attic law Kvpios, Meier Att. Proc. 
p. 450. Prospectively however, though 
not actually, the minor was (cilpios irav- 
Tiav, which the slave was not. 

2. firvrpoTTOvt Koi oiKovofiovs] 'COn- 
trollert of his person and property' 
The language is intended, as the plurals 
show, to be as comprehensive as pos- 
sible. It is therefore vain to search 
for the exact technical term in Roman 
law corresponding to each word. The 
Latin fathers translate them various- 
ly; 'curatores et actores' Vict., Hil., 
Tnterp. Orig.; 'tutores et actores' 
Pelag., Hier. • ' procuratores et acto- 
res' Atig. ; 'tutores et dispensatores ' 
Jnterp. Theod. Mops. The distinction 
given in the above translation seems 
the most probable. The imrpimoi are 
tlie boy's legal representatives, his 

guardians (whether 'curatores' or 
'tutores' in Roman law); the oIkovo- 
fioi, stewards or bailiffs appointed to 
manage his household or property. 
The word eViVpojror elsewhere in the 
New Testament, Matt. xx. 8, Luke 
viii. 3, is 'a steward,' Adopted into 
the Rabbinical language (DISIID^BK) 
it has a comprehensive meaning, sig- 
nifying sometimes a guardian, some- 
times a steward : see Schottgen here 
and on Luke viii. 3. 

T^s irpo6f<rp,ias2 SC. ^qp-ipas, ' the day 
appointed beforehand^ generally as a 
limit to the performance or non-per- 
formance of an action ; in this case as 
the time at which the office of guardian 
ceases. A difficulty however presents 
itself in ttarpos. In Roman law the 
term was fixed by statute, so that the 
father did not generally exercise any 
control over it. It has been supposed 
indeed, that St Paul refers to some ex- 
ceptional legislation by which greater 
power was given to the Galatians iu 
this respect: but this view seems to 
rest on a mistaken interpretation of a 
passage in Gaius (i. § 55). It would 
appear however, that by Roman law 
some discretion was left to the father, 
at all events in certain cases ; see Gaius 
§ 1 86 ' Si oui testamento tutor svb con- 
dicione aut ex die certo datus sit': 
comp. Justinian's Instit. l xiv. 3 ; and 
probably more exact information would 
show that the law was not so rigorous 
as is often assumed. Considering then 
(i) That though the term of guardian- 
ship was not generally settled by the 
vrill of the testator, the choice of per- 
sons was, and (2) That in appoint- 
ments made for special purposes this 
power was given to the testator ; the 
expression in question will perhaps 
not appear out of place, even if St 
Paul's illustration be supposed to be 
drawn directly from Roman law. 

3. i)/t»f] 'tee,' Jews and Gentiles 

IV. 3, 4] 



^0(/Tft)s Kai jjjuets, oTe rifxev vriirioif 

jJLias Tov TraTjOos. 

i/TTo Ta (TTOi^eia tov Kocrfxov ^fnev BeBovXwixevoi' '^bre 

alike, as appears from the whole con- 
text. See the note on ver. 1 1. 

Taaroixfiayt/ie elements,' originally 
' the letters of the alphabet,' as being 
set in rows. Prom this primary sense 
the word gets two divergent meanings 
among others, both of which have been 
assigned to it in this passage ; (i) 'The 
physical elements' (2 Pet. iii. 10, 12, 
Wisd. vii. 17), as earth, fire, etc (Her- 
mas Fis. iii. 13), and especially the 
heavenly bodies : comp. Clem. Horn. x. 
9, 25, Justin Apol. ii. p. 44 a ra ovpd- 
via a-Toixua, Dial. p. 285 0. They were 
probably so called chronologically, as 
the elements of time (Theoph. ad Aut. 
i. 4 fjKios KOI (rekrivrj k(u atrrepes <rroi- 
Xfi'<'' avTov cltriv, eis (TtjiKia koL els Kai- 
poiis (cai «s Tjiiepas Koi eis eviavrovs ye- 
yovoTo): (2) 'The alphabet of learning, 
rudimentary instruction' ; as Heb. V. 1 2. 

The former sense is commonly a- 
dopted by the fathers, who for the 
most part explain it of the observance 
of days and seasons, regulated by the 
heavenly bodies. So Hilar., Pelag., 
Chrysost., Theod. Mops., Theodoret; 
comp. Ep. ad Diog. § 4. Victorinus 
strangely interprets it of the influence 
of the stars on the heathen not yet 
emancipated by Christ ; and Augus- 
tine supposes that St Paul is referring 
to the Gentile worsliip of the physical 
elements. The two latter interpreta- 
tions are at all events excluded by 
7J/if 19, which must include Jews. The 
agreement in favour of this sense of 
(TToixela may, I think, be attributed 
to the influence of a passage in the 
Praedicatio Petri, quoted in Clem. 
Alex. Strom, vi. (p. 760, Potter), Grig. 
in loann. iv. 22 (iv. p. 226, Delarue), 
in wliich the worship of the Jews is 
classed with that of the heathen ; in- 
asmuch as, professing to know God, 
they were in fa«t by this observance 
of days and seasons Xarpevovres ayye- 
Xotr KM apxayyeXois, /iijvi Koi creXrjvr/. 

At all events I can scarcely doubt 
that this interpretation of a-Tof-x^la be- 
came current through Origen's influ- 
ence. It seems to be much more in 
accordance with the prevailing tone 
of Alexandrian theology, than with 
the language and teaching of St Paul. 
Comp. Philo de Migr. Abr, p. 464 m. 

On the other hand a few of the 
fathers (Jerome, Gennadius, Primasius) 
adopt the other sense, 'elementary 
teaching.' This is probably the correct 
interpretation, both as simpler in itself 
and as suiting the context better. St 
Paul seems to be dwelling still on the 
rudimentary character of the law, as 
fitted for an earlier stage in the world's 
history. The expression occurs again 
in reference to formal ordinances, CoL 
ii. 8 Kara r^u rrapdSoa'iv rau dv- 
Bpdntov Kara to oroipfeia tov Kotrfiov, 
and ii. 20 el direddvere cvv Xptcrr^ dwo 
t£v (rToixei<''v rov Koirfwv, ri lis ^airres 
ev KoiTfU^ Soyp,aTl(e(r6e; In these 
passages the words of the context 
which are emphasized seem to show 
that a mode of instruction is signified 
by TO (r7-oi;(fia tov KoiTp.ov. 

TOV KoapLov] ' of the world,' i. e. hav- 
ing reference to material and not to 
spiritual things, formal and sensuous. 
The force of tov Koapov is best ex- 
plained by the parallel passages already 
cited. Col. il. 8, 20. See below, vi. 14. 

4. TO 7r\ripa>pa tov jfpoi'ou] The 
ideas involved in this expression may 
be gathered from the context. It was 
' the fulness of time.' First; In refer- 
ence to the Giver. The moment had 
arrived which God had ordained from 
the beginning and foretold by His pro- 
phets for Messiah's coming. This is 
implied in the comparison ij 7rpo6ea-pia 
TOV warpos. Secondly; In reference 
to the recipient. The Gospel was 
withheld until the world had arrived 
at mature age : law had worked out its 
educational purpose and now waa su- 




Se ^\6ev TO TrXtjptofxa rou xpovov, e^a7re<rTei\ev 6 Geos 

Toj/ vlov avTOV, yevofxevov bk yvvaiKoi, yevofiepov vtto 

voixov, ^'iva TOi)s vtto vojulov i^ayopdcr] , 'iva Trjv viooe- 

for though Christ waa bom under 
the Mosaic law, the application of the 
principle is much tvider. See the note 
on the next verse. 

perseded. This educational work had 
been twofold: (i) Negative: It was 
the purpose of all law, but especially 
of the Mosaic law, to deepen the con- 
viction of sin and thus to show the 
inability of all existing systems to 
bring men near to God. This idea, 
which is so prominent in the Epistle 
to the Romans, appears in the context 
here, vv. 19, 21. (2) Positive. The 
comparison of the child implies more 
than a negative effect. A moral and 
spiritual expansion, whichrendered the 
world more capable of apprehending 
the Gospel than it would have been 
at an earlier age, must be assumed, 
corresponding to the growth of the 
individual ; since otherwise the meta- 
phor would be robbed of more than 
half its meaning. 

The primary reference in all this is 
plainly to the Mosaic law : but the 
whole context shows that the Gentile 
converts of Galatia are also included, 
and that they too are regarded as hav- 
ing undergone an elementary disci- 
pline, up to a certain point analogous 
to that of the Jews. See the remarks 
on ver. 1 1. 

n-Xij'pm/ta] ' the complement.' On this 
word see Colossians, p. 257 sq. 

f^aTreareiKcv] ' He sent forth from, 
Himself, as His representative': 'ex 
caelo a sese,' says Bengel. This word 
assumes the pre-existence of the Son, 
but must not be pressed to imply also 
the unity with the Father, for it is 
commonly used in later Greek in 
speaking of any mission. 

yevojuvov in yvvaiKos] i.e. taking up- 
on Himself our human nature ; comp. 
Job xiv. I, Matt. xi. 11. These pas- 
sages show that the expression must 
not be taken as referring to the mi- 
raculous incarnation. See Sasil de 
Spir. Sanct. v. 12. 

ytponcvov viro I'oiuoi'] not rov vo/iov ; 

5. The two clauses correspond to 
those of the foregoing verse in an in- 
verted order by the grammatical figure 
called chiasm; 'The Son of God was 
born a man, that in Him all men might 
become sons of God; He was bom 
subject to law, that those subject to 
law might be rescued from bondage.' 
At the same time the figure is not 
arbitrarily employed here, but the in- 
version arises out of the necessary se- 
quence. The abolition of the law, the 
rescue from bondage, was a prior con- 
dition of the universal sonship of the 
faithful See the note on iiL 14. 

ToilS VTTO VOfiOv] agalU not TW VOflOV. 

St Paul refers primarily to the Mosaic 
law, as at once the highest and most 
rigorous form of law, but extends the 
application to all those subject to any 
system of positive ordinances. We seem 
to have the same extension, starting 
from the law of Moses, in i Cor. ix. 20, 

eyepofirjv Tois 'lovBalois <os 'lovdalof... 

vols VTTO VOfiOV as VTTO v6}iov. 

e^ayopaa-Ji] See the note on iii. 13. 

iva, lua] For the repetition of wo, 
and for the general connexion of 
thought, see the note iiL 14. In this 
passage it is perhaps best to take the 
two as independent of each other, iu- 
asmuch as the two clauses to which 
they respectively refer are likewise in- 
dependent. Comp. Bphes. v. 26, 27. 

Trjv viodeiTlav} not 'the sonship,' but 
'the adoption as sons.' Ylo6eo-ia seems 
never to have the former sense; see 
Fritzsche on Bom. viii. 15. Potentially 
indeed men were sons before Christ's 
coming (ver. i), but actually they were 
only slaves (ver. 3). His coming con- 
ferred upon them the privileges of 
sons: 'Adoptionem propterea dicit,' 

IV. 6, 7] 



a-iav aTroXd^cafxev. *0Tt Se ecrre vloi, i^a7re<rT€i\ev 6 
0eos TO TTvevfxa tov vloO avTOv €ts Tas KOjoStas jj^wi/, 
Kpci^ov 'A/3/3a d TTUTrip. 'aiVre oi/'/ceVt el Soiy\os, aWa 

says Augustine with true appreeiar 
tion, 'ut distincte iutelligamus unicum 
Dei filium.' We are sons by grace ; 
He is so by nature. 

oTToXa^iufiCK] Tlie exact sense of the 
preposition will depend on the mean- 
ing assigned to vlodea-iav. If viodea-ia 
be taken as adoption, aTroXo^co/ici/ 
must signify 'receive as destined for, 
as promised to us,' or, as Augustine 
says, 'nee dixit accipiamus, sed red- 
piamus, ut significaret hoc nos ami- 
sisse in Adam, ex quo mortales su- 
mus.' At all events it cannot be 
equivalent to \a^a>iiev. The change to 
the first person plural marks the uni- 
versality of the sonship : 'we, those 
under law and those free from law, 

6. on ecrre vloQ 'because ye are 
tons' The presence of the Spirit is 
thus a witness of their sonship. The 
force of this clause is best explained 
by the parallel passage, Rom. viii. 1 5, 
16. 8t Paul seems here to be dwelling 
on the same idea as in iii. 2. Their 
reconciliation with God was complete 
without works of law, the gift of the 
Spirit being a proof of this. See also 
Acts X. 44, xi. 15 — 18, XV. 8. 

Kpafoi/] The w:ord denotes earnest 
and importunate prayer, as in Is. xix. 
20 : comp. James v. 4. 

'A/S^a o irarripl Abba is the Aramaic 
equivalent to the Greek iranjp. The 
combination of the two words seems 
to have been a liturgical formula. It 
occurs in Mark xiv. 36 in the mouth 
of our Lord, and also in Rom. viii. 15, 
in a passage closely resembling this. 
The origin of this formula may be 
explained in two ways. Mrst, It ori- 
ginated with the Hellenistic Jews who 
would naturally adhere with fondness 
to the original word consecrated in 
their prayers by long usage, and add 
to it the equivalent in the Greek lan- 

guage which they ordinarily spoke. In 
this case, in the passage of St Mark 
the words o Trarfip may perhaps be an 
addition of the Evangelist himself, ex- 
plaining the Aramaic word after his 
wont. Secondly, It may have taken 
its rise among the Jews of Palestine • 
after they had become acquainted with 
the Greek language. In this case it is 
simply an expression of importunate 
entreaty, illustrating the natural mode 
of emphasizing by repetition of the 
same idea in different forms. This 
latter explanation seems simpler, and 
best explains the expression as coming 
from our Lord's lips. It is moreover 
supported by similar instances given 
in Schottgen, il p. 252 : e.g. a woman 
entreating a judge addresses him HO 
'n^a, the second word being Kvpie, the 
Greek equivalent to the Aramaic *^D 
'my Lord.' For other examples see 
Eev.ix. 1 1 ('AwoWvav, 'A^adSoav), xii. 9, 
XX. 2 ('Saravas, Ata^oXor). Whichever 
explanation be adopted, this phrase is 
a speaking testimony to that fusion of 
Jew and Greek which prepared the 
way for the preaching of the Gospel 
to the heathen. Accordingly St Paul 
in both passages seems to dwell on it 
with peculiar emphasis, as a type of 
the union of Jew and Gentile in Christ : 
comp. iii. 28. 
'A/3/3a] In Chaldee K3S, m Syriac 

|o1 . In the latter dialect it is said 

to have been pronounced with a dou- 
ble b when applied to a spiritual father, 
with a single b when used in its first 
sense : see Bernstein's Lex. a. v. and 
comp. Hoffmann, Gramtn. Syr. i. x, 
§ 17. With the double letter at all 
events it has passed into the European 
languages, as an ecclesiastical term, 
'abbas,' 'abbot.' The Peshito In ren- 
dering 'Ai3/35 ■narrip can only repeat 
the word, 'Father our Fatlierl in all 



[IV. 8, 9 

i/Io's* ei Be i/tos, Kai KXripovofxo^ Sid Qeou. ^dWa Tore 
ftev ovK eiSoVes Qeov iBovXevcraTe rots (bvcrei /jlt] ova-iv 
Oeoh' ^vvv Be yvovres 0eoV, juaWov Be yvwcrdevre's 

three passages where the expression 

6 n-aiT/p] The nominative with the 
article is here used for an emphatic 
vocative, as e.g. Luke viii. 54 i; vats, 
cyeipe. See Winer, § xxix. p. 227. 
This is a Hebfeism ; comp. Gesen. 
Heb. Gramm. § 107. 

7. aa-Tf] 'ther^ore,' in reference 
to all that has gone before; 'Seeing 
(i) that this naturally follows when 
your minority has come to an end; 
and (2) that you have direct proof of 
it in the gift of the Spirit, the token 
of sonship.' 

ovKcri cZ] ' thou art no longer J now 
that Christ has come. The appeal is 
driven home by the successive changes 
in the mode of address; first, 'we, all 
Christians, far and vride, Jews and 
Gentiles alike' (an-oXd/Sm/ici', ver. 5); 
next, 'you, my Galatian converts' 
(eWf, ver. 6) ; lastly, ' each individual 
man who hears my words' («, ver. 7). 

tl di vlos, Koi KXi/povd/ior] Comp, 
Rom. viii. ly el Be rcKva, icai kXi^povo/xoi. 
It has been made a question whether 
St Paul is here drawinghis illustrations 
from Jewish or from Roman law. In 
answer to this it is perhaps sufficient 
to say, that so far as he has in view 
any special form of law, he would 
naturally refer to the Roman, as most 
familiar to his readers. And indeed 
the Roman law of inheritance supplied 
a much truer illustration of the privi- 
leges of the Christian, than the Jewish. 
By Roman law all the children, whe- 
ther sons or daughters, inherited alike 
(comp. iii. 28 ovk m apa-ev koI dijXv) ; 
by Jewish, the sons inherited un- 
equally, and except in default of male 
heirs the daughters were excluded; 
Michaelis Laws of Moses iii. 3, § i. 
See a paper of C. P. A. Pritzsche in 
Pritzsch. Opusc. i, p. 143. 

hta etoC] ']ieir not by virtue of 

birth, or through merits of your own, 
but through God who adopted you.' 
Por bia see the note on L i. This is 
doubtless the right reading, having 
the preponderance of authority in its 
favour. All other variations, includ- 
ing that of the received text, ic\ripov6- 
jios eeoS hut Xpurrov, are apparently 
substitutions of a common expression 
for one which is unusual and startling. 

8 — II. 'Nevertheless, in an unfllial 
spirit, ye have subjected yourselves 
again to bondage, ye would fain submit 
anew to a weak and beggarly discipUne 
of restraint And how much less par- 
donable is this now ! Por then ye were 
idolaters from ignorance of God, but 
now ye have known God, or rather 
have been known of Him. Ye are scru- 
pulous in your observance of months 
and seasons and years. Ye terrify 
me, lest all the toil which I have ex- 
pended on you should be found vain.' 

aiWa] 'yet still, in spite of your 
sonship,' referring not to e'SovXevo-are 
with which it stands in close proxi- 
mity, but to the more remote eW 
orpe^er* (ver. 9); comp. Bom. vi. 17 
X^i'S he rm Qea, on rjTe dovKoi, vmi- 
Kova-are he eft Kaphias k.t.\. The inter- 
vening words (ver. 8) are inserted to 
prepare the way for n-aXiv. 

rare iiev oJk elhores] 'Then it was 

through ignorance of God that ye were 
subject etc.'; a partial excuse for their 
former bondage. Por the expression 
eiSevm Oeov see I Thess. iv. 5, 2 Thess. 

Tois <j>v(Tei fifj oiinv Beois] 'to those 
who by nature were not gods,' i.e. /mj 
ovtTiv Beois aXka haifiovlois ; comp. I Cor. 
X. 20 a 6vov<Ta> [to eflwj], hai/ioviois KaX 
ov Sep 6iova-iu. This is the correct 
order. On the other hand in the read- 
ing of the received text, rois p.^ (pva-ei 
oScriv deoU, the negative affects <t>va-ei ; 
i.e. fti; <l>v(rei oKKa Xdy^, 'not by na- 

IV. lo] 



VTTO Qeov, TTws 67rto"Tjoe^6T6 TraXiv eiri Ta dcrOevfi 
Kai TTTW^d (TTOi)(e'iay ots ttoXiv ai/wdev SouXeveiu 6e- 
Aere ; "w/ue'ioas TrapaTripe'ia-de 

ture, but by repute' ; comp. i Cor. viii. 

5 fiO'\v \eyofi€VOL 6eoL 

9. yv6vT€s] ' having discerned, re- 
cognised,' to be distinguished from 
the preceding elborcs. See i Job. ii. 
29 eai/ elSrJTe on SiKaios iariv, yivd- 

(TKfTf OTl Koi was K.T.X., Johu Xxi. 

17, Ephes. T. 5, I Cor. ii. 11 : comp. 
Gal. ii. 7, 9. While olSa 'I know' re- 
fers to the knowledge of facts abso- 
lutely, yivda-Kio '1 recognise,' being 
relative, gives prouiinence either to 
the attainment or the manifestation 
of the knowledge. Thus yivdaKeiv 
will be used in preference to elSivai; 
(i) where there is reference to some 
earlier state of ignorance, or to some 
prior facts on which the knowledge 
is based ; (2) where the ideas of 
'thoroughness, familiarity,' or of 'ap- 
probation,' are involved : these ideas 
arising out of the stress which yivd- 
a-Kctv lays on the process of reception. 
Both words occur very frequently in 
the First Epistle of St John, and a 
comparison of the passages where they 
are used brings out this distinction of 
meaning clearly. 

yvaxrBevTes imo Qfov\ added to ob- 
viate any false inference, as though 
the reconciliation with God wore at- 
tributable to a man's own efiFort. See 
I Cor. viii. 2 tX ns doKel eyvaxevai ti, 
ovitia eyvrn KaBas Sel yvatvai' «t Se Tir 
ayana top &c6v, ovTot fyvaxrrai vir atS- 
Tov : comp. I Cor. xiii. 12. God knows 
man, but man knows not God or 
knows Him but imperfectly. See also 
1 Joh. iv. 10 ovx OTl il/teis rjyairriKaiuv 
Tov Qeov, dXX' OTl avTos ijyamjo'fi' ij/xay. 

TToSj ema-TpiipfTe] The Apostle's ea- 
gerness to remonstrate leads him to in- 
terrupt by an interrogation the natu- 
ral flow of the sentence as marked out 
by the foregoing words. A present 
tense is used, for the change was still 
going on ; comp. i. 6 fieTaTiBetrde. 

Kai fxr}va^ Kai naipovi 

dirdevTJ Koi Trraxa] 'weak,' for they 
have no power to rescue man from con- 
demnation ; ' beggarly,' for they bring 
no rich endowment of spiritual trea- 
sures. For do-6evfj see Rom. viii. 3 to 
dSvvaTov TOV vofiov (comp. Gal, iii. 21), 
Heb. vii. 18 to daSeves Kai dvaxjieXes. 

TToXtv ava^dev] a strong expression to 
describe the completeness of their 

10. ■niiipas k.tX^ Comp. Col. ii. 16 

iv fiipei fopTTJs rj veoiir)vlas fj o-a/3j3dr<ai', 

which passage explains the expres- 
sions here, stopping short however of 
iviavToL The rip,ipai are the days re- 
curring weekly, the sabbaths : fi^wi, 
the monthly celebrations, the new 
moons : xaipoi, the annual festivals, as 
the passover, pentecost, etc.; eviavroi, 
the sacred years, as the sabbatical 
year and the year of jubilee. Comp. 
Judith viii. 6 p^oiplr irpoa-afi^arav Ka\ 
(rafi^arav Kai wpovovfiriviav Kai vovp.rj- 
vitov KOI eoprav Kai xapfioavvSiv oikov 
'l<rpai)X, Philo de Sept. p. 286 M. iva ttjv 
i^SopaSu Tt/iTJcrj koto jravras ;^pdi'Ovr 
finepmv KOLi fujvaiv KOi eviavTav k.t.\. 

For iirjves in the sense it has here 
comp. Is. Ixvi. 23 KOI etTTai p,^v in firf- 
vos Koi (rd^^arov Ik tra^^uTov. On this 
use of Kaipos for an annually recurring 
season see Moeris p. 214 (Bekker), 
'Opa CTOVS, 'Atthcoi ' Kaipos erovs, 'EX- 
\r)ves : and Hesychius, 'Opa eVovi • Kai- 
pos erovs ' TO eap Kai To depos. 

eviavTovs'] It has been calculated 
(Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 204 sq 
and here) that the year from autumn 
54 to autumn 55 was a sabbatical year; 
and an inference has been drawn from 
this as to the date of the epistle. 
The enumeration however seems to 
be intended as general and exhaustive, 
and no special reference can be as- 

On the Christian observance of dayi 
in reference to this prohibition of St 


Kui iviavTov<si "(jyofiov/J-ai iJ/xas, fit] ttws e'lKfj k6ko- 

Paul see the excellent remarks of Ori- 
gen, c. Cds. viii. 21 — 23. 

TrapaTripeurOe] 'ye minutely, scru- 
pulouily observe' literally 'ye go along 
with and observe' : comp. Pa. cxxix. 3 
eav dvofiias iraparT/pi^a-ris, Joseph. Ant. 
iii. J. 5 Traparripfiv ras e/3Softa8ar, 
Clem. Horn. xix. 22 dp-eXija-anrfs Trjv 
wapanqpria-iv. In this last passage, 
which enjoins the observance of days 
(einTi)pij(niu>i ruitpm), there is apparent- 
ly an attack on St Paul ; see above, 
p. 61. There seems to be no authority 
for assigning to naparrjpfiv the sense 
' wrongly observe,' nor is the analogy 
of such words as napaKoveiv sufficiently 
close to bear it out. Here the middle 
voice still farther enforces the idea 
of interested, assiduous observance ; 
comp. Luke xiv. i. 

II. KeK07rtaKa\ the indicative mood, 
because the speaker suspects that what 
he fears has actually happened. Herm. 
on Soph. Aj. 272 says, '/i"? e"""' veren- 
tis quidem est sed indicantis simul 
putare se ita esse ut veretur.' See 
Winer § Ivi. p. 631 sq. 

In the above passage St Paul ex- 
pressively describes the Mosaic law, 
as a rudimentary teaching, the alpha- 
bet, as it were, of moral and spiritual 
instruction. The child must be taught 
by definite rules, learnt by rote. The 
chosen race, like the individual man, 
has had its period of childhood. Dur- 
ing this period, the mode of instruc- 
tion was tempered to its undeveloped 
capacities. It was subject to a disci- 
pline of absolute precepts, of external 

It is clear however from the con- 
text, that the Apostle is not speaking 
of the Jewish race alone, but of the 
heathen world also before Christ — not 
of the Mosaic law only, but of all forms 
of law which might be subservient to 
the same purpose. This appears from 
his including his Galatian hearers 

under the same tutelage. Nor is this 
fact to be explained by supposing 
them to have passed through a stage 
of Jewish proselytism on their way to 
Christianity. St Paul distinctly refers 
to their previous idolatrous worship 
(ver. 8), and no less distinctly and em- 
phatically does he describe their adop- 
tion of Jewish ritualism, as a return 
to the weak and beggarly discipline of 
childhood, from which they had been 
emancipated when they abandoned 
that worship. 

But how, we may ask, could St Paul 
class in the same category that di- 
vinely ordained law which he elsewhere 
describes as 'holy and just and good ' 
(Rom. vii. 12), and those degraded 
heathen systems which he elsewhere 
reprobates as 'fellowship with devils' 
(i Cor. X. 20) 1 

The answer seems to be that the 
Apostle here regards the higher ele- 
ment in heathen religion as corre- 
sponding, however imperfectly, to the 
lower element in the Mosaic law. For 
we may consider both the one and the 
other as made up of two component 
parts, the spiritual and the ritiudistie. 

Now viewed in their spiritual as- 
pect there is no comparison between 
the one and the other. In this respect 
the heathen religions, so far as they 
added anything of their own to that 
sense of dependence on God which is 
innate in man and which they could 
not entirely crush (Acts xiv. 17, xvii. 
23, 27, 28, Rom. i. 19, 20), were wholly 
bad; they were profligate and soul- 
destroying, were the prompting of de- 
vils. On the contrary in the Mosaic 
law the spiritual element was most 
truly divine. But this does not enter 
into our reckoning here. For Chris- 
tianity has appropriated all that was 
spiritual in its predecessor. The Mo- 
saic dispensation was a foreshadowing, 
a germ of the Gospel : and thus, when 

IV. 12, 13] 



^^Tive<r6e cu's iytOj bri Kayia cJs v/meis, dSe\<j)oi, 
^eofxai vfjLwv ovdev jue »}StK>jtraT6' '^oi'Sare 5e brt St' 

Christ came, its spiritual element was 
of necessity extinguished or rather ab- 
sorbed by its successor. Deprived of 
this, it was a mere mass of lifeless or- 
dinances, differing only in degree, not 
in kind, from any other ritualistic 

Thus the ritucdistic element alone 
remains to be considered, and here is 
the meeting point of Judaism and 
Heathenism. In Judaism this was as 
much lower than its spiritual element, 
as in Heathenism it was higher. Hence 
the two systems approach within such 
a distance of each other that they can 
under certain limitations be classed 
together. They have at least so much 
in common that a lapse into Judaism 
can be regarded as a relapse to the 
position of unconverted Heathenism. 
Judaism was a system of bondage like 
Heathenism. Heathenism had been a 
disciplinary training like Judaism. 

It is a fair inference, I think, from 
St Paul's language here, that he does 
place Heathenism in the same cate- 
gory with Judaism in this last respect, 
Both alike are moixeia, 'elementary 
systems of training.' They had at least 
this in common, that as ritual systems 
they were made up of precepts and 
ordinances, and thus were represent- 
atives of ' law ' as opposed to ' grace,' 
'promise,' that is, as opposed to the 
GospeL Doubtless in this respect 
even the highest form of heathen reli- 
gion was much lower and less efficient 
than the Mosaic ritual But still in an 
imperfect way they might do the same 
work : they might act as a restraint, 
which multiplying transgressions and 
thus begetting and cherishing a con- 
viction of sin prepared the way for the 
liberty of manhood in Christ. 

Thus comparing the two together 
from the point of view in which 8t 
Paul seems to consider them, we get 
as the component parts of each : Ju- 

daism ; (i) The spiritual — absolutely 
good, absorbed in the Gospel; (2) 
The ritiuilistic — relatively good, o-rot- 
xeia : HEATHENISM ; (i) The ritualis- 
tic — relatively good, trrotxeui; (2) 
The spiritual— absolutely bad, anta- 
gonistic to the Gospel. 

If this explanation of St Paul's mean- 
ing be correct, it will appear on the 
one hand that his teaching has nothing 
in common with Goethe's classifica- 
tion, when he placed Judaism at the 
head of Ethnic reUgions. On the other 
hand it will explain the intense hatred 
with which the Judaizers, wholly un- 
able to rise above the level of their 
sectarian prejudices and take a com- 
prehensive view of God's providence, 
regarded the name and teaching of 
St Paul. 

12 — 16. 'By our common sympa- 
thies, as brethren I appeal to you. I 
laid aside the privileges, the preju- 
dices of my race : I became a Gentile, 
even as ye were Gentiles. And now I 
ask yon to make me some return. I ask 
you to throw off this Judaic bondage, 
and to be free, as I am free. Do not 
mistake me ; I have no personal com- 
plaint ; ye did me no wrong. Nay, ye 
remember, when detained by sickness 
I preached the Gospel to you, what a 
hearty welcome ye gave me. My in- 
firmity might well have tempted you 
to reject my message. It was far 
otherwise. Ye did not spurn me, did 
not loathe me ; but received me as an 
angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself. 
And what has now become of your 
felicitations 1 Are they scattered to 
the winds? Yet ye did felicitate 
yourselves then. Yea, I bear you 
witness, such was your gratitude, ye 
would have plucked out your very 
eyes and have given them to me. 
What then? Have I made you my 
enemies by telling the truth?' 

12. TLveaBe as iyd /tr.X.] Of the" 



[IV. 14 

d<r6evetav tjJs (rapKds evrfyyeXicraiuLriv vfjiiu to irpoTepov 
"•/cttt TO J/ TreipatTfxdv vfiav iv rij a-apKi fxov ovk i^ou- 

meaniug of the first clause there can 
be but little doubt; 'Free yourself 
from the bondage of ordinances, as I 
am free.' Of the second two inter- 
pretations deserve to be considered ; 
(i) ' For I was once in bondage as 
ye are now,' i.e. Koym v/")" 'iovdalos 
<is vficis vvi> 'lovSaticT€. So Eusebius 
(of Emesa ?), Chrysostom, Jerome, and 
apparently Pseudo-Justin Orat. ad 
Graec. § S ; see p. 60 note i : (2) ' For 
I abandoned my legal ground of right- 
eousness, I became a Gentile like you,' 
Le. Kaya iytvofi-qv "EXXi/k ms vfifis 
^Tf "eXXijws; comp.ii.17,1 Cor.ix.2i. 
"This latter sense is simpler grammati- 
cally, as it understands the same verb 
which occurs in the former clause, eyt- 
vofiijv, not ijiiTiv. It is also more in 
character with the intense personal 
feeling which pervades the passage. 
The words so taken involve an appeal 
to the affection and gratitude of the 
Oalatians ; ' I gave up all those time- 
honoured customs, all those dear asso- 
ciations of race, to become like you. 
I have lived as a Gentile that I might 
preach to you Gentiles. Will you then 
abandon me when I have abandoned 
all for you V This sense is well adapt- 
ed both to the tender appeal 'bre- 
thren, I beseech you,' and to the eager 
explanation which follows 'ye did 
me no wrong.' For the expression 
comp. Ter. Min. i. 2. 116 'meus fac 
sis postremo animus, quando ego sum 

ovSfv fu »;8«i)(rar«] To these words 
two different meanings have been as- 
signed; (i) 'Ye never disobeyed me 
before ; do not disobey me now' : (2) 
' I have no personal ground of com- 
plaint.' The latter seems better adapt- 
ed to the context. Possibly however 
the real explanation is hidden under 
some unknovm circumstances to which 
St Paul alludes; see below on di' 

13. otdarc 6€]'onths contrary ( 

St curdeveiav rrjs trapKos] 'on account 
0/ an in/irmiti/ in my flesh.' St Paul 
seems to have been detained in Gala- 
tia by illness, so that his infirmity was 
the cause of his preaching there ; see 
pp. 23, 24. The fact that his preach- 
ing among them was thus in a man- 
ner compulsory made the enthusiastic 
welcome of the Galatians the more 
commendable. If this interpretation 
seems somewhat forced, it is only be- 
cause we are ignorant of the circum- 
stances to which St Paul refers : nor 
is it more harsh than any possible ex- 
planation which can be given of the 
preceding ov84v fie i;8ncif<rarf. For the 
expression compare Thucyd. vi 102 
avTov 8e Tov kvkKov [aip€iv} NiKias 8»e- 
KeiXvo'fv' cTV}(€ yap hi avr^ Bi airBivei- 
av vtrokeXei/iiiivos. Alluding to this 
afterwards in an impassioned appeal, 
Nicias might well have said, St' aa-Bi- 
veiav camxra tov kvkKov. At all events 
this is the only rendering of the words 
which the grammar admits. No in- 
stance has been produced, until a 
much later date, which would at all 
justify our explaining St* da-deveiav, as 
if it were St' da-6evelas or ep aa-Bevtia, 
as is frequently done. The ambiguity 
of the Latin ' per infirmitatem ' gave 
the Latin fathers a license of inter- 
pretation which the original does not 
allow : Jerome however recognises the 
proper meaning of the preposition, 
though wrongly explaining it 'propter 
infirmitatem carnis vestrae.' Of the 
Greek fathers, Chrysost., Theodoret, 
and Theod. Mops, slur over the pre- 
position, interpreting the passage 
however in a way more consonant with 
the sense ev da-dfvei^. Photius (J ap. 
Oecum.) is the first, so far aa 1 have 
noticed, who boldly gives the ungram- 
matical rendering itera aa-Bevciat. 

TO wporepovl ' on the former <if my 

IV. IS] 



€€pr]<raT€ ovSe e^eTTTvtraTe, dWd ojs ayyeXov Qeov 
i^€^aa-6e jue, aJs Xpia-rov 'lr]arovv. ^^ttoV ovv 6 fxaKapia"- 

15. rb oSy b /laxapnTiMS. 

two visits.' To jrparepov, which de- 
rives a certain emphasis from the 
article, cannot be simply equivalent 
to iraKai, 'some time ago.' It may 
mean either (i) 'formerly,' with a di- 
rect and emphatic reference to some 
later point of time ; comp. Joh. vi. 62, 
ix. 8, I Tim. i. 13, or (2) 'on the for- 
mer of two occasions.' In the present 
passage it is difficult to explain the 
emphasis, if we assign the first of 
these two meanings to it, so that we 
have to fall back upon the second as 
the probable iuterpretatioa The ex- 
pression therefore seems to justify the 
assumption of two visits to Galatia 
before this letter was written; see pp. 


14. rbv TTfipatriiOV vfiSv K.T.\.^ 'your 
temptation which was in my flesh' 
i.e. St Paul's bodily ailment, which 
was a trial to the Galatians and which 
might have led them to reject his 
preaching. JUtpairpis, like the corre- 
sponding English word 'temptation,' 
is employed here by a laxity of usage 
common in all languages for 'the thing 
which tempts or tries.' On this con- 
crete sense of substantives in -/idr, see 
Buttm. Ausf. Sprachl. § 1 19. iZ-anm. 
II. The apparent harshness of the 
expression here, 'your temptation ye 
did not despise nor loathe,' is ex- 
plained and in some degree relieved 
by the position of tov mipaaplav v/imv 
at the beginning of the sentence. 
These words are used without a dis- 
tinct anticipation of what is to follow, 
the particular sense of the verb to be 
employed being yet undecided and 
only suggested afterwards, as the 
sentence runs on, by the concrete 
sense which the intervening words iv 
Tji aapxi fiov have given to Trcipacr/idv. 

For vpiav some texts have /nov tov, 
the received reading, others simply 
TOP. Considering however that the 

weight of authority is strongly in fa- 
vour of vp^v (see below, p. 186, note i) 
and that the transcribers were under 
every temptation to soften a harsh 
and at first sight unintelligible phrase 
by altering or omitting the pronoun, 
this reading ought certainly to be re- 
tained. On the other hand, suppos- 
ing /xov to be the original reading, 
some have accounted for the variation 
vp,wv (Reiche, Gomm. Grit, il p. 54) 
by supposing that it was substituted 
by some scribe who was jealous for 
the honour of St Paul : but an emen- 
dation, which introduced so much con- 
fusion in the sense, was not likely to 
be made. As for t6v, it seems to be 
merely the insertion of a classicist. 

OVK e^ovdeinjiTaTf ovSi c^ewrva'aTt] 
'ye did not treat with contemptuous 
indifierence or with active loathing.' 
As dworrrveiv is more usual than ex- 
wrieiv in this metaphorical sense, the 
latter seems to be preferred here for 
the sake of the alliteration. 

15. TTOv ovv 6 pMKapicrp,os VpMV'H 

The reading of the received text dififers 
from this in two points : (i) It inserts 
Ijv after ovv. This is certainly to be 
omitted, as very deficient in authority 
and perhaps also as giving a wrong 
sense to the passage. (2) It reads Wc 
for irov. On this point there is more 
difficulty. The weight of direct evi- 
dence is certainly in favour of jroC, 
but on the other hand it is more pro- 
bable that TTOV should have been sub- 
stituted for ri'y than conversely ; espe- 
cially as several Greek commentators 
(Theod. Mops., Theodoret, Severianus) 
who read ris explain it by nov. 

If the reading ris be adopted, the 
choice seems to lie between two out 
of many interpretations which have 
been proposed : (i) ' How hollow, how 
meaningless was your rejoicing' (un- 
derstanding ^v); (2) 'What has be- 



[IV. 16, 17 

/xos v/JLtau ; fiapTvptJa 'yap v/uuv on, el SuvaTOi^, tous 
d(^^a\yuoi)s viuLwv e^opv^avre^ eScoKare juoi. ^'^wcrTe ex- 
6p6s vfxwv yejova a\r]6euwv v/uuv ; ^^ZriXovcriv vfxas ov 

come of your rejoicing 1 where has it 
vanished V (understanding ftm'i'). In 
the latter sense it would coincide in 
meaning with wov oSv 6 iiaxapKriios, 
which can only be taken in one way. 
This interpretation seems more natu- 
ral than the former. 

o fiaKapuTiios v/iuv] 'your Jelicita- 
tion qf yourselves,' 'your happiness in 
my teaching,' as the sense seems to re- 
quire, vfiav is probably the subjective 
genitive, though the Galatians were at 
the same time also the object of the 
jxaKapurnos. Others understand by 
these words either their felicitation of 
St Paul, or his felicitation of them, but 
neither of these meanings is so appro- 
priate to the context; not the former, 
because the word /j-aKapio-fibs would 
ill express their welcoming of him ; 
not the latter, for St Paul is dwelling 
on the change of feeling which they 
themselves had undergone. For /uoko- 
pia-fios, 'beatitudo,' see Rom. iy. 6, 
9, and Clem. Bom. § 50. 

p.apTvpm] ' I bear tcitness,' see the 
note on i Thess, ii. 12. 

el SvvaTov k.t.X.] '^f it had been 
possible, if you could have benefited 
me thereby, you would have plucked 
out your very eyes, would have given 
me that which is most precious to 
you.' For icai rout o(f>6a.\itovs com- 
pare the Old Testament phrase to 
' keep as the apple of one's eye ' (e.g. 
Ps. xvii. 8), and the references in 
Wetstein. See below, p. 191, note. 

fStoKaTf] ' ye had given.' The sup- 
pression of the condition expresses 
more vividly their readiness ; see Wi- 
ner § xlii. p. 32 1. The insertion of av in 
the received text enfeebles the sense. 

16. afore] 'ther^ore' ought natu- 
rally to be followed by a direct asser- 
tion ; but shunning this conclusion 
and hoping against hope, the Apostle 

substitutes an interrogative; 'Can it 
be that I have become your enemy?' 
ex^pos u/imi'] 'your enemy.' It 
was a term by which the Judaizers of 
a later age, and perhaps even at this 
time, designated St Paul ; Clem,. Horn. 
Ep. Petr. § 2 Tox) ix^P°^ dvOpdnov 
Svofiov Tiva Koi (pXvapciSri irpotrtfKa- 
Hfvoi 8i8aiTicdKiav, Clem,. Recogn. i 70 : 
see p. 61. This quotation suggests 
that avopos was another of these hos- 
tile names which he is parrying in i 

Cor. ix, 21 p-q av avopos Qeov. 

aKx)6€uaiv\ probably referring to 
some warnings given during his se- 
cond visit. See the introduction 
p. 25. Compare the proverb, Ter. 
Andr. i. i. 41, ' obsequium amicos, 
Veritas odium, parit' 

17. From speaking of the former 
interchange of affection between him- 
self and his Galatian converts, he goes 
on to contrast their relations with the 
false teachers : ' I once held the first 
place in your hearts. Now you look 
upon me as an enemy. Others have 
supplanted me. Only enquire into 
their aims. True, they pay court to 
you : but how hollow, how insincere is 
their interest in you ! Their desire is 
to shut you out from Christ. Thus 
you will be driven to pay court to 

ZijXovo-tK] ' they pay court to.' As 
ijjKovv would seem to have one and 
the same sense throughout this pas- 
sage, its more ordinary meanings with 
the accusative, as ' to admire, emulate, 
envy,' must be discarded. It signifies 
rather ' to busy oneself about, take in- 
terest in,' a sense which lies close to 
the original meaning of ^\os, if cor- 
rectly derived from feo>. See 2 Cor. 
xi. 2, ^rjKS> yap vpas 6eov Cv^<? '• SO 
also Plut. Mor. p. 448 B vno xpfias TO 
npSfrov eirotirai fcai ^r\Kov(TU>, varepov di 

IV. i8, 19] 



KaXojs, dWa eKKXeia-ai i/yua? 6e\ov(riv, 'iva auTOi)? ^rj- 
\ovTe. ^ KoKov Se ^r\\ov<r6ai ev KaXw TravTOTe, Kai 
fxri fiovov ev TftJ Trapeii/ai fjie Trpds vfxa^, ^^TCKvia julou, oi/s 

19. rixva /wv. 

(cal (jiiKova-iv: I Oor. xii. 31, xiv. i, 39, 
Ezek, zxxix. 25. 

aWa] is connected not with ^i;Xov- 
<nv, but with ov KoKas: comp. ^sch. 

■Eum. 458 €<l)dtd' OVTOS ov Ka\£s, 110- 

Xtoi' ts oIkov, dWa viv KeXaaio^paiv enf) 
lafntp Kariitra. 

tKKKtiacu, vjias] ' to exclude, to debar 
you.' If it is asked 'from what?', the 
reply is to be sought in the tendency 
of the false teaching. By insisting on 
ceremonial observances, they were in 
fact shutting out the Galatians from 
Christ. The idea is the same as in 
V. 4 KonipyrfBriTe dirb Tov Xpurrov, r^r 
xdpiTot f^eirearaTt. The reading v/iar, 
though it gives a good sense, is almost 
destitute of authority. 

tva avToi/s ^ijXovre] 'that, having no 
refuge elsewhere, you may pay court 
to them.' For the present indicative 
after ha comp. i Cor. iv. 6 Xva iit) 
<l)v(novtr0e : a usage quite unclassical, 
but often found in later writers; see 
Winer § xli. p. 362. The future in- 
dicative with ha is comparatively com- 
mon, as e.g. ii. 4. The attempt to 
give ha with the indicative a local 
sense (quo in statu), as opposed to a 
^nal (e.g. Fritzsche on Matth. p. 836 
sq), may mislead, as seeming to as- 
sume that there is an essential differ- 
ence between the local and the ^nal 
ha. The Jinal sense is derived from 
the local, the relation of cause and 
effect in all languages being expressed 
by words originally denoting relations 
in space. Thus the difference of mean- 
ing between ha Trowire and ha iToi^Tt 
is not in the adverb, which is of con- 
stant value, but in the moods. 

fijXoure fle ra Kpe'iTTd xaplcnara is 
interpolated here in many copies from 
I Cor. xii. 31 ; comp. iii. I, note. 


18. Ka\ov 8e ^7iKov(r6ai (C.T.X.] The 
number of possible explanations is 
limited by two considerations: (i) 
That Cn^ovv must have the same sense 
as in the preceding verse, a parono- 
masia, though frequent in St Paul, 
being out of place here : (2) That fi;- 
\ov(rdat must be passive and not mid- 
dle; a transitive sense of (r|\ova■9a^, 
even if it were supported by usage 
elsewhere, being inexplicable here in 
the immediate neighbourhood of the 
active ^ijXovv. 

With these limitations only two 
interpretations present themselves, 
which deserveto beconsidered. First; 
' I do not grudge the court which is 
paid to you. I do not desire a mono- 
poly of serving you. It is well that in 
my absence your interests should be 
looked after by others. Only let them 
do it in an honourable cause.' Se- 
condly; 'I do not complain that they 
desire your attentions, or you theirs. 
These things are good in themselves. 
I myself am not insensible to such at- 
tachments. I remember how warm 
were your feelings towards me, when 
I was with you. I would they had not 
grown cold in my absence.' The differ- 
ence between the two consists mainly 
in the turn given to iif/ fiovov ev r^ 
iraptival lie. The objection to the latter 
sense is, that it supplies too much, fiut 
this abrupt and fragmentary mode of 
expression is characteristic of St Paul 
when he is deeply moved : and this in- 
terpretation suits the general context 
so much better — especially the tender 
appeal which immediately follows, 'my 
little children' — that it is to be pre- 
ferred to the other. 

The reading fijXoCo-fle, found in the 
two best Mss, is in itself but another 




[IV. 20 

TTciXiv todivu) jne^pK ov fxop^oiQrj XpitTTOs iu vfxTu. ^°f]6e- 
Xov Be irapelvai ttjOOS vfxd's apTi Kai dWd^ai Trjv ^avrju 
fiov, OTi aTTOpovmai iu vfuv. 

way of writing the infinitive (rjKovo-dm, 
the sounds c and ai being the same. 
It was however liable to be mistaken 
for an imperative, and is so translated 
in the Vulgate. 

19. This verse should be taken with 
the preceding and the punctuation re- 
gulated accordingly. It is di£Scult to 
explain Sc, ver. 20, if rexvia /lov be made 
the beginning of a new sentence. The 
connexion of thought seems to be as 
follows : 'I have a right to ask for 
constancy in your affections. I have a 
greater claim on you than these new 
teachers. They speak but as strangers 
to strangers; I as a mother to her 
children with whom she has travailed.' 
Comp. I Cor. iv. 14, 'Though ye have 
ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have 
ye not many fathers.' 

TfKvla iiov] 'my little children,' a 
mode of address common in St John, 
but not found elsewhere in St Paul. 
This however is no argument for the 
reading rexra in preference to TCKvia, 
for St Paul does not elsewhere use the 
vocatives r4Kva,TeKvov, except in Bphes. 
vi. I, Col. iil. 20, where he could not 
possibly have had rexvia, and in i Tim. 
i. 18, 2 Tim. ii. i, where tckvIov would 
have been inappropriate. Here the 
diminutive, expressing both the ten- 
derness of the Apostle and the feeble- 
ness of his converts, is more forcible. 
It is a term at once of affection and 
rebuke. The reading Teieva however 
is very highly supported and may per- 
haps be correct. 

TToKiv <o8iva>] 'I travailed with you 
once in bringing you to Christ By 
your relapse you have renewed a mo- 
ther's pangs in me.' There is no allu- 
sion here, as some have thought, to 
the new birth in the Spirit {naXiyyevt- 
aria) as opposed to the old birth in 
the flesh. 

liopij)a6^ iv vfilv] i.e. 'until you have 
taken the form of Christ,' as the em- 
bryo developes into the child. Com- 
pare the similar expression of 'grow- 
ing up into the full stature of Christ,' 
Ephes. iv. 13. The words nofKpad^ iv 
vjiiv have been otherwise explained as 
a different application of the former 
metaphor, the Apostle's converts being 
put no longer in the place of the child, 
but of the mother. Such inversions 
of a metaphor are characteristic of St 
Paul (see the notes i Thess. iL 7, v. 4), 
but here the explanation is improba- 
ble. St Paul would have shnmk in- 
stinctively from describing the rela- 
tion of Christ to the believer by that 
of the unborn child to its mother, 
thereby suggesting, however indirectly, 
the idea of subordination. 

For an elaborate application of the 
metaphor in the text see the Epistle 
of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, 
Euseb. V. r §§ 40, 41, especially the 
words oi wKtlovs dveiitjTpovvro Kai 
aveKvtiTKOVTO k.tX. 

20. fjdcXov fie K.T.X.] ' but, speaking 
of my presence, I would I had been 
present with you now.' The 8e catches 
up the passing thought of irapetvai 
(v. 18), before it escapes; comp. i 
Cor. L 16 i^dnrura fie xai tov STe<f>ava 
oiKov. The connexion of this clause 
with the previous Trapclvai requires 
that the sentence should be continu- 
ous, and that there should be no full 
stop after jrpor vfias (ver. 18); see the 
note on ver. 19. All other explana- 
tions seem harsh. Ac has been con- 
nected for instance with the vocative, 
but there is here no abrupt transition 
from one person to another, which 
alone would justify such an expression 
as Tf Kvla fiov, ijBeKov Si. 

rjBikov as rjvxoiaiv Bom. ix. 3, €/3o«- 
\6/ii;v Acts XXV. 22. The thing is 

IV. 21, 22] 



"AeyCTC fioi, oi viro vo/jlov 6e\ovT£^ eJpai, rov v6- 
fiov ovK dKOvere ; '^ yey pairTai yap on 'AjSpaa/jL Bvo 
vtous etT'^ev, 'iva ck t»js iraiZ'KTKrjs Kal eva ck t»js e'Aei/- 

spoken of in itself, prior to and inde- 
pendently of any conditions which 
might affect its possibility; see Winer 
§ xli. p. 352, and the note Philem. 13. 

Spri] See the note i. 9. 

aWd^ai Trji) <j)avi^v fiov] not 'to mo- 
dify my language from time to time 
as occasion demands/ for this is more 
than the phrase will bear, but 'to 
change my present tone.' The change 
meant is surely from severity to gen- 
tleness, and not from less to greater 
severity, as it has often been taken. 
His anxiety to mitigate the effects of 
his written rebuke has an exact paral- 
lel in his dealings with the Corinth- 
ian offender ; see esp. 2 Cor. ii. 5 sq. 

dTropovfiai i» jJ/itv] ' / am perplexed 
about you, I am at a loss how to deal 
with you ' : comp. 2 Cor. vii. 16 Bappa 
(V vjilv. The idea of inward question- 
ing is expressed more strongly by airo- 
ptia-Bai than by airopfiv. It is proba- 
bly a middle rather than a passive; 
though anopeiv is found as a transitive 
verb in Clem. Horn. i. 1 1 caropttv avrbv 
treipdlifvoi as ^ap^apov Tiva Baifiovav- 
ra, if the text be not corrupt. 

21 — 27. ' Ye who vaunt your sub- 
mission to law, listen while I read 
you a lesson out of the law. The 
Scripture says that Abraham had two 
sons, the one the child of the bond- 
woman, the other the child of the 
free. The child of the bondwoman, 
we are there told, came into the world 
in the common course of nature : the 
child of the free was born in ftdfilment 
of a promise. These things may be 
treated as an allegory. The two 
mothers represent two covenants. 
The one, Hagar, is the covenant given 
from Mount Sinai, whose children are 
bom into slavery (for Sinai is in Ara- 
bia, the land of Hagar and the Hagar 
renes), and this covenant corresponds 

to the earthly Jerusalem, which is in 
bondage with her children. The other 
answers to the heavenly Jerusalem, 
which is free — I mean the Church of 
Christ, our common mother. In her 
progeny is fulfilled the prophetic say- 
ing, which bids the barren and for- 
saken wife rejoice, because her off- 
spring shall be far more numerous 
than her rival's, who claims the hus- 
band for herself 

21. o( viro voiiov K.T,\.] 'pe, who 
wotdd be m^ect to law, who must 
needs submit to bondage in some way 
or other.' Observe here again the 
distinction between vonos and o vdjuor, 
and see the notes on ii. 19, iv. 4, 5. 

rbv vopjiv] ' tfie law,' when referring 
to the written word, either comprises 
the whole of the Old Testament writ- 
ings (e.g. Rom. iii. 19), or is restricted 
to the Pentateuch (e.g. Rom. iii. 21, 
Luke xxiv. 44). 

ojJk aKovtre] 'vnll ye not listen tof^ 
Matt. X. 14, xiii 13, Luke xvi. 29. 
The other interpretation, 'Is not the 
law constantly read to youi' (comp. 
Acts XV. 21, 2 Cor. iii. 14), is less pro- 
bable, because less simple. The va- 
rious reading dvayivaa-Kere, which has 
respectable authority, is evidently a 
gloss on this latter sense assigned to 
the word. 

- 22. yeypairrai] 'it is stated in the 
scriptures' introducing a general re- 
ference, and not a direct quotation; as 
in I Cor. xv. 45. See Genesis xvi, xxi. 

T^s irai&ia-Kijs] 'the bondmaid'; 

comp. Gen. xvi. I fjv 8e avrjj Tratdta-Krf 
AlyvnTia, 5 ovopa 'Ayap. The word 

seems to have exclusively the sense of 
a servant in the New Testament and 
later Greek; not so in classical wri- 
ters. See Lobeck Phryn. p. 239 ttoi- 

Si(XKt)- TOVTO CTri Trjs Bfpanaivrjs oi vvv 
n6ia(Tiv, oj d' apxoMi eVi rijs vemiiSot. 

12 — 2 



[IV. 23, 24 

yeyevviiTaif 6 5e ck t»}S iXevdepa^ Sid t^s i-TrayyeXia?. 
^^ciTivd ecTTiv dWriyopovfxeva. avTai yap elcriv Bvo 

23. dXX*] 'but,' i.e. although sons 
of the same father. The opposition 
implied in aSXi is illustrated by Rom. 
iz. 7 °<^^ Q" c'C'i' anripfta 'A^padfi, 
irayrts tckvo, and ix.IOf^ei<or Koin;v 

Kara crapKa] i.e. 'in the common 
course of nature.' In gome sense 
Isbmael was also a child of promise 
(Gen. xtI. 10), but in his case the 
course of nature was not suspended, 
as the promise was made after his 
conception. It must be remembered 
however that in his choice of words 
here St Paul regards not only the 
original history, but the typical appli- 
cation, the Jews being the children 
of Abraham after the flesh, the 
Christians his children by the pro- 

yeyevvtiToii the perfect, 'is recorded 
as bom,' 'is bom, as we read' : comp. 
I Tim. ii. 14 v ^^ yvv^ i^iraTTjBe'ura 
fp napafiairei yiyovev. 

24. arira] 'now all these things'; 
not simply 5 ' which particular things,' 
but ariva 'which class of things': 
comp. CoL ii. 23 anva tariv Xoyov 
/lev exovra <TO<^las, i.e. precepts of this 
sort (with the note). 

aXXi}yapov/ici/a] The word has two 
senses: (i) 'To speak in an allegory,' 
e.g. Joseph. Ant. prooem. 4 ra fiev 

alviTTOi/Uvov roC voixoOerov St^ias ra 8e 
dKKriyopovvTOi K.r.X. ; (2) 'To treat or 
interpret as an allegory,' e.g. Philo 
de Fit. Cont. § 3, 11. p. 475 M cvrvyxd- 
vovTfS yap rois Upois ypd/iftair* (piXoiro- 
(l>ov(rt Trjv Trarpiov <^tXoo'o(^iap dXKrjyo- 
povvTcs, ETreiSi) <rvjLi/9oXa ra r^s pijr^r 
ipiirjveias vofii^ovtri i^vtreas mroKfKpvp,- 
liivrfs iv vTtovoiais brjKovii,ivrjs, Clem, 
ffom.yi. 18, 20, and frequently: comp. 
Plut. Op. Mor.p. 363 D aawfp'EXKi)Pfs 
Kpovov dWjjyopoia-i tov Xpovov itr.X. 
It is possible that St Paul uses the 
word in this latter sense, referring to 

some recognised mode of interpreta- 
tion. Comp. the note on trwo-roj^" 
rer. 25, and see the remarks p. 198. 

St Paul uses aXXi;yop(a here much 
in the same sense as he uses rviros 
I Cor. X. II ravTa 8e rvniKas mve- 
^aivfv, not denying the historical 
truth of the narrative, but super- 
posing a secondary meaning. By a 
stricter definition ^Xi;yopia and n5- 
jTos were distinguished as denoting 
the former a fictitious, the latter a 
true narrative. See the definition of 
dXXTjyopia, Heracl. Alleg. Horn. 5 o 
SWa pev dyopevav rpoiroc erepa 8e tSv 
XfyfiOTipaivav. Hence the jealousy of 
the Antiochene fathers (Chrysostom, 
Severianus, Theod. Mops.) in ex- 
plaining that St Paul uses the word 
KaraxptoTiKas here and does not 
deny the historical truth of the narra- 

The author of the Clem. Horn, (ii 
22) indirectly attacks this allegory : 
see the introduction, p. 61. 

avrat ya'p K.r.X.] '/or these women 
are (represent) two covenants.' Elaiv 
'are' not actually, but mystically or 
typically ; Matt. xiii. 39, xxvi. 26— 
28, 1 Cor. X. 4. The article before SiJo 
must be omitted. 

pia itfv] 'one of them, which was 
given from Mount Sinai, tearing 
children unto bondage.' The true 
antithesis would have been cr/pa dc> 
but it melts away in the general fu- 
sion of the sentence, vv. 25, 26. For 
yfwatra used of a mother, see Luke 
i. 13 : it occurs so in Xen. de Rep. 
Lac. i. 3, and occasionally elsewhere, 
especially in later writers. 

ijrir] 'inasmMoh as she.' fj would 
simply declare the fact, ijrts places it 
in dependence on the context. 

25. TO yap Sira Acr.X.] 'for Sinai 
is a mountain in Arabia,' ie. in the 
land of bondsmen, themselves de- 

IV. 25] 



oiadfJKai, fxia fiev diro opov? Sii/a, eis SovXeiav yepvdSa-ay 
tTTK ia-Tiv "Ayap • ** to <yap 1.iva opo<i ea-Tiv iv rfi 'A- 
pafiia- (TvvcrTOixeT Se Ttj vvv 'lepova-aX^fx, SovXevei yap 

scended from Hagar. The stress lies 
on (V tJ 'Apafiia, not on Spos, which 
is unemphatic ; or perhaps we should 
render the words, ' Mount Sinai is in 
Arabia' (comp. Athan. de Deer. 7, 
I. p. 168, for TO "Saia Spos), as this gives 
a better sense. The Arabians are 
called 'sons of Hagar,' Baruch iii. 23: 
see Ewald Geich. des V. Itr, i. p. 418. 
St Paul's language here is further 
illustrated by the prominence given 
to Hagar in the national legends of 
the Arabs, where she is represented 
as the lawful wife of Abraham : see 
d'Herbelot Bihl. Or. s. v. Hagiar. 
The word is preserved also in the 
name of several Arab tribes, e.g. 
the Hagarenes or Hagarites of the 
Old Testament (Ps. Ixxxiii. 6, Dn?n, 
'Ayapiji/oj; and i Chron. v. 19, D^xnjrij 
'Ayapaiot, comp. ver. 10), and the 
'Aypaiot of heathen writers (Eratosth. 
in Strabo xvi p. 767), if these be not 
the same. A place on the Persian 
gulf is still so called. It is to the 
Sinaitic peninsula apparently that Ha- 
gar flees (Gen. xvi 7, 14), and pos- 
sibly some portion of it may have 
borne her name in St Paul's time; 
see below, p. 197. 

