Skip to main content

Full text of "Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians"

See other formats 




is 
C8 


a RAT Wane 


j 3937109 S,1aVHOIW “1S JO ALISHS 








Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2008 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 


https://archive.org/details/saintpaulepistleOOlighuoft 








WORKS BY BISHOP LIGHTFOOT. 
NOTES ON EPISTLES OF ST PAUL FROM UN- 
PUBLISHED COMMENTARIES. 8vo. 12s. 


PIAL Vols OF "CERTAIN OF ST PAUL'S EPISTLES. 


- Reprinted from Bishop LIGHTFOOT’s Commentaries. With Preface by the 
BisHoPp OF DURHAM. Fcap. 8vo. Is. net. 


Pa PAWi Ss EeIStLE TO THE GALATIANS. A 
Revised Text, with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations. 8vo. 12s. 
eeePAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE. PHILIPPIANS. A 


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


SPePAUL’S EPISTLES TO THE COLOSSIANS AND 
TO PHILEMON. A Revised Text, with Introductions, Notes, and Disser- 
tations. 8vo. 125. 


DISSERTATIONS ON THE APOSTOLIC AGE. Re- 
printed from the editions of St Paul’s Epistles. 8vo. 145. 

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. Reprinted from Dzsser- 
tations on the Apostolic Age. Crown 8vo. 35. net. 


THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. Parti. ST CLEMENT 
OF ROME. A Revised Text, with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and 
Translations. 2 vols. 8vo. 325. 


THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. ParTII. STIGNATIUS, 
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. 16s. 


ESSAYS ON THE WORK ENTITLED “SUPER- 
NATURAL RELIGION.” §8vo. 6s. net. 


ON A FRESH REVISION OF THE ENGLISH NEW 
TESTAMENT. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 


LEADERS IN THE NORTHERN CHURCH. Durham 


Sermons. Crown 8vo. 6s. 


ORDINATION ADDRESSES AND COUNSELS TO 
CLERGY. Crown 8vo. 6s. 


CAMBRIDGE SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
SERMONS PREACHED IN ST PAUL’S. Crown 8vo. 
6s. 


SERMONS PREACHED ON SPECIAL OCCASIONS. 


Crown 8vo. 6s. 


BIBLICAL BaSAYS:) 8vo. 12s. 
Mis TORICA® ESSAYS. Globe 8vo. 4s. net. 
[Eversley Sertes. 


INDEX OF NOTEWORTHY WORDS AND PHRASES 
FOUND IN THE CLEMENTINE WRITINGS, commonly called the 
Homilies of Clement. $8vo. 5s. 


A CHARGE, delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of 


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


BISHOP LIGHTFOOT. Reprinted from The Quarterly 


Review. With a prefatory note by the BisHop OF DURHAM. With Portrait. 
Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. 


MACMILLAN AND CO., Lrp., LONDON. 


WORKS BY BISHOP WESTCOTT. 


A GENERAL SURVEY OF THE HISTORY OF THE CANON OF 


THE cel TESTAMENT DURING THE FIRST FOUR CENTURIES. Crown 
8vo. ros. 6d. 


THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH: A popular account of the Collec- 
tion and Reception of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Churches. Pott 8vo. 4s. 6d. 


INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 


Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d. 


THE GOSPEL OF THE RESURRECTION. Thoughts on its Rela- 


tion to Reason and History. Crown 8vo. 6s. 


THE REVELATION OF THE RISEN LORD. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
THE HISTORIC FAITH: Short Lectures on the Apostles’ Creed. 


Crown 8vo, 6s. Also 8vo. sewed. 6d. 


THE REVELATION OF THE FATHER. Short Lectures on the 
Titles of the Lord in the Gospel of St John. Crown 8vo. 6s. 


CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR and other Sermons. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
SOME THOUGHTS FROM THE ORDINAL. Crown 8vo. Is. 6d. 
SOCIAL ASPECTS OF CHRISTIANITY. Crown 8vo. 6s. 

GIFTS FOR MINISTRY. Addresses to Candidates for Ordination. 


Crown 8ve. 1s. 6d. 


THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. The Greek Text, with Notes 
and Essays. 8vo. 14s. 


ST PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. The Greek Text, 
with Notes and Addenda. §8vo. ros. 6d, ; 


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


Essays. 8vo. 12s. 6d. 


THE INCARNATION AND COMMON LIFE. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
CHRISTIAN ASPECTS OF LIFE. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
THE GOSPEL OF LIFE: Thoughts introductory to the Study of 


Christian Doctrine. Crown 8vo. 6s. Also 8vo. sewed. 6d. 


ESSAYS—THE HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN THE 
WEST. Globe 8vo. 4s. net. [Zversley Series. 


THE TWO EMPIRES: THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD. 
Crown 8vo. 6s. 


ON SOME POINTS IN THE RELIGIOUS OFFICE OF THE 
UNIVERSITIES. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d. 


THOUGHTS ON REVELATION AND LIFE. Being Selections 


from the Writings of Bishop Westcott. Arranged and Edited by Rev. STEPHEN PHILLIPs, 
Crown 8vo. 6s, 


THE OBLIGATIONS OF EMPIRE. A Sermon. Crown 8vo. 3d. net. 
LESSONS FROM WORK. Crown 8vo. 6s. 

ADDRESS TO MINERS, July, 1901. Crown 8vo. Sewed. 6d. 
WORDS OF FAITH AND HOPE. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d. 
CHRISTIAN SOCIAL UNION ADDRESSES. Crown 8vo. Is. net. 
COMMON PRAYERS FOR FAMILY USE. Crown 8vo. Is. net. 
VILLAGE SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 6s. 

PETERBOROUGH SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 6s. 


GENERAL VIEW OF THE HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH 
BIBLE. Revised by WiLL1AM ALDIS WRIGHT. 8vo. 12s. 6d. 


LIFE AND LETTERS OF THE RT REV. BISHOP WESTCOPT, 


By his son, the Rev. ARTHUR WestcoTT. With Portraits and other Illustrations. 2 vols, 
Extra crown 8vo. 17s. net. Abridged Edition. Extra crown 8vo. 8s. 6d. net, 


MACMILLAN AND CO., Lrp., LONDON. 


THE EPISTLES OF ST PAUL. 


IL. 
THE THIRD APOSTOLIC JOURNEY. 


a: 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 





SS 5 SZ 


pan PAUL'S 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 


A REVISED TEXT 
WITH 


INTRODUCTION, NOTES, AND DISSERTATIONS 


BY THE LATE 


J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D. 


BISHOP OF DURHAM, 
HONORARY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGH 


MACMILLAN AND CO. LIMITED 
ST MARTIN’S STREET, LONDON 
1914 


MimHTaf Moy FiNecbe KAaBdoc KAO) ypicToy. 


Tladdos yevowevos wéyioros bro-ypapmos. 
CLEMENT. 


Ovx ds Tlaidos Giardocopas wiv: éxelvos dmoorodcs, 
éy xaraxptros* éxeivos édevPepos, éyu 5é wéxpt viv Soidos. 
Ianarivs. 


Otre éy® ovre ddXos Guoros éuol Ivara KaTaKxoNovbs) Tas 
Ty copla tod paxaplov Kal évdofou LaXov. 
PouycaRe. 


First Edition printed 1865, Second 1866, Third 1869, 
Fourth 1874, Fifth 1876, Sixth 1880, Seventh 1881, Eighth 1834, 
Ninth 1887, Tenth 1890, Reprinted 1892, 1896, 
TG00, 1902, 1905, 1910, IOT 4. 


TO 


THE RIGHT REV. E. W. BENSON, D:D., 


LORD BISHOP OF TRURO, 


IN AFFECTIONATE AND GRATEFUL RECOGNITION 
OF 


A LONG, CLOSE, AND UNBROKEN FRIENDSHIP. 





Preface to the First Edition. 


hice 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-known 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 


1 His text of this epistle is given in Bentleii Critica Sacra, p. 94 8q., edited 
by the Rev. A. A. Ellis. 


Vill Preface to the First Edition. 


out of very imperfect materials, and Lachmann only professed 
to give results which were approximate and tentative. Of the 
serviees 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, 
T 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 


1 The part containing the Epistle to the Galatians has since appeared 
(1869). 


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 


= 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 Tiibingen 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, Schottgen, 
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 Dindorf’s 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. 


1 The references to Winer have since been altered and adapted to Moulton’s 
Translation, Edinburgh, 187o. 


Preface to the First Ldition. 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 Tiibingen 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 sach 
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. 


Trinity CoLiEcs, 
February 18, 1863. 


CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTION. PaGE 
Peel he. GGlalian “People. <5 vescatsevscewucacaessconseneseute I—17 
ih ea CHURCHES Of GAlitea 33.5 .5.0ecshc des oeack.eeaesne 18—35 
BETS ihe. Dike Of the BPAstle:« bc cceusssctowuccneesdoacsoantess 36—56 
WV Genumeness of the Tprstle ss. $..063sc0ccnecaecsvdnees 57—62 
V. Character and Contents of the Epistie ............60 63—68 


TEXT AND NOTES. 


Th, Tia BU Bat en ose cee er OSE ROP DEC Hace cee aaa er ska sen oi mAs Ld ae 71—86 
St Pauls sojotrn: 10. Arabia o..ss..sccccsicscsssinacectene 87—90 
St Pauls first visit to Jerusalem ..........0.ccccccecceee QI, 92 
The name and office of an Apostle ...........c0cec.00s 92—I0I 
Ml TE ee 5 og RIE ara he MYR La Sd nae 2a Suu cededa paeeaws 102— 120 
Wersous recdengs VT. 5 e222 20.08. cecducaloaeevasceuseesess= I2I—123 
The later visit of St Paul to Jerusalem ..........6064. 123—128 
Patristic accounts of the coilision at Antioch ......... 128— 132 
RRA EI BOON se ee etek oe ded gon v coves coves ELS Yeae obey aie 133—-I51 
The interpretation of Deut, xxi. 23 ....1..-ccsesseeenees 152—I154 
Demonia Genorimng Mate) is cccecesdscnscsaccccosessees 154—158 


DEN SAGE OF ADTOROMG oe cisawssaa0kteess su vs dadnvasdteeane! 158—164 


Xiv Contents. 


PAGE 

TVs EV id os ae sus sc vee ce an ce eee annies tteste cesses blesloae stein meunraleasiaers 165 —185 
St Paul's infirmity in the flesh \...0..0..0.c.scsccessveee 186—191 

TU CANLOUS TEMUINGS 1% IVoeZEl os. 500.000 oe sereorenmeoe 192, 193 

The Meaning Of LAGEM TAN. 25 ec s-Beenvncesose<apens 193 —198 
Philo’s Allegory of Hagar and Sarah .........0.c00000 198—200 

The Varwous TeOdiNgs: Ih Vo. 1 .....-..cccesneacaccvorenrsss 200—202 

MeO Vil Tus cots date aae eerie aa lesan osaweban Gakciieslseucensemmeenes 203—226 
Patristic Commentaries on this Hpisile .......cc1eeceeee 227—236 

DISSERTATIONS. 

I. Were the Galatians Celts or Teutons? .............00005 239—251 
UD Phe sBreehren say Ceee LOT 5... 05ctsinas oso scesse vassaeesciares 252—291 
TLS CME UU ILE MITE are ree nce the weanescs nner eeepenCe a 292—374 


BBY OD. CR pes te See Sa I Ona RNA or enar eR oop ene joboacua: 375—384 


THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 


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


tians an 


thrown for the first time among an alien people differing 2750 race 


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 Colosse. 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 
GAL. i 


The 
names 
Celta, Ga- 
late, and 
Galli. 


THE GALATIAN PEOPLE 


of some questions of interest, which start up in connexion with 
this epistle. 

The great subdivision of the human family which at the 
dawn of European history occupied a large portion of the 
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, 
Celte, Galate, and Galli’. Of these, Celtw, which is the most 
ancient, being found in the earliest Greek historians Hecatzeus 
and Herodotus’, was probably introduced into the Greek 
language by the colonists of Marseilles*, who were first brought 
in contact with this race. The term (alate is of late intro- 
duction, occurring first in Timeus, a writer of the third 
century Bc.“ 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 


1 On these terms see Diefenbach 
Celtica 11. p. 6 sq., Ukert Geogr. der 


ference from the confused notices in 
ancient writers. The most important 


Griech. u. Rim. Th. 11. Abth. 2, p. 183 
sq., Zeuss die Deutschen u. die Nach- 
barstimme p. 6 sq., Thierry Histoire des 
Gaulois 1. p. 28. 

2 Hecat. Fragm. 19, 21, 22, ed. Miil- 
ler; Herod. ii. 33, iv. 49. Both forms 
KeAroi and KéArax oceur. 

3 Diod. v. 32, quoted in note 5. 

4 Timeus Fragm. 37, ed. Miiller. 
Pausanias says (i. 3. 5) dyé dé wore ad- 
Tovs KanetoOa Tardras étevixnoe’ Ked- 
Tol yap KaTd Te odGs TO apxatoy xa 
TapaTois aAAos dvoudtovro. See also the 
passages in Diefenbach Celt. 11. p. 8. 

> This seems the most probable in- 


passage is Diod. v. 32, rods yap bwép 
MaccaNlav karoxotyras év TH pecoyely 
Kal rods mapa Tas “ANrrews ere 6¢ Tods Emi 
7a0e Tov Ilupnvalwv dpdv KedrToods dvo- 
wdgovor’ Tods 6’ brép radbrys THs Keh- 
Tikhs els Ta mpos vérov vevorvra pépn, 
mapa TE TOY wKeavov Kal TO‘ Epxdvior pos 
Kabidpupévous kal mdvras Tovs éffs wexpe 
THs ZKvbias, Tadkatas mpocaryopevoucr 
x.7.r. See also Strabo iv. p. 189, and 
other passages cited in Ukert um. 2, 
p- 197 8q., Diefenbach Celt. 11. p. 10 
sq. At all events it seems certain that 
the Gauls in the neighbourhood of Mar- 
seilles called themselves Celte. 


THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 3 


this people Gall. Whether this word exhibits the same root 

as Celtz and Galate, 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 Le. 
after the Christian era they prefer Galate, whether speaking eT. 


of the people of Gaul properly so called or of the Asiatic 


colony’. 


1 See Zeuss Gramm. Celt. p. 758. 

2 Owing to the bearing of this fact, 
which has not been sufficiently noticed, 
on such passages as 2 Tim. iv. to, I 
have thought it worth while to collect 
the following particulars. (1) Before 
the Christian era, and for two centuries 
afterwards, the form Galatia (Galatz) is 
almostuniversally used by Greek writer's 
to the exclusion of Gallia (Galli), when 
they do not employ Celtice (Celtz). It 
occursonthe Monumentum Ancyranum 
{Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 111. 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 beenin use. It 
is currentin Polybius, Diodorus, Strabo, 
Josephus, Plutarch, Appian, Pausanias, 
and Dion Cassius. It appears also in 
Athen. p. 333 D, Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. 
p- 359 (Potter), and Origen c. Cels. p. 
335 B. Even Alian (Nat. An. xvii. 19, 
referring however to an earlier writer) 
when speaking of the Asiatic people is 
obliged to distinguish them as I'a\dras 
rovs éwovs. On the other hand St Basil 
{Op. 1. p. 28, Garnier) describes the 
European Gauls as rods éoreplous Dadd- 
In Boeckh C. I. no. 
9764 the Asiatic country is called wxpa 
Tadaria, ‘Little Gaul.’ (2) The first in- 
stance of Gallia (Galli) which I have 
found in any Greek author is in Epicte- 
tus (or rather Arrian), Dissert. li. 20. 17, 
@omep Tods Taddovds 7 wavia Kal 6 olvos 
{probably not before a.D. 100). It occurs 


Tas kal KeATous. 


The Romans in turn sometimes borrow Galatz from 


indeed in the present textof Dioscorides 
(I. 92, do T'adXas xal Tuppyvias), per- 
haps an earlier writer, but the reading 
is suspicious, since immediately after- 
wards he has dio Tadarias ris mpos 
rais”A\reow. 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 mss. 
See below, p. 31, noter. The substitu- 
tion is so natural that it is sometimes 
erroneously made where the eastern 
country is plainly meant: e.g. Pseudo- 
Doroth. Chron. Pasch. u. p. 136, ed. 
Dind. The form I'a\Xa occurs again 
in the Ep. of the Churches of Vienne 
and Lyons (Euseb. y. I) a.D. 177, and in 
Theophil. ad Autol. i1. 32 Tas kaNoupévas 
T'aAXas. Itisalsocommon in Herodian. 
(3) In the 4th and 5th centuries the 
form ‘Gallia’ had to a very great extent 
displaced Galatia. See Agathem. ii. 4, 
Pp. 37, Tav Taddav ds mpérepov Tadartias 
é\eyov, and Theod. Mops. on 2 Tim. iv. 
10, Tas viv Kadoupévas TadXias* obrws 
yap (i.e. Tadariav) abras mavres éxddouv 
oi madaol. Accordingly Athanasius 
(Apol. c. Arian. § 1, pp- 97, 98) in the 
same passage uses Tadaria of Asiatic 
Gaul, Ta\Na of the European pro- 
vinces. Ata much earlier date than this 
Galen says (xiv. p. 80, Kuhn), xadodoe 
yoov avrovs vin wey Taddras oe e 
Tarddots, cuvnbécrepov 6¢ To Tay KedT av 
8voua, but he must be referring in the 
first two classes to the usage of the 
Greek and Roman writers respectively. 


I—2 


Celtic mi- 
grations. 


THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 


the Greeks, but when they do so it is applied exclusively to 
the Celts of Asia Minor, that is, to the Galatians in the modern 
sense of the term. The word Celte still remains in common 
use side by side with the Galate of the Greek and Galli of the 
Roman writers, being employed in some cases as coextensive 
with these, and in others to denote a particular branch of the 
Celtic race’. ; 
The rare and fitful glimpses which we obtain of the Celtic 
peoples in the early twilight of history reveal the same restless, 
They 


appear in a ferment of busy turmoil and ceaseless migration’. 


fickle temperament, so familiar to us in St Paul’s epistle. 


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 Rhine 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. 
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 


It is possible that some of these were fragments 


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, 


1 e.g. in Cesar Bell. Gali. i. 1. See 
on the main subject of the preceding 


See similar notices in Strabo iv. p. 195, 
Appian Bell. Hisp.§ 1. The form Ta- 


Aarla of European Gaul still continued 
to be used occasionally, when Ta\Xa 
had usurped its place. It is found for 
instance in Julian Epist. lxxiii, and in 
Libanius frequently: comp. Cureton 
Corp. Ign. p.351. Ammianus(xv.g)can 
still say, ‘Galatas dictos, ita enim Gal- 
los sermo Graecusappellat.’ Even later 
writers, who use T'a\Xiac of the Roman 
provinces of Gaul, nevertheless seem to 
prefer Tadaria when speaking of the 
western country as a whole, e.g. Ioann. 
Lydus Ostent. pp. 52, 54 (Wachsmuth), 
Hierocl. Synecd. app. p. 313 (Parthey). 


paragraph a good paper by M. D’Arbois 
de Jubainville, Les Celtes, Les Galates, 
Les Gaulois, from the Revue Archéo- 
logique, Paris 1875. 

2 For the migrations of the Celts see 
the well-known work of Thierry Histoire 
des Gaulois (4th ed. 1857), or Contzen 
Wanderungen der Kelten (Leipz. 186r). 
They areconsidered more in their philo- 
logical aspect in Diefenbach’s Celtica, 
and in Prichard’s Celtic Nations edited 
by Latham. The article ‘Galli’ by 
Baumstark in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopd- 
die is a careful abstract of all that 





THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 5 


as history emerges into broad daylight, the tide of Celtic 
migration is seen rolling ever eastward. In the beginning of Sacking of 
the fourth century before Christ a lateral wave sweeps over the nae 
Italian peninsula, delugmg Rome herself and obliterating the 
landmarks of her earlier history. Three or four generations 


later another wave of the advancing tide, again diverted south- 


C. 390. 


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 aie 
the Celtic invasion of Greece. 

The Gaulish settlement in Asia Minor is directly connect- 
A considerable force had detached The Gauls 
themselves from the main body, refusing to take part in ree 
the expedition, Afterwards reinforced by a remnant of the 


repulsed army they advanced under the command of the chiefs 


ed with this invasion’. 


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 Taurus under tribute, and even the 





relates to the subject. See also Le Bas 
Asie Mineure (Paris, 1863). 

1 Thechief authorities for the history 
of the Asiatic Gauls are Polybius v. 77, 
78, 111, XXli. 16—24, Livy xxxviii. 12 sq., 
Strabo xii. p. 566 sq., Memnon (Geogr. 
Min. ed. Miiller, m1. p. 535 sq.), Justin 
“xy. 2 sq., Arrian Syr. 42, Pausanias i. 
4.5. See other references in Diefenbach 
Celt. 11. p. 250. It formed the main sub- 

_ ject of several works no longer extant, 
the most important of which was the 
Tadar7txa of Evatosthenes in forty books. 
The monograph of Wernsdorff, De Re- 
publica Galatarum (Nuremb. 1743), to 
which all later writers are largely in- 
debted, is a storehouse of facts relating 
to early Galatian history. See also 


Robiou Histoire des Gaulois d’ Orient 
(1866). The existing monuments of 
Galatia are described by Texier, Asie 
Mineure (1839—1849), 1. p. 163 sq. An 
article in the Revue des Deux Mondes 
(1841), Iv. p. 574, by the same writer, con- 
tains an account of the actual condition 
of this country with a summary of its 
history ancient and modern. Sce also 
his smaller book, Asie Mineure (1862), 
p- 453 Sq. More recent is the impor- 
tant work Exploration Archéologique 
de la Galatie et de la Bithynie etc. by 
Perrot and Guillaume. The account 
of the Monumentum Ancyranum in this 
work is very complete and illustrated 
by numerous plates. The ancient his- 
tory of Galatia is also given at length. 


B.C. 230. 


Limits of 
Galatia. 


Galatia 
conquered 
by the 
Romans, 


B.0. 189; 


THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 


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, 
culminating ina total defeat inflicted by the Pergamene prince 
Attalus the First, effectually curbed their power and insolence’. 

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. 
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 
The Tectosages settled in the centre between 


It was 


for their capital. 
the other two tribes, adopting Ancyra as their seat of government, 
regarded also as the metropolis of the whole of Galatia ® 

But though their power was greatly crippled by these 
disasters, the Gauls still continued to play an important part 
in the feuds of the Asiatic princes. 
these mercenary services that they first came into collision 
with the terrible might of Rome. <A body of Galatian troops 
fichting 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 
Manlius sufficed for the entire subjugation of Galatia. 


It was while engaged in 


inscriptions, Boeckh m1. nos. 4010, 4011, 


1 Livy xxxviii. 16. 

2 The chronotogy is somewhat uncer- 
tain. See Niebuhr Kl. Schrift. p. 286. 
The date given is an approximation. 

3 So Strabo xii. p. 567, Pliny H. N. 
Vv. 42, in accordance with ancient au- 
thorities generallyand confirmed bythe 


4085. Memnon is therefore in error 
(c. 19), when he assigns the chief towns 
differently. The names of the three 
tribes are variously written(see Contzen, 
p. 221), but the orthography adopted 
in the text is the best supported. 


THE GALATIAN PEOPLE, 7 


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. 
\ 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 ere 
Amyntas one of their princes, Galatia was formed by Augustus 


The con- 


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 
Gospel. It corresponded roughly to the kingdom of Amyntas, Extent of 
though some districts of the latter were assigned to a different esta 
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 


1 The extent of the kingdom of 
Amyntas may be gathered from the 
following passages: Strabo xii. p. 568, 
Dion Cass. xlix. 32 (Lycaonia), Strabo 
xii. p. 569 (Isauria), p. 571 (Pisidia), 
Pp. 577 (part of Phrygia), xiv. p. 671 
(Cilicia Tracheia), Dion Cass. xlix. 32 
(part of Pamphylia). See Becker Rim. 
Alterth, tt. 1. p. 155, Cellarius Not. 
Orb. Ant. 11. p. 182. Of the formation 
of the Roman province Strabo says, 
Rll. p. 567, vov 5’ éxovor ‘Pwyuator Kal 
tatrny [rv Tadarlav] cal thy bro re 
"AubyTe yevoueyvny macay es ular cuva- 
yaydvres érapxlay, and similarly p. 569. 


This sweeping statement however must 
be qualified. See Dion Cass. lili. 26, 
tov 5’ ’Awivrou teNevTioavTos ov Tots 
maw avrot Thy apxiy émrérpeper, Gdn 
els Thy Um7jKoov éonyaye’ Kal oTw kal 
7 Tadaria pera THs AvKaovlas ‘Pwuatov 
adpxovra toxe* Ta Oé xwpla ra éx Tijs 
Ilaugurlas rpbrepov Te’ AmtvTe mpocve- 
pndérvra Te lolw voum dwedbOn. Cilicia 
Tracheia was also separated and as- 
signed to Archelaus, Strabo xiv. p. 671. 
On the subject generally see Perrot de 
Gal. Prov. Rom. Paris 1867. 

2 The Lystreni are included by Pliny 
among the Galatian peoples, H. N. v. 


Ambiguity 
of the 
name. 


Other ele- 
ments of 
the Gala- 
tian popu- 
lation. 


Phry- 
gians. 


Greeks. 


THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 


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’. 

Thus when the writers of the Roman period, St Paul and 
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. 

Attention has hitherto been directed solely to the barbarian 
settlers in this region. These however did not form by any 
means 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 
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 
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 Gallogrecia. 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 


That Derbe also belonged to Ga- = Alterth. 111. 1. p. 156. 


42. 


latia may be inferred from Strabo xii. 
See Bottger Beitrdge, Suppl. 


Pp. 569. 
p. 26. 


1 LYeBaory Texrocaywv, 2. Todoro- 
See Becker Rém. 


Bwylwy, 2. Tpdkuwr. 


2 It might be inferred from the in- 
scription, Boeckh 111. p. 82, “Ioudov 
Zeounpov Tod mpwrov T&v ‘EXdjvwv, that 
the Greeks in Galatia wererecognised as 
a distinct class even under the Romans, 


THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 9 


master of the country’. The great work of the Roman conquest 
was the fusion of the dominant with the conquered race—the Fusion of 
result chiefly, it would appear, of that natural process by which Phy. = 
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 Romans. 
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 Romans, 
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* 


1 Polyb. xxii. 20, Livy xxxviii. 18. 

2 A Brogitarus is mentioned as priest 
of the mother of the gods at Pessinus; 
Cicero de Arusp. Resp. 28, pro Sect. 26. 
A Dyteutus son of Adiatorix held the 
same office in the temple of the goddess 
worshipped at Comana, Strabo xii. p. 
558. Other instances are given in 
Thierry 1. p. 411, Perrot Expl. Arch. 
p- 185. 

%* Boeckh Corp. Inser. 111. pp. 73— 
rue 

4 The direct connexion of the Gala- 
tians with Jewish history is very slight. 


Antiochus 


In 2 Mace. viii. 20 there is an obscure 
allusion to an engagement with them in 
Babylonia. In 1 Mace. viii. 2 it is said 
that Judas Maccabeus ‘heard of the 
wars of the Romans and the brave deeds 
which they did among the Galatians (or 
Gauls) and how they subdued them and 
laid them under tribute’: but whether 
we suppose the enumeration of the 
Roman triumphs to proceed in geo- 
graphical or chronological order, the 
reference is probably to the Western 
Gauls, either chiefiy or solely, since the 
successes of the Romans in Spain are 


Io 


Their 
commer- 
cial 
instincts, 


attracted 
by the 
natural 
advan- 
tages 

of Galatia. 


THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 


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. 


produce, with extensive pastures for flocks, with a temperate 


With fertile plains rich in agricultural 


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 Aigean, 
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 trafiic in cloth 


mentioned in the following verse, their 
victories over Philip and Perseus in 
the 5th, and the defeat of Antiochus 
not till the 6th verse. The same un- 
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 
Cleopatra. 

1 Joseph. Ant. xil. 3. 4. 

2 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: ‘Malgrétant 
de ravages ct de guerres désastreuses, 


la Galatie, par la fertilité de son sol et 
la richesse de ses produits agricoles, est 
encore une des provinces les plus heu- 
reuses de l’Asie Mineure.’ And again: 
‘Malgré tous ses malheurs, la ville mo- 
derne d’Angora est une des plus peu- 
plées de Asie Mineure. Elle doit la 
prospérité relative dont elle n'a cessé 
de jouir 4 son heureuse situation, a 
un climat admirablement sain, & un 
sol fertile, et surtout 4 ses innombrables 
troupeaux de chévres, ete.’ Texier, 
Revue des Deux Mondes, |. c. pp. 597, 
602. 

3 Strabo, xii. p. 567, especially men- 
tions Tavium and Pessinus, describing 
the latter as éumropetov Trav Tatty péyt- 
orov. Livy, xxxviii. 18, calls Gordium 
‘celebre et frequens emporium.’ 


THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. I! 


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, aun 
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*. 


1 Miiller’s Geogr. Min. 1. ¢. ‘negotia- 
‘tur plurimam vestem.’ It is interest- 
ing to find that at the present day a 
very large trade is carried on at An- 
gora, the ancient Ancyra, in the fabric 
manufactured from the fine hair of the 
peculiar breed of goats reared in the 
neighbourhood. See Hamilton Asia 
Minor, 1. p. 418, Texier, l. c. p. 602 
sq., and especially Ritter’s Erdkunde 
XVI. p. 505. It is to this probably 
that the ancient geographer refers. 

2 Joseph. Antiq. xvi. 6. 2. The in- 
fluence of Judaism on St Paul’s con- 
verts here does not derive the same 
illustration from the statistics of the 
existing population as it does in some 
other places, Thessalonica for instance, 
where the Jews are said to form at 
least one half of the inhabitants. In 
1836 Hamilton was informed that out 
of about 11,000 houses in Ancyra only 
150 were Jewish, the majority of the 
population being Turks or Catholic 


Armenians, Asia Minor, 1. p. 419- 

3 See Boeckh Corp. Inscr. Vol. mt. 
P. xviii. In no. 4129 the name’Heaios 
occurs with a symbol which Boeckh 
conjectures to be the seven-branched 
candlestick, We have also ‘Iwdvvov 
4045, ZdvBaros 4074, Mararads 4088, 
Oadeds 4092. ‘Axidas or ’Ax’das a name 
commonly borne by Jews in these parts 
occurs several times. It is possible 
however that some of these may be 
Christian ; nor is it always easy to pro- 
nounce on the Hebrew origin of aname 
in the confusion of nations which these 
inscriptions exhibit. 

4 Pausanias (vii. 17. 5) mentions that 
the people of Pessinus abstained from 
swine’s flesh (Uv ox amréuevor), & state- 
ment which has given rise to much 
discussion. See Wernsdorff p. 324 sq. 
Some have attributed this abstinenceto 
Jewish influence, but the aversion to 
swine’s flesh was common to several 
Eastern peoples. Instances are given 


12 


The Celtic 
type pre- 
domi- 
nates. 


The Gala- 
tians re- 
tain their 
language 


THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 


Still with all this foreign admixture, it was the Celtic blood 
which gave its distinctive colour to the Galatian character and 
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 Colossz, 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, retaiing its individuality of 
type after the lapse of ages and under conditions the most 
adverse’. 

A very striking instance of the permanence of Celtic insti- 
tutions is the retention of their language by these Gauls of Asia 
Minor. 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 
Pheenicians and their African colonies, or between the different 
dialects of Latin’, 


in Milman’s Hist. of the Jews 1. p. 177 
(3rd ed.). 