The clause to yap 'Siva it.r.X. is par- 
enthetical, and the nominative to aw- 
VTOixei is jila biad'^Ki). 

For the various readings in this 
passage and for different interpreta- 
tions of the word 'Hagar,' see the de- 
tached notes p. 192 sq. 

frvvoTotx'^'i] 'answers to'; literally, 
'belongs to the same row or column 
with.' In military language (rvuToixia 
denotes &fle, as cmfvyia does a rank 
of soldiers ; comp. Polyb. x. 21. 7. The 
use of this word here is best illus- 
trated by the Pythagorean avaToixlai 
of opposing principles (Arist. Elh. N. 
L 6, Metaph. i. 5), which stood thus ; 











Similar also were the a-varotxlai of 
grammarians, who so arranged the let- 
ters of the alphabet according to the 
organs of speech (comp. Athen. xi. p. 
501 b), or the words derived from the 
same root according to the ending 
(Arist. Rhet. i. 7, Top. ii. 9). The 
allegory in the text then may be re- 
presented by <rvoTo»x''a« thus ; 

Eagai, the bond- 

Ishmael, the child 
after the flesh. 

The old covenant. 

The earthly Jern- 

Sarah, the free- 

Isaac, the child of 

The new covenant. 

The heavenly Je- 

The old covenant is thus oTjo-Toixot with 
the earthly Jerusalem, but dvria-Toixos 
to the heavenly. It is not improbable 
that St Paul is alluding to some mode 
of representation common with Jewish 
teachers to exhibit this and similar 
allegories. Strangely enough the fa- 
thers with but few exceptions translate 
avva-Totx^'i 'borders upon,' 'is con- 
tiguous to,' which is scarcely true 
even in the most forced sense of con- 

Tfl vui' 'lepouo-aXijfi] The metropolis 
of the Jews is taken to represent the 
whole race. 

dovkfvei yap k.t.X.J Hs in spiritual 
bondage vnth her children,' just as 
Hagar was in social bondage with her 
child IshmaeL For rav HKvav avrrjs 
see Matt, xxiii. 37. 

26. )) avft) 'le/3ouo-aX)j/*l St Paul here 
uses an expression familiar to rab- 
binical teachers, but detaches it from 

1 82 


[IV. 26, 27 

""^i Se avw 'UpovcraXrJIuL eXeu- 


6epa e(FTiVy »jt<s co-tiV fxrimp nuiov. '^'''yeypaTrTai yap, 


those sensuous and material concep- 
tions with which they invested it. See 
the treatise de Hieros, C'oekst. in 
Schottgen's ffor. Heir. i. p. 1205. 
With them it is an actual city, the 
exact counterpart of the earthly Jeru- 
salem in its topography and its furni- 
ture : with him it is a symbol or image, 
representing that spiritual city of 
which the Christian is even now a 
denizen (PhiL iii. 20). See Heb. xii. 
22 'lepovaakfjfi ijTOVpavios, RoT. iiL 
12 xaiin; 'Upova-oK^fi, xxi. 2 ayia 'lepoxj- 
(ToXiJjit : comp. Test. xii. Patr. Dan 5, 
Clem. Rec. L 51. The contrast be- 
tween the two scenes, as they ap- 
peared to the eye, would enhance, if 
it did not suggest, the imagery of St 
Paul here. On the one hand. Mount 
Sion, of old the joy of the whole earth, 
now more beautiful than ever in the 
fresh glories of the Herodian renais- 
sance, glittering in gold and marble 
(Joseph. B. J.y. 5. 6); on the other, 
Sinai with its rugged peaks and barren 
sides, bleak and desolate, the oppies- 
sive power of which the Apostle him- 
self had felt during his sojourn there 
(see p. 89) — ^these scenes fitly repre- 
sented the contrast between the glori- 
ous hopes of the new covenant and 
the blank despair of the old. Comp. 
Heb. xii. 18 — 22. 

The Apostle instinctively prefers 
the Hebrew form 'ItpovtrdKrui, here 
for the typical city, as elsewhere in 
this epistle (i. 17, 18, ii. i) he employs 
the Graecised form 'UporroKviM for the 
actual city. ''Upova-aKtm est appellatio 
Hebraica, originaria et sanctior: 'Ic- 
poeroXu/ia, deinceps obvia, Graeca, ma- 
gis politica,' says Bengel on Rev. xxi. 2, 
accounting for the usage of St John 
('in evangelio 'lepoiroKviia, in apoca- 
lypsi 'iepovo-dK^p,'), and referring to 
this passage in illustration. In his 
other epistles St Paul has always 

'Upova-aKi^n; Rom. xv. 19, 25, 26, 31, 
I Cor. xvi. 3. 

fti;n;p ^/lav] 'the mother qf us 
Christians.' St Paul's expression was 
borrowed and adapted by Polycarp 
§ 3 Tijw So6ci(rav iiiiv ititrro) ijris iari 
P-^TTip irdvrav fiimv. From a confusion 
of this loose quotation with the original 
text, the word iravrav was early inter- 
polated in St Paul; e.g. in Iren. (in- 
terp.) V. 35. 2. This at all events is not 
an improbable account of the origin of 
the received reading noan-tav fijiav ; or 
perhaps irvairav crept in from Roul iv. 
16 3s f(mv iTccrrip iravrmi ijfuSv. 

27. St Paul here illustrates the 
allegory by reference to a passage in 
Isaiah liv. i. This passage in its con- 
text is a song of triumph anticipating 
the deliverance of God's afflicted people 
Israel from a foreign yoke. Sion has 
been deserted by her Lord (xlix. 14), 
and is mourning in her widowhood: 
she will be restored to favour and 
become the mother of a large and 
prosperous people. The image of con- 
jugal union, as representing the rela- 
tion of Jehovah to His people, is 
drawn out at some length in the con- 
text, see esp. liv. 5, 6. In order more- 
over fully to understand St Paul's ap- 
plication here, it must be remembered 
that in another part of the same pro- 
phecy (li. 2) God's dealings with Abra- 
ham and Sarah are pointed to as 
a type of His dealings with their 
descendants. Accordingly Jewish 
writers connected li. 2 with liv. i; 
'Sterilitas Abrahae et Sarae figura 
fuit sterilitatis Sion,' Ir Gibborim 
fol. 49. 2, quoted in Sohottgen. Hero 
then Sarah =the chosen people = the 
Church of Christ. 

yiypaitToi ydp] from the Lxx where 
some few texts add koi rcpirov after 
/Soijo-oK with the Hebrew. It is quoted 
as St Paul quotes it in Pseudo-Clem. 

IV. 28, 29] 



H OYK WAi'nOYCA, (JtI noAAA T<5l TCKNA THC 6 p l-i M Y 

M&AAoN H THC e'xofcHc TON A N A p A. "'vjuels §6, a'SeA- 
0ot, Kara 'Io-«a/c e7ra77eAias TeKva icTe. ^^dW 

28. ij/ieTs Si — T^Kua itr/iiir. 

Epi»t. ii. § 2, and Justin, Apol. i. c. 53, 
p. 88 0, and similarly applied. On the 
coincidence of Justin's quotations with 
St Paul's see p. 60, and the notes iii. 
10, 13 ; comp. Semisch Just. Mart, 
I. p. 258 gq (Eng. Tr.). The Hebrew 
diflFers somewhat, as do the other 
Greek versions (see Jerome and Pro- 
copius in Is. 1. c). Tap links the quo- 
tation with litJTTjp ^liav. 

arelpa] The barren one is not 
Gentile Christendom as opposed to 
Jewish, but the new dispensation as 
opposed to the old, At the same 
time the image of barrenness derives 
its force from the introduction of the 
Gentile element into the Christian 
Chui*ch. Compare the metaphor of 
the dypickcuos, Bom. zi. 17. 

iroWa TO TCKva iiciKKov ij] for the 
usual Greek nXelova fj, the Hebrew 
idiom (ID D'n), which has no com- 
parative, being followed. 

Tfjs t)^ovaTis Tov &v8pa] in St Paul's 
application, Hagar, who for a time 
possessed the affection of Abraham 
and conceived by him. She thus re- 
presents the Jewish people at one time 
enjoying the special favour of Jehovah, 
28 — ^V. I. 'So, brethren, you as 
Christians are children of a promise, 
like Isaac. Nor does the allegory end 
here. Just as Ishmael the child born 
after the flesh insulted Isaac the child 
bom after the Spirit, so is it now. 
But the end shall be the same now, 
as then. In the language of the 
Scripture, the bondwoman and her 
offspring shall be cast out of the 
father's house. The child of the slave 
cannot share the inheritance with the 
child of the free. Remember there- 
fore, brethren, that you are not chil- 
dren of any slave, but of the free and 
wedded wife. 1 speak of that free- 

dom, whereunto we all are emanci- 
pated in Christ. Remember this, and 
act upon it. Firmly resist all pressure, 
and do not again bow your necks 
under the yoke of slavery.' 

28. vfie'is de] resuming the main 
subject, ver. 27 being in a manner 

KOTO 'lo-aax] See Rom. ix. 7 — 9. 
The Gentiles were sprung from one 
' as good as dead' : they had no claims 
of race or descent. Thus they were 
sons not Kara a-apKo, but, like Isaac, 
ef cwayyeXlas. 

The reading rjiieis...(a-ii(v, for vjueir 
...e<rre, is very highly supported, but 
perhaps was a transcriber's correction 
to conform to ver. 26, 31. The direct 
appeal of v/iels is more forcible, and 
the change of persons is characteristic 
of St Paul ; see the note ver. 7. 

29. ibiaiKfv Toi» K.r.\i] The He- 
brew text. Gen. xxi. 9, has simply 
'laughing' (pn>{D). This single word 
the LXX expands into iral^ovra iicra 
'la-aaK tov viov avTrjs. From this it 
may be conjectured that the verse 
originally ended [pnV2 n333] pnVD 
(comp. Gen. xxxix. 14, 17), the words 
in brackets having dropped out owing 
to the homoeoteleuton. At all events 
the word seems to mean 'mocking, 
jeering ' ; ' Lusio ilia illusio erat,' says 
Augustine pertinently (Serm. 3). The 
anger of Sarah, taken in connexion 
with the occasion, a festival in honour 
of the weaning of Isaac, seems to re- 
quire it. Such also would appear to 
be the force of the rendering in the 
older Targum, fno. On the other 
hand the Book of Jubilees paraphrases 
the passage, 'When Sarah saw that 
Ishmael was merry and danced and 
that Abraham also rejoiced greatly 
thereat, she was jealous etc' (Bwald's 

1 84 


[IV. 30 

uxnrep Tore 6 Kara crapKu fyevvridek eB'iooKev tov kutu 
Trvevfxa, owtws kui vvv, ^°dWa t'i Xeyei »} ypa<pri', 

MH KAHpONOMHCei '<]6c THC nAlAl'cKHC M6T<!l TOY 

Jahrb. ill. p. 1 3). But beyond the text 
itself two circumstances must be taken 
into account as affecting St Paul's 
application of it. (i) This incident 
which is so lightly sketched in the 
original narrative had been drawn out 
in detail in later traditions, and thus 
a prominence was given to it, which 
would add force to the Apostle's allu- 
sion, without his endorsing these tra- 
ditions himself. For the rabbinical 
accounts of Ishmael's insolence to his 
brother see Beer Leben Abraham's, 
pp. 49, 170. (2) The relations be- 
tween the two brothers were repro- 
duced in their descendants. The ag- 
gressions of the Arab tribes (of the 
Ha^arenes especially, see Ps. Ixxxiii. 
6, I Chron. v. 10, 19) on the Israelites 
were the antitype to Ishmael's mock- 
ery of Isaac. Thus in Ishmael the 
Apostle may have indirectly contem- 
plated Ishmael's progeny; and he 
would therefore be appealing to the 
national history of the Jews in saying 
' he that was bom after the flesh per- 
secuted him that was born after the 
Spirit.' For the conflicts with the 
Arabs in the time of Herod see esp. 
Joseph. Ant. xv. 5. 1. 

ovTas Kill viv\ ' So now the Church 
of God is persecuted by the children 
after the flesh.' St Pavd's persecutors 
were at first Jews, afterwards Juda- 
izers ; but both alike were 'born after 
the flesh,' for both alike claimed to in- 
herit the covenant by the performance 
of certain material carnal ordinances. 

30. 1; ypa(j)i^] Gen. xxi. 10, taken 
from the lxx which again is a close 
translation of the Hebrew. At the 
end of the quotation however St Paul 
has substituted tjjs iraiSitricris fiera rov 
vlov Ttjs iKtvOipas for the LXX t^s irm- 
diiTKrjs TavTrjs /ura tov viov /lov 'laadx, 

in order to adapt it to his own con- 
text and to save explanation. For in- 
stanc«s of adapted quotations, which 
are frequent, see iii. 10 and Acts vii. 43. 

The words are spoken by Sarah to 
Abraham, but her demand is confirmed 
by the express command of God, Gen. 
xxi. 12, ' Hearken unto her voice,' to 
which the later Targum adds, 'for she 
is a prophetess.' 

ov fi^ KXijpovo/i-qafil 'shall in no 
wise inherit'; comp. Joh. viiL 35 o 
dovXof ov fiivfi iv Tfi oiKia fit tov alava 
K.T.\. The Law and the Gospel can- 
not co-exist ; the Law must disappear 
before the Gospel. It is scarcely pos- 
sible to estimate the strength of con- 
viction and depth of prophetic insight 
which this declaration implies. The 
Apostle thus confidently sounds the 
death-knell of Judaism at a time when 
one-half of Christendom clung to the 
Mosaic law with a jealous affection 
little short of frenzy, and while the 
Judaic party seemed to be growing in 
influence and was strong enough, even 
in the Gentile churches of his own 
founding, to undermine his influence 
and endanger bis life. The truth 
which to us appears a truism must 
then have been regarded as a paradox. 

not KKrjpovofiritrg, as being better sup- 
ported here and in the lxx; comp. Wi- 
ner § lvi.p.635, and A. Buttmannp. 183. 

31. 8to] 'whertfore^ as the infer- 
ence from this allegorical lesson. The 
particle is chosen rather with a view 
to the obligation involved in the state- 
ment, than to the statement itself; 
^wherefore let us remember that we 
are not sons of a bondwoman, let us 
not act ais bondslaves.' There are 
many variations of reading, but dto is 
probably correct. Some copies have 

IV. 31, V. I] 



yiof THc eAeyeepAc. ^'Sio, dh€\(j)oi, ovk ea-fxev 
iraiZia-Kti^ tckuu, dWa t^s eXevdepa^ [V] *t»7 i\ev6e- 
pia ») r}fias Xpi<rTos i^Xev6epw(rev. <rTtjKeTe ovv kui fxtj 

iv. 31, V. 1. TTJi i\ev6ipas. tJ iXevSeplf iifiSis k.t.\. 

17/iuTf 8f, others ij/ieis ovv, others &pa or 
Spa oSv, and one at least entirely omits 
the connecting particle. The di£Sculty 
in Sib was evidently felt, but suflScient 
allowance was not made for St Paul's 
freedom in the employment of con- 
necting particles. 

ov TTaib'iiTKqs dXXa (C.T.X.] Obserye 
the omission of the article before 
Taib'urKqs ; 'not of any bondwoman' 
whether Judaism or some form of hea- 
thenism, for there are many (see the 
note iv. 11), 'but of the freewoman, 
the lawful spouse, the Church of Christ, 
which is one.' See on L 10 dvBpd- 
irovs ireiBa fj top Qcov; 

V. I. T^ iKevdepia § K.T.X.] If this 
reading be adopted (see the detached 
note, p. 200), the words are best taken 
with the preceding sentence. They 
may then be connected either (i) with 
TfKva i<Tp.€V T^ J iKevBepas, ' we are sons 
of the free by virtue of the freedom 
which Christ has given us ' ; or (2) with 
T^r iKevBfpas alone, ' of her who is free 
with that freedom which Christ etc.' 
The latter is perhaps the simpler con- 
struction. In either case r^ iKevSfpi^ 
K.r.\. serves the purpose of an explan- 
atory note. 

If on the other hand we read rg 

ekevdfpif iJ/iSr XpurTos ij\ev9epaiTtv, the 
force of this detached sentence will 
be, 'Did Christ liberate us that we 
might be slaves? no, but that we 
might be free.' Compare v. 13 eV 
iXfvdepia iKKri6r)T€, and especially John 
viii. 36 iav ovv 6 vloi v/ias iKevdcpatrn, 
Svras e\ev6epoi ea-eirSe. The abrupt- 
ness of the sentence, introduced with- 
out a connecting particle, has a fair 
parallel in Ephes. ii. j x"P"'i f<rre a-e- 
mxr/ucVoc but the dative, 'ioith' or 
' Ml ' or 'for freedom,' is awkward, in 
whatever way it is taken ; see A. Butt- 
mann p. 155. 

onJKeTe] 'stand firm, stand v/p- 
right, do not bow your necks to the 
yoke of slavery ' ; comp. 2 Thess. ii. 15 
apa o!v, ddfXc^oi, anjKfTc k.t.\. The 
form on/Ko) appears not to occur ear- 
lier than the New Testament, where 
with two exceptions (Mark iii. 31, xi. 
25) it is found only in St Paul. 

7rdX«i/] 'again.' Having escaped 
from the slavery of Heathenism, they 
would fain bow to the slavery of Ju- 
daism, Compare the similar expres- 
sions iv. 9 n-ias imiTTpi^ert nA\iv, ira- 
Xtv ava>6ev SovXtveiv dfkfTf. For the 
force of these expressions see the in- 
troduction, p. 30, and the note on iv. 1 1. 



enoes to 
his in- 


i. A bodily 

St Paul's infirmity in the flesh. 

In the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (xii. 7) St Paul, after speaking 
of the abundant revelations Touchsafed to him, adds that 'a thorn' or 
rather 'a stake' was 'given him in his flesh, a messenger of Satan sent to 
buflet'him,' and thus to check the growth of spiritual pride. In the Epistle 
to the Galatians again (iv. 13, 14) he reminds his converts how he had 
' preached to them through infirmity of the flesh,' commending them at the 
same time because they ' did not despise nor loathe their temptation in his 
flesh, but received him as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.' 

In the latter passage there is a variation of reading, which has gome 
bearing on the interpretation. For 'my temptation,' which stands in the 
received text, the correct reading seems certainly to be ' your temptation,' 
as I have quoted it\ 

These passages so closely resemble each other that it is not unnatural to 
suppose the allusion to be the same in both. If so, the subject seems to 
have been especially present to St Paul's thoughts at the season when these 
two epistles were written ; for they were written about the same time. 

What then was this 'stake in the flesh,' this 'infirmity of the flesh,' 
which made so deep an impression on his mind ? 

Diverse answers have been given to this question^, shaped in many 
instances by the circumstances of the interpreters themselves, who saw in 
the Apostle's temptation a more or less perfect reflexion of the trials which 
beset their own lives. How far such subjective feelings have influenced 
the progress of interpretation, will appear from the following list of conjec- 
tures, which I have thrown into a rough chronological order. 

I. It was some bodily ailment. This, which is the natural account of 
the incident, is also the first in point of time. A very early tradition 
defined the complaint ; ' per dolorem, ut aiunt, auriculae vel capitis,' says 
TertuUian de Pudic. § 13. And this statement is copied or confirmed by 
Jerome (Gal. L c.), ' Tradunt eum gravissimum capitis dolorem saepe per>- 
pessum.' The headache is mentioned also by Pelagius and Primasius (both 

• Of the three readings, tov ireipaa- 
fi6v fiov t6v iVf ritv Teipafffiiiv Tbv iv 
(omitting fwv), and rbv irapartiiv i/iuv 
ill (omitting tov), I have no hesitation 
in preferring the last; for (i) it is the 
most difficult of the three; (2) it ac- 
counts for the remaining two (see the 
note on the passage) ; and (3) it has far 
higher support than the others in the 
ancient copies. The Thebaic Version 
reads riv ireipairiiiv /mv, as I have as- 
certained (see Scrivener's Introduc- 
tion, p. 351, ed. 2). Eusebius of 
Emesa here (Cramer's Cateim, p. 65) 

and Origen on Ephes. iii. 14 (Cramer's 
Catena, p. 1 58) have a mixed reading tw 
jreipaa/iiv i/MP tov iy k.t.\, Ensebius 
is overlooked by Tischendorf. 

" A long list of references to writers 
who have discussed this question is 
given in Wolf Cur. Philol. on 1 Cor. 
3di. 7. I have to acknowledge my ob- 
ligations chiefly to Calov. Bibl. Illustr. 
on t Cor. 1. c, and Stanley's Corinth- 
tan£,p. 563 8q(2hded.). I have had no 
opportunity of using Bertholdt Opute. 
134 sq, to which I find frequent 
references in recent commentaries. 


on 2 Cor. 1. c). Others seem to have followed a different tradition as to 
the complaint in question^; but in some form or other illness was the 
solution which suggested itself to the earliest writers. This appears to 
be the idea of Irenaeus, the first writer who alludes to the subject, and 
of Yictorinus, the first extant commentator on the Epistle to the Gala- 

2. ' Nay, not so,' argued Chrysostom (2 Cor., GaL), as others probably ii. Peree- 
had argued before him ; ' it cannot have been a headache, it cannot have 'l^^^°\ , 
been any physical malady. God would not have delivered over the body of tiiers). 
His chosen servant to the power of the devil to be tortured in this way. 
The Apostle is surely speaking of opposition encountered, of suffering 
endured from his enemies.' And so for a time, and with a certain class of 
expositors, the thorn in the flesh assumed the form of persecution, whether 
from the direct opponents of the Gospel or from the Judaizers within the 
pale of the Church. This interpretation again was perhaps not uninflu- 
enced by the circumstances of the times. At all events it would find a 
ready welcome, when the memory of the Diocletian persecution was fresh 
and when the Church was torn asunder by internal feuds. It appears at 
least as early as the middle of the fourth century in Eusebius of Emesa 
(Cramer's Catena, Gal. 1. c.) among the Greek, and the Ambrosian Hilary 
(2 Cor., Gal.) among the Latin fathers. It is adopted also by Augustine 
(Gal.), by Theodore of Mopsuestia (Gal.), by Theodoret (2 Cor., Gal.), by 
Photius (? ap. (Eeum., 2 Cor., GaL), and by Theophylact (2 Cor., Gal.)'. 
Thus it is especially the interpretation of the Greek commentators, though 
not confined to them. 

But in spite of such strong advocacy, this account of St Paul's thorn in 
the flesh at all events cannot be correct. The passages, which allude to it, 
point clearly to something inseparable from the Apostle, to some %£9iction 
which he himself looked upon and which was looked upon by others as part 
of himself. Any calamity overtaking him from without fails to explain 
the intense personal feeling with which his language is charged. 

The state of opinion on this subject at the close of the fourth century Jerome. 

1 An ancient writer (Cotel. Mon. by understanding of St Paul the mala- 
Eccles. I. p. 252) Bays Tpixfl" itrotriiri- dies which Nicetas (see below, note 3) 
fieda rijv i4)alpe<ny (Tvm^i\wii,ev avTois attributestoGregoryNazianzen. Aqui- 
Koi Tois iv 7-5 KcipaKy trKoXoiras' Ko/ii- nasmentionstheopinion, 'quodfuitve- 
(rovTcs 74/9 ovToi imTXdov ijiMs dSvyiStri' hementer afflietusdoloreiliaoo' (colic), 
t6 liiv y^p rplx'^f^"^ riiiwv tjv 6 Kard rbv but I have not noticed it in any earlier 
jSioK Koa/ios, nnai, So|af, xfiV/^aTuv kt-/)- writer. On the whole the tradition of 
o-eis, K.T.X., on which the editor (p. 756) the headache (m<l>a\a\yl<>) is fairly con- 
absurdly enough remarks, 'ex toto stant. 

contextn suspicari datur a nostro per * Iren. v. 3. i, but his language is 

(T/tdXoiraammofcuia quae caput pungunt obscure. Viotorinus says, 'infirmuo 

inteUeeta esse.' The context, if I mis- came,' but this again is not free from 

take not, falls to bear out this remark, ambiguity. 

butCotelier's conjectural interpretation ' It was so taken apparently also 

is treated as a tact by recent writers, by Greg. Naz. Orat. xx. (de laud. Basil.) 

and so this is added to the list of tra- ad fin. (see the note of Nicetas), and 

ditional accounts of St Paul's com- by Basil, Be^. Fms. Tract, ad fin. (11. p. 

plaint. The list is still further swelled 400, Gamier). 


may be inferred from the alternative explanations which Jerome offers in 
his commentary on the Galatians, derived in part from tradition, but partly 
without doubt conjectural. These are four in number : (i) St Paul's carnal 
preaching of the Gospel, as addressed to babes ; (2) His mean personal 
appearance ; (3) Some bodily malady, traditionally reported as iieml ■ ' u ; 
(4) Persecutions endured by him^. 
iii. Carnal 3. ' No,' thought the monks and ascetics of a somewhat later date, 
thonghts 'not persecution. It was surely something which we can realise, something 
{Aseetiosj. ^jjjg£ ^g jjg^yg experienced in ourselves. Must he not have felt those 
same carnal longings, by which we have been dogged in our solitude, and 
which rise up hydra-like with seven-fold force as we smite them down? 
From these Paul thrice entreated the Lord to be dehvered, as we have 
entreated Him ; and was only answered, as we have been answered, by the 
indirect assurance. My grace it sufficient for thee! This interpretation 
does not appear in a very tangible form before the sixth century, but earlier 
writers had used language which prepared the way for it^. Throughout 
the middle ages it seems to have been very generally received; and 
Roman Catholic writers have for the most part adopted it So it is 
taken by Aquinas, Bellarmine (de Monaoh. c. 30), Corn, a Lapide', and 
Estius. Luther is probably correct when he attributes the prevalence of 
this interpretation to the influence of the Latin version, which renders 
a-KoKoi^ Tj <rap<\ by ' stimulus carnis.' 

This account again of St Paul's thorn in the flesh may confidently be 
set aside. In such a temptation he could not have 'gloried'; nor would 
this struggle, hidden as it must have been in his own heart, have exposed 
him to the contempt of others. But indeed from painful trials of this kind 
we have his own assurance that he was free : ' I would,' he says, ' that all 
men were even as myself' (i Cor. vii. 7). 'Ah no,' said Luther, 'he was 
too hard pressed by the devil to think of such things.' 
iv. Spiii- 4. And in turn Luther propounded his own view of the thorn in the 

^ Ephraem gyrus (on Gal. iv. 18), a interpretation, 'naturaJem infirmita- 

little earlier than Jerome, says 'Either tem';FrimaBius more definitely, though 

disease of his limbs or temptation from still only as an alternative explanation, 

his enemies.' 'alii dicunt titillatione carnis stimula- 

' Jerome Epist, xxii (ad Eustoch.) turn.' Gregory the Great, Mor. viii. 
§ 5, says: 'Si apostolus vas electionis 0. tg, writes, 'Sio Paulas ad tertimn 
et separatus in evangelium Ohristi ob caelum raptns ducitur, paradisi pene- 
carnis acoleos et incentiva vitiorum trans secreta considerat, et tamen ad 
reprimit corpus snum, eto.,' quoting semetipsum rediens contra carnis bel- 
Bom. vii. 24, but he makes no refer- lum laborat, legem aliam in membris 
ence to either of the passages in St Paul sustinet.' Comp. also x. 10. And thus, 
which relate to his 'thorn in the flesh,' as time went on, this opinion gained 
and in § 31 of the same letter he says, strength, till at length it assumed the 
' Si aliqnis te afflixerit dolor, legito, coarsest and most revolting form, 
datus eat mihi stimulut carnit meae,' evi- ' Com. a Lapide on 2 Cor. xii. 7 al- 
dentlyexplainingitof some&o(it2j/j)ain. most exalts this interpretation into an 
The passage in Augustine, Fs. Iviii article of faith : ' Videtur communis 
Serm. ii. (iv. pp. 572, 3), is vague, and fidelium sensns, qui hino libidinis ten- 
need not necessarily refer to this kind tationem stimulum carnis vocant : vox 
of temptation. Pelagius gives, as one autem popuU est vox dei.' 


flesh. He complained that the older churchmen were unable from their tnal trial* 
position to appreciate St Paul's meaning, and thus he consciously threw (Beform- 
into the interpretation of the passage his own personal experiences. It ^^^'' 
was certainly not carnal longing, he thought ; it was not any bodily malady. 
It might mean external persecution, as others had maintained, but he 
inclined more and more to the view that spiritual trials were intended, 
faint-heartedness in his ministerial duties, temptations to despair or to 
doubt, blasphemous suggestions of the deviP. This view naturally com- 
mends itself to the leaders of a new form of religious belief, owing to the 
difficulties of their position ; and spiritual temptation was the account of 
St Paul's trial in which the reformers generally acquiesced. From them 
it found its way into Protestant writers of a later date, subject however 
to some modifications which adapted it to the more equable temper and 
the more settled opinions of their own day. 

Lastly, having thus travelled round the entire circle of possible inter- Eeeent 
pretation, criticism has returned to the point from which it started, ""ties. 
Bodily ailment of some kind has been felt by most recent writers to be 
the only solution which meets all the conditions of the question. 

These conditions are as follows : (i) The Apostle speaks of physical pain Conditions 
of a very acute kind ; for nothing less can be implied by his metaphor of °^ ^^^ V^o- 
a stake driven through his flesh". (2) The malady, whatever its nature, '"^°^- 
was very humiliating to himself, for he speaks of it as a set-off against his 
spiritual privileges and a check to his spiritual pride. (3) He seems to 
regard it, as he could not but regard such suffering, as a great trial to his 
constancy and resolution, a grievous hindrance to the Gospel in itself, a 
powerful testimony to the Gospel when overcome as he was enabled to over- 
come it. (4) His suffering was such that he could not conceal it from others. 
It seems to have attacked him in the course of his public ministrations, 
so that he feared it might expose him to the contempt and even loathing of 
his hearers. (5) In the meanness of his personal presence, of which he was 

* In Ms shorter and earlier com- o-koXo^: see the notes of Meyer and 
mentaryontheGaIatian3(i5i9)Luther Stanley on « Cor. xii. 7. Bobertson, 
explains it of 'persecution'; in bis later Zieciwes on tfeeCormt/it am lix,lx, speaks 
and foller work (i 535) he combines spi- of the thorn as peculiarly suggestive of 
ritual temptations with persecution; some 'secret sorrow'; for 'a thorn is a 
and lastly in the Table-talk he drops small invisible cause of suffering.' The 
persecntionandspeaksof spiritualtrials Greek word however suggests no such 
only, xxiv. § 7 (vol. xxii. p. 1092 of idea ; nor is it consistent with the fear 
the Halle edition). This last passage ofcontemptorloathing expressed in the 
forms a striking contrast to the Ian- Galatian Epistle. This slight blemish, 
guage of a Lapide quoted in the last occurring where it does, may well be 
note. ' Those were high spiritual temp- overlooked in the latest utterance of 
tations,' says Luther, 'which no papist one who spoke from deep personal ex- 
has understood,' with more in the same perience, having himself maintained a 
strain. Thus each of these writers hard struggle against 'fightings without' 
makes his own interpretation in a man- and 'fears within,' and 'borne about 
ner a test of orthodoxy. Other refer- in the bodythe dying of the Lord Jesus.' 
enoes in Luther's works to the ' thorn The lesson of St Paul's sufferings is 
in the flesh" are, vol. vra. p. 959, xi. nowhere more powerfully brought out 
p. 14^7, XII. p. 561. than in this exposition of the thorn in 

" This seems to be the meaning of the flesh. 



of King 

so acutely sensible (2 Cor. z. 10), we may perhaps trace the permanent 
effects of bis painful malady. (6) His disease was recurring. We first read 
of it in connexion with his visions and revelations fourteen years before the 
Second Epistle to the Corinthians was written. If the two were nearly 
coincident, as his language seems to imply, he must have had an attack 
about the year 44, and this, as it would appear, for the first time. Again 
we hear of it about the year 51 or 52, when he first preached in Galatia. 
On this occasion at least it would seem to have hung about him for some 
time. For from Greece he writes to the Thessalonians, that he had 
desired to visit them more than once, but ' Satan had hindered him' 
(i Thess. ii. 18), an expression which may perhaps be connected with the 
* messenger of Satan, the thorn in the flesh ' in one of the passages under 
consideration ; and writing afterwards to the Corinthians of this same 
period of his life, he reminds them that he came among them ' in infirmity 
and in fear and in much trembling' (i Cor. ii. 3). Lastly, from the twin 
references to his malady, in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians and in 
the Epistle to the Galatians, it may be inferred that he had a fresh attack 
about the years 57, 58, when these letters were written, and to this he may 
allude in part when he speaks in the former of these epistles of having 
' despaired even of life,' of having ' had the sentence of death in himseir 
(2 Cor. i. 8, 9). 

The life of the greatest and best of English kings presents so close a 
parallel to the Apostle's thorn in the flesh, that I cannot forbear quoting 
the pass^e at length, though the illustration is not my own'. 

" It was in the midst of these rejoicings (on the occasion of his marriage) 
that Alfred was suddenly attacked by an illness, the sight of which struck 
dumb the loud joy of the guests, and for which neither they nor all the 
physicians of the day could account... Others thought it was the unexpected 
return of a painful malady to which he had been subject at an early age. 

" We are informed what the malady really was in an account which is 
not quite clear... On passing from childhood to youth... he begged for some 
protection against his passions, for some corporal suffering which might arm 
him against temptation, so that his spirit might be enabled to raise him 
above the weakness of the flesh. On this, we are told, heaven sent him his 
illness, which Asser describes as a kind of eruption. For many years it 
caused him the most horrible torture, which was so intense that he himself 
began to despair qf his life. One day... the royal youth... prostrated him- 
self in silent devotion and prayed to God for pity. For fear of being ren- 
dered by his bodily infirmities, or perhaps by leprosy or blindness, incapable 
of exercising the royal power or despicable in the sight of the world, had 
long obtained possession of his soul and induced him to pray for his deli- 
mrance from such a plague. Every other lighter trial he was willing to 
undergo, provided it only spared him for what he was accustomed to look 
on as his destined ofSce. Ifot long after... in consequence of his fervent 
prayers, we are informed that all signs of his malady disappeared. 

"And now in the very moment that he had taken to himself a wife, 

' The passage is quoted in Jowett, i. 
p. 368 (md ed.). The value of the il- 

Inatration is diminished by the suspi- 
oion attaching to the so-oajled Asser. 



in the very moment that the marriage-gniests were drinking and carousing 
noisily in the festive halls, the evil against which (? wanim) he had prayed 
overtook him. He was gwidemly seized with fear and trembling; and to 
the very hour that Asser wrote, to a good old age, he icas never ture of 
not being attacked by it. There were instants when this visitation seemed 
to render him incapable of any exertion, either intellectual or bodily : but 
the repose of a day, a night, or even an hour, would always raise his 
courage again. Under the weight of this bodily infirmity, which was pro- 
bably of an epileptic nature, he learned, by the force of his unyielding will, 
to overcome the heaviest cares that ever weighed upon any ruler engaged 
in a contest with a most terrible foe, and under the weight of corporeal 
weakness and the cares of the outer world, to prosecute unceasingly his 
great purpose." Pauli's lAfe (if Alfred, pp. 122 — 125 (Bng. Transl.). 

In the mystery which hangs over the whole subject, in its physical 
symptoms, and in its influence on his own character and feelings, Alfred's 
malady is a most striking counterpart to the infirmity of St Paul ; and the 
coincidence is the less open to suspicion, since neither Asser, who is the 
original authority for the fact, nor Pauli, whose account I have quoted, 
seems to have been struck by the parallel. 

Unless then we accept the earliest tradition of this infirmity, and Conclo- 
asBume that the Apostle su£fered from acute pain in the head (an account ^^°^- 
which considering his nervous sensibility is perhaps suflScient to explain the 
feeling of humiliation and the fear of contempt which his malady inspired), 
we should be tempted by the closeness of the parallel to coi^ecture that it 
was of the nature of epilepsy. Recent criticism has offered other conjec- 
tures in abundance. Of these, the view that it was a complaint in the eyes 
deserves especially to be mentioned, as having been supported by the most 
ingenious advocacy and found the largest number of adherents : but it does 
not, I think, su£ScientIy recognise the conditions of the problem, as stated 
above ; while the direct arguments, on which it is founded, seem to melt 
away under the light of careful examination'. 

' It is pnt forward in a lively and eyes.' (2) The expression riiXlKa ypd/t- 

interesting paper in Dr J. Brown's /ioto (vL ii) is thought to be illus- 

Horae Subaecivae. But the foundation trated by this view of St Paul's com- 

on which this opinion is built seems to plaint, as though his defective eyesight 

me scarcely strong enough to bear it ; explained the allueion to the size of the 

for ( i) The stress of the argument rests letters, or the length of the epistle, which- 

on what I cannot but think a mistaken ever way we take it. It seems to me 

interpretation of Gal. iv. 15, 'Ifithad that a much better account can be given 

been possible, ye would have plucked of that expression: see the note there, 

out your eyes and have given them to (3) It is supposed that this defective 

me.' Here the English version has eyesight was a permanent effect of the 

'your ovm eyes,' which lends some temporary blindness which seized the 

countenance to the idea that St Paul Apostle on the way to Damascus ; and 

intended to say they would have re- that thus his thorn in the flesh was 

placed his eyes with their own, it it eminently fitted to be a check on spiri- 

could have been done: but the Greek tual pride produced by his 'visions and 

is Tous 6^Sa\/iois i/uSi', where i/iiSv is revelations.' But the narrative of the 

as unemphatio as possible, so that the Acts implies, if it does not state, that 

meaning is not 'your eyes,' but 'your this blindness was completely healed; 



The various readings in iv. 25. 



The following are the variations of text, which the opening clause of 

this verse presents. 

(i) TO yap Siva opos iar'iv. So it is read in NCFG, 17; in the Old 

Latin (f.g.), Vidgate, .Ethiopia, and Armenian Versions ; in Origen^, 

Epiphanius*, Cyril', and Damascene; in Victorinns, the Ambrosian 

Hilary (*Sina azttem mons,'in his text), Augnstine, Jerome, Felagiiis, 

Primasius, and probably all the Latin fathers. This is also the 

reading of the Gothic Version, except that it omits yap. The 

Thebaic Version reads similarly, 'quae vero mens Sina est.' The 

MS K after e'oriv adds av, in which respect it stands alone (except 

apparently the Memphitic Version); and Epiphanius transposes 2ii/5 

and opos. 

(ii) TO 'Ayap Stva opoi eo-TiK. So the Memphitic Version as read by 

Boetticher ; bat Wilkins inserts a h4. 
(ill) TO 8c "Ayap Siva opos etrriv. Such is the reading of ABDE, 37, 73, 

80, lectionary 40. 
(iv) TO yap' Ayap Siva opos iariv. So KLP with the vast majority 
of cursive manuscripts, with both Syriac Versions, and with the 
Greek commentators generally, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, 
Theodoret, Theopliylact, and the (Ecumenian Catena. This also is 
apparently the reading of Ephraem Syrus. 
(vj TO yap' Ayap opos iariv found only in the Latin of D and B*. 
It will thus be seen that the strongest, because the most varied, testi- 
mony is in favour of the first of these readings. And there is also this 
weighty argument on the same side, that supposing it to have been the 

and the passage in i Corinthians refers 
to incidents which occurred only four- 
teen years before the letter was written, 
and therefore mnch later than the Apo- 
stle's conversion. (4) To the arguments 
already considered, some have added 
the expression arailieai, 'to look stead- 
fastly,' twice used of St Paul (Acta 
xiii. 9, xxiii. i), as indicating a de- 
fective vision; but, not to mention that 
the word occurs frequently in the Acts 
of others besides St Paul, this ' stead- 
fast gaze ' would seem, if anything, to 
imply a powerful eye. Thus it maybe 
connected with the tradition or fiction, 
dating at least from the second century, 
that St Paul was aivotppvt (Acta Paid. 
et Ihecl. § 3). The overhanging brows 
and piercing glance made up at least a 
consistent and characteristic portrait of 
the Apostle, if not a true likeness. On 

the other hand it ia possible that he suf- 
fered from weak eyes, and this may ac- 
count for the incident of Acts xziiL 5 ; 
but it is not implied in Gal. iv. 15, and 
does not explain the strong expressions 
used of his ■ stake in the flesh,' though 
perhaps it might be one of the conse- 
quences of that infirmity. St Paul's 
language implies some more striking 

' In Cant. ii. (in. p. £«. ed. Delarue), 
extant only in a Latin translation, 

' Haeres. p. 695. 

• Glaphyr. i. p. 75 (ed. Auberti). 
Cyril is said in other passages to read 
t6 Si 'Ayap and tJ yip 'Ayap, but I am 
unable to verify the statement. 

* The Ambrosian Hilary (in his 
commentary) is also quoted in favour 
of this reading, but his words do not 
bear out the inference. 


original reading we have on the whole a more probable explanation of the 
Tariations in the text, than on any other hypothesis. By the negligence or 
confusion of a scribe ro 'Ayap might easily be substituted for to yap, the 
word "Ayap occurring in the immediate context *. As a next step a con- 
necting particle must be supplied ; and 8e or yap was inserted according to 
the caprice or judgment of the transcriber, thus producing the second and 
third readings. Lastly, the word 2iva, now rendered superfluous, was 
expelled to relieve the passage, and hence arose the fourth variation, 
which indeed is too feebly supported to deserve consideration. The reading 
which I am here advocating is adopted by the two great masters of textual 
criticism, Bentley^ and Lachmann. Westcott and Hort however relegate 
it to their margin. 

Such seems to be the most probable account of the passage. Other- 
wise the earlier conjecture of Bentley, that we have here a gloss trans- 
ferred from margin to text, has much to recommend it Bentley himself 
indeed read it ro Bi'Ayap a-varoixe'i rg vvv 'lepovo-aXij/i, but it seems sim- 
pler, if any such solution be adopted, to erase the whole clause to yap 

tv Tg 'Apa^itf. This hypothesis derives some colour from the fact that 
there is a slight variation of reading in the connecting particles of the 
following clauses, as if the connexion had been disturbed by the insertion 
of the gloss. 

The meaning of Hagar in iv. 25, 

If the word Hagar be omitted, the passage is capable of a very easy Prohable 
and natural interpretation ; ' Sinai,' St Paul argues, 'is situated in Arabia, interpre 
the country of Hagar's descendants, the land of bondslaves.' And such ^^°^ '^\ 
too seems to be the most probable account of his meaning, even if with the 
received text we retain Hagar; 'This Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia,' 
i.e. it represents Mount Sinai, because Mount Sinai is in Arabia, the land 
of Hagar and her descendaniis. It is not i; 'Ayap, the woman Hagar, but 
TO "Ayap, the thing Hagar, the Hagar of the allegory, the Hagar which is 
under discussion'. 

1 The commentary of Theodore tide, to have been transferred from the 

Mops, on this passage shows how easily margin to the text. 

'Ayop might be foisted in. The Greek " In his text of the epistle as given 

text of this writer (in Cramer's Catena) in Bentleii Grit. Sacr. p. 108. This text 

has o\X" Ayap 17 re ^pij/tos iroo-a k.t.\., is much later than his 'Epistola ad 

which makes no sense. The Latin Millium' (Ib.p. 45), in which he starts 

translation runs ' sed et solitudo omnis,' the hypothesis of a gloss. This hypo- 

whioh doubtless represents the original thesis was adopted by Mill and others, 

reading, dXX4 nal ■q re l/nilios iraaa. ' TJdenotes that 'Hagar 'is regarded 

Windisohmann's conjecture to account not as a person, but as an object of 

for the iasertion of 'Ay op in the text of thought or of speech. For this use of 

St Paul is more ingenious than pro- the neuter article see Winer § xviii. 

bable. He supposes a critical note, p. 135, A. Buttmann p. 84. It need 

d. yip (i.e. oXXof y&p), marking a not necessarily mean 'the word Hagar'; 

various reading in the connecting par- compare for instance Ephes. iv. 9 to Si 

GAL. 13 


Such substantially was the interpretation put upon the passage by some 
of the ablest among the Greek commentators. ' The law was given in the 
very place,' says Theodore of Mopsuestia (the sense is somewhat distorted 
through the medium of a bad Latin translation), ' which belongs to that 
race whence Hagar also was.' 'About that mountain,' says Theodoret, 'are 
the tents of the descendants of Hagar (to Tijs "Ayap ca-K^varai yivos).' 
' The Saracens,' remarks a third writer, perhaps Severianus', 'the descend- 
ants of Ishmael, dwell in the desert which reaches as far as Mount SinaL' 
Similarly Ephraem Syrus : ' For this Hagar is Mount Sinai which is in the 
land of the Arabs, and it is a type of (a likeness to) Jerusalem, for it is in 
subjection and bondage with its sous under the Romans.' 

This however is not the interpretation generally adopted by those who 
retain the received reading. They suppose the Apostle to be caUing atten- 
tion not to the locality of Sinai but to the meaning of the word Hagar: 
Hagar ' The word Hagar in the language of the Arabians denotes Mount Sinai.' 
taken for This interpretation, which prevails widely, is put in its most attractive form 
a name of j^y Dean Stanley. ' There is another traveller through Arabia,' he writes, 
'at this time, on whose visit to Mount Sinai we should look with still 
greater interest. I went into Arabia, says St Paul, in describing his con- 
version to the Galatians. It is useless to speculate ; yet when in a later 
chapter of the same epistle tlie words fall upon our ears, ITiit Hagar is 
Mount Sinai in Arabia, it is diflScult to resist the thought, that he too 
may have stood upon the rocks of Sinai, and heard from Arab lips the often 
repeated " Hagar," " rock," suggesting the double meaning to which that text 
alludes^.' ' Hagar' ' in Arabic means 'a rock,' or rather ' a stone ' ; and it 
is maintained that this Arabic word ' Hagar ' was a common local name for 
Sinai, or at all events was appropriated to it in some special way. 
Objections Independently of any questions that may rise on the interpretation, 
to this. J jjg^yg endeavoured to show that ' Hagar' ought to be expelled from the 
text on the ground of external authority alone. Yet, if it he a fact that 
Hagar is really another name for Sinai, this fact will go some little way 
towards reinstating *Ayap ; and on this account, a& well as in deference to 
the advocacy it has found, it will be worth while to consider the difficulties 
which beset this interpretation. 

avi^TI H ianv; where t4 is the state- rather ' C7iajar'). The Arabic alphabet 

merit, for the pieceding word was not •. i , . . , . 

d.i^„,huii^a.pi.,. TheAmbrosianHi. ^*^ *^° 1^**«"' C ^^ C> ^ '°"" 

lary (after the middle of the fouith *"" * harsher sound, oorresponding to 

century) explains it 'causam Agar': a ^-^^ one Hebrew guttural n (Cfteth). 

very early example of the sense which ^'^^ ^^^^^ l«**er of 'Hagar,' 'a stone,' 

this word bears in the Eomauoe Ian- ^^ *^^ former of these, a soft guttural 

guages, 'cosa," chose.' ^^' ^^^ °o* » simple aspirate. The 

» In Cramer's Catena. It is ano- second letter of the word is -p , corre- 

nymous (d£X\os ™W 4>V'lv), but in the ^^^j ^^ ^^^ Hebrew i, o^ G. but 

umnediate neighbourhood there is a ^^^^^ pronounced by the Arabs 

noteassigned to SevenanuB. ,^^41 ^^ ^^^ p, li^ J ^^ ^^ 

' Stnat and Pale>ttne p. jo; see nounoe it in jm. I shaU m this note 
above, p. 89. 

represent r by Ch, -r by G, both in 
' ys:^». pronounced ' Chagai ' (or u.„ij„g 


I. The eyidence on which the assumed fact rests is boUi deficient (i) Inoon- 
in amount and suspicious in character. Not more than two independent elusive 
witnesses, if they be independ^it, have, so far as I know, been produced, evidence. 

(i) Chrysostom at the close of the fourth century in his exposition of Chryso- 
this epistle writes somewhat obscurely ; ' Hagar was the name of the stom. 
bondmaid; and Mount Sinai is so interpreted in their native tongue (to 
6e Siva Spot ovTio fifdepiiriveitrai rg etnx<opi^ avrav yXmriT;) ;' and afterwards 
he speaks of the mountain as ' bearing the same name vnth the bondmaid 
(piicivviiov TB boiXg).' To the same effect writes Theophylact, who is often a 
mere echo of Chrysostom, as do one or two anonymous commentators in 
the CEcumenian Catena, without doubt deriving their information from 
the same source'. 

(ii) The Bohemian traveller Harant, who visited Sinai in the year Harant. 
1598, says : ' The Arabian and Mauritanian heathen call Mount Sinai Agar 
or TurV Though, for anything that is found in the context, this might 
have been written without a thought of the passage of St Paul, yet I think 
it hardly probable. Luther, following Erasmus, had maintained this inter- Their 
pretation ; and from the enormous popularity of his commentaries on the state- 
Galatians, it is likely that they were known to Harant, who himself ulti- ^00™*..^ 
mately became a protestant. If so, he did not necessarily derive his inform- fg,., 
ation from the Arabs on the spot, bnt may have accepted without ques- 
tion the popular statement, as more recent travellers have done. 

In later works of travel I have not found any direct personal testimony 
to this assumed fact. If there be any, it will from the nature of the case 
require careful sifting. The word ' Hagar' (CAa^ar) meaning 'a rock,' or 
'a stone,' must be heard again and a^ain &om native lips in this wild 
region^ ; and a traveller, once possessed of the idea, might easily elicit the 
word from his Arab guide by a leading question, and on the strength of an 

* ChryBostom's interpretation of the work was written in Bohemian, but 

passage in St Paul may perhaps under- translated into German by his brother 

He the account of the word ' Hagar ' and published by his nephew (see Bal- 

given in Bar Bahlul's Syriao Lexicon, binus Bohem. Doct. u. p. 104). [A 

., ''J « K friend, whobas consulted the Bohemian 

p. 417: pQ-fe OCn U>;^:i^ i-^ original,informsmethatTrei»»e7rf>erpis 

.la, V3V-"lo • Jfr T^^« 

a miswriting of the nsuue of a traveller 
whom Harant ciuotea, and that Tucla is 

extract, which is taken from the ms there written TMrte.] I give the passage 

in the Cambridge University Library, of Barbosa to which Harant refers, as it 

I owe to the kindness of R. L. Bensly, stands in the copies which I have con- 

Esq., of Gains College. suited. The title is Prima volume delle 

2 Harant's authority is generally Navigationi e Viaggi (VeTiet. 1^50 ani 

quoted at secondhand through Bu- 1554)! ^^0 <*» Odoardo Barbeisa or 

Bching's Erdbeschr. 1. 1. p. 603 (Hamb. Barbosa, p. 313 {313), 'passato il detto 

lygi). In Harant's work itself, Der monte Sinai, il quale i Moii dimandano 

Chriftliehe Ulysses (Niimb. 1678), the Turla." 

passage runs: *Den Berg Synainennen » The index to Bitters Erdkunde, 

die Aiabische und Mauritanisobe Hey- Sinai eto. n. p. 1331, s.v. 'Hadschar,' 

den Agar oder Tur: Weissenberg, wie ' Hadjar,' etc., names several ' stones* 

auoh Tucla, wie Odoardo Barbosa neV on and about Sinai; 'Hadschar Blma,' 

sHnim. der Jnd. Orient, bezeuget.' The 'Hadsjar rakkdbe,' <Hadj Musa,' eto. 



answer thus obtained unsuspiciously confirm the statement that it was a 
local name for the mountain. 

Thus the independent testimony to this supposed fact is confined to 
Chrysostom and Harant, or, if my supposition with regard to Harant be 
correct, to Chrysostom alone. To Chrysostom then, if I mistake not, or to 
some earlier writer whom he copied, this statement is due. Nor should 
we be doing any injustice to one who makes St Paul speak of Sinai as 
' contiguous to Jerusalem,' were we to suppose that having heard of some 
place bearing the name ' Hagar ' whether in Arabia Petraea or in some 
district bordering upon the Sinaitic mountains, (for the name seems to have 
been not uncommon',) he compressed the geography of the whole region 
and assigned this name to Mount Sinai itself, imagining that he had thus 
foimd the key to St Paul's meaning'. It is at least worthy of notice that 
no mention whatever of this assumed fact, or the interpretation based on 
it, is made either by his friend Theodore of Mopsuestia, or by Theodoret 
the pupil of Theodore, both natives of Antioch, and both acquainted with 
his work. Probably they were better informed on the subject, and for 
this reason tacitly abandoned Chrysostom's explanation. 
{2) False 2. But supposing it were proved that Sinai were so called by the 
etymo- Arabs, this word ' Ghagax' is not written or pronounced in the same way as 
'''Sy- the proper name ' Hagar,' and etymologically the two are entirely distinct. 

The proper name ' Hagar,' with the simple aspirate ("iJn, in Arabic ^Ifc)^ 
signifies ' a wanderer or fugitive,' being connected with the Arabic ' Hegira ' 

' Older critics, as Boohart and others the desert on the way to Egypt. In 

(le Moyne Var, Sacr. p. 834, Pfeifier Gen. xvi. 7 it occurs in connexion with 

Op. I. p. 504), assert that Petra itself the flight of Hagar. 

bears the name Hagar (Ghagax) in I venture to conjecture that there 

Arabic writers, just as in Greek it is was also a place 'Hagar' (whether 

called nirpa, and in Hebrew vho, ys\&. or ^^Ub) in Belka, and that the 

words having the same meaning 'rock.' -^Tl ■fTZ.c <x> n > • ^i, > v 

mu- ii. iv -ijj appearance of 'Belka' m the Arabic 

This statement however is founded on , " . „« n.i • j . , 

. , ,, , 1 mi. 1- i- r version of Gal. 1. 17 and iv. 25 (see 

a twofold error; (i) The vocalisation of „t„„„ „ q., • 4. u , • ,t Ir.- 

^, , , J. ■ 1 above, p. 87) is to be explamed by this 

the proper name referred to is not , . •= •' c j 

'Cfta^ar,; but Chigf; and (') The /wieseler explains Chrysostom's 

place which bears this name ' El Cftior „ . . ■,.», ^ . ■ ■ ^■ 

t , ,. ., . in. .i 1. meanmg m a different way , msistmg on 

in Arabic writers is not Petra itself, ., „ , .", ,. „ , . 

- , . , . 1 ■, ii. i tne strict sense 01 iieaepuTtveverai, Ac- 

but a station several days south of ,. , _.. ^ ^«<'=^'^"/'=>'■='l*'• •°-"- 

Petra on the pilgrims' route between ""'^^ *° ^"i^f* ^r'?!^- ^\Sebr- 

Damascus and Mecca. See Ewald ^andb s.r.^y^D sigm&eB 'rooky' bc, 

Paulus p. 493 sq, Eobinson's Palestine ^^^^ ^nUrpreted in Arabic it would be 

etc. n. p. 532. There is no evidence ^S^*-, and to this identity of meaning 

that Petra itself was so caUed. in 'Sinai' and 'Hagar' he supposes 

There is a place Vrm, 'Cfegra,' Chrysostom to allude. But even if the 

mentioned four times in the Targum of account which Fiirst gives of the word 

Onkelos, Gen. xvi. 7, 14, xx. i, Exod. *J'D were altogether satisfactory, it 

XV. ■22. In the second passage It is would still remain in the highest degree 

substituted for 'Bered,' in the remain- improbable that Chrysostom should be 

ing three for 'Shur,' of the original acquainted with an etymology so ab> 

text. It must therefore have lain struse. 
somewhere at the south of Palestine in 



the familiar term for the flight of Mahomet (compare also the Hebrew 
^13 and -|J<). Thus it has nothing in common with 'Cha,ga,r,' 'a stone' 

( ^sfiV&-), which if it occurred in Hebrew would be written un. It is true 

that the gutturals are closely allied, and were sometimes confounded' ; 
and this circumstance would deserve to be considered, if the supposed 
name for Sinai were' supported by sufficient testimony : but where this is 
wanting, the false etymology throws an additional obstacle, to say the least, 
in the way of our accepting the explanation in question. Nor will it appear 
very probable that St Paul should have set aside the true derivation, when 
it is given and allegorized by his contemporary Philo*. 

It seems much more probable indeed, if St Paul is alluding to any local 
name of Sinai, that he should have regarded the true etymology, and that 
the name in question was not iJn ' rock,' but "Un ' wanderer.' "This latter 
name was at least not uncommon among the Arab tribes ; and it is far from 
unlikely, though direct evidence is wanting, that a settlement of these 
' wanderers,' these children of ' Hagar,' occupied the country about Sinai 
in St Paul's day and gave it their name for the time. 

3. But lastly, is it probable, supposing this to have been St Paul's (3) St 
meaning, that he would have expressed himself as he has done ? If in Paul's 
writing to a half-Greek, half-Celtic people he ventured to argue from an ^^8^^^^- 
Arabic word at all, he would at all events be careful to make his drift intel- 
ligible. But how could his readers be expected to put the right interpreta- 
tion on the words ' this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia ' 1 How could they 

' The close alliance between the 
gutturals is shown, (i) By their inter- 
change in the same language in differ- 
ent words connected or identical in 
meaning and obviously derived from 
the same root, e.g. lilD and inD, 
^^X and ins ; (2) By their interchange 
in different languages of the Semitic 
family, e. g. Heb. ntl and Syr. ooVO 
(Hoffmann, Gramm. Syr. p. 123), or in 
different dialects of the same language, 
e.g. in the Aramaic dialects the Syriac 
• OI41 compared with the Chaldee jnj 

(see Geaen. Thei. p. 359, Fflrst Aram. 
Idiome § 45) ; (3) By the confusion of 
Bound in the same language or dialect, 
e.g. a Judsean in the story professes 
himself unable to distinguish between 
-|SS, ' a lamb,' "lOl?, ' wool,' ipn, ' wine,' 
and ibn, 'an ass,' as pronounced by a 
Galilean, when the latter wants to make 
a purchase ; see Fiirst, ib. § 15. There 
wa3 the same confusion also in the Sa- 
maritan pronimoiation of the gutturals; 
Gesen. Lehrgeh. % 32. i. On the rela- 

tion of the gutturals to each other, Bee 
Ewald, Avsf. Lehrb. d. Heb. Spr. § 39 

Assemani indeed (Bibl. Or. iii. t, 
p. 753) gives an instance of the inter- 
change of the gutturals Se and Cheth 
in this very word Hagar : ' Hagar 

. gri . ArabibuSjflCla- Hagiar, hoc est, 

Petra ; Ptolemaeo Agra, uude Agraei 
populi Arabiae juxta sinum Persicum, 
etc' But is there not a misprint or an 
error here ? Was this place ever written 
in Arabic otherwise than with a simple 
aspirate as in Syriac? At all events 
Winer (Eealw. s.v. Hagariter) is wrong 
in understanding Assemani's remark 
of the station between Damascus and 
Mecca (seep. 196, note 1), and has been 
blindly followed by others. 

' irapoiKrjffis, Leg. Alleg. i. p. 135 M, 
Sacr. Ab. et Ga. i. p. 170 (iropoiKetffo^fj, 
oi KarmKei}. Another derivation of 
Hagar, or rather a play upon the word, 
was T13N Nn, 'here is thy wages'; see 
Beer Leben Abraham's p. 148. 


poasibly understand, knowing nothing of Arabic, that he meant to say, 
' this word Hagar in the Arabic tongue stands for Mount Sinai ' 1 Even if 
it be granted that his readers were acquainted with the fact which was the 
key to his meaning, is eV rjj 'Apa^ia at all a likely expression to be used by 
any writer for iv tj 'Apa^iK^ yKwa-a-ji or ' hpa^ia-Ti, unless it were made 
intelligible by the context ? Yet this is the meaning generally assigned to 
iv Tji 'ApajSij by those commentators, ancient or modern, who adopt the 
interpretation in question, and indeed seems to be required to justify that 

In the face of these difficulties, it seems at least improbable that the 
point of the passage is the identity of ' Hagar ' and ' Sinai ' as different 
names of the same mountain, and the reading which retains ' Hagar ' in the 
text loses any support which it may seem to draw from this identity, 
assumed as a fact. 

Philo's allegory of Hagar and SarahK 

In giving an allegorical meaning to tiiis passage of the Old Testament 
narrative St Paul did not stand alone. It might be inferred indeed from 
his own language that such applications of the history of Hagar and Sarah 
were not uncommon in the schools of his day*. But, however this may be, 
it is more than once so applied in the extant works of Philo. I have 
already pointed out the contrast presented by his treatment of the history 
of Abraham in general to the lessons which it suggests to the Apostle of 
the Gentiles. This contrast extends to the appUcation of the allegorical 
method to this portion of the sacred narrative. Philo's allegory is as 
Philo's Abraham— the human soul progressing towards the knowledge of God 

allegory, — unites himself first with Sarah and then with Hagar. These two allianceg 
stand in direct opposition the one to the others Sarah, the princess — for 
such is the interpretation of the word* — ^is divine wisdom. To her there- 
fore Abraham is bidden to listen in all that she says. On the other hand 
Hagar, whose name signifies ' sojourning' (n-apoiKijtru), and points therefore 
to something transient and unsatisfying, is a preparatory or intermediate 

^ For Philo's allegory of Hagai and * In some passages Philo still further 

Sarah, see esp. de Gongr. Quaer. Bnid. refines on the change in her name (Oen. 

Gr. I. p. 519 sq, esp. pp. 521, 522, 530, xvii. 15): e.g. de Hut. Norn, u p. 590, 

592, smd Qiuiest. in , Gen. p. 189 sq, Quaeit, in Gen. p. 129 (Anoher), d^ 

233 sq (Aucher). Compare also Le^. Cherub. 1.^. 139. Her first name Zctpa 

Alleg. I. p. 135, de Cherub. i.-p. 139 sq, (n85')iB apxn /tow, her after-name So/j/ia 

de Prof. I. p. 546, de Abr. 11. p. 52, (mt}') is dpxouffo (see Hieron. Quaest. 

de Somn. 1. p. 656. in Gen., in. p. 331). Thus they are 

^ See the notes on aiaxrroixei and related to eaoh other as the special to 

a)0v>iyopo6iieva. the general, as the finite and perishable 

' de Abr. n. p. 15 ivavriJrraToi di to the infinite and imperishable. 
^X^Xois elalv 0! Xex^^vTes yd/ioi. 


training — the instruction of the schools — secular learning, as it might be 
termed in modem phrased Hence she is fitly described as an Egyptian, 
as Sarah's handmaid. Abraham's alliance -mth Sarah is at first premature. 
He is not sufficiently advanced in his moral and spiritual development to 
profit thereby. As yet he begets no son by her. She therefore directs him 
to go in to her handmaid, to apply himself to the learning of the schools. 
This inferior alliance proves fruitful at once. At a later date and after this 
preliminary training he again unites himself to Sarah ; and this time his 
union with divine wisdom is fertile. Not only does Sarah bear him a sou, 
but she is pointed out as the mother of a countless offspring^. Thus is 
realised the strange paradox that 'the barren woman is most fruitful' 
Thus in the progress of the human soul are verified the words of the 
prophet, spoken in an allegory, that ' the desolate hath many children V 

But the allegory does not end here. The contrast between the mothers 
is reproduced in the contrast between the sons. Isaac represents the 
wisdom of the wise man, Ishmael the sophistry of the sophist*. Sophistry 
must in the end give place to wisdom. The son of the bondwoman must be 
cast out and flee before the son of the princess '. 

Such is the ingenious application of Philo — most like and yet most compared 
unlike that of St PauL They both allegorize, and in so doing they touch with^St 
upon the same points in the narrative, they use the same text by way of ** 
illustration. Yet in their whole tone and method they stand in direct con- 
trast, and their results have nothing in common. Philo is, as usual, wholly 
nnhistorical. With St Paul on the other hand Hagar's career is an alle- 
gory, because it is a history. The symbol and the thing symbolized are 
the same in kind. The simple passage of patriarchal life represents in 
miniature the workings of God's providence hereafter to be exhibited in 
grander proportions in the history of the Christian Church. The Christian 

^ 4 /'^"V Kai iyxiK^ios TraiSeia is they are present to his mind. 

Philo's favourite phrase, e.g. de Cherub. * de Sobr. i. p. 394 aoiplca> iiJkv 'Iffodx, 

I. p. 139. ao^iareiav di 'IvnaijK KeKXrjpiiiTai : oomp. 

^ deCongr.Qitaer.Erud.Gr.i.'p.sig de O/ientft.!. p. 140, and other passages 
raiinjv MwPcrfls, tA irapaSo^6TaTov, xal referred to in p. 198, note i. The 
arelpav awixjtalvei Kdl TroKvyovaraTitv : names give Philo some trouble. Isaao 
comp. de Mut. Nom. i. pp. 599, 600, of course signifies ' laughter,' betoken- 
where he adds Kori. rb 4.S6nevov ^trput ing the joy which comes of divine wia- 
iirl) rris xop""*' 'Aj/nris 17 ^ijo-jk, Xreipa dom ; see, besides the passages just re- 
Jreicei' iirri, 1} di iroWii iv t^kvois iiaBi- ferred to, Leg. Alleg. i. p. 131, Quod 
vqse (i Sam. ii. 5). Vet. Pot. i. pp. 203, 215. Ishmael he 

' de Execr. 11. p. 434 ■}/ yltp ?/)i)/to!, contrasts with Israel, the one signifying 

^ iprialv b irpa^rirtis, e<heKv6s re xal tto- the hearing God, the other the seeing 

Wttois, Sirep \6yiov koX iirl ^ux^s iXKr/- God CPN HKI K'^N, 'vir videns deum'; 

yopeiTcu (Is. liv. i). The coincidence comp. Hieron. in Oen. ni. p. 357). 

with St Paul is the more striking inas- Thus they are opposed to each other, 

much as Philo very rarely goes beyond as o/njj; to Spaais, as the fallacious to 

the Pentateuch in seeking subjects for the infallible, as the ffo^iffr^s to the 

allegorical interpretation. There is in- a-o^oj, de Prof. 1. p. 577, de Mut. Nom. 

deed no mention of Sarah and Hagar i. p. 609. 

here, but it appears, both from the eon- » de Ghenib. i. p. 140. 
text and from parallel passages, that 



on Inspi- 

Apostle and the philosophic Jew move in parallel lines, as it were, keeping 
side by side and yet never once crossing each other's path. 

And there is still another point in which the contrast between the two 
is great. With Philo the allegory is the whole substance of his teaching ; 
with St Paul it is but an accessory. He uses it rather as an illustration 
than an argument, as a means of representing in a lively form the lessons 
before enforced on other grounds. It is, to use Luther's comparison, the 
painting which decorates the house already built. 

At the same time we need not fear to allow that St Paul's mode of 
teaching here is coloured by his early education in the rabbinical schools. 
It were as unreasonable to stake the Apostle's inspiration on the turn of a 
metaphor or the character of an illustration or the form of an argument, as 
on purity of diction. No one now thinks of maintaining that the language 
of the inspired writers reaches the classical standard of correctness and 
elegance, though at one time it was held almost a heresy to deny this. ' A 
treasure contained in earthen vessels,' ' strength made perfect in weakness,' 
' rudeness in speech, yet not in knowledge,' such is the far nobler concep- 
tion of inspired teaching, which we may gather from the Apostle's own 
language. And this language we should do well to bear in mind. But on 
the other hand it were mere dogmatism to set up the intellectual standard 
of our own age or countty as an infallible rule. The power of allegory 
has been differently felt in different ages, as it is diflferently felt at any one 
time by diverse nations. Analogy, allegory, metaphor — by what bound- 
aries are these separated the one from the other ? What is true or false, 
correct or incorrect, as an analogy or an allegory ? What argumentative 
force most be assigned to either ? We should at least be prepared with an 
answer to these questions, before we venture to sit in judgment on any 
individual case. 

The various readings in v. L 

(i) Posi- 
tioD of 

The variations of reading in this verse are the more perplexing, in 
that they seriously aflFect the punctuation, and thereby the whole texture of 
the passage. The main variations are threefold. 
I. The position of ovv. 

(i) It stands after o-njicere in XABCFGP and a few of the better cur- 
sive Mss ; in f, g, the Vulgate, Gothic, Memphitic, Thebaic^ ^Ethiopic, 
Armenian, and perhaps the Peshito Syriac^ versions; in Origen', 
Basil \ and Cyril ' ; in Victorinus, Augustine, and others. The Mem- 
phitic version also inserts yap with rg iXcvdepiif. 

• I have ascertained this from the 
MS belonging to Lord Crawford and 

9 This is doubtful, the order of the 
words being altered in this version. 

' in Bxod. H. 3 (11. p. 139), in Jud. 
H. 9 (11. p. 477), both extant only in 

* Mor. 14 (n. p. 247, Garnier), ao- 
oordiug to some of the best mss. In 
the printed editions however it stands 
after iXevSeplf. In the de Bapt. (n. 
p. 641, Oarnier), a treatise ascribed to 
Basil but of doubtful authorship, its 
place is after ar^Ktre. 

' Glaphyr. 1. p. 75. 


(ii) Its position is after iXevBepla in C (by a third hand) KL and very 
many cursive mss, in Marcus Monachus', Damascene, Theophylact, 
and (Ecumenius. 
(iii) It is omitted in DE (both Greek and Latin) ; in the Vulgate and 
later Syriac; in Ephraem Syrus, in Theodore of Mopsuestia and 
Theodoret, in Jerome, Pelagius, the Ambrosian Hilary, and others. 
It is wanting also in Chrysostom, who however supplies a connecting 
particle, reading ry yap iXevdepi^ k.t.X. 

In Asterius^ oJv is absent after eXevdepi^ but, as the context is 
wanting, it is impossible to say whether it occurred after a-TTJKere or 
Thus it will be seen that the balance of authority is decidedly in favour 
of placing mv after o-Tij/cere ; and this is probably the correct reading. The 
displacement (ii) and the omission (iii) were, it would seem, different ex- 
pedients to relieve the awkwardness in the position of the connecting 
particle, on the supposition that the sentence began with rg iXevdtpt^. 

2. The position of ?j/iiaj. It is found, i^\ pogj. 
(i) Before Xpurrog in NABDBPGP and some cursive mbs, in Origen tion of 

(Latin translation), Theodore of Mopsuestia (Latin translation), and ^f^- 

(ii) After Xpiaros in CKL and many cursive mss, and in Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, Asterius, Marcus Monachus, and Damascene. 

(iii) After TJkevOipaxrev in Theophylact. 

The versions and the Latin fathers vary, the majority placing it after 
Xpurrog; but this is plainly a case where no great stress can be laid on 
such evidence. The transposition would be made unintentionally in the 
course of translation (Xpioror iJ/iSs being perhaps the more natural order), 
so that one authority in favour of j;/tas 'X.piarog is of more weight than a 
number against it The order ^fias Xpurrbs may therefore be retained with 

3. Besides these, there still remains a third and more important variation. (3) The 
(i) Ty eXevdepla § is read in D (by the correction of later hands*) relative. 

EKL and the great majority of cursives, in both Syriac versions, in 
Basil, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia (Latin), Theodoret (twice), 
Cyril, Asterius, Marcus Monachus, Theophylact, and (Ecumenius. The 
.^thiopic has ' quia Ohristus nos liberavit; et state igitur.' 

(ii) Tjj fXev6fpia alone is found in KABCDP and a few cursive mss, in 
the Thebaic and Memphitic versions, and in Damascene and others. 

(iii) p i\ev6epi^ in FG, in the old Latin, Vulgate, and Gothic versions, 
in Marcion (or rather TertuDian*), Origen (Latin translation'), in 
Victorinus, Augustine, Jerome, and others. 

1 Gallandi vm. p. 47. tereaque D'» addidit signa quibnsi;xs 

' In Ps. V. Horn. 5, Cotel. Man. ante iii/,as ponendum esse significaret, 

Eccl. II. p. 46. Bed videntur ea signa rursus deleta 

' The Latin of D has 'qua libertate esse.' Tischendoif Cod. Olarom. 

nostra.' It has been suggested to me ' adv. Mare. v. 4. 

that tra was originally a direction to • in Gen. H. 7 (n. p. 78), in Cant, 

transpose ' nos.' i. 6 (iii. p. 52). 

* 'D**etD'»*praeposuerunt5;,prae- 


Thus our choice seems to lie between (i) and (ii),, and on the whole the 
first seems more probable than the second. For, though the balance of 
direct evidence is against it, the following considerations may be urged in 
its favour. 

Firgl. The reading rfi iXevSepi^ without ^ is so difficult as to be almost 
unintelligible. At a certain point Bengel's rule, 'proelivi scriptioni praestat 
ardua,' attains its maximum value; beyond this point it ceases to apply. 
And in the present instance it is difficult to give an interpretation to the 
words which is not either meaningless or ungrammatical. 

Secondly. Supposing rij iXevSipia ^ to have been the original reading, 
the omission of ^ in some texts admits of a very simple explanation. 
Standing immediately before ^pMs (which in its proper position, as we have 
seen, precedes Xpurros) it would easily drop out through the carelessness of 
transcribers. In this case too the transposition Xpia-Tos i;/^as for i;/iax 
Xpiarbs was probably made for the sake of euphony to avoid the juxta- 
position of g ij/Aas which came together in the original text. 

At the same time the testimony in favour of r^ i\€v6epia alone is so 
strong, that I have hesitated to set it aside altogether and have therefore 
retained it at the foot as an alternative reading. 

The third reading, § iKevBepla, found chiefly in the Latin copies, is not 
very easily accounted for, but was perhaps substituted for rg eXevdepia 3 
as a more elegant expression or as a retranslation from the loose Latin 
rendering 'qua libertate.' 

The words being thus determined, the punctuation is best decided by 
the position of the connecting particle, and the sentence will run, r^c 
0Xev6(pas r^ cXevdept^ ^ 17/uai Xpiarbs rfKevOipatrtv. ir^Kirt ovv k.tX, 

V. 2, 3] 



"''iSe iytio IlavXoi Xeyco vfxiv, oti, eav Trepire/npricrde, 
XjOtCTOS v^as ovSev toCpeXno-ei' ^ fxapTvpofxai Se ttoKiv 
iravTi dpOpcoTTw TrepiTe/JLVOfxevWf on 6(f)ei\eTri? eanv 

2 — 6. ' Let there be no misunder- 
standing^. I Paul myself declare to 
you that if you submit to circumcision, 
you forfeit all advantage from Christ. 
I have said it once, aud I repeat it 
again with a solemn protest. Every 
man, who is circumcised, by that very 
act places himself under the law ; he 
binds himself to fulfil every single 
requirement of the law. You have 
no part in Christ, you are outcasts 
from the covenant of grace, you who 
seek justification in obedience to law. 
There is a great gulf between you 
and us. We, the true disciples of 
Christ, hope to be justified of faith, 
not of works, in the Spirit, not in the 

2. At this point St Paul assumes 
a severer tone in condemning the 
observance of the law. It is not only 
a useless imposition, a slavish burden; 
it is pernidoua and fatal in itself. 

'Ide] so to be accented rather than 
Ihi. According to the ancient gram- 
marians, the pronunciation of common 
dialect was tdc, Xa/3f, of the Attic ibi, 
\a^i. Bee Winer § vL p. 55 sq. 

c'ycv natiXoi] What is the exact force 
of this? Is it (i) An assertion qf 
authority f 'I Paul, who received a 
direct commission from Christ, who 
have done and suffered so much for 
the Gospel and for you, who have so 
strong a claim on your hearing'? Or 
is it rather (2) An indirect refutation 
qf calumnies? 'I Paul, who have my- 
self preached circumcision forsooth, 
who say smooth things to please men, 
who season my doctrine to the tastes 
of my hearers'? For the latter sense, 
see 2 Cor. x. i , where the words outos hi 
iyw naiXos are used in combating the 
contemptuous criticism of his enemies ; 
and compare his tone in i. 10 of this 
epistle; 'do I now persuade men?' 

See also the notes on ii. 3, v. 11, and 
the introduction, p. 28. For the former 
sense compare perhaps Ephes. iii. i. 
The two ideas are not incompatible: 
they are equally prominent elsewhere 
in this epistle, and may both have 
been present to St Paul's mind, when 
he thus asserts himself io strongly. 

■nepireiivriaOe] ^suffer yourselves to 
he circumcised' ; see the note on ■ntpi- 
Tfiivo/ievm ver. 3. 

3. Tlieargument is this; 'Circum- 
cision is the seal of the law. He who 
willingly and deliberately undergoes 
circumcision, enters upon a compact 
to fulfil the law. To ftdfil it therefore 
he is bound, and he cannot plead the 
grace of Christ; for he has entered 
on another mode of justification.' 

fiaprvpofiaii 8e jraXty] ' Christ benefit 
you? nay, I protest again.' The 
adversative sense of 8e is to be ex- 
plained by the idea of ra^eXijo-ei. 
naK.Lv refers to the preceding Xeyu; 
' I have said it, and I repeat it with 

liapripoiiai] 'I protest' ie. I assert 
as in the presence of witnesses. The 
word signifies properly 'to call to wit- 
ness' ; and is never, except perhaps in 
very late Greek, equivalent to p.ap- 
Tvpa, 'I bear witness.' See the notes 
on I Thess. ii. 12. For the dative 
av6pam<^ compare Acts xx. 26. This 
use of the dative is a remnant of the 
fuller construction naprvpea-tlai rivi t« 
(Judith viL 28 p,apTvp6p,(6a vp^v tw 
oipavov Koi rfiv yrjv), the accusative 
being suppressed and the verb used 
absolutely without reference to the 
person of the witness. 

rrepiTepivop,evca] 'who undergoes dr- 
eumdsion' as itepiTipvrjfrBf ver. 2, 
and oi wepiTepLvopfvoi vi. 1 3 (the better 
reading). In all these cases the pre- 
sent tense is more appropriate than 




o\ov Tov vojuov -TTOifja-ai. * Karri pyrtdrjTe dwo Xpia-roVf 
o'lTive^ iv vofjLW liKaiovffQe, rfj^ ■x^dpiro^ e^eTrea-are. 
^rjuei^ yap Trvevfxari eK Triareta's eXTri^a ^iKaio<rvi/ri<s 
direKhexoii^Qa. • ^ev yap XpicrTM l'lri(rou] ovt6 TrepiTOfirj 

the past It is not the fact of their 
having been circumcised which St 
Paul condemns (for this is indifferent 
in itself), hut the fact of their alloto- 
ing themselves to be circumcised, be- 
ing free agents. 

4. KaTTjpyrjSrjTe, f^eirea-arc] The aor- 
ists represent the consequences as in- 
stantaneous ; 'Ye are tJien and there 
shut out from Christ.' For similar 
instances see Joh. xv. 6 iav /iij ns 

Heivji iv iiiol, tfiXi^Br) f^a as to KKrj/ia, 

Rev. X. 7 : comp. "Winer § xL p. 345. 

Kanjpy'jdrjTf dnb XptoroC] a pregnant 
expression for KonjpyriBrfre koI fxmpiV- 
6rjTe OTTO Xpto-ToO, ' Ye are nothing as 
regards Christ, ye are entirely sepa- 
rate from Him'; as Bom. viL 2, 6; 
comp. 2 Cor. xi. 3 4>6aprj m vo^para 
vfiiiv cmo TTjs aTrXoTTjTos, Col. ii. 20. 

otnves &iKaiov(rde] 'all ye who seek 
your justification.' See on Tripirepvo- 
p.iva, ver. 3. 

i\eiria-are\ 'are driven forth, are 
banished with Hagar your mother': 
see iv. 30 iK^dke t^w iraiSio-iaiP. The 
words fKiriirrfiv and eK^aWeiv are cor- 
relatives in this sense ; e.g. Thucyd. 

vi. 4 UTTO Sap,i<M>v Koi aWav 'l(u>'«>i> CK- 
7rt7rroutrti'...Toiir 8c Sap,iovs'Ava^[Kas 
'Prjyivav Tvpavuos ov n'oXX(p Sarepov 
tK^oKav K.T.X. For the form e|«- 
rria-aTf see Lobeck Phryn. p. 724, 
Winer § xiii. p. 86. 

5. r^peis yap] 'for we, who are in 
union with Christ, we who cling to the 
covenant of grace.' yap introduces an 
argument from the opposite, as in 
iii. 10. 

TrvtvpuTi] 'spiritually,' or 'by ih^ 
Spirit.' It is almost always difficult 
and sometimes, as here, impossible to 
say when wvfvpa refers directly to the 
Holy Spirit and when not. From the 
nature of the case the one sense will 

run into the other, the spiritual in 
man, when rightly directed, being a 
manifestation, an indwelling of the 
Divine Spirit. 

e\iriSa] here used in a concrete 
sense, 'the thing hoped for'; comp. 
Col. i. 5 Tiji" eXn-i'Sa t^k diroKcipxvTjv vpiv, 
Tit. ii. 13 irpo(Thexoptvoi t^k paxapiav 
fKiriba, Heb. vi. 18 ; and see the note 
on iirayyeKla, iiL 14- 

oTreKSexoff^"] 'wait eagerly' or 
perhaps 'patiently'; used especially 
in speaking of the future redemption; 
comp. Rom. viii. 19, 23, 25, i Cor.i.7, 
Phil. iii. 20. Compare the airh in oko- 
Kapa&oKta, and see a paper by 0. F. A. 
Fritzsche in Fritzsch. Opuse. p. 156. 

6. ydp] explaining the emphatic 
irvevpwri cK mtrrfas which has gone 
before : 'By the Spirit, for the dispo- 
sitions of the flesh, such as circumci- 
sion or uncircumcision, are indifferent: 
from faith, for faith working by love 
is all powerful in Christ Jesus.' 

St Paul had before pronounced a 
direct and positive condemnation of 
circimicision. He here indirectly quar 
liBes this condemnation. Circumci- 
sion is neither better nor worse than 
uncircumcision in itself (see especially 
I Cor. vii. 18 — 20, Gal. vi. 15). The 
false sentiment which attends it, the 
glorying in the flesh, makes the differ- 
ence, and calls down the rebuke. 

iri'oTtc K.r.X.] ' In his stat totus 
Christianismus,' says BengeL 

ivfpyovpAin{\ ' working'; the middle 
voice according to the general usage 
of St Paul. The Spirit of God or the 
Spirit of Evil hfpyei ; the human agent 
or the human mind ivcpyeWai.: see the 
note on i Thess. iL 13. On the other 
hand tvepyetirBai is never passive in 
St Paul (as it seems to be taken here 
by TertuUian adv. Marc. v. 4, 'di- 

V. 7, 8] 



Ti KT-xyei 01/T6 aKpo^va-Tia, dWa tt'io-tis ^i dyaTrt]? 

' 'ETj0e;:^eT6 Ka\ws* rts vfxa's- eveKO^ev dXrideia /uri 
Treidea-dai ; *»; Treia-iuLovrj ovk ck tov kuXovutos v/ma^. 

cendo per dilectionem perfici'), and 
therefore this passage does not ex- 
press the doctrine of 'fides caritate 

These words di dyarrris ivepyoviiiurj 
bridge over the gulf which seems to 
separate the langaage of St Paul and 
St James. Both assert a principle 
of practical energy, as opposed to a 
barren, inactive theory. 

Observe in these verses the con- 
nexion between the triad of Christian 
graces. The same sequence — faith, 
love, hope — underlies St Paul's lan- 
guage here, which appears on the 
surface in i Thess. i. 3, CoL i. 4, 5. 
See the note on the former of these 
two passages. 

7 — II. 'Ye were running a gal- 
lant race. Who has checked you in 
your mid career ? Whence this dis- 
loyalty to the truth t Be assured, this 
change of opinion comes not of God by 
whom ye are called. The deserters 
are only few in number? Yes, but the 
contagion will spread: for what says 
the proverb 1 A little leaven leaveneth 
the whole lump. Do not mistake me : 
I do not confound f/ou with them: I 
confidently hope in Christ that you 
will be true to your principles. But 
the ringleader of this sedition — I care 
not who he is or what rank he holds 
— shall bear a heavy chastisement. 
What, brethren? A new charge is 
brought against me ? I preach cir- 
cumcision forsooth? If so, why do 
they still persecute me? It is some 
mistake surely ! Nay, we shall work 
together henceforth! there is no dif- 
ference between us now ! I have 
ceased to preach the Cross of Christ! 
The stumblingblock in the way of the 
Gospel is removed ! ' 

7. 'ET-pc'xere koXms] ' Ye were run - 

ning bravely' again a reference to 
St Paul's favourite metaphor of the 
stadium. See ii. 2, i Cor. ix. 24 — 27, 
Phil. iii. 14, 2 Tim. iv. 7. 

iv4Kay\rfv'\ a metaphor derived from 
military operations. The word signi- 
fies 'to break up a road' (by destroy- 
ing bridges etc.) so as to render it 
impassable, and is therefore the op- 
posite of TrpoKOTrreiv, ' to clear a way,' 
' to act as pioneer' ; comp. Greg. Naz. 
Or. xiv. 31 (i. p. 279 ed. Ben.) ^ Kaxias 
eyKOTTTOfievrjs 8v(T7ra6eig, rav wovrjpav 
fj aperrjs dSoTTOiov/xevi/f evrraOeiq. rav 
^eXriovav. Hence it originally took a 
dative of the person, e.g. Polyb. xxiv. 
I. 12, but the metaphor being subse- 
quently lost sight of, the dative was 
replaced by an accusative, as always 
in the New Testament, e.g. Acts xxiv. 
4, I Thess. ii. 18. Compare the pas- 
sive, XV. 22, I Pet. iii. 7, See 
the note on (fidovmvTes, ver. 26. 

The testimony in favour of iveKo-^ev 
is overwhelming. Otherwise the re- 
ceived reading dveKo\lf€v suits the 
metaphor of the stadium better; for 
avaKOTTTtiv 'to beat back' would apply 
to the pa^Sovxoi (Thuo. v. 50) who 
kept the course; comp. Lucian Nigir. 
§ 35 (l- P- 77) i^^nmrov re Koi dvcKO- 
TTTojirjv, Polyc, § 5 dvaRcmTecrBai ajro 
T&v emdviiimv. The word eyKonTeiv 
seems to have given offence to tran- 
scribers: in I Thess. iL 18, as here, 
avanoTTTeiv stands as a various reading ; 
in Acts xxiv. 4, i Pet. iii. 7, iKKowretv. 

8. Trejo-fioyij] with a faint reference 
to the preceding irfWeo-dai; ' You have 
refused to obey the truth, you have 
rendered another obedience which is 
not of God.' rriKTiLovri (Ignat. Rom. 3, 
Justin Apol. I. c. S3, p. 17 e; comp. 
irkrjo-novri, Col. ii. 23), like the English 
' persuasion,' may be either active or 



[V, 9— II 

^fiiKpa ^v/iiri oXov to <pvpafxa ^vfioi. ^°iyio TrewoSa 
ets u/xas ev Kvp'iw, on ovSeu aWo (J)pout](reTe • 6 Be 
Tapda-crwv vfia<s fiaarTcia-ei to KplpLa, oo'ti's eav ^- "eyw 

10. eyi>\ emphatic, '/, who know 
you so well, who remember yoiir for- 
mer zeal': iv. 14, IS- 

TTETTot^a] still dwelling on the same 
word, n-ct'deo-dai ircur/toi/ij ; see Winer 
§ Ixviil p. 793 sq. 

eti u^iai] 'in regard to you'; see 
Winer § xlix. p. 496: comp. 2 Oor. 
viii. 22 ireTToiBija-ti TroXXg rp fir vftSs, 
2 Cor. iL 3 7re7toi6ai e'lrt irmrras v/ias 
oTi K,r.X., 2 Thess. iii. 4 TreirolQapxv iv 
Kvpto) i<^' Vfias on k,t.\. As in the 
passage last cited, ev Kvpief here de- 
notes not the object of the writer's 
confidence, but the sphere in which it 
is exercised. 

ovSiv aWo ^pov^iT€Tt] ' none other- 
wise minded,' either (1) 'than I bid 
you,' for though no direct command 
immediately precedes these words, 
there is one implied; or, as seems 
more probable, (2) ' than ye were be- 
fore this disorder broke out'; see 
irpfX^Te KciKiis, ver. 7. 

Tapdira-av] 'raises seditions, excites 
tumults among you,' the metaphor 
being continued in avatrraTovvTei Ter. 
12. See the note on i. 7. 

/SaoTao-Ei] 'shall bear as a burden; 
it shall press grieyously on him': see 
vi. 2, s. 

Kpi/ia] On the accent of this word, 
which is Kp'tfia in classical writers, see 
Lobeck Parol, p. 418, Pritzsche Rom. 
I. p. 96, Lipsius Cfram. Unters. p. 40. 
Compare the note on ariXoi, ii. 9. 

ooTis iav ^] i.e. 'whatever may be 
his position in the Church, however he 
may vaunt his personal intercourse 
with the Lord.' See 2 Cor. x. 7. 

11. At this point the majicious 
charge of his enemies rises up before 
the Apostle ; ' Why you do the same 
thing yourself; you caused Timothy 
to be circumcised.' To this he replies : 
'What do /, who have incurred the 
deadly hatred of the Judaizers, who 

passive; 'the act of persuading,' re- 
ferring to the false teachers ; or ' the 
state of one persuaded,' referring to 
the Galatians themselves. The latter 
is perhaps simpler. 

Tov KoXoSiToi] i.e. God, as always in 
St Paul; see Usteri Paul. Lehrbegr. 
p. 269, and comp. i. 6, 15. The pre- 
sent is preferred here to the aorist, 
because the stress is laid on the per- 
son rather than the aet ; see the note 
on I Thess. v. 24, and comp. Winer 
§ xlv. p. 444. 

9. This proverb is quoted also in 
I Cor. V. 6. Comp. Hosea vii. 4. 

Does it apply here (1) To the doe- 
trine? 'If you begin by observing 
the law in a few points, you will end 
by selling yourselves wholly to it* 
(comp. V. 3) ; or (2) To the persons? 
' Though the Judaizers may be but few 
now, the infection will spread to the 
whole body.' The latter is far more 
probable : for the prominent idea in 
the context is that of a small and 
compact body disturbing the peace of 
the Church; and the metaphor is thus 
applied also in i Cor. v. 7, where again 
it refers to the contagious example of 
a few evil-doers. 

The leaven of Scripture is always 
a symbol of evil, with the single ex- 
ception of the parable (Matt. xiii. 33, 
Luke xiii. 20, 21), as it is for the most 
part also in rabbinical writers : see 
Lightfoot on Matt. xvL 6 and Schott- 
gen on i Cor. v. 6. Heathen nations 
also regarded leaven as unholy. Plu- 
tarch, Quaest. Rom. 109 (p. 289 s), in 
answer to the question why the Pla- 
men Dialis was not allowed to touch 
leaven, explains it, ij ^v/ii; xat yeyofcv 
cK (l>6opas avTr) xai <j)6eipfi to (fivpa/ia 
pi.iywij.4inj. See Trench On the Para- 
bles, p. III. 

For the expression ^v/io£i/ to <f>vpa- 
p,a see Exod. xii. 34. 

V. 12] 



^6, dB€\({)oi, el TrepLTOfjLriv eri Kr]pv<r(ra}, ti cti SiooKojuai ; 
apa KaTrip'yt]Tai to aKavhaXov rod (TTavpov' "b(j)eXov 
Kai aTTOKoylrOVTai oi dvairTaTOvvTe<s v/ulS^. 

am exposed to continual peraecution 
from them, do /preach circumcision V 

€Ti KTipva-a-a] Vor an explanation 
of this €Ti, see the note i. 10. Perhaps 
however it should be explained rather 
by the form which the slander of his 
enemies would take; 'You still preach 
circumcision, though you haye become 
a Christian : why should not we con- 
tinue to do the same?' 

Tt er(] The second m is probably 
argumentative, 'this being the case,' 
as in Bom. iii 7, ix. 19. 

Spa] 'so it appears!' apa introduces 
a false statement or inference also 
in I Cor. V. 10, xv. 14, 15, 18, 2 Cor. i. 
17. It is here ironical ; ' So I have 
adopted their mode of justification ; 

1 am silent about the Cross of Christ! 
no one takes oflEence at my preaching 
now; all goes on pleasantly enough I ' 
The (TTavpbt here stands for the aton- 
ing death of Christ. The crucifixion of 
the Messiah was in itself a stumbling- 
block to the Jews, but preached as 
the means of atonement, it became 
doubly 80 : comp. i Cor. i. 23. 

iTKavSaKov] almost confined, it would 
appear, to biblical and ecclesiastical 
Greek. o-Kav8aKridpov however is a 
classical word, e.g. Arist Ach. 687. 

12. After this abrupt digression 
St Paul returns again to the false 
brethren: 'Why do they stop at cir- 
cumcision?' he asks indignantly, 'why 
do they not mutilate themselves, like 
your priests of Cybele?' The severity 
of the irony may be compared with 

2 Cor. xi. 19, 'Ye suffer fools gladly, 
seeing ye yourselves are wise.' 

Circumcision under the law and to 
the Jews was the token of a covenant. 
To the Galatians under the Gospel 
dispensation it had no such signifi- 
jcanca It was merely a bodily mutila- 
tion, as such differing rather in degree 
than in kind from the terrible practices 

of the heathen priests. Compare PhiL 
iii. 2, 3 jSXeVere Trjv KaTaTOfirjV ' rjiieis yap 
i<Tp.(v ^ wepiTofirj, where the same idea 
appears, clothed in similar language. 

2(/>eXoi>] Comp. I Cor. iv. 8, 2 Cor. xi. 
I, in both of which passages the irony 
is plain. In th's construction with the 
indicative, which appears only in later 
writers, the original meaning of o(^eXoi» 
is lost sight of, and it is treated as a 
mere particle ; see Winer § xli. p. 377, 
A. Buttmann § 139, 10, p. 185. 

dtroKoylfovTai] will not admit the ren- 
dering of the A. v., 'I would they 
were even cut off.' On the other hand 
the meaning given above is assigned 
to dvoKiijfovTM by all the Greek com- 
mentators, I believe, without excep- 
tion (the Latin fathers, who read ' ab- 
scindantnr' in their text, had more 
latitude), and seems alone tenabla 
See for instance awoKeKoiiiiivos, Deut. 
xxiii. I, and indeed aTroKOTrrco-dai was 
the common term for this mutilation. 
If it seems strange that St Paul should 
have alluded to such a practice at all, 
it must be remembered that as this 
was a recognised form of heathen self- 
devotion, it could not possibly be 
shunned in conversation, and must at 
times have been mentioned by a Chris- 
tian preacher. For the juxtaposition 
of TrepiTf/iveiv and arroKoiTTtiv See Dion 
Cassius Ixxix. 11 (quoted by Bentley 
Crit. Saor. p. 48), and compare Diod. 
Sic. iii. 31. The remonstrance is 
doubly significant as addressed to Ga- 
latians, for Pessinus one of their chief 
towns was the home of the worship of 
Cybele in honour of whom these muti- 
lations were practised: comp. Justin 
Apol, i. p. 70 E diroKomovTai river km 
els fofripa 6eav ra fivoT^pia dvax^ipovtri. 
See also [Bardesanes] de Faio § 20, in 
Cureton's Spic. Syr. p. 32. Thus by 
'glorying in the flesh' the Galatians 
were returning in a very marked way 



[V. 13, 14 

*3'Y/xeIs yap eV iXevdepia eK\ri6riTe, dBeXcpol' jlxo- 
vov nn Tf]V iXevdepiav ets d(j)opiuiriv t^ (rapKi, dWa Sta 
T>7S djaTtri^ SovXevere dXXiiXoi^. "'d jap Tras 1/0 fio^ 
iv ivi XDjia TreirXtipcoTai, ev tw <\rATrHC6ic ton 

to the bondage of their former hea- 
thenism. See iv. 9, v. i. 

avaararovvrfs] stronger than rapacr- 
a-ovTfs; 'They not only incite you to 
sedition, but they overthrow the whole 
framework of your heavenly polity.' 
For avaaraTovv, a word unknown to 
classical writers, who would use ava- 
orarous noielv instead, see Acts xvii. 6, 
xxi. 38. 'Well does he say dvaararoiv- 
Tes,' remarks Chrysostom, 'for aban- 
doningtheir country and their freedom 
and their kindred in heaven, they com- 
pelled them to seek a foreign and a 
strange land ; banishing them from the 
heavenly Jerusalem and the free, and 
forcing them to wander about as cap- 
tives and aliens.' 

13. This is the justification of the 
indignant scorn poured on their of- 
fence: 'They are defeating the very 
purpose of your calling: ye were called 
not for bondage, but for Uberty.' 

eV iXevBepiif] For xaXcTv ejrl see 
I Thess. iv. 7 : comp. Ephes. ii. 10, and 
■Winer § xlviii. p. 492. 

fiovov n^] Here he suddenly checks 
himself, to avoid misunderstanding; 
' Liberty and not licence.' It may be 
that here, as in the Corinthian Church, 
a party opposed to the Judaizers had 
shown a tendency to Antinomian ex- 
cess. At all events, such an outburst 
was ever to be dreaded in a body of 
converted heathens, whether as a pro- 
test against or a rebound from the 
strict formalism which the Judaic 
party sought to impose on the Church ; 
and in this case the passionate tem- 
perament of a Celtic people would 
increase the Apostle's uneasiness. 
Comp. Rom. vi. i sq, Phil. iiL 13 sq 

liovov firi K.T.X.] 'only turn not your 
liberty.' Some mss supply hare, which 

is perhaps a retranslation from 'detis' 
of the Latin versions. For similar in- 
stances of ellipsis see the notes ii. 9, la 
The omission of the verb after the 
prohibitive ju^ is common in animated 
passages in classical writers : e.g. Arist. 
Ach. 345 aKKa /xij /loi irpoc^acrii'. See 
the instances in JelPs Gramm. § 897. 

Comp. Matt. XXVi. 5 nij iv rg eoprrj, 

d(t>opii^v'] The word is peculiar to 
St Paul among the New Testament 
writers, occurring Rom. viL 8, 11, 
2 Cor. V. 12, xi. 12 (twice), i Tim. v. 14. 

Sia T^s dyaTrtjS SovKevere] Both dyd- 

jrijs and dovXevcre are emphatic. St 
Paul's meaning may be expressed by 
a paraphrase thus; 'Your desire to be 
in bondage : I too recommend to you a 
bondage, the subservience of mutual 
love. Temper your liberty with this 
bondage, and it vrill not degenerate 
into licence.' A similar contrast be- 
tween true and false servitude ap- 
pears in I Pet. ii. 16 <ur iXevdepoi cat 
li^ <Bs eVotoXv/i/ia ep^owei t^s KaKiat 
T^v e\ev6€pi(w, aW uf 6eov fiovXoi. 

14. 'Ye profess yourselves anxious 
to fulfil the law ; I show you a simple 
and comprehensive way of fulfilling it.' 
See vi. 2. The idea of completeness 
is brought out by an accumulation of 
separate expressions, 'the entire law,' 
'a single precept,' ' is fulfilled already.' 

o was vSiios] ' t?te entire law.' The 
idea of totality is expressed more 
strongly by the exceptional position of 
the article instead of the more usual 
order was 6 voiios; comp. i Tim. i. 16 
TijK airaaav ftaKpo6vp,iav, Plat. Gorg. p. 
470 £ iv Tourto ij ira(ra euSaifiovia itrriv, 
Ignat. Magn. I t^k ithirav iw^peiav. 

TreTrXijpcoTai] 'is summarily fuU 
filled? For the force of the perfect 
see Winer § xl. p. 341, A. Buttmann 
p. 172. Tertullian {adv. Mare. p. 4) 

V. IS-I7] 



nAHci'oN COY wc c6ayt6n. '^ei Se dWrjAov? oaKveTe 
KOI KaTe(rdieTe, ^KeireTe jxr\ vtt dWriXtav dva\w6fJT€. 

"^Aeyw §6, TrvevjuiaTi TrepLTraTeiTe, Kai eiridviJLiav 
aapKO^ ov fJLri TeAeo"»jT6. ''»J yap a-dp^ evrt^Ujuei kutu 

hints that Marcion perverted the 
meaning of the tense to suit his pur- 
pose, 'si sic Tult intelligi adimpleta 
est, quasi jam non adimplenda.' The 
present wXijpoOrat in the received text 
enfeebles the sense. The meaning of 
TrXtjpovv here is not to 'sum up, com- 
prehend,' but 'to perform, complete,' 
as appears from the parallel passage, 
Rom. xiii. 8 6 ayairav tov ertpov, vo/iou 
TTCTrXifpoiKfv ; so that iv hi Xoyi}), 'in 
one maxim or precept,' means 'in the 
observance of one maxim or precept.' 

tv ™] probably neuter, in apposi- 
tion to the sentence ; comp. Bom. xiii. 
9, 10. See above on iv. 25. 

TOP 7rXij<r»ow] In the original text 
(Lev. xix. 1 8) the word 'neighbour' 
is apparently restricted to the Jewish 
people: 'Thou shalt not bear any 
grudge against the children of thy 
people, but thou shalt love thy neigh- 
hour as thyself.' From the question 
of the lawyer (Luke x. 29) it may be 
inferred that the meaning of this 
term was a common theme for discus- 
sion. Our Lord extends and spiri- 
tualises its meaning ; and in this com- 
prehensive sense, as applying to the 
universal brotherhood of men, St Paul 
here uses it See Tholuck Bergpre- 
digt, V. 43. 

a-tavTovl The received text has lav 
TOP, which some would retain against 
the authority of the best mss on the 
ground that it was altered by scribes 
ignorant of this usage of iavrov for 
the first and second persons. The case 
however with respect to the New Tes- 
tament seems to stand thus; that 
whereas (i) in the plural we always 
find iavTtav etc., never iqnav avrav, 
vfiav avTav etc., as mere reflexives, 
yet (2) in the singular there is not one 
decisive instance of iavrov in the tirst 

or second person; the authority of 
the best mss being mostly against it. 
See A. Buttmann p. 99 ; and for the 
testimony of the mss in this text (Lev. 
xix. 1 8) as quoted in the N. T., Tischen- 
dorf on Bom. xiii. 9. 

15. ^XfTTfTc K.T.X.] A sort of par- 
enthetic warning; 'The contest will 
not end in a victory to either party, 
such as you crave. It will lead to the 
common extinction of both.' St Paul 
returns to his main subject again in ver. 
16. See the introduction, p. 33, note 3. 

16 — 18. 'This is my command. 
Walk by the rule of the Spirit. If you 
do so, you will not, you cannot, gratify 
the lusts of the flesh. Between the 
Spirit and the flesh there is not only 
no alliance ; there is an interminable, 
deadly feud. (You feel these antago- 
nistic forces working in you: you 
would fain follow the guidance of your 
conscience, and you are dragged back 
by an opposing power.) And if you a- 
dopt the rule of the Spirit,jo\i thereby 
renounce your allegiance to the laie.' 

In this passage the Spirit is doubly 
contrasted, first, with the flesh, and 
secondly, with the late. The flesh 
and the law are closely allied: they 
both move in the same element, in 
the sphere of outward and material 
things. The law is not only no safe- 
guard against the flesh, but rather 
provokes it ; and he who would re- 
nounce the flesh, must renounce the 
law also. We have here germs of the 
ideas more fully developed in the 
Epistle to the Bomans. 

16. jryeu/iaTi] the dative of the rule 
or direction : see the notes v. 25, vi. 16. 

ov jj}) TfXeVijTf] 'ye shall in no wise 
fulfil! A strong form of the future 
especially frequent in later Greek; 
see Lubeck Phryn. p. 724. 




TOv irvevfxaro's, to Se Trvev/Jia Kara rfj'i trapKO^' Tavra 
yap a\\»j\o£S dvTiKeiTai, tva fxij, a edv deXrjTe, rauTa 
TTOifJTe. '^€i Se irvevfxaTi dyeorde, ovk ia-re viro vofxov. 

17. TO 8e TTveviia] 'but the Spirit 
strives, fights against the Jlesh.' As 
imBvixfiv cannot apply to the Spirit, 
some other verb must be supplied in 
the second clause. Throughout this 
passage the Trvev/ia is evidently the 
Divine Spirit ; for the human spirit in 
itself and unaided does not stand in 
direct antagonism to the flesh. See 
Miiller's Doctrine of Sin i. p. 354 sq. 

Tavra yap K.r.X.] A parenthetical 
clause, suggested by what has gone 
before, but not bearing on the main 
argument. It is an appeal to their 
own consciousness ; ' Have you not evi- 
dence of these two opposing principles 
in your own hearts 1 How otherwise 
do you not always obey the dictates of 
your conscience 1' 

iva] here seems to denote simply 
the result, whereas in classical writers 
it always expresses the purpose. For 
this late use of the word see the note 
on I Thess. v. 4. 

a eav ^eXi/re] The parallel passage, 
Rom. vii. 15, 16, determines the mean- 
ing of 6e\eiv here. It denotes the 
promptings of the conscience ; 'video 
meliora proboque.' 

18. irvev/um ayeaBe] Comp. Rom. 
viii. 14 oa-oi yap wvevfiaTi eeoS ayovrai. 

OVK iark viro vop-ov], 'You have escaped 
from the dominion of law.' See on ver. 
23. An anonymous writer in Cramer's 
Catena p. 81 (where the words are 
wrongly assigned to Chrysostom) says, 
ov v6pM rm oiveiKovvTi boiXois, wveviiari 
8e Ta SyovTi rcKva &eov. For po/ior 
without the article, see iii. 18, iv. 4, 5. 

19. 'Would you ascertain whether 
you are walking by the Spirit ? Then 
apply the plain practical test.' 

anra] 'such as are,' not a, 'which 
are' ; the list not being exhaustive, but 
giving; instances only. See on iv. 24. 

Though no systematic classification 

is to be looked for in the catalogue 
which follows, yet a partial and uncon- 
scious arrangement may perhaps be 
discerned. The sins here mentioned 
seem to fall into four classes : (i) Sen- 
sual passions, 'fornication, unclean- 
ness, licentiousness'; (2) Uniawful 
dealings in things spiritual, 'idolatry, 
witchcraft'; (3) Violations of brotherly 
love, 'enmities.. .murders'; (4) Intem- 
perate excesses, 'drunkenness, revel- 
lings.' From early habit and constant 
association a Gentile Church would be 
peculiarly exposed to sins of the first 
two classes. The third would be a 
probable consequence of their religious 
dissensions, inflaming the excitable 
temperament of a Celtic people. The 
fourth seems to be thrown in to give a 
sort of completeness to the list, though 
not unfitly addressed to a nation whose 
Gallic descent perhaps disposed them 
too easily to these excesses; see the 
introduction p. 13. 

TTopveia k.t.X.] The same three words 
occur together in a difl'erent order 
2 Cor. xii. 21. The order here is per- 
haps the more natural ; Tropvela a spe- 
cial form of impurity, oKaBapo-ia un- 
cleanness in whatever guise, do-e'Xy«a 
an open and reckless contempt of pro- 

aKaOapa-ial Comp. Rom. i. 24. There 
is no sufficient ground for assigning to 
this word the sense 'covetousness'; 
see the note on 1 Thess. ii. 3. 

da-i^yeial' wantonness.' A man may 
be oKadapTos and hide his sin; he does 
not become da-f\y^s until he shocks 
public decency. In classical Greek the 
word do-cXyfta generally signifies in- 
solence or violence towards another, as 
it is defined in Bekker's Anecd. p. 451, 
)) ^er' (irripfaaiiov KaX 6pa<TVTriTos /Sio. 
In the later language, in the New Tes- 
tament for instance, the prominent 

V. 19, 2o] 



^'^ai/epa Se ia-Tiv to. epya t»Js trapKO's, ccTivd ia-Tiv 
TTOpveia, aKaQaptriay dcreXyeia, '° el^ojXoXaTpeid, <pap- 
fxaKeia, exOpai, epts, ^A.os, dv/uLoi, epideiai, ^i^ocrra<riai. 

idea is sensuality, according to the 
loose definition in Etym. Ma^. cVoi- 
(loTT/s irpos tracrav ijfioi/^i/ : comp. Polyb. 
Xxxvii. 2 iroXX^ de ris d<ri\yeia Kai irtpl 
Tas (raiueriKas firidviilas avr^ fTVvf^rjKo- 
\ov6fi. Thus it has much the same 
range of meaning as v^pis. 

20. In spiritual things two sins are 
named ; elSaXoKarpeia the open recog- 
nition of false gods, and <j>ap/xaK«'a the 
secret tampering with the powers of 

(papiMKfia} not 'poisoning' here, but 
'sorcery, tcitcherc^,' as its association 
with 'idolatry' shows: comp. Rev. xxL 
8 <j>apiiaKois koI elSaKciKoTpais. On the 
different kinds of <j)apfiaKeia see espe- 
cially Plato Legg. xi. pp. 932, 933: 
comp. Philo de Migr. Abr. p. 449 m 
fj ov\ opas TO'iis c'lraoiSovr koI (jjapfia- 
Kfvras dvTi.(TO<j>iaTfvovTas t^ 6eia \6ya, 
QuodDet. Pot. p. 198 JItovs Iv Alyvirra 
7-(3 (Tffl/ian (ro<j>L(TTas ovs (ftapfUiKeas ovo- 
fLa(ti, Plato Symp. p. 203 D hea/hs yoijs 
Koi (j)apfiaKevs Kcu o'O0io'r^f> This is a 
common sense oi (fyapfmnevs, ^apiioKela, 
in tlie Lxx. It is a striking coincidence, 
if nothing more, that (fiapfuiKeiai, were 
condemned by a very stringent canon 
of the council held at Ancyra the capi- 
tal of Galatia (about a.d. 314); see 
Ilefelo Concilieng. i. p. 209. For the 
prevalence of yoijreia in Asia Minor 
see Greg. Naz. Orat. iv. 31 (1. p. 91) ; 
<!omp. 2 Tim. iiL 13. 

20, 21. €x6pai, K.r.X.] A principle 
of order may be observed in the enu- 
meration which follows ; (i) tx^pw., a 
general expression opposed to ayairq, 
breaches of charity in feeling or in act: 
fiom this point onward the terms are 
in an ascending scale: (2), (3) ipis 
'strife,' not necessarily implying self- 
interest; fiyXor 'rivah-y,' in which the 
idea of self-assertion is prominent: 

(4)> (S) 6viio\ 'wraths,' a more passion- 
ate form of IJ91S ; fpi6elai 'factious ca- 
bals,' a stronger development of ^^Xo; : 
(6), (7) hostility has reached the point 
where the contending parties separate; 
such separation is either temporary 
(St^oorao-iat 'divisions'), or permanent 
(aipfo-eis 'sects, heresies'): (8) <j)66voi, 
a grosser breach of charity than any 
hitherto mentioned, the wish to de- 
prive another of what he has; (9) 
tf>6voi, the extreme form which hatred 
can take, the deprivation of life. 

The first four words Ipts f^Xos 6viiol 
epiBfiai occur in the same order 2 Cor. 
xii. 20: comp. Rom. xiii. 13. 

Q\os] ' emulation, rivalry,' not ne- 
cessarily, like (jjdovo!, in a bad sense, 
and in fact with classical writers it is 
generally used otherwise. But as it 
is the tendency of Christian teaching 
to exalt the gentler qualities and to 
depress their opposites, irjXos falls in 
the scale of Christian ethics (see Clem. 
Rom. §§ 4 — 6), while raTretvoTi/r for in- 
stance rises. 

dvpx>t] ^outbursts of wraths On 
Qvpios in its relation to opyi;, as the 
outward manifestation to the inward 
feeUng,see Trench, N. T. Syn. § xxxvii. 
p. 123. The plural is frequent even 
in classical writers : see Lobeck on 
Soph. Aj. 716. 

ipideiaC\ 'cahallings.' Derived from 
epiBos, the word signifies properly 
'working for hire'; hence it gets to 
mean 'the canvassing of hired parti- 
zans' (Suidas, epiBeveaOai opxiiou eoTt 
T^ SeKa^tadai, Koi yap ij ipiBtla eXptfrcu, 
ano TTjs Tov /iia-dov doireais) and hence 
more generally 'factiousness'; comp. 
Arist Polit. v. [viii.] 3, /icra/SaXXovo-t 
8' ai TToXtrcTai koI &vev araireajs dia rt 
rai epideias iS<nr€p eV'Hpaia' e^ aiptrai) 
yap dia tovto iiroirjaav KKrjpaTas, on 

14 — 2 



[V. 21, 22 

alpea-ei?, "(pdovoi, [<l)6vot], fiedai, kw/uloi, koi Ta bfxoia 
TOi/TOts' a irpoXeyta vjuuv Kadtos [fcat] irpoeiTTOV, OTi oi 
TO. TOiavTa TTpda-crovTes ^aa-iXeiav Qeov ov KXrjpovo^Tj- 
'o oe Kapiro'i tov TrvevjULaTos e<rTiv ayairr], 


gpovvTo Tovs cpiBevofievovg. Thus it has 
no connexion with epis, unless indeed 
both are to be referred ultimately to 
the same root epa ipBa>, as is maintain- 
ed by Lobeck Pathol, p. 365. Comp. 
Fritzsche Rom. i. p. 143. For ipiBfia 
following upon ^Xos see James iii. 14, 
ei 8c (rjKov TTiKpbv e}(fTe Kot ipiSeiav, and 
ib. rer. 16. 

aipia-eit] A more aggravated form 
of dixooTao-tat, when the divisions have 
developed into distinct and organized 
parties: comp. i Cor. xi. 18 ducovu crxia^ 
flora fv vpXv virap^tiv Ktu /lepos rt 
nuTT€V(o, Set yap (tat alpeaeis iv vpXv 
thai, and the remarks of Tertullian de 
Praescr. Haer. § 5, thereon. 

21. <f)66voi] On the distinction of 
Q\os the desire to be as well off as 
another, and (^66vos the desire to de- 
prive another of what he has, see 
Aristotle Rhet. ii. 9, 10, 11, who says, 
iiio leai ivuiKf! i(m,v 6 f^Xos kdu ewi- 
eiKav, TO Se (jiBovf'iv <j}av\ov Kal (f>av- 
X<Bv. Compare Trench iV. T. Syn. 
§ xxvi. p. 82, and to the references 
there given add .£sch. Agam. 939 6 
S ax^OovrjTos y ovk eTrifijXot ireXei, and 
Thucyd. ii. 64. 

<p6voi] is omitted by some editors 
with a few of the most ancient texts, 
as an interpolation from Rom. i. 29, 
where ^66vov ^6vov occur together. 
The fact however of the same alli- 
teration occurring in another epistle 
written about the same time is ra- 
ther in its favour, and the omission in 
some texts may be due to the careless- 
ness of a copyist transcribing words 
so closely resembling each other. The 
reading must therefore remain doubt- 
ful Comp. Bur. Troad. 763 (jiSovov 
(ftovov Tc. For the paronomasia see 
Winer § Ixviii. p. 658. 

liidai, Ka/ioi] as Bom. xiii. 13; comp. 

Dion Cass. IxV. 3 fiidm re Jcai Ka/ioi. 

a TrpoXeya k.t.X.] For the construc- 
tion comp. Joh. viii. 54 ov t!/ieis Xeyn-e 
oTi Seos vp.av eartv. 

irpoelirov] probably on the occasion 
of his second visit. See i. 9, iv. 13, 16, 
and the introduction p. 25. 

/Sao-tXciav k.t.X.] Comp. I Cor. vi. 9, 
10, XV. 50. 

22. o 8e Kapirof] The Apostle had 
before mentioned the work* of the 
flesh ; he here speaks of the fruit of 
the Spirit. This change of terms is 
significant. The flesh is a rank weed 
which produces no fruit properly so 
called (comp. Bph. v. 9, 1 1, Rom. vi. 21); 
and St Paul's language here recals the 
contrast of the fig and vine with the 
thorn and the thistle in the parable,. 
Matt. vii. 16 sq. 

22, 23. The difficulty of classifica- 
tion in the list which follows is still 
greater than in the case of the works 
of the flesh. Nevertheless some sort, 
of order may be observed. The catar 
logue falls into three groups of three 
each. The first of these comprises 
Christian habits of mind in their more 
general aspect, 'love, joy, peace' ; the 
second gives special qualities affecting 
a man's intercourse with his neigh- 
bour, 'long-suffering, kindness, benefi- 
cence' ; while the third, again general 
in character like the first, exhibits the 
principles which guide a Christian's- 
conduct, 'honesty, gentleness, temper- 

ayajnj k.t.X.] The fabric is built up, 
story upon story. Love is the foun- 
dation, joy the superstructure, peace 
the crown of all. 

paKpo6vp.ia k.t.X.] This triad is again 
arranged in an ascending scale ; paxpo- 
Bvpia is passive, 'patient endurance^ 
under injuries inflicted by others 'j; 

V. 23, 24] 



X"P^> C'/0»J'"7» /w-aKpodvfxia, ^ptja-Torri^, dyadaxrvpr], tt'kt- 
Tts, '^TTjOavTJjs, iyKpaTeia. KaTO. twv toiovtoov ovk 
ecTTiv vo/jios. "'•ot Se tov \pi<rTOv 'Irjcrov Ttiv trapKa 
ia'Tavpcocrav <ruv TOts TraOrjixaariv kuI Tats eTnBvfJLiai's. 

Xpri<rTarris, neutral, ' a kindly disposi- 
tion towards one's neighbours' not ne- 
cessarily taking a practical form ; dya- 
6a>wlim), active, 'goodness, beneficence' 
as an energetic principle. For the 
first two words compare i Cor. xiii. 4 
r\ ayaiTT) fiaKpoBvfiei \pri(TTevfTai, The 
second is distinguished from the third 
as the ^6os from the ivipyeia ; xP^o^o- 
1-779 is potential dyaBaMrvvrj, dyaBaxrvinf) 
is energizing xpv"''"''!^- They might 
be translated by 'benignitas' and 'bo- 
nitas' respectively, as Jerome renders 
them here, or by 'benevolentia' and 
' beneficentia.' Other distinctions 
which have been given of these words 
are discussed in Trench's N. T. Syn. 
§ Ixiii. p. 218 sq. 

TTioT-ts] seems not to be used here 
in its theological sense 'belief in God.' 
Its position points rather to the pas- 
sive meaning of faith,'trustworthiness, 
fidelity, honesty,' as in Matt, xxiii. 23, 
Tit. ii. 10 ; comp. Kom.iii. 3. See above, 
p. 157. Possibly however it may here 
signify 'trustfulness, reliance,' in one's 
dealings with others; comp. 1 Cor. 
xiii. 7 ij ayam)...TCcaiTa marevei. 

23. irpavTrjs] 'meekness' is joined 
with irioTtt (used apparently in the 
same sense as here) in Ecclus. xlv. 4 
fu morel Koi npairrjTi avrov ^latrev (sc. 
tHavariv). On the meaning of npavnis 
see Trench N. T. Syn. §§ xiii, xliii. 
p. 140 sq-; and on the varying forms 
irpaog (-onjs), npavs (-t^Ti/r), Lobeck 
Phryn. p. 403, Lipsius Gram. Vnters. 
p. 7. The forms in v are the best 
supported in the New Testament : see 
A. Buttmann pp. 23, 24. 