1 Modern travellers have seen, or 
imagined they saw, in the physical fea- 
tures of the modern inhabitants of Ga- 
latia traces of their Celtic origin. So 
Texier, 1. c. p. 598, ‘Sans chercher 4 se 
faire illusion, on reconnait quelquefois, 
surtout parmi les pasteurs, des types 
qui se rapportent merveilleusement 4 
certaines races de nos provinces de 
France. On voit plus de cheveux blonds 
en Galatie qu’en aucun autre royaume 
de l’Asie Mineure; les tétes carrées et 


les yeux bleux rappellent le caractére 
des populations de l’ouest de la France.’ 

* Hieron. in Epist. ad Gal. lib. 1. 
pref. ‘Galatas excepto sermone Graeco, 
quo omnis Oriens loquitur, propriam 
linguam eandem pene habere quam 
Treveros, nec referre si aliqua exinde 
corruperint, quum et Afri Phoenicum 
linguam nonnulla ex parte mutaverint, 
et ipsa Latinitas et regionibus quotidie 
mutetur et tempore’ (vi. P. 1. p. 430, 
ed. Vallarsi). By ‘excepto sermone 
Graeco’ he means that they spoke 
Greek in common with the rest of the 


THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 13 


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 oe 


Galatians of St Paul’s Epistle, for in general the character of chats i 
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 


a nation even outlives its language. 


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 
Cesar, 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- 


3 : incidences 
which perhaps we may be tempted to press unduly. His de- in St ‘ 


nunciation of ‘drunkenness and revellings’, falling in with the Ee 
taunts of ancient writers, will appear to point to a darling sin 


of the Celtic people*. His condemnation of the niggardly 


Fast, as well as Celtic. Thierry (1. p. 
415) strangely mistakes the meaning, 
‘les Galates étaient les seuls, entre 
tous les peuples asiatiques, qui ne se 
servissent point de la langue grecque.’ 
It is probable that they understood St 
Paul’s epistle as well as if it had been 
written in their original tongue. None 
of the Galatian inscriptions are in the 
Celtic language. The people of Ancyra 
were perhaps ‘trilingues’ like the Celts 
of Marseilles. 

1 Livy, xxxviii. 17, represents Man- 
lius as saying ‘ Et illis majoribus nos- 
tris cum haud dubiis Gallis in terra 
sua genitis res erat. Hi jam degeneres 
sunt, mixti et Gallograeci vere, quod 
appellantur.’ This language is proba- 


bly an anachronism in the mouth of 
Manlius, but it was doubtless true when 
Livy wrote and when St Paul preached. 
On the degeneracy of the Western 
Gauls, see Cesar Bell. Gall. vi. 24, Tac. 
Ann. xi. 18, Agric. 11, Germ. 28. 

2 Gal. v. a1. 

3 Diod. Sic. v. 26 xdrowor dé dvres 
kad’ wrepBodiv Tov eicaybuevov brd Tv 
éuarbpwy otvoy axpatov éudopodyra: Kal 
dua Thy ériOuulay AdBpw xpwmeva TO 
moT@ Kal webvabévtes eis tarvoy 7 mavid- 
des diabécers Tpémovra x.T.A.; Epictet. 
Dissert. ii. 20. 17, referred to in the note 
p- 3. Compare also the jest, ‘Gallos 
post haec dilutius esse poturos,’ quoted 
from Cicero by Ammian. Mare. xv. 12, 
and the account Ammianus himself 


14 


Broader 
features 
of resem- 
blance. 


1. Gene- 
ral tem- 
perament 
of the 
Gauls. 


THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 


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. 

1. The main features of the Gaulish character are traced 
with great distinctness by the Roman writers. Quickness of ap- 
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 against simony, a.D. 459. 


Gauls. 

1 Gal. vi. 6, 7. 

2 Diod. Sic. v. 27 évtwv tav Keh- 
Tay pirapytpwr Kad’ dwepBoryw. Livy, 
EXXVill. 27, calls the Galatians ‘ avidis- 
sima rapiendi gens.’ Compare Labb, 
Conc. v. 49 (ed. Colet) épwpabnoav 
tTwes Kara Tav Vadaray édcvywpodyres Kal 
mapaBalvovzes dv alcxpoxépdecav Kal pid- 
apyuplav x.7.X., in the encyclical letter 


3 Gal. v. 15, 26; comp. VY. 20, 21, 
Vi. 3. 

4 Ammian. 1 ¢. ‘avidi jurgiorum et 
sublatius insolescentes,’ Diod. Sic. v. 
28. 

5 Diod. Sic. v. 31 dmeAnral 6é Kat 
avararixol Kal TeTpaywdnmevor brdpxov- 
ot, Ammian. 1. ec. ‘Metuendae voces 
complurium et minaces, placatorum 
juxta et irascentium.’ 


THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 


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- 
ment®. This instability of character was the great difficulty 
against which Czsar 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 
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, 


another. 


‘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 


existimavit.’ 


1 Cesar Bell. Gall. iv. 5. 

2 Themistius Or. xxiii. p. 299 A 
(veferred to by Wetstein on Gal. i. 6) 
ol 5é dvdpes tore dre dfe?s Kal ayxivor 
kal ebpabéctepor Tay d-yay “EAXjvwv~ Kal 
TpiBwriov mapadavévtos éxkpéuayrTar ev- 
@ds womep THs AlOov Ta oLdypia. 

3 Bell. Gall. ii. 1 ‘Mobilitate et le- 
vitate animi’; comp. Tac. Germ. 29. 

4 Bell. Gall. iv. 5 ‘Infirmitatem Gal- 
lorum veritus quod sunt in consiliis 
capiendis mobiles et novis plerumque 
rebus student, nihil his committendum 


Comp. Motley United 
Netherlands ut. p. 326, ‘As has al- 
ready been depicted in these pages, 
the Celtic element had been more apt 
to receive than consistent to retain the 
generous impression which had once 
been stamped on all the Netherlands,’ 

5 Ib, iii. ro ‘Quum intelligeret om- 
nes fere Gallos novis rebus studere.’ 

6 Gal. i. 6. 

7 Gal. iii. 1 Q dvdnra Taddrat, rls 
buds €8doKavey ; 

8 Livy x. 28 ‘Gallorum quidem etiam 


15 


Their 
fickieness. 


16 


2. Their 
religious 
tendencies 


passionate 
and ritual- 
istic, 


shown in 
their hea- 
then wor- 
ship. 


THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 


prowess of these converts in the warfare of the Christian 
Church. 

2. Equally important, in its relation to St Paul's epistle, 
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. 
A gross superstition, appealing to the senses and the passions 
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 
grown up among the Gauls, as their own creation, answering to 
Settled among the 
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- 


some peculiar features of their character. 


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- 


corpora intolerantissima laboris atque 
aestus fluere; primaque eorum praelia 
plusquam virorum, postrema minus 
quam feminarum esse.’ Comp. Florus 
ii. 4. To the same effect Cesar B. G. 
iii. 19, and Polyb. ii. 35. 

1 Casar’s words are, ‘Natio est om- 
nis Gallorum admodum dedita religio- 


nibus,’ Bell. Gall. vi. 16; comp. Diod. 
Sic. v. 27. 

2 Cicero de Div. i. 15, ii. 36, 37. 

> The nobler aspect of the Druidical 
system has been exaggerated, See the 
remarks of M. de Pressensé, Trois Pre- 
miers Siécles, 2me série, I. p. 52. 


THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 


faction in the latter. And though we may suppose that the 
mystic element in the Phrygian worship, which appealed so 
powerfully to the Grzco-Asiatic, awoke no corresponding echo 
in the Gaul, 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 
their hearts by storm. But the old leaven still remained. The 
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 
vebuking 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 ofa modern _ from the earliest ages had always been 
historian describing the western race so keenly alive to the more sensuous 
in a much later age; Motley Dutch and splendid manifestations of the de- 
Republic ut. p. 26 ‘The stronger in- _yotional principle.’ 
fusion of the Celtic element, which 2" Gal. iii. 3. 


GAL. 


17 


and infect- 
ing their 
Christian 
ity. 


106 


THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 


N what sense do the sacred writers use the word 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. 

Important consequences flow from the assumption that the 
term covers the wider area’. In that case it will comprise not 
only the towns of Derbe and Lysitra’, but also, it would seem, 
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- 


1 The warmest advocates of this view 2 See above, p. 7, note 2. 
are Boéttger Beitrdge 1. p. 28 sq., ml. 3 Acts xiii, 14—xlV. 24. 
p- 1 8q., and Renan Saint Paul p. 51, # Acts xvi. 1. 
etc. See more on this subject in Colos- 5) Galliv-sias 


signs p. 24 8q. 


THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 19 


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 Lystra®.’ 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 difficul- pases 
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, 
strongly in favour of the popular use of the term*® 


Again, analogy is 
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. rr. 

2 Gal. iv. 14, vi. 17. 

Seaelim: iii. 1, 

SeACUSaIsIt4, 495415, X1V- 1, XVI. 3. 

5 On the other hand in 1 Peter i. 1, 
where the enumeration seems to pro- 
ceed by provinces, Galatia is probably 
used in its political sense, This is 
not unnatural in one who was writing 
from a distance, and perhaps had never 


visited the district. 

6 The case of ‘ Asia’ however is an 
exception. The foundation of this pro- 
vince dating very far back, its official 
name had to a great extent superseded 
the local designations of the districts 
which it comprised. Hence Asia in the 
New Testament is always Proconsular 
Asia. 

7 Acts xiv. 24, xvi. 6—8, xviil. 23. 


2—2 


20 


Probable 
Churches 
of Galatia. 


THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 


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. 

It is most probable therefore that we should search for the 
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 


1 Acts xiv. 6. 

2 Acts xiii. 14. 

® Acts xvi.6. See below, p.22, note 3. 

4 Boeckh Corp. Inser. no. 4015 7 
Bovdy Kai 6 Sjuos THs Naumpordrys un- 
tpomé\ews ’Ayxtpas. It is frequently 
styled the ‘ metropolis’ in inscriptions 
and on coins. 

5 Strabo xii. p. 567. 

§ Strabo l.c. See Hamilton’s Asia 
Minor p. 395. Perhaps however Ta- 
vium lay too much to the eastward of 
St Paul’s route, which would take him 
more directly to the western parts of 


Galatia. 

7 Pliny v. 42 ‘Caputque quondam 
ejus (i.e. Phrygiae) Gordium.’ Comp. 
Livy xxxviii. 18 ‘Haud magnum quidem 
oppidum est, sed plusquam mediter- 
raneum, celebre et frequens emporium: 
tria maria pari ferme distantia inter- 
vallo habet.’ See Ritter Hrdkunde 
XVIII. p. 561. The identity of Gordium 
and Juliopolis however, though as- 
sumed by Ritter, Forbiger, Kiepert, 
and others, is perhaps a mistake: see 
Mordtmann in Sitzungsber. der Kénigl. 
bayer. Akad. 1860, p. 169 sq. 


THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 21 


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 
spint 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 of 
how the great Apostle advocated the cause of the truth against pete 
either form of error. Our curiosity however is here disappointed, L"**- 

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 Pena 
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. 2 Acts xvi. 6. 


22 


First visit, 
A.D. 51 OF 
52. 


THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 


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. 

1. After the Apostolic congress St Paul starting from 
Antioch with Silas revisited the churches he had founded in 
Syria, Cilicia, and Lycaonia. At Lystra they fell in with Timo- 
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®’ 


Phrygia and Galatia here are not to be regarded as separate 


The form of the Greek expression implies that 


districts. 
called indifferently Phrygia or Galatia. 


The country which was now evangelized might be 
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’, 


1 Acts xvili. 23. 

2 Acts xv. 40—XVi. 5. 

3 Acts xvi. 6 diqj\Oov 66 Thy pv- 
ylav xal [riv] Tadarcxny xwpav. The 
second ry of the received reading ought 
to be omitted with the best mss, in 
which case Spvyiay becomes an adjec- 
tive. This variety of reading hasescaped 
the notice of commentators, though it 
solves more than one difficulty. On the 
occasion of the second visit the words 
are (XViil. 23), drepyduevos xabeens THY 
Tadarixiy xépav kal Ppvyiav. The 
general direction of St Paul’s route on 
both occasions was rather westward 
than eastward, and this is expressed 
in the second passage by naming Ga- 


But he was detained by a return 


latia before Phrygia, but it is quite con- 
sistent with the expression in the first, 
where the two districts are not sepa- 
rated. If we retain the received read- 
ing, we must suppose that St Paul went 
from west to east on the first occasion, 
and from east to west on the second. 

4 Colosse would thus lie beyond the 
scene of the Apostle’s labours, and the 
passage correctly read does not present 
evena seeming contradiction to Col. i. 4, 
6, 7, ii. 1. See on the whole subject 
Colossians p. 23 sq. 

5 T see no reason for departing from 
the strictly grammatical interpretation 
of Gal. iv. 13, 6.’ ac@évecay rijs capKus. 

8 Acts xvi. 6. 


THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 23 


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 ae i, ‘ 


would appear, which humiliated him and prostrated his physical ies 
strength. To this the Galatians owed their knowledge of 
Christ. 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- pea 
ently, to the Gospel. They may indeed have held the doctrine een 
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 
1 2 Cor. xii. 7. 4 Bell. Gall. vi. 16 ‘Pro vita homi- 
# Gal. iv. 14, 15. nis nisi hominis vita reddatur, non 
8 They believed also in its transmi- _posse aliter deorum immortalium nu- 


gration. See Cesar Bell. Gall. vi. 14, men placari arbitrantur.’ 
Diod. Sic. v. 28. 


24 


Harnest- 
ness of the 
Apostle’s 
preaching, 


His de- 
parture. 


Second 
Visit, 
A.D. 54. 


THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 


vividly before us the energy and force with which he delivered 
his message. He placarded Christ crucified before their eyes’, 
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 
power. 

This visit to Galatia, we may suppose, was not very pro- 
tracted. 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. 

2. An interval of nearly three years must have elapsed 
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 


1 Gal. ili. 1, rpoeypdgdn. See the note. 2 Gal. v. 7. 


THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 25 


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- tome 
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 them 
to hold accursed any one who perverted the Gospel as he had 
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 epistle was written, as I hope to show, about three or Subse- 
four years after the second visit, but in the meanwhile St Paul eae 
doubtless kept up his intercourse with the Galatian Churches °4tio™s- 
by messengers or otherwise. A large portion of the intervening 
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 growing 
corruption of the Galatian Churches from the spread of Juda- 
izing errors. 


The avidity with which these errors were caught up im- Jewish in- 
fluence in 


plies some previous acquaintance with Jewish history and some G,y)atia. 


habituation to Jewish modes of thought. The same inference 


1 Acts xviii. 23. * Gal. iv. 13—16. See the notes, 
2 Gal. v. 21. 5 1 Cor. xvi. 1—6. 
2 Gal. i.g. 


26 


The Ga- 
latian 
Churches 
contained 
a nucleus 
of Jewish 
converts, 


but were 
composed 
chiefly of 
Gentiles. 


THE CHURCHES OF GALATTA. 


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 Apostle had probably selected as centres of his mission 
those places especially where he would find a sufficient body of 
Jewish residents to form the nucleus of a Christian Church. 
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 ~ 
disaffection. 

Not however that the Gospel seems to have spread widely 
among the Jews in Galatia, for St Paul’s own language shows 
that the 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 


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


2 Rom. i. 16, il. g, 10. 

3 Gal. iv. 8 ‘Then not knowing 
God, ye did service to them which by 
nature are no gods.’ See also Gal. iii. 
29, V. 2, Vi. 12, and the notes oni. 14 
év TH yéver wou, li. 5 mpds buds. It has 
been assumed that St Peter, as the 
Apostle of the Circumcision, must have 
written to Jewish Christians, and that 


to the Galatians among others, there 
was a large number of converts from 
Judaism in the Churches of Galatia. 
His own language however shows that 
he is writing chiefly to Gentiles (1 Pet. ii. 
9, 10) and that therefore the d:acropa 
of the opening salutation is the spiri- 
tual dispersion. Comp. 1 Pet. ii. 11, 
12. 


THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 27 


not less rife in the provinces than in the metropolis. Many a 
man, who had not 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 
fellow-Christians. 

For whatever reason, the Judaism of the Galatians was Violent 
much more decided than we find in any other Gentile Church. ret hid 
The infection was both sudden and virulent. They were checked Seay 
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- of the Law 
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 ese 
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. 1. 
various readings ol mepirerunuévor. and 4 Gal. v. 2, 11, Vi. 12, 13. 
oi wepireuvouevot have some bearing on 5 Gal. iv. ro. 
this point. 6 Gal. iii, 2, iv. 21, v. 4, 1S. 


2 Gal. v. 7. ‘Gal.v..3; 


28 


His de- 
fence, 


He is 
charged 


with in- 


consist- 
ency. 


THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 


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 
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 in the denial of his Apostleship, when he had 
been marked as the servant of Christ for ever by the cruel 
brand of persecution. 

But the attacks of his enemies did not stop here. They 
charged him with inconsistency in his own conduct. He too, 
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 in 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 Goxotcw (ii. 2), 
Tay GoxotvTwy eivat TL, ol SoxodrTes (il. 
6), of doxotvres oTUAOL Elva (ii. g), ought 
probably to be translated as presents, 
referring to the exclusive importance 
which the Judaizers in Galatia attached 
to the Apostles of the Circumcision. 
See the notes. 

25 Gals ae 1. 

® Gal. i. 11, 12. 


* Gal. i. 15—ii. 21. 

5 Gal. vi. 17. 

® Gal. v.11. See Lechler Apost. u. 
Nachapost. Zeitalter(ed.2), p.384. The 
case of Titus (Gal. ii. 3), however we 
explain it, seems to be introduced in 
order to meet this charge. 

7 See the notes on Gal. i. 10, ‘Dol 
sow persuade men?’ ‘Do I seek to 
please men ?’ and on ii. 3, v. 2, 11. 


THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 29 


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. peanetire 
His leading antagonists were most probably emissaries from °°* 
the mother Church of Jerusalem, either abusing a commission 
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 tares 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 


1 ; Cor. ix. 20, 22. 3 Acts xxi. 20—26. 
2 Acts xvi. 3. * Gal. ii. 12. 


30 


The Gala- 
tian soil 
congenial 
to their 
growth. 


THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 


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® 

But howsoever they were disseminated, these errors found 
in Galatia a congenial soil. The corruption took the direction 
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 off 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 


1 Gal. v. 9. Tmad.v avwhev Sovrevew Gédere, and 
? Gal. i. 7. See also iv. 17, vi. 12. V. I wy waAwv fvyw dovrelas evexecde. 

8 Gal. v. to. 5 Cesar Bell. Gall. vi. 16, quoted 
‘ Gal. iv. 9 m@s émustpépere Tddtw pp, 16, note 1. 


émi Ta aobevn Kal mrwxa oToxeta ols 


THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 31 


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; Efect of 
but it is at least as likely that the mother country of the Me Spistle 
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 otfenders 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. ro. ‘Galatia’ in this 3888 KpzjoKxevta érirporov Aovydotbvouv 


passage was traditionally interpreted of 
European Gaul. It is explained thus 
by Euseb. H. E. iii. 4, Epiphan. adv. 
Haeres. li. 11, p. 433, Jerome (?) Op. 
1. p. 960 (ed. Vallarsi), and by Theo- 
dore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret com- 
menting on the passage. Itisso taken 
also by those mss which read Ta\Nlav 
for Tadariav, for the former reading 
may be regarded as a gloss. The 
Churches of Vienne and Mayence both 
claimed Crescens as their founder. The 
passage in the Apost. Const. vii. 46 
Kpjoxns tav xara Tadarlav éxxdnowy 
perhaps points to Asiatic Gaul, but is 
ambiguous. Later writers made Cres- 
cens visit both the European and the 
Asiaticcountry. A curious coincidence 
of names occurs in Boeckh Inscr. no. 


TadXMas. Lattribute some weight to the 
tradition in favour of Western Gaul, 
because it is not the prima facie view. 
Supposing St Paul to have meant this, 
he would almost certainly have used 
Tadariavy and not TadNav; see the 
note, p. 3; and to the authorities there 
quoted add Theodoret on 2 Tim. iv. 10, 
Tas Taddlas otirws éxdecev* ovTw “yap 
éxadovyTo mddar* ovTw 6é€ Kal viv av- 
Tas dvoudtovew ol THs £w mardelas uer- 
etAnxores. A passage in the Monwmen- 
tum Ancyranum (Boeckh Inscr. no. 
4040) presents a coincidence with 2 
Tim. iv. 10, in the juxta-position of 
Galatia (i.e. European Gaul) and Dal- 
matia, é& ‘Iomavias xai Tadarias xal 
mapa Aahparov. 
2 Gal. v. ro. 


32 


Later 
heresies 
of the 
Galatian 
Church. 


THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 


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 in 
its mature age, that they invested the Apostle’s rebuke with a 
prophetic import’. 
of all the Asiatic Churches it was nowhere so rife as in Galatia. 
The Galatian capital was the stronghold of the Montanist re- 


Asia Minor was the nursery of heresy, and 


vival®, which lingered on for more than two centuries, splitting 
into diverse sects, each distinguished by some fantastic gesture 


or minute ritual observance’, 


1 Euseb. c. Marcell.1.p. 7 Awomep yap 
Georliwy 7d wédANov avrots Tadarats TH 
TOU Zwrhpos eEnkpiBou Heodoylav, K.T.A., 
Hieron. ad Gal. ii. praef. (v1. p. 427, ed. 
Vallarsi) ‘...quomodo apostolus unam- 
quamqueprovinciam suis proprietatibus 
denotarit? Usque hodie eadem vel vir- 
tutum vestigia permanent vel errorum.’ 

2 An anonymous writer quoted by 
Euseb. H. E. vy. 16. 3. Comp. Epiphan. 
Haer. xlviii. 14, p. 416. 

3 Hieron. 1. c. p. 430 ‘Scit mecum 
qui vidit Ancyram metropolim Galatiae 
civitatem, quotnuncusqueschismatibus 
dilacerata sit, quot dogmatum varieta- 
tibus constuprata. Omitto Cataphry- 
gas, Ophitas, Borboritas, et Manichaeos; 
nota enim jam haec humanae calamita- 
tis vocabula sunt. Quis unquam Passa- 
lorynchitas et Ascodrobos et Artotyritas 
et caetera magis portenta quam nomina 
in aliqua parte Romani orbis audivit?’ 
The Passalorynchites and Artotyrites 
were ofi-shootsof Montanism, theone so 
called from their placing the forefinger 
on the nose when praying, the other 
from their offering bread and cheese at 
the Eucharist: Epiph. Haeres. xlviii. 14 
Sq., p. 416 sq., Philastr. Haeres. lxxiv, 
lxxvi. In the word Ascodrobi there is 
perhaps some corruption. Theodoret, 


Here too were to be found 


Haeret. Fab. i. to, speaks of the Asco- 
drupi or Ascodrupitae, as a Marcosian 
(Gnostic) sect. Epiphanius, l.c., men- 
tions Tascodrugitae asa barbarous equi- 
valent toPassalorynchitae. Jerome how- 
ever seems to have had in view the sect 
called Ascodrogitae by Philastrius, Hae- 
res, xxv. Theaccount 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, alieni 
modis omnibus Christianae salutisrepe- 
riuntur, cum apostolus dejiciat justifi- 
cationem illam Judaicam carnalemque 
vanitatem.’ After all 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 the Quartodecimani, 
Ixxxvii; ‘Alia est haeresis quae ad- 
serif cum Judaeis debere fieri pascha., 
Isti in Galatia et Syria et Phrygia 
commorantur, et Hierosolymis; et cum 
Judaeos sequantur, simili cum eis er- 
rore depereunt,’ 


THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 33 


Ophites, Manicheans, 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 error’. A 
Christian father of this period denounces ‘the folly of the 
Galatians, who abound in many impious denominations*®’ A 
harsher critic, likewise a contemporary, affirms 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 a 
part gallantly. A sketch of their final struggle with and victory 6" 
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 


2 Marcellus and Basilius; Le Quien 
Oriens Christianus 1. p. 458. Eusebius 
wrote two elaborate treatises against 
Marcellus, which are extant. On the 
other hand, his orthodoxy was defended 
at one time by several of his Catholic 
contemporaries, but his reputation suf- 
fered from the more decided Sabellian- 
ism of his pupil the heresiarch Pho- 
tinus, likewise a Galatian. Basilius 
presided at the semi-Arian Synod of 
Ancyra, held in 358. See Hefele Con- 
ciliengesch. I. p. 655. 

2 Greg. Naz. Orat. xxii. (I. p. 422 4 
ed. Ben.) 7 Tadarév dvowa mdovtovv- 
twv év moddots THs doeBelas dvduact, 
doubtless alluding to St Paul’s dvénrou 
Taddrat. Compare Basil. Epist. 237 
(1. p. 365, sq. ed. Garnier), Hilar. de 
Trin. vii. 3 (11. p. 176, ed. Ben.). 

3 The Emperor Julian’s language 
(Epist. 52, speaking of Galatia and cer- 


GAL. 


tain neighbouring districts) dpdnv ava- 
Tpam7nvat TopOndeioas kwuas, is a painful 
comment on St Paul’s warning, Gal. v. 
15, ‘If ye bite and devour one another, 
take heed ye be not consumed one of 
another.’ Julian, however, atnotimean 
unprejudiced witness, has here a direct 
interest in exaggerating these horrors, 
as he is contrasting the mutual in- 
tolerance of the Christians with his 
own forbearance. 

4 Texier Asie Mineure i. pp. 195, 
200, describes and figures the Church 
of St Clement at Ancyra. He is wrong 
however in mentioning the Decian per- 
secution. The legend speaks of that 
of Diocletian; Acta Sanct. Jan. xxiii. 
In a Syrian martyrology published 
by Dr W. Wright (in the Journal 
of Sacred Literature, Oct. 1865 and 
Jan. 1866) the Galatian martyrs men- 
tioned are numerous. 


3 


34 


Efforts of 
Julian 


defied by 
the Chris- 
tlans. 


THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 


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 
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 
fierce defiance. At Ancyra one Basil, a presbyter of the church, 
fearlessly braving the imperial anger, won for himself a martyr’s 
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 


crown. 


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 


1 About the year 314; Hefele Con- 
ciliengesch. 1. p. 188. See the note on 
Gal. v. 20. 


taken the worship of the mother of the 
gods under his special protection. An 
elaborate oration of his (Orat. 3) is de- 


2 Ammian. xxii. g, Liban. Or. xii, 
I. p. 398, XVii. I. p. 513 (Reiske). 

3 Julian Epist. 49 ’Apoaxlw dpxrepet 
Tadarlas, preserved in Sozom. v. 16. 
The ‘ high priest’ is mentioned in the 
Galatian inscriptions, Boeckh nos. 
4016, 4020, 4026. Julian seems to have 


voted to this subject. Comp. Gregor. 
Naz. I. p. 109 (ed. Ben.). 

4 Sozom. v. 11. The Acts of the 
Martyrdom of St Basil of Ancyra 
(Ruinart Acta Mart. Sine. p. 510) are 
less exaggerated than most, and per- 
haps entitled to respect. 


THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 


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. 


1 Gregor. Naz. Orat. v. 1. p. 175 4. tortures. One or other of these may 
Gregory at the same time mentions be that Busiris, of whom Sozomen 
enother Christian—apparently in Ga-  (l.c.) speaks as a Christian confessor 
latia, though this is not stated—whose at Ancyra under Julian. 
bold defiance was visited with extreme * Ammian. xXxy. 10, 


1S) 


35 


Absence 
of direct 
evidence. 


Diversity 
of opinion. 


IIl. 


THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 


T 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 


1 Mai Script. Vet. Coll. vol. m1. 
Victorinus, who wrote about a.p. 360, 


nological. At all events, supposing it to 
be so, the fact of his placing the Epistles 


mentions thisas an opinion entertained 
by others, so that it dates farther back. 
‘Epistola ad Galatas missa dicitur ab 
apostolo ab Epheso civitate.’ 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- 


to the Thessalonians after the Romans 
diminishes the respect which would 
otherwise be felt for the opinion of a 
writer soancient. Tertullian’slanguage 
however clearly points to a different 
principle of arrangement in Marcion’s 
Canon: ‘Principalem adversus Judais- 
mum epistolam nos quoque contfite- 
mur, quae Galatas docet.’ He placed 


THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 37 


it to have been written from Ephesus’. Others, among whom , 
are Eusebius of Emesa’, Jerome*, Theodoret*, and Euthalius, 

date it from Rome, in accordance with the subscription found in 

some Mss and in the two Syriac and the Coptic versions. Of 

these two opinions, the former was doubtless a critical inference 

from the statement in the Acts® that St Paul visited Ephesus 
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 View 
recent critics, who agree in dating the epistle during the three Se 
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, History 
I shall give a brief summary of the events of the period, which 


this epistle in the forefront as 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 Tertullian which I have 
given, but denies the accuracy of his 
statement. The author of the Mura- 
torian fragment (c. a.D. 170) seems to 
give as the chronological order, Corin- 
thians, Galatians, Romans (see Tre- 
gelles 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 Florue Lugdun. and Claudius 


Altissiod. who copy the words of Pri- 
masius. Chrysostom(Prooem.ad Rom.) 
says merely that the Galatians was 
written before the Romans, but does 
not define the time or place of writing. 
Theophylact (Argum. ad Rom.) repeats 
Chrysostom. 

2 About 350 4.D. Cramer Caten. ad 
Gal. iv. 20; ‘He was a prisoner and in 
confinement at the time.’ This com- 
ment is ascribed simply to ‘ Kusebius’ 
in the Catena, but the person intended 
is doubtless the bishop of Emesa, whose 
commentary on the Galatians is men- 
tioned by Jerome (Comm. in Ep. ad Gal. 
Lib. 1. Praef.). 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. 1 (vu. 
P- 747): 

+ Praef. ad Rom. 

5 Acts xviii. 23, xix. I. 

€ Gal. i. 6. 

7 Gal. iv. 20, Vi. 17. 


of the 
period. 


38 


Sojourn at 
Ephesus. 


1 Corinth- 
ians writ- 
ten A.D. 57 
(Spring). 


THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 


it will be necessary to bear in mind, in order to follow the 
course of the argument. 

St Paul’s long sojourn at Ephesus is now drawing to a close. 
His 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 all 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 
a letter to the Corinthians, reprobating their dissensions and 
exhorting them to acquit themselves of guilt by the punishment 
of a 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 


1 Acts xix. 20. * 1 Cor. iv. 13. 
7 Acts xx. 19. 5 1 Cor. xvi. 8. 
31 Cor. iv. 9, XV. 32. $ ¢ Cor. xvi. 11, 2 Cor. xii. 18, 


THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 39 


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. eee 
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 en eee 
towards the offender. The crisis was now over. He breathed (A¥t=»). 
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 .. 
people in many words*.” From thence he visited Greece, where Greece. 


! Acts xix. 21I—4I, XX. 1. 4 Gal. vi. 17. 
2 2 Cor. il. 12, 13. 5 2 Cor. vii. 5—16. 
3 2 Cor. xi. 28. 5 Acts xx, 2. 


40 


Romans 
written 
A.D. 58 
(early). 


Probable 
date of 
Galatians. 


Direct 
historical 
notices. 


Jerusalem 
and Anti- 
och. 


THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 


he remained three months. While at Corinth he wrote the 
Epistle to the Romans. These are almost all the particulars 
known of his movements at this period. Of persecutions and 
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- 
ing to others. On the other hand, I cannot but think that 
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 written from Macedonia or Achaia, 
in the winter or spring of the years 57, 58 A.D. I shall proceed 
to state the successive steps of the argument by which this 
result is arrived at. 