Kara rav roiovrav ic.r.X.] 'against 
such things.' Law exists for the pur- 
pose of restraint, but in the works of 
the Spirit there is nothing to restrain ; 
comp. I Tim. i. 9 elSas toCto, 5ti 8iKala> 

vofios ov Kcirai, avo/iO(f dc Km. awiroraK- 
Tois K.T.X. Thus then the Apostle sub- 
stantiates the proposition stated in 
ver. 18, 'If ye are led by the Spirit, 
ye are not under la w.' 

24. ol be TOV XpurTov 'ItjctoC] ' now 
they that are of Christ Jesus.' Seve- 
ral of the Greek fathers strangely con- 
nected TOV XpioToS with Trjv arapKO, 
' these persons have crucified the flesh 
of Christ,' explaining it in various 
ways; see e.g. Clem. Alex, ^rasg'm. 10 15 
(Potter). Origen however, who so took 
it, seems not to have had 8e in his text, 
and therefore made ot a relative agree- 
ing with Tav Toiovrav, which he took as 
masculine. See Jerome's note here. 

"Iijo-ov] which is struck out in the re- 
ceived text, ought probably to be re- 
tained. It is found in several of the 
oldest texts, and the omission in others 
is easily accounted for by the unusual 
order 6 Xpioros 'iriirovs. This order 
occurs also in Bphes. iii. i, 1 1, Col. ii. 6, 
but in both passages with some varia- 
tion of reading. 

ea-Tavp<o<rav] ' crucified! The aorist 
is to be explained either (i) By refer- 
ence to the time of their becoming 
members of Christ in baptism, as Bom. 
vi. 6 o rsoKaios r\\iS>v avOpionos (ruve- 
oravptiBri; or (2) As denoting that 
the change is complete and decisive, 
without reference to any distinct point 
of time ; see the note on ver. 4, /canj/j- 

Tois iradrjjiaiTiv k.t.X.] ' tlie affections 
and the lusts'; comp. Col.iii.5, i Thess. 
iv. 5, and see Trench iV. 7'./%w.§lxxxvii. 
p. 305. The two words are chiefly 
distinguished as presenting vice on 
its passive and its active side respect- 
ively. Comp. Joseph. [?] il/acc. § 3. At 
the same time nadnimTa perhaps re- 
tains something of the meaning which 



[V. 25, 26 





irvevfxaTi, TrvevfxaTi kui arToi^cofiev. fiij 
yivw/neda KevoSo^oi, aW»jA.oys TrpoKoXovfxevoi, a.\Xr]\ov% 


i6. dXXiiXots tjiBovouvTes. 

it has in Greek phildsophy ; and, if so, 
it is more comprehensive than iwiOv- 
(liai ; see for instance Arist. Eth. Nie. 
ii. 4 "Kiyto Se rraOrj fieu (nidvfiiav 
ofiyfjv <^6/3oK dpa<Tos k.t.\. 

25. 'You have crucified your old 
selves : yon are dead to the flesh and 
you live to the Spirit. Therefore con- 
form your conduct to your new life.' 
See Gal ii. 19, 20, and especially Bom. 
vi. 2 — 14, where the same thoughts are 

The ' life to the Spirit,' of which the 
Apostle here speaks, is an ideal rather 
than an actual life ; it denotes a 
state which the Galatians were put 
in the way of attaining rather than 
one which they had already attained. 
Otherwise the injunction 'walk also by 
the Spirit ' were superfluous. Comp. 
Col. iii. I, Ephes. iv. 30. This is always 
St Paul's way of speaking. Members 
of the Christian brotherhood are in 
his language the ' saints,' the 'elect,' 
by virtue of their admission into the 
Church. It remains for them to make 
their profession a reality. 

« fm/iiei' ffveu/ian] ' if toe live to the 
Spirit.' The dative here is safest in- 
terpreted by the corresponding datives 
in the parallel passage, Rom. vi. 2, 10, 
T), ajxapTii} dwoBaueiv, ver. 1 1 vexpovs niv 
Tj ap,apTi<f fmwrar Se ra QeiS ; comp. 
also Bom. xiv. 8, Kvpia ^a/itv, Kvpiai 
a7ro6tni<TKop,€V, 2 Cor. V. 1 5. 

TrDcvjiaTi Koi <rToi\a)iuv\ 'let us also 
walk by the Spirit.' The dative with 
aroix^lv, n-epmarciv, etc., marks the 
line or direction; as Polyb. xxviii 
5, 6 j3ov\d|Uiei>o( OTOixftv ry rijt (ruyicKrj- 
Tov jrpodecrei. Comp. Pritzsche Rom. 
ni. p. 142, and A. Buttmann p. 160. 
See above v. 16 (with the note), vi. 16. 

26. St Paul works round again to 
the subject of ver. 1 5, and repeats his 
warning. It is clear that something 

had occurred which alarmed him on 
this point. See the introduction, p. 14. 

There is a gradation in the phrases 
used here. Vainglory provokes con- 
tention ; contention produces envy. 

yivtoiicda] not ^fiev. This yain- 
glorying was a departure from their 
spiritual standard. 

Kei>6So|o(] 'vainglorious.' So Keva- 
So^ia, Phil. ii. 3, and occasionally in 
Polybius and later writers. In Wisd. 
xiv. 14 K€vo8o^ia seems to mean rather 
' vain opinion,' ' folly.' 

TrpoKaXou/iCKot] 'provoking, challeng- 
ing to combat.' Both this word and 
<j>6oveiv are aira| Xryd/ici>a in the Xew 
Testament. In the lxx (jidovelv oc- 
curs once only, Tob. iv. 16 ; wpoKoKei- 
irdat never. 

dXXijXovf <j)6ovovvTes] I have ven- 
tured to place the accusative in the 
text rather than the dative, in defer- 
ence to a few excellent authorities, 
though I am not aware of any other 
example of (t>6ovfXv with an accusative 
of the person. It seems to be one out 
of many instances of the tendency of 
later Greek to produce uniformity by 
substituting the more usual case of 
the object for the less usual ; see the 
note on eyKoirreiv ver. 7. Comp. also 
Heb. viii. 8 fieiitfioiievot avrovs (the cor- 
rect reading). So too TroXe/ieiv takes 
an accusative, e.g. Ignat. Troll. 4. 

VI. I — 5. ' As brethren, I appeal to 
you. Act in a brotherly spirit. I 
have just charged you to shun vain- 
glory, to shun provocation and envy. 
I ask you now to do more than this. 
I ask you to be gentle even to those 
whose guilt is flagrant. Do any of 
you profess to be spiritually-minded 1 
Then correct the offender in a spirit 
of tenderness. Correct and reinstate 
him. Bemember your own weakness; 
reflect that you too may be tempted 

VI. I] 



VI. 'A^e\<poi, idv Kal irpoKnfJiCpQri avOpwiro^ ev Tin 
irapaTTTtaixaTi, vyuets 01 TrvevjuLaTiKOi KaTapri^eTe tov 
ToiovTov iv TrvevjuiaTi irpavTriTO^y (Tkottwv treavTOV fxn 

some day, and may stand in need of 
like forgiveness. Have sympathy one 
with another. Lend a ready hand in 
bearing your neighbours' burdens. So 
doing you will fulfil the most perfect of 
all laws — the law of Christ. But if 
any one asserts his superiority, if any 
one exalts himself above others, he is 
nothing worth, he is a vain self-de- 
ceiver. Nay rather let each man test 
Ms own work. If this stands the test, 
then his boast will be his own, it will 
not depend on comparison with others. 
Each of us has his own duties, his own 
responsibilities. Each of us must carry 
his own load.' 

I. aheK^mi]^ Brothers' 'A whole 
argument lies hidden under this one 
word,' says Bengel. See iii. 15, iv. 12 
and especially vi. i8. 

The fervour and pathos of this ap- 
peal are perhaps to be explained by 
certain circumstances which engaged 
St Paul's attention at this time. A 
grave offence had been committed in 
the Church of Corinth. St Paul had 
called upon the Corinthian brethren 
to punish the offender; and his ap- 
peal had been promptly and zealously 
responded to. He had even to pro- 
test against undue severity, to inter- 
pose for the pardon of the guilty one. 
The remembrance of this incident still 
fresh on his mind may be supposed to 
have dictated the injunction in the 
text. The striking resemblance in his 
tone here to 2 Cor. ii. 6 — 8, where he 
is speaking of the Corinthian offender, 
bears out this conjecture. See the 
introduction, p. 54. 

iav KaC\ See the note on i. 8. 

npoKriii<l>6ri\ ' he surprised, detected 
in the act of committing any sin,' so 
that his guilt is placed beyond a doubt. 
For this sense of rrpoKaii^aveiv, 'to 
take by surprise, to overpower before 

one can escape,' see VVisd. xvii. 16 
■iTpo\rjji<j)6e\s TijK hviraKvKTov efuvev 
avaynrjv : comp. xaretXijirrat, Joh. viii. 4. 
The word cannot here mean ' be be- 
trayed into sin,' for neither will the 
preposition iv admit this meaning, nor 
is it well suited to the contest. 

v/ieif o( TtvfviiaTixoi\ St Paul had 
once and again urged them to walk 
by the Spirit (v. 16, 25). This ex- 
plains the form of address here ; 'Ye 
who have taken my lesson to heart, 
ye who would indeed be guided by 
the Spirit.' Their readiness to for- 
give would be a test of their spirit- 
uality of mind. It might indeed be 
supposed that the Apostle was here 
addressing himself especially to the 
party of more liberal views, who had 
taken his side against the Judaizers, 
and in their opposition to ritualism 
were in danger of paying too little 
regard to the weaker brethren ; comp. 
Rom. XV. I ^fifis 01 hvvaroL In this 
case there would be a slight shade of 
irony in irvtvpaTiKoL The epistle how- 
ever betrays no very distinct traces of 
the existence of such a party in the 
Galatian Churches (see v. 13), and in- 
deed the context here is far too general 
to apply to them alone. For oi irvcv- 
fiariKoi, see I Cor. ii. 13, 15, iii. i. 

KOTaprtfeT-f] ' correct, restore! The 
idea of punishment is quite subordi- 
nate to that of amendment in KorapTi- 
ffre, which on this account is preferred 
here to KoXafere or even vovdereiTc, 
though the latter occurs in a similar 
passage, 2 Thess. iii. 15 ju^ m; €x6p6r 
^yeiade oKKa vovdeTflre ms a8e\<j>6v. On 
KarapTL^dv see the note i Thess. iii. 10. 
It is used especially as a surgical term, 
of setting a bone or joint; see the 
passages in Wetstein on Matt iv. 21. 

iv jTvfVfiaTi irpavTrjTos] Comp. I Cor. 
IV. 21 ev ayaTTTj 7rv€vp.aTi re npavTijTOs, 




Kai aril 7reipa(rdr)^. 'a'AAjjXwi' ra ^ctpri 0a<rTa^eTe, Kai 
oi/Tws dvairXr]pu)<rere tov vofiov tov Xpurrou. ^ei yap 
So/cet Tts eli/ai ti firidev wu, (ppevaTtaTO. iavToV ^to Se 

2. oilrws &va7r\Tjp(i3(raTet 

Gentleness is a characteristic of true 
spirituality. By tlieir conduct towards 
wrong-doers tlieir claim to the title of 
jTvew/xariKoi would be tested. 

a-Konav] The transition from the 
plural to the singular gives the charge 
a direct personal application; 'each 
one of you individaally.' Compare the 
Koi <nJ, and see the note on iv. 7. 

2. ' If you must needs impose bur- 
dens on yourselves, let them be the 
burdens of mutual sympathy. If you 
must needs observe a law, let it be the 
law of Christ.' The Apostle seems to 
)'ave used both jSapi; and i/a/uoi> (the 
latter certainly), with a reference to 
the ritualistic tendencies of the Gala- 
tians ; see above vv. 13, 14. For the 
idea of the burden of the Mosaic law 
compare especially Luke xi. 46 (^opW- 
fsTe Tovs avdpdirovs (l>opTia hva^cur- 
TOKTa, Acts XT. 10 fniBflvai (vyov ov 
ovTt ol iraripes iJ^tSy oirre Tj/ieis 1(T)(^- 
trafiev jSaarairat, ver. 28 firjBev irXeov 
f7riTi6e(r6ai vfiiv jSdpos. For the ' law 
of Christ,' always in contrast to the 
law of Moses, see i Cor. ix. 21 cvko/ioi 
Xpiarov, Rom. iii. 27 Sia ttoiov vo/iov; 
Tav epyav; ovxt, dXKa Sia voiiov iritr- 
reas, viii. 2 o v6p,os tov rrvevnaros ttjs 
fa^s k.tX; comp. James L 25, ii. 12. 

dWijXmv ra ^aprj K.T.X.I Comp. Matt. 
viiL 17, Bom. xv. I to aa-6ei>i^p,ara ran 
aSwdrav j3aoTaf€u>, Ignat. Polye. I. 
navras fidara^e as Kai (re 6 Kvpios, 
and again wavTav ras voaovs /Sderrafe, 
Epist. ad Diogn. § 10 outis to tov 
ir\r)<riov dvadixfrai ^dpos. Here the po- 
sition of dWrjkaiv is emphatic : ' These 
are the burdens I would have you bear 
— not the vexatious ritual of the law, 
but your neighbour's errors and weak- 
nesses, his sorrows and sufferings.' 

dvanKrjpda-fTe] 'ye will rigorously 
fulfil,' the idea of completeness being 

contained in the preposition. It is 
difficult to decide here between the 
readings dvairKripdatTe and avaTrXijpai- 
iraTf, the external authority for either 
being nearly balanced. On the whole 
the preference may perhaps be given 
to di/a7rXi/p(i>(rcrc as having the ver- 
sions for the most part in its favour, 
such testimony being in a case like the 
present less open to suspicion than 
any other. On the other hand dra- 
TrXijpmo-aTf makes excellent sense ; the 
past tense, so far from being an ob- 
jection, is its strongest recommenda- 
tion; for this tense marks the com- 
pleteness of the act, and thus adds 
to the force of the preposition, ' fulfil 
the law then and' there.' See the 
passages in Winer § xliii. p. 393. 

TOV Xpio-rou] is added in a manner 
jrapa TrpoaSoKiav; ' the law not of Moses 
but of Christ.' 

3. These words are connected with 
the first verse of the chapter, the 
second being an amplification of and 
inference from the first. 

el yap SoKel tis ict.X.] Conip. Plat. 
Apol. p. 41 I< edv hoK&trl rt elvai p,rjbev 
ovTes, Arrian Epict. ii. 24 boKav fiev 
Tis elvai av S' ovhe'is : and for ovbkv 

eivai, see I Cor. xiii. 2, 2 Cor. xii. 11. 

lifjSev av] ' being nothing,' i e. ' see- 
ing that he is nothing,' not ' if be is 
nothing,' for the very fact of his think- 
ing highly of himself condemns him. 
'His estimate,' says Chrysostom, 'is 
a leading proof of his vileness.' In 
Christian morality self-esteem is vanity 
and vanity is nothingness. With the 
Christian it is 'not I but the grace 
of God which is with me ' : see i Cor. 
iii. 7, XT. 9, 10, 2 Cor. iii. 5. 

(ppevairoTqi] ' deceives by his /andes,' 
comp. Tit. i. 10 ^araioXdyot Kai (jypeva- 
Trdrai. More is implied by this word 




epyov iavTOv SoKifxa^eTto eKaerTOs, Kui Tore ets eavTov 
fiovov TO KavxifJi'Ci e^et, kui ovk eJs top erepow ^cKa- 
(TTOs yap TO idiov (popTiov ^atTTaaei. 

than by anarav, for it brings out the 
idea of tuigeetivejaneiea and thus en- 
forces the previous doKci. It was pos- 
sibly coined by St Paul, for it seems 
not to be found in any earUer writer, 
and at a later date occurs chiefly, if 
not solely, in ecclesiastical authors. 

4. TO 8c epyov iavTov] ' hii Oicn 
work' ; epyov, emphatic by its position, 
stands in contrast to doxci and <l)peva- 
irara ; and this contrast is enhanced 
by the addition of eavrov. 

8oKLiia^eT<a\ ' let him test, examine' ; 
see the notes on i Thess. ii. 4, v. 21. 

fU eavTov K.T.X.] 'in him,self and not 
by comparison with others.' 'Probi- 
tas in re, non in collatione,' says Cas- 
taUo. For the preposition compare 
Ephes. iii. 16 Kparaiadfjvai els rbv eo'co 
avdpawov, Rom. iv. 20, XV. 2, xvi 6, 
etc. : Winer § xlix. p. 496. 

ro KavxvH'''-] ''*** ground for boast- 
ing'; KavxtP'a is the matter of Kavx>)- 
<ris ; compare Rom. iii. 27 with iv. 2, 
and 2 Cor. i. 12 ij yap kouxho^i-s ^fiav 
avrr] itrrlv tcr.X. with 1. 14 on Kav^rjpa 
v/tSv i(rpAv. 

TOP cTtpov] 'his neighbour.' For the 
article compare Rom. ii. i, xiii. 8, 
I Cor. vi. I, X. 24, 29. 

5. Having started from the pre- 
cept 'bear one another's loads,' the 
Apostle has worked round to an appa- 
rently contradictory statement 'each 
man must bear his own burden.' This 
expression of complementary truths 
under antagonistic forms is character- 
istic of St Paul. For instances of 
similar paradoxes of expression see 
PhiL ii. 12, 13 'work out your own 
salvation, for it is God that worketh 
in you,' or 2 Cor. xii. 10 'when I am 
weak, then I am strong.' Compare 
also his language in speaking of the 
law, Romans vi, vii. 

TO iSiov (t>opTiov'] It is difficult to 

establish any precise distinction be- 
tween f^opTiov here and /3api?, ver. 2. 
This much difference however there 
seems to be, that the latter suggests 
the idea of an adventitious and op- 
pressive burden, which is not neces- 
sarily implied in the former ; so that 
/Sapi; points to a load of which a man 
may fairly rid himself when occasion 
serves, (ftoprlov to a load which he is 
expected to bear. Thus (ftopriov is a 
common term for a man's pack, e.g. 
Xen. Mem. iii. 13. 6. Here it is per- 
haps an application of the common 
metaphorof Christian warfare in which 
each soldier bears his own kit ((fiop- 
riov), as each is supplied with his own 
provisions (ecfioSia, Clem. Rom. 2), and 
each receives his proper pay (o^iivia 
I Cor. ix. 7, Ignat. Pol. 6). The soldier 
of Christ sets out on his march, 'Non 
secus ac patriis acer Romanus in armis 
Injusto sub fasce viam cum carpit.' If 
so, /SaoTafetx to iSiov (jiopriov refers 
rather to the discharge of the obliga- 
tions themselves than to the punish- 
ment undergone for their neglect. 

jSaordo-ft] 'is appointed to bear, 
must bear.' Each man has certain 
responsibilities imposed on him indi- 
vidually, which he cannot throw off. 
For the future tense see ii. 16, Winer 
§ xl. p. 296. 

6. ' I spoke of bearing one another's 
burdens. There is one special appli- 
cation I would make of this rule. Pro- 
vide for the temporal wants of your 
teachers in Christ.' Ae arrests a for- 
mer topic before it passes out of sight ; 
see the note iv. 20. Otherwise it might 
be taken as qualifying the clause which 
immediately precedes: 'Each man 
must bear his own burden ; but this 
law does not exempt you from support- 
ing your spiritual teaciiers.' Such a 
turn of the sentence however, inas- 



[VI. 6, 7 

^Koivcove'iTw Be 6 Karrixov/nevos tov Xoyou tm KUTtj- 
^ovi/Ti ev TTcicnv dyadoi^. '' fxrt irXavaade, 0eos ov /xi/ktjj- 
pi^eTai' o <yap iav (rireiptj avSpwiro^, tovto kui 6epi<rei' 

much a8 it is not obvious, might be 
expected to be marked in some more 
decided way than by the very faint 
opposition implied by Sc. 

6. Koivmvelrw]' let him impart to'; 
literally 'let him go shares with.' The 
word is properly intransitive and 
equivalent to Kowavhs elmi 'to be a 
partner with.' It may be construed 
with all three cases: (i) The genitive 
of the thing which is participated in : 
once only in the New Testament, 
Heb. ii. 14 KeKoivdniKev alfiaros xai aap- 
Kos ; comp. Prov. i. 1 1, 2 Mace. xiv. 25. 
In this case the verb may denote 
either the person who gives or the 
person who receives. (2) The accusa- 
tive of the thing imparted, as MscYi. 
C. Ctes. p. 63 ol mroSofuvoi koI kuto- 
KoivavtjiravTfs ra rrjs TroXfcas l(rxvpa, 
a rare construction not found perhaps 
with the simple verb, and due in the 
passage quoted to the preposition. 
(3) The dative, which is explained by 
the idea of partnership implied in 
KoivavSs, and expresses the person or 
thing with which the other makes 
common cause. He who Koivavet in 
this case may be either the receiver, as 
Rom. XV. 27 Tois itvevjJiaTiKoXs avrav (koi- 
vmvrioav ™ e0vi), Or the giver, as Rom. 
xii. 13 Tois xpeiais rSiv ay'tajv Koivtovovv 
res. Here the latter is intended. 

KaTtjxovftfvos] 'instructed.' The word 
in this sense is not peculiar to biblical 
Greek. Ka-rrixita-is ' oral instruction ' 
occurs as early as Hippocrates p. 28. 
25 KOTTyx'/Vior IhmTiatv, and probably 
Kan]xfiv 'to instruct' was in common 
use in the other dialects, though it 
would seem to have been banished 
from the Attic of the classical period. 
See the remarks on airoirroKos, p. 92 
note 3. 

€V natnv ayaOdts] ' in all good things.' 

The obligation of the hearers of the 
word to support the ministers of the 
word is again and again insisted upon 
by St Paul, though he seldom asserted 
his own claims ; see i Thess. ii 6, 
9, 2 Cor. xi. 7 sq, PMl. iv. 10 sq, 
I Tim. V. 17, 18, and especially i Cor. 
ix. II. The resemblance of language 
in this last passage leaves no doubt 
that St Paul is here speaking of im- 
parting temporal goods. The meta- 
phor of sowing and reaping both there 
and in the very close. parallel, 2 Cor. 
ix. 6, has reference to liberality in 
almsgiving. The more general sense 
which has been assigned to this pas- 
sage, 'let the taught sympathize with 
the teacher in all good things,' is not 
recommended either by the context 
or by St Paul's language elsewhere. 
For ayaBois, 'temporal blessings,' see 
Luke i. 53, xii. 18, 19, xvL 25. Com- 
pare Barnabas § 19 Koivav^a-fis iv 
■naai t^ TrXijo-ioK irov. 

7,8. 'What? you hold back? Nay, 
do not deceive yourselves. Your 
niggardliness will find you out. You 
cannot cheat God by your fair pro- 
fessions. You cannot mock Him. Ac- 
cording as you sow, thus will you reap. 
If you plant the seed of your own 
selfish desires, if you sow the field of 
the flesh, then when you gather in 
your harvest, you will find the ears 
blighted and rotten. But if you sow 
the good ground of the Spirit, you 
will of that good ground gather the 
golden grain' of life eternal' 

7. ojJ /xuKTiypiffTot] 'is not mocked.' 
MvKTTipiieiv, which is properly 'to turn 
up the nose at,' 'to treat with con- 
tempt,' involves as a secondary mean- 
ing the idea of contradicting one's 
language by one's gesture or look, 
and so implies an outward avowal of 

VI. 8, 9] 



OTt 6 (Fireipwv ets tjjV crdpKa iauroO e'/c t^Js (rapKOi 
Qepiaei (pQapdv, 6 Se (TTreiptJv eis to Trvevfxa 6k tow 
TTi/ey/xaTOS depicrei ^wrjv alwviov. ^t6 8e K:a\oj/ Trot- 

respect neutralised by an indirect ex- 
pression of contempt. In other words 
it conveys the idea of irony, whether 
this irony be dissembled or not. Thus 
fivKT^p is frequently connected with 
elpmveia, as In Lucian Prom. c. i ; 
compare Pollux ii. 78 ml tov eipava. 
Tives /ivKTiipa KaKov<Ti. In writers on 
rhetoric fivivnipuTfibs is ordinarily 
treated as a species of flpmvela; see 
for instance four different treatises on 
' tropes ' in the Bhet, Graee. m. pp. 
20s, 213, 23s, 254 (ed. Spengel). 
Similarly Quintilian, viii. 6, 59, well 
defines it, ' dissimulatus quidam sed 
non latens risus.' Such is the force of 
livKTTjpiCfTai in this passage : ' you 
cannot with impunity turn your pro- 
fessions to contempt, you cannot with 
God indulge in a.postica sanna.' 

b yap iav ic.t.X.] A common proverb 
not only in the Bible (Job iv. 8), but 
elsewhere ; e.g. Cio. de Orat. ii. 65 
' ut sementem feceris, ita metes,' and 
Gorgias in Arist. Rhet. iii. 3 a-v fie ToCra 
ai(TXP^s /iiv eaireipas xaKas 8e iBepiaas 
(see Plato Phaedr. 260 c, Thompson's 
note). It occurs in 2 Cor. ix. 6, of 
the contributions for the brethren 
of Judaea. To this object the Gala- 
tians also had been asked to contri- 
bute (i Cor. xvi. i). We may there- 
fore conjecture that niggardliness was 
a besetting sin with them (see p. 14); 
that they had not heartily responded 
to the call; and that St Paul takes 
this opportunity of rebuking their 
backwardness, in passing from the ob- 
ligation of supporting their ministers 
to a general censure of illiberality. 
See p. 55. 

8. The former verse speaks of the 
kind qf seed sown (o iav a-Ttelpri). In 
the present the metaphor is otherwise 
applied, and the harvest is made to 
depend on the nature qf the ground 

in which it is cast (ds), as in the para- 
bleof the sower. In moral husbandry 
sowers choose different soils, as they 
choose different seeds. The harvest 
depends on both the one and the 
other. For St Paul's diversified ap- 
plication of metaphors, see the notes 
on ii. 20, iv. 19. 

iavToii] which disturbs the equi- 
librium of the clauses, is added to 
bring out the idea of selfishness. 

tjidopdv] ' rottenness, corruption.' 
The field of the flesh yields not full 
and solid ears of corn, which may be 
gathered up and garnered for future 
use, but only blighted and putrescent 
grains. Comp. l Cor. xv. 42 oTTcipertu 
iv <f>6opS., Col. ii. 22 a iariv navra tXs 
(pdopav Tji dnoxpwei. The metaphor 
suggests that (jtBopav should be taken 
in its primary physical sense. At the 
same time in its recognised secondary 
meaning as a moral term, it is directly 
opposed tolifeeternal,aud so forms the 
link of connexion between the emblem 
and the thing signified. In ^afi aldvios 
the metaphor is finally abandoned. 

9. Having passed from a particular 
form of beneficence (ver. 6) to bene- 
ficence in general (w. 7, 8), the Apo- 
stle still further enlarges the compass 
of his advice ; ' Nay, in doing what is 
honourable and good let us never tire.' 
Compare 2 Thess. iii. 13/117 c'yKamjcnjrc 
KaKoiroiovvres. The word KoKoiroieiy 
includes ayadonoteiv and more, for 
while ra dyaBa are beneficent actions, 
kind services, etc., things good in their 
results, ra KoXa are right actions, such 
as are beautiful in themselves, things 
absolutely good. In this passage, as 
in 2 Thess. I, c, the antithesis of koKov 
and KUKov seems to be intended, though 
it can scarcely be translated into Eng- 
lish ; 'in well doing let us not show an 
ill heart.' 



[VI. lo 

0UI/T6S ^^7 eyKaKcojuev KaipcS yap iSlip BepKTOfiev fxt] 
eKXvoi^ievoi. "apa ovv ws Kuipov e-xpixev, epya^w/JLeda 

fyKOKanev] 'turn cowards,- lose 
heart'; iyKaKeiv or ivKOKelv is the cor- 
rect word in the Kew Tegtament, not 
fKKaKfiv. It is read persistently in a 
few of the best mss, though in all 
six passages where it occars ixKaKtiy 
is found as a various reading ; see the 
note on 2 Thess. iii. 13. 

KQipffl Ibla] ' at its proper season' 
i.e. the regular time for harvest; comp. 
1 Tim. ii. 6, vi. 15, Tit. i. 3. 

|iij eK\v6fievoi1 ' if we faint not,' as 
husbaudmeu overcome with heat and 
fatigue. Comp. James v. 7. For «- 
"KveaBai compare I Mace, iii 17, Matt. 
XV. 32, Marli viii. 3. On the synonymes 
here used Bengel remarks: ' cKKaKelv 
[rather eyKaKeiv] est in velle, eKKvetrSai 
est \D posse.' To this it may be added 
that (K\vea6at is a consequence of e'y- 
KOKflv ; the prostration of the powers 
following on the submission of the will. 

10. las Kaipov exofiev] ' as we find 
a seasonable time, as opportunity pre- 
sents.' The Kaipos here answers to the 
Kaipoi of the former verse. There is 
a time for sowing as there is a time 
for harvest. 'Qs is perhaps best trans- 
lated as above. There is however no 
objection to rendering it ^ while we 
have time' ; comp. Joh. xii. 35 mi rh 
<f)as ex^Tf (as it is read in the best 
mss), Ignat. STnym. 9 mr in Koipou 
exofjiev, [Clem. Rom.] ii. 8 mr ovv t<rpev 
iiTi yijs, ib. § 9 air fx°l'-^* Kaipov. The 
distinction is introduced by transla- 
tion ; the original o>s covers both 

Toiis oUfiovs K.T.X.] 'the members of 
the household of the faith': compare 
Ephes. ii. 19 (rvi'TroXirat t&v aylav Kol 
oiKciot roS Oeov, Similarly the Church 
is elsewhere spoken of as the hmise of 
God, I Tim. iii. 15, i Pet. iv. 17; comp. 
I Pet. ii. 5, Heb. iii 6. We need not 
therefore hesitate to assign this mean- 
ing to otiieiot here. Comp. Clem. Bee. 

p. 45, 1. 31 (Syr.). In this case t^s 
iriarems will probably be nearly equi- 
valent to Tov €vayye\iov; see above, 
p. 157. On the other hand, oixcios 
Tivos is not an uncommon phrase in pro- 
fane writers for 'acquainted with,' e.g. 
(f}iKo(ro<l>ias, yeaypa^ias, oXiyap^caf, 
TvpawiSos, Tpv(l)rjs ; see the passages 
in Wetstein: but this sense would be 
insipid here. 

II. At this point the Apostle takes 
the pen from his amanuensis, and the 
concluding paragraph is written with 
his own hand. From the time when 
letters began to be forged in his name 
(2 Thess. ii. 2, iii 17), it seems to have 
been his practice to close with a few 
words in his own handwriting as a 
precaution against such forgeries. Fre- 
quently he confined himself to adding 
the final benediction (2 Thess. iii 1 7, 18), 
with perhaps a single sentence of ex- 
hortation, as ' If any one love not the 
Lord Jesus Christ, etc' (i Cor. xvi 
21 — 24), or 'Remember my bonds' 
(Col. iv. 18). In the present case he 
writes a whole paragraph, summing 
up the main lessons of the epistle in 
terse eager disjointed sentences. He 
writes it too in large bold characters, 
that his handwriting may reflect the 
energy and determination of his soul 
(see above, p. 65). To this feature 
he calls attention in the words which 

"iSert K.T.\.] 'Look you in what 
large letters I write with m,ine own 
hand! In the English version the 
words are translated 'How large a 
letter I have written vrith mine own 
hand.' It is true indeed that ypa^- 
p,a.ra sometimes signifies 'a letter' 
(Acts xxviii 21, i Mace. v. 10, comp. 
Ignat. Polyc. 7, Clem. Horn, xii 10), 
and therefore td^Xikq ypajipara might 
mean 'how long a letter'; but on the 
other hand, it seems equally clear that 

VI. ii] 



TO dyadov ttjoos TraVras, ixaKurra 8e ttjOO? toi)s o'lKeiovs 
I06T6 TrrjXiKOts vfMV ypdfxfxaa-iv eypa-^a tJj 6/x>7 


ypaiiiuuriv ypaiptiv 'to write ««<A fe^ 
<w«' cannot be used for ypaiifwra 
ypcufifiv 'to write a letter.' On this 
account the other interpretation must 
be preferred. But what is the Apo- 
stle's object in calling attention to the 
handwriting! Does he, as Chryso- 
stom and others have supposed, point 
to the rude ill-formed characters in 
which the letter was written, as though 
he gloried in his imperfect knowledge 
of Greek? But where is there any 
mention of rudeness of form ? and is 
it at all probable that St Paul who 
had received a careful education at 
Jerusalem and at Tarsus, the great 
centres of Jewish and of Greek learn- 
ing, should have betrayed this child- 
like ignorance and even gloried in it? 
Or again does he, as others imagine, 
refer to the physical difficulties under 
which he was labouring, the irregu- 
larity of the handwriting being ex- 
plained by his defective eyesight or 
by his bodily suffering? But here 
again mjKiKois denotes size only, not 
irregularity; and altogether this ex- 
planation is forced into the passage 
from without, nor does the sentence 
in this case contain the key to its own 
meaning. Theodore of Mopsuestia 
has caught the point of the expression, 
explaining it ayav nfi^oaiv e;fpi;o-aTO 
ypdfifjLaaiv ip<j>aiv<op ore ovre avTos epv' 
6pta oi/Tf apvciTm ra \ey6p,eva. The 
boldness of the handwriting answers 
to the force of the Apostle's convic- 
tions. The size of the characters will 
arrest the attention of his readers in 
spite of themselves. 

viilu] Its right place is after TrqKi- 
Kois, though a few mss have transposed 
the words. Standing therefore in this 
position, it cannot well be taken with 
eypayj/a, 'I write' or 'I wrote to you' ; 
but is connected rather with wTjXiKois, 

which it emphasizes, 'how large, mark 
you'; see e.g. Plat. Theaet. p. 143 e 

aKovcrai itavv a^iov o(&> v/iiv rmv ttoXi- 
TUK p,eipaKi<f ivTtTvxiKa. 

fypa^a] '/ Write,' the epistolary 
aorist, conveniently translated by a 
present According to the view here 
adopted, it marks the point at which 
St Paul takes the pen into his own 
hand. For other instances of this 
epistolary typa^^ra see Philem. 19, 21, 
I Pet V. 12, I Joh. ii. 14, 21, 26, v. 13; 
comp. eVeo-TftXa, Heb. ,xiii. 22. The 
objection, that the aorist cannot be 
so used except at the close of a letter 
and in reference to what goes before, 
seems to be groundless; for (i) it fails 
to recognise the significance of the 
epistolary aorist, the explanation of 
the past tense being that events are 
referred to the time at which the letter 
is received: (2) There are clear in- 
stances of the past tense used as here, 
e.g. in Mart. Polyc. § i iypa^irap^v 
iifiivj aSeXi^o/, Ta Kara rovs p^aprvprnrav- 
Tas, these words occurring immedi- 
ately after the opening salutation; 
comp. eirffixj/a, Acts xxiii. 30, 2 Cor. ix. 
3, Bphes. vi. 22, CoL iv. 8. The usage 
of the epistolary past (the imperfect 
and pluperfect) is still more marked 
in Latin, and is clearly explained 
by Madvig Gr. § 345. Thus eypayjra 
in no way prejudices the question 
whether the whole letter or the last 
paragraph only was written by 8t 

12, 13. 'Certain men have an ob- 
ject in displaying their zeal for carnal 
ordinances. These are they, who would 
force circumcision upon you. They 
have no sincere belief in its value. 
Their motive is far different They 
hope thereby to save themselves from 
persecution for professing the cross of 
Christ For only look at their incon- 



[VI. 12, 13 

j^etjot. ^^o(roi 6eXov(Tiv evTrpoa-wTrijarai ev (rapKi, ovtoi 
dvayKa^ovariv v/uLcii TrepiTe/uLvecrdai, julovov 'iva tiS (TTavpa 
Tov XpicTOv fxri tiwKwvrai. ^^ovZe •yap oi irepiTefxvo- 
/iievoi avToi vofxov <pv\d.<T(rov(riv, dWa 6e\ov(nv vfxds 

Bistency. They advocate circumcision, 
and yet tliey tliemselves neglect the 
ordinances of the law. They would 
make capital out of your compliance ; 
they would fain boast of having won 
you over to these carnal rites.' 

It was not against bigotry alone 
that St Paul had to contend ; his op- 
ponents were selfish and worldly also; 
they could not face the obloquy to 
which their abandonment of the Mo- 
saic ordinances would expose them; 
they were not bold enough to defy the 
prejudices of their unconverted fellow- 
countrymen. And so they attempted 
to keep on good terms with them by 
imposing circumcision on the Gentile 
converts also, and thus getting the 
credit of zeal for the law. Bven the 
profession of Jesus as Messiah by the 
Christians was a less formidable obsta- 
cle to their intercourse vrith the Jews 
than their abandonment of the law. 

12. evwpoirair^crat K.T.X.] 'to shntB 
fair in the flesh,' i.e. 'to make a pre- 
tentious display of their religion in 
outward ordinances.' The emphasis 
seems to lie as much on evirpoaainiaM 
as on eV a-apKi, so that the idea of in- 
sincerity is prominent in the rebuke. 
Thus the expression is. a parallel to 
our Lord's comparison of the whited 
sepulchres, otTivet e^adev <f>aivovTai 
dpa'toi (Matt, xxiii. 27). The adjec- 
tive evirpoa-tojTos is not uncommon in 
classical Greek, and generally has this 
sense, 'specious, plausible,' e.g. De- 
mosth. p. 277 Xdyour evnpotrdirovs Kai 
livdovs avvdels Koi 8ie^e\6civ. The verb 
iiirpoa-ami^iiv (?) occurs in Symmachus, 
Ps. cxli. 6. 

iv a-apKi\ 'in the fleth^ i.a in ex- 
ternal rites. It has been taken by 
some as equivalent to arapKiKol oi/res, 

but, besides that this interpretation 
is harsh in itself, iv irapiu. here cannot 
well be separated from iv t§ v/ieripf 
a-apKi of the following verse. 

fiovov lva\ seemingly elliptical; 'only 
(their object in doing so is) that they 
may not etc.' See the note on iL 10. 

T^ aravpm tov Xpiarov] not as it is 
sometimes taken, 'with the sufferings 
of Christ,' but 'for professing the cross 
of Christ.' A comparison with ver. 14 
and V. 1 1 seems to place this beyond a 
doubt. The cross of Christ and the 
flesh are opposed, as faith and works. 
They are two antagonistic principles, 
either of which is a denial of the other. 
For the dative of the occasion com- 
pare Rom. li. 20, 30, 2 Cor. ii. 13. 

duoKavrai] The reading Suokovtoi, 
however well supported, can only be 
regarded as a careless way of writing 
SuSKtovrai, In the same way in ver. 10 
many texts read epya^o/ieda for epya- 
(dp.€6a ; compare B/Om. t. i, txpiiev 

and ej^afiev, 

13. ovSe yap k.t.X.] '/or even the 
advocates of circumcision themselves 
do not keep the law.' The allusion 
here is not to the impossibUity of 
observing the law, the distance from 
Jerusalem for instance preventing the 
due sacrifices, for this would argue no 
moral blame; but to the insincerity 
of the men themselves, who were not 
enough in earnest to observe it rigor- 

01 wepiTefivoiievoi] 'the circumcision 
party, the advocates of circumcision.' 
See the apt quotation from the apo- 
cryphal book Act. Petr. et Paul. § 63 
(p. 28, ed. Tisch.), where Simon says 
of the two Apostles, ouroi oi wepi- 
Tfiivofievoi iravovpyol cltrtv, to which 
St Paul replies, npo tov fTrtyvdtvat 

VI. 14, 15] 



^'^ijULOi Se fxri yevoiTO Kav^acrOai, el fxri ev Tto crravpto 
Tov Kvp'iov ^fxwv 'lt]<rou Xpt(rToO, Bi ov ejxol Kocrfj-ns e 
(TTavpiOTat Kajw KocrpLM. 

'^oi/T6 yap TrepiTopLri ti earlv 

rip/ SK-q6eiav trapKos e<T\ofuv nepiToiiriv' 
ore Si f(j>avti 1) dXijdeia, iv rfj Kapbias 
irtpiTOiiji Koi iTtpitefivoufBa Ka\ ne- 
piT4fivop.ev: and compare the some- 
what similar classical usage in the ex- 
pression oipeovrcr Plat. Theaet.-p. 181 a. 
See the note i. 23. If this interpre- 
tation be correct, the present tense 
leaves the question open whether the 
agitators were converted Jews or con- 
verted proselytes. The former is more 
probable ; for proselytes would not be 
so dependent on the good opinion of 
the unconverted Jews. The balance 
of authority is perhaps in favour of 
reading irepiTfp.voixcvoi rather than 
ircpircTfitifievoi, as the versions which 
have a present tense may safely be 
urged in favour of the former, while 
those which have a past cannot with the 
same confidence be alleged to support 
the latter; but independently of ex- 
ternal authority, a preference must be 
given to jrepiTe/ivoiievoi, as probably 
the original reading, of which irepirt- 
Tfiripevot is so obvious a correction. 

v6p.ov] 'They are no rigorous ob- 
servers of lato,' regarded as a prin- 
ciple. On the absence of the article, 
see the references in the note on 
v. 18, 

vftag, viieripa] opposed tO avToi ; 
'Indifferent themselves, they make 
capital out of you.' 

iv iji vfixrepa (c.r.X.] i.e. that they 
may vaunt your submission to this 
carnal rite and so gain credit with the 
Jews for proselytizing. Comp. Phil, 
iii. 3 Kavxdiievoi. iv Xpicrrm 'IijcroO Kcu 
ovK iv <rapKl jreiroiBores. 

14. 'For myself— God forbid I 
should glory in anything save in the 
cross of Christ. On that cross I 
have been crucified to the world and 

the world has been crucified to me. 
Henceforth we are dead each to the 
other. In Christ Jesus old things have 
passed away. Circumcision is not and 
uncircumcision is not. All external 
distinctions have vanished. The new 
spiritual creation is all in all.' 

p,fi ye'i/otro] with the infinitive. This 
is the common construction in the lxx, 
Gen. xliv.7, 17, Josh. xxii. 29, xxiv. 16, 
I Kings xxL 3, i Mace. ix. 10, xiii. 5. 

iv rm oTaupm] Again not 'in my 
sufferings for Christ' (2 Cor. xii. 9, lo), 
but 'in His sufferings for me' (Phil, 
iii. 3). The offence of the cross shall 
be my proudest boast. 

fii' ov\ probably refers to aravpa ; 
'The cross of Christ is the instrument 
of my crucifixion as of His; for I am 
crucified with Him' (ii. 20). If the 
relative had referred to Xpurrov, we 
should have expected rather iv <S or 
<Tvv m. For the same image as here 
compare Col. iL 14 avro rjpKev ek roS 
p-ifrov 7rpoaTJ\(0(ras avro t& (TTavpa (i.e. 
it was nailed with Christ to the cross, 
and rent as His body was rent) ; and 
for the general purport of the passage. 
Col. ii. 20, ' If ye died with Christ from 
the rudiments of the world, why as if 
living in the world are ye subject to 
ordinances ?' This xoa-pos, the material 
universe, is the sphere of external or- 

Some texts insert the article before 
Koa-p^s and k6<tp^ — before either or 
both. It should be expunged in both 
places with the best mss. The sen- 
tence thus gains in terseness. 

15. This verse has been variously 
lengthened out and interpolated from 
the parallel passage, v. 6. Some of 
these interpolations have very consi- 
derable MS authority. The reading 



[VI. i6 

16 ^ <' " 

Kai ocroi Tia 

OVT€ aKpo^vcTTia, dWd Kaivrj kt'ktk 

Kavovi TOVTU) OTTOiXflo'Ova-iv, eipi^vr] eir avrom Kai eAeos, 

adopted is the shortest form, and 
doubtless represents the genuine text. 

aire yap k.t.X.'] In this annihilation 
of the world all external distinctions 
have ceased to be. This sentence oc- 
curs again, v. 6 and i Cor. viL 19, in 
substantially the same words. 

Nevertheless this passage is said by 
several ancient authors (Photius Am- 
phil. Qu. 183, G. Syncellus Chronogr. 
Pi 27 ; see also CoteL on Apost. Const, 
vi. 16, God. Bodl. Mthiop. p. 24) to 
be a quotation from the ' Revelation 
of Moses.' A sentiment however, 
which is the very foundation of St 
Paul's teaching, was most unlikely to 
have been expressed in any earlier 
Jewish writing; and, if it really oc- 
curred in the apocryphal work in ques- 
tion, this work must have been either 
written or interpolated after St Paul's 
time ; see Liicke Offenh. d. Johann. 
I. p. 232. Cedrenus {Hist. Camp. p. 4) 
states that the Revelation of Moses 
was identifled by some persons {^a(Ti 
Tives) with the 'Little Genesis.' This 
latter title is another name for the 
Book of Jubilees, which of late years 
has been discovered in an iEthiopic 
translation. In the Book of Jubilees 
however the words in question do not 
occur; see Ewald's Jarhb. in. p. 74. 

KaivT\KTi<Tis\'' anew creature' Com- 
pare the parallel passage, 2 Cor. v. 17 
ei Tts iv Xpia-ra Kaivfi KTitris. This 
phrase Kaivij Kritris, \Vinx\ iVO, is a 
common expression in Jewish writers 
for one brought to the knowledge of 
the true God. See the passages in 
Schottgen i. p. 704. The idea of spi- 
ritual enlightenment as a creating 
anew appears also in traKiyyevuria 're- 
generation'; see also Ephes. ir. 24 
Kaivov avBpamov KTia-divra} comp. 
Ephes. ii. 10, 15, Col. iii 10; and 2 
Cor. iv. 16, dvaKaiuovtrBai. 

16. 'On all those who shall guide 
their steps by this rule may peace and 

mercy abide; for they are the true 
Israel of God.' 

oo-ot] 'as many as; no matter 
whether they are of the circumcision 
or of the uncircumcision.' 

oToixiVouo-tj/] 'shall walk! This 
reading is to be preferred to oroi- 
Xoi)o'<i',bothashavingsomewhat higher 
support and as being slightly more 
difficult. It is at the same time more 
expressive as implying the continu- 
ance of this order. Compare ii. 16, 
Rom. iii 30, and see Winer § xl. p. 350. 

Tta Kavovi TovT<f\ ' by this line,' cor- 
responding to the meaning of aroixflv. 
Kavav is the carpenter's or surveyor's 
line by which a direction is taken. In 
2 Cor. X. 13, 16, it is used metaphori- 
cally, where the image is taken from 
surveying and mapping out a district, 
so as to assign to different persons 
their respective parcels of ground. 
For the several senses through which 
this word has passed, and for its eccle- 
siastical meaning especially, see West- 
cott On the Canon, App. a, p. 541 sq. 
On the dative see the notes, v. 16, 25 ; 

comp. Phil, iii. 16 t<S airm UTOixfiV, 

where Kavovi is interpolated in some 
texts from this passage. 

Kai €7r» Tov 'icrpa^X k.t.X.] ' yea upon 
the Israel qf God.' Israel is the sa- 
cred name for the Jews, as the nation 
of the Theocracy, the people under 
God's covenant: see Trench's N. T. 
Syn. § xxxix. p. 129 sq, and compare 
Ephes. ii. 12 dinjKkoTpimpkvoi r^c ttoXi- 
Tei'or TOV 'laparjK, Rom. ix. 4 oiTtwr 
tia-iv *Io-pai;XiTat, <ok 1} vloBeaia k.t\. 
(comp. 2 Cor. xi. 22, Phil. iii. 5), John 
1. 48 i6e oK-qOSis 'la-paijKinis, compared 
with ver. 50 <tv ^aa-iXevs (itov 'l(rpa^X. 
St Paul is perhaps referring here to 
the benediction elp^vri en-l t6v 'la-paijk, 
which closes Psalms cxxv, cxxviii, and 
must have been a familiar sound in 
the ears of all devout Israelites. 

The 'Israel of God' is in implied 




Kai eiri top '\(rpat]\ tou Qeou. ^''tou Xoiirou kottovs 
fj-Oi firiBek Trape^erw iyw yap to. (TTi'yjJ.aTa tov 'Irjaou 
iv Tw (Twfxari /mov /SatrTa'^w. 

contrast to the ' Israel after the flesh ' 
(i Cor. X. 1 8); comp. Rom. ix. 6 ov 
yap TravTts oi e^ 'itrpaijX ovtoi 'icrpaijX, 
Gal. iii. 29, PhiL iii. 3. It stands here 
not for the faithful converts from the 
circumcision alone, but for the spi- 
ritual Israel generally, the whole body 
of believers whether Jew or Gentile ; 
and thus xai is epexeyetic, ie. it intro- 
duces the same thing under a new 
aspect, as in Heb. xi. 17, etc.; see 
Winer § liii. p. 545 sq. 

1 7. St Paul closes the epistle, as he 
had begun it, with an uncompromising 
assertion of his office : ' Henceforth let 
no man question my authority : let no 
man thwart or annoy me. Jesus is my 
Master, my Protector. His brand is 
stamped on my body. I bear this badge 
of an honourable servitude.' 

TOV XoMToC] 'henc^orth' differs from 
TO \onr6v, as 'in the time to come' 
from 'throughout the time to come.' 
Compare vvktos and vvkto. In the 
New Testament it occurs only here 
and Bphes. vL 10, where however the 
received reading is to 'Koittov. 

TO crT«y/«ira] 'the brands,' i.e. the 
marks of ownership branded on his 
body. These <rriynara were used ; (i) 
In the case of domestic slaves. With 
these however branding was not usual, 
at least among the Greeks and Romans, 
except to mark such as had attempted 
to escape or had otherwise miscon- 
ducted themselves, hence called any- 
fiartai, ' literati ' (see the ample collec- 
tion of passages in Wetstein), and such 
brands were held a badge of disgrace ; 
Pseudo-PhocyL 212 oxiy/iara p.ri ypd- 
yjrTis fnoveihiCav Ofpawovra, Seiiec. de 
Benef. iv. 37, 38. (2) Slams attached 
to some temple (iep6dov\oi) or persons 
devoted to the service of some deity 
were so branded ; Herod, ii. 1 13 otko 
dvBpciiriov eVt^oXijTot aTiyp-aTa ipa, 


iavTov hihovs Ta 6f&, ovk e^eort tov- 
Tov a\jfaiT6ai, Lucian de Dea Syr. § 59 
trri^ovTm 8e TTOVTfs oi fiiv is Kapirovs 

01 8e e'f aixivas ; Philo de Man. n. p. 
221 M. : comp. 3 Mace. ii. 29. The pas- 
sage of Lucian is a good illustration of 
Rev.xiii. 16, 17. (3) (7ap<i»e» were so 
treated in very rare cases. (4) Soldiers 
sometimes branded the name of their 
commander on some part of their 
body ; see Deyling Ohs. Sacra in. p. 
427. The metaphor here is most 
appropriate, if referred to the second 
of these classes. Such a practice at 
all events cannot have been unknown 
in a country which was the home of 
the worship of Cybele. A lepor bovKos 
is mentioned in a Galatian inscription, 
Texier Asie Mineure 1. p. 135. 

The brands of which the Apostle 
speaks were doubtless the permanent 
marks which he bore of persecution 
undergone in the service of Christ: 
comp. 2 Cor. iv. 10 rifv viKpaa-a too 
'lijo-oC f K rm aapjoTi jTepi(j>€povTis, xi. 23. 
See the introduction, p. 5 1 sq. 

Whether the stigmata of St Francis 
of Assisi can be connected by any 
historical link with a mistaken inter- 
pretation of the passage, I do not 
know. Bonaventura in his life of this 
saint (§ 13. 4) apostrophizes him in 
the language of St Paul, 'Jam enim 
propter stigmata Domini Jesu quae in 
corpore tuo portas, nemo debet tibi 
esse molestus'; and the very use of 
the word 'stigmata' (which is retained 
untranslated in the Latin Versions) 
points to such a connexion. On the 
other hand, I am not aware that this 
interpretation of the passage was cur- 
rent in the age of St Francis. A little 
later Aquinas paraphrases the words, 
'portabat insignia passionis Christi,' 
but explains this expression away in 
the next sentence. 



'* 'H xojOts Tov Kvpiov t]fxav 'Iritrov Xpitrrov fxeTa 
TOW irveufxaTOi vfidav, dZeX)(poi. dfx^v. 

'Itjo-oC] So it is read in the majority 
of the older wm. AU other variations, 
iitcluding the received reading roS kv- 
lA^v 'Iijo-ou, are inferior,for the personal 
naine of tlie owner alone is wanted. 

§(uiri^a>\ S{t Chrysostom has pro- 
bacy caught the right idea, ouV tlnfv 
t}(V 4^Xa ,^<ioT(ifco, w(T7rep nt itri rpo- 
v<ii<>n lify" (fipovwv. rOopjpare th^ us9 
^ irfpt4>fff»VTfs in 2 Cof. iv. lo already 
footed. For fiiKrraCa see Acts ix. 15,. 

iS. /i€Ta Toil trv€vina.T<is i5/A.«|f] ' wMh 

your tpirit' ; perhaps in reference to 
the carnal religvonpf the G^ifiiihm, 9,8 
Chiysostom suggest*. This allusiop 
however must not he pre83ed, for tlje 
same form of benediction qccws ^ 
Philem. 25, ? Tin?, iy. 2?. 

aScX^oiQ 'brother^,' jn an unusmJ 
and emphS'tic position ; coipp. Phiteig, 
7. St Paul's parting wprij is an ex- 
pression of tenderness ; ' Itg, njolljtnr,' 
says Bengel, 'totius epistola^ sev^^- 
ta^' See the note on vi. i. 


The Patrii^fig GamTfisntmrips on this Spistle. 

The patristic commentaries on the Galatians, extant either whole pr in pa^t, 
are perhaps more numerous than on any other of St Paul's Epistle?. Thp 
earlier of these have for the most p9.rt an indepeijdent value; the later 
are mere collections or digests of the labour? of preceding writers anji hijive 
no claim to originality. In the list which follow? aif aste^sk fs prefixed to 
the name of the author in case? where fragments o;ily remain. 

In drawing jip this account I have h^d occ^siop to refer freqij.eptly to Books of 
Cave's Script. Eccles. Hist. Liter. (Oxon. 1740), to Fabricius's B{bl0h^fl reference. 
Grceea (ed. Jlarles), and to Schrockh's Christliche Kircl^ngefchichle. 
Special works rplating to the subject, to which reference is ^so ma4e, are 
Simon's Histoire Critique des Principatix Oommentateurs dif iV. T. 
(1693), RosenmuUer's Hisioria Interpretationis Librorum Sacrorum 
(1795— 1814), and a treatise by J. P. S. Augustin in Nos^elt's Qpusc. ni. 

P-3"«q- ^ t.BAELIEH 

I. Earlier Commentaries. Commen- 

(a) Greek and Syrian Fathers. tabies. 

(i) *0rigbnb8 (t 253). The recently di^cpver^d list of Origen's works (a) Greek 
drawn up by Jerome mentions fifteen books on the Epistle to the Galatians, "!"* ^V' 
besides seven homilies on the same (Redepenning in Niedney'? Zeitjschr. Qrigpn. 
1851, pp. 77, 78); while the same Jerome in the preface i^ his Coii»,men- 
tary (vii. p. 370, ed. Vail.) sa,ys of this father, 'Scripsit ille vir in epistolam 
Pauli ad Galatas quinque proprie vglumina et decimum Stromatum suorum 
hbrum commatico super explanatione ejus sermone complevi,t: traptatus 
quoque varies et excerpta quae vel sola possint suflBcere compo^uit.' The 
two accouijts are not irreconcileable. Of this vast apparatus not a single 
fragment remains in the original, and only two or three have been preserved 
in a Latj;i dress either in the translation of Pamphilus's Apology (Origen, 
Op. IV. p. 690, Delarue), or in Jerome'? Commentary (GaL v. 13). On the 
other hand there can be uo doubt that all subsequent writers are directly 
or indirectly indebted to him to a very large extent. Jerome especially 
avows his obligations to this father of Biblical criticism. In my notes I have 
had occasion to mention Origen's name chiefly in connexion with fanciful 
speculations or positive errors, because his opinion has rarely been recorded 
by later writers, except where his authority was needed to sanction some 
false or questionable interpretation : but the impression thus produced is 
most unjust to his reputation. In spite of his very patent faults, which it 
costs nothing to denounce, a very considerable part of what is valuable in 
subsequent commentaries, whether ancient or modem, is due to him. A 
deep thinker, an accurate gram^larian, a most laborious worker, wid a 
mosjt earnest Christian, he not only laid the foun4ation, but to a very 
great extent built up the fabric of Biblical interpretation. 

(ii) Ephrabw Syrus (t 378), the deacon of Edessa. An Armenian Ephraem 
version of a commentai^ on the Scriptures, including St Paul's Epistles, Syras. 

IS— 2 



School of 

of Emisa. 


purporting to be by this author, was published at Venice in 1836^^. If this 
work be genuine, it ought to be of some value for the text at all events, if 
not for the interpretation. On this writer see Cave i. p. 235, Fabricius viil 
p. 217, Schrockh xv. p. 527; and the article by B. Rodiger in Herzog's 
Real-Encyclopaedie, with the references there given. Lagarde {Apost. 
Const, p. vi) very decidedly maintains the genuineness of these Armenian 
works; and Rodiger seems also to take this view. In the few passages 
which I have had the opportunity of testing, both the readings and the in- 
terpretation are favourable to their genuineness 2. 

The five writers whose names follow all belong to the great Antiocheue 
school of interpreters. For its grammatical precision, and for its critical 
spirit generally, this school was largely indebted to the example of Origen, 
whose principles were transmitted to it through Lucian of Antioch and 
Pamphilus of Geesarea, both ardent Biblical critics and both martyrs in the 
Diocletian persecution ; but in its method of exposition it was directly 
opposed to the great Alexandrian, discarding the allegorical treatment of 
Scripture and maintaining for the most part the simple and primary mean- 
ing. The criticisms of these commentators on Gal. iv. 21 — 31 exhibit the 
characteristic features of the school to which they belonged. Theodore of 
Mopsuestia is its best typical exponent, being at once the most original 
thinker and the most determined antagonist of the allegorists. On the 
Antiocheue school see Neander Church Hist. 11. p. 498, in. p. 497 sq 
(Bug. trans.), Reuss Gesch. d. Heil. Schr. § 518 (3te ausg.), Kihn Die 
Bedeutung der Antioch. Sehuh (1867), Th. Forster Chrysostom u. sein 
Verhdllniss zur Antiochenischen Schuk (1869). 

(iii) *EuSEBiiJS Emisbnus (t about 360), so called from the name of his 
see Emesa or Emisa (Hums), a native of Edessa. A few fragments, of his 
work are preserved in Cramer's Catena, pp. 6, 8, 12, 20, 28, 32, 40, 44, 57, 
62, 64, 65, 67, 91. It is described by Jerome, as 'ad Galatas libri decern' 
{de Vir. Illustr. c. 91). Eusebius enjoyed a great reputation with his con- 
temporaries, and these scanty fragments seem to indicate an acute and 
careful expositor. His writings are the subject of monographs by Augusti 
Eusebii Emeseni Opusc. Grcec. etc. 1829, and byThilo Veber die Schriften 
d. Euseb. v. Alexandrien u. d. Euseb. v. Emisa {1832). See also Fabricius 
vn. p. 412, Schrockh v. p. 68 sq. The publication of Cramer's Catena has 
since added materials for an account of this writer. 