1 A few scattered historical notices more or less distinct 
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. 

(i) In the opening chapters St Paul mentions two distinct 
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 


A Galen, 18,/i. 1. 


THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 41 


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 fifteenth 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 cannot 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 sae 
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. rst, wrongly 
It is supposed that in speaking of the rapidity of the change “P#ine’ 
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 4s reproaching his converts with their fickleness, 


1 Gal. ii. 11. 4 Acts xvi. 6, Xvili. 23. 
2 Acts xv. 30—40. 5 Gal. i. 6. See the note on otrws 
® Gal. iv. 13—16. See the notes, TAXEWS. 


42 THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 


‘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 obviously the time of their conversion, not 
the time of his second visit. His surprise is not that they have 
so 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,’ 1t must reckon from their first knowledge of the Gospel, 
Le. from AD. 51. Secondly, It is insisted that the period 
cannot be extended beyond a few months, or at the outside 


Its real 
bearing. 


two or three years. But quickness and slowness are relative 
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 


terms. 


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 longa 
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”. 

This epi- 2. On the other hand the argument from the style and 


stle allied 


to the »nq Character of the epistle is one of great importance. It may 


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


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


Galatian Epistle, as it is generally con- 
ceived, may be stated thus: Given on 
the one hand the expression ‘so soon,’ 
tending towards an earlier date, and on 
the other the resemblance to the Epistle 
tothe Romans tending towards a later. 


former consideration may be elimin- 
ated, as will be seen from the text, 
while at the same time some further 
conditions which have been overlooked 
must be taken into account. 


THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 43 


oue another by an interval of five years roughly speaking, and 
distinguished also by their internal character. The second of 
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- 


: : : . teristics 
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 7°°P 
epistles. They are marked by a vast profusion of quotations from 
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 typical 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 pa 
Epistles to the Corinthians and Romans. We have next to "82nd 


Romans, 
enquire whether there is sufficient evidence for determining its 


2 Corinth- 
jans, 


Resem- 
lance in 

general 

tone. 


Special 
coinci- 
dences. 


THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 


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. 

In the case of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, the 
similarity consists not so much in words and arguments as in 
tone and feeling. “In both there is the same sensitiveness in 
the 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 
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. 

Besides this general resemblance, which must be felt in order 
to be appreciated, a few special affinities may be pointed out. 
For instance the expression ‘Christ redeemed us 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. 


1 Jowett, 1. p. 196, 1st ed. It is Mopsuestia, Spicil. Solesm, 1. p. 50. 
interesting to find that the resemblance 2 Gal. iii. 13. 
between the two epistles was observed 3 2 Cor. v. 21. 
by ® writer as early as Theodore of € Gal. vi. 7. 


THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 


‘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 Romans is much Romans. 


more striking and definite. 


Setting 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 
epistle. The following table of parallels will show how remark- #°4 !42- 


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. 


GALATIANS. 


(1) 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 
Abraham... 


iii. ro. For asmanyas are of the 
works of the law areunder acurse. 


1 2 Cor. ix. 6. 

2 Gal. i. 6, 2 Cor. xi. 4; Gal. vi. 15, 
2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. iv. 17, 2 Cor. xi. 2; 
Gal. i. 10, 2 Cor. v. 11. 

3 Compare Gal. i g, Vv. 21, with 
2 Cor. xiii. 2, and Gal. iii. 3 with 2 Cor. 
viii. 6. Again, the expressions dzo- 
petoba, Kavwy, Kupbw, Tovvaytiov, poBov- 
Mat unrws, and the metaphor xateoOley, 


Romans. 

iv. 3. What saith the Scrip- 
ture? Abraham believed God, 
and it was accounted to him for 
righteousness. 


iv. 10, 11. How then was it 
accounted?...in uncircumcision... 
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 1 Corinthians 
the most remarkable being the proverb, 
‘A little leaven etc.,’ occurring 1 Cor. 
v. 6, Gal. v. y. 


45 


semblance 
in thought 


guage, 


Parallel 
passages. 


46 


Parallel 


THE DATE OF 


GALATIANS. 


lili, rz. But that no man is 


passages. justified by the law in the sight 


of God it is evident, for 
©The just shall live by faith,’ 
ili. 12. And the 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 effect: for if the 
inheritance be of the law, it is no 
more of promise: but God gave 
it (keyapiorat) to Abraham by 
promise. 


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


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

iii. 2326. [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 distine- 
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. 1—5. | Wehave been hither- 
to in the position of an heir still 
in his minority. Christ’s death 
has recovered us our right. ] 

iv. 5, 6,7. That we might re- 
ceive the adoption of sons. And 
because ye are sons, God hath 


THE EPISTLE. 


Romans. 


ili, 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 (xapis). 

[Comp. Rom. viii. 3, 4.] 


xl. 32. God hath concluded 
them all in unbelief, that he might 
have mercy upon all. iii. 9, ro. 
They are all under sin, as it is 
written. Comp. ill. 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.) 


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


THE DATE OF 


GALATIANS. 


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 
Christ. 


(2) ii, 16. For ‘by the works 
of the law shall no flesh be justi- 
fied (Ps. exliii. 2).’ 


THE EPISTLE. 


Romans. 


not received the spirit of bond- Parallel 


age again to fear, but ye have 
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’ (aca cap& 
for was Cav of the Lxx, which agrees also with the Hebrew): 
and in both the application of the text is the same. 


GALATIANS. 


(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, (év 79), 
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as 
thyself. 


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


v. 17. For the flesh lusteth 


RoMANS. 


vii. 4. Ye also are become 
dead to the law...that we should 
bear fruit unto God. Comp. vi. 
2—5s. 

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.1r. 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, to. He that loveth 
another, hath fulfilled the law;... 
it is briefly comprehended in this 
saying, namely, (év 7a), Thou shalt 
love thy neighbour as thyself... 
love is the fuliilling of the law. 

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

vii. 23, 25. 1 see another law 


48 


Parallel 
passages. 


The re- 
semblance 
is mani- 
fold. 


Galatians 
written 
about the 
same time 
with, 


THE DATE OF 


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


So that ye cannot do the things 
that ye would. 
v. 18. But if ye be led of the 


spirit, ye are not under the law. 


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


THE EPISTLE. 


Romans. 
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. vv. 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. 1. We that are strong 
ought to bear the infirmities of 
the weak’. 


It will be unnecessary to add many words on a similarity so 


great as these passages exhibit. 
fold and various. 


Observe only that it is mani- 


Sometimes it is found in a train of argument 


more or less extended, and certainly not obvious: sometimes m 
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 
the letters to the Colossians and Ephesians. Those letters were 
written about the same time and sent by the same messenger; 
and I cannot but think that we should be doing violence to his- 
toric probability by separating the Epistles to the Galatians 
and Romans 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. 


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


two Epistles: Baordfew, dovdela, éhev- 
Oepbw, le, KaTa dvOpwrov évyw (avOpa- 
mwov héyw), KaTdpa KaTapao@at, KOpot, 
Hakapicpuos, “é0n, of Ta To.atTa mpdo- 
covtes, dpeciérns, mapaBdrns, wap’ 4, th 
ére3 Th Névyec 7) ypagn ; 


THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 49 


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 metaphor 
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 Sones 
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, 4 connect. 
the letter to the Galatians seems naturally to claim an inter- }.¢; ae 


between 
mediate position, as a chronological link between them. Its 2 Comth- 


lans and 
claim, I think, 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. 


2 CoRINTHIANS. GALATIANS, Romans. 
Strife, emulation, wraths, Fornications,uncleanness, Unrighteousness, wick- 
factions, backbitings, lasciviousness, idolatry, edness, covetousness, 
whisperings, swellings, witchcraft, hatred, strife, | maliciousness, full of en- 
tumults...... uncleanness emulations, wraths, fac- vy, murder, strife, deceit, 
and fornication and las- _ tions, seditions, heresies, malignity, whisperers, 
civiousness. xii. 20, 21.  envies, murders, drunk- backbiters, etc., i. 29, 30; 


ennesses, revellings, and 
such like. v. 19—2I1. 


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 


50 


The con- 
tinnity 
broken in 
the receiv- 
ed order. 


The order 
here 
adopted 
accords 
best with 


(i) St 
Paul’s 
personal 
history. 


THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 


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 in 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 


2 1 Cor. iv. g—13. 2 7 Com xNer9; 
3 1 Cor. xv. 30—32. 


THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. SI 


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 Reference 
his own sufferings. He is too absorbed in the momentous peed 
question at issue to speak much of himself. Yet once or twice @alatians. 
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 stull 
pleasing men, I should not have been a servant of Christ*’ 


1 2 Cor. i. 3—10, iv. 7—11, iv. 16— 2 2 Cor. Vil. 4. 
VY. 4, Vi. 4—IO, Vii. 4—7, xi. 23—28, 3 Gal. v. 11. 
xll. 7—I0, 12. 4 Gal. i. ro. 


§2 


(ii) The 


progress of 
the Judaic 


opposi- 
tion. 


THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 


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 Jesus’’? 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 Christ®,’ a 
title there adopted for the first time. 

(ii) The same result which is thus obtained from an ex- 
amination of St Paul’s personal history, seems to follow also 
from the progress of his controversy with his Judaizing 
opponents. 

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 


1 Gal. vi. 17. 

2 Tt is related of George Herbert that 
when he was inducted into the cure of 
Bemerton he said to a friend, ‘I be- 
seech God that my humble and cha- 
ritable life may so win upon others 
as to bring glory to my Jesus, whom I 
have this day taken to be my Master and 
Governor; end I am so proud of His 


service, that I will always call Him 
Jesus my Master,’ etc. ‘And,’ adds his 
biographer, ‘he seems to rejoice in that 
word Jesus, and say that the adding 
these words my Master to it, and the 
often repetition of them, seemed to 
perfume his mind,’ etc. I. Walton’s 
Life of Herbert. 
5 Rom. i. 1. 


THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 53 


‘circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing’, 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- ee 
trines with which the errors of the Judaizers were in direct the state 
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 (8:xavocvvn) 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 ; Cor. vii. 19, Gal. v. 6, vi. 15. 5 y Cor. i. 30, iv. 4, Vi. 11, 2 Cor. 
2 ¢ Cor. vii. 18. iii. 9. 
SaGalsive 2. 6 2 Cor. v. 19—21. 


4 1 Cor. xv. 56. 


54 THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 


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. 
Incidental 5. Lastly, the chronology adopted explains one or two 
allusions. “allusions in the 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 
ch aes 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. 


1 2 Cor. vii. 11. 2 2 Cor. ii. 7. 


THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 55 


(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 Back- 
whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he reap...Let us do good iglesia 
unto all men’’ The admonition is thrown into a general form, 8: 
but it has evidently a special application in the Apostle’s own 
mind. 

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 ye®.’ He had solicited their alms for the 
suffering brethren of Judea. 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 
case. 

For the reasons given above I have been led to place the Conclu- 
Galatian Epistle after the letters to Corinth. They certainly ~°”’ 
do not amount to a demonstration, but every historical question 
must be decided by striking a balance between contlicting 
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 great 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—10. 2 Cor. xvi. rt. 3 Gal. i. 2. 


THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 


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. 

2 Thisinvestigation of the date of the 
Galatian Epistle is taken from a paper 
which I published in the Journal of 
Class. and Sacr. Philol. vol. m1. p. 
289, altered in parts. The view here 
piaintained had also been advocated 


by Conybeare and Howson (11. p. 165, 
ed. 2), and by Bleek (Hinl. in das N. 
T. pp. 418, 419); but otherwise it had 
not found much favour. Since the 
appearance of my first edition it ap- 
pears to have gained ground, 


IV. 


GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 


5 ° e . By yee ness un- 
amid the sweeping proscriptions of recent criticism. Its qisputed. 


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 Ba 
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 
fmer shades of character. The suppressed conflict of feeling, 
the intermingling of strong protest and courteous reserve, 


Nea Epistle to the Galatians has escaped unchallenged Genuine- 


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, 


58 


External 
evidence. 


Apostolic 
Fathers. 


GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 


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 entertam. 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 Ciementines 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. 

1. 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 

sean second so-called Epistle ascribed to Clement (§ 2), 


which though not genuine is a very early work, Is. liv. 1 is 
quoted and applied as in Gal. iv. 27. 


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


Polyc. § 1, ‘Bear all men, as the Lord beareth thee...Bear the 
ailments of all men,’ resembles Gal. vi. 2. (See however Matth. 
vili. 17, Rom. xv. 1.) 


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


1 See p. 61. 


GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 


Philad. § 1, 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. 1. 


Romans § 2, ‘I would not have you to be men-pleasers, but to 
please God,’ resembles Gal. i. 10. 
Lphes. § 18, ‘The Cross a stumblingblock’ may be a reminiscence 
of Gal. ii. 21. 
In £phes. § 16 the expression ‘shall not inherit the kingdom 
of God’ is probably derived from Gal. v. 21. 
Compare also 

Trall. § 10 with Gal. ii. 21. 

Magnes. § 5 with Gal. v. 6. 

Magnes. § 8 with Gal. v. 4. 

Smyrn. § 10 with Gal. iv. 14. 

PotycaRrP more than once adopts the language of this epistle ; 
ce. 3 ‘Builded up unto the faith given you, “which is the 
mother of us all,”’ from Gal. iv. 26. 

e. 5 ‘Knowing then that’ “God is not mocked,” we ought, ete.’ 
from Gal. vi. 7. 

ce. 6 ‘Zealous in what is good,’ may be taken from Gal. iv. 18; 
eomperlit, 1. 14, 1 Pet. mi, 13 (v. 1) 

ce. 12 ‘Qui credituri sunt in Dominum nostrum et Deum Jesum 
Christum et in ipsius patrem, qui resuscitavit eum a mortuis,’ 
resembles Gal. i. 1; comp. Rom. iv. 24. 


2. The Miscellaneous Writings of the Subapostohe Age 


present one or two vague resemblances on which no stress can 
be laid. 
Barnapas. A passage in the epistle bearing his name, c. 19, 


‘Thou shalt communicate in all things with thy neighbour,’ re- 
flects Gal. vi. 6. 

Hermas (c. 140 A.D. 1) Sim. ix. 13 has ‘They that have believed 
in God through His Son and put on these spirits.’ Comp. Gal. iii. 
205527. 


3. The Epistle to the Galatians is found in all the known 


Canons of Scripture proceeding from the Catholic Church in the 


1 The expression ‘knowing that’ 
(eidé7es tc) in Polycarp seems to be a 
form of citation. Inc. 1 it introduces 
a passage from Ephes. li. 8, in c. 4 one 
from 1 Tim. vi. 7. It occurs once 
again in ¢c. 6, ‘knowing that we all are 
debtors of sin.’ Though these words 
are not found either in the Canonical 


scriptures or in any other extant 
writing, they seem in force and point 
so far above the level of Polycarp’s 
own manner, that I can scarcely doubé 
that he is quoting the language of one 
greater than himself, They ring al- 
most like a sentence of St Paul. 


59 


Other 
writings 
of subapo- 
stolic age. 


Canons of 
Scripture. 


Apolo- 
gists. 


60 


GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 


second century. It is contained in the Syrtac and OLD Latin 
versions, completed, it would appear, some time before the 
close of the century. It is distinctly recognised also in the 
Canon of the MURATORIAN FRAGMENT (probably not later than 


170 A.D.). 


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. 


Tue EpistLte To Driognetus, c. 4, has the expression, ‘The ob- 
servance (zape7ypyow) of months and of days,’ derived ap- 
parently from Gal. iv. 10, ‘Ye observe (taparypeioGe) 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 Romans. 


JusTIn Martyr seems certainly to have known this epistle. In 
the Dial. c. Tryph. ce. 95, 96, he quotes consecutively the two 
passages, ‘Cursed is every one that continueth not, ete.’ (Deut. 
xxvii. 26), and ‘Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree’ 
(Deut. xxi. 23), and applies them as they are applied in Gal. 
iii. 10, 13. Moreover, he introduces the first in language closely 
resembling that of St Paul, ‘Every race of men will be found 
under a curse (v0 xatapav) according to the law of Moses’; and 
cites both passages exactly as St Paul cites them, though they 
differ both from the Hebrew and the rxx*. Again in the Apol. 
1. 53, Justin applies Isaiah liv. 1, ‘ Rejoice, thou barren, etc.’ 
exactly as St Paul applies it in Gal. iv. 27. See the notes on 
il, 10, 13, 28, iV. 27, 

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


1 Ine. 5 of the Orat.ad Graecos, often rod véuov tod mw. atrd, for the xx 


ascribed to Justin and generally as- 
signed to the second century, there are 
two indirect quotations from this epi- 
stle, iv. 12 and v. 20, 21. A recension 
of this treatise however, discovered of 
late years in a Syriac translation (Cure- 
ton’s Spicil. Syr. p. 61), bears the 
name of Ambrose, by whom proba- 
bly is meant the friend and pupil of 
Origen. 

2 In Deut. xxvii. 26, ds od« eup. & 
Tadow Tots yeypaypevos ev TH PiBrlw 


(which is nearer to the Hebrew) as 6 
dvOpwmros darts ovK éup. ev maow Tots 
Aoyos TOO v. ToUTOU TOD m. avTovs: in 
Deut. xxi. 23, "Emixardparos as, where 
the txx, following the Hebrew, has 
Kexarnpapévos tb Geod mas. 

3 Cureton’s Spicil. Syr. p. 49, Spi- 
cil. Solesm. 11. p. 1. The authorship 
however is doubted; see Otto Apol, 
Christ. 1x. p. 460, A close parallel to 
Gal. iv. 8 appears also in ‘the doctrine 
of Addeus’ (Cureton’s Anc. Syr. Doe, 


GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 


ATHENAGORAS, Suppl. c. 16, speaks of sinking down ‘to the weak 
and beggarly elements,’ quoting from Gal. iv. 9. 


5. The evidence of Heretical writers, while it is more direct, 


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 OpuHites 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, 
P00: 

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 Irenzus from their writings, apparently 
from the works of Ptolemzus'. 


Marcion included it in his Canon and attached great import- 
ance to it. See p. 36, note 1. Comp. also the note on iii. rg. 


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


6. Neither is the testimony of Adversaries of the second 


century wanting to the authenticity of this epistle. 


CEtsus, 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 (Aeyovtwy to) “The world is crucified unto me 
and I untothe world.”’ (Gal. vi.14.) ‘This is the only sentence,’ 
adds Origen, ‘that Celsus seems to have recollected from Paul’ 
(Orig. c. Cels. v. 64). 


Tue Exsiontte AUTHOR OF THE CLEMENTINE HomMILIEs, 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 (évaytios 
avOéornxas wot). If thou hadst not been an adversary, thou 
wouldest not have calumniated and reviled my preaching...If 
thou callest me condemned (xateyvwopévov), thou accusest God 


Pp. 9); but this may be accidental, as 
there is no other recognition of St Paul 
in the work. In another document of 
the same collection (p. 56) there is 
seemingly a reference to Gal. vi. 17. 
See also Clem. Hom. tx. 1. 

+ See the Latin of Iren. i. 8. 5 ad 


fin., and comp. Westcott Canon, p. 
304 (ed. 4). 

2 To this list should be added Theo- 
dotus, Exc. ap. Clem. Alex. c. 53, p- 
982 (Potter), where Gal. iii. 19, 20 is 
quoted: but the date and authorship 
of these excerpts are uncertain. 


61 


Heretical 
writers. 


Adversa- 
ries of St 
Paul. 


62 


Apocry- 
phal Acts. 


Treneus, 
Clement, 
and Ter- 
tullian. 


GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 


who revealed Christ to me’: Hom. 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 (zapatijpyow) 
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. ro. 
Other resemblances, noted in Lagarde’s edition (p. 31), are less 
striking: viii. 4 to Gal. i. 6; xvill. 21 to Gal. 1. 8; vill. 18 
(Sv ayyeAov vop0s wpicGn) to Gal. i. 19; ix. 1 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 Pau 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&ZuS, 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’. 


1 In compiling this account of the lung, and especially of Westcott’s His- 
external evidence in favour of the epi- tory of the Canon. I have however 
stle I have made use of Lardner’s Cre- gone over the ground independently, 
dibility, of Kirchhofer’s Quellensamm- and added to the references. 


CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 


sia discussing the relation of this epistle to the contem- 

poraneous letters, ] have dwelt on those features which it 
shares in common with them. It remains to point out some 
characteristics which are peculiarly its own. 

1. The Epistle to the Galatians is especially distinguished Unity of 
among St Paul’s letters by its unity of purpose. The Galatian 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 

1 Ewald Paulus, p. 55, ‘Kein ande- _keines ergiesst sich wie dieses in einem 


res sendschreiben ist so sehr wie dieses miichtig stiirmischen aber unaufhalt- 
aus einem gedanken entsprungen, und samen und ununterbrochenen strome.’ 


64 


Contrast 
to the 
allied 
epistles, 


Its sus- 
tained 
severity. 


CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 


words echo his first: ‘Paul an Apostle not from men’; ‘God 
who called you in the grace of Christ.’ 

In this respect it contrasts strongly with the two letters 
to Corinth with which it possesses so many features in common. 
Like 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 office or the liberty of the Gospel. 

2. The sustained severity of this epistle is an equally 
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, 
for this apostate Church. Even on the Corinthians, in spite 
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 thanks- 
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 


CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 65 


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- es 
press some truth more strongly on his readers. Here the ow» hand 
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 the 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. Noman can henceforth question or misapprehend 

the Apostle’s meaning. 

A rough analysis of the epistle separates it into three Threefola 
sections of two chapters each, the first couplet (i, ii) containing HVs!o"- 
the personal or narrative portion, the second (iii, iv) the argu- 
mentative or doctrinal, and the third (vy, 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 
epistle. 

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


: Sncrit : - Of the 
1. The salutation and ascription of praise so worded as to in- ¢,istle. 


troduce the main subject of the letter (1. r—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). 


1 Gal, vi. r1—18. See the notes on myXkos ypdppacw éypaya. 
GAL. 5 


66 CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 


Analysis 3. This Gospel came directly from God. 
opistla (i) He received it by special revelation (i. 11, 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 
Circumcision, 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. 1—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. Doctrrnat, 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 (iii. 1—5). 

2. Yet Abraham was justified by faith, and so must it be with 
the true children of Abraham (111. 6—9). 

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

4. Thus He fulfilled the promise given to Abraham, which 
being prior to the law could not be annulled by it (iii. 
15—18). 

5. Ifso, 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). 


CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 


(iii) Thus under the law we were in our nonage, but now Analysis 


we are our own masters (iv. 1—7). 


(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. 2I—31). 

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


Ill. Horratory. 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 license. Love is the 
fulfilment of the law. Walk in the Spirit, and the Spirit 
will 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. 1—s). 
(ii) Give liberally (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 


which in modern 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. 


5-2 


68 


The refor- 
mation. 


Rational- 
ism. 


CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 


When Luther commenced his attack on the corruptions of 
the medizval 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. 

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 Seckendorf de Lutheran. L. 2 
said Luther, ‘is my epistle; I have § lxxxv. p. 139. 
betrothed myself to it: it is my wife.’ 


IPOS TAAATAS. 


WHY SEEK YE THE LIVING AMONG THE DEAD? 


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


HPOs LTAAATAYS. 


AYAOZ aroatoNos ovK ar’ dvOpwrwv ode 8 av- 
Gpwrov, d\Xa Oa "Inoot Xpirtov Kal Gcovd matpos 


I—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 ofiicial 
title into a statement of his direct 
commission from God (ver. 1), 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 scurce, 
and whose office was not 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 CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 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 am avéperear ovde dv avépo- 
mov] ‘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 conveyed. 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 
himself with the Twelve, who were 
commissioned directly from God. The 
prepositions therefore retain their pro- 
per sense. Axa, as distinguished from 
avd, is used consistently in the New 
Testament to denote the means or 
instrument, especially as describing 
either (1) the operations of our Lord, 
as the Word of God, e.g. 1 Cor. viii. 6 
eis Kupios “Ingots Xpucrds 8¢ ob ra 
mavra, or (2) the human agency em- 
ployed in carrying out the divine pur- 
pose, é.g.1 Cor. iil. 5 dsdxovor dS’ oy 
extotevoate. 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 dca "Incov Xpicrov, 
which was to follow. 

adda bia “Incod Xpiorov] To what 
event does the Apostle here refer? 
When did he receive his commission 
from Christ Himself? In 1 Cor. ix. 1, 
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. From this point of 
time therefore his commission dated. 


72 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


Bae 


r rb > als Sy - \ 7 \ > 4 / 
TOU EVELDAVTOS QUTOV EK VEKOWV, *Kal OL OuUV EMOL TAV= 


(2 ~ / lon fé 
TES aveApot, Tats é€kkAynotas THs TaAdatias. 


3 Xa pis 


[ener \ 2 / > \ ~ \ \ / e ~ > fod 
Uy Kal Elonvn ato Qeou TaTtpos Kat Kuptov nuwv Incov 


It was essentially this revelation of 
our Lord which 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. I15—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. 

kat Geov matpos| It might be ex- 
pected that the first preposition (a7) 
would have been resumed here, as 
more appropriate. It is incorrect 
however to say that dca 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 (81a) coin- 
cides with its source (azo). The point 
of the sentence would have been 
blunted by inserting awd. Nor indeed 
is the extension of d:a to the second 
clause a violation of its strict mean- 
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. ’Aro, 
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 (é& avrod kai 
80 avrod Kat eis avrov, Rom. xi. 36), 
and may therefore be regarded as the 
instrument, no less than the source, 
in the fulfilment of His own purposes. 
This mode of expression will be a- 
dopted especially, where 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 1.) cut the knot by omit- 
ting kai Gcovd warpos, and apparently 
reading é€avrov for airov. 

Here the Apostle’s words are ‘By 
Jesus Christ and God the Father’: 
immediately after he writes ‘/rom 
God the Father, and our Lord Jesus 
Christ.’ The one expression supple- 
ments the other: ‘Thou, Father, in 
Me, and I in Thee’ (John xvii. 21). 

Tov eyeipavros avroy ék vexpar] ‘wlio 
raised Him from the dead? This 
expression occurs elsewhere with a 
more general reference to Christian 
faith or Christian life: Rom. iv. 24, 
Vili. 11; comp. 1 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. of avy éuot wavres adeAdoi] ‘all 
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,’ z.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. 1) 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 


I. 4] 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 73 


~ lod / ¢ \ \ - c ~ ~ 
Xpiorov, *Tov SovTos EauvTOV TEL THY uapTLAV Huwr, 


/ f col b] ~ 7-7 a > ~ 
OTTWS e£eAnTat NMaS EK TOU AlLWYOS TOU EVETTWTOS TrOVY- 


4. vmép TOV apapTiav, 


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, ‘J marvel,’ which he retains 
throughout the epistle. Paul’s autho- 
rity has been challenged, and Paul 
alone answers the challenge. 

rais éxkAnoias THs Tadarias] ‘to the 
Churches of Galatia.” On this mode 
of address, as marking the earlier 
epistles, see 1 Thess. i.1. 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’ (1 Thess. i. I, 
2 Thess. i. 1): that of the Corinthians is 
composed of those ‘sanctified in Christ 
Jesus, called to be saints’ (1 Cor. i. 2, 
comp. 2 Cor. i. 1). The omission of 
any expression of praise in addressing 
the Galatians shows the extent of 
their apostasy ; see p. 64. 

3. xapis vpiv kai cipnyn, «.7.A.] On 
this form of salutation see the notes 
1 Thess. i. I. 

4. tov Sdvros éavroy, k.r.d.] ‘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. 

mept Tav auaptiav] The ss here, as 


in several other passages, are divided 
between wepi and vmep, though here 
the balance of authority is perhaps in 
favour of wepi. Generally it may be 
said that wepi is used of things, imép 
of persons, as I Pet. iii. 18 ore Kai 
Xpiotos anaé wept apuaptioy amébavev 
dixatos Umép adixwv, but exceptions 
are very numerous, and in Heb. v. 3 
we have repli €avrod mpoodepew mepi 
dpaptiay (not vmép auapTioyv, aS Some 
read), though just before (ver. 1) the 
expression used is tpoopépn vmép apap- 
tiov. Where wept is used of persons, 
it is frequently explained by seme 
clause added, e.g. Matt. xxvi. 28 ro 
Tept ToAAGY exXuYYomevov eis aperw 
dpaptiov. With this compare the par- 
allel passages Luke xxii. 19, 20 (umep 
tpov), Mark xiv. 24 (vmép woddo», the 
correct reading), where there is no 
explanatory clause. All this follows 
from the meaning of the prepositions, 
vmep having a sense of ‘interest in, 
which is wanting to mepi. The dis- 
tinction is marked in Athenag. Reswrr. 
I, Adyar Sitrav ray pev vmep THs ady- 
Oelas tv Sé wept tis aAnOeias x.r.A. 
(comp. § 11). Neither conveys the 
idea of a vicarious act (avri), though 
such will frequently appear in the 
context. On umép and wepi see Winer 
§ xlvii. p. 479, and especially Wieseler’s 
note here. 

é&éAnrat] ‘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, V. I, 13. 

Tov aiavos TOU eveaTaTos Tovnpod | the 
correct reading, in which the detached 
position of rovqpod is emphatic: ‘with 
all its evils’ Comp. Arist. Zth. Nic. 
i. 13 Kat yap tayadiv avOpemcvor 
é(nrotpey Kat tiv evdamoviay avOpo- 
nivny, Polit. ii. 9 rdv y? adiKcnpdrer 
éxovgioyv Ta TAEioTAa ovpBaiver K.T.A. 
The reading of the received text, rov 


74 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. [L. 


vu 


a \ \ U ; c > \ \ € a 5 ‘e._48 
pou Kata TO GéAnua TOU BeEov Kat TaTtpos Huwv 5m 1 


i > \ an An Cy ety > i? 
doga ELS TOUS ALWVYAS TWV ALWYWV" AMV. 


evear@ros ai@vos mornpov, is gramma- 
tically simpler, but less forcible. 

The author of the Clementines, who 
was certainly acquainted with this 
epistle (see p. 61), seems to have St 
Paul’s expression in mind, Hist. Clem. 
I, emt Tov eveat@tos Tovypod Tov é€ao- 
pevoy ayaboy blo TO KOTH@ pHVUGAsS 
Bacrdéa (where aiavos found in some 
texts after zovnpod is evidently an in- 
terpolation). If so, he appears to have 
interpreted the words ‘from the zeon, 
the dominion, of the present evil one’: 
comp. I John v. 19 6 Koopos ddos ev 
T@ movnp@ xeirat, Barnab. § 2. At all 
events a possible interpretation is thus 
suggested. Comp. Polyb. xviii. 38. 5 
Tov eveotata Bacihéa. 

TOU aiavos Tov evestatos| The pre- 
sent transitory world, elsewhere 6 viv 
aioy, @g. I Tim. Vi. 17, 6 aidy Tod Kdo- 
pov rovrov Hphes. ii. 2, and most fre- 
quently 6 aidy otros, e.g. Rom. xii. 2, as 
opposed to the other world, the world 
of eternity, 6 aidy éxetvos Luke xx. 35, 
6 aidv 6 épxopevos Luke viii. 20, aiav 
peddov Hebr. vi. 5, and often in the 
plural, of ai@ves of emepxopevor Ephes. 
li. 7, of aidves Tay aidver, and of ai@ves 
simply. This age, this world, is under 
a ‘god’ (2 Cor. iv. 4) or ‘rulers’ (1 
Cor. ii. 6) of its own, who are opposed 
to the Eternal God, the King of the 
ages, 6 Bacieds Tar aidver, I Tim. i, 
17. See especially Ephes. ii. 2—7, and 
comp. [Clem. Rom.] ii. § 6 gorw 8¢€ 
ovTos 0 aiay Kai 6 péAwy Ovo éxOpol. 
The Apostles speak of themselves and 
their generation as living on the fron- 
tier of two zeons, the Gospel trans- 
ferring them as it were across the bor- 
der. The distinction of time between 
the two, which is the primary distine- 
tion, becomes lost in the moral and 
spiritual conception. 