(iv) Joannes Chkysostomus (f 407). This father's commentary on the 
Galatians differs from his expositions of other parts of the New Testament, 
in that it is not divided into separate discourses, nor intemipted by long 
perorations, which in his Homilies break the continuity of the subject. This 
gives it compactness and adds considerably to its value. At the same time 

• Zenker Bibl. Orient, also men- 
tions as published at Venice in 1833 a 
book by Aueher, bearing the title S. P, 
Ephraemi Syri Comment, in Epist. S. 
Pauli etc. ex antiquissima Armeniea 
versione nunc primum latmitate dona- 
tum. But it is not inolnded in a re- 
cent catalogue of the works printed 
at the Armenian press at Venice, and 

though advertised, seems never to have 

' Through the kindness of Dr Bieu 
of the British Museum I have been 
able in some important passages to 
give the readings and interpretations 
of Ephraem in my commentary. [On 
this work see further in Essays on 
Supernatural Beligion, 1889, p. 287 sq.] 


it would seem from its character to have been intended for oral delivery. 
It is an eloquent popular exposition, based on fine scholarship. The date is 
uncertain, except that it was written at Antioch, i.e. before A.D. 398, when 
St Chijsostom became Patriarch of Constantinople (see the preface of the 
Benedictine edition, x. p. 655). It appears not to have been known to 
Jerome when he wrote his own commentary. In his controversy with 
Augustine indeed, which arose out of that commentary, he alludes to the 
opinion of Chrysostom on the collision of the Apostles at Antioch, but 
distinctly refers to a separate homily of the great preacher devoted to this 
special subject ('proprie super hoc capitulo latissimum exaravit librum,' 
Hieron. Epist. cxii. See above, p. 131 sq). The exposition of the Galatians 
may be read in the Benedictine edition of Chrysostom's works x. p. 657 ; or 
still better in Field's edition of the Homilies (Oxon. 1852). 

(v) *SEVERiAinJS (about 400), bishop of Gabala in Syria, first the friend Severia- 
and afterwards the opponent of Chrysostom ; see Schrockh x. p. 458 sq. '^"^• 
lie wrote an Expositio in Epistolam ad Galatas (Uennad. de Vir. lUvMr. 
c. 21, Hier. 0%). n. p. 981). Gennadius speaks of him as ' in divinls scrip- 
turis eruditus.' Several fragments of this work are preserved in Cramer's 
Catena, pp. 16, 18, 23, 29, 39, 40, 55, 58, 59, 64, 66, 70, 82, 93, and one at 
least in the (Ecumenian commentary (Gal. i. 13). Like most writers of tho 
Grseco-Syrian School he maintained the literal meaning of Scripture against 
the allegorists. See Cave i. p. 375, Pabricius x. p. 507. 

(vi) Thbodokus Mopsubstenus (f 429), a native of Tarsus, so called Theodore 
from the see of Mopsuestia which he held. He wrote commentaries on all °^ Mopsu- 
8t Paul's Epistles ; see Ebed Jesu's Catalogue in Assemann. Bihl. Orient. ^^ 
in. p. 32. Several fragments of these in the original are preserved in the 
Catena\ and have been collected and edited by 0. P. Fritzsehe Theod. 
Mops. Comment, in N. T. (1847). This editor had before written a mono- 
graph De Theodori Mopsttesteni Vita et Scriptis (1836). Pritzsche's mono- 
graph and collection of fragments are reprinted in the edition of Theodore's 
works in Migne's Patrol. Groec. lxvi. But though only portions survive in 
the Greek, the complete commentaries on the smaller epistles from Gala- 
tians to Philemon inclusive are extant in a Latin translation. These com- 
mentaries, from Philippians onwards, had been long known in the compila- 
tion of Rabanus Maurus (Migne's Patrol. Lot. oxii), where they are incor- 
porated nearly entire under the name of Ambrose ; and a few years since 
Dom Pitra, Spieil. Solesm. 1. p. 49 sq (1852), printed the expositions of 
the Galatians, Ephesians, and Philemon complete, and supplied the omis- 
sions and corrected the errors in the extracts on the remaining epistles in 
Rabanus, ascribing the work however to Hilary of Poitiers. 

In the Corhey MS which he used, these commentaries of Theodore on 
the shorter epistles were attached to the exposition of the Ambrosiaster or 
pseudo-Ambrose (who seems to have been one Hilary : see below, p. 233) 
on Romans and Corinthians, and the two together were entitled Exposilio 
Saneti Awbrosii in Epistola) B. Pauli. This circumstance accounts for 
their being assigned to St Ambrose in Rabanus, as it also suggested the 

1 The fragments assigned to Theo- are none of his, but belong to liieo- 
Jore in Mai Nov. Patr. Bibl. vii. i . p. 408 doret. 


conjecttire of Dom Pitra, that the great Hilary was their author. The 
true authorship was aacertained by Professor Hort^ from a comparison 
■with the Greek fragments of Theodore, and pointed out by him m the 
Juutn. of Clas. and Satyr. Phil. iv. p. 302 (Camb. 1859). Though much 
marred by an indifferent Latin translator^, this commentary is inferior in 
iinportance to the works of Jerome and Chrysostom alone ftmong the 
patristic expositictos now extant. Theodore was a leader of religious thouglit 
in his day, and as an expositor he has frequently caught the Apostle's 
meaning wherfe other commentators have failed'. Among his contempo- 
raries he had a vast reputation, and was called by the Nestorian Christians 
'the Interpreter' jp«w excellence: see Renaudot Lit. Orient, u. p. 616. 
In the Catholic Church of a later date the imputation of heresy over- 
shadowed and darkened his fame. On this vn-iter see Fabricius x. p. 346 
sq (esp. p. 359), Rosenmiiller iii. p. 250 sq, Schrockh xv. p. 197 sq. 
Theo- (vii) TheoW>ketuS (f about 458), bishop of Cyrus, a native of Antioch 

doret. and a disciple of Theodore. His commentaries on St Paul are superior to 
bis othfer exegetieal writings and have been assigned the palm over all 
patristic expositions of Scripture. See Schrockh xviii. p. 398 sq, Simon 
p 314 sq, RosenmuUer rv. p. 93 sq, and the monograph of Richter de 
Theodoreto Epist. Pdulin, interprete (Lips. 1822). For appreciation, terse- 
ness of expression, and good sense, they are perhaps unsurpassed, and, if 
the absence of faults were a just standard of merit, they would deserve the 
first place ; but they have little claim to originality, and he who has read 
Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia vrill find scarcely anything in 
Theodoret Which he has not seen before. It is right to add howeVer that 
Theodoret himself modestly disclaims any such merit. In his preface he 
Etpologizes for attempting to interpret St Paul after two such men (fiera 
Tov bfiva Kn\ tov heiva) who are ' luminaries of the world ' : and he professes 
nothing more than to gather his stores ' from the blessed fathers.' In these 
expressious he alludes doubtless to Chrysostom and Theodore. 
Entbalins. (viii) Euthalius, afterwards bishop of Sulce (supposed to have been in 
Egypt, but as no such place is known to have existed there, probably Sulce 
in Sardinia is meant ; see the Notitia printed in Hierocl. Synecd. p. 79, ed. 
Parthey), wrote his work while a young man in the year 458. On his date 
see Zacagni Collect. Mon. Vet. I. pp. 402', 536, Fabricius IX. p. 287. Eutha- 
lius edited the Epistles of St Paul, dividing them iiito chapters (kc^oXaea) and 
verses {irnxot), writing a general preface and arguments to the several epi- 

' Whilst the first edition of this a matter of conjeoture. 
work was going through the press, my ^ Thus for instance he makes Theo- 
attention was directed by Dr Hort to dore fall Into the common error of 
an article byJ.L.Jacobi in theDeutscfte interpreting o-wo-foijceJ. Gal. iv. 25, 'is 
Zeitschr. f. ChHstl. Wissetisch. Aug. Contiguous to' ('affinis,' 'oonfiuis'); 
1854, in which, unknown to him, his but the context, as well as the Greek 
conclusions had been anticipated. A fragment which has l<roSwafiei, shows 
more recent writer (Beinkena Hilariua that the blunder is the translator's own. 
von Poitiers, Sohaffhausen 1864) states ° The first volume of a very careful 
fairly the objections to Dom Pitra's edition of these Commentaries has re- 
view, but is apparently ignorant that eently appeared, by the Bev. H. B. 
the question of authorship is no longer Swete, Cambridge, 1880. 


sties, and marking abd enumerating tlie scriptural quotxtionA. The divisions 
into chapters and the headings of the chapters he borrovTed from some 
earlier writer (Zacagui, p. 528), probably the same whose date is given as 
A.D. 396 (ib. 536). Mill conjectures this person to have been Theodore of 
Mopsuestia ; Proleg. pp. Ixxxvi, Ixxxvii. Reasons however have been as- 
signed for thinking that Euthalius in this work was largely indebted to a 
much earlier critic, Famphilus the martyr (f 309) : see Tregelles in Horn^a 
Introductiofii p. 27. On the stichometry of Euthalius see Mill Proleg. p. xo, 
Scrivener's Introduction, pp. 49, 58, and especially Tregelles, 1. c. Though 
not a commentary, the work is sufficiently important in its bearing on the 
criticism of St Paul's Epistles to deserve a place here. It was first printed 
entire in Zacagm's Collect. Mon. Vet. i. p. 402 sq, and may be found in 
Gallandi x. p. 197 sq. 

(ix) *Gennadiu8 (t 4171), patriarch of Constantinople. A few extracts Genna- 
in the printed editions of the (Ecumenian Catena bear the name of Gen- ^■'"^' 
nadius, and the number might be increased by consulting th« mss. I 
suppose these are rightly attributed to the patriarch of Constantinople, 
among whose works they are included in Migne's Patrol. Grcec. lxxxv. 
p. 161 1, for they can scarcely be assigned to any other of the name. So 
far as I know, there is no record of any work on St Paul by this or any 
Gennadius. The fragments on the Galatians indeed are so scanty that they 
do not in themselves warrant us in assuming a special work on this epistle, 
but the numerous extracts on the Epistle to the Romans in Cramer's 
Catena must certainly have been taken from a continuous exposition. 

(x) *PHOTius(tabout89i),patriarch of Constantinople. For the fullest Photius. 
information on the writings of this great man, see Fabricius x. p. 670 sq. 
Large fragments bearing the name of Photius are preserved in the CEcu- 
menian Catena, taken it would appear from a Commentary on St Paul's 
Epistles no longer extant. Cave indeed asserts (il p. 49) that a m3 exists 
in the Cambridge University Library, and this statement is repeated by 
Fabricius, xi. p. 33, and others. This is a mistake. The Ms in question 
(Pf. L 30), which is incorrectly labelled with the name of Photius, proves — 
as far at least as relates to the Epistle to the Galatians — to contain a col- 
lection of notes identical with that of the (Ecumenian Catena. It is accu- 
rately described in the new Catalogue. These fragments of Photius do not 
contribute much that is new to the criticism of St Paul, but they are an 
additional testimony to the extensive learning and intellectual vigour of the 

(b) Latin Fathers. (1=) !•««»«■ 

(i) C. Makius VictcSkinus (about 360), an African, surnamed the Phi- Victori- 
losopher, converted to Christianity in old age, ttlught rhetoric at Rotue '^'^s. 
when Jerome was a boy. He wrote commentaries apparently on all St 
Paul's Epistles (Hieron. de Vir. Illustr. 101, prcef. ad Gal.), of which the 
expositions of the Galatians, Philippians, and Ephesians alone are extant 
They were first pubUshed by Mai Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. hl 2, p. i (1828), 
and may be found in Migne Patr. Lat. viii. p. 1145. It is difficult to 
understand the reputation which Victorinus had for eloquence. His work 
on the G^JatianH i» obscure, confused, and as an exposition almost worthless, 


but it now and then preserves a curious fact (e.g. about the Symmachians, 
p. i6) and is interesting as the earliest extant commentary on this epistle. 
There is a lacuna from v. i8 to the end of the chapter. On this writer see 
Mai's Preface, p. x sq, and the article in Smith's Diet, of Biography. 

Hilary. (ii) AMBROsiAsrBK, so called because his commentary was wrongly 

ascribed to St Ambrose and is commonly printed with the works of that 
father: see the Benedictine Edition, ii, App. p. 20 sq. It is however 
quoted by Augustine (cont. Duat Epigt. Pdag. iv. 7, x. p. 472, ed. Ben.) 
under the name 'sanctus Hilarius,' and is generally ascribed in consequence 
to Hilary the Roman deacon who lived about the middle of the fourth 
century and attached himself to the Luciferian schism. The epithet 
'sanctus' however is not likely to have been applied by St Augustine to this 
person, and it must remain doubtful what Hilary was intended, except 
that we cannot possibly ascribe these commentaries to the great Hilary of 
Poitiers. The author, whoever he was, wrote during the pontificate of 
Damasus (see his note on i Tim. iii. 15) who was bishop of Rome from 
366 to 384. See Schrockh vi. p. 2 10, xiv. p. 3 10. This work, which includes 
the thirteen epistles of St Paul, is one of the best Latin commentaries. A 
good account of it is given in Simon p. 133 sq : see also Rosenmiiller in. 
p. 589 sq. I have generally quoted this commentator as the Ambrosian 
Hilary, or as Hilary simply. 

Jerome. ^^ Eusbbius Sophronitts Hieronymtts. 'Qxi'Comm&ntariiin Epi- 

stolam ad GcUatas' (vn. p. 367 ed. Vallarsi) were written about the year 
387 {Hieron. Fit. xi. p. 104). In his preface he speaks of himself as 
undertaking a task unattempted by any Latin writer (he afterwards ex- 
cepts Victorinus, of whom he speaks contemptuously), and treated by very 
few even of the Greeks in a manner worthy of the dignity of the subject 
It is clear from this that he had not seen the work of the Ambrosiaster, 
which perhaps had only been published a few years before. Of the Greeks 
he singles out Origen, whose labours he extols highly and whom he pro- 
fesses to have followed. Besides Origen, he mentions having read Didymus 
(of Alexandria, who died in 396 at an advanced age: see Pabriciiis ix. 
p. 269) whom in allusion to his blindness he calls 'my seer' (videntem 
meum), one Alexander whom be designates an ancient heretic (of whom 
nothing is known), 'the Laodicene who has lately left the church ' (meaning 
Apolliiiarius; see Fabricius viii. p. 589), Eusebius of Emisa, and Theodoras 
of Heraclea (t about 355 ; see Fabricius ix. p. 319). Of these writers ho 
speaks loosely as having left 'nonnullos commentariolos,' which were not 
without their value. All these he read and digested before commencing 
his own work. Though abounding in fanciful and perverse interpretations, 
violations of good taste and good feeling, faults of all kinds, this is never- 
theless the most valuable of all the patristic commentaries on the Epistle 
to the Galatians : for the faults are more than redeemed by extensive learn- 
ing, acute criticism, and lively and vigorous exposition. 

Augustine. (iv) Avutiuvs AvavsTrnvB; ' Expositio Epistolae ad Galatas,' \rritteji 
about 394 and apparently without consulting previous commentators (see 
p. 130, note 3), of whom he shows no knowledge. The great excellences of 
Augustine as an 'Interpreter of Scripture' are sufficiently vindicated by 


Archbishop Trench (in his introduction to the ' Exposition of the Sermon 
on the Mount ') against the attacks of irriters who had too little sympathy 
with his tone of mind to appreciate his merits : but spiritual insight, though 
a far diviner gift than the critical faculty, will not supply its place. In tliis 
faculty Augustine was wanting, and owing to this defect, as a continuous 
expositor he is disappointing. With great thoughts here and there, his 
commentary on the tialatians is inferior as a whole to several of the patristic 

(v) Pelagius, the gi-eat heresiarch, wrote his commentaries on the Pelagius. 
thirteen epistles of St Paul in Borne, and therefore not later than 410, 
before the Pelagian controversy broke out. Strangely enough in the 
middle of the 6th century, when Cassiodorus wrote, learned men assigned 
them to Pope Gelasius. Stranger still they have at a later date been 
fathered upon Jerome, and are generally printed in the editions of his works 
(xi. 2, p. 135 ed. YalL). The true authorship however is established almost 
beyond a doubt by the quotations and references of Augustine and Marius 
Mercator, the contemporaries of Pelagius. On the other hand some of the 
passages given by Marius Mercator are wanting in the extant copies ; but 
history supplies the clue to this perplexity. About the middle of the sixth 
century Cassiodorus (Inst, Div. Lit. c. 8), finding this commentary tainted 
with Pelagian errors, expurgated the Epistle to the Romans by removing the 
heretical passages, and thus set an example, as he tells us, which might be 
followed the more easily by others in the remaining epistles'. In its pre- 
sent form then this commentary is mutilated. The notes are pointed and 
good, but meagre. The high estimation in which they were held, in spite 
of the cloud which hung over their author, and the fact of their being attri- 
buted both to Gelasius and to Jerome, are high testimonies to tbeir merits. 
Good accounts of this commentary will be found in Simon p. 236 sq, 
Schrockh xrv. p. 338 sq, and Rosenmiiller iii. p. 503 sq. 

(vi) Magnus Attrelius Cassiodobus (f after 562). ' Complexiones in Oassiodo- 
Epistolas Apostolorum, in Acta, et in Apocatypsin,' first brought to light '^°^' 
and published by Scipio Maffei in 1721. It was reprinted by Chandler (1722 
and 1723), and may be found in Migne's Patrol. Lot. lxx. p. 1343. This 
work consists of a few reflexions on detached passages, utterly valueless in 
themselves. It has a peculiar interest however as containing traces of 
I Joh. V. 7. See Schrockh xvi. p. 153, Rosenmuller v. p. 412 sq. 

2. Secondaby Commentaries, excerpts, compilations, and collections of 1. Lateb 
variorum notes, mostly of a later date. Commbs- 

(a) Greek WHUTB. (a)Tie*. 

These are compiled from the Greek fathers already mentioned, but 
especially from Chrysostom. 

1 Migne's Patrol. Lat. lxx. p. 11 19 what apparently he regards as another 

sq. The identity of the work of which work the description of which would 

Cassiodorus speaks with this commen- suit this commentary equally well : 

tary is inferred from his description, for ' Tertium vero codioem reperi epistola- 

he does not himself mention the true rum Sanoti Pauli, qui a nonnulUs beati 

author, though protesting against as- Hierouymi adnotationes brevissimas 

signing it to Gelasius. On the other dioitur continere, quern vobis pariter 

hand Cassiodorus a little later mentions Christo largiente dereliqui. ' 






(i) Joannes DaMascentjs (about 750). A commentary on St TaxiYs 
Epistles, being an epitome of Chrysostom (see Fabricios ix. p. 28 1» 
SchrSckh xx. p. 207), printed in Jo. Damasc. Op. n. p. i sq (ed. Le Quien). 
(ii) Anonymous CateSa (date uncertain), first published by Cfamet- 
(OxoD. 1842). The authorthi^ of the Comments is very frequently noted 
(though not always correctly) either in the text of in the inargin, but some- 
times they are anonymous. The portion on the Galatiaus seems to be made 
up entirely of extracts from four commentators. Chrysostom is by faf the 
largest contributor ; Theodore of Mopsuestia comes next ; and a few 
fragments (enumerated abovfe, pp. 228, 229) bear the names of Eusebius of 
Emisa and Severianus. Of the anonybiOus fra^ents, those Which belong 
to Chrysostom and Theodore can be verified: and such as remain aftef 
this verification ought probably to be assigned to either Eusebius ot 

(iii) (BouMENius (loth century), bishop of Tricca in Thessaly. The 
work which bears his name is a catena on the Acts and Epistles, to which 
he is one of the less important contributors. See especially Simon p. 458, 
and comp. Pabricius vin. p. 693, Kosenmiiller rv. p. 263. Though this 
commentary seems to be anonymous in the ms9, it appears on the whole 
more probable than not, from internal evidence, that (Ecumenius was also 
the compiler of the Catena, adding to it a few notes of his own. The affirm- 
ative is maintained by Hentenius in the preface to his edition (Paris, 1630); 
the negative by J. P. S. Augustin de Cat. Pair. Grasc. p. 366. There are 
considerable variations in the different mss of this work; see Fabricius 
1. c. p. 696, and Cramer's Catena p. 41 1. The names on the margin of the 
printed editions in the portion relating to the Qalatians are Photius 
(apparently by far the largest contributor), Joannes (i.e. Chrysostom), 
Gennadius, Severianus, Theodoret, Cyril, and (Ecumenius. The mss in 
some instances supply names to extracts which in the printed editions 
are anonymous. The few extracts from Cyril do not appear to be taken 
from a commentary on this epistle. 

(iv) Theophylaotus (latter part of the nth century), archbishop of 
Acris in Bulgaria. His commentary on St Paul's Epistles is founded 
chiefly on Chrysostom, with the aid of some other of the Greek fathers. 
The manner of execution has secured it a high reputation, but it possesses 
no independent value. On this commentary see Simon p. 403, Augustin 
p. 346, comp. Fabricius vii. p. 591. 

To these should be added the commentary of Buthymius ZiaABENns 
(about 1 1 10), which is said to exist in ms, but has never been printed. 

(b) Latin. (b) Latin Writers. 

These are derived from the four Latin commentators, Hilary (Ambro- 
siaster), Jerome, Augustine, and Pelagius, directly or indirectly. 

(i) PbImasius (about 550), bishop of Adrumetum in Africa, wrote a 
commentary on all St Paul's Epistles, including the Epistle to the Hebrews 
and the Apocalypse. It is a brief and fairly executed compilation from 
the Latin fathers already noticed, the most successful of these secondary 
commentaries. The editio princeps is by Gagn6e (Lyons, 1537). This work 




is printed also in the Magn. Bibl. Vet. Pair. Vl 2, p. 18 sq and in Migne's 
Patrol. Lot. lXviii. p. 415. See Bosenimullei' v. p. 12, Cave i. p. 525, 
Schrfickh xvn. p. 538. 

It will be seen tMt the majority ef the eoiiimentatieS *hlch follow Revival of 
were written about the middle of the ninth century within a period of a Biblical 
few yeaw. The interest in Biblical studies was evidently Very keen at this ^' 

tune, especially in France, and may be traced to the influence of our own 
Alcuin. I have already had occasion to speak of a similar period of 
activity in the history of Biblical interpretation during the latter half of 
the fourth and beginning of the fifth centuries, having its head-qustrters 
at Antioch. In one respect these movements present a remarkable parallel. 
The first followed upon the establishment of Christianity as the religion of 
the Roman Empire under Constantine ; the second upon the consolidation 
tod extension of Western Christendom undel- Chariemagne. Thus the two 
most prominent epochs in the history of Biblical interpretation during the 
early centuries were ushered in by the two political events which exerted 
incomparably the greatest influence on the practical working of the Church; 
and it seems not unreasonable to attribute them in some measure to the 
stimulus given by these events. In real importance however the second of 
these two epochs in Biblical criticism bears no comparison with the first 
It was feeble in character, and wholly unoriginal, and has therefore left no 
permanent stamp on the interpretation of Scripture. The Commentaries on 
the Epistle to the Galatians belonging to this period are derived entirely 
from one or more of the four great Latin expositors already mentioned 
either directly or through the medium of Frimasius, together with the 
Latin translation of Theodore's work (then attributed to St Ambrose) 
which was made use of in some cases^ and here and there a passage culled 
from the writings of Gregory the Great Yet among these commentators, 
who were thus content to compile from the labours of their predecessors, 
are found the names of some of the ablest and most famous churchmen 
of their day. 

(ii) SBDULnjs (Scotus? 8th or 9th century?). 'In omnes S. Pavli Sedulius. 
Epistolas Collectameum,' compiled from the Latin fathers, a direct refer- 
ence being occasionally given. This writer, whenever he lived, is certainly 
to be distinguished from Sedulius the Christian poet of the sth century, 
with whom he has been confused. See Cave 11. p. 15, Simon p. 379. This 
commentary is printed in Mctgn. Bibl. Vet. Patr. v. I, p. 438, and in 
Migne's Patrol. Lot. cin. p. 181. 

(iii) CiiAUDros Taueinbnsis (t about 840), less correctly called ' Altis- Claudius. 
giodorensis' or ' Autissiodorensis ' (of Auxerre), a Spaniard by birth, but 
bishop of Turin. Of his commentaries on St Paul, the exposition of the 
Epistle to the Galatians alone is printed {Magn. Bill. Vet. Pair. ix. p. 66, 
Migne's Patrol. Lai. oiv. p. 838), but other portions exist or did exist 
in MS, and references are made to them in Simon p. 353 sq, where the 
fullest account of this writer will be found. See also Schrockh xxm. 
p. 281, Cave II. p. 16. 

(iv) Flokus Lugdunensis, surnamed 'Magister' (t after 852). A Florus. 
commentary on St Paul's Epistles, being a catena from the works of 








Augustine. The portion relating to the Galatiana is not taken from 
Augustine's exposition of the epistle, but is culled from bis works generally. 
This commentary is printed among the works of Bede (vi. p. 690, ed. BasiL 
1563), to whom it was ascribed; but the probable authorsliip was pointed 
out by Mabillon Vet. Anal. pp. 18, 488 (1723). On this work see Simon 
p. 339, Cave n. p. 24. It is printed in Migne's Patrol. Lot. oxix. p. 363. 

(v) Rabancs Maubus (f 856), archbishop of Mentz. EPnarrationum 
in Hpistolas B. Pauli libri triginta, a catena from the fathers, the names 
being given. The commentary on the Galatians in this collection is made 
up of large extracts from Jerome, Augustine, and the pseudo-Ambrose 
(see above p. 229), with one or two passages from extraneous writers, 
e.g. Gregory the Great. In Migne's Patrol. Lat. oxi, cxn. 

(vi) Walafredus Stbabo or Strabiis (f 849), a disciple of Rabanus, is 
the reputed author of the Glossa Ordinaria on the Scriptures, compiled 
from the fathers and especially from the catena of his master. It was 
the standard commentary during the middle ages and had an immense 
reputation. See Bosenmliller v. p. 135, and especially Simon p. 377, 
Printed in Migne's Patrol. Lat. oxrv. p. 570. 

(vii) Haymo, bishop of Halberstadt (t 853), wrote a commentary on 
St Paul's Epistles, which has been attributed also to his contemporary 
Remigius (of Lyons!). See Cave 11. pp. 28, 42, Schrockh xxiil p. 283, 
Simon p. 365. Printed in Migne's Patrol. Lat. oxvii. p. 669. 

Later commentaries still, differing little in character from those just 
enumerated and for the most part equally unoriginal, are those of Atto 
Vbbcbllbnsis (t about 960), Migne's Patrol. Lat. oxxxrv. p. 491 ; see 
Schrockh xxiii. p. 302 : of Lanfbano (f 1089), an interlinear gloss and 
commentary, Migne ol. p. 259 ; see Simon p. 385, Schrockh xxiv. pi 334; 
the authorship however has been questioned: of Bruno Oabthusianub 
(t iioi), the foimder of the order, Migne oliii. p. 281 ; see Simon p. 387 : 
and of Hbrvbus Dolensis (about 11 30), Migne olxxxi. p. 1129 ; see Cave 
n. pp. 187, 213, Simon p. 386. The authorship of the last-mentioned work 
is doubtful ; it has been wrongly assigned to Anselm of Canterbury, but 
there is some authority for attributing it to his namesake of Laon. 









TJ^OLLOWING the universal tradition of anoient writers, I have 

-*- hitherto assumed that the remarkable people who settled in 

the heart of Asia Minor were members of the great Celtic family 

and brothers of the Gauls occupying the region west of the Rhine. 

And this tradition is confirmed in a striking way by the character 

and temperament of the Asiatic nation. A Teutonic origin how- Tentonio 

ever has been claimed for them by several writers, more especially 

commentators on this epistle; and this claim it will be necessary 

now to consider. 

How or when this theory arose I do not know : but it seems, in 
some form or another, to have been held as early as the beginning 
of the sixteenth century ; for Luther takes occasion by it to read Luther's 
his countrymen a wholesome lesson. 'Some think,' he says, 'that 
we Germans are descended from the Galatians. Neither is this divi- 
nation perhaps untrue, for we Germans are not much unlike them 
in temper. And I also am constrained to wish there were in my 
countrymen more steadfastness and constancy : for in all things we 
do, at the first brunt we be very hot, but when the heat of our first 
afiections is burnt out, anon we become more slack, and look, with 
what rashness we begin things, with the same we throw them aside 
again and neglect them"; and he goes on to reproach them with 
their waning interest in the cause of the Reformation. Doubtless 
the rebuke was well deserved; but Luther did injustice to bi^ 

i Luther's later commentary on Gal. i. 6. 



aud Gei- 
man wri- 

countrymen in representing this as a special failing of the Teutonic 
race. The B.oman historians at all events favourably contrast the 
constancy of the Germans with the fickleness of the Gauls. 

More recently a skirmishing battle has been fought over the 
carcase of this extinct nation, as if it were a point of national honour 
to claim possession. ' For ourselves,' says a French traveller, ' we 
cannot remember without a sentiment of national pride, that the 
Gauls penetrated to the very centre of Asia Minor, established them- 
selves there, and left in that country imperishable monuments of 
themselves. If the name of Franks is the general term by which 
Eastern nations designate the inhabitants of Europe, it is because our 
ancestors have influenced in a remarkable manner the destinies of 
the East from the earliest ages of our history',' Contrast with this 
the language held by German commentators. ' Thus,' says Wieseler, 
after summing up the arguments in favour of his view, 'it can 
scarcely be doubtful that the Galatians are indeed the first German 
people to whom the Word of the Cross was preached'.' ' The Epistle 
to the Galatians,' writes Olshausen, 'is addressed to Germans, and it 
was the German Luther who in this Apostolical Epistle again 
recognised and brought to light the substance of the Gospel.' 

The question is not so simple as at first sight it might appear. 

Accustomed ourselves to dwell on the distinctive features of Celts 

and Germans, and impressed with the striking contrasts between the 

two races, we can scarcely imagine any confusion possible. But with 

Testimony the ancients the case was diflierent. In their eyes Gauls and Germans 

of GlrGfiks 

alike were savage and lawless tribes, living in the far North beyond 
the pale of civilisation, and speaking an unknown language. The 
contrast to Greeks and Romans, which they observed in both aKke, 
obscured the minor difierences between one barbarian and another. 
As time opened out new channels of communication, they became 
more and more alive to the distinction between the two races'. In 

and Bo- 

^ Texier in the Bevue des deux 
Mondes, 1841, 17. p. 575. 

» Galater p. 528. 

s The authorities will be found in 
Diefeubach's Celtiea n. They are very 

fairly and clearly stated also in Erandes 
KeltenundGermanenfheipz.iSij). See 
especially his summary, p. ix. The only 
really important exception among an- 
cient authors is Dion Cassius, who 


Csesar the line of separation is roughly traced : in Tacitus it is gene- 
rally sharp and well-defined. But without doubt the two were some- 
times confused; and this fact alone rescues the theory of the Teutonic 
origin of the Galatians from the imputation of a mere idle paradox. 
StiU historical scepticism must have some limit ; and it would 
require a vast mass of evidence on the other side to overcome the 
very strong presumption from the agreement of ancient authorities, 
both Greek and Roman. Classical writers uniformly regard the 
ruthless hordes who poured into Italy and sacked Rome, the sacrile- 
gious invaders who attacked the temple at Delphi, and the warlike 
immigrants who settled in the heart of Asia Minor, as belonging to 

one and the same race, as Gauls sprung from that Celtic nation Force of 

this evi- 
whose proper home was north of the Alps and west of the Rhine, dence.. 

On this point there is Kttle or no wavering, I believe, from first 
to last. It would not be strange that an incorrect view of the 
affinities of some obscure tribe, springing up in the early twilight of 
history, when the intercourse between distant nations was slight and 
intermitted, should pass unchallenged. But it is less easy to under- 
stand how, when a widespread race had played so important a part ' 
in the history of the world for some centuries, when civilised nations 
had been brought into close contact with them in the far East and 
West and at difierent points along a line extending with some inter- 
ruptions across the whole of Europe and even into Asia, when the 
study of their language and manners had long been within the reach 
of the curious, so vital an error should still have held its ground. All 
ethnology would become hopeless, if testimony so strong were lightly 
set aside. There must have been many who for purposes of com- 
merce or from love of travel or in discharge of some official duty or 

persistently makes the Bhine the boun- Germans of the ancients (the inhabit- 

dary-line between the Oault on the ants of Gaul as well as of Germany) 

left bank, and the Celts on the right were Teutonic in the language of 

bank. See Brandes p. ■201. Thus he modem ethnography (see esp. p. 157) ; 

identifies the Celts with the Germans, on the other, Mone, CeUUehe For- 

and distinguishes them from the Gauls, schungen (1857), i^ °' opinion that 

Extreme paradoxes have been held by Germany as well as Gaul was of old 

some recent writers. On the one hand occupied by races which we should call 

Holtzmann, Kelten und Germanen Celtio. 
(1855), maintains that the Celts and 

GAL. 16 


through missionary zeal had visited both the mother country of the 
Gauls and their Asiatic settlement, and had seen in the language 
and physiognomy and national character of these distant peoples 
many striking features which betokened identity of race. 
Jaiome's The testimony of one of these witnesses is especially valuable, 

the Gala- Jerome, who writes at the close of the fourth century, had spent 
tiana. some time both in Gaul proper and in Galatia'. He had thus ample 
opportunities of ascertaining the facts. He was moreover eminently 
qualified by his critical ability and linguistic attainments for forming 
an opinion. In the preface to his Commentary on the Galatians' he 
expresses himself to the following effect ; ' Varro and others after him 
have written voluminous and important works on this race : never- 
theless he will not quote heathen writers; he prefers citing the 
testimony of the Christian Lactantius. This author states that the 
Galatse were so called from the whiteness of their complexion (yaXo), 
described by Virgil (/En. viiL 660), Turn lactea colla av/ro inneo- 
tuntur, informing us also that a horde of these Gauls arrived in 
Asia Minor, and there settled among the Greeks, whence the country 
was called Gallo-Grsecia and afterwards Galatia. No wonder, adds 
Jerome, after illustrating this incident by other migrations between 
the East and the West, that the Galatians are called fools and slow 
of understanding", when Hilary, the Rhone of Latin eloquence, 
himself a Gaul and a native of Poitiers, calls the Gauls stupid (indo- 
ciles). It is true that Gaul produces orators, but then Aquitania 
boasts a Greek origin, and the Galatians are not descended from 
these but from the fiercer Gaulish tribes (de ferocioribus Gallis sint 
profecti).' Though betraying the weakness common to all ancient 

' Jerome mentions his visit to 6a- seen Ane^ra the capital of Galatia. 

latla (totius Galatiae iter), and his " n. p. 415. 

sojourn in Gaul (Bheni semibarbarae ' It is scarcely necessary to say that 

ripae) in the same letter {Epist. iii, i. Jerome here misses the point of St 

pp. lo, ii). While in Gaul, he appears Paul's rebuke. The Galatians were 

to have stayed some time 'apud Tre- intellectuaUy quick enough (see p. 15, 

veros' {Epist. v, i. p. 15). Elsewhere note i). The ' folly ' with which they 

he tells us that he paid this visit to are charged arose not from obtuseness 

Gaul when a very young man (adoles- but from fickleness and levity ; the 

oentuluB, adv. Jovin. ii. 7, 11. p. 335). very versatility of their intellect was 

Lastly, in his commentary on this their snare. The passage of Hilary to 

epistle (vn. p. 430), he mentions having which Jerome refers is not extant. 


writers when speculating on questions of philology, this passage 
taken in connexion with its context implies a very considerable 
knowledge of facts ; and if Jerome agreed with the universal tradi- 
tion in assuming the Galatians to be genuine Gauls, I can hardly 
doubt that they were so. 

But beyond the testimony borne to Jerome's personal knowledge Ita 
, . . , . . indiiect 

and conviction, this passage suggests another very important con- yalne. 

sideration. The influence of the Christian Church must have been 
largely instrumental in spreading information of this kind. The 
Roman official was under no obligation to learn the language of the 
people whom he governed j but the Christian missionary could not 
hope for success unless he were able to converse freely with his 
hearers. In this way the practical study of languages was promoted 
by the spread of the gospel far more than it had ever been by the 
growth of the Boman empire*. At the same time the feeling of 
brotherhood inspired by Christianity surmounted the barriers of race 
and language and linked together the most distant nations. There 
is no more striking phenomenon in the history of the early centuries 
than the close and sympathetic intercourse kept up between churches 
as far apart as those of Asia and Gaul. These communications could 
scarcely have failed to clear up the error as to the origin of the 
Galatian people, if any error existed. 

But great Reliance has been placed by those who advocate the The Gala- 
Teutonic descent of the Galatians on the words with which Jerome gpoke the 
concludes the passage above quoted ; ' Besides the Greek,' he says, ™™with 

'which is spoken throughout the East, the Galatians use as their *eTre- 

' . ven, 

native tongue a language almost identical with that of the Treveri ; 

for any corruption they may have introduced need not be taken into 

account'.' The Treveri, it is affirmed, were Germans and spoke a 

German tongue*. 

1 'The science of language,' say8 ChiiatiBMOhaxeh' {Science of Language, 

Prof. Max Miiller, 'owes more than ist series, p. iii). 

its first impulse to Christianity. The ' See above, p. i a, note 1. The coi- 

pioneers of our science were those very rect form is Treveri, not Treviri: see 

apostles who were commanded to go Gliick Die bei Catar vorkommenden 

into all the world and preach the Gospel Keltischen Namen (1857), P- i55- 

to every creature ; and their true sue- • Even Niebuhr, who maintained 

cessors, the missionaries of the whole the Celtic origin of the Galatians, con- 

16 — 2 



who weie 

This question is not free from difficulty. The fact that German 
is now spoken and has been spoken for many centuries in the 
district corresponding to the ancient Treveri (Treves) is in itself a 
presumption in favour of this view. Nor is the testimony of 
ancient writers so decisive as to remove every shadow of doubt. 

Yet the balance of evidence is doubtless on the side of the Celtic 
extraction of this tribe. Tacitus indeed in one passage says that 
they, like the Nervii, eagerly aflFected a German origin, but he 
expresses no opinion of his own ; and by distinguishing certain races 
whom he mentions immediately after as ' unquestionably Germans,' 
he evidently throws some doubt on the validity of their claims'. 
Elsewhere he speaks of them plainly as Belgians and Gauls'. The 
testimony of Csesar leans the same way, though here again there is 
some indistinctness ; ' Being harassed by constant wars, owing to 
their proximity to Germany, they did not differ much in their 
warlike habits from the Germans' ' ; but he too expressly calls them 
Gauls or Belgians elsewhere*. 

sidered that G-erman was the language 
of the Treveri, and accounted for Je- 
rome's statement by supposing him to 
have heard some Germans who had 
recently settled in Galatia {Vortrdge 
tiber BXm. Geich. ii. p. i8i). This 
view is opposed by Dr Latham {Ger- 
mania of Tacitus, p. 98, comp. p. 
cxlv), who upholds the testimony of 
Jerome. In a later work (Frichard's 
Celtic Nations, p. 106 sq) he somewhat 
impugns that testimony, suggesting 
that Jerome was mistaken, and start- 
ing the theory that the Galatians were 
neither Gauls nor Germans, but Sla- 

' Tao. Germ. 28 'Treveri et Nervii 
circa adfectationem Germanicae origi- 
nis ultro ambitiosi sunt, tamquam per 
hanc gloriam sanguinis a similitudine 
et inertia Gallorum separentur. Ipsam 
Bheni ripam baud dubie Germanorum 
populi colunt, Vangiones, Triboci, 
Nemetes.' Strabo (iv. p. 194) says 
Tpriovtpois ii g-uicx^'' Nepoufoi xa! roDro 
Tepftxa/iKbv (Ovoi. If Kal rovTo here 
refers to tfnjovtpois, which however is 
very questionable (see Ukert n. i, p. 

361, note 65), it would seem that 
Sti'abo did not care to dispute their 

' AnnA. 43,44,111. 44, fiist.iv. 71, 73. 

' Bell. Gall. viii. 15 ' Treveros quo- 
rum ci vitas propter Germaniae vioinita- 
tem quotidianis ezercitata bellis cultu 
et feritate non moltom a Germanis 

* Bell. Gall. ii. 4, 24, v. 3, 45, vi. 
■1, 7, 8, vii. 63. So too Mela iii. 2 
calls them ' olatissimi Belgamm.' Dion 
Cassius in like manner, zxziz. 47, zl. 
31, Ii. 2o, separates them from his 
EcXrof (i.e. Germans). See Diefenb. 
Celt. II. p. 10 sq. In some of these 
passages they (as well as the Nervii) 
are spoken of as Gauls, in others as 
Belgians. This latter designation can- 
not be regarded as conclusive, inas- 
much as some writers have maintain- 
ed that the Belgians were themselves 
a German race. The evidence how- 
ever is irresistibly strong in favour of 
their Gallic parentage. The facts of 
the case seem to be as follows; 
(i) The names of places and, what is 
more important, of persons among the 



And this is fully borne out by the less questionable evidence 
supplied by the names of places and of persons among the Treveri, 
which equally with other Belgian names betoken their Celtic origin. 

The country of the Treveri indeed has long been occupied by but snb- 
a German-speaking population, but history is not silent as to the replaced 
change. About the close of the third century a colony of Franks Qgj^g^jj 
settled in the waste lands of the Nervii and Treveri \ This was settlers. 
somewhat more than half a century before Jerome visited the place. 
The old Celtic language cannot have died out in so short a time. 
Gradually it was displaced by the German of the Frankish immi- 
grants, reinforced by fresh hordes of their fellow-countrymen; but in 
the cities especially, where the remnants of the old population were 
gathered together, it would still continue to be the vulgar tongue ; 
and Jerome's acquaintance with the inhabitants would naturally be 
confined for the most part to the towns ^ 

Belg89 are Celtic. Thus we find proper 
names having well-known Celtic ter- 
minations, and occasionallj even iden- 
tical with the names of Gallic places 
and heroes : see Zeuss Die Deutsehen 
etc. p. 189. This is tme even of the 
Treveri, e.g. Cingetorix {Sell. Oall. 
V. 3) compared with Vercingetorix (ib. 
vii. 4) ; see Brandes, p. 84. {2) Csesar 
relates that the maritime parts of 
Britain were peopled by the Belgse 
(t. 12, comp. ii. 4), and the British 
on the sea-coasts were certainly Celts. 
These facts seem decisive. On the 
other hand (3) Ceesar speaks of a 
difference of language between the 
three divisions of Gaul, the Belgs, the 
Aquitani, and the Celts ('hi omnes 
lingua institutis legibns inter se diSe- 
runt,' i. i), but this is most naturally 
explained of various dialects of the 
same language, as in fact Strabo re- 
presents it (who however excepts the 
Aquitani), o/ioyXuTrous 5' 01) irdvras, 
iW ivlovs lUKpbv irapaWdTTOvras Tail 
yXitrrais, iv. p. 176. (4) Csesar relates 
'plerosque Belgas esse ortos ab Ger- 
manis' (ii. 4, comp. Tac. Germ. 2); 
but this very expression implies that 
the staple of the population was Celtic, 
and it becomes simply a question to 

what extent they were leavened by 
the infusion of a German element. 
The statement of this question by 
Brandes, p. 80 sq, seems very fair and 

Of the two great branches of the 
Celtic family philologers for the most 
part assign the ancient Belgas to the 
Cymric (see Diefenbach 11. p. j8 sq, 
Thierry i. p. 153, 4me ed., Brandes 
p. 85 sq), and as the tradition seems 
to coimect the Galatians with the 
Belgffi, we may, in the absence of any 
direct evidence, look for their modern 
affinities rather in the Welsh than in 
the Irish or the Gael. A careful ex- 
amination of local words and names 
in Galatia might even now clear up 
some difficulties. 

' Enmen. Paneg, Gonstantio C<es. 0. 
II, 'Tuo, Maximiane Auguste, nutu 
Nerviorum et Treverorum arva jaoeutia 
laetuspostUminio restitutus etreceptus 
in leges Francus excoluit,' Paneg. Vet, 
p. 207 Gruter ; comp. ib. Paneg. Con- 
stantino Aug. CO. 5, 6, Gruter p. i8i. 
See Brandes pp. 243, 267, Gibbon's De- 
cline and Fall c. xiii ; comp. ib. c. xix. 

^ Perrot (De la Disparition de la 
Langue GauUdse en Galatie, p. 180 sq 
in the Revue Celtique, no. vi, AofLi 



by the 

(i) Termi- 
nations of 
names of 

and per- 

But the evidence for the Celtic parentage of the Galatians is not 
confined to the testimony of ancient writers, however well informed. 
The Galatian language itself is a witness free from all suspicion of 
ignorance or perjury. And considering that a mere handful of 
words, chiefly proper names, has alone survived, the evidence thence 
derived is far fuller than might have been anticipated'. 

(i) Several Galatian names of places and persons exhibit Celtic 
terminations. These are as follows : 

Of plOfCes : 

-BBiOA, Eccobriga (liin. Ant. p. 203, ed. Wess., Tab. Feut); 
Ipetobrigen (Itin. Hieroa. p. 574). It signifies 'a hiU'; see Zeuss 
Gr. Celt. p. lot, Gliick p. 126. 

-lActiM. Itosologia«um (Itm. Ant. p. 143); Acitorihiacum {Tai. 
Peut.); Teutobodiaci (PUn. v. 42); Timoniacenses (i Plin. v. 42). 
On this very common Celtic termination see Zeuss G. G. p. 772. 

Of persona : 

-QNATDS. Eposognatus (Polyb. xxii. 20) : compare Critognatus, 
BoduognatuB (Caesar), and several Celtic names in inscriptions; 
(gnath, ' consuetus'; Zeuss G. 0. p. 82, and compare ib. p. 19). 

-HARVS. Combolomarus (Liv. xxxvui. 19); Chiomara (Polyb. 
xxii 21); compare Virdumarus, Indutiomarus (Csesar), and other 
names in Gallic inscriptions ; (mar, 'magnus'j see Zeuss G, C. p. 19, 
Gltick p. 77). 

-OEiDS. Acichorius (Pans, x, 19. 4) : Orestorius (Paus. x. 22. 2); 
Comontorius (Polyb. iv. 46. 3) j see Zeuss G. 0. p. 741. 

-Rix. Adiatorix' (Cic. Fam. ii. 12, Straboxil. p. 534); Albiorix, 

1870) seeks to invalidate Jerome's tes- 
timony altogether, but his arguments 
do not seem to me to be substantial. 
He believes that the Celtic language had 
died out in Galatia itself some centu- 
ries before ; and he therefore supposes 
that this father thoughtlessly copies a 
statement of some earlier writer, and 
applies it to his own time, regardless 
of the anachronism. Jerome's asser- 
tion however has every appearance of 
being founded on personal knowledge. 
' The account which follows perhaps 

needs some apology &om one who has 
no pretensions to Celtic scholarship and 
may possibly betray great ignorance. 
But the investigation could not well be 
avoided, while the facts seemed to lie 
very much on the surface. At all events 
the general results will not, I think, be 
invalidated by any inaccuracy or weak- 
ness that there may be in the details. 

' The first element in this word also 
occurs in several Celtic names, Adia- 
tnnnus, Adiatnmarus, etc., Oliiok p. i. 


Ateporix (Boeckh Inscr. 4039) ; a very common Celtic termination, 
e.g. Dumnorix, Ambiorix, Vercingetorix, etc.; ('rex,' 'princeps,' 
Zeuss G. 0. p. 25, where instances are given). 

-TARUS, -torus; Bogodiatorus (Strabo xii. p. 567); Brogitarus 
(Cio. Harusp. Resp. 28); Deiotarus (Cic. pro Reg. Ddot., comp. 
Boeckh Inscr. 4072). See Zeuss G. G. p. 823. 

(2) But it is not only in the terminations that the Celtic origin (2) Gala- 
of the language is seen. It appears unmistakeably also m a large names and 
proportion of the Galatian names and words which have been pre- 

Strabo tells us (xii. p. 567) that the great council of the Galatian Drynffime- 

people met at a place called Dryn^metdm (Apvi'aiju.erov). Now 

nemetum (' nemed ') is a good Celtic word for a temple : we meet 

with it for instance in Augustonemetum, ' the temple of Augustus,' 

at Clermont in the Auvergne ; in Vernemetum, ' the g^eat temple,' 

in the province of Bordeaux, of which it is said 

Nomine Vernemetis voluit vocitare vetustas. 

Quod quasi yareiiwi ingena Gallica lingua refert'; 

in another Vernemetum also in Britain {Itim,. Ant. p. 479) ; and in 
several other names : comp. Diefenb. Celt. i. p. 83, 11. p. 329, Zeuss 
G, G. pp. II, 186, Glack p. 75. The first syllable of Drynsemetum 
again represents the Celtic (Welsh) derw, ' quercus,' whence Druid 
{'derwydd'), Derwent, etc.: see Zeuss G. G. pp. 8, 16, and Diefenb. 
I. p. 160. Thus 'Drynsemetum' is the 'oak-shrine' or the 'grove 
temple,' recalling a characteristic feature of the old Celtic worship 
which prevailed in Britain and Gaul. 

Again the names of several of the Galatian chieftains betray Galatian 
their Celtic extraction. The leader of the expedition against Greece, ' 

of which the Galatian immigration was an offshoot, bears the same 
name with the Gaulish captain who sacked Rome ; he too, like his 
predecessor, is a Brennus — no proper name but a good Celtic word 
signifying a 'prince' or 'chieftain ' (Thierry Hist, des Gaul. i. p. 160, 
Zeuss G^. (7, p. 101). A second name assigned to this same king was 

1 Venant. Fortnn. i. g. 





Praustjs, 'the terrible' (Strab. iv. p. 187 ; see Thierry i. p. 218, and 
especially Diefenb. 11. p. 252), Again, another commander in this 
expedition is called Oerethrius, ' the famous, the glorious ' (Pausan. 
X. 19. 4; certh, 'celebrated,' certhrwyz, 'glory'; Thierry I. p. 219, 
from Owen's Welsh Dick). Bolgius again (Pausan. ib.), also written 
Belgius (Justin, xxiv. 5), presents the same Celtic root which appears 
in 'Belgse' (comp. Diefenb. I. p. 200, 11. pp. 61 sq, 267). The 
name of Acichorius too (Pausan. 1. c.) or Cichorius (Diod. xxii 
fragm.), who is associated with Brennus in the command, taken as 
a Celtic word, describes his oflBce (cygwiawr, 'colleague,' Thierry 
I. p. 225). 

Among later Galatian names of persons we meet with G^zato- 
DIASTUS (Boeckh Inscr. 4039), doubtless to be connected with the 
• GesataB ' of whom we read among the western Gauls, and whose 
name, signifying ' warriors,' is derived from the Gallic word gesum, 
'a spear' (Caes. B. G*. iii. 4; comp. Serv. in Virg. jEn. viiL 662, 
Diefenb. i. p. 126); and Brogoris (Boeckh Inscr. 4118), the root of 
which appears in Brogitarus, Allobroges, etc.; Zeuss G. G. p. 106; 
Gliick p. 27. Again the name Bituitus, Bitovitus, or Bitoetus, 
seems to occur both in Asiatic (Appian Miihr. iii) and in Euro- 
pean Gaul (ib. Celt. 1 2, Liv. Epit. Ixi) ; for the reasons given 
(Wemsdorflf p. 164) for assigning the first of these, who slew Mith- 
ridates, to the western nation seem insufficient. Nor is this the 
only proper name which links the two countries together. Strabo 
(xiii. p. 625) mentions one Adobogion, a Galatian; the name 
Adbogius appears on an inscription relating to Ehenish Gaul 
(Steiner God. Inscr. Bom. Rhen. no. 440). 

Again, of the three tribes which composed the Galatian people 
two at least proclaim their Celtic descent in their names. The 
Tectosag^ or Tectosages bear identically the same name with a tribe 
of western Gauls (Cses. B. G. vi. 24) whom we find moving eastward 
and occupying a district which was properly German (see Diefenb. n. 
p. 264 sq). Similarly both the component parts of Tolistobogii, 
the name of the second of these tribes, claim a Celtic affinity. The 
word is variously written, but its original Celtic form would seem to 


be represented by Tolosatobogii Tolosa was a common Gallic name 
for places (Diefenb. 11. p. 339), and has survived both in the French 
Toulouse and in the Spanish Tolosa. It is connected moreover with 
the name and history of the other Galatian tribe already discussed. 
' Tolosa Tectosagum ' is especially mentioned (Mela ii. 5 ; comp. Plin. 
iii. s) ; and according to the ancient legend a portion of the Tecto- 
sages returning from the Delphic expedition 'to their ancient country 
Tolosa,' and being afflicted by a pestilence, bethought them of 
averting the wrath of heaven by sinking their ill-gotten gains in the 
neighbouring lake (Justin, xxxii. 3; comp. Strab. iv. p. 188, Dion. 
Cass. Uxc. I. p. 133, ed. L. Dind.). The riddle of this legend I 
shall not attempt to read ; I simply quote it to show the connexion 
of the Gallic Tolosa with the Asiatic settlement. Indeed this name 
occurs ia Galatia itself under the form Tolosocorium (Tab. Feut.), 
and ToXaara x<opiov (PtoL v. 4). The second element in the com- 
position of Tolostobogii or Tolostoboii is no less Celtic. It is the 
name borne by the tribe of the Boii which plays so prominent a 
part in early Gallic history, and is not uncommon as a termination 
of other Celtic names (see instances in Zeuss G. G. p. 69, comp. 
p. 58, and compare the proper name Adobogius already referred to). 
Even in the third and remaining tribe the Tbocmi Celtic affinities 
have been pointed out (Diefenb. i. p. 256, Zeuss G. C. p. 28), but 
these are obscure and far from convincing'. 

Of Galatian words besides proper names very few indeed have Other 

been recorded. The explanations given of these may be found in words. 

Diefenbach (see his references 11. p. 251). Among others which are 

less patent, one is certainly a good Celtic word impKo, mentioned 

^ Diefenbach, Gelt. 11. p. 248, quotes sent some variations, there seems to be 

Solinus (c.4i) as mentioning a Galatian no authority for Ambiani. 
tribe ' Ambiani,' this being the ancient I notice also that the names of seve- 

Gaulish name for the modern ' Amiens.' ral Galatian places begin with Beg-, as 

But there seems to be an accidental Beganagalla, Begemnezus, Begemau- 

error here. In the most recent and recium, Eegetmocata, Begomori; see 

most critical edition of Solinus (0. 41, WemsdorfE pp. 232, 3. This may be 

ed. Mommsen, 1864) the word is 'Am- the same word which appears in many 

bitoti ' ; and in the corresponding pas- Gallic names, as Bigodulum, Bigoma- 

eage of Pliny (v. 42), from which Soli- gus, etc. ; see Diefenbach i. p. 53, n. 

nus borrowed, Sillig reads ' Ambitouti.' p. 331, Zeuss G. C. p. 25. 
Though the mss in both authors pre- 


by Pausanias (x. 19) as the name for a horse among the Gauls of the 
Delphic expedition (Diefenb. i. p. 67). 

Eesnlt. In gathering together the evidence in favour of the Celtic extrac- 

tion of the Galatians as afforded by their language I have omitted 
many questionable affinities ; and even of those which are given some 
perhaps wUl appear uncertain. But taken as a whole the evidence, 
if I mistake not, places the result beyond a doubt ; and the few 

Sapposed German etymologies real or imagined, which have been alleged on 

affinities ^^^ other side, will be quite insufficient to turn the scale. Thus it is 
asserted that the names of the leaders of the Asiatic expedition, 
LcTABius and Leonnorius, are both German ; and that the Galatian 
tribe Teutobodiaci and the Galatian town Gebmanofolis point very 
clearly to the same origin. On these four words the whole stress of 
the Teutonic theory may be said to rest. 

And if they had stood alone, the German affinities of these 

how to be names might perhaps have been accepted. But with the vast mass 
' of evidence on the other side, it becomes a question whether some 
more satisfactory account cannot be given of them. Thus Lutarius 
(or Luturius) is said to be the same name with the Frankish Lothaire 
and the Saxon Luther, and therefore Teutonic (see Graff AUhochd. 
Sprachsch. iv. p. 555) j but among the Gallic chieftains one Lucterius 
ie mentioned (Csesar £. Q, vii. etc.), and the identity of the names 
Lutarius and Lucterius is at least not improbable (Diefenb. 11. p. 253; 
Zeuss, 0. 0. p. 78, derives the name Lucterius from luct, 'agmen,' 
'pars': see also p. 180). Again the other Galatian commander 
Leonnorius has certainly a namesake in a genuine Celtic saint, a 
native of Britain {Acta Sanest. Jul. I. see Diefenb. 11. p. 254), and 
there seems to be no reason for assigning a Teutonic parentage to 
this word. In the name Teutobodiaci indeed the first component 
seems very plainly to mean ' German ' : but, even granting that this 
is not one of those very specious but very deceptive affinities which 
are the snares of comparative philology, the word need not imply 
that the tribe itself was Teutonic. If the second component is 
rightly taken to denote victory ('buad,' 'buaid,' comp. Boadicea, 
Bodiocassea, Bodiontici, Bodicus, etc.; see Zeuss G. 0. p. 27, Gliick 


p. 53), then the Teutobodiaoi were not necessarily Teutons any more 

than Thessalonica was Thessalian. The remaining word Gennano- 

polis seems in its very form to betray its later origin, or at all events 

to mark some exceptional occupants other than the main population 

of the country. 

It is quite possible indeed, as Thierry supposes (i. p. 225), that A poBsible 

_ German 
swept away with the hordes of Gaulish invaders a small body of element. 

Germans also settled in Asia Minor, and this may be the true 

account of the names Lutarius and TeutobodiaoL We know that of 

all the Gauls the Belgians were most mixed up with the Germans, 

and it is with the Belgian members of the Celtic family especially 

that the Gauls of the Asiatic settlement seem to be connected. 

But the evidence is scarcely strong enough to bear the strain of the 

German theory, even when pared down to these very meagre 

dimensions. Beyond this we cannot go without doing violence to 


There is every reason then for believing that the Galatian Conclu- 

settlers were genuine Celts, and of the two main subdivisions ''""• 

into which modern philologers have divided the Celtic race, they 

seem rather to have belonged to the Cymric, of which the Welsh are 

the living representatives. Thus in the age when St Paul preached, 

a native of Galatia spoke a language essentially the same with that 

which was current in the southern part of Britain. And if — to 

indulge a passing fancy — we picture to ourselves one of his Asiatic 

converts visiting the far West to barter the hair cloths of his native 

cpiintry for the useful metal which was the special product of this 

island, we can imagine that finding a medium of communication in a 

common language he may have sown the first seeds of the Gospel and 

laid the foundations of the earliest Church in Britain. 



Two rival T^ ^^^ early ages of the Church two conflicting opinions were 

theories, i j^^j^ regarding the relationship of those who in the Gospels and 

Apostolic Epistles are termed ' the brethren of the Lord.' On the 

one hand it was maintained that no blood relationship existed ; that 

^ The interest in this subject, which 
was so warmly discussed towards the 
close of the fourth century, has been re- 
vived in more recent times by the pub- 
lication of Herder's Brief e Zweener Bin- 
der Jesu in unserem Kanon (1775), in 
which the Helvidian hypothesis is put 
forward. Since then it has formed the 
subject of numberless monographs, dis- 
sertations, and incidental comments. 
The most important later works, with 
which I am acquainted, are those of 
Blom, Derois iSc\<t>oTsetTais ide\- 
0ais ToS Kvpiov (Leyden, 1839); of 
Schaf, Dot Verhdltniss des Jakobus Bru- 
ders des Serrn zu JakoJmi Alphdi (Ber- 
lin, 1842) ; and of Mill, The accounts of 
our Lord's Brethren in the New Testa- 
ment vindicated etc. (Cambridge, 1843). 
The two former adopt the Helvidian 
view ; the last is written in support of 
St Jerome's hypothesis. Blom gives 
the most satisfactory statement which 
I have seen of the patristic authorities, 
and Schaf discusses the Scriptural argu- 
ments most carefully. I am also largely 
indebted to the ability and learning of 
Mhl's treatise, though he seems to me 
to have mistaken the general tenor of 
ecclesiastical tradition on this subject. 
Besides these monographs I have also 
consulted, with more or less advantage, 
articles on the subject in works of re- 

ference or periodicals, such as those in 
Studien u. Kritiken by Wieseler ; Die 
Sohne Zebedai Vettem des Herrn (1840, 
p. 648), and Veher die Bruder des Herrn, 
etc. (1842, p. 71). In preparing for 
the second edition I looked over the 
careful investigation in Laurent's ^eu- 
test. Studien p. 155 sq (i866), where 
the Helvidian hypothesis ismaintained, 
but saw no reason to make any 
change in consequence. The works of 
Amaud, Recherches sur VEpitre de Jude, 
and of Goy (Mont. 1845), referred to in 
Bishop Ellioott's Qalatians i. 19, 1 have 
not seen. My object in this disserta- 
tion is mainly twofold ; (i) To place the 
Hieronymian hypothesis in its true 
Ught, as an effort of pure criticism un- 
supported by any traditional sanction; 
and (2) To say a word on behalf of the 
Epiphanian solution, which seems, at 
least of late years, to have met with the 
fate reserved for rd lUtra in literature 
and theology, as well as in poUtics, Ar' 
i/uporipuv ^ Sri oi ivvifyoivlj^oyTO ^ 
^66yif ToO irepietpoi die^Betpovro. I sup- 
pose it was because he considered it idle 
to discuss a theory which had no friends, 
that Prof. Jowett (on Gal. i. 19), while 
balancing the claims of the other two 
solutions, does not even mention the 
existence of this, though in the early 
centuries it was the received account. 


these brethren were in fact sons of Joseph by a former wife, before 

he espoused the Virgin; and that they are therefore called the 

Lord's brethren only in the same way in which Joseph is called His 

father, having really no claim to this title but being so designated 

by an exceptional use of the term adapted to the exceptional fact of 

the miraculous incarnation. On the other hand certain persons 

argued that the obvious meaning of the term was the correct 

meaning, and that these brethren were the Lord's brethren as truly 

as Mary was the Lord's mother, being her sons by her husband 

Joseph. The former of these views was held by the vast majority 

of orthodox believers and by not a few heretics ; the latter was 

the opinion of a father of the Church here and there to whom it 

occurred as the natural inference from the language of Scripture, 

as Tertullian for instance, and of certain sects and individuals 

who set themselves against the incipient worship of the Virgin or 

the one-sided asceticism of the day, and to whom therefore it was 

a very serviceable weapon of controversy. 