It has been proposed to take éve- 
sros here in the sense of ‘impending,’ 
as referring to the final apostasy. In 


other passages however éeveardra is 
plainly ‘present’ as opposed to péA- 
Aovra ‘future, Rom. viii. 38, 1 Cor. iii. 
22 (comp. Heb. ix. 9), in accordance 
with the sense it bears in the language 
of grammar, where 6 ypovos 6 eveatas 
is ‘the present tense. Comp. Philo 
de Plant. Noe ii. § 27, p. 346 M zpu- 
Hepovs xpdvov, ds eis Tov mapeAnAvOoTa 
kal €veotota xal pédAXovra répverOar 
mépuxev. Hyven in passages where it 
seems at first sight to have the sense 
‘impending, soon to come,’ as in 1 Cor. 
Vil. 26 dca THY evertaoay avayKny, 
2 Thess. ii. 2 evéornxey 7 mpépa, its 
proper meaning is more appropriate. 
kata To OéAnua] ‘by the will of God’ 
and not by our own merits, St Paul 
is still insisting on the dispensation of 
grace impugned by the false teachers. 
Compare rov xadécarTos, ver. 6. 

Tov Geod Kal matpos nudv] Comp. 
Phil. iv. 20. Does jyay refer te Gcod 
as well as zarpos, ‘Our God and Fa- 
ther’? On the whole this seems pro- 
bable; for the article, not being neces- 
sary before Gcod, seems to be added 
to bind the two clauses together and 
connect both with judy. The same 
construction is justified in the case of 
the similar expression, 6 Geds kai rarnp 
"Ingo Xpiorov (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. 
IIl. p. 233. In ver. 1 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 
absolutely. 

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 beneficiis 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. 


I. 6] 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 75 


6 / J ef J ~ 

OavuaGw OTL OVTWS Tayews ueTaTiOeabe aro TOD 

, > > / a c > 
KaNeoavTos vuas év xapitt Xpiotov eis ErEpoy evay- 


n doéa] ‘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 6d£a in these doxologies. Con- 
trast with this the absence of the arti- 
cle in Rom. ii. 10, 1 Cor. xi. 15. It is 
probable therefore that we should 
supply éoriv in such cases rather than 
éoro. It is an affirmation rather than 
a wish. Glory is the essential attri- 
bute of God. See 1 Pet. iv. 11 @ 
eotw 7 Sofa kat TO xparos, and the 
doxology added to the Lord’s prayer, 
Matt. vi. 13. 

eis Tovs ai@vas Tay aidver| ‘for end- 
less ages, opposed to the present finite 
and transitory age (ver. 4). Compare 
Ephes. ii. 2, 7, where this opposition 
is brought out more strongly. 

6—g9. An indignant expression of 
surprise takes the place of the usual 
thanksgiving for the faith of his con- 
yerts. This is the sole instance where 
St Paul omits to express his thank- 
fulness in addressing any church. See 
the introduction, p. 64. 

‘IT marvel that ye are so ready to 
revolt from God who called you, so 
reckless in abandoning the dispensa- 
tion of grace for a different gospel. 
A different gospel, did I say? Nay, 
it is not another. There cannot 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. ovtws taxéws] ‘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 rayéws here 
may signify ‘readily,’ ‘rashly,’z.e. quick- 
ly after the opportunity is offered, a 
sense which the present tense (nerari- 
Geode) would facilitate. See 1 Tim. 
Vv. 22 xelpas raxéws pndevi éemurider, 
2 Thess. ii. 2 eis To py Taxéws cadrev- 
@jvat. In this case there will be no 
reference to any independent point of 
time. 

petatibcabe] ‘are turning rene- 
gades’; the middle voice, as may be 
seen from the passages quoted below. 
MerarideoGa is used (1) of desertion 
or revolt, ¢.e. of military or political 
defection, as in Polyb, xxvi. 2. 6 ra- 
Xé@s Kal Tovs ToALTevopévous peTa- 
6é0 Oat zpos THY ‘Popaiwy aipeow, and 
frequently (2) of a change in religion, 
philosophy, or morals, 1 Kings xxi. 
25 ws petéOnkev avrov “leCaBed 7 -yuvy 
avrov, lambl. Protrept. c. 17 pera- 
6éc6at awé tod amAnoTes Kat dxo\dc- 
twos éxovros Biov emi Tov kocpias. Dio- 
nysius of Heraclea, who from being a 
Stoic became an Epicurean, was called 
perabépevos, ‘turncoat’ (ayrixpus dmo- 
dds Tov THs apeTns xiT@Vva avOwda peTny- 
guacaro Athen. vii. p. 281 p). The 
word is frequently used however of 
‘conversion’ in a good sense, as in 
Justin Apol. 1. pp. 83 B, 91 D, ete. 

Tov Ka\écavtos vas év yapite] ‘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 Gcod, see the note on i. 5. 


76 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[I.7 


/ aS > Sf pels > / / > e / 
yeAuov, 70 ovK Extiv aAAO, EL MH TLVES ELOY OL Tapac- 


e > \ / / A > , 
covrTes vas Kat OéAovTES weTaTTpEYa TO EvayyéeNLOV 


Xpicrov | is generally omitted in the 
Latin authorities, while some others 
read “Ingov Xpiotov, Xpicrov “Inco, 
and even Gcov. All these may possi- 
bly have been glosses to explain rod 
«xadéoavros. 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 77 yapiri eore 
cecoopuevo. It is found however in 
the best mss, and is supported by such 
passages as Acts xy. II, dua THs yapi- 
Tos Tov Kupiov “Inoov muctevopey co- 
6jva. If retained, it must be taken 
after yapiri, and not with tov cadécav- 
ros aS in the Peshito, for o xadéoas 
in St Paul’s language is always the 
Father. 

6,7. eis erepov evayy., k.T.d.] ‘to a 
second, a different gospel, which ts 
not another.” 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). Such 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 6 cannot 
without harshness be referred to any- 
thing else but érepoy evayyeduov. 

érepov| implies a difference of kind, 
which is not involved in ado. The 
primary distinction between the words 
appears to be, that aAdos is another 
as ‘one besides, érepos another as 
‘one of two.’ The fundamental sense 
of érepos is most clearly marked in its 
compounds, as érepopOadpos, ‘ one- 
eyed” Thus adddos adds, while érepos 
distinguishes, Now when our atten- 
tion is confined to two objects, we 
naturally compare and contrast them; 
hence érepos gets to signify ‘unlike, 
opposite,’ as Xen. Cyrop. viii. 3. 8 


qv pov Kkatnyopnons...... eigavdis Grav 
duakove, érép@ por xpjon Sdiaxove, 7.€. 
‘changed,’ where @\\@ could not stand. 
In Exod. i. 8 dvéorn b€ Bacieds érepos 
éx Alyumroy, it is a translation of 
wn ‘novus’; and the idea of differ- 
ence is frequently prominent in the 
word as used in the txx. Thus while 
a\Xos is generally confined to a nega- 
tion of identity, repos sometimes im- 
plies the negution 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 
e€repov’ Gov" 7) dAXoiov" 7 Ev row dvoww" 
4) dptorepoy, véov, Sevrepov. 

7. el py tues, x.7.A.] ‘Only in this 
sense is it another gospel, in that it 
is an attempt to pervert the one true 
Gospel.’ E? 7 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 adda; see the 
note oni. 19. Here the following 6¢- 
Aovres, Which is slightly emphatic (‘at- 
tempting to, though without success’), 
justifies the exception taken by ei pn. 

Twés elo. of Tapdooorvres| a SoMe- 
what unusual construction for of ra- 
pacoovow. It occurs however even in 
classical writers, eg. Soph. Gd. Col. 
1023 dAdo yap of omevdovres, Lysias 
pro Arist. bon. § 57 eiot dé tTwWes of 
mpoavadicxortes (the latter passage is 
quoted with others by Winer, § xviii. 
p. 136), and more commonly in the 
New Testament, eg. Col. ii 8 Bre- 
TETE [kn Tis €oTat Oo TvAaywyav, Luke 
xviii. 9. See the note on iii. 21. For 
twes applied by St Paul to his adver- 
saries, see ii. 12, 1 Cor. iv. 18, 2 Cor. 
iii. 1, x. 2. Other interpretations of 
this clause have been proposed, all 
of which seem to do violence either to 
the sense or the grammar. 


I. 8, 9] 


Tov XpioTov. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. Ta 


\ \ aaN e - \ / > > 
SadAa Kal éav nuels 7 ayyeNos Ef ov- 


pavou evayyeNi(nta [viv] map’ 6 evnyyeduoapeda 


~ ’ / a 
Upiv, dvaleua ExT. 


rapacoovres] not ‘troubling your 
minds,’ but ‘raising seditions among 
you, shaking your allegiance, a con- 
tinuation of the metaphor of perari- 
GecGe. The phrase raparrew thy wodw 
is commonly used of factions, e.g. Ari- 
stoph. Zq. 863. See the note on v. Io. 

peraotpeva| properly, ‘to reverse, 
to change to the opposite,’ and so 
stronger than diaorpéyra, which is sim- 
ply ‘to distort,’ ‘wrench’: comp. Arist. 
Rhet. i. 15 cai rd row Zevodavous pera- 
otpewavra daréov x.t.A. 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 Xpiorov] On the genitive see 
the notes on 1 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 
(evayyeA(yrat): in the latter, a fact 
which had actually occurred, and was 
occurring (evayyeAi¢erat). 

kal eayv| preserves its proper sense 
of ‘etiamsi, as distinguished from éay 
cat ‘etsi’ See Hermann Viger p. 
832, Jelf Gramm. § 861. In other 
words, it introduces a highly impro- 
bable supposition. With this passage 
contrast the meaning of éav kat as it 
occurs iN Vi. I, cay kai mpoAnupdy. 

npeis] Swe. 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. 


/ / 
°WS TPOELONKaMEY Kal apTL Tahw 


vpiv] is doubtful, being found both 
before and after evayyeAi(nra in dif- 
ferent texts, and in some omitted en- 
tirely. 

map 6] 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 mapa, Roman 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. 

avadena] is the common (Hellen- 
istic), dava@nua 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 ; dva- 
@npwa getting to signify ‘devoted’ in 
a good, and dvadeua in a bad sense. 
See Trench. VW. 7. Synon. § v. p. 143 
Fritzsche on Rom. ix. 3. This is a 
common phenomenon in all languages, 
eg. 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 


78 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[I. 10 


t Y] cH , A 
AEyw, €t Tis UMas EvayyeNtCeTal Tap’ O mapEedaGeTe, 


> [7 I 
avaQeua éoTw. 


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 avaeyua, 
as Theodoret (on Rom. ix. 3) does to 
avaOnpa. *AvaOnyua occurs only once in 
the New Testament, Luke xxi. 5, and 
there in the sense of ‘an offering,’ in 
accordance with the distinction given 
above. 

It is doubted whether avaéeuza here 
means ‘excommunicated’ or ‘ accurs- 
ed’; zée. whether it refers to eccle- 
siastical censure or spiritual condi- 
tion. The latter alone seems tenable; 
for (1) it is the Lxx. translation of the 
Hebrew ON, eg. Josh. vii. 1, 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 ‘excommunicated,’ 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 ava- 
Ocpa, avabepnariCew, where they occur 
in the New Testament, and in some, 
as Rom. ix. 3, 1 Cor. xiii. 3, it is ob- 
viously excluded. Here, for instance, 
it is inconsistent with the dyyedos e& 
ovpavov. In course of time dvaGepa, 
like the corresponding pn, 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. xvi. 22, explaining 
avafepa ¢atw by addcrpios éotw Tov 
KoLvov Gopatos THs ekkAnoias. 


10 7 \ > a / , a \ 
aptt yap avOpwrous meidw n Tov 


9. os mpoeipjkapev] Sas we have 
told you before, 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 (A¢yw) where St Paul is writing 
in his own person, and the plural 
(poetpnxapev) where he is speaking 
of the joint labours of himself and his 
colleagues, is to be observed. See the 
note on nets ver. 8. 

kal dptt madw] ‘so now again. 
apr here denotes strictly present, as 
opposed to past time—a late use of the 
word, See Lobeck Phryn. p: 18 sq. 

marw| ‘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: (1) St 
Paul in that case would have used the 
singular mpoeipnxa (which indeed is 
found in some texts), as throughout 
the epistle he writes in his own per- 
son alone ; and (2) The words xai apru 
mark some greater distinction of time 
than this interpretation would allow. 

vpas evayyeAiCerat] 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 1 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 nov 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.’ 

dpte yap] What is the opposition 
implied in this now? It can scarcely 
be referred, as some refer it, to the 


1,17] 


* 
Ceov; 7 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 79 


—~ > > f > sf 
nT@ avOpwrois apéecKkev; El ETL avOowrors 


af => io > > sf 
npexKkov, XpixTou SovAos ovK av juny. 
¢ ~ oy / \ j? 
"TywpiCw b€ vuiv, adeAPol, TO evayyédwov TO Ev- 


Il. yrwplf{o 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 (1 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 
temporiser. There shall be no doubt 
about his language 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 conciliate those 
who had a leaning towards Judaism. 
This dpr: has therefore no connexion 
with the dpt: of ver. 9. The sup- 
pressed allusion to the Judaizers also 
explains the particle yap: ‘I speak 
thus strongly, fur my language shall 
not be misconstrued, shall wear no 
semblance of compromise.’ 

avOpwrous teiOw 7 Tov Gcov] ‘do I 
conciliate, 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, av6pézous 
mreiGopev, Oc dé meavepw@pcba), yet 
meio 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 humano usu sumptum 
est,’ says Jerome. On the article 
Bengel pointedly remarks: ‘dvépo- 
mous, homines; hoc sine articulo: at 
mox rov Geov, Deum cum articulo. 
Dei solius habenda est ratio.” See 
also the note on iv. 31. 

avOparos apécxew] So 1 Thess. ii. 4: 


comp. dvOpwmdpeckot, Ephes. vi. 6, Col. 
ili. 22 (with the note). 

ért] ‘still.’ After what? ‘ After all 
that has befallen me: after all the 
experiences I have had.’ Compare the 
ere Of vy. 11. Both passages find an 
explanation in vi.17; ‘ Henceforth let 
no man trouble me.’ See the intro- 
duction, p. 51. The érz 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 ei in the received 
text is one of the many attempts of 
transcribers to smooth down the rug- 
gedness of St Paul’s style. 

Xpicrov Sovdos ovK ay juny] ‘TI 
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 (ra oriy- 
pata Tov “Incov, vi. 17); ‘I should 
not have been branded as His slave, 
I should not have suffered for Hii, 
Comp. y. 11, ‘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. Tvapitw tpiv] ‘I declare to 
you’ introduces some statement on 
which the Apostle lays special em- 
phasis, 1 Cor. xii. 3, xv. 1, 2 Cor. viii. 
1. (Compare the similar phrase, ‘I 
would not have you ignorant.’) Both 
this phrase and the following, xara 
avOparoy, are confined to the epistles 
of this chronological group. 

The best authorities are nearly 
equally divided between d¢€ and yap, 


80 


\ ’ = v4 5) ’ 
ayye\tcbev vm éuov, OTL OVK ExTW KaTa 
12 3S \ \ > \ \ > , / 

ovde yap éyw mapa avOpwrov mapéNaBov 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[T.925-1g 


af 
avOpwrrov. 
> \ af 
QUTO OUTE 


eddayOnv, adda Ov arokadvWews Incov Xpictoi. 
3nHKOUT ATE yap THY euny dvaoT pony mote €v Tw ‘lov- 


12. ovd€ ed.0dxOnv. 


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 connecting 
particle to transcribers. On the other 
hand é€ may possibly have been sub- 
stituted for yap here, because it is 
found with yrvwpitw (-Coev) in 1 Cor. 
XV. 1,2 Cor, vill. 3. 

gow] is here only the copula. The 
present tense is used instead of the im- 
perfect to show the permanenceand un- 
changeableness of his Gospel. See ii. 2. 

kata avOpwrov| ‘after any human 
fashion or standard.’ See on iii. 15. 

12. ovdé yap éyd] ‘For to go a 
step farther back, nevther did I my- 
self receive it from man.’ The force 
of the particle ovdé is best sought for 
in the context. Ovde éyo® mapédaBov 
answers to To evayyeducbev im épod 
ovK €oTW, aS Tapa avOpdrov answers 
to xara avOpwrov. Others explain it 
‘T as little as the Twelve, ‘JZ in 
whom perhaps it might have been ex- 
pected’: but such interpretations are 
not reflected in the context. 

mapa avOpadrov mapéAaBov| The idea 
in the preposition is sufliciently wide 
to include both the amo and da of 
ver. 1. I do not think the distinction 
given by Winer § xlvii. p. 463, and 
others, between AauSavewv mapa Kupiov 
and AapBavew amo Kupiov (1 Cor. xi. 
23), as denoting respectively direct 
and indirect communication, can be 
insisted upon. It is true, that while 
avo contemplates only the giver, wapa 
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 mapa will be used in prefer- 
ence to amd, be the communication 
direct or indirect; so Phil. iv. 18 d¢- 
Eduevos mapa ’Enadppodirov ra rap’ 
vuov: comp. Plat. Symp. 202 5, The 
verb zapahapBavew may be used either 
of the ultimate receiver or of any in- 
termediate agent, provided that the 
idea of transmission be retained; 7.¢. 
it may be either (1) 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 1 Cor. xi. 23, xv. 1, 
3, and compare mapayyeXia. 

ovre €d.day Onv] The authorities being 
nearly equally divided between ovre 
and ovd<, I have with some hesitation 
retained the former in the text, as 
being the less regular collocation (ov- 
dé...ovre), and therefore more likely to 
be altered. In this case another ovre 
is to be understood before rapédaBor, 
the dc of ovdé having reference to the 
former sentence. See Winer § lv. 6, 
p. 617, and esp. A. Buttmann p. 315. 

eduddxOnv is added to explain and 
enforce rapa dvéparov mapedaBoy, and 
thus to bring out the contrast with 
80 dmoxadivyews: ‘I received it not 
by instruction from man but by re- 
velation from Christ.’ For a some- 
what similar contrast see Cic. pro 
Mil. c. 4, ‘Est enim haec, judices, 
nou scripta sed nata lex; quam non 
didicimus, accepimus, legimus, verum 
ex natura ipsa arripuimus, hausimus, 
expressimus.’ 

13, 14. ‘My early education is a 


I. 14] 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 8I 


ny ~ € \ , > - 
daioue, Sti Ka’ VrrepBoAnv EStwKov Tiv éxKAnTiay TOU 


a \ 5 , > , 14 \ / > ™ > 
Geov Kal eropUouy avtny, “kat mpoéKorTov év TH lou- 


oe lal \ \ J > ~ 
Saiou@ vmep modAous GuvyAtKiWTas EV TH YEVEL [LOU, 
/ \ , = ef 
TEpiacoTepws CydXwTHs VTapywy TOV TaTpLKwWY jLOU 


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. nKovoare] ‘ye heard; ‘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, 1 Cor. 
xv. 8—10: comp. Phil. iii. 6, 1 Tim. i. 
13. The A.V., ‘ye have heard,’ gives 
a wrong meaning. 

dvaorpodny 7ore| for the more usual 
qote avactpopyy, as ver. 23 6 didkwv 
npas wore. Similar displacements of 
words, which would ordinarily come 
between the article and substantive, 
are frequent in the New Testament. 
See on 1 Thess. i. 1; and Winer § xx. 
p. 169 sq. 

*Iovdaioua] ‘observance of Jewish 
rites’ The word does not in itself 
imply any disparagement. Comp. 2 
Mace, ii. 21 rots dmép tov “Iovdaicpod 
ioripas avdpayaénoacw, xiv. 33 
capa Kal \ruxny vrep Tov “lovdaiopov 
mapaBeBAnpévos, and "Iovdaifew 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 Xpioriavos, likewise 
a term of reproach in the first in- 
stance, is a parallel. 


GAL. 


éropOovy x.7.r.] ‘I devastated the 
Church, as Acts ix. 21 ovx ovrés 
eoTw o mopbiaas ev ‘Iepovaadnp Tovs 
emtkaAoujevous «.7.A. Compare eAv- 
paiveto tH exkAnaiay, Acts Vili. 3. 

I4. ovvnrduxrdras| ‘of my own age, 
who embraced the religion of their 
fathers with all the ardour of youthful 
patriotism. The Attics use the simple 
form nAKwrys, while the compound 
belongs to the later dialect. Com- 
pare the similar instances of zoXizmns 
(cupmoXirns, Lphes. ii. 19), dudérns 
(cupdvarerns, 1 Thess. ii. 14), ete. 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. 

ev T@ yéver pou] ‘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’ 
(ovyyevets). Comp. also Rom. ix. 3 
vrép tov adcAday pov Tay ovyyevar 
pov kata capka. 

mepircorépws (niorhs Urdpxyeav] The 
adverb zepiccorépws, which is fre- 
quent in St Paul, seems always to re- 
tain its comparative force. Here it 
is explained by umép moddovs. For 
(niotis Umapxey comp. Acts xxi. 20 
mavres (ndotal Tov vowou wmapxovew. 
St Paul seems to have belonged to 
the extreme party of the Pharisees 
(Acts xxii. 3, xxiii. 7, xxvi. 5, Phil. iii. 
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, (jy\wrns 
or xavayaios, i.e. j8)p. A portion of 


6 


82 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. [I. 15, 16 
mapadocewy. dre dé EvddKnoEV 6 dhopicas pe eK KOI- 


ff \ - ‘ ~ 
Alas pnTpdos jou Kal KaNeoas dia THS XapiTOs avToU 


\ CON ~ > 2 \ e/ , 
“droKkadu\at Tov viov «UTOU év Euol iva edayyeENt- 


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. Antig. xviii. 
1.1,6. See Ewald Gesch. des Volkes 
Isr. v. p. 25 sq, p. 322, VL p. 340. 

TOY TaTpikav pov trapaddacwr| Sof 
the traditions handed down from 
my fathers’ It is doubtful whether 
the law of Moses is included in this 
expression. In Josephus ra ex mapa- 
ddcews Tav matépwr (Antig. xiii. 10. 6), 
7 Tatp@a tapadoors (2b. 16, 2), are the 
Pharisaic traditions, as distinguished 
from the written law. See also Matth. 
XV. (2,03, On Marle yi, 5.5, "Oy tise 
These passages seem to show that the 
word zrapadoors, Which 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. 

15—17. ‘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 tetake 
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 guing to Jerusalem, I returned to 
Damascus.’ 

I5- 0 aopicas| ‘who set me a- 
part, devoted me to a special pur- 


pose’: Rom. i, 1 adwpicpévos eis ev- 
ayyéduov Gcov. See also Acts xiii. 2 
agopioare 5 pou x.t.A. The words o 
Geds 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. viii. 11, Phil. i. 6, 1 Thess. v. 24. 

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 efiorts: 
evddKnoev, adopioas, ek Kowlas pntpos 
fou, kadéoas, xapiTos avrov. 

€k KowNlas pntpos pou] ‘from before 
my birth, before I had any impulses, 
any principles of my own. For the 
expression see Judges xvi. 17 dyws 
Ocovd eyo eit amo KowNias pntpds pov, 
Is. xliv. 2, 24, xlix, 1, 5 6 mAaoas pe 
ex KowAlas dovdov éavtd, Psalm Ixx. 6 
€x Ko.\las yantpds Lov OU pov Et OkeETa- 
otns, and frequently in the xx. 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 
sense. 

kadéoas dia ths xapttos 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 (6 apopioas pe x.7.d.); 
Secondly, the conversion and call to 
the Apostleship, which took place on 
the way to Damascus, Acts ix. 3 sq 
(kadkéoas dia ths xapiros avrov); and 
Thirdly, the entering upon his min- 
istry in fulfilment of this call, Acts ix. 
20 sq, Xili. 2, 3 (dmoxadvyar év epor 
iva evayyeNif@pat). 

The distinction of these three stages 
seems well marked; and if so, this de- 


197; 18] 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 83 


> > _ af > > 
Copctt avtov év Tots EOverw, evOews ov mpocsvebéunv 


\ \ of 29\ a res > c , 
capkit Kal aipatt, “ovde avnOov eis ‘lepooodupa 
\ A \ > - > , 7 \ a z 
pos Tous mpo €uov a&moaToXous, a\Aa aandOov ets 
, \ / , 5 a 
ApaBiav, kal madtw vreotpea eis Aauackoy: ‘ér- 


17. ovde drHAOov els ‘ep. 


termines the meaning of ey euoi. It 
does not speak of a revelation made 
inwardly to himself, but of a revela- 
tion made through him to others. 
The preposition éy is used in prefer- 
ence to da, 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 ¢€60- 
£alov év é€pot Tov Gcov, 1 Tim. i. 16 
dia tovro nrenOny iva é€v epot mpare 
evdeiénrar Xpioros “Incovs thy aracav 
pakpoOupiay mpos trotimaow TOV ped- 
Aovr@y morevew x«.7.r., 2 Cor. Xili. 3 
Tov €v €uot AadodvTos Xpiotov, Phil. 
i. 30. The rendering of ev époi 
‘within me,’ ie. ‘in my heart, seems 
neither to suit the context so well, 
nor to be so natural in itself. 

evdéws ov mpocavebeuny k.t.d.] ‘forth- 
with, instead of conferring with flesh 
and blood, etc., 7 departed to Arabia,’ 
On dvaridecOa see the note ii. 2. In 
the double compound mpocavarider dat 
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, s.v. veorrés) mpocavabéo Oat 
éveipoxpitn, Diod. Sic. xvii. 116 rots 
pdvreot mpocavabéuevos mepi TOU o7- 
petov. Comp. Lucian Jup. Trag. § 1 
(Il. p. 642) euot mpooavafov, AdBe pe 
cipBovrov tovev. See the note ii. 6. 

For capxi cat aiwatt compare our 
Lord’s words to St Peter, Matt. xvi. 
17 ‘Flesh and blood did not reveal it 
unto thee.’ 


17. avndOov] ‘I came up. This 


verb and dvaBaivew are used especially 
of visiting Jerusalem, situated in the 
high lands of Palestine, as xarépye- 
cat, karaBaivewy, are of leaving it. See 
Jiuke'x, 30, Acts x27, xi, 19; xv..a, 
2, XXi. 15, XxXv. I, 6, 7, and especially 
Acts xviii. 22, xxiv. 1. In the two 
last passages dvaBaivew and xarafai- 
vew are used absolutely without any 
mention of Jerusalem, this being im- 
plied in the expressions ‘going up,’ 
‘going down. Here the various read- 
ing am7j\Gov 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 dm7Adov twice 
consecutively, as the repetition makes 
the sentence run awkwardly; though 
in Rom. viii. 15, 1 Cor. ii. 13, Heb. xii. 
18, 22, something of the kind occurs. 

Tovs mpo €“ov amocrodous| ‘those 
who were Apostles before me, pos- 
sibly including others besides the 
Twelve, especially James. See be- 
low, p. 95, note 4. For the expres- 
sion compare Rom. xvi. 7, oirwés ciow 
erionpot év Trois dmooToXots of Kal ™po 
éuod yéyovay ev Xpioro, where how- 
ever the construction is doubtful. 

els Aapackov] 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 


6—2 


84 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[I. 19 


A oS f- Coes ? « / € 
€LTa META ETH TPLA avnNOov ets lepooodupa toTo- 
~ nw , AY > N / 
pnoa Kypav, kat émeuelva mpos avToy nuepas o€Ka- 
c col > / ’ in 3 \ 
TEVTE* *9 €TEOV O€ TMV aTOTTOAWY OUK ElOOY, EL pH 


18. peTa Tpla 77H. 


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, | 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 unknown to the 
Christian brotherhoodin Judzea. 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. émeira pera ern tpia| 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 afier the lapse of three years 
that I went to Jerusalem.’ 

‘TepoooAvpa] is generally a neuter 
plural. In Matt. ii. 3 however we 
have waaa ‘JepoodAvpa. See A. Butt- 
mann Gramm. p. 16. On the forms 
‘IepoodAvpa and ‘Iepovoadnp see the 
note iv. 26. 

istopjaa Knhav] ‘to visit Cephas,’ 
icropjaa: 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. Jud. vi. 1. 8 avip 
ay €y® Kat ékeivoy iotdpnoa Toy Trode- 
pov, and Clem. Hom. viii. 1, ete. St 
Peter is mentioned by St Paul only in 
this epistle and 1 Corinthians. Ky- 
day is the right reading here, though 
there is respectable authority for Ié- 
rpov. If the existing authorities are 
to be trusted, St Paul seems to have 
used the Aramaic and Greek names 


indifferently. Allowance ought to be 
made however for the tendency to sub- 
stitute the more usual Ierpos for the 
less common Kndas, e.g. here and ii. 
9, 11, 14. In the Peshito Version 
Cephas, as the Aramaic name, is not 
unnaturally adopted throughout this 
epistle. 

Sexarévre] A later form for the 
more classical wevrexaidexa. This 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 in 
the Tabulae Heracleenses is a decisive 
testimony to their use, at least in some 
dialects, much before the Christian 
era. They are found often in the 
LXX. 

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 7) “IaxwBov] Is James here 
styled an Apostle or not? 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 ei yu) 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. 
XX1l 27; see Fritzsche on Rom. 1m. 
p. 195. But on the other hand the 
sense of érepoy naturally links it with 


I, 20—22] 


\ > my - 
Taxwov Tov adehqov Tov Kupiov. 
ad eh 2 
idov évwriov Tou Geo GT ov Wevdomcn. 
eis Ta KAim“aTa THS Lupias Kac THS KiduKlas. 


ei py, from which it cannot be sepa- 
rated without harshness, and érepoy 
carries rav droordAov With it. Itseems 
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 
pressed. 

20. iSod éevamiov Tov Ocov] A form 
of asseveration equivalent to ‘I call 
you to witness,’ and so followed by 
ért. See 2 Tim. ii. 14, iv. 1 dcayapri- 
peoOa evaroy Tod Gcod. For idod 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 6re here. Perhaps however 
the occurrence of ide 6ru in the Lxx, 
Ps. exix. 159, Lam. i. 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 1 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 Paul’s life, ‘took him 
down to Czesarea 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 (xi. 25—30). 
The Czsarea 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 (1) The words xarnyayov, éfan- 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 85 


aA / - 
a O€ ypahw ui, 
At ererta nAOoy 
a2 2/ \ 
*3 HunV O€ 


éorevay, imply a seaport and an em- 
barkation: and (2) Czesarea, 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 Czesarea 
on his way to Tarsus; and comparing 
this account with the notice here, we 
must suppose either (1) 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 
constautly little better than an appen- 
dage of Syria,’ Gesch. des V. Isr. v1. 
p. 406. At this time however it was 
under a separate administration. The 
words ra kAivara seem to show that 
‘Syria and Cilicia’ are here men- 
tioned under one general expression, 
and not as two distinct districts. 

ra kAiwara] Rom. xv. 23, 2 Cor. 
xi. ro. 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. munv ayvoovpevos KtA.] ‘LT 
remained personally unknown, A 
strong form of the imperfect, as dxov- 
ovres Hoav ‘they kept hearing’ (ver. 
23): see Winer, § xlv. 5, p. 437 8q- 


86 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[I. 23, 24 


- aah, a , - 
aYVOOULEVOS TH TPOTWTW Tats ExkAnoLats THs “lovdatas 


= nn \ > 7 2 e/ , 
Tats év XpiotH, 3 uovoy O€ akovoytes ijcav OTL'O OwwKwv 


~ Cr \ y / ld 
aS TOTE VUV EVayYENICETAL THY TLOTLY HY TOTE ETOp- 
’ > \\ \ 7 
Ger, kal €0EaCov év Euot Tov Ceov. 


Tais exkAnotas x.t.A.] ‘unknown to 
the Churches of Judea’ 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. From Jerusalem he was 
hurried off to Czesarea, and there em- 
barking he left the shores of Pales- 
tine. The other churches of Judza 
therefore had no opportunity of know- 
ing him. Judea is here distinguished 
from Jerusalem, as Italy is frequently 
distinguished from Rome, e.g. pro- 
bably Hebr. xiii. 24. The addition 
tais ev Xpior@ was necessary when 
speaking of the Christian brother- 
hoods of Judza; for the unconverted 
Jewish communities might still be 
called ‘the Churches of Judzea.’ See 
the note on 1 Thess. ii. 14, rav ék- 
kAnow@v Tov Ocod Tav otoay ev TH 
‘Tovdaia €v Xprora "Incod. 

23. dre] introduces an abrupt change 
from the oblique to the direct mode 
of speaking, e.g. Acts xiv. 22, xxiii. 22. 


So it is used frequently in introducing 
a quotation, e.g. Gal. ili. Io. 

‘O Suwxov nuas moré] ‘Our per- 
secutor of former times’; 6 SiwKev 
being used as a substantive, ie. with- 
out reference to time, as Matt. xxvii. 
40 0 kata\iov Tov vaov: see Winer, 
§ xlv. 7, p. 444. On the position of 
moré, see the note on ver. 13. 

tv miot| It isa 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 ziatis, see 
the notes on iii. 23, vi. 10, and the 
detached note on the term ‘ faith.’ 

24. ev éuoi] See the note ver. 16, 
and comp. Is. xlix. 3 dodAds pov et 
ov “Iopand Kai ev coi evdofacOjoopat. 
‘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 
says, in me,’ 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 87 


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 which of the in- 
engaged him while there, of all the circumstances of a crisis which must adeat 
have shaped the whole tenour of his after life, absolutely nothing is known. 
‘Immediately? says St Paul, ‘I went away mto 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. Conjec- 
Arabia is a vague term, and affords scope for much conjecture. Hess to 

1. The Arabic translator!, whose language gives him a fictitious claim (1) Hl Bal 

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 1 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 "ApaSia 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 cvveroryet 
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- 
glotts, which wasmade directly from the 
Greek. The translatornotunfrequently 
gives geographical comments. See Hug 
Hinleit. § cix, 1. p. 431. The other 
Arabic version, the Erpenian, translated 
from the Syriac, retains ‘Arabia.’ 

2 See Burckhardt Trav. in Syria 
App. m1, Ritter Erdkunde x11. p. 426 


sq, Stanley’s Sinai and Palestine pp. 
95> 319. 

3 For this rendering however he 
might plead the authority of several 
ancient commentators. See the notes 
on iv. 25. 

4 Hug 1. c. states that the trans- 
lator has unexpectedly revealed his 
country by his rendering of Acts ii. 10, 


88 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


(2) The 2. Arabia, in the widest use of the term, might extend to the gates 
country of Damascus, and even include that city itself. ‘You cannot any of you 
nee 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 Syropheenicia4’ 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 


(3) Mount 
Sinai. 


Ta wépn TAS AcBins Tis Kara Kupyyny, 
‘and the territories of Africa which 
is our country.’ There can scarcely be 


a doubt however that here Uj a ‘our 
country’ isa corrupt reading of \\ uy) 198 
‘Cyrene,’ the change involving only a 
slight alteration in one letter. See 
Lagarde de N. T. ad vers. Orient. fidem 
edendo, Berl. 1857, p. 3, referred to in 
Bleek’s Hinl. p. 737. Such geographi- 
cal notices as that of El Belka point to 
a more eastern origin. 

1 Dial. c. Tryph. p. 305 4. See also 
other authorities in Conybeare and 
Howson, I. p.117,118. Tertullian (adv. 
Jud. ¢. g and adv. Mare. iii. 13) ob- 
viously copies Justin and must not be 
considered an independent authority. 
The words of Justin ef cal viv mpoovevé- 


penta TH Dupopowlkeyn Aevyouevy seem to 
refer to the arrangement of these pro- 
vinces by Hadrian. See Becker and 
Marquardt Rim. Alterth. 11. 1, p. 195 
sqq and comp. [Bardesanes] de Fato, 
in Cureton’s Spicil. Syr. p. 30. On 
the limits of Arabia see also Ephr. Syr. 
Op. Syr.t. p. 464 sq. 

2 See the instructive passage in 
Ewald, Gesch, des Volkes Isr. v1, 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). 

3; Kings xix. 8—18. It is worth 
noticing that this region is connected 
with Damascus in the history of Elijah 
as wellas of St Paul; ‘Go return on 
thy way to the wilderness of Damascus.’ 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 59 


was now to supplant it. Here, surrounded by the children of the desert, 

the descendants of Hagar the bondwoman, he read the true meaning and 

power of the lawt. 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- cance of 
tended to create in the soul of man. In the midst of such scenes and YS °° 

Batt : ete d itefie KA A: ourn, 

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 Hlijah, 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- 
interyal between his conversion and his first visit to Jerusalem, St Paul tion- 
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 


1 A stronger argument for St Paul’s 
visit to Sinai might be drawn from his 
reference to Hagar, the supposed Ara- 
bic name of Sinai (Gal. iv. 25), which 
he was not likely to have heard any- 
where but on the spot: comp. Stanley 
Sinai and Palestine p. 50. But the 
reading and the interpretation alike are 
highly doubtful. See the notes there. 

2 The significance of Sinai, as the 
holy place of inspiration, will be felt 
by readers of Tancred. 

3 The notices of time in the narra- 
tive of the Acts are these: He remain- 
ed with the disciples in Damascus some 
days (jpépas Twas) and straightway (ev- 
Géws) he began to preach (éxjpvocer)... 
and Saul was the more strengthened... 
and when many days (iuépac ikaval) 
were accomplishing (ém\npodvro) the 
Jews took counsel to slay him, in con- 
sequence of which he left and went to 
Jerusalem (ix. 20—26). ‘“Hyépar ixaval 
is an indefinite period in St Luke, which 
may vary according to circumstances ; 


Acts ix. 43, XViii. 18, xxvii. 7. Cer- 
tainly the idea connected with ixavds 
in his language is that of largeness ra- 
ther than smallness ; comp. Luke vii. 
12, Acts xx. 37 (ixavds kXavOuds). In 
the uxx it is frequently employed to 
translate TY ‘mighty,’ e.g. Ruth i. 20, 
a1. Again the wide use of the Hebrew 
DD’, which St Luke is copying, allows 
of almost any extension oftime. Hence 
modal juépar in the Lxx denotes any 
indefinite period however long; Gen. 
EXXVli, 34, 2 Sam. xiv. 2, 1 Kings iii. 
rr (‘a long life’). Even Demosthenes, 
de Cor. p. 258, can speak of the in- 
terval between the battles of Haliartus 
and Corinth as od 7oAdal juépat, though 
they were fought in different years and 
many important occurrences happened 
in the mean time. The difference be- 
tween the vague ‘many days’ of the 
Acts and the definite ‘three years’ of 
the Epistle is such as might be expect- 
ed from the circumstances of the two 
writers. 


QO 


Its pur- 
pose. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


commenced his active labours!. ‘fmmediately, 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. 

For can we doubt that by this journey he sought seclusion from the 
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 
Jiesh 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. Far 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*’? 


1 Tt must in this case be placed be- 
fore the notice of his active preaching, 
ix. 20 kal evOéws, x.7.’. Some have 
put it later and seen anindirect allusion 
to it in the expression uaddov évedv- 
vamodro, ver. 22; but there is no trace 
of a chronological notice in these 
words, and such an allusion is scarcely 
natural. 

2 Similarly also Victorinus, Hilary, 
Theodore Mops., Theodoret, Primasius, 
and the Ccumenian commentator. 
Some of the Latin fathers might have 
been helped to this view by a curious 
blunder arising out of the Latin trans- 
lation ‘non acquievi carni et sanguini,’ 
‘T did not rest in flesh and blood,’ which 
Victorinus explains, ‘Omnino laboravi 
carnaliter,’ adding ‘Caro enim et san- 
guis homo exteriortotusest.’ Tertullian 
however, de Resurr. Carn. ¢. 50, quotes 
the passage, ‘Statim nonretuleritad car- 


nem et sanguinem,’ explaining it, ‘idest 
ad circumcisionem, id est ad Judais- 
mum.’ Jerome supposes that St Paul 
preached in Arabia, but that his preach- 
ing was unsuccessful. His comment is 
curious. Why, he asks, is this visit to 
Arabia, of which we knownothing, which 
seems to have ended in nothing, record- 
ed at all? It is an allegory from which 
wemust extractadeep meaning. Arabia 
is the Old Testament. In the law and 
the prophets St Paul sought Christ, and 
having found Him there, he returned to 
Damascus, ‘hoc est ad sanguinem et 
passionem Christi.’ So fortified, he went 
to Jerusalem, ‘locum visionis et pacis.’ 
This interpretation is doubtless bor- 
rowed from Origen. 

3 Christian Year, 13th Sunday after 
Trinity, said of Moses. 

4 Christian Year, 9th Sunday after 
Trinity, said of Klijah. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. go! 


St Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem. 


The visit 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 event nar- 
of the Acts'. Whatever difficulties seem to stand in the way of our iden- ee es 
tifying them, the fact that in each narrative this is stated to have been st tuke. 
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 ‘ifferent 
almost always be the case in two independent narratives. In the case of 2SPe¢ts 
St Paul and St Luke this divergence is due to two causes: OWERE, FS 

First. The different position of the two writers, the one deriving his (1) Their 
information at second-hand, the other an eyewitness and an actor in the *espective 
scenes which he describes. In such cases the one narrator will present WUE: 
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- ‘ifference 
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 enange which had come oyer 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 ; 

1. St Paul’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 7lations 
by the disciples; that Barnabas introduced him to ‘the Apostles, relating (" ‘tes ae 
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 


1 ix. 26—30. CompareStPaul’slater salem, Acts xxii, 17—21. 
reference to this residence at Jeru- 


{2) with 
the Jewish 
Chris- 
tians. 


Meaning 
of the 
term in 
classical 
writers. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


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 sufficient 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 ‘Judzea and Galilee and Samaria’ 
(ix. 31), which needed supervision. 

2. St Paul's intercourse with the Jewish Church at large. At first 
sight there appears to be a wide difference between the two accounts. St 
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 Judzea.’ 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 Hellenists4, He relates moreover 
that St Paul’s visit terminated abruptly”, owing to a plot against his life, 
and that he was hurried off to Czesarea, whence he forthwith embarked. 
To a majority therefore of the Christians at Jerusalem he might, and to 
the Churches of Judzea 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. 


The word drécrodos in the first instance is an adjective signifying 
‘despatched’ or ‘sent forth.’ Applied to a person, it denotes more than 
adyyedos. The ‘Apostle’ is not only the messenger, but the delegate of the 
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 


1 ix. 28. The restrictions ép [or els] 3 It occurs of a person in Herod. i. 


‘Tepovoadi and mpds rods “EAAnuoras 
are the more noticeable, in that they 
interfere with the leading feature of St 
Luke’s narrative, the publicity of Saul’s 
conversion, 

2 ix. 29. Compare Acts xxii. 18, 
‘Make haste and get thee quickly out 
of Jerusalem.’ 


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 haveI succeeded in finding any 
myself, though Hesychius explains dzo- 
oToos* orpatnyos KaTa wodv meEwTd- 
“evos. Thisis probably an instance where 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 93 


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 
Attie 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 light, 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 200g the 
1 Kings xiv. 6, as a translation of mow, where it has the general sense of ae 
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‘, 


the Attic usage has ruled the literary 
language, the word having meanwhile 
preserved in the common dialect the 
sense which it has in Herodotus and 
which reappears in the xx and New 
Testament and in the official language 
of the Jews. See the notes on xar7- 
xe, vi. 6; rrvpecPa, Phil. i. 28 ; yoy- 
yvopos, Phil. ii. 14. 

1 Tt was also used by Symmachus to 
translate 49% in Is. xviii. 2: see below. 
The word dzrocro\y occurs in a few pas- 
sages in the uxx, and dmogré\\w is 
the common translation of N2v’. Justin 
therefore (Dial. c. Tryph. ¢. 75, p. 300 D) 
is so far justified in saying that the pro- 
phets are called apostles, xal dyyedot kal 
dméatonNo TOU Oeov éyovTat of ayyéA- 
New Ta map avrod drocredNdmevor Tpo- 
para...\éyer yap éxe? 6 “Hoatas do- 
oret\dv we. The Syriac renders dré- 
atodos by the word corresponding to 
the Hebrew. 

2 Such for instance as the bearers of 
the instructions contemplated in Acts 
XXVill, 21, olTe ypdumara epi cov 
édeEducOa amd THs Lovdalas otre mapa- 
vyevouevos Tis Tv abehpay amnyyether. 
Eusebius (Montf. Coll. Nov. 11. 425), 
evidently thinking o this passage, 
says: dmoordhous dé eloére viv eos 
égtlv "Iovdalors dvouatew Tods éyxixua 
ypdppara mapa Twv apxovTwy avTuY 
émixouttouévous. The passage in Isaiah 
Xyiii, 1, 2, which is read in the uxx, 


Thus in 


Oval...6 drocTré\\wy ev Oaddoon Sunpa 
kal émusro\ds BiBAivas érdvw Tob VdaTos, 
and in which for dunpa Symmachus 
had drooroxous, 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, mopetcovrat yap 
dyyedo. KoUmae mpds Ovos x.7.r., the 
true Apostles were referred to in con- 
trast with the false. See Procopius in 
Esaiam, |.c. and Eusebius, l.c. The txx 
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, 2 
Cor. iii. 1. See also Jerome, Comm. ad 
Gal. i. 1,‘ Usque hodie a patriarchis 
Judzorum apostolos mitti ete.’ 

3 See Cod. Theodos. xv1. Tit. viii. 14, 
‘ Superstitionis indignae est, ut archi- 
synagogi sive presbyteri Judaeorum vel 
quos ipsi apostolos voeant, qui ad exi- 
gendum aurum atque argentum a pa- 
triarcha certo tempore diriguntur etc.,” 
with the learned comment of J. Gotho- 
fred. ‘The collection of this tribute 
was called drocroAy, Julian Epist. 25 
Ti deyouevny wap Uuivy droorohhy Kw 
AvOjvat. 

4 See the important passage in Eji- 
phanius, Haer. xxx. p. 128, Tov rap 
avrots aziwuarikay avipay évaplOucos nv. 
celal 52 ovToL mera TOY waTpLapxnY am d- 


94 


Mistake of 
restricting 
the title 

to the 
Twelve. 


Its use 
in the 
Gospels 
does not 
favour 
this. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


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’. 

At the first institution of the oflice 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 
trcelve 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, 
of dmréatoAa, Compare droaréAAew, 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 (xiii. 16). St Luke uses 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- 
nabas also, 


oTOAOL Kadovmevor, mpocedpevovar OE TH 
marpiapxy, K-T-r.; and p. 134, cuuPé- 
Bnke...yépas TO "Iwonry Tis dmooroNns 
Ootvar Ti émtkapriay* Kal per’ emoTo- 
Gy ovTOs atroaTéNAeTaL els THY Kidixdv 
Vv, K-T.d. 

1 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 
still lingered on. 

2 Our Lord Himself is so styled Hebr. 
iii. 1, ‘The apostle and high priest 


of our profession’; the best comment 
on which expression is Joh. xvii. 18; 
‘As thou hast sent (dréorechas) me into 
the world, even so have I also sent (d7- 
éoretha) them into the world.’ Comp. 
Justin Apol. 1. c. 63, pp. 95 D, 96 ¢. 

8 See Schaff History of the Apo- 
stolic Church, 1. p. 194. 

4 Luke vi. 13 éxAXeéduevos dm’ av- 
Tay OwdeKa ods Kal amoorb\ous wybua- 
oev. 

5 Acts xiv. 4, 14. The word dro- 
oToXos occurs 79 times in the New Tes- 
tament, and of these 68 instances are 
in St Luke and St Paul. dzocrody 
occurs four times only, thrice in St 
Paul and once in St Luke. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 95 

In the account of the foundation of the apostolate then, and in the 
janguage 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 
number, but so is seven also. And if the first creation of the diaconate 
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 office 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 
Christendom. 

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 lias 
if the latter were the more comprehensive term (1 Cor. xv. 5, 7). It ; 
appears both there and in other places? that James the Lord’s brother 


Twelve a 
typical 
bumber. 


1 Matth, xix. 28, Luke xxii, 30: 
comp. Barnab. § 8 odcw dexadvo els uap- 
TUpoy THV Purwv ott dexadto ai pudral 
tod Iopand. See Justin Dial. c. Tryph. 
42, p. 260 c. An Ophite writing re- 
presented the Twelve as actually taken 
from the twelve tribes: Hippol. Haer. 
v. 8, p. 109. 

2 Rey. xxi. 14 ‘And the walls of 
the city had twelve foundations, and 
in them the names of the twelve apo- 
stles of the Lamb.’ 

3 Those instances are here disre- 
garded, where the term is used in the 
sense of an apostle or delegate of a 
church, e.g. the brethren (2 Cor. viii. 
23 ambcroXot exxAno.wv) and Epaphro- 
ditus (Phil. ii. 25 buav de dwdcrodos). 
- Such persons are not spoken of as apo- 
stles of Christ. Yet this free use of the 
term seems to show that it had not such 
a rigid and precise application as is 


generally supposed. 

4In 1 Cor. xv. 7, ‘After that he 
was seen of James, then of all the apo- 
stles,’ St Paul certainly appears to in- 
clude James among the Apostles. See 
also the note on Gal. i. 19, where he is 
apparently soentitled. In 1 Cor, ix. 5, 
ws Kal of Nowrol awoaroXo. Kal of depot 
Tod Kupiov xal Kywas, it seems probable 
that St Paul is singling out certain 
Apostles in ‘the brethren of the Lord’ 
as well as in ‘Cephas,’ whether we 
suppose ourol to be used in distinction 
to the persons thus specified, or to 
Paul and Barnabas who are men- 
tioned just after. Still it is a question 
which of the ‘ brethren of the Lord’ are 
meant. Jude is said to have been mar- 
ried (Euseb. H.L. iii. 20), but he seems 
to disclaim for himself the title of an 
Apostle (Jude 17, 18). Whether Hege- 
sippus (Euseb. H. LE. ii, 23) considered 


96 


Barnabas. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


is styled an Apostle. On. the most natural interpretation of a passage in 
the Epistle to the Romans, Andronicus and Junias, two Christiins other- 
wise unknown to us, are called distinguished members of the apostolate, 
language which indirectly implies a very considerable extension of the 
term!’ In1 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 Aposiles 
of Christ, 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 office 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). 


James as an Apostle or not, may be 
questioned: his words are, Aradéyerat 
dé thy éxxd\nolay pera Tv amocTo\wy 
6 ddekpds Tod Kupiov IdkwBos (comp. 
Acts v.29). The Clementines seem cer- 
tainly to exclude him, as do also the 
Apost. Const, viii. 46. See below note 5, 
p. 100. 

1 Rom. xvi. 7 ’Aomdcacbe ’Avdpo- 
vixov Kal Iovvlay rods cuyyevels mou Kal 
ouvacxmarwrovs pov, olrwés eiow enrl- 
ono év Tots amooTOAas, of Kal mpd éwod 
yéyovay év Xpicr@. Except to escape 
the difficulty involved in such an ex- 
tension of the apostolate, I do not 
think the words oizwés eiow érlonuot 
€v Tots amooto\os would haye 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 
ilud intellegi quod fortassis ex illis sep- 
tuaginta duobus qui et ipsi apostoli 
nominati sunt, fuerint:’ Chrysostom 
still more decisively, rd dmroarénXous eivat 
péya* 7d Se év Tovros éemio7mous elvac, 
évvonoov hrikov eyxwuwov, and similarly 
Theodoret. In this case Iovvfay (or 
*Iovviav) is probably a man’s name, 
Junias contracted from Junianus, asit is 
taken by Origen (on Rom. xvi. 21, T. tv. 
p. 582 D, and especially on xvi. 39, ib. 
p- 686 &) and by several modern critics. 
Chrysostom however, in spite of his 
interpretation, considers that it is a 
woman’s name: Baal, moon THs yuvac- 


St Paul himself also in two different 


kos Tavtns 7 ptAocodla, ws Kal THS TOY 
amocTohwy a&iwfvar mpoonyoplas. 

2 Not Timothy, though Timothy 
also had been with him at Thessaloniea, 
and his name, like that of Silvanus, 
is joined to the Aposile’s own in the 
opening salutation. But Timothy is 
distinctly excluded from the apostolate 
in 2 Cor. i. 1, Col. i. 1, ‘Paul an Apo- 
stle and Timothy the brother’; and 
elsewhere, when St Paul links Timothy’s 
name with his own, he drops the title 
of Apostle, e.g. Phil. i. 1 ‘Paul and 
Timotheus, servants of Jesus Christ.’ 

In 1 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 Rome, § 47, speaking of the 
dissensions of the Corinthians in St 
Paul’s time, says, mpocexNlO@nre azo- 
aTohos pewaprupnuevots (i.e. St Peter 
and St Paul) xal avdpt dedoxipacuévw 
map avrots (Apollos). If therefore there 
is a reference in 1 Cor. iv. g to any in- 
dividual person besides St Paul (which 
seems doubtful), I suppose it to beagain 
to Silvanus, who had assisted him in 
laying the foundation of the Corinthian 
Church (2 Cor. i. 19). For the circum- 
stance which disqualified Apollos and 
Timotheus from being Apostles, see 
below, p. 98. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 97 


epistles holds similar language. In the Galatian 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. 5, 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 Christ}. 

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, 

Rey. 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? 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 insuflicient 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 the jfirst order in the Church (1 Cor. xii. Rank 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 (1 Cor. ix. 1, 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 *”P- 
work in the Lord?’ It would appear then ; 

First, that the having seen Christ was a necessary condition of the (1) Quali- 


1 In the printed texts of Clem. Rec. 
i. 60 Barnabas is identified with Mat- 


abbas’ in two places. 
2 Luke xi. 49, 2 Pet. iii. 2, and so 


thias, and thus made an Apostle, with- 
out extending the number beyond 
twelve; ‘Post quem Barnabas qui et 
Matthias qui in locum Judae subro- 
gatus est apostolus.’ But the correct 
reading is doubtless ‘Barsabas,’ which 
is found in the ms in Trinity College 
Library at Cambridge, as well as in 
several mentioned by Cotelier. Thus 
the account is a confused version of 
the incident in the Acts. The Syriac 
translation strangely enough has ‘ Bar- 


GAL. 


perh. Rev. xviii. 20: comp. Polye. § 6. 

8 Ephes. ii. 20, iii. 5. That the ‘pro- 
phets’ in these passages are to be so 
understood, appears (1) from the order, 
the Apostles being named before the 
prophets ; (2) from the expression in 
Ephes. iii. 5, ws viv admrexadipAn rots 
aylos amrocrédas avTod Kal mpopijrats. 
It is in this same epistle also (iv. 11) 
that the prophets are directly men- 
tioned as the next order to the Apostles 
in the Christian Church. 


A 


98 


fication for 
the office. 


To bea 
witness of 
the resur- 
rection. 


Apollos 
and Timo- 
thy not 
qualified. 


The out- 
ward com- 
mission 
how given. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


apostolic office. It may be urged indeed that St Paul is here taking 
the 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. 
48, Acts i. 8). An Apostle must necessarily have been an eye-witness of 
the resurrection. He must be able to testify from direct knowledge to 
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 i, 2I—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. Andronicus and Junias 
were certainly among the earliest 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 brethren 
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 
privilege. 

On the other hand, it is not probable that this qualification was pos- 
sessed either by Apollos or by Timothy, who were both comparatively late 
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. 1, 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. 

But though it was necessary that an Apostle should have been an eye- 
witness of the Lord’s resurrection, it does not follow that the actual cadd to 
the 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 office of the Church in the same way. His 
conversion indeed may be said in some sense to have been 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 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 99 
truthfulness of his claims. ‘If I be not an Apostle to others,’ he says to (2) Signs 
the Corinthians, ‘at least I am to you.” Their conversion was the seal of of an 
his Apostleship (1 Cor. ix. 2). In another passage he speaks in like manner “?°*'!¢- 
of his having wrought the signs 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.’ St 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 of the 
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- Apostolic 
selves as distinct from the Apostles. Several of them include St Paul by pees 
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®. 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 sue- 
the title. Ata very early date we find it applied to the Seventy, without ceeding 
however placing them on the same level with the Twelve. This application Willers, 


3 Hermas Sim. ix. 15, 16: comp. 
Vis. iii. 5, Sim. ix. 25. The data with 


‘ Clem. § 42, Ignat. Rom. § 4, Po- 
lye. § 6, Barnab. §§ 5, 8, Ep. ad Diogn. 


Sit. 
2 §47. Seeabove, note 2,p.96. Eu- 


sebius, iii. 39, infers that Papias distin- 
guished Aristion and John the Presby- 
ter, who had been personal disciples of 
the Lord, from the Apostles. This may 
be so; but from his language as quoted 
it can only be safely gathered that he 
distinguished them from the Twelve. 


regard to the age of Hermas are (1) that 
he was a contemporary of Clement (Vis. 
ii. 4); and (2) that his work was written 
while his brother Pius was bishop of 
Rome (circ. 140), Fragm. Murat. in 
Routh Rel. Sacr.1. p. 396. He cannot 
therefore have been the Hermas men- 
tioned by St Paul (Rom. xvi. 14), as 
several ancient writers suppose. 


7—2 


100 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


occurs even in Irenzeus and Tertullian!, 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 also2, 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 Eusebius, accounting for St Paul’s expression (1 Cor. xv. 7), speaks of 
‘numberless apostles’ besides the Twelve’. 


still recog- 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 
may 4S 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. 


1 Tren. ii. 21. 1; Tertull. adv. Mare. 
iv. 24, ‘Adlegit et alios septuaginta 
apostolos super duodecim,’ referring for 
an illustration of the numbers to Exod. 
xv. 27,‘ 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 drooréAXewv is 
applied to them, and they are spoken of 
as ‘seventy others’ (Luke x. 1), in re- 
ference to the mission of the Twelve. 
In the Ancient Syriac Documents, edited 
by Cureton, this extension is distinctly 
and repeatedly given to the term; e.g. 
p- 3, ‘Thaddeus the Apostle one of the 
Seventy’; p. 34, ‘Addzus the Apostle 
one of the seventy-two Apostles.’ 

2 For Barnabas see Strom. ii. p. 
445, 447 (ed. Potter) ; for Clement of 
Rome, Strom. iv. p. 609. Elsewhere 
Clement calls Barnabas dzogrontkds, 
adding that he was one of the Seventy, 
Strom. ii. p. 489. 

3 See Colossians, p. 45 sq. In the 
Apost. Const. (vi. 7) he is called idur- 
TOS O TUVATOTTOAOS MWY. 

4 Origen in Joann. Tom. Iv. p. 430, 
ed. Delarue. 

5 H. E. i, 12 €f0 ws wapd Tobrous, 
KaTa plunow tov dwdexa mreloTwv bowv 
braptdvtTwy amocTo\wy, olos Kal adrds 
6 Haidos jv, mpoorlOno Aéywr * *Errecra. 
@~0n Tots amocro\os maot. Comp. 
Theodoret on 1 Cor. xii. 28. There is 
however no authority for the statement 
of the latter, 1 Tim. iii. 1, 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- 
cluding 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. (viil. 46) recognise thir- 
teen, including 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.’ 

6 Barnab. § 8, referred to above, p. 
95, note 1: Justin, Dial. p. 260: comp, 
Apol. 1. p. 78 A, amd yap ‘lepovcadhyu 
dvdpes dexadvo Tov adprOpudy e&7Oov els Tov 
kogmov: Iren. iv. 21. 3, ‘dodecastylum 
firmamentum Ecclesiae,’ ib. Fragm. p. 
843 (Stieren): Tertull. adv. Mare. iv. 
13 asks ‘Cur autem duodecim aposto- 
los elegit et non alium quemlibet nu- 
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. Hom. ii. 23 the 
Apostles are compared to the twelve 
months of the year: comp. Clem. 
Recogn. iv. 35, 36. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


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. 


IOI 


102 


Tt: 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[El a5 2 


MEreta dia dexaTecoapwy éTwWY Tadw aveBnv 


eis ‘IepoooAuma peta BapyaBa, cvvtapadaBov kal Ti- 


/ \ \ > / \ 5] / rn 
Tov’ *aveBnv d€ KaTa droxaduYw, Kat avebeunv avtois 


II. 1,2. ‘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 Gentiles, 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 from God 
prompted me to this journey.’ 

dud Sexateccapwyv eraév] Are the 
fourteen years to be counted from St 
Paul’s conversion, or from the visit to 
Jerusalem just recorded? The follow- 
ing considerations seem to decide in 
favour of the latter view: (1) 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 dé:a 6. era, in 
preference to pera 6. érn, 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 maAcp avéBnv, ‘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.p. 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.p. 36, the Jewish mode 
of reckoning being adopted. For é:a, 
‘after the lapse of, see Acts xxiv. 17, 
and Winer, § xlvii. p. 475. 

kai Titov] 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 amoxadvyw] ‘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.’ 

dveOéunv| The middle dvariéerOa 
has the sense ‘to relate with a view 
to consulting,’ ‘to refer, as 2 Mace. iii. 
9; see also Acts xxv. 14, T@ Bacwhet 
avéGero Ta Kata Tov TavAov, where the 
idea of consultation is brought out 
very clearly in the context, vv. 20, 26. 
‘Inter conferentes,’ says Jerome here, 
‘aequalitas est; inter docentem et 
discentem minor est ille, qui discit/ 
See the notes on mpocavarider Oat, i. 16, 
ii. 6. 


II, 2] 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


103 


\ > , A / > on y/ 3 

TO evayyedov O Knpvocw Ev Tois EOvETIW, KAT’ idlay 
\ ~ - / ? \ / ’ ? 

d€ Tols OoKOVoWV, py Tws Els KEVOV TPEXW 7 Edpapor. 


6 xnpvooa| ‘I preach, not éxnpvo- 
cov, ‘I preached,’ for his Gospel had 
not changed. See the note on ovx ga7w, 
it. 

kar idiay d€ trois Soxotow] ‘but in 
private to those of repute’ The fore- 
going avrois is best referred to the 
Christians of Jerusalem generally, as 
implied from ‘TepoodAvpa (ver. 1). If so, 
this clause, which follows, is inserted 
not to exclude a public conference, but 
to emphasize his private consultations. 
These private 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. 

trois Soxovew | ‘ihe men of repute, of 
position” See Hur. Hec, 294 doyos 
yap ext adofotvrar idv Kak tay doKovv- 
tov, With Pflugk’s note; Heriucl. 897 
evtuxlay idécat Td Tapos ov SoxovvTwr, 
Herodian vi. I ts cuykA7jTov BovAjs 
tous doxovvras Kal ndikia cepvorarous 
x.t.A. 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 (1) to the 
repetition of the word doxodrtes, (2) to 
the addition of orvAox civat, eivai rt, 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 (1) 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 rots doxodou see the 
note on ver. 6. 