Such was the state of opinion, when towards the close of the A third 

fourth century Jerome struck out a novel hypothesis. One Helvi- ed by 

diuB, who lived in Rome, had attacked the prevailing view of the 

superiority of virgin over married life, and in doing so had laid 

great stress on the example of the Lord's mother who had borne 

children to her husband. In or about the year 383 Jerome, then 

a young man, at the instigation of ' the brethren ' wrote a treatise in 

reply to Helvldius, in which he put forward his own view'. He 

maintained that the Lord's brethren were His cousins after the flesh, 

being sons of Mary the wife of Alphaeus and sister of the Virgin. 

Thus, as he boasted, he asserted the virginity not of Mary only but 

of Joseph also. 

These three accounts are all of sufficient importance either from Names 

their real merits or from their wide popularity to deserve con- to^hew 

sideration, and I shall therefore investigate their several claims. *l"^ee. 

As it will be convenient to have some short mode of designation, 

' Adv. Helvidium de Perpetua Virginitate B. Maria, u. p. 206 (ed. Vail.). 
Comp. Comment, ad Gal. i. 19. 


I shall call them respectively the Epvphomicm, the ffelmdian, and 
the Hieronymia/n, theories, from the names of their most zealous 
advocates in the controversies of the fourth century when the 
question was most warmly debated. 

But besides the solutions already mentioned not a few others 
have been put forward. These however have been for the most part 
Arbitrary built upon arbitrary assumptions or improbable combinations of 
tions known facts, and from their artificial character have failed to secure 

any wide acceptance. It is assumed for instance, that two persons 
of the same name, James the son of Alphaeus and James the Lord's 
brother, were leading members of the Church of Jerusalem, though 
history points to one only'; or that James the Lord's brother men- 
tioned in St Paul's Epistles is not the same James whose name 
occurs among the Lord's brethren in the Gospels, the relationship 
intended by the term 'brother' being diflFerent in the two cases'; or 
that ' brethren ' stands for ' foster-brethren,' Joseph having under- 
taken the charge of his brother Clopas' children after their father's 
death*; or that the Lord's brethren had a double parentage, a legal 
as well as an actual father, Joseph having raised seed to his deceased 
brother Clopas by his widow according to the levirate law*; or 
lastly, that the cousins of Jesus were rewarded with the title of 
His brethren, because they were His steadfast disciples, while His 
own brothers opposed Him'. 
to be set All such assumptions it will be necessary to set aside. In them- 

selves indeed they can neither be proved nor disproved. But it is 
safer to aim at the most probable deduction from known facts than 
to build up a theory on an imaginary foundation. And, where 
the question is so intricate ra itself, there is little temptation to 

^ e.g. Wieseler Veher die Bruder thesonof Alphesusthesaoaessor of the 

etc., I.e., p. 80 sq. According to this Lord's brother, 

writer the James of Oal. ii. 9 and of the ' The writers mentioned in Schaf, 

Acta is the son of Alpheeus, not the p. 11. 

Lord's brother, and therefore different " Lange in Herzog's Real-Encycl. in 

from the James of i. 19. See his notes the article ' Jakobus im N.T.' 

on Gal. i. 19, ii. 9. An ancient writer, ' Theophylact ; see below, p. 190. 

the pseudo-Dorotheus (see below, p. ' Benan Vie de J€sut p. 14. But in 

386, note), had represented two of the Saint Paul p. 28$ he inclines to the 

name as bishops of Jerusalem, making Epiphanian view. 


introduce fresh difficulties by giving -way to the license of con- 

To confine ourselves then to the three accounts which have the Belationof 
greatest claim to a hearing. It will be seen that the hypothesis aooounta. 
which I have called the Epiphanian holds a middle place between 
the remaining two. With the Helvidian it assigns an intelligible 
sense to the term ' brethren ' : with the Hieronymian it preserves 
the perpetual virginity of the Lord's mother. Whether or not, while 
uniting in itself the features which have recommended each of these 
to acceptance, it unites also their difficulties, will be considered in 
the sequel. 

From a critical point of view however, apart from their bearing 
on Christian doctrine and feeling, the Helvidian and Epiphanian 
theories hang very closely together, while the Hieronymian stands 
apart. As well on account of this isolation, as also from the fact 
which I have hitherto assumed but which I shall endeavour to prove 
hereafter, that it was the latest bom of the three, it will be con- 
venient to consider the last-mentioned theory first. 

St Jerome then states his view in the treatise against Helvidius Jerome's 

, , c -n statement, 

somewhat as tollows : 

The list of the Twelve Apostles contains two of the name of The son of 
James, the son of Zebedee and the son of Alphseus. But elsewhere the Lord's 
we read of a James the Lord's brother. What account are we to "'^"•"^r; 
give of this last James ? Either he was an Apostle or he was not. 
If an Apostle, he must be identified with the son of Alphseus, for the 
son of Zebedee was no longer living : if not an Apostle, then there 
were three persons bearing this name. But in this case how can 
a certain James be called ' the less,' a term which implies only one 
besides 1 And how moreover can we account for St Paul's language 
' Other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother ' 
(Gal. i. 19) ? Clearly therefore James the son of Alphaeus and James 
the Lord's brother are the same person. 

And the Gospel narrative explains this identity. Among the the Vir- 
Lord's brethren occur the names of James and Joseph. Now it is bSng his 
stated elsewhere that Mary the mother of James the less and of ""otlier. 



of the term 


the same 
with Clo- 

Joseph (or Joses) was present at the crucifixion (Matt, xxvii. 56, 
Mark xv. 40). This Mary therefore must have been the wife of 
Alphseus, for Alphaeus was the father of James. But again in St 
John's narrative (xix. 25) the Virgin's sister 'Mary of Cleophas 
(Clopas)' is represented as standing by the cross. This carries us a 
step in advance. The last-mentioned Mary is to be identified with 
the wife of Alphwus and mother of James. Thus James the Lord's 
brother was in reality the Lord's cousin. 

But, if His cousin, how is he called His brother t The following 
is the explanation. The term 'brethren' is used in four difierent 
senses in Holy Scripture: it denotes either (i) actual brotherhood 
or (2) common nationality, or (3) kinsmanship, or (4) friendship 
and sympathy. These different senses St Jerome expresses by the 
four words ' natura, gente, cognatione, affeotu.' In the case of the 
Lord's brethren the third of these senses is to be adopted : brother- 
hood here denotes mere relationship, just as Abraham calls his 
nephew Lot brother (Gen. xiii. 8), and as Laban uses the same term 
of Jacob his sister's son (Gen. xxix. 15). 

So far St Jerome, who started the theory. But, as worked out 
by other writers and as generally stated, it involves two particulars 

(i) The identity of Alphceua and Clopas. These two words, 
it is said, are different renderings of the same Aramaic name '<sbn 
or ..cvV^f (Chalphai), the form Clopas being peculiar to St John, 
the more completely grecized Alphseus taking its place in the other 
Evangelists. The Aramaic guttural Gheth, when the name was 
reproduced in Greek, might either be omitted as in Alphseus, or 
replaced by a k (or x) as in Clopas. Just in the same way Aloysius 
and Ludovicus are recognised Latin representatives of the Frankish 
name Olovis (Clodovious, Hludovicus, Hlouis)', 

This identification however, though it materially strengthens his 
theory, was unknown to Jerome himself. In the course of his 
argument he confesses plainly that he does not know why Mary is 
called Clopse, (or Cleophee, as he writes it) : it may be, he suggests, 

i This illustration is taken from Mill, p. 236. 


after her father or from her family surname ('gentilitate familiae') 
or for some other reason'. In his treatise on Hebrew names too 
he gives an account of the word Alphseus which is scarcely consistent 
with this identity*. Neither have I found any traces of it in any of 
his other works, though he refers several times to the subject. In 
Augustine again, who adopts Jerome's hypothesis and his manner of 
stating it, it does not anywhere appear, so far as I know. It occurs 
first, I believe, in Chrysostom who incidentally speaks of James 
the Lord's brother as ' son of Clopas,' and after him in Theodoret 
who is more explicit (both on Gal. i. 19)'. To a Syrian Greek, who, 
even if he were unable to read the Peshito version, must at all 
events have known that Ohalphai was the Aramaean rendering or 
rather the Aramaean original of 'AX^aios, it might not unnaturally 
occur to graft this identification oil the original theory of Jerome. 

(ii) The identity of Judas the Apostle and Judas the Lord's Jude the 
brother. In St Luke's catalogues of the Twelve (Luke vi 16, Acts ther one 
i 13) the name 'Judas of James' ('lovSas 'laKtoj3ov) occurs. Nowm "|^ 
we find a Judas also among the four brethren of the Lord (Matt. 
xiii. 55, Mark vL 3) ; and the writer of the epistle, who was doubt- 
less the Judas last mentioned, styles himself ' the brother of James' 
(Jude i). This coincidence suggests that the ellipsis in 'Judas of 
James' should be supplied by brother as in the English vension, 
not by son which would be the more obvious word. Thus Judas 
the Lord's brother, like James, is made one of the Twelve. I do not 
know when the Hieronymian theory received this fresh accession, 
but, though the gain is considerable in apparent strength at least, 
it does not appear, so far as I have noticed, to have occurred to 
Jerome himself. 

And some have gone a step farther. We find not only a James and per- 

and a Judas among the Lord's brethren, but also a Symeon or uf^ g^/g^^ 

' adv. Helvid. § 15, 11. p. 219. the derivation with a Cheth, which is 

* ' Alphaus, fugitivus [f\?n; the required in order to identify 'Alphrous' 

Grreek of Origen was doubtless olx&fJte- ^tl> ' Clopas.' Indeed, as he incor- 

vos, see p. 626], Bed melius miUesimus rectly wrote Oleopas (or Cleophas) for 

[f\^tt] vel doctus [ei^K]'; m. p. 89: Clopas with the Latin version, this 

and again, ' Alphms, millesimns, sive identification was not likely to occur 

super OS [HB^I??] ab ore non ab osse.' *° I'™- 
ib. p. 98. Thus he deliberately rejects ' See below, p. 289. 

GAL. 17 


Simon. Now it is remarkable that these three names occur together 
in St Luke's list of the Twelve : James (the son) of Alphseus, 
Simon called Zelotes, and Judas (the brother) of James. In the 
lists of the other Evangelists too these three persons are kept 
together, though the order is different and Judas appears under 
another name, Lebbseus or Thaddseus. Can this have been a mere 
accident 1 Would the name of a stranger have been inserted by St 
Luke between two brothers? Is it not therefore highly probable 
that this Simon also was one of the Lord's brethren? And thus 
tli/ree out of the four are included among the Twelve'. 

Without these additions the theory is incomplete; and indeed 

they have been so generally regarded as part of it, that advocates and 

opponents alike have forgotten or overlooked the fact that Jerome 

himself nowhere advances them. I shall then consider the theory 

as involving these two points ; for indeed it would never have won 

its way to such general acceptance, unless presented in this complete 

form, where its chief recommendation is that it combines a great 

variety of facts and brings out many striking coincidences. 

Jerome But before criticizing the theory itself, let me prepare the way 

by divesting it of all fictitious advantages and placing it in its true 

light. The two points to which attention may be directed, as having 

been generally overlooked, are these : 

(i) claims (i) Jerome claims no traditional support Jhr his theory. This 

tional ^ * remarkable feature in his treatise against Helvidius. He 

fMlds " argues the question solely on critical and theological grounds. His 

theory, opponent had claimed the sanction of two older writers, TertuUian 

and Viotorinus of Pettaw. Jerome in reply is obliged to concede 

him TertuUian, whose authority he invalidates as 'not a member 

of the Ohurch,' but denies him Viotorinus. Can it be doubted that 

if he could have produced any names on his own side he would 

only too gladly have done so ? When for instance he is maintaining 

1 It is found in Sophronius (?), who 958. Compare the psendo-Hippolytus 

however confuses hun with Jade; 'Si- (i. App. p. 30, ed. Fabric). Perhaps 

mon Oananaeus cognomen to Judas, fra- the earliest genuine writing in which it 

ter Jacobi episcopi, qui et successit illi occurs is Isidor. Hispal. de Vit. et Ob. 

in episcopatum etc' ; Hieron. Op. 11. p. Sanct. 0. 81. See Mill p. 248. 


the virginity of the Lord's mother, a feature possessed by his theory 
in common with the Epiphanian, he is at no loss for authorities : 
Ignatius, Polycarp, Irensens, Justin, and many other 'eloquent 
apostolic men' occur to him at once'. But in support of his own 
account of the relationship he cannot, or at least does not, name 
a single -writer ; he simply o£fers it as a critical deduction from the 
statements of Scripture". Again in his later -writings, when he 
refers to the subject, his tone is the same : ' Some suppose them to 
have been sons of Joseph : it is my opinion, 7 have maintained in 
my book against Helvidius, that they were the children of Mary 
the Virgin's sister".' And the whole tenor of patristic evidence, as 
I shall hope -to show, is in accordance with this tone. No decisive 
instance can be produced of a -writer holding Jerome's -view, before 
it was propounded by Jerome himself. 

(2) Jeroms does not hold his theory stmmchly and consistently. Hi) and 
The references to the subject in his works taken in chronological iidciitoon- 
order will speak for themselves. The theory is first propounded, sistently, 
as we saw, in the treatise against HeMdius -written about 383, 
when he was a young man. Even here his main point is the 
perpetual virginity of the Lord's mother, to which his o-wn special 
solution is quite subordinate : he speaks of himself as not caring to 
fight hard (' contentiosum funem non traho') for the identity of 
Mary of Cleophas with Mary the mother of James and Joses, though 
this is the pivot of his theory. And, as time advances, he seems 
to hold to his hypothesis more and more loosely. In his com- 
mentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (i. 19) written about 387 
he speaks very vaguely: he remembers, he says, having when at 
Rome written a treatise on the subject, with which such as it is 
he ought to be satisfied (' qualiacunque sunt ilia quae scripsimus 
his contenti esse debemus ') ; after which he goes on inconsistently 

1 See however below, p. 178, note i. tern mihi videturMariae sororis matris 

3 He sets aside the appeal to autho- Domini filius'; Comment. in Matth. 

rity thus: 'Verum nugas terimns, et xii. 49 (vii. p. 86) 'Quidam fratrea 

fonte veritatis omisso opinionum rivu- Domini de alia nxore Joseph filioB 

loB conseotamur,' adv. Helvid. 17. BTispioantur.. .nos autem, Bicnt in libro 

' de Vir. lUustr. 2 ' ut nonnulU ex- quern contra Helvidium soripsimns 

istimant, Joseph ex alia uxore ; ut au- continetur etc' 

17 — 2 


"but wavers enough, 'Suffice it now to say that James was called the Lord's 

' brother on account of his high character, his incomparable faith, 

and extraordinary wisdom : the other Apostles also are called 

brothers (John xx. 17 ; comp. Ps. xxiL 22), but he preemiuently so, 

to whom the Lord at His departure had committed the sons of His 

mother (ie. the members of the Church of Jerusalem) ' ; with more 

to the same effect : and he concludes by showing that the term 

Apostle, so far from being confined to the Twelve, has a very wide 

use, adding that it was ' a monstrous error to identify this James 

with the Apostle the brother of John'.' In his Catalogue of 

Illustrious Men (a.d. 392) and in his Commentary on St Matthew 

(a.d. 398) he adheres to his earlier opinion, referring in the passages 

already quoted* to his treatise against Helvidius, and taunting 

those who considered the Lord's brethren to be the sons of Joseph 

by a former wife with 'following the ravings of the apocryphal 

writings and inventing a wretched creature (mulierculam) Melcha 

and seeniB or Escha by name'.' Yet after all in a stUl later work, the Epistle 

at length 

to aban- to Hedibia (about 406 or 407), enumerating the Maries of the 

Gospels he mentions Mary of Cleophas the maternal aunt of the 

Lord and Mary the mother of James and Joses as distinct persons, 

adding 'although others contend that the mother of James and 

^ 'Quod autem exceptis duodecim • 'Sequentes deliramenta apocry- 

qaidam vooentur apoatoU, illad in causa phorum et quandam Melcham vel Es- 

est, omnes qui Dominum viderant et cliammuliercuiamconfingentes.'Contm. 

eum postea praedioabaut fuisse aposto- in Matth. 1. 0. 'Nemo non videt,' 

loa appellatos ' ; and then after giving says Blom, p. 1x6, 'illud nomen nC^S 

instances (among others i Cor. xv. 7) [wife, woman] esse mere fictitium, neo 

he adds, 'Unde vehementer erravit qui minus posterius [prins] IIdSd [queen].' 

arbitratUB est Jacobum hunc de evange- (Comp. Julius Africanus in Bouth's Rel. 

lioesseapostolumfratremJohannis;... Socr. 11. p. 133, 339.) If so, the work 

hie autem Jacobus episcopus Hierosoly- must have been tiie production of some 

morum primus fuit cognomento Justus Jewish Christian. But Escha is not a 

etc' (vii. p. 396). These are just the very exact representation of HCK (I- 

arguments which would be brought shah). On the other hand, making al- 

by one maintaining the Epiphanian ao- lowanee for the uncertain vocalisation 

count. Altogether Jerome's language of the Hebrew, the two daughters of 

here is that of a man who has commit- Haran (Gen. xi. 29) bear identically the 

ted himself to a theory of which he has same names : ' the father of Milcah (lxx 

misgivings, and yet from which he is McXxi) and the father of Isoah (nDD«) 

not bold enough to break loose. lxx "leo-xii).' Doubtless these names 

» See p. 259, note 3. were borrowed thence. 

don it. 


Joses was His aunt'.' Yet this identification, of which he here 
speaks with such indifference, was the keystone of his own theory. 
Can it be that by his long residence in Bethlehem, having the 
Palestinian tradition brought more prominently before him, he first 
relaxed his hold of and finally relinquished his own hypothesis t 

If these positions are correct, the Hieronymian view has no claim 
to any traditional sanction — ^in other words, there is no reason to 
believe that time has obliterated any secondary evidence in its 
favour — and it must therefore be investigated on its own merits. 

And compact and plausible as it may seem at first sight, the Objections 
theory exposes, when examined, many vulnerable parts. lome's 

(i) The instances alleged notwithstanding, the sense thus as- /.fu^e q* 
signed to 'brethren' seems to be unsupported by biblical usage. In S'^^.Y"'^'^ 
an affectionate and earnest appeal intended to move the sympathies 
of the hearer, a speaker might not unnaturally address a relation or 
a friend or even a fellow-countryman as his ' brother.' And even 
when speaking of such to a third person he might through warmth 
of feeling and under certain aspects so designate him. But it is 
scarcely conceivable that the cousins of any one should be commonly 
and indeed exclusively styled his ' brothers ' by indifferent persons ; 
still less, that one cousin in particular should be singled out and 
described in this loose way, ' James the Lord's brother.' 

(2) But again : the Hieronymian theory when completed sup- (») Eela- 
poses two, if not three, of the Lord's brethren to be in the number Lord's 
of the Twelve. This is hardly reconcileable with the place they hold 1"^^*?"®° 
in the Evangelical narratives, where they appear sometimes as dis- Twelve, 
tinct from, sometimes as antagonistic to the Twelve. Only a short 
time before the crucifixion they are disbelievers in the Lord's divine 
mission (John vii. 5). Is it likely that St John would have made 
this unqualified statement, if it were true of one only or at most 
of two out of the four? Jerome sees the difficulty and meets it 
by saying that James was 'not one of those that disbelieved.' But 
what if Jude and Simon also belong to the Twelve? After the 
Lord's Ascension, it is true, His brethren appear in company with 

1 Epist. oxx, I. p. 826. Comp. Tischendorf s Evang. Apocr. p. 104. 


the Apostles, and apparently by this time their unbelief has been 
converted into faith. Yet even on this later occasion, though with 
the Twelve, they are distinguished from the Twelve ; for the latter 
are described as assembling in prayer 'with the women and Mary 
the mother of Jesus and [with] His brethren ' (Acts i. 14). 
especially And scarcely more consistent is this theory with what we know of 
Jude^^ ^ James and Jude in particular. James, as the resident bishop or pre- 
siding elder of the mother Church, held a position hardly compatible 
with the world-wide duties which devolved on the Twelve. It was 
the essential feature of his office that he should be stationary; of 
theirs, that they should move about from place to place. If on the 
other hand he appears sometimes to be called an Apostle (though 
not one of the passages alleged is free from ambiguity), this term is 
by no means confined to the Twelve and might therefore be applied 
to him in its wider sense, as it is to Barnabas'. Again, Jude on his 
part seems to disclaim the title of an Apostle (ver. 17) ; and if so, he 
cannot have been one of the Twelve. 

(3) Their (3) ^ut again : the Lord's brethren are mentioned in the 
^ft Ja.°" Crospels in connexion with Joseph His reputed father and Mary 
seph and g^g mother, never once with Mary of Olopas (the assumed wife of 

Alphseus). It would surely have been otherwise, if the latter 
Mary were really their mother. 

(4) James (4) Jerome lays great stress on the epithet minor applied to 
James, as if it implied two only, and even those who impugn his 
theory seem generally to acquiesce in his rendering. But the 
Greek gives not ' James the Less ' but * James the little ' (d jutxpds). 
Is it not most natural then to explain this epithet of his height'? 
' There were many of the name of James,' says Hegesippus, and the 
short stature of one of these might well serve as a distinguishing 
mark. This interpretation at all events must be regarded as more 
probable than explaining it either of his comparative youth or of 
inferior rank and influence. It will be remembered that there 

^ See above, p. 95. ring to stature, as appears from Plato, 

* As in Xen. Mem. i. 4. i 'Afurrt- Symp. 173 b ; and in Arist. Ran. 708 
Srjfjiov rbv lUKpbv iTiKoXoinevov, refer- KT\.etyhi]! lUKpbs. 

the less. 


is no Scriptural or early sanction for speaking of the son of Zebedee 
as ' James the Great.' 

(S) The manner in which Jude is mentioned in the lists of the (5) The 
Twelve is on this hypothesis full of perplexities. In the first place jndein "he 
it is necessary to translate 'laKia^ov not 'the son' but 'the brother ^stsof tlie 
of James,' though the former is the obvious rendering and is sup- 
ported by two of the earliest versions, the Peshito Syriao and the 
Thebaic, while two others, the Old Latin and Memphitic, leave the 
ellipsis unsupplied and thus preserve the ambiguity of the original. 
But again, if Judas were the brother of James, would not the 
Evangelist's words have run more naturally, 'James the son of 
Alphseus and Jude his brother,' or 'James and Jude the sons of 
Alphaeus,' as in the case of the other pairs of brothers 1 Then again, 
if Simon Zelotes is not a brother of James, why is he inserted by St 
Luke between the two 1 If he also is a brother, why is the designa- 
tion of brotherhood ('laKu/Sov) attached to the name of Judas only ? 

Moreover in the different lists of the three Evangelists the 
Apostle in question is designated in three different ways. In St 
Matthew (x. 3) he is called Lebbaeus (at least according to a weU- 
supported reading) j in St Mark (iii. 1 8) Thaddssus ; and in St Luke 
'Jude of James.' St John again having occasion to mention him 
(xiv. 22) distinguishes him by a negative, 'Judas not Iscariot*.' Is 

1 The perplexity is increased by seems no reason for doubting this very 
the Goretotiian Syriao, which for 'I06- early tradition that he also was a Jude. 

Sai oix i 'IffKapiiirris reads r^.-|Oc*X. ■*■* *^« «*™« *™« '* '« ^^^^^ ™P™- 

bable that St John should have called 

r^Saar^ax, 'Judas Thomas,' i.e. the same Apostle elsewhere Thomas 

'Judas the Twin,' It seems therefore (Joh. xi. 16, xiv. 5, xx. 24etc.)and here 

that the translator took the person in- Judas, and we may therefore conclude 

tended by St John to be not the Judas that he is speaking of two different per- 

Jacobi in the list of the Twelve, but sons. The name of the other brother 

the Thomas Didymus, for Thomas was is supplied in Clem. Horn. ii. i irpo(rin 

commonly called Judas in the Syrian S^ Goj/tSs «toi 'BXt^fe/ios oJ Sldv/uu. 

Church ; e.g. Euseb. H. E. i. 13 'Ioi)5as The Thebaic version again for oix 

& Kol Qw/ias, and Acta Thomae i 'loiSf i 'I(ritop«6r))s substitutes i TS-avavhtp. 

e^ftf Ttf Kal AiSiiiifi (ed. Tisoh. p. 190); Similarly in Matth. x. 3 for eaBSatos 

see Assemani Bibl. Orient. 1. pp. 100, some of the most important mss of the 

318, Oureton's Syriae Gospels p. Ii, Old Latin have 'Judas Zelotes'; and in 

Aiw. Syr. Documents p. 33. As the Canon of Gelasius Jude the writer 

Thomas (AlSv/ios), 'the Twin,' is pro- of the epistle is so designated. This 

perly a surname, and this Apostle must points to some connexion or confusion 

have had some other name, there with Simon Zelotes. See p. 158, note. 



(6) Punc- 
tuation of 
Job. xix. 

sis must 
be aban- 

it possible, if he -were the Lord's brother Judas, he -would in all 
these places have escaped being so designated, when this designation 
would have fixed the person meant at once 1 

(6) Lastly ; in order to maintain the Hieronymian theory it is 
necessary to retain the common punctuation of John xix. 25, thus 
making 'Mary of Clopas' the Virgin's sister. But it is at least 
improbable that two sisters should have borne the same name. The 
case of the Herodian family is scarcely parallel, for Herod was a 
family name, and it is unlikely that a humble Jewish household 
should have copied a practice which must lead to so much confusion. 
Here it is not unlikely that a tradition underlies the Peshito render- 
ing which inserts a conjunction: 'His mother and his mother's 
sister, and Mary of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene'.' The Greek at 
all events admits, even if it does not favour, this interpretation, for 
the arrangement of names in couples has a parallel in the lists of 
the Apostles (e.g. Matt. x. 2 — 4). 

I have shown then, if I mistake not, that St Jerome pleaded 
no traditional authority for his theory, and that therefore the 
evidence in its favour is to be sought in Scripture alone. I have 
examined the Scriptural evidence, and the conclusion seems to be, 
that though this hypothesis, supplemented as it has been by sub- 
sequent writers, presents several striking coincidences which attract 
attention, yet it involves on the other hand a combination of diffi- 
culties — many of these arising out of the very elements in the 

1 See Wieseler Die Sohne Zebedai 
etc. p. 673. This writer identifies the 
sister of the Lord's mother (John xix. 
2j) with Balome (Mark zv. 40, xvi. i), 
who again is generally identified with 
the mother of Zebedee's children (Matt. 
zzvii. 56) ; and thus James and John, 
the sons of Zebedee, are made cousins 
of our Lord. Compare the pseudo-Pa- 
pias, p. 273, note ; and see the various 
reading 'ladvuris for 'Iciiir'i;^ in the list 
of the Lord's brethren in Matt. xiii. 
55. But as we are told that there were 
many other women present also (Mark 
XV. 41, comp. Luke xxiv. 10), — one of 
whom, Joanna, is mentioned by name — 

both these identifications must be con- 
sidered precarious. It would be strange 
that no hint should be given in the 
Gospels of the relationship of the sons 
of Zebedee to ooi Lord, if it ex- 

The Jerusalem Syiiao lectionary 
gives the passage John xix. 15 not less 
than three times. In two of these 
places (pp. 387, 541 , the exception being 
p. 445) a stop is put after ' His mo- 
ther's sister,' thus separating the words 
from ' Mary of Cleophas ' and suggest- 
ing by punctuation the same interpre- 
tation which the Peshito fixes by 
inserting a conjunction. 


hypothesis which produce the coincidences — which more than coun- 
terbalances these secondary arguments in its favour, and in fact 
must lead to its rejection, if any hypothesis less burdened with 
difficulties can be found. 

Thus, as compared with the Hieronymian view, both the Epi- and re- 
phanian and the Helvidian have higher claims to acceptance. They one of the 
both assign to the word brethren its natural meaning ; they both j™*"""^^ 
recognise the main facts related of the Lord's brethren in the 
Gospels — their unbelief, their distinctness from the Twelve, their 
connexion with Joseph and Mary — and they both avoid the other 
difficulties which the Hieronymian theory creates. 

And moreover they both exhibit a coincidence which deserves A coin- 

notice. A very short time before the Lord's death His brethren common 

refuse to accept His mission : they are still unbelievers. Immedi- ° ° ' 
ately after His ascension we find them gathered together with the 
Apostles, evidently recognising Him as their Master. Whence comes 
this change 1 Surely the crucifixion of one who professed to be the 
Messiah was not likely to bring it about. He had claimed to be 
King of Israel and He had been condemned as a malefactor : He 
had promised His followers a triumph and He had left them per- 
secution. Would not all this confirm rather than dissipate their 
former unbelief } An incidental statement of St Paul explains all ; 
' Then He was seen of James.' At the time when St Paul wrote, 
there was but one person eminent enough in the Church to be called 
James simply without any distinguishing epithet — the Lord's brother, 
the bishop of Jerusalem. It might therefore reasonably be con- 
cluded that this James is here meant. And this view is confirmed 
by an extant fragment of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, 
the most important of all the apocryphal gospels, which seems to 
have preserved more than one true tradition, and which expressly 
relates the appearance of our Lord to His brother James' after His 

This interposition, we may suppose, was the turning-point in 
the religious life of the Lord's brethren; the veil was removed at 

• See below, p. 27+. 


once and for ever from their hearts. In this way the antagonistic 
notices in the Gospels — first the disbelief of the Lord's brethren, 
and then their assembling together -with the Apostles — are linked 
together ; and harmony is produced out of discord. 
Objections Two objections however are brought against both these theories, 

which the Hieronymian escapes. 
(i) Kepeti- (i) They both, it is objected, assume the existence of two pairs 
names. o^ cousins bearing the same names, James and Joseph the sons at 
Alphseus, and James and Joseph the Lord's brothers. K moreover 
we accept the statement of Hegesippus' that James was succeeded 
in the bishopric of Jerusalem by Symeon son of Clopas, and also 
admit the identification of Clopas with Alphaeus, we get a third name 
Symeon or Simeon common to the two families. Let us see what 
this objection really amounts to. 
Cousin- It will be seen that the cousinhood of these persons is represented 

either ^^ ^ cousinhood on the mothers' side, and that it depends on three 
mothers assumptions : (i) The identification of James the son of Alphasus 
in the list of the Twelve with James the Little the son of Mary : 
(2) The identification of ' Mary of Olopas ' in St John with Mary 
the mother of James and Joses in the other Evangelists: (3) The 
correctness of the received punctuation of John xix. 25, which makes 
•Mary of Clopas' the Virgin's sister. If any one of these be re- 
jected, this cousinhood falls to the ground. Yet of these three 
assumptions the second alone can safely be pronounced more likely 
than not' (though we are expressly told that * many other women ' 
were present), for it avoids the unnecessary multiplication of Maries. 
The first must be considered highly doubtful, seeing that James 
was a very common name ; while the third is most improbable, for 
it gives two sisters both called Mary — a difficulty far surpassing 
that of supposing two or even three cousins bearing the same name. 
On the other hand, if, admitting the second identification and 
supplying the ellipsis in 'Mary of Clopas' by 'wife',' we combine 

1 See below, p. ■276 sq. Quaeat. ad Marin, ii. 5 (Op. iv. p. 945, 

" Eusebins however makes 'Mary of Migne). 

Clopas ' a different person from Mary ' As ^ toO EXuxa may mean either 

the mother of James and Joses ; the daughter or the wife or the mother 



■with it the statement of Hegesippus' that Clopas the father of 
Symeon was brother of Joseph, we get three cousins, James, Joses, or fathers'' 
and Symeon, on their fatheri aide. Yet this result again must be probable, 
considered on the whole improbable. I see no reason indeed for 
doubting the testimony of Hegesippus, who was perhaps bom 
during the lifetime of this Symeon, and is likely to have been well 
informed. But the chances are against the other hypotheses, on 
which it depends, being both of them correct. The identification 
of Clopas and Alphseus will still remain an open question'. 

of Clopas, this expression has been com- 
bined with the statement of Hegesippus 
in various ways. See for instance the 
apocryphal gospels, Pseudo-Matth. Ev- 
ang. 52 (ed. Tisch. Tp^i04),Evang.Inf. 
Arab, ig (ib. p. 186), and the marginal 
note on the Fhiloxenian version, Joh. 
zix. 35, besides other references which 
will be given in the account of the pa- 
tristic authorities, 

1 The statement of Hegesippus sug- 
gests a solution which would remove the 
difficulty. We might suppose the two 
Maries to have been called sisters, as 
having been married to two brothers; 
but is there any authority for ascribing 
to the Jews an extension of the term 
'sister' which modern usage scarcely 
sanctions 7 

' Of the three names AVpliaus (the 
father of Levi or Matthew, Mark ii. 14, 
and the father of James, Matt. z. 3, 
Mark iii. 18, Lake vi. 15, Acts i. 13), 
Clopas (the husband or father or son of 
Mary, Joh. xix. 25), and Cleopas (the 
disciple journeying to Emmaus, Luke 
xxiv. 18), it is considered that the two 
former are probably identical, and the 
two latter certainly distinct. Both po- 
sitions may be disputed with some rea- 
son. In forming a judgment, the fol- 
lowing points deserve to be considered; 
(i) In the Greek text there is no varia- 
tion of reading worth mentioning; Clo- 
pas is certainly the reading in St John, 
and Cleopas in St Luke, (a) The ver- 
sions however bring them together. 
Cleopffl (or Cleophse) is read in the Pe- 
shito. Old Latin, Memphitio, Vulgate, 
and Armenian text of St John. (3) Of 
these the evidence of the Peshito is par- 

ticularly important in a matter relating 
to Aramaic names. While for 'AX^oios 
in all five places it restores what was 
doubtless the original Aramaic form 

'^' tti Chalphai; on the other hand, 
it gives the same word r^L&CUJLn 
Eleopha (ie. KKeiiras) in Luke xxiv. 18 
and in John xix. 25, if the printed texts 
may be trusted. The Jerusalem Syriao 

too renders E\(<nra$ by j3a&cUjLO 

(Kleophas), and 'AX^ofos by — ^ ^\ tr 
(Chalphai). (4) The form KXairas, 
which St John's text gives, is confirmed 
by Hegesippus (Euseb. H.E. iii. 1 1), and 
there is every reason to believe that this 
was a common mode of writing some 
proper name or other with those ac- 
quainted with Aramaic; but it is diffi- 
cult to see why, if the word intended 
to be represented were Chalphai, they 
should not have reproduced it more 
exactly in Greek. The name ZaX^i 
in fact does occur in i Maco. xi. 70. 
(5) It is true that KXeoiras is strictly a 
Greek name contracted from KXeiira- 
rpos, like 'AjiTtiras from ' Avrlirarpos, etc. 
But it was a common practice with the 
Jews to adopt the genuine Greek name 
which bore the closest resemblance in 
sound to theirown Aramaic name,either 
side by side with it or in place of it, as 
Simon for Symeon, Jason for Jesus ; 
and thus a man, whose real Aramaic 
name was Clopas, might grecize the 
word and call himself Cleopas. On 
these grounds it appears to me that, 
viewing the question as one of names 
merely, it is quite as reasonable to 
identify Clopas with Cleopas as with 



The names 
are oom- 

But, whether they were cousins or not, does the fact of two 
families having two or three names in common constitute any real 
difficulty 1 Is not this a frequent occurrence among ourselves 1 It 
must be remembered too that the Jewish names in ordinary use at 
this time were very few, and that these three, James, Joses, and 
Symeon, were among the most common, being consecrated in the 
affections of the Jews from patriarchal times. In the list of the 
Twelve the name of James appears twice, Symeon twice. In the 
New Testament no less than twelve persons bear the name of 
Symeon or Simon, and nearly as many that of Joseph or Josesl 

Alphiens. But the identification of 
names does not carry with it the iden- 
tification of persons. St Paul's Epa- 
pbras for instance ia probably a dif- 
ferent person &om his Epaphroditus. 

A Jewish name ' Alfius ' occurs in 
an inscription alitts , iyda . ascon . 
ABOosiNAaoovs (InscT. Gudii, p. cclxiii. 
5), and possibly this is the Latin sub- 
stitute for Chalphai or Chalphi, as 'A\- 
t/jatas is the Greek; Alfius being a not 
nncommon Latin name. One would be 
tempted to set down his namesake also, 
the 'fenerator Alfius' or ' Alphius' of 
Horace {Epod. ii. 67, see Columella i. 
7. 2), for a fellow-countryman, if hia 
talk were not so pagan. 

1 I am arguing on the supposition 
that Joses and Joseph are the same 
name, but this is at least doubtful. In 
St Matthew, according to the best au- 
thorities, the Lord's brother (xiii. 55) is 
'lu(ri}0, the son of Mary (xxvii. j6) 
'Juirijs. Li St Mark on the other hand 
the latter word is found (the geni- 
tive being differently written 'laxrrjTos 
or 'Ibid^, though probably Tregelles is 
right in preferring the former in all 
three passages), whether referring to 
the Lord's brother (vi 3) or to the son 
of Mary (xv. 40, 47). Thus if existing 
authorities in the text of St Mark are 
to be trusted, there is no distinction be- 
tween the names. Yet I am disposed 
to think with Wieseler (die S'ohne Zebe- 
d&i etc. p. 678) that St Matthew'a text 
suggests the real difference, and that 
the original reading in Mark vi. 3 was 
'Iu(r-/i(t> ; but if so, the corruption was 

very ancient and very general, for'Iw- 
(ri)0 is found in K alone of the uncial 
manuscripts. A similar confusion of 
these najues appears in the case of Bar- 
sabbas, Acts i. 23, and Barnabas, iv. 36; 
in the former case we find a various 
reading ' Joses ' for ■ Joseph,' in the latter 
weshouldalmostcertainly read 'Joseph' 
for ' Joses ' of the received text. I am 
disposed to think the identification of 
the names Joses and Joseph improbable 
for two reasons : (i) It seems unlikely 
that the same name should be repre- 
sented in Greek by two such divergent 
forms as 'luir^s, making a genitive 
'lairyTO!, and 'Iu<rii4> or 'Iiitrijiros, which 
perhaps (replaced by a genuine Greek 
name) became 'Uy/iffiiriros. (1) The 
Peahito in the case of the commoner 
Hebrew or Aramaic names restores the 
original form in place of the somewhat 
disfigured Greek equivalent, e.g. Ju- 
chanon for 'ladwiis, Zabdai for Ze;8e- 
Satos. Following this rule, it ought, if 
the names were identical, to have re- 
atored .<\nnf\, (Joseph) for the Greek 

'Ibnr^s, in place of which it has 1^.00 CU 
(Josi, Jansi, or JusI). In Matt, xxvii. 
56, Mark xv. 40, the Memphitio Yer- 
sion separates Mapta [^ roC] 'loKiipov 
[rov /uKjooC] and 'Icinr^[roj] /i^iip, 
making them two different persons. 
[On the other hand, similar instances 
of abbreviation, e.g. Ashe for Asher, 
Jochana for Jochanan, Shabba for 
Shabbath, are produced; see Delitzsoh 
in Laurent Neutett. Stud. p. 168.] 


In the index to Josephus may be counted nineteen Josephs, and 
twenty-five Simons'. 

And moreover is not the difficulty, if difficulty there be, di- 
minished rather than increased on the supposition of the cousinhood 
of these two families 1 The name of a common ancestor or a common 
relative naturally repeats itself in households connected with each 
other. And from this point of view it is worthy of notice that the 
names in question actually occur in the genealogies of our Lord. 
Joseph's father is Jacob or James in St Matthew (i. 15, 16); and 
in St Luke's table, exclusively of our Lord's reputed father, thp 
name Joseph or Joses occurs twice at least' in a list of thirty-four 
direct ancestors. 

(2) When a certain Mary is described as 'the mother of James,' (i) 'Mary 
is it not highly probable that the person intended should be the of James.' 
most celebrated of the name — James the Just, the bishop of Jeru- 
salem, the Lord's brother ] This objection to both the Epiphanian 
and Helvidian theories is at first sight not without force, but it wiU 
not bear examination. Why, we may ask, if the best known of 
all the Jameses were intended here, should it be necessary in some 
passages to add the name of a brother Joses also, who was a person 
of no special mark in the Church (Matt, xxvii. 56, Mark xv. 40)? 
Why again in others should this Mary be designated ' the mother 
of Joses' alone (Mark xv. 47), the name of his more famous brother 
being suppressed 1 In only two passages is she called simply ' the 
mother of James'; in Mark xvi. i, where it is explained by the 
fuller description which has gone before 'the mother of James 
and Joses' (xv. 40); and in Luke xxiv. 10, where no such ex- 
planation can be given. It would seem then that this Mary and 
this James, though not the most famous of their respective names 
and therefore not at once distinguishable when mentioned alone, 

1 The popularity of this name is Possibly 'lu<r^ may be a corruption 

probably due to Simon Maocabfflus. for 'lw(rj)0 through the confusion of e| 

" And perhaps not more than twice and "J, which in their older forms resem- 

'lw(rj}0 {TV. 24, 30). In ver. 26 'luiriix ble each other closely; but if so, it is a 

seems to be the right reading, where corruption not of St Luke's text, but of 

the received text has 'luo-^^ ; and in the Hebrew or Aramaic document from 

ver. 29 'IricroO, where it has 'laarrj. which the genealogy was derived. 


were yet sufficiently well known to be discriminated from others, 

when their names appeared in conjunction, 

TThe two The objections then which may be brought against both these 

theories , , . i j. xt.- • j. ■ 

compared, theories in common are not very serious ; and up to this pomt m 

the investigation they present equal claims to acceptance. The next 

step will be to compare them together, in order to decide which of 

the two must yield to the other. 

<i) Eela- I. The Epiphanian view assumes that the Lord's brethren had 

bretoen ^ really no relationship with Him ; and so far the Helvidian has 

*°a°M^^ the advantage. But this advantage is rather seeming than real. 

It is very natural that those who called Joseph His father should 

call Joseph's sons His brethren. And it must be remembered tlmt 

this designation is given to Joseph not only by strangers from whom 

at all events the mystery of the Incarnation was veiled, but by 

the Lord's mother herself who knew all (Luke ii 48). Even the 

Evangelist himself, about whose belief in the miraculous conception 

of Christ there can be no doubt, allows himself to speak of Joseph 

and Mary as 'His father and mother' and 'His parents'.' Nor again 

is it any argument in favour of the Helvidian account as compared 

with the Epiphanian, that the Lord's brethren are found in company 

of Mary rather than of Joseph. Joseph appears in the evangelical 

history for the last time when Jesus is twelve years old (Luke ii. 43) ; 

during the Lord's ministry he is never once seen, though Mary 

comes forward again and again. There can be little doubt therefore 

that he had died meanwhile. 

(2) Virgin- 2. Certain expressions in the evangelical narratives are said to 

jj^„ imply that Mary bore other children besides the Lord, and it is 

even asserted that no unprejudiced person could interpret them 

otherwise. The justice of this charge may be fairly questioned. The 

context in each case seems to suggest another explanation of these 

expressions, which does not decide anything one way or the other. 

St Matthew writes that Joseph 'knew not' his wife 'till (lus ov) 

' Luke ii. 33 6 irar^/) airoO Koi ij have taken ofience and substituted 
li'/JTiip, ii. 41, 43 ol 701'er! airoS, the 'Joseph and Mary,' 'Joseph and His 
correct reading. Later transcribers mother,' in all three places. 


she brought forth a son ' (i. 25)' ; while St Luke speaks of her bring- 
ing forth 'her firstborn son' (ii. 7). St Matthew's expression how- 
ever, ' tUl she brought forth,' as appears from the context, is intended 
simply to show that Jesus was not begotten in the course of nature ; 
and thus, while it denies any previous intercourse with her husband, 
it neither asserts nor implies any subsequent intercourse*. Again, 
the prominent idea conveyed by the term 'firstborn ' to a Jew would 
be not the birth of other children, but the special consecration of 
this one. The typical reference in fact is foremost in the mind of 
St Luke, as he himself explains it, 'Every male that openeth the 
tvomb shall be called holy to the Lord ' (ii. 23). Thus 'firstborn' does 
not necessarily suggest 'later-bom,' any more than 'son' suggests 
'daughter.' The two words together describe the condition under 
which in obedience to the law a child was consecrated to God. The 
' firstborn son ' is in fact the Evangelist's equivalent for the * male 
that openeth the womb.' 

It may indeed be fairly urged that, if the Evangelists had con- 
sidered the perpetual virginity of the Lord's mother a matter of 
such paramount importance as it was held to be in the fourth and 
following centuries, they would have avoided expressions which are 
at least ambiguous and might be taken to imply the contrary ; but 
these expressions are not in themselves fatal to such a belief. 

Whether in itself the sentiment on which this belief was founded 
be true or false, is a fit subject of enquiry; nor can the present 
question be considered altogether without reference to it. If it be 
true, then the Epiphanian theory has an advantage over the Hel- 
vidian, as respecting or at least not disregarding it ; if false, then it 
may be thought to have suggested that theory, as it certainly did 
the Hieronymian, and to this extent the theory itself must lie under 
suspicion. Into this enquiry however it will not be necessary to 
enter. Only let me say that it is not altogether correct to repre- 
sent this belief as suggested solely by the false asceticism of the early 
Church which exalted virginity at the expense of married life. It 

1 TOP irpbrrSroKov ought to be reject- ' For p&rallel instances see Mill, 

ed from St Malthew'a text, having p. 304 sq. 
been interpolated from Luke ii. 7. 


appears in fact to be due quite as much to another sentiment which 
the fathers fantastically expressed by a comparison between the 
conception and the burial of our Lord. As after death His body 
was placed in a sepulchre ' wherein never man before was laid,' so it 
seemed fitting that the womb consecrated by His presence should 
not thenceforth have borne any offspring of man. It may be added 
also, that the Epiphanian view prevailed especially in Palestine 
where there was less disposition than elsewhere to depreciate married 
life, and prevailed too at a time when extreme ascetic views had not 
yet mastered the Church at large. 
{3) Our 3- But one objection has been hurled at the Helvidian theory 

ing words." '^i*'* great force, and as it seems to me with fatal effect, which is 
powerless against the Epiphanian'. Our Lord in His dying moments 
commended His mother to the keeping of St John ; 'Woman, behold 
thy son.' The injunction was forthwith obeyed, and 'from that 
hour that disciple took her unto his own home' (John xix. 26, 27). 
Yet according to the Helvidian view she had no less than four 
sons besides daughters living at the time. Is it conceivable that 
our Lord would thus have snapped asunder the most sacred ties of 
natural affection t The difficulty is not met by the fact that her 
own sons were still unbelievers. This fact would scarcely have been 
allowed to override the paramount duties of filial piety. But even 
when so explained, what does this hypothesis require us to believe 1 
Though within a few days a special appearance is vouchsafed to one 
of these brethren, who is destined to rule the mother Church of 
Jerusalem, and all alike are converted to the faith of Christ; yet 
she, their mother, living in the same city and joining with them in a 
common worship (Acts i. 14), is consigned to the care of a stranger 
of whose house she becomes henceforth the inmate. 

Conclu- Thus it would appear that, taking the scriptural notices alone, 

Biou. , „. . 

the Hieronymian account must be abandoned; while of the re- 
maining two the balance of the argument is against the Helvidian 
and in favour of the Epiphanian. To what extent the last-men- 

^ This aigmuent is bronght forward who all held the view which I have 
not only by Jerome, but also by Hilary designated by the name of the last of 
of Poitiers, Ambrose, and Epiphanius, the three. 



tioned theory can plead the prestige of tradition, will be seen from 
the following catena of references to the fathers and other early 
Christian writings'. 

^ The testimony of Papias is fre- 
quently quoted at the head of the pa- 
tristic authorities, as favouring the view 
of Jerome, The passage in question is 
an extract, to which the name of this 
very ancient writer is prefixed, in a 
Bodleian us, no. 2397, of the date 
1302 or 1303. It is given in Grabe's 
Spicil. n. p. 34, Bouth's Rel. Sacr. i. 
p. 16, and runs as follows: 'Maria 
mater Domini: Maria Cleophae, sive 
Alphei uxor, quae fuit mater Jacobi 
episcopi et apostoli et Symonis et 
Thadei et cujusdam Joseph : Maria Sa- 
lome uxor Zebedei mater Joannis evan- 
gelistae et Jacobi: Maria Magdalene: 
istae quatuor in Evangelio reperiuntur. 
Jacobus et Judas et Joseph filii eraut 
materterae Domini ; Jacobus quoque et 
Joannes alterius materterae Domini fu- 
erunt filii. Maria Jacobi minoris et 
Joseph mater, uxor Alphei, soror fuit 
Mariae matris Domini, quam Cleophae 
Joannes nominat vel a patre vel a gen- 
tilitatis familia vel alia causa. Maria 
Salome a viro vel a vico dicitur: hanc 
eandem Cleophae quidam dlcuut quod 
duos viros habuerit. Maria dicitur 
illuminatriz sive stella maris, geuuit 
enim lumen mundi; sermone autem 
Syro Domina nuncupatur, quia genuit 
Dominum.' Grabe's description 'ad 
marginem expresse adscriptum lego 
Papia ' is incorrect ; the name is not in 
the margin but over the passage as a 
title to it. The authenticity of this 
fragment is accepted by Mill, p. 238, and 
by Dean Alford on Matth. xiii. 55. Two 
writers also in Smith's Biblical Diction- 
ary (s. vv. 'Brother' and 'James'), re- 
spectively impugning and maintaining 
the Hieronymian view, refer to it with- 
out suspicion. It is strange that able 
and intelligent critics should not have 
seen through a fabrication which is so 
manifestly spurious. Not to mention 
the diifioulties in which we are involved 
by some of the statements, the following 
reasons seem conclusive: (i) The last 
sentence ' Maria dicitur etc. ' isevidently 

very late, and is, asDr Mill says, ' justly 
rejected by Grabe.' Grabe says, 'ad- 
didit is qui descripsit ex suo'; but the 
passage is coutinuous in the us, and 
there is neither more nor less authority 
for assigning this to Papias than the 
remainder of the extract. (2) The state- 
ment about * Maria uxor Alphei' is taken 
from Jerome (adv. /feZrtd.) almost word 
for word, as Dr Mill has seen ; and it is 
purely arbitrary to reject this as spuri- 
ous and accept the rest as genuine. 
(3) The writings of Papias were in Je- 
rome's hands, and eager as he was 
to claim the support of authority, he 
could not have failed to refer to testi- 
mony which was so important and 
which so entirely confirms his view 
in the most minute points. Nor is it 
conceivable that a passage like this, 
coming from so early a writer, should 
not have impressed itself very strongly 
on the ecclesiastical tradition of the 
early centuries, whereas in fact we dis- 
cover no traces of it. 

For these reasons the extract seemed 
to be manifestly spurious ; but I might 
have saved myself the trouble of ex- 
amining the Bodleian us and writing 
these remarks, if I had known at the 
time, that the passage was written by a 
mediaval namesake of the Bishop of 
Hierapolis, Papias the author of the 
'Elementarium,' who lived in the i ith 
century. This seems to have been a, 
standard work in its day, and was 
printed four times in the 15th century 
under the name of the Lexicon or 
Yocabulist. I have not had access to 
a printed copy, but there is a us of 
the work (marked Ek. 4. i) in the 
Cambridge University Library, the 
knowledge of which I owe to Mr Brad- 
shaw, the librarian. The variations 
from the Bodleian extract are unim- 
portant. It is strange that though 
Grabe actually mentions the later Pa- 
pias the author of the Dictionary, and 
Bouth copies his note, neither the one 
nor the other got on the right track. 




Hebrew I. The Gospel according to the Hebrews, one of the earliest 

and most respectable of the apocryphal narratives, related that the 
Lord after His resurrection ' went to James and appeared to him ; 
for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour 
in which the Lord had drunk the cup (biberat calicem Dominus), 
till he saw Him risen from the dead.' Jesus therefore ' took bread 
and blessed it and brake it and gave it to James the Just and said to 
him. My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of Man has risen from 
the dead ' (Hieron. de Vir. Ulustr. 2). I have adopted the reading 
' Dominus,' as the Greek translation has Kvpioi, and it also suits the 
context better; for the point of time which we should naturally 
expect is not the institution of the eucharist but the Lord's death*. 
Our Lord had more than once spoken of His sufferings under the 
image of draining the cup (Matt. xx. 22, 23, xx\d. 39, 42, Mark 
X. 38, 39, xiv. 36, Luke ixii. 42)'; and He is represented as using 
this metaphor here. If however we retain ' Domini,' it must be 
allowed that the writer represented James the Lord's brother as 
present at the last supper, but it does not follow that he regarded 
him as one of the Twelve. He may have assigned to tn'm a sort of 
exceptional position such as he holds in the Clementines, apart from 
and in some respects superior to the Twelve, and thus his presence 
at this critical time would be accounted for. At all events this pas- 
sage confirms the tradition that the James mentioned by St Paul 
(i Cor. XV. 7) was the Lord's brother ; while at the same time it is 
characteristic of a Judaic writer whose aim it would be to glorify 
the head of his Church at all hazards, that an appearance, which 
seems in reality to have been vouchsafed to this James to win him 
over from his unbelief, should be represented as a reward for his 

Gospel of 2. The Gospel according to Petee was highly esteemed by the 

Docetse of the second century. Towards the close of that century, 

I made the discoveiy while the first as Blom suggests (p. 83): but it is more 

editionof thlsworkwaspassingthroagh probable that a transcriber of Jerome 

tlie press [1865]. carelessly wrote down the familiar 

> There might possibly have been phrase 'the oup of the Lord.' 

an ambignity in the Hebrew original ' Comp. Mart. Polyc. 14 ir tQ t«- 

Owiug to the absence of case-endings, rriplif roS X/ucrroO trov. 


Serapion, bishop of Antiooh, found it in circulation at Rhossus a 
Cilician town, and at first tolerated it : but finding on examination 
that, though it had much in common with the Gospels recognised 
by the Catholic Church, there were sentiments in it favourable to 
the heretical views that were secretly gaining ground there, he for- 
bad its use. In the fragment of Serapion preserved by Eusebius 
{H. E. vi. 12)', from which our information is derived, he speaks of 
this apocryphal work as if it had been long in circulation, so that 
its date must be about the middle of the second century at the latest, 
and probably somewhat earlier. To this gospel Origen refers, as 
stating that the Lord's brethren were Joseph's sons by a former 
wife and thus maintaining the virginity of the Lord's mother'. 

3. Protevakgelium Jacobi, a purely fictitious but very early Protevan- 
narrative, dating probably not later than the middle of the second ^^^ otjjgj. 
century, represents Joseph as an old man when the Virgin was *P°ory- 
espoused to him, having sons of his own {§ 9, ed. Tisch. p. 18) but gospels. 
no daughters (§ 17, p. 31), and James the writer of the account ap- 
parently as grown up at the time of Herod's death (§ 25, p. 48). 
Following in this track, subsequent apocryphal narratives give a 
similar account with various modifications, in some cases naming 
Joseph's daughters or his wife. Such are the Fseudo-Mattftcei Evang. 

(§ 32, ed. Tisch. p. 104), Evcmg. de Nativ. Majr. (§ 8, *6. p. iii), Ei»- 
toria Joseph. (§ 2, ih. p. 116), Evang. Thomce (§ 16, p. 147), Evcmg. 
Infant. Arab. (§35, p- 191), besides the apocryphal Gospels mentioned 
by Jerome (Comm. in Matth. T. vii. p. 86) which were different from 
any now extant'. Doubtless these accounts, so far as they step be- 
yond the incidents narrated in the Canonical Gospels, are pure fabri- 
cations, but the fabrications would scarcely have taken this form, if 
the Hieronymian view of the Lord's brethren had been received or 
even known when they were written. It is to these sources that 
Jerome refers when he taunts the holders of the Epiphanian view 
with following 'deliramenta apocryphorum.' 

4. The Eaeliest Versions, with the exception of the Old Latin Older 

1 Fortius fragment see Eouth's Bel. ' See below, p. 281. 
Sacr. I. p. 452, and Westcott Jlistory • As appears from the fact mentioned 
of the Canon, p. 385. by Jerome; see above, p. 260, note 3. 



and Memphitio which translate the Greek literally and preserve the 
same ambiguities, give renderings of certain passages bearing on the 
subject, which are opposed to the Hieronymian view. The Oueetonian 
Syriac translates Mopta 'laKOj/Sou (Luke xxiv. 10) ' Mary the daughter 
of James.' The Peshito in John xix. 25 has, ' His mother and His 
mother's sister amd Mary of Cleopha and Mary Magdalene'; and in 
Luke vi. 16, Acts L 13, it renders ' Judas son of James.' One of the 
old Egyptian versions again, the Thebaic, in John xix. 25 gives 
'Mary daughter of Olopas,' and in Luke vi. 16, Acts i. 13 'Judas son 
of James.' 
Clemen- S- The Clementine Homilies, written, it would appear, not 

*™.*. late in the second century to support a peculiar phase of Ebionism, 

speak of James as being ' called the brother of the Lord ' (o Xex^els 
a8cX(^o; Tou Kvpiov, xi. 35), an expression which has been variously 
interpreted as favouring all three hypotheses (see Blom, p. 88 : Schhe- 
mann Clement, pp. 8, 213), and is indecisive in itself. It is more 
important to observe that in the Epistle of Clement prefixed to this 
work and belonging to the same cycle of writings James is styled 
not Apostle, but Bishop of Bishops, and seems to be distinguished 
from and in some respects exalted above the Twelve. 

6. In the portion of the Clementine Recognitions, which seems 
to have been founded on the Ascents op James, another very early 
Ebionite writing", the distinction thus implied in the Homilies is 
explicitly stated. The Twelve Apostles after disputing severally 
with Caiaphas give an account of their conference to James the chief 
of Bishops ; while James the son of Alphseus is distinctly mentioned 
among the Twelve as one of the disputants (i. 59). 
Hegesip- ?• Hegesippus (about 160), a Hebrew Christian of Palestine, 

^"*' writes as follows: 'After the martyrdom of James the Just on the 

same charge as the Lord, his paternal uncle's child Symeon the son of 
Clopas is next made bishop, who was put forward by all as the second 
in succession, being cousin of the Lord ' {fierd to /lapTvprja-ai 'laKta^ov 

' The word Xcx^eis is most naturally and thus to favourtheEpiphanian view, 

taken, I think, to refer to the reputed See the expressions of Hegesippus, and 

brotherhood of James, as a consequence of Eusebius, pp. 277,278. 

of the reputed fatherhood of Joseph, ^ See the next dissertation. 


Tov SiKaiov (OS KOI o Kvpios eTrl rig avru Xoyai, irdXiv 6 ek rov Oeiov wStov 
^v[i€uyif 6 rov KXunra Ka^urTaToi eirio-Koiros, ov vpoiBevro iravres oi/ra 
avEi/riov Tou Kvpiov SeuTe/ooi'*, Euseb. JT. JE'. iv. 22). If the passage be 
correctly rendered thus (and this rendering alone seems intelligible '), 
Hegesippus distinguishes between the relationships of James the 
Lord's brother and Symeon His cousin. So again, referring appa- 
rently to this passage, he in another fragment (Euseb. H. E. iii. 32) 
speaks of 'the child of the Lord's paternal uncle, the aforesaid Symeon 
son of Olopas' (o Ik 6eCov tov Kvpi'ou o Trpottpij/iei/os %vfjt.eiov vlos KA.a>7ra), 
to which Eusebius adds, ' for Hegesippus relates that Clopas was the 
brother of Joseph.' Thus in Hegesippus Symeon is never once 
called the Lord's brother, while James is always so designated. And 
this argument powerful in itself is materially strengthened by the 
fact that, where Hegesippus has occasion to mention Jude, he too like 
James is styled ' the Lord's brother '; ' There still survived members 
of the Lord's family (01 otto ■yo'o-us tov Kvptov) grandsons of Judas 
who was called His brother according to the flesh ' {tov Kwrd a-dpKa 
\eyofjLivov avTov dBe\<f>ov) ; Euseb. H. E. iii. 20. In this passage the 
word ' called ' seems to me to point to the Epiphanian rather than 
the Helvidian view, the brotherhood of these brethren, like the 
fatherhood of Joseph, being reputed but not real. In yet another 
passage (Euseb. H. E.'tL 23) Hegesippus relates that ' the Church was 
committed in conjunction with the Apostles' to the charge of (Sui- 
Se)(eTaL njv eKKkija-Cav fierd tiSv dTro(TToX.oiv) the Lord's brother James, 

'' For Seirepov comp. Euseb. H. E. had the author's object been to repre- 

iii. 14. sent Symeon as a brother of James, no 

2 A different meaning however has more circuitous mode could well have 

been assigned to the words : w&'hiv and been devised for the purpose of stating 

8«>Tepoi' being taken to signify ' anotfter so very simple a fact. Let me add that 

child of his uncle, another cousin, ' and Eusebius (l.c.) and Epiphanius (Ilaerea, 

thus the passage has been represented pp. 636, 1039, io46,ed.Petav.) must have 

as favouring the Hieronymian view. So interpreted the words as I have done, 
for instance Mill p. 253, Sohaf p. 64. Whether aiirov should be referred to 

On the other hand see Credner Einl. 'UkuPov or to Kipios is doubtful. If 

p. 575, Neander PJlanz. p. 559 (4te to the former, this alone decides the 

aufl.). To this rendering the presence meaning of the passage. This seems the 

of the definite article alone seems fatal more natural reference of the two, but 

(6 iK TOV Seiov not Irepos rav iK tov Selov) ; the form of expression willadmit either, 
but indeed the whole passage appears to ' Jerome (de Vir. III. § 2) renders it 

be framed so as to distinguish the rela- ' post apostolos,' as if /teri Toin avosTi- 

tionships of the two persons; whereas, \ovs ; Eufinus correctly 'cum apostolis.' 


who has been entitled Just by all from the Lord's time to our own 
day; for many bore the name of James.' From this last passage 
however no inference can be safely drawn; for, supposing the 
term ' Apostles ' to be here restricted to the Twelve, the expression 
^era rwv oTroaroXotv may distinguish St James not /rom but among 
the Apostles; as in Acts v. 29, 'Peter and the Apostles an- 

Thus the testimony of Hegesippus seems distinctly opposed to 
the Hieronymian view, while of the other two it favours the Epi- 
phanian rather than the Helvidian. If any doubt still remains, the 
fact that both Eusebius and Epiphanius, who derived their in- 
formation mainly from Hegesippus, gave this account of the Lord's 
brethren materially strengthens the position. The testimony of an 
early Palestinian writer who made it his business to collect such 
traditions is of the utmost importance. 
Tertul- 8. Tertullian's authority was appealed to by Helvidius, and 

Jerome is content to reply that he was not a member of the Ohurch 
('de Tertulliano nihil amplius dico quam ecclesiae hominem non 
fuisse,' adv. Hehnd. § 17). It is generally assumed in consequence 
that TertuUian held the Lord's brethren to be sons of Joseph and 
Mary. This assumption, though probable, is not absolutely certain. 
The point at issue in this passage is not the particular opinion of 
Helvidius respecting the Lord's brethren, but the virginity of the 
Lord's mother. Accordingly in reply Jerome alleges on his own side 
the authority of others', whose testimony certainly did not go beyond 

* 'Numquid non possum tibi totam indeed (Ephes. 19), which is several 

veterum soriptorum seriem commo- times quoted by subsequent writers, 

vere:Ignatiuni,Polycarpum,Irenaeum, he speaks of the virginity of Mary as 

Justinum Martyrem, multosqne alios a mystery, but this refers distinctly to 

apostolicos et eloquentes viros ? ' (adv. the time before the birth of our Lord. 

Helvid. 17). I have already (p. 130, To this passage which he elsewhere 

note 3) mentioned an instance of the quotes (Comment, in Matth. T. vn. 

unfair way in which Jerome piles to- p. 12), Jerome is doubtless referring 

gather his authorities. In the present here. 

case we are in a position to test him. In Cowper's Syriac Miscell. p. 61, 

Jerome did not possess any writings of I find an extract, ' Justin one of the 

Ignatius which are not extant now ; authors who were in the days of Augus- 

and in no place does this apostolic tns and Tiberius and Gaius wrote in the 

father maintain the perpetual virginity third discourse : That Mary the Gali- 

of St Mary. In one remarkable passage lean, who was the mother of Christ who 


this one point and had no reference to the relationship of the Lord's 
brethren. Thus too the more distinct passages in the extant writings 
of Tertullian relate to the virginity only (de Coum. Christ, c. 23 and 
passim, de Monog. c. 8). Elsewhere however, though he does not 
directly state it, his argument seems to imply that the Lord's brethren 
were His brothers in the same sense in which Mary was His mother 
{adv. Mcvre. iv. 19, de Ga/rn. Christ. 7). It is therefore highly probable 
that he held the Helvidian view. Such an admission from one who 
was so strenuous an advocate of asceticism is worthy of notice. 

9. Clement of Alexandria (about a.d. 200) in a passage of the Clement 
Hypotyposeis preserved in a Latin translation by Cassiodorus (the andria. 
authorship has been questioned but without sufficient reason') puts 
forward the Epiphanian solution; 'Jude, who wrote the Catholic 
Epistle, being one of the sons of Joseph and [the Lord's] brother, a Latin 
man of deep piety, though he was aware of his relationship to the 
Lord, nevertheless did not say he was His brother ; but what said 
he ? Jude the servant of Jesus Christ, because He was his Lord, but 
brother of James; for this is true; he was his brother, being 
Joseph's [son]" (ed. Potter, p. 1007). This statement is explicit. 

was crucified in Jemsalem,had not been Us porificata doctrina ejus securior 

with a husband. And Joseph did not possit hauriri.' If 'Jude' be substi- 

repudiate her, but Joseph continued in tuted for 'James,' this description ei- 

holinesE without a wife, he and his five actly applies to the Latin notes extant 

sons by a former wife : and Mary con- under the title Adumhraiioims. This 

tinned without a husband.' The editor was a very easy slip of the pen, and I can 

assigns this passage to Justin Martjrr ; scarcely doubt that these notes are the 

but not to mention the anachronism, same to which Cassiodorus refers as 

the whole tenor of the passage and the taken from theHypotyposeis of Clement, 

immediate neighbourhood of similar DrWestcott(C7a7!on, p. 401) has pointed 

extracts shows that it was intended for out in confirmation of this, that while 

the testimony (unquestionably spuri- Clement elsewhere directly quotes the 

cub) of some contemporary heathen Epistle of St Jude, he never refers to 

writer to the facts of the Gospel. the Epistle of St James. Bunsen has 

1 We read in Cassiodorus (de Inst. included these notes in his collection of 

Div. Lit. 8), 'In epistolas autem cano- fragments of the Hypotyposeis, Anal. 

nioas Clemens Alexandrinus presbyter, Anten. i. p. 325. It should be added 

qui et Stromateus vocatur, id est, in that the statement about the relation- 

epistola (-am?) S. Petri prima (-am?) ship of Jude must be Clement's own and 

S. Johannis prima (-am?) et secunda cannot hare been inserted by Cassiodo- 

(-am ?) et Jaoobi quaedam Attico sermo- rus, since Cassiodorus in common with 

ne declaravit. Cbi multa quidem sub- the Latin Church would naturally hold 

tiliter sed aUqua incaute loquutus est, the Hieronymian hypothesis, 

quae nos ita transferri feoimus in Lati- ' 'Frater erat ejus [Alius] Joseph.' 

num, ut exclusis quibusdam offendiou- Theinsertion of 'filius' (with Bunsen) is 



tions in 

On the other hand, owing to an extract preserved in Eusebius, his 
authority is generally claimed for the Hieronymian view ; ' Clement,' 
says Eusebius, 'in the sixth book of the Hypotyposeis gives the 
following account : Peter amd James amd John, he tells us, after the 
resv/rrection of the Saviowr were not ambitious of honowr, tlwugh 
tlve •preference sliown them hy the Lord Tnight have entitled them 
to it, hut chose James the Just Bishop of Jerusalem. The same 
writer too in the seventh book of the same treatise gives this 
account also of him (James the Lord's brother); Tlie Lord after 
the resurrection delivered the gnosis to James the Just^ and John 
amd Peter. These delivered it to the rest of the Apostles ; amd the 
rest of the Apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. 
Now there a/re two Jamieses, one the Just wlio was thrown down from 
the pirmaicle (of the temple) amd beaten to death with a club by a fuller, 
amd amather who was beheaded' {H. E. ii. i). This passage however 
proves nothing. Clement says that there were two of the name of 
James, but he neither states nor implies that there were two only. 

necessary for the sense, whether Cassio- 
doras had it or not. Perhaps the Greek 
words were aiSeKipoi airrov rwv '\a<r-fi<t>, 
which would account for the omission. 
' Credner, Einl. p. 585, condemns the 
words 7-1^ iiKalifi as spurious. Though 
it might be inferred from the previous 
extract given by Eusebius that the son 
of Zebedee is meant here, I believe 
nevertheless that they are genuine. 
For (i) They seem to be required as the 
motive for the explanation which ia 
given afterwards of the different per- 
sons bearing the name James. (2) It 
is natural that a special prominence 
should be given to the same three 
Apostles of the Circumcision who are 
mentioned in Gal. ii. 9 as the pillars of 
Jewish Christendom. (3) Eusebius in- 
troduces the quotation as relating to 
James the Just (irepl airrov), which 
would not be a very good description 
if the other James were the prominent 
person in the passage. (4) I find from 
Hippolytus that the Ophite account 
singled out James the Lord's brother 
as a possessor of the esoteric gnosis, 
ravri, iariv &iri iroWuv vdvv Myav r& 

Ke^dXaia a <pi)ai.v vapaSeSuKinai Mapi- 
d/MfriTbv 'IdKta^ov roO Kvplovrbv AdeXipdv, 
Haeres, X. 6, p. 95. Clement seems to 
have derived his information from some 
work of a Jewish Gnostic complexion, 
perhaps from the Gospel of the Egyp- 
tians with which he was well acquainted 
(Strom, iii. pp. 529 sq, 553, ed. Potter) ; 
and as Hippolytus tells us that the 
Ophites made use of this Gospel (rds 5i 
4^aWayd.s raOras ras TroiK^Xas hi Tifi 
iiriypa(pofi4v(fi Kwr AlyviTTiovs e()a77eX£y 
KeiiUvas Ix"'"''"') *&• ^- 7> P- 98). it is 
probable that the account of Clement 
coincided with that of the Ophites. The 
words T(f SiKaliff are represented in the 
Syriac translation of Eusebius of which 
the existing ms (Brit. Mus. add. 14,639) 
belongs to the 6th century. 

I hold T<f SiKcdiff therefore fo be the 
genuine words of Clement, but I do not 
feel so sure that the closing explanation 
5i5o 5^ 7e76i'a(rtv 'IaKw)5ot k.t.X, is not 
an addition of Eusebius. This I suppose 
to be BunSen's opinion, for he ends his 
fragment with the preceding words 
I. p. 321. 


His sole object was to distinguish the son of Zebedee from the Lord's 
brother; and the son of Alphaeus, of whom he knew nothing and 
could tell nothing, did not occur to his mind when he penned this 
sentence. There is in this passage nothing which contradicts the 
Latin extract; though indeed in a writer so uncritical in his his- 
torical notices' such a contradiction would not be surprising*. 

10. Obigen (t A.D. 253) declares himself very distinctly in favour 
of the Epiphanian view, stating that the brethren were sons of 
Joseph by a deceased wife". Elsewhere* indeed he says that St Paul 
' calls this James the Lord's brother, not so much on account of his 
kinsmanship or their companionship together, as on account of his 
character and language,' but this is not inconsistent with the explicit 
statement already referred to. In one passage he writes at some 
length on the subject ; ' Some persons, on the ground of a tradition in 
the G-ospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or the Book of James 
(i.e. the Protevangelium), say that the brothers of Jesus were Joseph's 
sons by a former wife to whom he was married before Mary. Those 
who hold this view wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity 
throughout... And I think it reasonable that as Jesus was the first- 
fruit of purity and chastity among men, so Mary was among women : 
for it is not seemly to ascribe the first-fruit of virginity to any 
other woman but her' (in Matt. xiii. 55, III. p. 462)'. This passage 

' For instance he distinguished Ce- aMs ix roO 'liaa^ip ruyxi-vi'i'' vijUf 

phas of Gal. ii. 9 from Peter (see roiyapovv ixpriiJi&Turav airoO i,Se\(pol, 

above, p. 129), and represented St Paul viol 'laer^^ ovres ix vporeOvqKvlas yvvai- 

as a married man (Euseb. if. E. iii. ko;: Horn, in Luc. 7 (ui. p. 940, ed. 

jo). Delarne) 'Hi enim filii qui Joseph dice- 

' On the supposition that Clement bantur non erant orti de Maria, neque 

held the Hieronymian theory, as he is est uUa scriptura quae ista commemo- 

represented even by those who them- ret.' In this latter passage either the 

selves reject it, the silence of Origen, translator has been confused by the 

who seems never to have heard of this order in the original or the words in 

theory, is quite inexplicable. Epipha- the translation itself have been dis- 

nius moreover, who appears equally placed accidentally, but the meaning 

ignorant of it, refers to Clement while is clear. 

writing on this very subject (Haeres. p. * c. Celt. i. 47 (i. p. 363) oi roff- 

119, Petav.). Indeed Clement would oStov SiA, to irpbs aSijiaTos rvyyevh ij r^r 

then stand quite alone before the age koikV airwv ivatrTpoipiiv S<rov diet ri 

of Jerome. v^os Kal rhv \byov. 

* In Joann. ii. 12 {Catena Gorder. ■> Op. in. p. 462 sq. Mill, pp. 261, 

p. 75) iSe\<pois nkv o6k elxt <l>i<ra, 273, has strangely misunderstood the 

offre TTji vapBivov T€Koii<ri]S trepor oiSi purport of this passage. He speaks of 



lical Con- 

inns of 

of Osesa- 

shows not only that Origen himself favoured the Epiphanian view 
which elsewhere he has directly maintained, but that he was whoUy 
unaware of the Hieronymian, the only alternative which presented 
itself being the denial of the perpetual virginity'. 

11. The Apostolical Constitutions, the main part of which 
may perhaps be regarded as a work of the third century, though they 
received considerable additions in later ages, distinguish James the 
Lord's brother from James the son of Alphaeus, making him, like 
St Paul, a supernumerary apostle, and thus counting fourteen in all 
(vi. 12, 13, 14; compare ii. 55, vii. 46, viii. 4). 

12. ViCTOEiNUS Petavionensis (about 300) was claimed by Hel- 
vidius as a witness in his own favour. Jerome denied this and put 
in a counter claim. It may perhaps be inferred from this circumstance 
that Victorinus did little more than repeat the statements of the 
evangelists respecting the Lord's brethren {adv. Helvid. 17). 

13. EusEBius OF O^SAREA (t about 340) distinguished James the 
Lord's brother from the Twelve, representing him as a supernumerary 
apostle like St Paul {Comm. in laaA. in Montfaucon's Coll. Nov. Patr. 
n. p. 422; Hist. Eccl. i. 12; comp. vii. 19). Accordingly in another 

Origen here as 'teaching the opinion of 
his (James the Just) being the son of 
Joseph, both as the sentiment of a 
minority among right-minded Chris- 
tians and as founded on apocryphal 
traditions ' ; and so considers the note 
on John ii. 11, already referred to, as 
■standing strangely contrasted' to 
Origen's statement here. If Dr Mill's 
attention however had been directed 
to the last sentence, koL oXiuu 'Soyov 
(X^iv K.T.X, which, though most im- 
portant, he has himself omitted in 
quoting the passage, he could scarcely 
have failed to see Origen's real mean- 

^ The authority of Hippolytus of 
Portus, a contemporary of Origen, has 
sometimes been alleged in favour of 
Jerome's hypothesis. In the treatise 
De XII Apostolis ascribed to this au- 
thor (ed. Fabric, i. app. p. 30) it is said 
of James the son of Alphseus, Kijptfa-- 
auy iv 'lepoiKrdKii/i iiro 'IovSalm> Kara- 
XevadeU dvatpetrai xal ddirreru ixei irapi 

riji vaif. He is thus confused or iden- 
tified with James the Lord's brother. 
But this blundering treatise was certain- 
ly not written by the bishop of Portus : 
see Le Moyne in Fabricins i. p. 84, and 
Bunsen's Hippol. 1. p. 456 (ed. 2). On 
the other hand in the work De LXX 
Apostolit (FabriciuB i. app. p. 41), 
also ascribed to this writer, we find 
among the 70 the name of 'IdKu^os i 
&dG\<p6Beos iTl^KOTTos 'lepoffo\v/iuVf who 
is thus distinguished from the Twelve. 
This treatise also is manifestly spuri- 
ous. Again Nicephorus CalUstus, H. E. 
ii. 3, cites as from Hippolytus of Portus 
an elaborate account of our Lord's 
brethren following the Epiphanian view 
(Hippol. Op. I. app. 43, ed. Fabric); 
but this account seems to be drawn 
either from Hippolytus the Theban, 
unless as Bunsen ({. c.) supposes this 
Theban Hippolytus be a mythical per- 
sonage, or from some forged writings 
which bore the name of the older Hip- 


passage he explains that this James was called the Lord's brother, 
because Joseph was his reputed father (Hisi. Eccl. ii. 1)'. 

14. Cyril of Jerusalem (+ 386) comments on the successive Cyril of 

appearances of our Lord related by St Paul, first to Peter, then to 

the Twelve, then to the five hundred, then to James His own brother, 
then to Paul His enemy ; and his language implies that each appear- 
ance was a step in advance of the testimony afforded by the former 
{Catech. xiv. 21, p. 216, ed. Touttfie). It maybe gathered thence that 
he distinguished this James from the Twelve. As this however is 
only an inference from his language, and not a direct statement of his 
own, too much stress must not be laid on it. In another passage also 
{Catech, iv. 28, p. 65, koI tois airoo-roXois Kal 'lafcoiySoi tu raunjs tijs 
£KKXi/(rias eTTio-Koiro)) Cyril seems to make the same distinction, but 
here again the inference is doubtfuL 

15. Hilary op Poitiers (t 368) denounces those who 'claim Hilary of 
authority for their opinion (against the virginity of the Lord's 
mother) from the fact of its being recorded that our Lord had several 
brothers ' ; and adds, ' yet if these had been sons of Mary and not 
rather sons of Joseph, the offspring of a former marriage, she would 

never at the time of the passion have been transferred to the Apostle 
John to be his mother' (Gonvm. in Matth. i. i, p. 671, ed. Bened.). 

^ 'laKoi^ov Tov rdu Kvplov \ey6iievoi> toO 'luff^;^ roO voiuionivov olovel varpbt 
dSeX^JK, in S^ xal outos tov 'l<i)(ri)0 toO XpumS, found in some mss and in 
(ivd/iao-ro irols, tov S^ XpurroO irariip the Syriao version, and preferred by 
i 'lw(ri)0, <e /ivii(rTeu0c'i(ra j) irapOiiios Blom. p. 98, and Credner Einl. p. 585, 
K.T.\. On the whole this passage seems I cannot but regard as an obvious alter- 
to be best explained by referring ovtos ation of some early transcriber for the 
to Kipu)S. But this is not necessary ; sake of clearness. 
for dvofidj^effOai {or koXcwSoi) irais tikoj Compare the expressions in i. ii ett 
is a good Greek phrase to denote real Si xal ovtos tQv (l>epoiJ.ivwv &SeK<pSiv ijv, 
as well as reputed sonship ; as ^sch. andiii. 7 toO Kvplov xpTj^orifuy dSeX- 
Fragm, 285 oi!5' firr' 'ArXoyros jrofSes 0os. He was a reputed brother of the 
iivoixaaiUvai, Soph. Track. 1105 6 rijs Lord, because Joseph was His reputed 
dpUmis fiirrpis iivopuuTinivos, Eur. Elect. father. See also Eusebius On the Star, 
035 ; comp. Ephes. iii. 15 riy irwripa 'Joseph and Mary and Our Lord with 
^f o5 TrSffa irorpii (ii'Ojudferai. The word them and the five sons of Hannah 
liyofioffTo cannot at all events, as MiU (Anna) the first wife of Joseph ' (p. 17, 
(p. 272) seems disposed to think, imply Wright's Transl.). The account from 
any doubt on the part of Eusebius about which this passage is taken professes 
the parentage of James, for the whole to be founded on a document dating 
drift of the passage is plainly against a.d. 119. 
tliis. The other reading, 6ti Stj koI ovtos 


Thus he not only adopts the Epiphanian solution, but shows himself 

entirely ignorant of the Hieronymian. 

Victor- 1 6. ViCTOEiNUS THE PHILOSOPHER (about 360) takes el /«7 in 

musthe Qg^_ L 19 as expressing not exception but opposition, and distinctly 

sopher. states that James was not an Apostle : ' Cum autem fratrem dixit, 

apostolum negavit.' 
Amiirosi- ^7- ^^® Ambbosian Hilart (about 75) comments on GaL L 19 

*^'®"'' as follows ; ' The Lord is called the brother of James and the rest in 
the same way in which He is also designated the son of Joseph. For 
some in a fit of madness impiously assert and contend that these were 
true brothers of the Lord, being sons of Mary, allowing at the same 
time that Joseph, though not His true father, was so called neverthe- 
less. For if these were His true brothers, then Joseph wiU be His 
true father ; for he who called Joseph His Father also called James 
and the rest His brothers.' Thus his testimony entirely coincides with 
that of his greater namesake. He sees only the alternative of deny- 
ing the perpetual virginity as Helvidius did, or accepting the solution 
of the Protevangelium ; and he unhesitatingly adopts the latter. 
Basil. 18. Basil the Great (t 379), while allowing that the perpetual 

virginity is not a necessary article of belief, yet adheres to it himself 
' since the lovers of Christ cannot endure to hear that the mother of 
God ever ceased to be a virgin ' {HoTn. in Sanct. Christ. Gen. 11. p. 
600, ed. Garn.)'. As immediately afterwards he refers, in support of 
his view, to some apocryphal work which related that Zacharias was 
slain by the Jews for testifying to the virginity of the mother of 
Jesus (a story which closely resembles the narrative of his death in 
the Protevang. g§ 23, 24), it may perhaps be inferred that he accepted 
that account of the Lord's brethren which ran through these apo- 
cryphal gospels. 
Gregory IQ- His brother Gregort Ntssen (t after 394) certainly adopted 

^ ■ the Epiphanian account. At the same time he takes up the very 
untenable position that the ' Mary who is designated in the other 

^ This very moderate ezpression of signed to an appendix as of doubtful an- 

opinion is marked by the editors with a thenticity. The main argument urged 

caute legendum in the margin ; and in against it is the passage here referred 

Garnier's edition the treatise is con- to. (See Gamier, 11. prief. p. XT.) 


Evangelists (besides St John) the mother of James and Joses is the 
mother of God and none else',' being so caUed because she under- 
took the education of these her stepsons ; and he supposes also that 
this James is called ' the Uttle ' by St Mark to distinguish him from 
James the son of A Iphceus who was ' great,' because he was in the 
number of the Twelve Apostles, which the Lord's brother was not 
{vn Christ. Besurr. ii. 0pp. iii. pp. 412, 413, ed. Paris, 1638). 

20. The Antidicomamanites, an obscure Arabian sect in the Antidioo- 
latter half of the fourth century, maintained that the Lord's mother iteg. 
bore children to her husband Joseph. These opinions seem to have 
produced a reaction, or to have been themselves reactionary, for we 

read about the same time of a sect called Gollyridicms, likewise in 
Arabia, who going to the opposite extreme paid divine honours to 
the Virgin (Epiphan. Haeres. Ixxviii, Ixxix'). 

21. Epiphanius a native of Palestine became bishop of Con- Epipha- 
stantia in Cyprus in the year 367. Not very long before Jerome 
wrote in defence of the perpetual virginity of the Lord's mother 
against the Helvidians at Rome, Epiphanius came forward as the 
champion of the same cause against the Antidicomarianites. He 
denounced them in an elaborate pastoral letter, in which he explains 

his views at length, and which he has thought fit to incorporate in 
his subsequently written treatise against Heresies (pp. 1034 — 1057, 

* Similarly Ohrysostom, see below, ' The names are plainly terms of 
p. »89, note i. This identification of ridicule invented by their enemies. Au- 
the Lord's mother with the mother of gustine supposes the ' Antidieoma- 
James and Joses is adopted and simi- rianitss' of Epiphanius (he writes the 
larly explained also in one of the apo- word 'Antidicomaritse') to be the same 
cryphal gospels : Hut. Joseph. 4 (Tisoh. as the Helvidians of Jerome (adv. 
p. 117). Possibly Gregory derived it Haer. 84, vin. p. 24). They held the 
from some such source. It was also same tenets, it is true, but there 
part of the Helvidian hypothesis, where seems to have been otherwise no con- 
it was less out of place, and gave Jerome nexion between the two. Gonsidera- 
an easy triumph over his adversary tions of time and place alike resist this 
(adv. Helvid, 12 etc.). It is adopted identification. 

moreover by Cave (Life of St James the Epiphanius had heard that these 
Less, § 2), who holds that the Lord's opinions, which he held to be deroga- 
brethren were sons of Joseph, and yet tory to the Lord's mother, had been pro- 
makes James the Lord's brother one mulgated also by the elder ApoUinaris 
of the Twelve, identifying Joseph with or some of his disciples ; but he doubted 
Alphaus. Fritzsohe also identifies about this (p. 1034). The report was 
these two Maries (Matth. p. 8m, Marc. probably circulated by their opponents 
p, 607). ^ order to bring discredit upon them. 


ed. Petav.). He moreover discusses the subject incidentally in other 

parts of his great work (pp. 115, 119, 432, 636), and it ia clear 

that he had devoted much time and attention to it. His account 

coincides with that of the apocryphal gospels. Joseph, he states, was 

eighty years old or more when the Virgin was espoused to him ; by 

his former wife he had six children, four sons and two daughters, the 

names of the daughters were Mary and Salome, for which names by 

the way he alleges the authority of Scripture (p. 1041); his sons, 

St James especially, were called the Lord's brethren because they 

were brought up with Jesus ; the mother of the Lord remained for 

ever a virgin ; as the lioness is said to exhaust her fertility ia the 

production of a single offspring (see Herod, iii. 108), so she who bore 

the Lion of Judah could not in the nature of things become a mother 

a second time (pp. 1044, 1045). These particulars with many other 

besides he gives, quoting as his authority ' the tradition of the Jews' 

(p. 1039). It is to be observed moreover that, though he thus treats 

of the subject several times and at great length, he never once alludes 

to the Hieronymian account ; and yet I can scarcely doubt that one 

who so highly extolled oeUbacy would have hailed with delight 

a solution which, as Jerome boasted, saved the virginity not of Mary 

only but of Joseph also, for whose honour Epiphanius shows himself 

very jealous (pp. 1040, 1046, 1047). 

HelvidiuB, 22. Somewhere about the year 380 Helvidius, who resided in 


and Jovi- Rome, published a treatise in which he maintained that the Lord's 

manuB. brethren were sons of Joseph and Mary. He seems to have suc- 
ceeded in convincing a considerable number of persons, for contem- 
porary writers speak of the Helvidians as a party. These views 
were moreover advocated by BoBTOSUS, bishop of Sardica in Illyria, 
about the game time, and apparently also by Jovinianus a monk 
probably of Milan. The former was condemned by a synod assem- 
bled at Capua (a.d. 392), and the latter by synods held at Rome 
and at Milan (about A.D. 390 ; see Hefele Gonciliengesch. 11. pp. 47, 

1 The work ascribed to Dorotheas HUt. Lit. i. p. 163) ; and I have there- 
Tyrins is obviouBly spuiious (see Cave fore not included his testimony in thia 


In earlier times this account of the Lord's brethren, so far as it Motive of 
was the badge of a party, seems to have been held in conjunction aians. 
■with Ebionite views respecting the conception and person of Christ \ 
For, though not necessarily affecting the belief in the miraculous 
Incarnation, it was yet a natural accompaniment of the denial 
thereof. The motive of these latter impugners of the perpetual 
virginity was very different. They endeavoured to stem the current 
which had set strongly in the direction of celibacy ; and, if their 
theory was faulty, they still deserve the sympathy due to men who 
in defiance of public opinion refused to bow their necks to an 
extragavant and tyrannous superstition. 

We have thus arrived at the point of time when Jerome's answer Evidence 
to Helvidius created a new epoch in the history of this controversy. „p™™ 
And the following inferences are, if I mistake not, fairly deducible 
from the evidence produced. First : there is not the slightest indi- 
cation that the Hieronymian solution ever occurred to any individual 
or sect or church, until it was put forward by Jerome himself. If 
it had been otherwise, writers like Origen, the two Hilaries, and 
Epiphanius, who discuss the question, could not have failed to notice 
it. Secondly/ : the Epiphanian account has the highest claims to the 
sanction of tradition, whether the value of this sanction be great 
or small. Thirdly : this solution seems especially to represent the 
Palestinian view. 

In the year 382 (or 383) Jerome published his treatise; and the Jerome's 

„ , , . treatise. 

effect of it IS visible at once. 

Ambbose in the year 392 wrote a work De Institutione Virgims, Ambrose. 

list. The writer distinguishes James stantiate the assertions in the following 

the Lord's brother and James the son of note of Gibbon, Decline and Fall 0. xvi, 

AlphseuB, and makes them successive 'This appellation ('brethren') was at 

bishops of Jerusalem. See Combefis first nnderstood in the most obvious 

in Fabricius ' iTyj^joJ. i, app. p. 36. sense, and it was supposed that the 

1 [I fear the statement in the text brothers of Jesus were the lawful issue 

may leave a false impression. Previous of Joseph and Mary. A devout respect 

writers had spoken of the Ebionites as for the virginity of the mother of God 

holding the Helvidian view, and I was suggested to the Gnostics, and after- 

betrayed into using similar language, wards to the Orthodox Greeks, fte ex- 

But there is, so far as I am aware, no pedient of bestowing a second wife on 

evidence in favour of this assumption. Joseph, etc.'] 2nd ed. 
It would be still more difaoult to sub- 


in which he especially refutes the impugners of the perpetual virginity 
of the Lord's mother. In a passage which is perhaps intentionally 
obscure he speaks to this effect : ' The term brothers has a wide 
application ; it is used of members of the same family, the same race, 
the same country. Witness the Lord's own words / will decla/re thy 
name to my brethren (Ps. xxii. 22). St Paul too says : / could wish 
to be accursed /or my brethren (Rom. ix. 3). Doubtless they might be 
called brothers as sons of Joseph, not of Mary. And if any one will 
go into the question carefully, he will find this to be the true account. 
For myself I do not intend to enter upon this question : it is of no 
importance to decide what particular relationship is implied ; it is 
sufficient for my purpose that the term "brethren" is used in an 
extended sense (i.e. of others besides sons of the same mother)'.' 
From this I infer that St Ambrose had heard of, though possibly 
, not read, Jerome's tract, in which he discourses on the wide meaning 
of the term : that, if he had read it, he did not feel inclined to 
abandon the view with which he was familiar in favour of the 
novel hypothesis put forward by Jerome : and lastly, that seeing the 
importance of cooperation against a common enemy he was anxious 
not to raise dissensions among the champions of the perpetual 
virginity by the discussion of details. 

P«la«ius. Pelagius, who commented on St Paul a few years after Jerome, 

adopts his theory and even his language, unless his text has been 
tampered with here (Gal. i. 19). 

Augustine. At the same time Jerome's hypothesis found a much more weighty 
advocate in St Adgustinb. In his commentary on the Galatians 
indeed (i. 19), written about 394 while he was still a presbyter, he 
ofiiers the alternative of the Hieronymian and Epiphanian accounts. 
But in his later works he consistently maintains the view put forward 

^ The passage, which I have thus Quod quidem si quis diligentius prose- 
paraphrased, is ' Fratres autem gentis, quatur inveuiet. Nos ea prosequenda 
et generis, populi quoque consortium non putavimus, quoniam fraternum no- 
nnncuparidocetDomiuus ipse qui dicit: men liquet pluribus esse commune' 
Narrabo nomen tuum fratribus meis; (u. p. 260, ed. Ben.). St Ambrose 
in medio ecclesiae laudabo te. Paulus seems to accept so much of Jerome's 
quoque ait : Optabam ego anathema esse argument as relates to the wide use 
pro fratribxis meis. Potuerunt autem of the term ' brothers ' and nothing 
fratres esse ex Joseph, non ez Maria. more. 


by Jerome in the treatise against Helvidius {In Joh. Evang. x, iii. 
2. p. 368, ih. xxviii, iii. 2, p. 508 ; Ena/rr, in Ps. oxxvii, iv. 2. p. 
1443 ; Contr. Fomst. xxii. 35, viii. p. 383 ; comp. Quaest. XVII in 
Malik., III. 2. p. 285). 

Thus supported, it won its way to general acceptance in the Latin Western 
Church; and the Western Services recognise only one James besides 
the son of Zebedee, thus identifying the Lord's brother with the son 
of Alphseus. 

In the East also it met with a certain amount of success, but this Chryso- 
was only temporary. Chrysostom wrote both before and after Je- 
rome's treatise had become generally known, and his expositions of 
the New Testament mark a period of transition. In his Homilies on 
the earlier books he takes the Epiphanian view : St James, he says, 
was at one time an unbeliever with the rest of the Lord's brethren 
(on Matth. i. 25, vil. p. 77; John vii. 5, viii. p. 284; see also on 
I Cor. ix. 4, X, p. 181 e); the resurrection was the turning-point 
in their career; they were called the Lord's brethren, as Joseph 
himself was reputed the husband of Mary (on Matth. L 25, 1. c.)^ ' 
Hitherto he betrays no knowledge of the Hieronymian account. 

1 A comment attributed to Chryso- the comments on i Cor. xv. 7 (x. 

Btom in Cramer's Catena on i Cor. ix. 355 d), where he evidently regards 

4 — 7, but not found in the Homilies, is James as not one of the Twelve ; on 

still more explicit ; 'ASeX^ovs roS Ev- Matth. x. t (vii. pp. 368, 9), where he 

plov \4yei. toui vo/uadivra! etvai aitoO makes James the son of Alphssus a tax- 

dde\(j)Ous • iireidv yap oBtos xpw»'''f"'' gatherer like Matthew, clearly taking 

Kol airos Kara rriv Kounfv Sb^av elirev them to be brothers; and on Matth. 

owTOiij" Toul Si vlovs 'Ictfo-ij^ \^7c«, ol xxvii. 55 (vn. p. 827 a), where, like 

dSe\<f>ol ToG Kvplov ^xP'^MoTtiroi' Sid Tip) Gregory Nyssen, he identifies IHapla 

Trpbs rijv deorbKov pjirtarelav rod 'luff^^. 'Iokm/Sou with the Lord's mother. Tlie 

X^et Si 'IdKwjSoK ivlaKovov 'lepo<ro\vp.uv accounts of Ohrysostom's opinion on 

Koi 1u(Tri<t) ip.iivviJ.ov t^ waripi Kal 2f- this subject given by Blom p. 1 1 1 sq, 

p.uva Kal 'loiSa. I give the passage and Mill p. 284 note, are unsatis- 

vrithout attempting to correct the text. factory. 

This note reappears almost word for The Homilies on the Acts also take 

word in the CEcumenian catena and in the same view (ix. pp. 23 b, 26 a), 

Theophylact. If Chrysostom be not the but though these are generally ascribed 

author, then we gain the testimony of to Chrysostom, their genuineness is 

some other ancient writer on the same very questionable. In another spurious 

side. Compare also the pseudo-Ohry- work, Opua imp. in Matth., vi. p. 

Bostom, Op. 11. p. 797- olxxiv b, the Hieronymian view ap- 

The passages referred to in the text pears; 'Jacobum Alphaei lapidantes: 

show clearly what was Chrysostom'a propter quae omnia Jerusalem de- 

earlier view. To these may be added structa est a Eomanis.' 

GAL. 19 




Cyril of 

But in his exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians (i. 19) he not 
only speaks of James the Lord's brother as if he were an apostle 
(which proves nothing), but also calls him the son of Clopas\ Thus 
he would appear meanwhile to have accepted the hypothesis of 
Jerome and to have completed it by the identification of Clopas with 
Alphseus. And Theodobet, who for the most part closely follows 
Ghrysostom, distinctly repudiates the older view : ' He was not, 
as some have supposed, a son of Joseph, the offspring of a former 
marriage, but was son of Clopas and cousin of the Lord ; for his 
mother was the sister of the Lord's mother.' 

But with these exceptions the Epiphanian view maintained its 
ground in the East. It is found again in Cyril op Alexajjtdria for 
instance (Gla'phyr. vn, Gen. lib. vii. p. 221), and seems to have been 
held by later Greek writers almost, it not quite, universally. In 
Theophy- Theophtlact indeed (on Matth. xiiL 55, Gal. L 19) we find an 
attempt to unite the two accounts. James, argues the writer, was 
the Lord's reputed brother as the son of Joseph and the Lord's 
cousin as the son of Clopas; the one was his natural, and the other his 
legal father ; Clopas having died childless, Joseph had raised up seed 
to his brother by his widow according to the law of the levirate'. 
This novel suggestion however found but little favour, and the East- 
em Churches continued to distinguish between James the Lord's 
brother and James the son of Alphseus. The Greek, Syrian, and 
CoFTio Calendars assign a separate day to each. 

The table oh the next page gives a conspectus of the patristic 
and early authorities. 


1 rhv ToO KX&nra, Sirep xal 6 61)0776- 
XtoT^ (Keyev. He is referring, I sup- 
pose, to the lists of the Apostles which 
mention James the son of Alphaus. 
See above, p. 167. This portion of his 

exposition however is somewhat con- 
fused, and it is difficult to resist the 
suspicion that it has been interpolated. 
' See the remarks of Mill, p. 128. 



A. or B. 'Brethren' 
m a strict sense. 
James the Just not 
one of the Twelve. 

B or 0. Perpetual 
- virginity of Ma/ry. 


'a. Sons of Hblvidius, 

Joseph and ■ Bonosus, 

JoviinANus (?), 

'Gospel op petee, 
Protevangblium etc., 
Clement of alex., 

Hilary of poitiers, 

B. Sons of Gregory op nyssa, 

Joseph by a S Epiphanius, 

former wife, Ambeosb, 

Cyril of alex., 
Eastern services 
(Greek, Syrian, and 
Later greek 



0. Sons of the \ [Chrysostom], 
Virgin's sister. Theodoret, 

Western seevices, 

Later latin 


Uncertain. Hebrew gospel, Victorinus petavionbnsis. 
Levirate. Theophylact. 

Early versions, 
Clementine Ho- 
milies (1), 
Ascents of 


a post. constit., 

CyeIL of JERU- 


Catholic wri- 
ters GENE- 

19 — 2 



St Paul 

The four 
meet toge- 
ther at a 

THREE and three only of the personal disciples and immediate 
followers of our Lord hold any prominent place in the Apostolic 
records — James, Peter, and John ; the first the Lord's brother, the 
two latter the foremost members of the Twelve. Apart from an in- 
cidental reference to the death of James the son of Zebedee, which is 
dismissed in a single sentence, the rest of the Twelve are men- 
tioned by name for the last time on the day of the Lord's Ascension. 
Thenceforward they disappear wholly from the canonical writings. 

And this silence also extends to the traditions of succeeding ages. 
We read indeed of St Thomas in India, of St Andrew in Scythia ; 
but such scanty notices, even if we accept them as trustworthy, show 
only the more plainly how little the Church could tell of her earliest 
teachers. Doubtless they laboured zealously and eflfectively in the 
spread of the Gospel ; but, so far as we know, they have left no im- 
press of their individual mind and character on the Church at large. 
Occupying the foreground, and indeed covering the whole canvas of 
early ecclesiastical history, appear four figures alone, St Paul and 
the three Apostles of the Circumcision. 

Once and, it would appear, not more than once, these four great 
teachers met together face to face. It was the one great crisis in 
the history of the Church, on the issue of which was staked her 
future progress and triumph. Was she to open her doors wide and 
receive all comers, to declare her legitimate boundaries coextensive 


•with the limits of the human race ? Or was she to remain for ever 
narrow and sectarian, a national institution at best, but most pro- 
bably a suspected minority even in her own nation 1 

Not less important, so far as we can see, was the question at issue, 
when Paul and Barnabas arrived at Jerusalem to confer with the 
Apostles of the Circumcision on the subject of the Mosaic ritual 
which then distracted the youthful Church. It must therefore be 
an intensely interesting study to watch the attitude of the four 
great leaders of the Church at this crisis, merely as a historical 
lesson. But the importance of the subject does not rest here. Ques- Qnestiona 
tions of much wider interest are suggested by the accounts of this by Uiia 
conference : What degree of coincidence or antagonism between ^^^''^'S- 
Jewish and Gentile converts may be discerned in the Church 1 What 
were the relations existing between St Paul and the Apostles of the 
Circumcision ? How far do the later sects of Ebionites on the one 
hand and Marcionites on the other, as they appear in direct anta- 
gonism in the second century, represent opposing principles cherished 
side by side within the bosom of the Church and sheltering them- 
selves under the names, or (as some have ventured to say) sanctioned 
by the authority, of the leading Apostles 1 What in fact is the secret 
history — if there be any secret history — of the origin of Catholic 
Christianity 1 

On this battle-field the most important of recent theological con- Import- 
troversies has been waged : and it is felt by both sides that the j^g^ ° 
Epistle to the Galatians is the true key to the position. In the first Gal**J*° 
place, it is one of the very few documents of the Apostolic ages, 
whose genuineness has not been seriously challenged by the oppo- 
nents of revelation. Moreover, as the immediate utterance of one 
who himself took the chief part in the incidents recorded, it cannot 
be discredited as having passed through a coloured medium or 
gathered accretions by lapse of time. And lastly, the very form in 
which the information is conveyed — by partial and broken allusions 
rather than by direct and continuous statement — raises it beyond 
the reach of suspicion, even where suspicion is most active. Here 
at least both combatants can take their stand on common ground. 


Nor need the defenders of the Christian faith hesitate to accept the 
challenge of their opponents and try the question on this issue. If 
it be only interpreted aright, the Epistle to the Galatians ought 
to present us with a true, if only a partial, solution of the 

Apology Thus the attempt to decipher the relations between Jewish and 

for this 

essay. Gentile Christianity in the first ages of the Church is directly sug- 
gested by this epistle ; and indeed any commentary would be incom- 
plete which refused to entertain the problem. This must be my 
excuse for entering upon a subject, about which so much has been 
written and which involves so many subsidiary questions. It will 
be impossible within my limits to discuss all these questions in de- 
tail. The objections, for instance, which have been urged against 
the genuineness of a large number of the canonical and other early 
Christian writings, can only be met indirectly. Reasonable men 
will hardly be attracted towards a theory which can only be built on 
an area prepared by this wide clearance of received documents. At 
aU events there is, I think, no unfairness in stating the case thus ; 
that, though they are supported by arguments drawn from other 
sources, the general starting-point of such objections is the theory 
itself. If then a fair and reasonable account can be given both of 
the origin and progress of the Church generally, and of the mutual 
relations of its more prominent teachers, based on these documents 
assumed as authentic, a general answer wiU be supplied to all ob- 
jections of this class. 
Proposed I purpose therefore to sketch in outline the progressive history 

the rela- '^^ *^® relations between the Jewish and Gentile converts in the 
tions of early ages of the Church, as gathered from the Apostolic writings, 

and aided by such scanty information as can be got together from other 


Christ- sources. This will be a fit and indeed a necessary introduction to 

the subject with which the Epistle to the Galatians is more directly 

concerned, the positions occupied by St Paul and the three Apostles 

of the Circumcision respectively. 

Three This history falls into three periods which mark three distinct 

divisiong stages in its progress : (i) The Extension of the Church to the Gen- 


tiles : (2) The Recognition of Gentile Liberty : (3) The Emancipa- of this 

' ' ^"f subject. 

tion of the Jewish Churches'. 

I. The Extension of the Church to the Gentiles. 

It appears from the Apostolic history that the believers in the The early 

Church of 
earliest days conformed strictly to Jewish customs in their religious Jerusa- 

life, retaining the fixed hours of prayer, attending the temple wor- *™' 

ship and sacrifices, observing the sacred festivals. The Church was 

still confined to one nation and had not yet broken loose from the 

national rites and usages. But these swathing bands, which were 

perhaps needed to support its infancy, would only cripple its later 

growth, and must be thrown ofi", if it was ever to attain to a healthy 

maturity. This emancipation then was the great problem which the 

Apostles had to work out. The Master Himself had left no express OurLoid's 

instructions. He had charged them, it is true, to preach the Gospel 

to all nations, but how this injunction was to be carried out, by what 

changes a national Church must expand into an universal Church, 

they had not been told. He had indeed asserted the sovereignty of 

the spirit over the letter ; He had enunciated the great principle — 

as wide in its application as the law itself — that ' Man was not made 

for the sabbath, but the sabbath for man ' ; He had pointed to the 

fulfilment of the law in the Gospel. So far He had discredited the 

law, but He had not deposed or aboUshed it. It was left to the 

Apostles themselves under the guidance of the Spirit, moulded by 

circumstances and moulding them in turn, to work out this great 


1 Important works treating of the re- with a noble sacrifice of consistency to 

lation between the Jewish and Gentile truth he has abandoned many of his 

Christians are Leohler's Apostolisches former positions, and placed himself in 

und Nachapostolisehes Zeitalter (ite more direct antagonism to the Tubin- 

8ufl.i857),andBitschrs£jitsteftun3dcr gen school in which he was educated. 

Altkatholischen Kirche (ite aufl. 1857). The historical speculations of that 

I am indebted to both these works, but school are developed in Baur's Paulus 

to the latter especially, which is very and Ghristenthum und die Chriatlicfie 

able and suggestive. Eitschl should be Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, in 

read in his second edition, in which Sohv/eslei'sNachapostolischesZeitalter. 


Jews of And soon enough the pressure of events began to be felt. The 

persion. dispersion was the link which connected the Hebrews of Palestine 
with the outer world. Led captive by the power of Greek philosophy 
at Athens and Tarsus and Alexandria, attracted by the fascinations 
of Oriental mysticism in Asia, swept along with the busy whirl of 
social life in the city and court of the CaBsars, these outlying mem- 
bers of the chosen race had inhaled a freer spirit and contracted 
wider interests than their fellow-countrymen at home. By a series of 
insensible gradations — proselytes of the covenant — proselytes of the 
gate' — superstitious devotees who observed the rites without ac- 
cepting the faith of the Mosaic dispensation — curious lookers-on 
who interested themselves in the Jewish ritual as they would in 
the worship of Isis or of Astarte — the most stubborn zealot of the 
law was linked to the idolatrous heathen whom he abhorred and who 
despised him in turn. Thus the train was unconsciously laid, when 
the spark fell from heaven and fired it. 

First day The very baptism of the Christian Church opened the path for its 

of Pente- 
cost, extension to the Gentile world. On the first day of Pentecost were 

gathered together Hellenist Jews from all the principal centres of the 

dispersion. With them were assembled also numbers of incorporated 

Israelites, proselytes of the covenant. The former of these by contact 

with Gentile thought and life, the latter by the force of early habits 

and associations", would accept and interpret the new revelation in 

a less rigorous spirit than the Hebrew zealot of Jerusalem. Each 

successive festival must have been followed by similar though less 

striking results. The stream of Hellenists and proselytes, constantly 

ebbing and flowing, must have swept away fragments at least of the 

* The distinction between proselytes hardly form a distinct class, are oi <re- 

of the covenant or of righteousness and ^bixa/oi tov Qeiv, ol euVc/Sels etc. In 

proselytes of the gate is found in the speaking therefore of ' proselytes of the 

Gemara : the former were circumcised, gate ' I am using a convenient anachro- 

and observed the whole law ; the latter nism. 

acknowledged the God of Israel and " 'Trust not a proselyte,' said one 

conformed to Jewish worship in some of the rabbis, ' till twenty-four genera- 

respeota, but stood without the cove- tions; for he holds his leaven.' Yalkut 

nant, not having been incorporated by (Shimoni) on Buth i. 11, 12, §601. See 

the initiatory rite. The former alone, also the passages given by Danz in 

it would appear, are called Trpoa-qKirToi Meusohen Test. lUustr. p. 651. 
in the New Testament ; the latter, who 


new truth, purging it of some local encumbrances which would 
gather about it in the mother country, and carrying it thus purged 
to far distant shores. 

Meanwhile at Jerusalem some years passed away before the bar- 
rier of Judaism was assailed. The Apostles still observed the Mosaic 
ritual • they still confined their preaching to Jews by birth, or Jews 
by adoption, the proselytes of the covenant. At length a breach 
was mnde, and the assailants as might be expected were Hellenists. 

The first step towards the creation of an organised ministry was also Appoint- 

ment of 
the first step towards the emancipation of the Church. The Jews Hellenist 

of Judiea, ' Hebrews of the Hebrews,' had ever regarded their Hel- ° °^^^' 
lenist brethren with suspicion and distrust ; and this estrangement 
reproduced itself in the Christian Church. The interests of the 
Hellenist widows had been neglected in the daily distribution of 
alms. Hence 'arose a murmuring of the Hellenists against the 
Hebrews (Acts vi. i),' which was met by the appointment of seven 
persons specially charged with providing for the wants of these neg- 
lected poor. If the selection was made, as St Luke's language 
seems to imply, not by the Hellenists themselves but by the Church 
at large (vi. 2), the concession when granted was carried out in a 
liberal spirit. All the names of the seven are Greek, pointing to 
a Hellenist rather than a Hebrew extraction, and one is especially 
described as a proselyte, being doubtless chosen to represent a hitherto 
small but growing section of the community. 

By this appointment the Hellenist members obtained a status in Effects 
the Church ; and the efiiects of this measure soon became visible, measure. 
Two out of the seven stand prominently forward as the champions 
of emancipation, Stephen the preacher and martyr of liberty, and 
Philip the practical worker' 

1 In Kicolas, the only one of the that an account so discreditable to one 

remaining five whose name reappears in who in theNew Testamentis named only 

history, liberty is degraded into licence. in connexion with his appointmentto an 

I see no valid reason for doubting the honourable office wouldhavebeencircu- 

very early tradition that the Nicolaitans lated unless there were some foundation 

(Apoo. ii. 6, 15) derived their name from in fact. At the same time the Nicolai- 

him. If there was a traitor among the tans may have exaggerated and per- 

Twelve, there might weU be a heresi- verted the teaching of Nicolas. Iren- 

aroh among the Seven. Nor is it likely ffiua (i. 26, 3) and Hippolytus (ifoer. 









Stephen is the acknowledged forerunner of the Apostle of the 
G«ntiles. He was the fitst to ' look steadfastly to the end of that 
which is abolished,' to sound the death-knell of the Mosaic ordinances 
and the temple worship, and to claim for the Gospel unfettered 
liberty and universal rights. ' This man,' said his accusers, ' ceaseth 
not to speak words against the holy place and the law j for we have 
heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place 
and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us (vi. 13, 14).' 
The charge was only false as misrepresenting the spirit which ani- 
mated his teaching. The accused attempts no denial, but pleads 
justification. To seal this testimony the first blood of the noble 
army of martyrs is shed. 

The indirect consequences of his martyrdom extend far beyond 
the immediate effect of his dying words. A persecution ' arose about 
Stephen.' The disciples of the mother Church 'were scattered 
abroad throughout the regions of Judsea and Samaria (viii. i).' Some 
of the refugees even 'travelled as far as Phenice and Cyprus and 
Antioch (xi. 19).' This dispersion was, as we shall see, the parent 
of the first Gentile congregation. The Church of the Gentiles, it 
may be truly said, was baptized in the blood of Stephen. 

The doctrine, which Stephen preached and for which he died, 
was carried into practice by Philip. The sacred narrative mentions 
two incidents in his career, each marking an onward stride in the 
free development of the Church. It is therefore not without signi- 

vii. 56) believe him to have been the 
founder of the sect ; while Clement of 
Alexandria {Strom, ii. p. 411, iii. p. 531, 
Fottei) attributes to him an ambignona 
saying that ' the flesh must be abused 
{deiv irapaxpvffffai ry aapKl),' of which 
these Nicolaitaus perverted the mean- 
ing; and in attempting to clear his 
reputation relates a highly improbable 
story, which, if true, would be far from 
cre^table. In another passage of Hip- 
polytus, a fragment preserved in Syriao 
(Lagarde's Anec. Syr. p. 87, Oowper's 
Syr. Miscell. p. 55) and taken from the 
' Discourse on the Besurrection ' ad- 
dressed to MammEsa, this writer again 

represents Nicolas as the founder of the 
sect, speaking of him as ' stirred by a 
strange spirit' and teaching that the 
resurrection is past (i Tim. ii. 18), but 
not attributing to him any directly im- 
moral doctrines. A common inter- 
pretation, which makes Nioolaus a 
Greek rendering of Balaam, is not 
very happy ; for NotiXoos does not al- 
together correspond with any possible 
derivation of Balaam, least of all with 

Dy lh2 ' *^^ destroyer of the people,' 
generally adopted by those who so ex- 
plain Ni.K6\aos. See below, p. 309, 
with the notes. 


ficance that years afterwards we find him styled 'the Evangelist' 
(xxi. 8), as if he had earned this honourable title by some signal 
service rendered to the Gospel. 

I. The Samaritan occupied the border land between the Jew (i) The 
and the Gentile. Theologically, as geographically, he was the con- tans ; 
necting link between the one and the other. Half Hebrew by race, 
half Israelite in his acceptance of a portion of the sacred canon, 
he held an anomalous position, shunning and shunned by the Jew, 
yet clinging to the same promises and looking forward to the same 
hopes. With a bold venture of faith Philip offers the Gospel to 
this mongrel people. His overtures are welcomed with joy, and 
'Samaria receives the word of God.' The sacred historian relates 
moreover, that his labours were sanctioned by the presence of the 
chief Apostles Peter and John, and confirmed by an outpouring 
of the Holy Spirit (viii. 14 — 17). ' He who eats the bread of a 
Samaritan,' said the Jewish doctor, 'is as one who eats swine's 
flesh'.' 'No Samaritan shall ever be made a proselyte. They 
have no share in. the resurrection of the dead'.' In opening her 
treasures to this hated race, the Church had surmounted the first 
barrier of prejudice behind which the exclusiveness of the nation 

' Mishnah Sheiiith viii. 10. swine's flesh .-andnoCuthsBan shall evei 

' Pirke Rabbi Elieter 38. The paa- be made a proselyte : and they have no 

sage so well illustrates the statement in share in the resurrection of the dead ; 

the text, that I give it in full : ' What did for it is said (Ezra iv. 3) Ye have nothing 

EzraandZerubbabelthesonof Shealtiel to do with us to build an home unto 

and Jehosbua the son of Jehozadak? our God, (that is) neither in this world 

(They went) and they gathered together nor in the future. And that they 

all the congregation into the temple of should have neither portion nor inhe- 

the Lord, and they brought 300 priests ritance in Jerusalem, as it is said (Neh. 

and 300 children and 300 trumpets and ii. 20), But ye had no portion nor right 

300 Borolls of the law in their hands, nor memorial in Jerusalem. And they 

and they blew, and the Levites sang communicated the anathema to Israel 

and played, and they banned the Cuth- which is in Babylon. And they put 

seans (Samaritans) by the mystery of upon them anathema upon anathema, 

the ineffable name and by the writing And king Gyrus also decreed upon them 

which is written on the tables and by an everlasting anathema as it is said 

the anathema of the upper (heavenly) (Ezra vi. n). And the God that has 

court of justice and by the anathema of caused His name to dwell there etc' 

the nether (earthly) court of justice, Several passages bearing on this subject 

that no one of Israel should eat the jire collected in the article ' Samaritan 

bread of a Cuthsean for ever. Hence Pentateuch,' by Mr E. Deutsch, in 

they (the elders) said: Whosoever eats Smith's Pictionary of the Bible. 
the bread of a Outhasan is as if he ate 


had entrenched itself. To be a Samaritan was to have a devil, 
in the eyes of a rigid Jew (John viii. 48, comp. iv. 9). 
W, ^^'f 2. Nor was it long before PhiUp broke through a second and 

ennuoh. more formidable line of defence. The blood of the patriarchs, though 
diluted, still flowed in the veins of the Samaritans. His next con- 
vert had no such claim to respect. A descendant of the accursed 
race of Ham', shut out from the congregation by his physical defect 
(Deut. xxiii. i), the Ethiopian chamberlain laboured under a two- 
fold disability. This double Une is assailed by the Hellenist 
preacher and taken by storm. The desire of the Ethiopian to know 
and to do God's will is held by Philip to be a sufficient claim. He 
acts boldly and without hesitation. He accosts him, instructs him, 
baptizes him then and there. 

Conver- The venture of the subordinate minister however still wanted the 

sion of 

Cornelius, sanction of the leaders of the Church. At length this sanction was 

given in a signal way. The Apostles of the Circumcision, even St 
Peter himself, had failed hitherto to comprehend the wide purpose 
of God. With their fellow-countrymen they stiU ' held it unlawful 
for a Jew to keep company with or to come near an alien ' (x. 28). 
The time when the Gospel should be preached to the Gentiles seemed 
not yet to have arrived : the manner in which it should be preached 
was still hidden from them. At length a divine vision scatters the 
dark scruples of Peter, teaching him to call no man 'common or 
unclean.' He goes himself and seeks out the devout Roman cen- 
turion Cornelius, whose household he instructs in the faith. The 
Gentile Church, thus founded on the same * rock ' with the Jewish, 
receives also the same divine confirmation. As Peter began to speak, 
' the Holy Ghost fell on them, as it did ' on the Jewish disciples on 
the first day of Pentecost (xi. 15). As if the approval of God could 
not be too prompt or too manifest, the usual sequence is reversed and 
the outpouring of the Spirit precedes the rite of baptism (x. 44 — 48). 
Bignifi- The case of Cornelius does not, I think, differ essentially from 

this event. ^^^ ''^^^ °* *^^ Ethiopian eunuch. There is no ground for assuming 

1 Amos ix. 7, 'Are ye not as the children of the Ethiopians nnto me, 
children of Israel?' 


that the latter was a proselyte of the covenant. His mutilation 
excluded him from the congregation by a Mosaic ordinance, and it 
is an arbitrary conjecture that the definite enactment of the law 
was overruled by the spiritual promise of the prophet (Is. Ivi. 3 — 5). 
This liberal interpretation at all events accords little with the narrow 
and formal spirit of the age. Both converts alike had the inward 
qualification of 'fearing God and working righteousness' (x. 35) ; both 
alike were disabled by external circumstances, and the disabilities 
of the Ethiopian eunuch were even greater than those of the Roman 
centurion. If so, the significance of the conversion of the latter 
consists in this, that now in the case of the Gentile, as before in the 
case of the Samaritan, the principle asserted by the Hellenist Philip 
is confirmed by the Apostles of the Circumcision in the person of 
their chief and sealed by the outpouring of the Spirit. 