Hn Tas eis Kevov Tpéxa k.7.A.] ‘lest [ 
might be running, or had run, to nv 
purpose. The kindred passage 1 Thess. 
lll, 5, unos ereipacey vuds 6 reipatwv 
kal eis Kevov yevnrat 0 KoTros Nav, SEEMS 
to show that rpéyw 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 (rpéxw) here, rather 
than the optative (rpéxoups), 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 (rpexyw) to the indi- 
cative (€dpayov) is rendered necessary 
by the change of tense, since the conse- 
quences of the past were no longer 
contingent but inevitable : comp iv. 11. 

tpéxw] is a reference to St Paul’s 
favourite metaphor of the stadium ; see 
vy. 7 and the note there. For the ex- 
pression es xevov tpéyew 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 misgtving 
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 } 
So Tertullian takes it, adv. Mare. i. 20, 
vy. 3, and esp. iv. 2. This is perhaps 
the prima facie sense of the passage, 
slightly favoured by ovdev mpocave- 
Gevro, ver. 6. But on the other hand 
such an admission would be so entirely 


104 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[I 3 


3a\N ovde Tiros 6 cuv éuol “EXAnv av ivayKacbn 


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 bis 
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 (unas) 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 difficult to extricate the main in- 
cident, on which the whole controversy 
hinges. Was Titus circumcised or was 
he not? This is not only a reasonable 
question, but a question which thought- 
ful writers have answered in different 
ways. On the whole, the following rea- 
sons seem to decide for the negative. 
(1) The incident is apparently brought 
forward to show that St Paul had 
throughout 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,’ ie. 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 jvayxao 6n, andr vroray7n, Which 
from their position seem quite unem- 
phatic: as if the former signified that 
the circumcision of Titus was an act of 
grace, notofcompulsion; 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 ois ovdé 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, 


II. 4] 


mrepiTunOnvae* 


when he himself insisted on circumci- 
sion. Comp. v. 11 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—5. ‘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 liberty 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. ovde Tiros] ‘not even Titus.’ 
Why ‘not even”? Is it (1) ‘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 6 ovr 
épot 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 
here. 

"ENAny av] ‘being a Greek, perhaps 
giving the reason why the point was 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 105 


J 


48ia d€ Tous TAPELTAKTOUS Wevdadén- 


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 Mosaiclawincircumcising Timothy 
(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 *EAAny all idea of nationality is 
lost : comp. Mark vii. 26 ‘EAAnvis Sv- 
popowixiooa (or Svpa Bowixicoa) TO 
yéve. Thus the Peshito sacrificing 
the letter to the spirit frequently 
translates "EAAnyv ‘an Arameean,’ e.g. 
here and iii. 28. See Colossians, p. 390. 

nvayxaa bn | ‘was compelled, though 
the pressure was extreme. This pres- 
sure doubtless came from the more 
bigoted Judaizers, the converted 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 
anc 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 


106 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


fil. 5 


e/ io =~ \ > / 
hous, OLTLVES Taperonr Cov KATQAOKOTNOAL THY éAevOepiay 


c od \ af > ~ a JS € ~ / 

Hav, iv €xopev Ev XpiaTw "Incov, iva jas KaTadovAw- 
ec aN | \ «/ xf ~~ € ~ J 

Gouct, Sois ovde mpos wpav eifanev TH UTOTAYN, Wa 


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. 

dud S€ rods mapetoakrous x.7.r.] ‘ But 
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 interposes, in the course 
of which the main proposition of the 
sentence is lost sight of. Itis 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 51a rovs rap. Wev0. 
compare Acts xvi. 3 mepicrepey adrov 
dca Tovs lovdaiovs. 

Of other possible explanations two 
deserve to be considered; (1) That 
there is an ellipsis of ov« jvayxacOn 
wepiTpnOjvat OF ov mepieTunOn after dua 
rovs mapes. Wevdad. So Fritzsche, 
Opusc. p. 181. (2) That the paren- 
thesis flows back into the main pro- 
position, so that the regular construc- 
tion would have been é1a rods mapeic. 
Wevdad. ovS€ mpos Spay eiéaper, the ois 
being redundant. See the note, ver. 6. 
So Winer, § lxiii. 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 (v1 p. 
424, ed. Ben.). 

mape.oaxtous, mapeconAOov| The me- 
taphor is that of spies or traitors in- 
troducing themselves by stealth into 
the enemy’s camp, as in Jude 4 zap- 
evcébvoav yap twes avOpamoa. See 
Plut. Popl. 17 émiBovdevav b€ Tov 
Tlopcivay avedeiv mapecondGev eis To 
atparoredov, Polyb. i 7. 3, ii. 55. 3. 
For mapevoayew see 2 Pet. ii. 1. The 
adjective occurs in Strabo, xvii. p. 
794 mapeioaxtos emixdnbets Troheuatos. 
The camp thus stealthily entered is 
the Christian Church, Pharisees at 
heart, these traitors assume the name 
and garb of believers. 

katackorjoa] ‘to act as spies on. 
xatackorey generally signifies ‘to ex- 
amine carefully,’ the form xatacko- 
mevey 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, 
1 Chron. xix. 3. 

katradovlecovow] ‘reduce to abject 
slavery. The reading of the received 
text, karadovAdo@rvra, is a correction 
of some classicist, introduced for two 
reasons: (1) 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 


II. 6] 


* dvnGera tov evayyeAlov dtamelyy moos Uuas* 
if i! , st , a J f ans 
8é Twev SoKOUVYTWY Elval TL 


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. 3608q. This, though not a classical 
usage, is justified by similar con- 
structions of ézas, ddppa, in classical 
writers. 

5. ois ovde x.t.A.] ‘to whom 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 ois 
ovdé in some texts see the detached 
note, p. 122. 

rH vroray? | ‘by the submission which 
was required of us, or possibly ‘the 
submission with which we are taunted,’ 
as in 2 Cor. i. 17 pyre dpa tH eAadpia 
EXPNTAaLNY ; 

} ad7jOeva Tov evayyeXiov] ‘the truth 
of 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 
Judaizers. See ii. 14,and comp. Col. i. 
5, 6, where the same idea seems to be 
indirectly involved. 

Siapeivn mpos dpas] ‘may abide with 
you, the Gentile Churches. See the 
introduction, p. 26. The idea of firm 
possession is enforced by the com- 
pound verb, by the past tense, and by 
the preposition. 

6—g. ‘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- 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


107 


\ 
Sd7r0 


€ eA Ss > / 
OTOlOL TOTE Hoayv, ovcEY 


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 of doxodyres 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 the Vulgate 
‘qui videbantur.’ The Old Latin ap- 
parently had the present in most re- 
censions, though not consistently in 
all four places. Of the older English 
Versions, Tyndale’s alone translates 
by a present in this verse, and the 
Geneyan in verse 9. 

trav Soxovyrav etvai tr) ‘those who 
are looked up to as authorities’ The 
expression is sometimes used in a de- 
preciatory way, as in Plat. Apol. 41 & 
éay Soxeot tt eivat under ovres, Huthyd. 
303 C Tav moAheayv avOpdrwv Kai Tov 


108 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


(IL. 7, 8 


por Siacbéper, mpoowrov Geds avOpwrov ov NauBaver 
> \ \ e } ~ Oe , Y] > \ 
€uot yap ot SoKouvTes ovdev mpocavébevto, Tada 


/ > wi 4 J, \ 
ToUVaVTiov LOOVTES OTL TETIOTEVMAL TO EVaryyéALOV 


- > / 6 \ / co lo Site \ 
ans axpoBvatias KaAUWS Tlevpos ys TEOLTOMNS, 0) yap 


cepvav 87 Kat Soxovytay Te elvat ovdev 
vpiv pede, Gorg. 472 A éviore yap av 
Kat karawevdopaptupnOein tis Ur0 ToA- 
Adv kai Soxotvror eivai 71, and passages 
from later writers quoted in Wetstein: 
comp. Gal. vi. 3 ef yap Soxet tus eivai Te 
unoev dv, 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 of UmepXiay amdaroAa Of 2 Cor. Xi. 5, 
xii. II. 

omotol more yoav] Does omotoi more 
here mean ‘ qualescunque,’ or has zrore 
its proper temporal sense ‘in times 
past’? In aclassical writer we should 
decide for the former: in St Paul the 
latter seems more probable, as wore 
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 
Jormer times, referring to their per- 
sonal intercourse with the Lord. The 
‘knowing Christ after the flesh’ (2 Cor. 
vy. 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 Ta kata Tpovwrov Brérere. 

mpocemov AauBaver] A translation 
of the Hebrew 9°35 Nw) which signi- 
fies properly ‘to accept the face’ 
(Gesenius Thes. p. 916, 8. Vv. NwW3), or 
perhaps better, ‘to raise the face’ of 
another (opposed to O75 Spm ‘to 
make the countenance fall, eg. Job 
XX1X. 24; comp. Gen. iv. 5),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 
mpocaror as ‘a mask,’ so that mpoce- 
mov KawBavew signifies ‘to regard the 
external circumstances of a man,’ his 
rank, wealth, etc., as opposed to his 
real intrinsic character. Thus in the 
New Testament it has always a bad 
sense. Hence a new set of words, 
Tpoc@ToAnprrns, TpoganoAnuntely, ete. 
which appear to occur there for the 
first time. 

Gc0s avOp@mrov] The natural order is 
altered for two reasons; (1) To give 
@cos an emphatic position, and (2) To 
keep the contrasted words Geds av- 
O@perov together. 

enol yap x.7.A.] The sentence, which 
was begun in do 6€ rav doxovvr@y 
eivat re 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. Otherwise the 
yap may be attached to orotoi more 
joav ovdey por Siahéper, 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 § Ixiii. 
p- 711 sq. But the interposition of the 
words wpoo. ©. avOp. od AaB. 18 an 
objection to this construction. 

mpoaavebevto| ‘communicated, see 
the note on i. 16. Tpocavaridec Oa is 
‘to communicate, to impart,’ whether 
for the purpose of giving or of obtain- 


II. 9] 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


109 


évepynoas Tlétpw eis drootoAny THs TEpTOMAs évipyn- 
wev Kal €mol eis Ta EOvn, %Kal yvovTEs THY xXapw TH 
dobeicav pot, “laxwBos Kat Kndas Kal “lwavyns, oi 
Soxouvres aTVAOL elvan, SeEtas EdwKav éuol kal BapvaBa 


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, memlorevpa ro evayy.| ‘I have 
been entrusted with the Gospel, a 
common construction in St Paul: see 
the note on 1 Thess. ii. 4. The perfect 
here, implying a permanent commis- 
sion, contrasts with the aorist in 
Rom. iii, 2 emucrevOnoay ra Aoyta Tod 
cov. 

TO evayy. Tis axpoBvorias] 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, nec ut aliud alter sed ut 
aliis alter praedicarent.’ 

8. 6 évepynoas Iérpo] ‘He that 
worked for Peter’ For the omis- 
sion of 6 Geds comp. i. 6, 15; for evep- 
yew see the note on 1 Thess. ii. 13. 
The dative Iérp» ought probably to be 
translated ‘for Peter,’ not ‘in Peter’; 
comp. Prov. XXXxi. 12 évepyet yap To 
dvdpi (yuvn avdpeia) eis ayaba ravra Tov 
Biov. As évepyeiy is an inseparable 
compound, it is doubtful whether the 
preposition could govern Heérpe, and 
accordingly the construction elsewhere 
is evepyeiv €v tur. Comp. Acta Paul. 
et Thecl. § 40 6 yap cot ovvepynoas 
eis TO EevayyéALov Kauol ouynpynoer eis 
To Aovoac ba. 

g. Of the two words iddvres and 
yvortes, 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. 

*IaxwBos kai Kndas kai “Iwavyns| The 
best supported and doubtless the right 
reading. The variation Iérpos «ai 
*lakwBos kal “Iwavyns 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 therefore was now 
needed, as there was no likelihood of 
confusion, James the son of Alphzeus 
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 Panl 
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: 

arvAot] ‘pillars’ A natural meta- 
phor occurring now and then in clas- 
sical writers (eg. Eur. Zph. T. 57 
oTvAo. yap olkey celal aides apoeves, 
and Asch. Agam. 897), but commonly 
used by the Jews in speaking of the 
great teachers of the law. See the 
examples given in Schéttgen: comp. 
Clem. Hom. xviii. 14 émra orvdovs 
UmapEavtas koope, said of the patri- 
archs. Soin Clem. Rom.§ 5 the Apo- 
stles Peter and Paul are called oi 
péeyoroe Kai Sixacdraror oTvAoe 5 Comp. 
Iren. iv. 21. 3. In this metaphor the 


110 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


{II. 10 


/ c € - 2 Nib sf 5) \ \ A 
Kowwvias, iva jets ets Ta EOvN, avTOL de Els THY TEpI- 


/ / a ~ e/ E ec \ 
Tounv? ‘“pmovov TOY TTWXWY iva MYNnLOVEVwWLLEV, O Kat 


? / \ a r- 
€TTOVOATA AUTO TOUTO TOL aL. 


Church is regarded as the house or 
temple of God; as Rev. iii. 12 moujow 
avTov orvAov ev TH vaG Tod Ceod pov: 
comp. I Tim. iii. 15. The accent of 
otvAos is doubtful. On the one hand 
the v is universally long in poetry even 
of a late date (see Rost u. Palm, 
Griech. Worterb. s. v., and comp. 
Orac. Sib. iii. 250, 251). On the 
other, the authority of the oldest ac- 
cents in the ss, and the quantity of 
the Latin ‘stylus,’ are in favour of 
otvdos. The latter not improbably 
represents the common pronunciation 
of the Apostolic age. See Lipsius 
Gramm. Unters. p. 43. 

deEvas €dwxav] ‘gave pledges” The 
outward gesture is lost sight of in this 
expression, as appears from the fact 
that the plural defsas Sovva, devas 
AapBaverv, is often used of a single 
person; I Mace. xi. 50, 62, xiii. 50. 
As a symbol of contract or friendship 
this does not appear prominently in 
the Old Testament (Hzr. x. 19, and 
perhaps 2 Kings x. 15; see below on 
cowevias), 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 gore S€ 9 miotis attn Be- 
Baoratn mapa Tois Iépoas, comp. Jus- 
tin xi. 15. 13); and from Persian in- 
fluence the symbol and the phrase may 
have become more common among 
the Jews. Even Josephus (Ant. xviii. 
9. 3) speaks of this not as a Jewish 
practice, but as péyorov mapa mace 
tois exeivn BapBapors tmapdderypa Tov 
Oapceiv Trois cpirovory, 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 de- 
fas mapa Baoiéws Hépovtes, Ages. 3. 
4; comp. Tacit. Hist. i. 54, li. 8. 

kowevias| ‘of fellowship, not a su- 
perfluous addition, for ‘to give the 
hand’ (4° }n3) in the language of the 
Old Testament, like the Latin ‘do 
manus,’ generally signifies ‘to surren- 
der, e.g. Lament. v. 6,2 Chron. xxx. 8: 
see Gesen. Tes. p. 566. 

iva nuets| The ellipsis of the verb 
occurs in St Paul under various con- 
ditions. A foregoing iva is one of 
these; see 1 Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. viii. 13, 
Rom. iv. 16: comp. 2 Cor. viii. 11. 

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 Judzea. Inde- 
pendently of their request, it was my 
own earnest desire.’ 

povor'] ‘only they asked us’: comp. 
Ignat. Rom. 5 povov iva *Inoov Xpiotov 
enxituxo. For similar instances of an 
ellipsis after povov, see vi. 12, 2 Thess. 
ii, 7 povor 6 KaTéxXwy pte €ws ex pewov 
yérnra. The latter passage presents 
an exact parallel also in the derange- 
ment of the order for the sake of em- 
phasis. 

Two occasions are recorded, on which 
St Paul was the bearer of alms from 
the Gentile converts to the poor of 
Jerusalem; (1) 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, Rom. xv. 26, 27, 1 Cor. 
Xvi. 3, 2 Cor. ix. 1 sq, Acts xxiv. 17, 
shortly after this letter was written. 
These facts throw light on the incident 


dT. 11, 12] 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


EU 


~ > - > > 7 , 
"Ore oe ndGev Kndas ets Aytioxeav, kata Tpoc- 


> _ 3 , J 
wW7TOV auTw AVTEOTHV, OTL 


in the text. His past care for their 
poor prompted this request of the 
elder Apostles. His subsequent zeal 
in the same cause was the answer to 
their appeal. 

0 Kal ec7rovdaca x.7.A.] ‘this was my 
own 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, 1 Cor. xvi. I—3. See 
the introduction, pp. 25, 55. 

The transition from the plural (u»7- 
povevapev) to the singular (éomovdaca) 
is significant. Before St Paul had any 
opportunity of fulfilling this request, 
he had parted from Barnabas ; Acts 
XV. 39. 

avro Todo] is best taken in apposi- 
tion with 6, see Winer § xxiii. p. 184.8q; 
a construction not without example in 
classical Greek, but more frequent in 
the Lxx and New Testament, inas- 
much as it reproduces the common 
Hebrew idiom: comp. Mark vii. 25, 
Acts xv. 17, 1 Pet. ii. 24. 

11—14. ‘At Jerusalem, I owed no- 
thing to the Apostles of the Circumci- 
sion. J maintained my independence 
and my equality. At Antioch I was 
more than anequal. 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.’ 

II. “Ore 5¢] This occurred probably 
during the sojourn of Paul and Barna- 
bas at Antioch, immediately after the 
Apostolic congress (Acts xv. 30—40). 


/ & 
KaTEyVWOMEVOS HV. “aTp0 


The inconsistency which St Peter thus 
appears to have shown so soon after 
his championship of Gentile liberty 
at the congress, is rather in favour 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 xiii. I—3) is out of 
the question, for St Paal 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 St Peter founded the Church 
of Antioch (Euseb. Chron. a.D. 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. Z. £. iii. 22, 
36, Chrysost. Op. m1. p. 70, ed. Ben. 

kareyvoopevos| not ‘reprehensible,’ 
but ‘condemned.’ His conduct carried 
its own condemnation with it, as St 
Paul shows vy. 15 sq: comp. Rom. 
X1V. 23 6 dvaxpwopevos, eav ayn, Ka- 
takéxptras, Joh. ili. 18 6 yy mioTevor 
non Kéxpetat, Barnab. 10 xexpipévor 
70n t@ Gavarm, Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 6 
76 yap xateyvdabai cacti x.7.A. 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 
...1f thou callest me condemned, thou 
accusest God who revealed Christ to 
me.’ See the whole passage Clem. 
Hom. xvii. 19: comp. p. 61, and the 
notes on ii. 13, iv. 16, 24. 


II2 


~ \ 2 ~ \ b) \ 

Tou yap éAOety Tivas ao 
/ 

ovvyno bev" 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


(II. 13 


> / \ ~ > ~ . 
laxwBov peta Ttaev Over 
dre d& HAOov, UréeaTENANEvy Kal apwprCev 


¢ l , \ 2 ~ 13 \ 
EaUTOV, oBoupevos TOUS €K TeEpLTOMNS, “Kal GuVUT- 


, p) ~ cal 4 
expiOncav avtw [kat] ot Aorrol “lovdator, woTe Kal 


12. 6ére 6¢ HAGeEv. 


12. eAOeiv rwas ard "laxeBov] ‘ 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, rwes €& nuav e€ehOovtes erapatav 
Uuas...ois ov OveorerkdpeOa, and xv. I 
Twes Kate Oovres a7 THs Iovdaias. The 
terms on which St James stood with 
believers of this stamp may be ga- 
thered from the language in Acts xxi. 
20 sq. 

avvijaGev] The Judaizers who trou- 
bled the Church at this time are de- 
scribed, Acts xv. 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 eOmxeés. And when 
in this instance he separated himself 
from the Gentiles, he practically dis- 
sembled his convictions. 

dre dé HAGov] ‘but when they came, 
The reading 7Aéev yields no good 
sense, whether we refer it to St 
James with Origen (c. Cels. ii. 1 éA- 
Oévros “IakwBov) 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. 1 ef rus omddy- 
xva kal oixtippoi. 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 dre d€ 7AGev, ver. II, is 
the probable cause of the mistake. 

UmeotedXev kal apopicer] ‘gradually 
withdrew and separated himself. 
Both verbs govern éavrov: compare 
Polyb. vii. 17. I vméoreikay éavtovs 
vmo Twa mpomenTaxviay odpuy. The 
words describe forcibly the cautious 
withdrawal of a timid person who 
shrinks from observation, uméareAXev 
denoting the partial, addpitev the 
complete and final separation. The 
word vmooréAdew 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. oreAAecOa, 2 Thess. 
iii. 6. 

Tous €k mepttouns| not ‘Jews’ but 
converts from Judaism,’ for this 
seems to be the force of the preposi- 
tion: Acts x. 45, xi. 2, Col. iv. 11, 
Tit. i. 10. 

13. of Aowrot "Iovdaior] i.e. the rest 
of the Jewish converts resident at 
Antioch, who, like St Peter, had 
mixed freely with the Gentiles until 


II. 14] 


4 / b = ~ € , 
BapvaBas ouvarnyOn av’twy Ti vmoKpicel. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 113 


“adr 


4 an) e/ > ? ~ \ \ > 7 =. 
OTE ELOOV OTL OUK 6pSorrodove. moos Thy aAnOeay Tov 


i) ~ ~ af ? 
evayyeNiov, eirov Ta Knha éurpoobey mavtwy Ei av 


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 Umoxpiors, 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 dmdxpiors 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. II. 

kai BapvaBas| ‘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 
1 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. io he commends Mark to the 
Colossian Church, as being the cousin 
of Barnabas. 

cuvarnxOn avrav TH vroKpices] ‘was 


GAL. 


carried away with their dissimula- 
tion, as the A. VY. rightly. Their 
dissimulation was as a flood which 
swept every thing away with it. 
Comp. 2 Pet. iii. 17 iva wn rH Tdv abéc- 
pov mavn ouvaraxOévres exmeonre 
«.7.A., Zosimus Hist. v. 6 cai avr dé 7 
Smaptn cuvamnyeto tH Kown THS “EAXa- 
dos dddoes. In all these passages the 
dative seems to be governed by the 
preposition, and cannot without harsh- 
ness be taken as the instrumental 
case. 

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 dpOorodotew mpos x.t.d.] 
i.e. ‘they diverge from the straight 
path of the Gospel truth. The word 
opOorodeiv 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 evduropew. The prepo- 
sition pos here denotes not the goal to 
be attained, but the line of direction to 
be observed: see Winer § xlix. p. 505. 
For 7 adjOeva rod evayyediov see the 
note on ii. 5. 

etrov] 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 


8 


114 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[II. 15, 16 


> ~ e , > ~ \ ’ > Ch ~ ~~ 

Iovdaios vrrapywv ebvikws Kal ovx ‘lovdaikws Cys, mas 
if ‘ 

Ta €byn dvayKaCets ‘TovdatCew 5 *Sijueis Queer ‘Lovdator 
\ > > b) a ¢ 1a WS (ove es / Ni yee > 

kal ovk €& éOvwv auapTwrot, eidores O€ OTL ov SiKkat- 

ovTa avipwros €& Epywy vouou, éav wy dia TigTEwSs 


blended together that they cannot be 
separated without violence. The use 
of the word ayapredoi, vv. 15, 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 i. 16—21, where 
St Peter’s allusion to the death of 
Judas is interwoven with the after 
explanations of St Luke. 

*Iovdaios vmdpxov] almost equiva- 
lent to dicee "Iovdaior below; see i. 
14. In such cases vrapyev 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 
Gentiles.’ 

€Ouxés Cys] ie. mix 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 Czesarea (Acts x. 28), and 
just lately at Antioch (ver. 12), though 
at the exact moment when St Paul 
was speaking, he was living “Iovdaixas 
and not €Oyixds. 

ovx "IovSaixas] The best Mss agree 
in reading the aspirated form ovx. 
For other examples of anomalous 
aspirates in the Greek Testament see 


Winer § v. p. 48, and comp. the note 
on Phil. ii. 23 ddidw. In this parti- 
cular instance the aspirate may per- 
haps be accounted for by the yA with 
which the Hebrew word (O° )n') re- 
presented by “IcvSato. commences. 

avayxa¢eis] i.e. practically oblige 
them, though such was not his inten- 
tion. The force of his example, con- 
cealing his true principles, became a 
species of compulsion. 

"Iovdaitew]| ‘to adopt Jewish cus- 
toms, opposed to ¢@vxés 7s which in 
connexion with “Iovdaios tmapyor is 
equivalent to éAAnvites; comp. Esth. 
Vill. 17 cat woAXoi Tav €Ovaev TmepteTewor- 
To Kat lovdaifoy da tov Poor trav “Iov- 
daiwy, Plut. Vit. Cic.7 €voxos r@ “Iovdai- 
few. See the note on Iovdaicpos, i. 13. 

15,16. ‘Only consider our own case. 
We were born 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 ete’ The 
dé of ver. 16, which is omitted in the 
received text, is certainly genuine. 

15. voce “Iovdaior] ‘Jews 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. iii. 4, 5. 


IT. 16] 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


115 


> -~ - \ c -~ > 5) -~ > 
Inoov Xpictov, kat nets Ets X pioTov Inoouv émiorrev- 


e/ = > / ~ > 
capev, va oixawhwuev EK TicTews XpioTov Kal ovK 


> of , 4 > » / > whip 
€& Eepywv vosov, o7Tt €& EPYWV VOHOU OY AIKAIWBHCETAI 


16. 6a miorews Xptatod Inco. 
p n 


e& €6vav] Not ‘of Gentile descent,’ 
but ‘taken from, belonging to the 
- Gentiles’; comp. Acts xv. 23. 

dpaprwdoi] ‘sinners’ The word 
was almost a synonyme for ¢6yn in 
the religious phraseology of the Jews. 
See 1 Mace. ii. 44, Clem. Hom. xi. 16 
ovTas ws ovyxt “lovdaios, dyaptwdds 
«7.A.; and compare Luke vi. 32, 33 
with Matt. v. 47, and especially Matt. 
xxvi. 45 with Luke xviii. 32. Here 
GuaprwAot is used in preference to 
€6ym, not without a shade of irony, as 
better enforcing St Paul’s argument. 
See the note on ver. 17. 

16. ¢av pr] retains its proper 
meaning, but refers only to ov dixac- 
ovra, ‘He is not justified from works 
of law, he is not justified except 
through faith.’ See the note on i. 19. 

Kat nueis] ‘we ourselves, notwith- 
standing our privileges of race. Com- 
pare xai avroi, ver. 17. 

emotevcapev| ‘became believers. 
See the note on 2 Thess.i. 10. The 
phrase morevew ets or emi tiva is pe- 
culiarly Christian; see Winer § xxxi. 
p. 267. The constructions of the 
LXX are moreve Tuvi, rarely murevery 
émi Tue OY €v Tun, and once only ex 
twa, Wisd. xii. 2 muotevew emi Ocor. 
The phrase, which occurs in the re- 
vised Nicene and other creeds, m- 
orevewy eis exkAnoiay, 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 morevew eis should 
be reserved for belief in God or in 
Christ. See the passages in Suicer 
Thesaur. 8. V. miorevew, and Pearson 
On the Creed Art. Ix. 

€x migtews Xpiorov| It seems al- 
most impossible to trace the subtle 


process which has led to the change 
of prepositions here. In Rom. iii. 30, 
on the other hand, an explanation is 
challenged by the direct opposition of 
ex miotews and duarAs miorews. Both 
prepositions are used elsewhere by 
St Paul with Sccacodv, dicacoovyn, in- 
differently; though where very great 
precision is aimed at, he seems for an 
obvious reason to prefer dca, as in 
Ephes. ii. 8, 9, Phil iii, 9 py Exov 
env Ouxacocvuny thy ek vopouv adda 
thy 81a mictews Xptorod «.t.d., Which 
words present an exact parallel to the 
former part of this verse, ov« ¢& epyov 
vopov, eav pn Ova wiatews “Incot Xpe- 
otov. Faith is strictly speaking only 
the means, not the source of justifi- 
cation. The one preposition (6:4) 
excludes this latter notion, while the 
other (ex) might imply it. Besides 
these we meet also with emt ricra 
(Phil. iii. 9), but never da micrw, 
‘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.’ 

ért| is the best supported, and 
doubtless the correct reading. The 
reading of the received text d.ore has 
probably been imported from the pa- 
rallel passage, Rom. iil. 20. 

dr. €& Epyov «z.A.) A quotation 
from the Old Testament, as appears 
from the Hebraism ov maca, and 
from the introductory 67. 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 SixarwOnoera 
évimiov gov mas (av. For mas (av, & 


8—2 


116 


TA&CA Capz. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


paee 4 


Ver OC Cntourtes Oikawlyvar év Xpicto 


CP ay/ \ ? \ € 4 oo A € / 
evpeOnuev Kal avTol duapTwrol, apa XpioTos auaptias 


very common Hebrew synonyme, raca 
adpé (rwW2753) is substituted by St 
Paul. In Rom. iii. 20 the passage is 
quoted in the same form as here. In 
both instances St Paul adds e& épyav 
vopxov 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 (ili. 19) this comment is justified 
by his explanation, that ‘whatever is 
stated in the law applies to those 
under the law.’ 

For ov maca 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 ‘ sinners’ 
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.’ 

17, Among a vast number of inter- 
pretations which have been given of 
this verse, the following alone deserve 
consideration. 

First; We may regard Xpucris 
Guaptias 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 dpa is preferable to 
apa. 

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: (1) ‘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 passage, 
as follows: (1) It is an attempt of the 
Judaizing objector to show that the 
abandoument 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 sinful 
to abandon the law, because it is ne- 
cessary to abandon the law 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 duapredoi (‘sinners’ from 
a Jewish point of view), which it had 
in ver. 15, and is more consistent with 
the indicative evpé@nyev, 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 Xpioros 
apaprias diaxovos 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 


II. 18, 19] 


/ \ , 
OraKovos $ Bn YyevoltTo* 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


18? \ cl / ~ 
él yap a katTéAvoa TauTa 


117 


, > ~ / > \ / 192 \ 
TaN OLKOOOLO, TrapaPBatny EMaUTOV GuUUicTaVw “Eva 


minister of sin?’ This interpretation 
best developes the subtle irony of 
auaprodoi ; ‘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 evpéOnuev, and with St Paul’s 
usage of pi yévorro 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 
Sia vopov vope@ amébavoy which follow. 
In this case dpa is to be preferred to 
dpa, because it at once introduces the 
inference as a questionable one. It 
may be added also in favour of dpa, 
that elsewhere px) yévorro follows an 
interrogation. “Apa expresses bewil- 
derment 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. ’Apa hesitates, while 
apa concludes. 

evpéOnpev] 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. 

Gyaprias diaxovos] while yet He is 
Sixavoovyns Sidkovos, thus making a 
direct contradiction in terms. 

pi) yevouro] ‘Nay, verily,’ ‘ Away with 
the thought” This is one out of 
several Lxx renderings of the Hebrew 
novbn (‘ad profana’ and so ‘absit,’ see 
Gesenius Tes. p. 478). Another ren- 
dering of the same is iAews (SC. 6 cds) 
which occurs Matt. xvi. 22 ews oor 
Kupee, ‘far be it from thee, Lord’: see 
Glass. Phil. Sacr. p. 538. M7 yévoiro 
is uot however confined to Jewish 
and Christian writings, but is frequent 
for instance in Arrian; see Raphel 
Annot. Rom. ili. 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 (raira). 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 pn yevorro, ‘ Nay verily, 
Jor, 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 
Bn yevoro comp. Rom. ix. 14, 15, xi. I. 

mapaSarny €uavtov avuctave| ‘Lf 
make myself out, establish myself, a 
transgressor. It will have been seen 
that much of the force of the passage 
depends on the sense which the Jews 
attached to duaprwAds. Having passed 
on from this to ayapria, St Paul at 
length throws off the studied ambi- 
guity of auaprwdds (‘a non-observer of 
the law, and ‘a sinner’) by substitut- 
ing the plain term rapaBarns. 