Meanwhile others were asserting the universality of the Church Preaching 
elsewhere, if not with the same sanction of authority, at all events jjigg ^j 
with a larger measure of success. With the dying words of Stephen, ■*^'^"°<^°* 
the martyr of Christian liberty, still ringing in their ears, the perse- 
cuted brethren had fled from Jerusalem and carried the tidings of 
the Gospel to distant lands. At first they ' preached the word to 
none but to the Jews only' (xi. 19). At length others bolder than 
the rest, 'when they were come to Antiooh, spake unto the Gentiles', 
preaching the Lord Jesus.' Probably this was an advance even on 
the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch and of Cornelius. These 
two converts at all events recognised the God of the old covenant. 
Now for the first time, it would seem, the Gospel was oSiered to 
heathen idolaters. Here, as before, the innovators were not Hebrews 
but Hellenists, 'men of Cyprus and Cyrene' (xi. 20). Their suc- 
cess was signal : crowds flocked to hear them ; and at Antiooh The name 
first the brethren were called by a new name — a term of ridicule jg^jg^ 
and contempt then, now the pride and glory of the civilized world. 
Hitherto the believers had been known as 'Galileans' or 'Naza- 
renes ' ; now they were called ' Christians.' The transition from 

^ xi. 20. I cannot doubt that "BWTjyas requires it; but external authority pre- 
13 correct, as the preceding 'louSafouj ponderates in favour ot'EWrina-Tds. 


a Jewish to a heathen term marks the point of time when the 
Church of the Gentiles first threatens to supersede the Church of 
the Circumcision. 
The first Thus the first stage in the emancipation of the Church was 

ed. gained. The principle was broadly asserted that the Gospel received 

all comers, asking no questions, allowing no impediments, insisting 
on no preliminary conditions, if only it were found that the peti- 
tioner 'feared God and worked righteousness,' 

2. The Recognition of Gentile Liberty. 

It is plain that the principle, which had thus been asserted, 
involved consequences very much wider than were hitherto clearly 
foreseen and acknowledged. But between asserting a principle 
and carrying it out to its legitimate results a long interval must 
necessarily elapse, for many misgivings have to be dissipated and 
many impediments to be overcome. 
Questions So it was with the growth of Gtentile Christendom. The Gentiles 
tied. were no longer refused admission into the Church unless first in- 

corporated with Israel by the initiatory rite. But many questions 
remained still unsettled. What was their exact position, when thus 
received 1 What submission, if any, must they yield to the Mosaic 
law 1 Should they be treated as in all respects on an equality with 
the true Israelite 1 Was it right for the Jewish Christian so far to 
lay aside the traditions of his race, as to associate freely with his 
Gentile brother ? These must necessarily in time become practical 
questions, and press for a solution. 
Saul of At this point in the history of the Church a new character appears 

on the scene. The mantle of Stephen has fallen on the persecutor 
of Stephen. Saul has been called to bear the name of Christ to 
the Gentiles. Descended of pure Hebrew ancestry and schooled in 
the law by the most famous of living teachers, born and residing in 
a great university town second to none in its reputation for Greek 
wisdom and learning, inheriting the privileges and the bearing of 
a Roman citizen, he seemed to combine in himself all those varied 



qualifications which would best fit him for this work. These wide 
experiences, which had lain dormant before, were quickened into 
thought and life by the lightning flash on the way to Damascus; 
and stubborn zeal was melted and fused into large-hearted and com- 
prehensive charity. From his conversion to the present time we read 
only of his preaching in the synagogues at Damascus (is. 20, 22) and 
to the Hellenists at Jerusalem (ix. 29). But now the moment was 
ripe, when he must enter upon that wider sphere of action for which 
he had been specially designed. The GentUe Church, founded on the 
' rock,' must be handed over to the ' wise master-builder ' to enlarge 
and complete. So at the bidding of the Apostles, Barnabas seeks 
out Saul in his retirement at Tarsus and brings him to Antioch. goes to 
Doubtless he seemed to all to be the fittest instrument for carrying 
out the work so auspiciously begun. 

Meanwhile events at Jerusalem were clearing the way for Circum- 
his great work. The star of Jewish Christendom was already on affecting 
the wane, while the independence of the Gentiles was gradually ^Tgti,., 
asserting itself. Two circumstances especially were instrumental Ciiurch. 
in reversing the positions hitherto held by these two branches of 
the Church. 

I. It has been seen that the martyrdom of Stephen marked an (i) With- 
epoch in the emancipation of the Church. The martyrdom of James the Apo- 
the son of Zebedee is scarcely less important in its influence on her ^*'®*" 
progressive career. The former persecution had sown the disciples 
broad-cast over heathen lands; the latter seems to have been the 
signal for the withdrawal of the Apostles themselves from Jerusalem. 
The twelve years, which according to an old tradition our Lord had 
assigned as the limit of their fixed residence there, had drawn to 
a close'. So, consigning the direction of the mother Church to James 
the Lord's brother and the presbytery, they depart thence to enter 
upon a wider field of action. Their withdrawal must have deprived 
the Church of Jerusalem of half her prestige and more than half her 
influence. Henceforth she remained indeed the mother Church of 
the nation, but she was no longer the mother Church of the world. 
1 See above, p. 117, n. i. 


(i) Famine 2. About the same time another incident also contributed to 

Gentile lessen her influence. A severe famine devastated Palestine and re- 

* ^' duced the Christian population to extreme want. Collections were 

made at Antioch, and relief was sent to the brethren in Judaea. 

By this exercise of liberality the Gentile Churches were made to 

feel their own importance : while the recipients, thus practically 

confessing their dependence, were deposed from the level of proud 

isolation which many of them would gladly have maintained. This 

famine seems to have ranged over many years, or at all events its 

attacks were several times repeated. Again and again the alms of 

the Gentile Christians were conveyed by the hands of the Gentile 

Apostles, and the Churches of Judsea laid themselves under fresh 

obligations to the heathen converts. 

New stage Events being thus ripe, Saul still residing at Antioch is set apart 

Gospel. ^y ^^^ Spirit for the Apostleship of the Gentiles to which he had 

been called years before. 

The Gospel thus enters upon a new career of triumph. The 
primacy of the Church passes from Peter to Paul — from the Apostle 
of the Circumcision to the Apostle of the Gentiles. The centre of 
evangelical work is transferred from Jerusalem to Antioch. Paul 
and Barnabas set forth on their first missionary tour. 

Though they give precedence everywhere to the Jews, their 
mission is emphatically to the Gentiles. In Cyprus, the first country 
St Paul's visited, its character is signally manifested in the conversion of 
sionary ' *he Roman proconsul, Sergius Paulus. And soon it becomes evident 
joamey. ^jjg^^ ^jjg younger Church must supplant the elder. At Antioch in 
Pisidia matters are brought to a crisis : the Jews reject the ofler of 
the Gospel : the Gentiles entreat to hear the message. Thereupon 
the doom is pronounced : ' It was necessary that the word of God 
should first have been spoken to you ; but seeing ye put it from you 
and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasiing life, lo we turn to the 
Gentiles' (xiii. 46). The incidents at Pisidian Antioch foreshadow 
the destiny which awaits the Gospel throughout the world. Every- 
where the Apostles deliver their message to the Jews first, and every- 
where the offer rejected by them is welcomed by the heathen. The 


mission of Paul and Barnabas is successful, but its success is confined 

almost wholly to the Gentiles. They return to Antioch. 

Hitherto no attempt had been made to define the mutual relations The ques- 

of Jewish and Gentile converts. AU such questions, it would seem, cumoision 

had been tacitly passed over, neither side perhaps being desirous of 

provoking discussion. But the inevitable crisis at length arrives. 

Certain converts, who had imported into the Church of Christ the 

rigid and exclusive spirit of Pharisaism, stir up the slumbering feud 

at Antioch, starting the question in its most trenchant form. They 

desire to impose circumcision on the Gentiles, not only as a condition 

of equality, but as necessary to salvation (xv. i). The imposition of 

this burden is resisted by Paul and Barnabas, who go on a mission 

to Jerusalem to confer with the Apostles and elders. 

I have already given what seems to me the probable account of Accounts 

of the con- 
the part taken by the leading Apostles in these controversies , and ference. 

shall have to return to the subject later. 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 

diflferent positions of the writers and the difierent objects they had 

in view. 

At present we are concerned only with the results of this con- Twofold 

ference. These are twofold : First, the settlement of the points of 

dispute between the Jewish and Gentile converts : Secondly, the 

recognition of the authority and commission of Paul and Barnabas by 

the Apostles of the Circumcision. It will be necessary, as briefly as 

possible, to point out the significance of these two conclusions and to 

examine how far they were recognised and acted upon subsequently. 

I. The arrangement of the disputed points was efiected by a The decree 

mutual compromise. On the one hand it was decided once and for 
ever that the rite of circumcision should not be imposed on the Gen- 
tiles. On the other, concessions were demanded of them in turn ; 
they were asked to ' abstain from meats oflfered to idols, and from 
blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.' 

1 See above, p. 126 sq, and the notes on ii. i — 10. 
GAL. 20 

a compro- 







The decree 
ed by some. 

The first of these decisions was a question of principle. If the 
initiatory rite of the old dispensation were imposed on all members of 
the Christian Church, this would be in effect to deny that the Gospel 
was a new covenant ; in other words to deny its essential character'. 
It was thus the vital point on which the whole controversy turned. 
And the liberal decision of the council was not only the charter of 
Gentile freedom but the assertion of the supremacy of the GospeL 

On the other hand it is not so easy to understand the bearing 
of the restrictions imposed on the Gentile converts. Their signifi- 
cance in fact seems to be relative rather than absolute. There were 
certain practices into which, though most abhorrent to the feelings 
of their Jewish brethren, the Gentile Christians from early habit and 
constant association would easily be betrayed. These were of different 
kinds : some were grave moral offences, others only violations of time- 
honoured observances, inwrought in the conscience of the Israelite. 
After the large concession of principle made to the Gentiles in the 
matter of circumcision, it was not unreasonable that they should be 
required in turn to abstain from practices which gave so much 
offence to the Jews. Hence the prohibitions in question. It is 
strange indeed that offences so heterogeneous should be thrown 
together and brought under one prohibition; but this is perhaps 
sufficiently explained by supposing the decree framed to meet some 
definite complaint of the Jewish brethren. If, in the course of the 
hot dispute which preceded the speeches of the leading Apostles, 
attention had been specially called by the Pharisaic party to these 
detested practices, St James would not unnaturally take up the sub- 
ject and propose to satisfy them by a direct condemnation of the 
offences in question". 

It would betray great ignorance of human nature to suppose that 
a decision thus authoritatively pronounced must have silenced all 

' See Eitschl, p. 127. 

* This seems to me much simpler 
than explaining the clauses as enforc- 
ing the conditions under which prose- 
lytes of the gate were received by the 
Jews. In this latter case iropvela will 
perhaps refer to unlawful marriage, 

e.g. within the prohibited degrees of 
kindred (Levit. xviii. 18), as it is inter- 
preted by Eitschl p. ijg sq, who ably 
maintains this view. These difficulties 
of interpretation are to my mind a 
very strong evidence of the genuine* 
ness of the decree. 


opposition. If therefore we should find its provisions constantly 
disregarded hereafter, it is no argument against the genuineness of 
the decree itself. The bigoted minority was little likely to make 
an absolute surrender of its most stubborn prejudices to any external 
influence. Many even of those, who at the time were persuaded by 
the leading Apostles into acquiescence, would find their misgivings 
return, when they saw that the efiiect of the decree was to wrest the 
sceptre from their grasp and place it in the hands of the Gentile 

Even the question of circumcision, on which an absolute decision Ciroumoi' 
had been pronounced, was revived again and again. Long after, the insisted 
Judaizing antagonists of St Paul in Galatia attempted to force this °°' 
rite on his Gentile converts. Perhaps however they rather evaded 
than defied the decree. They may for instance have no longer in- 
sisted upon it as a condition of salvation, but urged it as a title to 
preference. But however this may be, there is nothing startling 
in the fact itself. 

But while the emancipating clause of the decree, though express The re- 
and definite, was thus parried or resisted, the restrictive clauses were clauses 
with much greater reason interpreted with latitude. The miscella- S,jijjy'' 
neous character of these prohibitions showed that, taken as a whole, enforced, 
they had no binding force independently of the circumstances which 
dictated them. They were a temporary expedient framed to meet a 
temporary emergency. Their object was the avoidance of ofience in 
mixed communities of Jew and Gentile converts. Beyond this 
recognised aim and the general understanding implied therein the 
limits of their application were not defined. Hence there was room 
for much latitude in individual cases. St James, as the head of the St James, 
mother Church where the difficulties which it was framed to meet 
were most felt, naturally refers to the decree seven years after 
as still regulating the intercourse between Jewish and Gentile con- 
verts (xxi. 25). At Antioch too and in the neighbouring Churches Antiooh 
of Syria and Cilicia, to which alone the Apostolic letter was addressed neigh- 
and on which alone therefore the enactments were directly bind- ohur^es 
ing (xv. 23), it was doubtless long observed. The close communica- 

20 — 2 


tion between these churches and Jerusalem would at once justify 
and secure its strict observance. We read also of its being delivered 
to the brotherhoods of Lycaonia and Fisidia, already founded when 
the council was held, and near enough to Palestine to feel the pres- 
sure of Jewish feelings (xvi. 4). But as the circle widens, its influ' 
ence becomes feebler. In strictly Gentile churches it seems never 

St Paul to have been enforced. St Paul, writing to the Corinthians, discusses 
to the Co- 
rinthians, two of the four practices which it prohibits without any reference 

to its enactments. Fornication he condemns absolutely as defiling 
the body which is the temple of God (i Cor. v. i — 13, vi. 18 — 20). 
Of eating meats sacrificed to idols he speaks as a thing indifierent 
in itself, only to be avoided in so far as it implies partipipation in idol 
worship or is ofiensive to the consciences of others. His rule there- 
fore is this : ' Do not sit down to a banquet celebrated in an idol's 
temple. You may say that in itself an idol is nothing, that neither 
the abstaining from meat nor the partaking of meat commends us to 
God. All this I grant is true : but such knowledge is dangerous. 
You are running the risk of falling into idolatry yourself, you are 
certainly by your example leading others astray; you are in fact 
committing an overt act of treason to God, you are a partaker of 
the tables of devils. On the other hand do not officiously inquire 
when you make a purchase at the shambles or when you dine in 
a private house : but if in such cases you are plainly told that 
the meat has been ofiered in sacrifice, then abstain at all hazards. 
Lay down this rule, to give no offence either to Jews or Gentiles 
or to the churches of God' (i Cor. viii. i — 13, x. 14 — 2a). Thiswise 
counsel, if it disregards the letter, preserves the spirit of the decree, 
which was framed for the avoidance of offence. But St Paul's 
language shows that the decree itself was not held binding, perhaps 
was unknown at Corinth : otherwise the discussion would have 

St John been foreclosed. Once again we come across the same topics in 
to the ^ 

Asiatic the apocalyptic message to the Churches of Pergamos and Thyatira. 

The, same irregularities prevailed here as at Corinth : there was the 

temptation on the one hand to impure living, on the other to acts of 

conformity with heathen worship which compromised their allegiance 


to the one true God. Our Lord in St John's vision denoutioes them 
through the symbolism of the Old Testament history. In the OhUrch of 
Pergamos, were certain Nicolaitans ' holding the doctrine of Balaam 
■who taught Ealac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of 
Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication' (ii 
14). At Thyatira the evU had struck its roots deeper. The angel of 
that Church is rebuked because he 'suffers his wife Jezebel who calls 
herself a prophetess, and she teacheth and seduceth Gk)d's servants 
to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols.' I see no 
reason for assuming a reference here to the Apostolic decree. The 
two offences singled out are those to which Gentile churches would 
be most liable, and which at the saine time are illustrated by the 
Old Testament parallels. If St Paul denounces them independently 
of the decree, St John may have done so likewise '. In the mattfer of 
sacrificial meats indeed the condemnation of the latter is more absolute 
and uncompromising. But this is owing partly to the epigrammatic 
terseness and symbolic reference of the passage, partly, also, we may 
suppose, to the more definite form which the evil itself had assuiaed'. 
In both cases the practice was justified by a vaunted knowledge which 
held itself superior to any such restrictions". But at Corinth this temper 

* Yet the expression oi ^dWw iip' should maintain, as Baur, Zeller, and 

ifi&t oXXo pdpos (ii. 24) looks like a re- Schwegler have done, that the denuh- 

ference to the decree. ciations in the Apocalypse are directed 

' The coincidence of the two Apostles against St Paul himself, 
extends also to their language, (i) If ' Comp. Apoc. ii. 24 Sa-oi ofc ^xofo'ii' 
St John denounces the offence as a fol- t^jk Sidaxh" rairriv, olriiies oiiK iyvta- 
lowing of Balaam, St Paul uses the aav rd paBia toO Sarava, tis X^- 
same Old Testament iUustration, I Cor. yovaiv. The false teachers boasted a 
X. 7, 8, 'Neither be ye idolaters, as were knowledge of the deep things of God; 
some of them ; as it is written, The they possessed only a knowledge of the 
people sat down to eat and drink, and deep things of Satan. St John's mean- 
rose up to play : neither let us commit ing is illustrated by a passage in Hip- 
fornication, as some of them com- polytus (Haer. v. 6, p. 94) relating to 
mitted, and fell in one day three and the Ophites, who offer other strilcing 
twenty thousand.' (2) If St John resemblances to the heretics of the 
speaks of 'casting a stumblingblock Apostolic age ; i-ir€Kd\eo-av iavrois yvw- 
(dKavSoKov) before the children of Is- crri/coiis, <f>i,ir«oiiTes liovoi t&. pd6ri yivii- 
rael,' the whole purport of St Paul's ckclv. see also Iren. ii. 28. 9. St 
warning is ' to give no offence ' {jiAi Paul's rebuke is very different in form, 
ffKavSaXlt^av, viii. 13, aTpSaKoiroi. ylvea- but the same in effect. He begins 
0m, X. 32). With all these coinci- each time in a strain of noble irony. 
dences of matter and language, it is ' We all have knowledge ' ; 'I speak as 
a strange phenomenon that any critic to wise men ' : he appears to concede. 


was still immature and under restraint: while in the Asiatic churches 
it had outgrown shame and broken out into the wildest excesses '- 
Object of Thus then the decree was neither permanently nor universally 

ments not binding. But there was also another point which admitted much 
latitude of interpretation. What was understood to be the design of 
these enactments! They were articles of peace indeed, but of what 
nature was this peace to be ? Was it to effect an entire union be- 
tween the Jewish and Gentile churches, a complete identity of in- 
terest; or only to secure a strict neutrality, a condition of mutual 
toleration? Were the Gentiles to be welcomed as brothers and 
admitted at once to all the privileges of sons of Israel : or was the 
Church hereafter to be composed of two separate nationalities, as it 
were, equal and independent; or lastly, were the heathen converts 
to be recognised indeed, but only as holding a subordinate position 
like proselytes under the old covenant ? The first interpretation is 
alone consistent with the spirit of the Gospel : but either of the 
others might honestly be maintained without any direct violation of 
the letter of the decree. The Church of Antioch, influenced doubt- 
less by St Paul, took the larger and truer view ; Jewish and Gentile 
converts lived freely together as members of one brotherhood. A 
portion at least of the Church of Jerusalem, 'certain who came from 
James,' adopted a narrower interpretation and still clung to the old 
distinctions, regarding their Gentile brethren as unclean and refusing 
to eat with them. This was not the Truth of the Gospel, it was not 
the Spirit of Christ ; but neither was it a direct breach of compact. 

St Paul's a. Scarcely less important than the settlement of the disputed 
nised, to defer, to sympathize, even to en- against Basilides, and in Justin {IHal, 
courage : and then he turns round up- 35, p. 253 c) who mentions the Basili- 
on the lazity of this vaunted wisdom deans among other Gnostic sects as 
and condemns and crushes it : ' I will ' participating in lawless and godless 
eat no flesh while the world standeth, rites ' : comp. Orac. Sib. ii. <)6. Both 
lest I make my brother to offend ' ; these writers condemn the practice, the 
' I would not that ye should have fel- latter with great severity. When the 
lowship with devils.' persecution began, and the Christians 
' The subject of elSaXoOvra does not were required to deny their faith by 
disappear with the apostolic age : it participating in the sacrifices, it be- 
turns up again for instance in the came a matter of extreme importance 
middle of the second century, in Agrip- to avoid any act of conformity, how- 
pa Castor (Euseb. H. E. iv. 7) vreiting ever slight. 


points was the other result of these conferences, the recognition of 
St Paul's office and mission by the Apostles of the Circumcision. 
This recognition is recorded in similar language in the narrative of 
the Acts and in the epistle to the Galatians. In the Apostolic cir- 
cular inserted in the former Paul and Barnabas are commended as 
' men -who have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus 
Christ' (xv. 26). In the conferences, as related in the latter, the 
three Apostles, James, Peter, and John, seeing that ' the Gospel of 
the uncircumcision was committed unto him,' and 'perceiving the 
grace that was given unto him, gave to him and Barnabas the right 
hand of fellowship, that they should go unto the heathen' (ii. 7 — 10). 

This ample recognition would doubtless carry weight with a large Continued 
number of Jewish converts : but no sanction of authority could over- to St Paul, 
come in others the deep repugnance felt to one who, himself a 'Hebrew 
of the Hebrews,' had systematically opposed the law of Moses and 
triumphed in his opposition. Henceforth St Paul's career was one 
life-long conflict with Judaizing antagonists. Setting aside the Epistles 
to the Thessalonians, which were written too early to be affected by 
this struggle, all his letters addressed to churches, with but one 
exception', refer more or less directly to such opposition. It assumed 
difierent forms in different places : in Galatia it was purely Pha- 
risaic ; in Phrygia and Asia it was strongly tinged with speculative 
mysticism ; but everywhere and under aU circumstances zeal for the 
law was its ruling passion. The systematic hatred of St Paul is 
an important fact, which we are too apt to overlook, but without 
which the whole history of the Apostolic ages will be misread and 

3. The Umancipation of the Jevnsh Churches. 

We have seen hitherto no signs of waning affection for the law Zeal for 
in the Jewish converts to Christianity as a body. On the contrary 
the danger which threatened it from a quarter so unexpected seems 

1 This exception, the Epistle to the Asiatic churches, in which special re- 
Ephesians, may be explained by its ferences would be out of place, 
character as » circular letter to the 


for its ob- 
in the 

Fall of Je- 

A.D. 70. 


to have fanned their zeal to a red heat. Even in the churches of 
St Paul's own founding his name and authority were not powerful 
enough to check the encroachments of the Judaizing party. Only 
here and there, in mixed communities, the softening influences of 
daily intercourse must have been felt, and the true spirit of the 
Gospel insensibly diffused, inculcating the truth that ' in Christ was 
neither Jew nor Greek.' 

But the mother Church of Jerusalem, being composed entirely of 
Jewish converts, lacked these valuable lessons of daily experience. 
Moreover the law had claims on a Hebrew of Palestine wholly inde- 
pendent of his religious obligations. To him it was a national insti- 
tution, as well as a divine covenant. Under the Gospel he might 
consider his relations to it in this latter character altered, but as 
embodying the decrees and usages of his country it still demanded 
his allegiance. To be a good Christian he was not required to be 
a bad citizen. On these grounds the more enlightened members of 
the mother church would justify their continued adhesion to the law. 
Nor is there any reason to suppose that St Paul himself took a dif- 
ferent view of their obligations. The Apostles of the Circumcision 
meanwhile, if conscious themselves that the law was fulfilled in the 
Gospel they strove nevertheless by strict conformity to conciliate 
the zealots both within and without the Church, were only acting 
upon St Paul's own maxim, who 'became to the Jews a Jew that he 
might gain the Jews.' Meanwhile they felt that a catastrophe was 
impending, that a deliverance was at hand. Though they were left 
in uncertainty as to the time and manner of this divine event, the 
mysterious warnings of the Lord had placed the fact itself beyond 
a doubt. They might well therefore leave all perplexing questions to 
the solution of time, devoting themselves meanwhile to the practical 
work which lay at their doors. 

And soon the catastrophe came which solved the difficult problem. 
The storm which had long been gathering burst over the devoted 
city. Jerusalem was razed to the ground, and the Temple-worship 
ceased, never again to be revived. The Christians foreseeing the 
calamity had fled before the tempest; and at Pella, a city of the 


Decapolis, in the midst of a population chiefly Gentile the Church 
of the Circumcision was reconstituted. They were warned to flee, 
said the story, by an oracle' : but no special message from heaven 
was needed at this juncture ; the signs of the times, in themselves 
full of warning, interpreted by the light of the Master's prophecies 
plainly foretold the approaching doom. Before the crisis came, they 
had been deprived of the counsel and guidance of the leading Apostles. 
Peter had fallen a martyr at Rome; John had retired to Asia Minor; 
James the Lord's brother was slain not long before the great cata- 
strophe ; and some thought that the horrors of the Flavian war were 
the just vengeance of an offended God for the murder of so holy a 
man'. He was succeeded by his cousin Symeon, the son of Glopas 
and nephew of Joseph. 

Under these circumstances the Church was reformed at Pella. The 

Its history ia the ages following is a hopeless blank* ; and it would at Pella. 

be vain to attempt to fill in the picture from conjecture. We cannot 

doubt however that the consequences of the fall of Jerusalem, direct 

or indirect, were very great. In two points especially its effects Effects 

1 Euseb. H. E. iii. 5 kutA nva hy Celsus (Orig. c. Gels. iv. 52, p. 544, 

XpV'^IMi' rots avTiSi Sod/xots Si' &iroKa- Delarue). The shade of doubt which 

\6\f/eus iicSoBivTa k.t.\. rests on the authorship of this dia- 

s Hegesippus in Euseb. H. E. ii. 23 logue is very slight. Undue weight 

KoX euOds Oveffircuriavis iroXtopKei airois, seems to be attributed to the fact of 

and the paeudo-Josephus also quoted its being quoted anonymously ; e.g. in 

there, Tavra Si <rvnpi^T]Keii 'louSaiou Westcott's Canon, p. 93, Donaldson's 

Kar iKSlKTiaiv 'laKw^ov rod Sixalov k.t.\. Christian Literature etc. v.. p. 58. If 

' The Church of Pella however con- I am right in conjecturing that the 
tributed one author at least to the reference to the banishment of the 
ranks of early Christian literature in Jews was taken from this dialogue, 
Ariston, the writer of an apology in Eusebius himself directly attributes it 
the form of a dialogue between Jason to Ariston. The name of the author 
a Hebrew Christian and Papisous an however is of little consequence, for the 
Alexandrian Jew : see Bouth i. p. 93. work was clearly written by a Hebrew 
One of his works however was written Christian not later than the middle of 
after the Bar-cochba rebellion, to which the second century. Whoever he may 
it alludes (Euseb. H. E. iv. 6) ; and have been, the writer was no Ebionite, 
from the purport of the allusion we for he explained Gen. i. i, 'In Alio fecit 
may infer that it was this very dia- Deus caelum etterram'(Hieron.Q!toe«{. 
logue. The expulsion of the Jews by Hebr. in Qen., in. p. 305, ed. Vail.) ; 
Hadrian was a powerful common-place and the fact is important, as this ia the 
iu the treatises of the Apologists ; see earliest known expression of Hebrew 
e.g. Justin Martyr Apol. i. 47. On Christian doctrine after the canonical 
the other hand it cannot have been writings, except perhaps the Testa- 
written long after, for it was quoted ments of the Twelve Patriarchs. 


of tha -would be powerfully felt, in the change of opinion produced within 
"'"^ ' the Church itseK and in the altered relations between the converted 
and unconverted Jews. 

(i) The (i) The loss of their great leader at this critical moment was 

itrpower compensated to the Church of the Circumcision by the stem teaching 
of facts. In the obliteration of the Temple services they were brought 
at length to see that all other sacrifices were transitory shadows, 
faint emblems of the one Paschal Lamb, slain once and for ever for 
the sins of the world. In the impossibility of observing the Mosaic 
ordinances except in part, they must have been led to question the 
efficacy of the whole. And besides all this, those who had hitherto 
maintained their allegiance to the law purely as a national institu- 
tion were by the overthrow of the nation set free henceforth from 
any such obligation. We need not suppose that these inferences 
were drawn at once or drawn by all alike; but slowly and surely 
the fall of the city must have produced this effect. 

, , J (2) At the same time it, wholly changed their relations with 

5.°^. . their unconverted countrymen. Hitherto they had maintained such 

in anta- close intercourse that in the eyes of the Roman the Christians were 
as one of the many Jewish sects. Henceforth they stood in a posi- 
tion of direct antagonism. The sayings ascribed to the Jewish rabbis 
of this period are charged with the bitterest reproaches of the Chris- 
tians, who are denounced as more dangerous than the heathen, and 
anathemas against the hated sect were introduced into their daily 
prayers'. The probable cause of this change is not far to seek. 
While the catastrophe was still impending, the Christians seem to 
have stood forward and denounced the national sins which had 
brought down the chastisement of God on their country. In the 
traditional notices at least this feature may be discerned. Nor could 
they fail to connect together as cause and efiect the stubborn rejec- 
tion of Messiah and the coming doom which He Himself had fore- 
told. And when at length the blow fell, by withdrawing from the 

' See especially Oraetz Geschichte by this writer, whose account is the 

der Judenrr. p. in sq. The antago- more striking as given from a Jewish 

nisiu between the Jews and Christiana point of view. 
at this period is strongly insisted upon 


city and refusing to share the fate of their countrymen they declared 
by an overt act that henceforth they were strangers, that now at 
length their hopes and interests were separate. 

These altered relations both to the Mosaic law and to the Jewish Difflculties 
people must have worked as leaven in the minds of the Christians gensions. 
of the Circumcision. Questions were asked now, which from their 
nature could not have been asked before. Difficulties hitherto un- 
felt seemed to start up on all sides. The relations of the Church to 
the synagogue, of the Gospel to the law, must now be settled in 
some way or other. Thus diversities of opinion, which had hitherto 
been lulled in a broken and fitful slumber, suddenly woke up into 
dangerous activity. The Apostles, who at an earlier date had 
moderated extreme tendencies and to whom all would have looked 
instinctively for counsel and instruction, had passed away from the 
scene. One personal follower of the Lord however still remained, 
Symeon the aged bishop, who had succeeded James'. At length Symeon 
he tbo was removed. After a long tenure of office he was martyred ciopas. 
at a very advanced age in the ninth year of Trajan. His death, ^'^' ' 
according to Hegesippus, was the signal for a shameless outbreak 
of multitudinous heresies which had hitherto worked underground, 
the Church having as yet preserved her virgin purity undefiled". 
Though this early historian has interwoven many fabulous details 
in his account, there seems no reason to doubt the truth of the 
broad statement, confirmed as it is from another source', that this 
epoch was the birth-time of many forms of dissent in the Church of 
the Circumcision. 

How far these dissensions and diversities of opinion had ripened 
meanwhile into open schism, to what extent the majority still con- 
formed to the Mosaic ordinances (as for instance in the practice of 
circumcision and the observance of the sabbath), we have no data to 
determine. But the work begun by the fall of Jerusalem was only 

1 Hegesippus in Euseb. H. B. iv. 21. apa /t^x/" '■"2" Tire -xfiivav irapBivm ko- 

This writer also mentions grandsons Oapii. koX &Si.d4>$opos e/iewev ^ iKKXijala, 

of Jude the Lord's brother as ruling in dSrj\tp tou axora ipuXevovTuv elain 

over the Churches and surviving till tots tup, el nal rives iirTJpxov, rapa^del- 

the time of Trajan ; S. E. iii. 32. peiv iirixeipovvTay k.t.\. : comp. iv. ti. 

» Euseb. H. E. iii. 32 iiriMyei <is ' See below, p. 325, note 5. 



of Bar- 
A.D. 132 — 

^lia Ca- 


at length completed by the advent of another crisis. By this second 
catastrophe the Church and the law were finally divorced ; and the 
malcontents who had hitherto remained within the pale of the 
Church become declared separatists. 

A revolution of the Jews broke out in all the principal centres of 
the dispersion. The flame thus kindled in the dependencies spread 
later to the mother country. In Palestine a leader started up, 
professing himself to be the long promised Messiah, and in reference 
to the prophecy of Balaam styling himself ' Bar-coohba,' ' the son of 
the Star.' We have the testimony of one who wrote while these 
scenes of bloodshed were still fresh in men's memories, that the 
Christians were the chief sufferers from this rebel chieftain'. Even 
without such testimony this might have been safely inferred. Their 
very existence was a protest against his claims : they must be de- 
nounced and extirpated, if his pretensions were to be made good. 
The cause of Bar-cochba was taken up as the cause of the whole 
Jewish nation, and thus the antagonism between Judaism and Chris- 
tianity was brought to a head. After a desperate struggle the 
rebellion was trampled out and the severest vengeance taken on the 
insurgents. The practice of circumcision and the observance of the 
sabbath^indeed all the distinguishing marks of Judaism — were 
visited with the severest penalties. On the other hand the Chris- 
tians, as the avowed enemies of the rebel chief, seem to have been 
favourably received. On the ruins of Jerusalem Hadrian had built 
his new city .ffllia Capitolina, Though no Jew was admitted within 
sight of its walls, the Christians were allowed to settle there freely'. 
Now for the first time a Gentile bishop was appointed, and the Church 
of Jerusalem ceased to be the Church of the Circumcision'. 

The account of Eusebius seems to imply that long before this 

' Justin Apol. 1. 3t, p. 72 E, hi rif 
vvv yey€i>7i/iiv(f 'lovSai'Kif 7ro\4/i(p Bapxu- 
X^)3os i T^s 'lovdalav diroariaeus ip- 
OTV^Tijs Xpianavovs lUocovs eh nuaplat 
buvist el fiij dpvoivTO 'Itjcrovv rhv XpiffrAv 
Kai pXaff^iiiioTtv, iKiXevev ijriyeaSai. 

' Justin Apol. L 47, p. 84 b, DiaU 
no, p. 337 d; Aiiston of Pella in 
Eueeb. H. E. iy. 6 ; Celsus in Orig. c. 

Celt, viii 69. 

" Sulpioius Severus (H. S. ii. 31) 
speaking of Hadrian's decree says, 
'Quod quidem Ohristianae fidei pro- 
ficiebat, quia turn pene omnes Chris- 
tum Deum sub legis obserratione cre- 
debant ; nimirum id Domino ordinante 
dispositum, ut legis servitus a libertate 
fidei atque eoolesiae tolleretur.' 



disastrous outbreak of the Jews the main part of the Christians reconsti- 

had left their retirement ia Fella and returned to their original 

home. At all events he traces the succession of bishops of Jeru- 
salem in an unbroken line from James the Lord's brother until the 
foundation of the new city'. If -so, we must imagine the Church 
once more scattered by this second catastrophe, and once more re- 
formed when the terror was passed. But the Church of ^lia Capito- 
Una was very diflFerently constituted from the Church of Pella or the 
Church of Jerusalem ; a large proportion of its members at least 
were Gentiles*. Of the Christians of the Circumcision not a few 
doubtless accepted the conqueror's terms, content to live henceforth 

as Gentiles, and settled down in the new city of Hadrian. But Judaizing 

there were others who clung to the law of their forefathers with a 

stubborn grasp which no force of circumstances could loosen : and 

henceforward we read of two distinct sects of Judaizing Christians, 

observing the law with equal rigour but observing it on different 


^ H. E. iii. 31, 3J, iv. 5. Busebius 
seems to narrate all the incidents af- 
fecting the Church of the Circumcision 
during this period, as taking place not 
at PeUa but at Jernsalem. 

2 Euseb. H. E. iv. 6 Trjs airaSi iK- 
xKr/alas i| iBvuv avyKponqdelaris. 

' As early as the middle of the 
seooud century Justin Martyr distin- 
guishes two classes of Judaizers ; those 
who retaining the Mosaic law them- 
selves did not wish to impose it on 
their Gentile brethren, and those who 
insisted upon conformity in all Chris- 
tians alike as a condition of commu- 
nion and a means of salvation (Dial. e. 
Tryph. § 47 ; see SohUemann Clement. 
p. J j3 sq). In the next chapter Justin 
alludes with disapprobation to same 
Jewish converts who held that our 
Lord was a mere man; and it seems 
not unreasonable to connect this opi- 
nion with the second of the two classes 
before mentioned. We thus obtain a 
tolerably clear view of their distinctive 
tenets. But the first direct and defi- 
nite account of both sects is given 
by the fathers of the fourth century 

especially Bpiphanius and Jerome, 
who distinguish them by the respec- 
tive names of 'Nazarenes ' and ' Ebiou- 
ites.' IrensBUS (i. ■26. 2), TertuUian 
(de Praescr. 33), and Hippolytus {Haer. 
vii. 34, p. 257), contemplate only the 
second, whom they call Ebionites. 
The Nazarenes in fact, being for the 
most part orthodox in their creed 
and holding communion with Catholic 
Christians, would not generally be in- 
cluded in the category of heretics : and 
moreover, being few in number and 
hving in an obscure region, they would 
easily escape notice. Origen {c. Cels. v. 
61) mentions two classes of Christians 
who observe the Mosaic law, the one 
holding with the Cathohcs that Jesus 
was born of a Virgin, the other that 
he was conceived like other men ; and 
both these he calls Ebionites. In an- 
other passage he says that both classes 
of Ebionites {"E^ioivam d/Mpirfpoi) re- 
ject St Paul's Epistles (v. 65). If these 
two classes correspond to the 'Naza- 
renes' and 'Ebionites' of Jerome, Ori- 
gen's information would seem to be 
incorrect. On the other hand it is very 



Naza- I- The Nazarenes appear at the close of the fourth century as 

'^®"®^ a small and insignificant sect dwelling beyond the Jordan in Pella 
and the neighbouring places'. Indications of their existence how- 
ever occur in Justin two centuries and a half earlier ; and both their 
locality and their name carry us back to the primitive ages of Jewish 
Christianity. Can we doubt that they were the remnant of the 
fugitive Church, which refused to return from their exile with the 
majority to the now Gentile city, some because they were too indo- 
lent or too satisfied to move, others because the abandonment of the 
law seemed too heavy a price to pay for Roman forbearance ? 
Their The account of their tenets is at all events favourable to this 

inference'. They held themselves bound to the Mosaic ordinances, 
rejecting however all Pharisaic interpretations and additions. Ne- 
vertheless they did not consider the Gentile Christians under the 
same obligations or refuse to hold communion with them; and in 
the like spirit, in this distinguished from all other Judaizing sec- 
tarians, they fully recognised the work and mission of St Paul'. It 
is stated moreover that they mourned over the unbelief of their 
fellow-countrymen, praying for and looking forward to the time 

possible that he entirely overlooks the oovery of the work of Hippolytus has 

Nazarenes and alludes to some differ- since thrown fresh light on the Essene 

enees of opinion among the Ebionites Ebionites. The portion of Eitsohl's 

properly so called ; but in this case it is work (p. 152 sq) relating to these sects 

not easy to identify his two classes with should be consulted, 
the Pharisaic and Essene Ebionites of ^ Epiphan. Haer. xxix. 7 ; oomp. 

whom I shall have to speak later. Euse- Hieron. de Vir. III. § 3. 
bins, who also describes two classes of ^ See the account in Schliemann, 

Ebionites (£r.£. iii. 27), seems to have p. 445 sq, with the authorities there 

taken his account wholly from Irenseus given and compare Eitschl p. 152 sq. 
and Origen. If, as appears probable, ' Hieron, in Is. ix. i (iv. p. 130), 

both names 'Nazarenes' and 'Ebiou- 'Nazaraei...hunc locum ita explanare 

ites ' were originally applied to the conautur : Adveniente Christo et prae- 

whole body of Jewish Christians indis- dicatione illius ooruscante prima terra 

criminately, the confusion of Origen Zabulon et terra Nephthali scribarum 

and others is easily explained. In re- et Fharisaeorum est erroribus liberata 

cent times, since Gieseler published hia et gravissimum traditionum Judaica- 

treatise Ueber die Nazarder und EMoni- rum jugum excussit de cervicibus suis. 

ten (Staudlin u. Tzschirner Archiv fUr Postea autem per evangelimn apostoU 

Kirehengeich. iv. p. 279 sq, 1819), the Pauli, qui novissimus apostolorum 

distinction has been generally recog- omnium fuit, ingravata est, id est, 

nised. A succinct and good account of multiplicata praedicatio ; et in terml- 

these sects of Judaizers will be found in nos gentium et viam universi maris 

Schliemann Clement, p. 449 sq, where Christi evangelium splenduit.' 
the authorities are given ; but the dis- 


when they too should be brought to confess Christ. Their doc- 
trine of the person of Christ has been variously represented ; but this 
seems at all events clear that, if it fell short of the Catholic standard, 
it rose above the level of other Judaic sects. The fierce and in- 
discriminate verdict of Epiphanius indeed pronounces these Naza- 
renes 'Jews and nothing else": but his contemporary Jerome, himself 
no lenient judge of heresy, whose opinion was founded on personal 
intercourse, regards them more favourably. In his eyes they seem 
to be separated from the creeds and usages of Catholic Christendom 
chiefly by their retention of the Mosaic law. 

Thus they were distinguished from other Judaizing sects by a Their rela- 
loftier conception of the person of Christ and by a frank recognition ivpelve. 
of the liberty of the Gentile Churches and the commission of the 
Gentile Apostle. These distinguishing features may be traced to the 
lingering influence of the teaching of the Apostles of the Circumcision. 
To the example of these same Apostles also they might have appealed 
in defending their rigid observance of the Mosaic law. But herein, 
while copying the letter, they did not copy the spirit of their model; 
for they took no account of altered circumstances. 

Of this type of belief, if not of this very Nazarene sect, an early Testa- 
document still extant furnishes an example. The book called the the Twelve 
'Testaments of the twelve Patriarchs" was certainly written after ^^ 

1 Haer. xxx. 9. ed against Kayser. The whole tone 

' It is printed in Grabe's Spicil. 88. and colouring of the book however 

Pair. I. p. 145 sq (ed. 2, 1700), and in seem to show very plainly that the 

Fabricius Cod. Pseudepigr. Vet. Test. 1. writer was a Jewish Christian, and the 

P- 519 sq (ed. a, 1722), and has re- opposite view would probably never 

oently been edited with an iutrodue- have been entertained but for the pre- 

toiy essay by Sinker (Cambridge, 1869). conceived theory that a believer of the 

Eitsehl in Ids first edition had assigned Cireumeision could not have written 

this work to a writer of the Pauline so liberally of the Gentile Christians 

school. His opinion was controverted and so honorably of St Paul. Some 

by Kayser in the 8trassburg. Beitr. z. writers again who have maintained 

den Theol. Wissemeh.iu.p. 107(1851), the Judaic authorship (Kayser for in- 

and with characteristic honesty he stance, whose treatise I only know at 

withdrew it in his second edition, at- second hand) have got over this as- 

tributing the work to a Nazarene an- sumed difficulty by rejecting certain 

thor (p. 172 sq). Meanwhile Bitschl's passages as interpolations. On the 

first view had been adopted in a mo- other hand Ewald pronounces it 'mere 

nograph by Vorstman Diiquis. de Test. folly to assert that Senj. 0. 11 (the 

mi. Pair. (Boterod. 1857), and defend- prophecy about St Paul) was a later 




the capture of Jerusalem by Titus and probably before the rebellion 
of Bar-coehba, but may be later". With some alien features, perhaps 
stamped upon it by the individual writer, it exhibits generally 
the characteristics of this Nazarene sect. In this respect at. least 
it offers a remarkable parallel, that to a strong Israelite feeling it 
unites the fullest recognition of the Gentile Churches. Our Lord is 
represented as the renovator of the law^ : the imagery and illustra- 
tions are all Hebrew : certain virtues are strongly commended and 
certain vices strongly denounced by a Hebrew standard: many 
incidents in the lives of the patriarchs are derived from some un- 
known legendary Hebrew source ^ Nay more; the sympathies of 
the writer are not only Judaic but Levitical. The Messiah is repre- 
sented as a descendant not of Judah only but of Levi also ; thus he 
is high priest as well as king* ; but his priestly office is higher than 
his kingly, as Levi is greater than Judah' : the dying patriarchs one 

addition to the work ' {Gesch. d. Volks 
Isr. vn. p. 329), and certainly such 
arbitrary assumptions would render 
criticism hopeless. 

Whether Eitschl is right or not in 
supposing that the author was actuaDy 
a Nazarene, it is difficult and not very 
important to decide. The really im- 
portant feature in the work is the com- 
plexion of the opinions. I do not think 
however that the mere fact of its having 
been written in Greek proves the au- 
thor to have been a Hellenist (Ewald 

*• P- 333)- 

' The foUowiug dates have been 
assigned to it by recent critics; a.d. 
100-135 (Dorner), 100-120 (Wieseler), 
'33-163 (Eayser), 100-153 (Nitzsch, 
Liioke), 117-193 (Gieseler), 100-200 
(Ease), about 150 (Eeuss), 90-no (B- 
wald). These dates except the last are 
taken from Yorstman p. 19 sq, who 
himself places it soon after the fall of 
Jerusalem (a.d. 70). The frequent re- 
ferences to this event fix the earliest 
possible date, while the absence of any 
allusion to the rebellion of Bar-coohba 
seems to show that it was written 
before that time. It is directly named 
by Origeu {Horn, in Jos. xv. 6), and 

probably was known to Tfcrtullian (e. 
Marc. V. i, Scorpiace 13), and (as I be- 
lieve) even earlier to Irenffius {Fragm. 
17, p. 836 sq Stieren). 

^ Levi 10 avaKaivoiroioOvra rbv voiuai 
hi Svvdfiei i\j>l(rTOV. ' The law of God, 
the law of the Lord,' are constant 
phrases with this writer ; Levi 13, 19, 
Judas 18, 26, Issach. 5, Zabul. 10, Dan 
6, Gad 3, Aser 2, 6, 7, Joseph u, Benj. 
10 : see also Nepht. 8. His language in 
this respect is formed on the model of 
the Epistle of St James, as Ewald re- 
marks (p. 329). Thus the Law of God 
with him ' is one with the revealed will 
of God, and he never therefore under- 
stands it in the narrow sense of a Jew 
or even of an Ebionite.' 

8 See Ewald Gesch. i. p. 490. 

* Simeon 5, 7, Issach. 5, Dan 5, 
Nepht. 6, 8, Gad 8, Joseph 19, besides 
the passages referred to in the next 

^ Reuben 6 irp6s tov Aeut iyylaare... 
adrbs ycLp eiiXoyriffei rbv ^laparjK koX tov 
'loiiSai', Judas 21 koX vvv r^Kvafiov dya- 
irrjffaTe rbv Aevt...iiwl yb,p eSitiKe Kiipios 
T^c ^aaCKdav KaKelvif rfiv UpaTelcw xai 
iTT^afe rriv paaiXeiav rj lepuiiTivj) • i/iol 
l&iiiKe rd iirl t^s y^s KaKeivip rd, i* 


after another enjoin obedience to Levi : to the Testament of Levi 

are consigned the most important prophecies of all : the character of 

Levi is justified and partially cleansed of the stain which in the Old 

Testament narrative attaches to it'. Yet notwithstanding all this, 

the admission of the Gentiles into the privileges of the covenant united 

is a constant theme of thanksgiving with the writer, who mourns liberal 

over the falling away of the Jews but looks forward to their final principles. 

restitution. And into the mouth of the dying Benjamin he puts 

a prophecy foretelling an illustrious descendant who is to ' arise in 

after days, beloved of the Lord, listening to His voice, enlightening 

all the GentUes with new knowledge' ; who is to be 'in the synagogues 

of the Gentiles until the completion of the ages, and among their 

rulers as a musical strain in the mouth of all'; who shall ' be written 

in the holy books, he and his work and his word, and shall be the 

elect of God for eve^^' 

2. But besides these Nazarenes, there were other Judaizing Ebionites. 
sects, narrow and uncompromising, to whose principles or prejudices 
language such as I have just quoted would be most abhorrent. 

The Ebionites were a much larger and more important body Their 
than the Nazarenes. They were not confined to the neighbourhood 
of Pella or even to Palestine and the surrounding countries, but were 
found in Home and probably also in all the great centres of the 
dispersion*. Not content with observing the Mosaic ordinances 
themselves, they maintained that the law was binding on all Chris- 
tians alike, and regarded Gentile believers as impure because they 
refused to conform. As a necessary consequence they rejected the 
authority and the writings of St Paul, branding him as an apostate 
and pursuing his memory with bitter reproaches. In their theology 
also they were far removed from the Catholic Church, holding our 

oipcwois, ib. 35 Aeut irpuros, dc&repos tation, Levi 6 e(j>Biure Si ij dpryii Kvplov 

iyib, Nepht. 5 Aevt kKp&Triae nv ijXioy iw' airois els riXos, from i Thess. ii. 16. 

Koi 'loidas ipBduras iirlaae ttjv ctKivriv, On the whole however the language in 

^ Levi 6, 7. the moral and didactic portions takes 

' Benj. II. Besides this prophecy its colour from the Epistle of St James, 

the work presents several coincidences and in the prophetic and apoca^ptic 

of language with St Paul (see Vorst- from the Eevelation of St John, 

man p. 115 sq), and at least one quo- * Epiphan. Haer. xxx. 18. 

GAL. 21 



to the 
of the 

type of 


from the 

Lord to be a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary, who was 
justified, as any of themselves might be justified, by his rigorous 
performance of the law'. 

If the Nazarenes might have claimed some affinity to the 
Apostles of the Circumcision, the Ebionites were the direct spiritual 
descendants of those false brethren, the Judaizers of the apostolic 
age, who first disturbed the peace of the Antiochene Church and then 
dogged St Paul's footsteps from city to city, everywhere thwarting 
his efforts and undermining his authority. If Ebionism was not 
primitive Christianity, neither was it a creation of the second century. 
As an organization, a distinct sect, it first made itself known, we 
may suppose, in the reign of Trajan : but as a sentiment, it had 
been harboured within the Church from the very earliest days. 
Moderated by the personal influence of the Apostles, soothed by the 
general practice of their church, not yet forced into declaring 
themselves by the turn of events, though scarcely tolerant of others 
these Judaizers were tolerated for a time themselves. The beginning 
of the second century was a winnowing season in the Church of the 

The form of Ebionism", which is most prominent in early writers 
and which I have hitherto had in view, is purely Pharisaic ; but we 
meet also with another type, agreeing with the former up to a certain 
point but introducing at the same time a new element, half ascetic, 
half mystical. 

This foreign element was probably due to Essene influences. The 
doctrines of the Christian school bear so close a resemblance to the 

1 For the opinions of these Ebion- 
ites see the references in ^chliemann 
p. 481 sq, and add Hippol. Haer. vii. 
3 el yip Kal irep&s rts vewoc^Ka t4 iv 
vofuf TrpodTeTayii.iva, 5" °^ iKelfos 6 
5/M(7Tos ' 8^vaadcu 5^ koX iavroits ofioius 
iroiijirai'Tas Xpurrois yeviaBaf Kal y&p 
Kal airbv ifuilus itiBpimrov elvai iraciv 

'' The following opinions were shared 
by all Ebionites alike: (1) The recog- 
nition of Jesus as Messiah; (2) The 
denial of His divinity; (3) The uni- 
versal obligation of the law; (4) The 

rejection and hatred of St Paul. Their 
differences consisted in (i) Their view 
of what constituted the law, and (j) 
Their conception of the Person of 
Christ ; e.g. whether He was born of 
a Virgin or in the course of nature; 
what supernatural endowments He 
had and at what time they were be- 
stowed on Him, whether at His birth 
or at His baptism, etc. 

The Ebionites of earlier writers, as 
Irenaeus and Hippolytus, belong to the 
Pharisaic type; while those of Epipha- 
niuB are strongly Essene. 


characteristic features of the Jewish sect as to place their parentage 
almost beyond a doubt ' : and moreover the head-quarters of these 
heretics — ^the countries bordering on the Dead Sea — coincide roughly 
with the head-quarters of their prototype. This view however does 
not exclude the working of other influences more directly Gnostic 
or Oriental : and as this type of Ebionism seems to have passed 
through different phases at different times, and indeed to have com- 
prehended several species at the same time, such modifications ought 
probably to be attributed to forces external to Judaism. Having 
regard then to its probable origin as well as to its typical character, 
we can hardly do wrong in adopting the name JEssene or Gnostic 
Ebionism to distinguish it from the common type, Fhariaaic Ebion- 
ism or Ebionism proper. 

If Pharisaic Ebionism was a disease inherent in the Church of 
the Circumcision from the first, Essene Ebionism seems to have been Its later 
a later infection caught by external contact, in the Palestinian 
Church at all events we see no symptoms of it during the apostolic 
age. It is a probable conjecture, that after the destruction of 
Jerusalem the fugitive Christians, living in their retirement in the 
neighbourhood of the Essene settlements, received large accessions 
to their numbers from this sect, which thus inoculated the Church 
with its peculiar views". It is at least worthy of notice, that in 
a religious work emanating from this school of Ebionites the ' true 
Gospel' is reported to have been first propagated 'after the de- 
struction of the holy place'.' 

This younger form of Judaic Christianity seems soon to have 
eclipsed the elder. In the account of Ebionism given by Epiphanius the 
Pharisaic characteristics are almost entirely absorbed in the Essene. 

1 See espeoially the careful investi- on the fulfilment of these prophecies: 
gation of Eitsohl p. 204 sq. oomp. also Clem. Becogn. i. 37 (especi- 

2 Eitsohl (p. 223), who adopts this ally in the Syriao). 

view, suggests that this sect, which had ' Clem. Hom. ii. 17 nerh Ka0aipe<rtv 

stood aloof from the temple-worship rod &ylov towou eiayyiXiov i\ri6is Kp\i(pa 

and abhorred sacrifices, would be led to 6iaTefi4>Bijvcu els iiravopdanv Twr iao- 

welcome Christ as the true prophet, lUvav aXpiaewv : comp. Clem. Becogn. 

when they saw the fulfilment of His i. 37, 64, iii. 61 (in the Syriao, as be- 

prediotions against the temple. In low, p. 330, note i). See also Epiphaiu 

Clem. Ham. iii. 15 great stress is laid Haer. xxx. 2. 

21 — 2 


but This prominence is probably due in some measure to their greater 

Serary literary capacity, a remarkable feature doubtless derived from the 
activity, speculative tendencies and studious habits of the Jewish sect' to 
■which they traced their parentage. Besides the Clementine writings 
which we possess whole, and the book of Elchasai of which a few 
fragmentary notices are preserved, a vast number of works which, 
though no longer extant, have yet moulded the traditions of the 
early Church, emanated from these Christian Essenes. Hence doubt- 
less are derived the ascetic portraits of James the Lord's brother in 
Hegesippus and of Matthew the Apostle in Clement of Alexandria", 
to which the account of St Peter in the extant Clementines presents 
a close parallel*. 

and zeal- And with greater literary activity they seem also to have united 

0U8 prose- .. imi-**ii i- 

lytism. greater missionary zeal. To this spirit of proselytism we owe much 

important information relating to the tenets of the sect. 

One of their missionaries early in the third century brought to 

Rome a sacred book bearing the name of Elchasai or Elxai, whence 

also the sect were called Elchasaites. This book fell into the hands 

Book of of Hippolytus the writer on heresies*, from whom our knowledge of 
£j loli&s Sj i 

it is chiefly derived. It professed to have been obtained from the 

Seres, a Parthian tribe, and to contain a revelation which had been 
first made in the third year of Trajan (a.d. ioo). These Seres hold 
the same place in the fictions of Essene Ebionism, as the Hyperbo- 
reans in Greek legend : they are a mythical race, perfectly pure and 
therefore perfectly happy, long-lived and free from pain, scrupulous 
in the performance of all ceremonial rites and thus exempt from the 
penalties attaching to their neglect'. Elchasai, an Aramaic word 

' Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 6. katholiscTu Eirche. Hilgenfeld has 

" Paedag.ii.! (p. 174 Potter), where edited the fragments of the book of 

St Matthew is said to have lived on Elxai in his Novum Testamentum extra 

soeds, berries, and herbs, abstaining Canonem Receptum, faso. iii. p. 153 sq; 

from animal food. See Eitsohl p. 224. (1866). The use made of it by Epi- 

' Clem. Horn. xii. 6, oomp. viii. 15, phanius is investigated by Lipsius, 

XV. 7. Quellenkritik des Epiphan. p. I43 sq. 

^ Haer. ix. 13. See a valuable ' CUm. Recogn. viii. 48, ix. 19. 

paper on the Elchasaites by Bitschl in Even in classical writers the Seres or 

Niedner's Zeitschrift iv. p. 573 sq Chinese are invested with something 

(1S53), ''he substance of which is given of an ideal character: e.g. Plin. vi. 24, 

also in the second edition of his Alt- Strabo xv. p. 701, Mela iii. 7. But in 


signifying the ' hidden power ',' seems to be the name of the divine 
messenger who communicated the revelation, and probably the title 
of the book itself : Hippolytus understands it of the person who 
received the revelation, the founder of the sect. 'Elchasai,' adds this 
father, ' delivered it to a certain person called Sobiai.' Here again 
he was led astray by his ignorance of Aramaic : Sobiai is not the 
name of an individual but signifies 'the sworn members',' to whom 
alone the revelation was to be communicated and who perhaps, 
like their Essene prototypes', took an oath to divulge it only to the 
brotherhood. I need not follow this strange but instructive notice 
farther. Whether this was the sacred book of the whole sect or of a 
part only, whether the name Elchasaism is coextensive with Essene 
Ebionism or not, it is unimportant for my purpose to enquire. The Its pre- 
pretended era of this revelation is of more consequence. Whether date, 
the book itself was really as early as the reign of Trajan or whether 
the date was part of the dramatic fiction, it is impossible to decide*. 
Even in the latter case, it will still show that according to their own 
tradition this epoch marked some striking development in the 
opinions or history of the sect ; and the date given corresponds, it 
will be remembered, very nearly with the epoch mentioned by He- 
gesippus as the birthtime of a numerous brood of heresies'. 

the passage which most strikingly il- saite missionary Alcibiades made a 

lustrates this fact (Geogr. Graec. Min. mystery of his teaching, forbidding it 

u. p. 514, ed. Miiller), the name dis- to be divulged except to the faithful; 

appears when the text is correctly read see Eitschl 1. c. p. 589. Ewald however 

('se regentes,' and not 'Serae gentes'). {Gesch. vii. p. 159) derives Sobiai from 

^ 'Dab'n- Epiphanius correctly ex- ..^-i - ie. ^airTurral. See also 

plains it Siva/Ms KeKaXv/n/iii'Ti, Haer, —J 

xix. 2. See Eitschl 1. c. p. 581, and Chwolson die Ssabier etc. i. p. iji. 
Altkath. Kirche p. 245. Other ex- * Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 7. 
planations of the word, given in Hil- ' Hilgenfeld (p. xxi) maintains the 
genfeld 1. c. p. 156, in M. Nicolas Euara- early date very positively against 
giles Apocryphes p. 108 (1866), and by Bitsohl. Lipsius (1. c.) will not pro- 
Geiger Zeitsch. der Deutsch. Morgenl. nounce an opinion. 
Gehellseh. xviii. p. 824 (1864), do not ^ See above, p. 315 sq. In the pas- 
recommend themselves. The name is sage there quoted Hegesippus speaks of 
differently written in Greek, HXxao-oi, these heresies ' as living underground, 
B\Ke(ro4 and HX^ai. The first, which burrowing (^wXeuii'Tui')' until the reign 
Is most correct, is found in Hippolytus of Trajan. This agrees with the state- 
who had seen the book. ment in the Homilies (ii. 17) already 

" From