€pavTov ouvicrave is opposed to 
Xpuicros duaptias dtaxovos, though from 
its position ¢uavrov cannot be very 
emphatic. 

cuuorava| ‘I prove, like ovpSiB8a- 
(@, a8 Rom. iii. 5, v. 8; comp. 2 Cor. 
iii. I. 

19. Establishing the statement of 
the foregoing verse: ‘For in aban- 
doning the law, I did but follow the 
leading of the law itself.’ 

eyo| 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 é¢yo is 
explained by the following verse, ¢o 


dé ovKére €y@ K.T.A. 


118 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[II. 20 


\ A > 4 =~ , - 

yap dia vouov vouw amefavor, iva Gew Cnow *Xpict@ 

j * Cw b€ ovxeTe éyw, (H O€ Ev Euot Xpio- 
cuverTavpwma’ Cw yo, Cn js 0 


dia vouov vow arébavov] In what 
sense can one be said through 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 
different ways to be maidaywyos «is 
Xpicrov. We may regard 

i. Jts 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 (1) 
The written law—the Old Testament 
—is always 6 voyos. Atleast it seems 
never to be quoted otherwise. Noyos 
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 d1a vopov vou ameBavoy an ap- 
peal rather to the reason and intellect, 
than to the heart and conscience; but 
the 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. ts moral effects. The law re- 
veils sin; 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 law is the strength of sin (1 Cor. 
xv. 56). At the same time it provides 
no remedy for the sinner. On the con- 
trary it condenns him hopelessly, for 
no one can fulfil all the requirements 
of the law. 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, (1) 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 
and justified in Christ. This sequence 
is clearly stated Rom. y. 20. The se- 
cond stage (dca vouov) is a necessary 
preparation for the third (voye are- 
Gavov). ‘ Proinde,’ says Luther on iii. 
19 (the edition of 1519), ‘ut remissio 
propter salutem, ita praevaricatio 
propter remissionem, ita lex propter 
transgressionem.’ 

What the Mosaic ordinances were 
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. 1, 
and the note on iy. II. 

vonw ameOavov] ‘I died to law.’ 
For the dative comp. Rom. vi. 2, 11 
(rj dpapria), and for the idea of ‘ dying 
to the law’ Rom. vii. 1—6, esp. ver. 4 
kai vpeis eOavatwOnre TO vou, and ver. 
6 KxatnpynOnuev amo Tov vopov amoba- 


II. 20] 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


11g 


, ra \ lo ~ ? , ? / ~ cc ~ = 
Tos’ 6 de voy Cw €v Gapkl, é€v miaTe Cw Ti Tov viov 
~~ - - 3 , / \ / e 
Tov Qeou Tov adyamnoavTos Me Kal TapadovTos éauToOV 


A n ~ n col > , 
20. TH 700 Qeod kal Xpiorod Tod ayanjoartos. 


vovres €v © xate.xopueda (literally, ‘we 
were nullified, ie. discharged, by 
death from the law in which we were 
held’). 

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. 

XpictG = cvvectavpopa] ‘I have 
been crucijicd 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—II. 
Thus his death becomes life. Being 
crucified with Christ, he rises with 
Christ, and lives to God. 

The parallel passage in the Romans 
best illustrates the different senses 
given to death. See also, for a similar 
and characteristic instance of working 
out a metaphor, the different applica- 
tions of nu¢pa in 1 Thess. v. 2—8. 

For the idea of dying with Christ 
etc, see Rom. vi. 6 6 madaios nuoy 
avOpwros cuvectavpwOn: comp. Gal. v. 
24, Vi. 14, Rom. vi. 8, Col. ii. 20, azo- 
Gaveiv ody Xpiord, and Rom. vi. 4, Col. 


ii. 12, cvvrapjva. Comp. Ignat. Rom. 
$7 6 euos épws eoraipwra. The cor- 
relative idea of rising and reigning 
with Christ is equally common in St 
Paul. 

(@ S€ ovxére eyo] The order is sig- 
nificant; ‘When I speak of living, I 
do not mean myself, my natural being. 
I have no longer a separate existence. 
Iam merged in Christ.’ See on eyo 
ver. 19. 

0 b€ viv (@| Not exactly qv viv (6 
Conv, but o limits and qualifies the 
idea of life: ‘So far as I now live in 
the flesh, it is a life of faith’: comp. 
Rom. vi. 10 6 yap dwéOavev, TH auapria 
anéOavev eharra€, 6 8€ Ch, Cy TO Cea, 
Plut. Mor. p. 100 F 6 xabevSovat, row 
gopatos Umvos €oTl Kal avaravars. 

viv] ‘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. 

ev rioter| ‘in faith, the atmosphere 
as it were which he breathes in this 
his new spiritual life. 

The variation of reading here is per- 
plexing. For ov viov rov Geov may be 
pleaded the great preponderance of 
the older authorities: for rod G¢eod Kai 
Xpuctov, the testimony of a few ancient 
copies, and the difficulty of conceiving 
its substitution for the other simpler 
reading. 

pe...eno0] ‘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. ovx adero x.t.d.] ‘I do not set 
at nought the grace of God, Setting 


120 


\ ~ 
UTrEp EMOU. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


(ii 21 


> > -~ \ / ~ ~~ 
*oux alerw tTHhv yapw Tov QEovr et yap 


\ f , af \ \ > , 
Sua vopou Stkaoavvn, apa Xpurtos dwpeav arreOavev. 


at nought I call it: for, if righteous- 
ness might be obtained through law, 
then Christ’s death were superfluous,’ 
For déeré ‘to nullify’ see Luke vii. 30, 
1 Cor. i. 19: its exact sense here is 
fixed by dwpeay arcOavev. ‘The grace 
of God’ is manifested in Christ’s 
death. The connexion of yap is with 
the idea of aéera, and may be ex- 


plained by a supplied clause, as above. 

dwpeay] not ‘in vain,’ but ‘uselessly, 
without sufficient cause, or, as we 
might say, ‘gratuitously, John xv. 25 
enionoay pe Swpedy (Ps. xxxiv. 19); 
comp. Lxx of Ps. xxxiv. 7 dwpeay 
éxpuwav por d:apGopav, Hebr. O3n, 
where Symmachus had dvaitiws; He- 
clus. xx. 23. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. I2I 
Various Readings in ii. 5. 
The reading which is given in the text, ois ovS€ mpos spay, is doubtless 
correct. Two variations however occur, which deserve notice. 
1. The omission of ovdé. (1) The 


The negative is found in all the Greek uncial mss (i.e. in SABCEF 2ezative. 
GKLP) except D, in which however it is inserted by a later hand, and pe 
apparently in all or nearly all the Greek cursive mss, It is expressly we 
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 
Syriac 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, Epiphanius?, Chrysostom, 
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, the Pseudo-Ignatius®, and perhaps also 
by Origen®, among the Greeks; and by Ambrose’, Augustine’, Jerome, 

Pelagius (in his text, though he comments on the other reading), and Pri- 
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 Irenzeus’, 
by Tertullian’, Victorinus, the Ambrosian Hilary, Pelagius (in his com- 
mentary), and apparently Sulpicius Severus". We have it moreover on the 
authority of Jerome”, of Primasius!, 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 Graecis, is not worthy of credit. S°™° few. 
He may indeed have found the omission in some Greek Ms or other, but 
even this is doubtful. 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. ea a 
And to the Old Latin version all or nearly all the existing authorities for 7 tin. 
the omission may be traced. Its absence in the Greek text of D is an 
exception, unless the charge of Latinising sometimes brought against this 


1 ad loc. ‘Graeci e contra dicunt: 
Nee ad horam cessimus, et hoc aiunt 
conyenire causae ete.’ 

* ad loc. ‘juxta Graecos codices est 
legendum: Quibus neque, ete.’ 

3 Tertull. adv. Mare. v. 3. 

4 Haer. p. 112 and p. 814. 

5 Ep. ad Tars. § 2. 

© Orig. c. Cels. vii. 21 (I. p. 709, 
Delarue) ovéérote év xepa broreray- 
hévos avO@pemos ws KpeiTTwY “yevomevos, 
where the conjecture ovdé rpds wpay is 
possibly correct. 

* Epist. 37. 


8 ad loc. and Epist, lxxxii. (1. p. 
194, ed. Bened.). 

9 Tren. ili. 13. 3. 

10 adv. Mare. v. 3. : 

1 Dial. iii. 13, p. 219 B (Migne). 

12 ad loc. ‘hoc esse quod in codici- 
bus legitur Latinis: Quibus ad horam 
ete.’ 

13 qd loc. ‘Latinus habet, Quibus ad 
horam cessimus.’ Primasius does not 
himself omit it, as represented in Tisch. 

14 Magn. Bibl. Vet. Patr. v. 498, 
‘Male in Latinis codicibus legitur, Qui- 
bus ad horam cessimus.’ 


122 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

Ms can be substantiated. Irenzeus 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}. 

Tertullian 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. ‘Tertullian 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 Mss 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. 3, Rom. v. 14, 
t Cor. v. 6, [Col. ii. 18]: comp. Joh. vi. 64, ix. 272. 

The omission once made, arguments were not wanting to support it. 
Tertullian 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 Tertullian, 
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 ovdé 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- 


Tertul- 
lian’s 
charge 
against 
Marcion. 


Omission 
how ac- 
counted 
for. 


cised 4, 
2. The omission of ois. 


1 De Doctr. Christ. 8. 15. 

2 Tor these references I am indebted 
to Reiche Comm. Crit. 11. p. 13. 

3 ‘Litterae enim hoc indicant quia 
cessit, et historia factum exclamat.’ 
The passage is based on Tertullian. 

4 So Victorinus and the Ambrosian 


Several modern critics, who retain it, hold that he was. 


Hilary. This is also the opinion of Ter- 
tullian (adv. Marc.v. 3), if I understand 
him rightly: though Baur, Paulus p. 122, 
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. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 123 
The relative is omitted in some few texts which retain ovd¢, and (2) The 
retained in some few which want ovdé ; but for the most part the two are Telative. 
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 step towards the more 
important 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 xy, With the 
This view is taken by Irenzeus!, the first writer who alludes to the subject ; Here oe 
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 urged the positive ar gzument from Argu- 
the striking coincidence of circumstances, and the negative argument from ae at 
the difficulty of finding any equally probable solution, or indeed any pro- idee 
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 ‘- 
important features. The geography is the same. In both narratives the 5° Beess 

ence 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 return thence to Antioch again. 
The ¢ime is the same, or at least not inconsistent. St Paul places the event 
15 or 16 years after his conversion: St Luke's narrative implies that they 


1 Tren. ili. 13. 3 ‘Si quis igitur di- visits of the Acts. 


ligenter ex Actibus Apostolorum scru- 
tetur tempus de quo scriptum est, 
Ascendi Hierosolymam, propter praedic- 
tam quaestionem, inveniet eos, quiprae- 
dicti sunt a Paulo, annos concurrentes 
etc.’ So also apparently Tertullian, 
adv. Mare. v. 2, 3. 

2 This visit is placed after the third 
in the Acts by Chrysostom, but not 
further defined. It is identified with 
the fifth by Epiphanius Haer, xxviii. 
4,P-112. The Chron. Pasch. (1. p. 435 
sq. ed. Dind.) places it after the inci- 
dents of Acts xiii. 1—3, and before 
those of Acts xv, thus apparently inter- 
polating it between the second and third 


3 The view adopted is that of most 
recent critics. It is well maintained by 
Schott, De Wette, Conybeare and How- 
son, Jowett, and others. The argu- 
ments in favour of the second visit of 
the Acts are best stated by Fritzsche 
Opuse. p. 223 sq. The fourth visit of 
the Acts finds its ablest champion in 
Wieseler, Galat. p. 553 sq. The jifth 
visit has been abandoned by modern 
critics, as the epistle was clearly writ- 
ten before that time. Some few, e.g. 
Paley Horae Paulinae ch. y. no. 10, 
suppose this to be a journey to Jerusa- 
lem omitted in the Acts. 


124 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
took place about the year 511. 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’ (€€ av7év) are men- 
tioned by St Luke; Titus, a Gentile, is named by St Paul. The subject of 
dispute is the same; the circumcision of the Gentile converts. The cha- 
racter of the conference 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) Nega- (ii) Nor indeed can this visit be identified with any other recorded in 
eae St Luke. It has been taken by some for instance for the second visit of 
of Ha the Acts. To this supposition the date alone is fatal. The second visit of 
solutions. 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 «ter the second visit*, whereas the account in the Epistle 


1 This is calculated by a back reck- 
oning of the time spent from the Apo- 
stolic Council to the appointment of 
Festus, the date of which is fixed inde- 
pendently at a.p. 60; see Wieseler 
Chronol. p. 66 sq. 

2 St Luke's notices are, xv. 2 -yevo- 
pévns ordcews Kal nrnoews ovK OnI- 
yns T@ IlavAw xal 7 BapyadBe zpos 
avrovs, at Antioch ; xv. 5 éfavéorncav 
dé tives, at Jerusalem before the con- 
gress; XV. 7 wodATs dé (nTyYTEwWs yevo- 
uévys, at Jerusalem at the congress. 

3 The order of events in St Luke’s 
narrative is as follows; (1) 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. 20o—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 chronolo- 
gical. Having mentioned in (1) St 
Paul’s mission to Jerusalem, the writer 
is led in (2) to describe the condition 
of the Church there, car’ éxeivoy roy 
kacpév. ‘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 (1) 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), (1), (4) (3). 

4 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. ; comp. also Gal. i. 21). 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 125 


clearly implies that his Apostolic office 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 diffi- Objections 
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) Discre- 
On the whole however the circumstances of the writers and the different Pancies. 
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 °f the 
the Epistle he states that he went up by revelation. Here however there ae 
is no contradiction. The historian naturally records the external impulse, 
which led to the mission: the Apostle himself states his inward motive. 
‘What I did,’ he says, ‘I did not owing to circumstances, not as yielding to 
pressure, not in deference to others, but because the Spirit of God told me 
it was right.’ The very stress which he lays on this revelation seems to 
show that other influences were at work. 

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 Czesarea, 
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 me, etc.’ 
(8) 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 arway (dré\ucay). So they 
being sent forth by the Holy Ghost (exmeupdervres iro tov ayiou mvev- 
patos) ete.’ 
(y) Acts xv. 28, ‘It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.’ 
(b) St Paul speaks of his communications as made to the Apostles in (b) Cha- 
private: St Luke’s narrative describes a general congress of the Church, — racter of 
The divergence is due to the different aims of the two writers. St Paul pect 
is dwelling on what he owed or did not owe to the Twelve. St Luke de- ‘ 


126 


(c) Rela- 
tions of 
St Paul 
with the 
Twelve. 


(ii) Omis- 
sions. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


scribes the results as affecting the interests of the Church at large. St 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 St 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 recoguised, though not dwelt upon, by the writer. The very form of 
St Paul’s expression, aveGéunv adtois, car idiav 6€ rots Soxotcry, 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 (xv. 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 likely to have been the course of events. The articles of 
the so-called Apostolic Council 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 no error or weakness or prejudice had reyealed 
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 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. I 


are the direct omissions of St Paul, on the supposition that he is speaking 
of the visit of Acts xv. 


27 


(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 Y 
recorded in the Acts? : 

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 fied 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 Judea. Having 
deposited these in trustworthy hands, they would depart with all convenient 
speed. Any lengthened stay might endanger their lives. 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. 


isit to 
erusalem. 


(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 Apostolic 


opposition which St Paul encountered in Galatia, sufficiently explain his 
silence”. 

(1) 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 affected 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- 
tile Apostles seem to have delivered it scrupulously in those churches 
which had been already founded and which had felt the pressure of Jewish 


remain at Jerusalem. It is mentioned 
by Apollonius (cire. 4.D. 200, ap. Eu- 


1 §t Luke dismisses this visit in a 
very few words; xi. 30 dmoorel\avtes 


mpos Tovs mpecBuTépous dia xetpds Bap- 
vaBa Kal Lavrov, xii. 25 BapvaBas dé 
kal Davros bréorpewar €& ‘lepovoadnp, 
mAnpdoavtes THY dtaxovlay, cuumapa- 
AaBovres "Iwavyny Tov émixdAnBévta Map- 
xov. It seems probable then that all 
the Apostles, perhaps even James, 
were away. Of Peter this is all but 
directly stated, xii.17. This inference 
accords with an ancient tradition, that 
twelve years was the limit of time pre- 
scribed by our Lord for the Apostles to 


seb. H. E. vy. 18, ws éx mapaddcews), and 
by Clem. Alex. Strom. vi, p. 762, ed. 
Potter. The latter gives, as his author- 
ity, the Praedicatio Petri, and quotes 
the words pera Swiexa ern kéNOeTe els 
Tov xocwov. This carries the tradition 
back to an early date. On the sequence 
of events in this portion of the Acts, 
see above, p. 124, note 3. 

2 Paley has some good remarks on 
this decree, Hor. Paul. ch. v. § 11. 


ecree, 


128 


The inci- 
dent is ex- 
plained by 
St Peter’s 
character. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


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 ap- 
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 which his enemies insisted upon’ 


Patristic accounts of the collision at Antioch. 


The conduct of St Peter at Antioch has been a great stumblingblock 
both in ancient and modern times. It has been thought strange that the 
very Apostle, to whom was specially vouchsafed the revelation that there is 
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. 


11 Cor. x. 27 sq., Rom. xiv. 2 sq. 
This question will be considered more 
at length in the dissertation on ‘St 
Paul and the Three.’ 

2 The accounts of this crisis in the 
Apostolic history given by Neander 
Pflanz. 1. p. 205 8q., and de Pressensé 
Trois Premiers Siécles, tre série, 1. p. 
457 Sq., seem to me on the whole 
among the most truthful, preserving 
a just mean between exaggerations on 
either side. Other references to im- 


portant recent works will be given in 
the notes to the dissertation on ‘St 
Paul and the Three.’ Since the 1st 
edition of this volume was published 
I have read the articles of Reuss, La 
Conférence de Jérusalem, in the Nouvelle 
Revue de Théologie, xt. p. 324, XIII. p. 
62. Though they contain many things 
with which I cannot agree, I gladly 
recognise the spirit of fairness in which 
they are written. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 129 
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 ras\i 
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 Becomes a 
instructive. The orthodox fathers of the early Church were sore pressed ©ODtrover- 
both by heretics and unbelievers. On the one hand Ebionite writers, like ae 
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? Tertullian, arguing against the 
Marcionites, resisted all temptations to wrest the plain meaning of the 
passage’. Cyprian and Ambrose moreover took it in its obvious sense®. 

The same is done also by the commentators Victorinus and Hilary. But 

the majority of early writers fell into the snare. Two disingenuous expla- Solutions 
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, y 

and dividing between them the allegiance of subsequent writers. 

1. Clement of Alexandria maintained that the Cephas here mentioned (i) Cle- 
was not the Apostle Peter, but one of the seventy disciples bearing the ™ent. 
same name. Though the passage itself absolutely excludes such a view, it 
nevertheless found several adherents, and is mentioned by Eusebius® with- 


1 See above, p. 61, and the notes ii, 
rig es 

2 Tertull. adv. Mare. i. 20, v. 3, de 
Praescr. c. 23: comp. Iren. ili. 12. 15. 

3 See esp. Hieron. in Ep. ad Gal. 
praef. (vil. p. 371, ed. Vallarsi) ‘ Vo- 
lens et illi maculam erroris inurere et 
huic procacitatis, et in commune ficti 
dogmatis accusare mendacium, dum 
inter se ecclesiarum principes discre- 
pent,’ and p. 410. 

4 See the passages of Tertullian re- 
ferred to, note 2. 

5 Aucustin. ap. Hieron. Op. t. 
Epist. cxvi. The passage in Cyprian, 
to which Augustine appears to refer, is 
in Epist. lxxi. At the Council of Car- 


GAL. 


thage too (held under Cyprian), ‘ Zosi- 
mus a Tharassa dixit: Revelatione 
facta veritatis cedat error veritati, quia 
et Petrus, qui prius circumcidebat, 
cessit Paulo veritatem praedicanti’ ; 
Concil. Carthag. lvi, Cypriani Op. p. 
239, ed. Fell. 

6 Kuseb. H.E. i. 12, referring to the 
sth book of Clement’s Hypotyposeis. 
The amount of support that this view 
obtained may be gathered from Hieron. 
Op. vit. p. 408 ‘Sunt qui Cepham...non 
putent Apostolum Petrum etc.,’ Chry- 
sost. Op. Ill. p. 374 Tws ovw TLves THY 
tirnow ravtyy @voav, Gregor. Magn. 
in Ezech. Lib. m. H. 6 ‘Sunt vero non- 
nulli qui etc.’ Jerome, Chrysostom, 


9 


130 


(ii) Origen. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


out condemnation. Even in modern times it has been revived}, but has 
not been received with any favour. 

2. Origen 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 St Paul might the more effectually condemn the 
Judaizers through the chief of the Apostles, who, acknowledgiiig 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, in 
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’, 


and Gregory all show from St Paul’s 
context how untenable this view is. 
Claudius Altiss. (ad loe.} simply copies 
the words of Gregory, and his language 
must not be taken as evidence of the 
prevalence of the opinion in his time. 
(icumenius however, or a commenta- 
tor in the @icumenian 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 lists of the 
seventy disciples, e.g. those ascribed to 
Hippolytus (ed. Fabricius, 1 app. p. 42) 
and to Dorotheus Tyrius (printed in Din- 
dorf’s Chron. Pasch. 11. p. 120), and that 
of the Chron. Pasch. (1. 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 Cephae 
disecipulorum Pauli,’ Assemann. Bibl. 
Orient. ut. p. 648. In the Apostolic 
Constitutions of the Egyptian Church 
he is represented as one of the Twelve, 
but distinguished from Peter (ed. Tat- 
tam, p. 2). 

1 By the Jesuit Harduin. See Har- 
duini Op. Sel. (Amst. 1709) p. 920. The 
treatise is entitled ‘Cepham a Paulo 
yeprehensum Petrum non esse,’ a 
strange specimen of criticism. It pro- 
voked replies from Boileau, Disquisit. 
Theolog. in Galat. ii. 10, Paris, 1713; 
Calmet, Dissert. 11. p. 519, Paris, 1720; 

Jeyling, Obs. Sacr. 11. p. 520, Lips. 
1737. The first of these I have not 
geen: the last two might be called 
satisfactory, if there were any case on 
the opposite side. 


It was enforced with much perverse ingenuity and 


2 Hieron. Hpist. cxii (1. p. 740) 
‘Hancexplanationem quam primus Ori- 
genes in decimo Stromateon libro ubi 
epistolam Pauli ad Galatas interpreta- 
tur, et caeteri deinceps interpretes sunt 
secuti, etc.’ In an extant work however 
(c. Cels. ii. 1), where Origen alludes to 
the incident, there is no trace of this 
interpretation. 

3 See Hieron. l. c. 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 Dicymus of Alexandria, of 
the Laodicene (i.e. Apollinaris), of one 
Alexander, ‘an ancient heretic’ (see 
Cave, Hist. Lit. 1. p. 101), of Eusebius 
of Emesa, aud 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 all 
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, 
ili. 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. 
522, ed. Caillau, ws cuvtpdrefos od 
KarOs Tw €Ovecu, el kal 746 wer wPedr}- 
ce 7ov Noyov. Unless his text is here 
mutilated, Gregory’s memory has failed 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, 


misapplied eloquence by Chrysostom in his exposition of this epistle, and 
in a separate homily devoted specially to the subject?. And about the 
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, 
which became famous in the history of the Church?, Augustine wrote to 
remonstrate with Jerome. To admit that the two leading Apostles con- 
spired to act a lie, he represented, was in fact to undermine the whole 
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 Hntellus, 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®. 


him as to the particular act which 
called forth St Paul’s rebuke. 

Still there was doubtless a vast array 
of authorities on Jerome’s side. He 
challenges Augustine to produce a sin- 
gle writer in his fayour. Augustine in 
reply can only name Cyprian and Am- 
brose. 

1 The Latin title of this homily is 
‘In illud, in faciem Petro restiti’ (111. 
p. 362, ed. Ben.). The opinion of Chry- 
sostom is alluded to by Jerome, Epist. 
exii, and by Augustine in reply, Hie- 
ron. Op. Epist. cxvi. 

* An account of this controversy is 
given in Mohler, Gesammelte Schriften, 
p-1sq. Fora summary of the points 
of dispute, see the commentary of Tho- 
mas Aquinas on this epistle. The cor- 
respondence itself may be found in any 
edition of the works either of Jerome or 


With this sequel the whole 


of Augustine. The references heregiven 
are to Vallarsi’s edition of Jerome. 
Owing to the extraordinary delay and 
consequent complication in the corre- 
spondence, it is not easy to determine 
the order of the letters, and in this 
respect none of the editions which I 
have consulted seem altogether satis- 
factory. Augustine discusses the pas- 
sage again more briefly, de Mendacio, 


§ 8, VI. p. 424. : 

3 Hieron. Op. 1, Ep. Ixvii. 

4 Ib. Ep. cii. See Augustine’s re- 
ply, Ep. cx. 


5 Ib. Ep. exvi. 

8 Hieron. c. Pelag. i. 22 (11. p. 718). 
This treatise (ili. 19, ib. p. 804) ends 
with an honourable mention of Augus- 
tine, who had written against the same 
heresy which Jerome is combating. It 
is just possible that Jerome, while 


Qo—Z 


131 


Chryso- 
stom, 


Contro- 
versy of 
Jerome 
and Au- 
custine, 


13 


Later 
writers. 


OO ea eee eee 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


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 office, 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 thought tacitly to surrender his 
former view are, adv. Jovin. i. 15 (II. 
p. 264), c. Rufin. iii. 2 (11. p. 532), 
Comm. in Philem. (v1. 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. EHpist. clxxx (I. p. 634, 
ed. Ben.). 

1 e.g. Mohler Gesamm. Schr. p. 18. 

2 Primasius (cire. 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 Theodoret, in 


Ezech. xlviii. 35 (11.p. 1046, ed. Schulze), 
that he gave a straightforward explana- 
tion of the incident. In the Dial. de 
S. Trin. i. 24, falsely ascribed to Atha- 
nasius (Athan. Op. 1. p. 421, ed. Ben.), 
this is plainly the case, but the ground 
for attributing this work to Theodoret 
is very slender indeed ; the probable 
author being Maximus monachus (cire. 
650). 

3 It is maintained by one of the 
commentators in the Gicumenian Ca- 
tena and by Theophylact. Both these 
writers would derive their opinions 
from Chrysostom rather than from 
Jerome. 

4 See especially Gregor. Magn. in 
Ezech. Lib. 11. Hom. 6 ‘quatenus qui 
primus erat in apostolatus culmine, 
esset primus et in humilitate,’ and Pope 
Agapetus, Baron. Ann. sub ann. 535: 
comp. Facundus x. 2 (Gallandi nm. p, 
772). 


Se ey 


III. 1] 
ibis 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


133 


& PK! , , « ~ > = 
PQ dvonto Tarxata, Tis yuas €BacKkaver, ois 


Kar opOadpous "Inoous Xpicros mpoeypagn eo Tavpw- 


IlI. 1. 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.’ 

éBackavey] ‘fascinated you. St 
Paul’s metaphor is derived from the 
popular belief in the power of the evil 
eye. Comp. Ignat. Rom. § 3 ovde- 
mote ¢Backavate ovdéva (or ovdert), 
Wisd. iv. 12 Backavia yap davddrnros 
duavpot ta xadd, and see especially 
the discussion in Plutarch, Symp. v. 
7, p. 680 © wept tev KatraBackaivew 
Aeyouevav Kai BacKavoy Exew opOarpov 
éumecovtos Aoyou K.t.A. If the deri- 
yation of Bacxaivew now generally 
adopted (see Benfey Wurzel. m1. p. 
104), from Bafw, Bacxw (dace), be 
correct, the word originally referred 
to witchery by spells or incantations 
(‘mula 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 (da 


agar, kaivoveay 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 of the ‘ occhio cat- 
tivo’ or ‘jettatura’ is said to be a 
deeply rooted popular superstition. 
On its wide prevalence see the refer- 
ences in Winer'’s Realwérierd. s. v. 
Zauberet, and in an article by O. 
Jahn, tiber den Aberglauben des bo- 
sen Blicks etc. in the Verhandl. der 
Sdchs. Gesellsch. 1855, p. 31. The 
word Sacxaivery then in this passage 
involves two ideas; (1) 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 yn (‘envious’ or ‘covet- 
ous, eg. Prov. xxiii. 6, Tobit iv. 16, 
Ecclus. xiv. 10, and compare the o@- 
Gadpos trovnpos of the Gospels); and 
in the Latin ¢nvideo it has swallowed 
up every other meaning. The false 
teachers envy the Galatians this liber- 
ty in Christ, have an interest in sub- 
jecting them again to bondage: see 
iv. 17, Vi. 12, and 2 Cor. xi. 20. This 
idea however is subordinate to the 
other, for where Bacxaivey 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 Bacxavia (81671 roAAHy Exov- 
ow evrdbevav Kat tporov ths picews, 
Alex. Aphrod. Probl. Phys. ii. 53: see 
also the passages in Jahn, p. 39), aud 
such an allusion would be very signi- 
ficant here; but the metaphor must 
not be overcharged. 

éBdaoxavev (for which some copies 
read ¢8acxnvev) is probably the first 
aorist with a; see Ignat. lc On 


134 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


(III. 2 


- = 7 ? e - ’ af 
mévos; *TovTO povoy OéAXw pabeiy ap vuwv, EE Ep- 


/ \ ~ > / 2\ ? = , 
ywv vouou TO mvejua éNaBeTEe 7) EE AKOIS TiTTEWS 5 


forms in n and a, see Buttmann Ausf 
Sprachl. § 101. 4, A. Buttmann p. 35, 
and Lobeck Phryn. p. 25, Paral. 

22: 

The words 77 adnéeia py weiOer Oar 
of the received text have no place 
here, but are added from v. 7. 

ois Kar’ dpOarpovs] ‘ before whose 
eyes’: comp. Arist. Ran. 626 iva coi 
car’ opOadpovs A€éyn- This expression 
is slightly stronger than mpo é@pGah- 
pov, as bringing out the idea of a 
confronting. 

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. Probl. Phys. 
ii. 53 @omep iddn Twa Kai POoporo.oy 
axriva €€:acw amo THs Kopns avTay kal 
aityn eiowtoa dia tov opOarpav rod 
pbovovpévov Tpéer THY Wuyny Kal THY 
gdiow «t.r., Heliod. Ath. iii. 7 dca 
trav opOarpev ta ma@n tais Wuyais 
eiorofevovra (these references I owe 
to Jahn, p. 33); and comp. Ecclus. 
XVili. 18 Séous Baoxavou éxtjxer 6pOar- 
pous, xiv. 8, Test. citi Patr.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 shrunken serpent eyes, That all 
their features were resigned To this 
sole image in their mind.’ 

mpoeypapn| ‘was posted up, pla- 
carded.’ The verb mpoypadpew is ca- 
pable of two meanings ; (1) ‘To write 
beforehand, as Rom. xv. 4 éca yap 
mpoeypapn els THy nuetépay OtdacKadiay 
eypapn. This sense however is ex- 
cluded here, as the words kar’ op@ah- 
povs 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 6 Te ay rpoypapo- 
pev ev Tois muvakios: comp. Justin 
Apol. ii. p. 52 B éeav S€ tpeis rotro 
mpoypaynre, Nucis Tots mace avepov 
momuoouev. These would sometimes 
be notices of a trial or condemnation ; 
comp. Jude 4 oi waka mpoyeypappevoe 
eis ToUTO TO Kpiza, With Demosth. p. 
II5I Tovs mpuTavers mpoypapew avTe 
THY Kpiow ert dvo nuepas, Plut. Camill. 
9 ths Sikns mpoyeypappéms: 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 (Sackayoyv or mpoBackanov, 
Lpist. Jer. 69) against all Judaic sor- 
ceries. The compound verb mpoypa- 
dew seems never to be used of paint- 
ing, as some take it here. 

ev viv is omitted after zpoeypagn 
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. Ifretained, 
it ought probably to be regarded as 
a redundant expression enforcing the 
idea of ois car’ d6@Oadpous, and to be 
taken with mpoeypadn. 

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? After taking your earliest 
lessons in the Spirit, do you look 
to attaining perfection through the 
flesh ? To what purpose then did ye 
suffer persecution from these carnal 
teachers of the law? Will ye now 


IT. 3, 4] 


3 / > / , ’ 
OUTWS aVONTOL EGTES 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


> / 
évapEapevor 


135 


, cal 
TVEUMATL vuV 


\ > - Ge: 4 a ? / 9 I Sf 
capki émteNetoe; *TocavTa émabeTe eEikn; El Ye 


stultify your past sufferings? I can- 
not believe that ye will.’ 

2. dxojs] in itself may mean either 
‘a hearing’ or‘areport.’ For the latter 
sense see Rom. x. 16, quoted from 
the txx of Is. liii, 1. The former 
meaning however is more probable 
here, as presenting a better contrast 
to épyev, which requires some word 
expressing the part taken by the Ga- 
latians themselves : comp. 1 Thess. ii. 13. 

miotews| ‘which comes of faith, 
the subjective genitive. The parallel- 
ism of Rom. x. 17, dpa n wiotis €& 
axons, 7 S€ axon dia pypartos, is only 
apparent. A true parallel is the phrase 
tmaxon mictews, Rom. i. 5, xvi. 26. At 
all events mioarews cannot be consi- 
dered equivalent to rijs rictews (see 
on i. 23), taken as an objective geni- 
tive, with the sense ‘listening to the 
doctrines of the faith.’ 

3. ovrws| refers to what follows: 
‘How senseless to reverse the natural 
order of things!’ 

évapfapevor errired cia bc] 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 évapyeoOa of the initiatory rites 
see Pollux viii. 83, and comp. e.g. 
Uur. Iph. Aul. 1471; for emcrehew 
Herod. ii. 63 (@ucias, evxwdds), iv. 186 
(ynoteias Kal dpras). 

émiredciobe is perhaps the middle 
yoice rather than the passive, as in 
Clem. Rom. § 55 zoAAat yuvaixes evduva- 
pobcioat...eretehécavto ToANG avdpeia, 
and frequently in classical writers, 
e.g. Plat. Phil. 27 © kddXuov Gy Kal thy 
kpiow emteXeoaineba, 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 
in the xx or New Testament. 


4. tocavta émabere eixy ;| ‘did ye 
suffer so much in vain?’, referring 
to the persecutions endured by them. 
For similar appeals to sufferings un- 
dergone see Gal. v. 11, 1 Cor. xv. 32, 
and comp. 1 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, emaGere has 
been interpreted in a good sense, as 
if referring to the spiritual blessings 
of the Galatians: but macyew seems 
never to be so used in the New Testi- 
ment; and indeed such a rendering 
would be harsh anywhere, unless the 
sense were clearly defined by the con- 
text, as it is for instance in Jos. Ant. 
iii, 15. I tov Gedy vropvncar pev doa 
mabovres €€ avtTovd Kal myAikwy evepye- 
oiay petadaBorres k.T.A. 

eixn] ‘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- 
secution.’ 

et ye kai eixy] ‘if it be really in 
vain. It is hard to believe this; the 
Apostle hopes better things of his 
converts. Ei ye leaves a loophole for 
doubt, and xai widens this, implying 
an unwillingness to believe on the part 
of the speaker. Hermann’s distinction 
(ad Viger. p. 834) that etye assumes 
the truth of a proposition while eirep 


leaves it doubtful, requires modifying 


eee a ee eee, Rp tees ee ae 


136 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[III. s—7 


~ oy cy ; - ~ \ ~ \ 
kat €ikn. 506 ovv émtyopnywr Uuiy TO Treva Kal Evep- 
- / 2 io af / \ > ~ 
yov Suvaues €v vpiv, EE Epywy vouou n €E axons 


TIT TEWS § 
EAOFICOH AYTH 


before it is applied to the New Testa- 
ment, where efrep is, if anything, more 
directly affirmative than etye. 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; (1) The violation of the law 
of progress committed by the Gala- 
tians (ver. 3); (2) Their folly in stulti- 
fying their former sufferings (ver. 4). 
The question has meanwhile been lost 
sight of. It is now resumed and the 
particle ody marks its resumption ; 
‘Well then, as I said, ete,’ 

6 éemtxopnyav] ‘He that supplieth 
bountifully’ ; comp. Phil. i. 19 émxo- 
pnylas Tov mvevpatos “Incov Xpiorov. 
Even the simple word implies more 
or less of liberality, and the com- 
pound emyopnyeiy expresses this idea 
more strongly. See 2 Pet. i. 5 émyo- 
pnynoate ev TH TioTEL Vw@y THY apeTHY, 
and compare the use of the substan- 
tive émxopnynua in Athen. iv. p. 140 ¢ 
emdikka pev Aéyerar Tavita, dvta oiov 
emtxopnynuata Tov ouvreTaypevou Tois 
ewSirats dikXov, i.e. the luxuries, the 
superfluities of the meal. 

evepyov Suvapes ev cpiv] Comp. 
I Cor. xii. 10 évepyjyata Suvapewv 
(with vv. 28, 29), Matt. xiv. 2 af duva- 
pets evepyovow ev avt@ (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 with the context: comp. 1 Cor. 
xil. 6 kai o adros Geds 6 evepyav Ta 
mavta ev magw. What was the exact 
nature of these ‘ powers,’ whether they 
were exerted over the physical or the 


€ic AIKAIOCYNHN. 


\ \ ’ a a ‘ 
SxaOws “ABpadm émicteycen T@ Oe@ kal 


TyWWOKETE apa 


moral world, it is impossible to deter- 
mine. The limitations implied in 
1 Cor. xii. Io, and the general use of 
dvvaners, 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 vv. 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. Mare. v. 3 ‘ ostendi- 
tur quid supra haeretica industria 
eraserit, mentionem scilicet Abrahae,’ 
and Hieron. ad loc. 

xa0as] The answer to the question 
asked in the former verse is assumed, 
‘Surely of faith: and so it was with 
Abraham. Kaéoés, though not a good 
Attic word, is common in later Greek; 
see Lobeck Phryn. p. 425. 

*"ABpaap eriotevoey x.t.A.] from the 
Lxx of Gen. xv. 6. The Hebrew has 
in the second clause ApIy % mawmy 
‘and (He) imputed it to him (for) 
righteousness.’ It is quoted as in the 
Lxx also in Rom. 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. 158 sq. 


III. 8—10] EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, 137 
ef e > / ec e / > > , 8 or 
OTL OL EK TigTEws, OVTOL viol Eo “ABpaap. *rpoi- 


- \ ¢ \ of > / ~ 4 c 
dovoa d€ 1 ypagn Ort ex miaTEws Sixaiot Ta EON O 
, ~ \ c > 
Geos, mpoeunyyericato Tw ‘ABpaau OTL éeneyAoru- 


O@HCONTAI EN COl TANTA 


, > r \ ~ cat) / 
migTews evNoyouvTat ouvy TH TIcTH ‘'ABpaap. 


‘ 
TA 


” / € > 
€ ONH. 9WOTE OL EK 


Jf 
OTOL 


7. ovrol ela. viol ’ABpaau 


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 offspring, 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 discerning that God 
justifies the Geutiles by faith; for 
so only could they be blessed in Abra- 
ham. Weconclude therefore that the 
faithful and the faithful alone share 
the blessing with him.’ 

ywookete] ‘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 argumentative particle dpa, 
and possibly also to the meaning of the 
verb ywooxew (‘to perceive’ rather 
than ‘to know’; see the note iv. 8,9); 
comp. I John ii, 29 cay eidqre ore Si- 
KQLOS EOTLY, YLYWOKETE OTL WAS 6 TOLOY 
thy Stkacoovyyy e& avtov yeyevynra. On 
the other hand, for the imperative see 
Heb. xiii. 23. 

oi ex wigtews| ‘they whose starting- 
point, whose fundamental principle is 
faith” Comp. Rom. ii. 8 of && épiGeias, 
Rom. iv. 14 oi €« voyov. 

8. 9 ypapyn] ‘the scripture’ per- 
sonified. This instance stands by itself 
in the New Testament, the personifi- 
cation elsewhere not going beyond 


Aéyer Or cizev, Or such expressions as 
ouvéxdevoev, Ver. 22. The attributing 
‘sight’ to the sacred writings is how- 
ever found in a not uncommon Jewish 
formula of reference ANI 7b, ‘ Quid 
vidit?’ see Schéttgen here. On the 
meaning of ypady, ‘a passage of Scrip- 
ture,’ see the note iii. 22. 

duxatot] 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 1 Thess. 
v. 2, and Winer § xi. 2, p. 280. 

mpoeunyyeAioaro] 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. 

évevdoynOjoovra «7.A.] A fusion 
of the two passages, Gen. xii. 3 Kai 
[evlevroynOyoovrar €v ool macat ai du- 
Aat rhs yns, and Gen. xviii. 18 Kai 
evevroynOnoovra ev atta (ABpaay) 
mavra Ta €Ovn THs yns,in both of which 
the Lxx agrees with the Hebrew. 
Comp. Clem. Rom. § Io. 

ev oot] ‘in thee, as their spiritual 
progenitor. 

10, 11, 12. Having shewn by po- 
sitive 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- 


138 


yap €& épywv 
ypanTar yap 


MENE! TACIN 


/ 
OTL 
TOIC 


TOY NOMOY, TOY; TOIACAI 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, 
vouov eiciv, UTo KaTapay ciciv. 
ETIKATAPATOC 


rEerpaMMENOIC 


{III. 1: 


ye 
OYK é&M- 
BiBAI@ 
de €v vouw 


TAG, OC 


EN TO 


11 7/ 


AYTA. OTL 


> \ ~ \ ~ Los ~ e < ' 
ovdels OikaovTat Tapa Tw OQew OnAov, OTL 6 Aikatoc 


where spoken of as the source of life 
(vv. II, 12). 

Io, 11. ‘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, 

10. 6cot €& 2pyav vonov eiciv] ‘those 
who are of works of law, whose cha- 
racter is founded on works of law. 

émuxaraparos k.T.A.] A quotation from 
Deut. xxvii. 26. The passage is the 
closing sentence of the curses pro- 
nounced on Mount Hbal, and as it 
were the summary of the whole. The 
words run in the LXxX, émixardpatos 
Tas dvOpwros os ovK eupéver ev Tacw 
Tois Adyots TOU VO“OV TOUTOV TOV TorHoaL 
autous. For rois Xoyous Tov vopov Tov- 
tov a slight modification is introduced 
by St Paul, that the sentence may ex- 
plain itself. The words ras, racw, 
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- 
derentur 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 0, quotes the passage exactly in 
the words of St Paul, though differing 
from Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, and Sa- 
maritan texts, aud applies it in the 


same way: see above, p. 60, and the 
note on ver. 13. 

11. The same proposition proved 
in another way; d¢, ‘Then again! 

o Sixatos «.7.A.] From Habak. it. 
4, quoted also Rom. i. 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), mm INN. psy.’ 
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 describes 
the attitude of the faithful Israelite in 
the season of danger. The uxx have 
€ay Umoorei\nTat, ovK evdoKer 7 Wuxr 
pov €y avta, 0 0é Bikaids pou ex Tigrews 
(or €x micrews pov) (noetar: 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. |. ¢.). 

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 73)D% 
is not directly ‘faith, meaning ‘trust, 
belief? but ‘steadfastness, faithful- 
ness.’ The context however justifies 
miorts, even in the sense ‘trust,’ as a 
paraphrastic rendering, and it was so 
translated by Symmachus, Aquila, anc 
Theodotion, and in the other Greek 
versions. Seep. 156,note4. Targum 
Jon. has }}70L"1p, ‘their truth.” In its 
original context the passage has refer- 
ence to the temporal calamities in- 
flicted by the Chaldean invasion. Here 


Fe Ge Dt ie Be, de te he Pe 


PET r2: 13] 


ek MICTE@c. ZHCETA! 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


Tas 


139 


\ / > od ’ 
O€ VOMOS OUK EOTLVY EK 


, > ’ c ’ \ ‘ > a 
TIOTEWS, AAN O TOIHCAC AYTA ZHCETAI EN AYTOIC. 
\ € - ? / ? lo / - , 
3X plo TOs nmas eEnyopaceyv EK THS KaTapas TOU voKLOU, 
, c \ ¢ o , 4 / > 
EVOMEVOS UTED NMwWY KaTapa, OTL YEeypaTTa EnI- 


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 
TOUT@ Tas o muaTevor Sixarovrar) there 
is perhaps a tacit allusion to the words 
6 8ixatos x.7.A. 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.’ 

6 moumoas k.t.A.}| Quoted from Lev. 
Xviii. 5, substantially the same as in 
Heb., Syr., Samar. Pent. and Lxx. 
The Targums define the meaning of 
‘living’ by ‘life eternal.’ The avza is 
explained by the words which in the 
original text precede the passage 
quoted, mavra ta mpoordypara pov Kat 
mavra Ta Kpiwata pov, and with which 
St Paul assumes a familiarity in his 
readers. 

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.’ 

jpas| The Apostle is here thinking 
of the deliverance of himself and the 
Jewish race: see ra €Ovn, ver. 14. 

eényopavey] ‘This verb has two 
meanings. (1) ‘To redeem, ransom,’ 
especially from slavery: this is its 
general signification: see the refer- 
ences in Dindorf’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. 


Lae (on Col. iv. 5, Tov Kaipov efayopa- 
Copevor. 

katapa] as 2 Cor. v. 21 rov pr) yvovra 
dpaptiav Umep nuov auaptiay emoinoer : 
comp. Protev. Jac. § 3, where Anna, 
complaining of her barrenness says, 
Katdpa éyevnOny eyo eveTtiov TaY vidY 
"Iopan\. 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- 
mineit in the scape-goat, Lev. xvi. 
5 sq.: see especially the language of 
the Hpistle of Barnabas, § 7, where 
the writer explains the scape-goat as a 
type of Christ. Compare also Lev. iv. 
25 amo TOU aiparos TOU THs duaprias, 
and iv. 29 emOnoe thy yxeipa avrov 
emt THY KePadny Tov duaptHpatos 
avtov. In Hebrew mxin 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. 
Ran. 733, Lysias Andoc. p. 108 dap- 
fraxov amoméumew kal adetnpiov amad- 
AatrecGa, and especially the Egyp- 
tians, Herod. ii. 39 Kkepady Se xeivn 
(i.e. of the victim) moda xarapn- 
épovot...ckatapéovrar Se 
rade héyovres THOL Keadjar, ct Te wEA- 
Aoe 7) oiot Tots Gougr } Aly’nt@ TH 
guvaragn Kaxov yeverOat, eis Kearny 
ravTny tparéc Oa, 

yéyparra:] in Deut. xxi. 23, where 
the LXX runs Kexatnpapévos urd Qeod 
Tas kpepapuevos emi EUAov. The passage 


oapevor 


——— SEO ee 


140 


KaTapatoc m&c 6 KpemdmeEeNoc Emi ZyYAQY, 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


a OO TT Oe ee ee ae 


[III. 14 


/ > 
Miva €ls 


5] ~ 3 \ , coal 
Ta €Ovn 4 evAovia Tov ‘ABpaau yevnta év Xpiot@ 


14. €v Inood Xpiorg@. 


is quoted by Justin, Dial. p. 323 ©, 
exactly as by St Paul; see p. 60, 
and the note on ver. ro, 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 xarapa. But He was in 
no literal sense xarapatos vrd Cecod, 
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 on 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 same as in Ephes. ii. 14—18: see 
also Gal. iv. 5. 

As regards the construction, either 
(1) 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 iva is attached to 
the first, expressing the moral de. 
pendence of the one on the other. The 
passage from the Ephesians already 
referred to favours the latter. 

TY é€mayyeAlav x.T.A.] ‘we, Le. all 
the faithful, whether Jews or Gentiles, 
may receive the promise.” The divine 
promise in the New Testament is 
always exayyedia not vrocyects, ‘ pol- 
licitum’ not ‘promissum, a gift gra- 
ciously bestowed and not a pledge 
obtained by negotiation. Indeed the 
substantive ezayyeAia is scarcely ever 
used (Acts xxiii. 21 is an excep- 
tion) of anything else but the divine 


promise. The phrase AauBavew rv 
exayyedtay 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 ém- 
Tuyxavew THs exayyedias Heb. vi. 15, 
Tepevery Thy emayyeAlay, Acts i. 4. 
With this use of émayyedia, compare 
that of Amis, wioris, ete., for the ob- 
ject of faith, of hope, ete. 

15—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.’ 

15. “AdeAqoi] ‘Brethren. Thereis 
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. 

kata a@vOpamov héyo| ‘I speak after 
the manner of men, 1 argue from 
the practice of men’; see Rom. iii. 5, 
1 Cor. ix. 8, and Rom. vi. 19 av6pe- 
mivov Aeyw. Comp. also 1 Cor. iii. 3 


II. 15] 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, 


141 


> ~ e/ \ > / - , , 
Inoov, iva thy érayyeNiav Tov mvevyuatos NaBwuer 


\ ~ / 
dia THS TicTEws. 


> , / / </ > / 
AdeAdol, kata avipwrov AEeyw. ouws avOpw7rou 


/ f 10 \ ‘9 ~ >\ , / 
KEKUPW MEV duaOnkny ovdes aOeTret 7 ériwiaTacoeTc. 


kata avOpwrov mepurareire, Gal. i. II, 
1 Cor. xv. 32 ¢i xara GvOpwmov €Onpio- 
paxnoa x«.7.d., ‘If from nothing more 
than worldly motives I fought with 
beasts etc.,’ where the false interpre- 
tation of xara advOpwrov, ‘metaphori- 
cally,’ has been supported by the 
mistaken analogy of the passage 
in our text. For the usage of xara 
av@peroy in profane authors see the 
quotations in Wetstein on Rom, 
iii. 5. 

dpws avOpérov| The force is well 
given in the A. V., ‘though it be but 
a man’s covenant,’ i.e. xaimep avOparov 
otaay, pws x.7.A.; comp. I Cor. xiv. 7 
Suas ra auxa povny didovra, Pausan. 
i. 28. 1 KiAeva...dvebecay tupavvida 
6pws Bovrevoavra. In classical writers 
this displacement of suas, 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 1 Cor. xiv. 7. 

The argument is here an @ furtiort 
argument, as those of our Lord drawn 
from the affection of a human father 
(Luke xi. 11 sq) and from the com- 
pliance of a human judge (Luke xviii. 
I sq). See esp. Heb. vi. 16. The 
a fortiori character of the reasoning 
however is dismissed in the single 
word dyes, except so far as it is 
picked up again in rod Geov (ver. 17), 
and does not reappear, as some have 
thought, in ds éorw Xpioros. 

Siabjxnv] ‘a covenant. This word 
(frequently in the plural d:a@yjxar) in 
classical writers almost always signi- 
fies ‘a will, a testament.’ There are 
some few exceptions, however, e.g. 
Arist. Av. 439 #v wn biadwrtai y’ oide 
diabynv euoi. On the other hand in 
the uxx it is as universally used of 
a covenant (most frequently as a trans- 


lation of nA™72), whether as a stipula- 
tion between two parties (cuvOnxn, 
‘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, (1) the inheritance 
conferred by the covenant, and (2) the 
death of the person making it. ‘The 
disposition in this case,’ he says in 
effect, ‘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 ill suited to the con- 
text: comp. Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. 
§ 11, 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 dcaéyjxn. As 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. Mare. 
iv. 1, and comp. Kaye’s Tertullian 
p. 299. The uxx translators and the 
New Testament writers probably pre- 
ferred S:a6jxn to cvvOn«n when speak- 
ing of the divine dispensation, be- 
cause the former term, like émayye- 
Xia, better expresses the free grace 
of God. The later Greek translators 
frequently substituted cuvO;jxn, where 
the Ltxx has d:a6jxn, sometimes per- 
haps not without a polemical aim. 





142 


16 


t 2 Lon 
CTEPMATI GUTOU. 


aéerei] Comp. Philo Fragm. I. p. 
675 M adda ore 7) SiadKn aOereirat. 

ertdtatacaerat| ‘adds fresh clauses. 
Virtually the doctrine of the Judaizers 
was the annulling of the promise (a6e- 
tnots); apparently it was but the im- 
posing new conditions (émdiaraégcs). 
On either shewing it was a violation 
of the covenant. The meaning of em- 
d:ardooeo Oa is partially illustrated by 
extO.aOnxn, Which signifies ‘a second 
will, Joseph. B. J. ii. 2. 3 dgvav rhs 
emd.abjkns thy Scabnkny eivar kuptwre- 
pav, and § 6, Ant. xvii. 9. 4. 

16. éppé@noav] For the form see 
Lobeck Phryn. p. 447, Buttmann 
Ausf. Sprachl. 1. p. 165. 

enayyedia] The plural, for the pro- 
mise was several times repeated to 
Abraham: comp. Rom. ix. 4, aud esp. 
Clem. Rom. § 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, (1) That the words must be 
spoken to Abraham himself, and not to 
one of the later patriarchs ; (2) That cai 
must be part of the quotation. These 
considerations restrict the reference 
to Gen. xiii. 15, xvii. 8, either of which 
passages satisfies these conditions. It 
is true that in both alike 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 Aéyet] seems to be used imper- 
sonally, like the Attic @yoi in quoting 
legal documents, the nominative be- 
ing lost sight of. If so, we need not 
enguire whether 6 Geos or 7 ypady is 
to be understood. Comp. Aéye:, Rom. 
xv. 10, Ephes. iv. 8, v.14; and g@jcty, 
EOor! W116, 2 Cor: x:/10(y, 1): 

kal Tots oméppaow k.t.A.] This com- 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[III. 16 


qn \ ’ \ Lert , c > , \ a 
tw Se ABpaau éppeOncav at érayyeNiat, kai TO 


3 a \ i c 
ou AEevyel Kal TOIC CTEPMACIN WS 


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 
yor (the word here rendered ozéppa) 
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 expres.ion in St Paul, which starts 
the objection, supplies the answer also. 
It is quite as unnatural to use the 
Greek ovépyara with this meaning, as 
to use the Hebrew p'ynt. No doubt 
by a forced and exceptional usage 
onéppara might be so employed, as 
in Plato Legg. ix. 853 © avépwroi re 
kal avéporev oméeppact vopoberovper, 
4 Mace. § 17 & rev ABpapiaioy omep- 
pateay anmdyovor traides Iopandira, 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 ra réxva Or of amo- 
yovo. 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 


re =a. 


III. 17) 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


143 


\ ~ > © > \ ‘ a ' ’ 
emt TOANwY, GAN ws E— Evos kai TH cTépmati coy, 


/ > , 
Os €OTLV ETS 


l7oUTO O€ eyo 6aOyKny ™p0- 


KEKUPWLLEVNY UTo Tov OQcEeov o peta TETPAKOTIAa Kal 


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. 1 to our Lord in Matt. ii. 15.) In 
this sense St Paul used the ‘seed of 
Abraham’ here. But Secondly; Ac- 
cording to the analogy of interpreta- 
tion of the Old Testament in the New, 
the spiritual takes the place of the 
patural ; 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, Rom. iv. 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 (vv. 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 pronise,’ 

See especially the remarks of Tho- 
luck, Das Alie Test. im Neuen Test. 
Bea: 

emt ToANGy] See Winer § xlvii. p. 393. 

6s eoTw Seal For the attrac- 
tion see Winer § xxiv. p. 206 sq. 

17. tovto d€ Aéyw] ‘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. 1 Cor. i. 12 dey de 
TovTO, Ort ExaoTos k.T.A. In 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, 12. 

mpoxexuvpwpévny| 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. 

eis Xpuorov found in the received 
text after rov Gcotd must be struck 
out asa gloss. The balance of autho- 
rity is decidedly against it. 

terpaxogia k.t.A.] 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 LXx 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, 7) d€ xar- 


144 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[III. 18 


a? \ 4 2 ~ > \ 
TplaKOVTa ETN YEYOVWS VOMOS OVK AKUPOL Els TO KaT- 


apynoa 


/ ’ / 2 3 f ; 
KAnpovomla, OUKETL E€ EmayyeNlas 


oiknows Tov viov "Iopand fy Kat@xnoay 
ev yn Atyint@ kai ev yn Xavaav érn 
TeTpakoo.a Tpiaxovta mevre (the last 
word however being erased). The 
Alex. M8 reads mapoixnots, rapoxnoar, 
adds after Xavaav the words avrtoi «ai 
oi tratépes avtay, 80 as to bring out the 
revised chronology more clearly, and 
omits wévre. The Samar. Pent. takes 
the same view, agreeing in its reading 
with the Alex. ms. This seems in fact 
to have been the received chronology. 
It is adopted not only by St Paul here, 
but by Josephus Anz. ii. 15. 2, by the 
Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, and sub- 
stantially by the Book of Jubilees 
(Ewald Jahrb. 111. 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; and this is the chrono- 
logy adopted in other passages of Jose- 
phus (Ant. ii. 9. 1, 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 difficulties 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. ef yap x.7.d.] ‘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. Noyos and éray- 
yeAla are used without the article, as 
describing two opposing principles, 

ovxért] is here logical, ‘this being 
once granted, it is not etc.’ as Rom. 
vii. 17, xi 6. “Ere is so used fre- 
quently. 


\ 2 / 
Thy eTrayyeNlav. 


18)? 2 4 ¢ 
€l6 yao €K VOMOU 


two 6€ ABpaau 


kexdpiotat| ‘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 purpose, its 
whole character and history, betray 
its inferiority to the dispensation of 
grace. In four points this inferiority 
is seen. Fist; 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 was given, it 
was annulled. Thirdly; It did not 
come direct from God toman. 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- 
changeable.’ 

19. ti ody 6 vopos;] ‘ what then is the 
law ?’, as 1 Cor. iii. 5 ri otv éoriv 
*AmroAAos; TL d€ €or THaddos ; the cor- 
rect reading. Comp. also Rom. iii. 1. 

Tov TapaBacewy yapw]| How is this 
to be interpreted? Is it (1) ‘To check 
transgressions’? comp. Clem. Hom. xi. 
16 mapatT@pdtey yap 7 Tiywpia Ere- 
ra; or is it rather (2) ‘To create trans- 
gressions’? for ‘ where there is no law 
there is no transgression’ (Rom. iv. 15). 
Thus law reveals (Rom. iii. 20), pro- 
vokes (Rom. vii.7, 13), multiplies (Rom. 
vy. 20) sin or transgression. The use 
of yap (comp. I Joh. iii. 12) is sufi- 


IIT. 19] 


Diay!-d , / G / 
Ov érrayyeNlas KexapisTat 0 Geos. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


145 


19 / tS e / A 
TL OUY O VOLOS 3 


6 / / > 5) 
TwOV TapaBacewy yap mpooeTeln, aypis ov E€rOy 

\ , © > 4 > “ 
TO oTeépua w emnyyeATa, Oiatayes O¢ ayyédwy ev 


ciently wide to admit either meaning. 
But the latter is to be preferred here; 
for (1) 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. 

mpooerébn| This reading, which is 
much better supported than eré6n, 
expresses more strongly the adven- 
titious character of the law; comp. 
emidvatagoetat Ver. 15, and Rom. v. 20 
vonos S€ mapetanAOer iva mreovdon 
TO TapanTopa. 

€6n| For the omission of ay see 
A. Buttmann § 33, p. 198; for the con- 
junctive, the note on rpéyo ii. 2. 

To omépya «.t.A.| ‘the seed to whom 
the promise has been given, i.e. Christ. 
emnyyeAtac is probably a passive, as 
2 Mace. iv. 27. 

diarayeis 52 dyyédav] ‘ordered, or 
administered by the medium of 
angels. The first mention of angels 
in connexion with the giving of the 
‘law is in the benediction of Moses, 
Deut. xxxili. 2 wip naa ANN), 
literally, ‘and He came from (amidst) 
myriads of holiness, i.e. countless 
angels who attend Him. Some modern 
commentators (see Knobel in Joc.) 
obliterate the mention of angels by 
translating, ‘He came from the heights 
of Kadesh, pointing the word wp 
with the Lxx; but though the paral- 
lelism gains by this, the sense thus 
assigned to N227 is unsupported: and 
Ewald, Gesch. des V. Isr. U. 257, still 
further changes M3225 into nan. 
The Lxx render the words ctv pupidor 
Kaéns, but introduce the angels in the 
following clause éx deEvav avrod ayyedor 
per’ avrov, where they must have had 


GAL. 


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 n335 
wip. Other allusions in the New 
Testament to the angels as adminis- 
tering the law are Acts vii. 53 ¢Aqa- 
Bere Tov vopoy eis Suatayas dyyédov 
(comp. vv. 35, 38), Heb. ii. 2. See 
also Joseph. Ant. xv. 5. 3 nudy dé ra 
ka\\iota tov Soyudrwy Kal Ta doww- 
Tata Tov év Tos vopos & dyyé\oy 
mapa Tov Geov pcbovrey, Philo de 
Somn. p. 642 M, and the Book of Ju- 
bilees c. 1 (Hwald’s Jahrb. 1. p. 233, 
1. 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 
Gfrérer Jahrh. des Heils 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 (60 dyyéAov). St 
Paul’s contrast here between the di- 
rectness of the one ministration and 
the indirectness of the other has a 
parallel in 2 Cor. iii. 12 sq. 


10 


146 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, 


[UIT 20,128 


A , . 20 £ bY / (aie | 2 sf € de 
XElpt METLTOU O O0€ MEOLTHS EVOS OUK EOTLY, O (s 


Geos eis éotiv. ™O ovv 
év xepi]| A Hebraism or Arama- 
ism, nearly equivalent to d.4: comp. 
Acts vii. 35. Itis a frequent Lxx trans- 
lation of 4%3, occurring especially in 
the expression év yewpi Motion, e.g. 
Num. iv. 37, 41, 45, etc. In Syriac we 
meet with such phrases as Lu035 = 
(ie. év yeupt mvetparos, Acts iv. 25, 
Pesh.), {Zas80.01 pr (i.e. &v xeupt 
miorews, Hab. ii. 4, Hexapl.). 

pecirov] The mediator is Moses. 
This is his common title in Jewish 
writers. In the apocryphal dvaBaors 
or avadnyuis Moses says to Joshua zpo- 
eJeacaro pe 6 eds mpd KataBodjjs Koo- 
pov eival pe ths SiaOnns avrov peci- 
tnv, Fabric. Cod. Pseud. V.T.1. p. 845. 
See the rabbinical passages in Wet- 
stein, and Philo Vit. Moys. iii. 19, 
p. 160 M ofa peaitns Kat dSiaddAakris. 
‘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- 
ptos 6 Qeds tpa@v di€Pero mpos vpas dia- 
Onkny...Kay@ eioTn Kew ava wero Kupiov 
kai vpov «7A. The reference in St 
Paul seems to be to the first giving 
of the law: if extended to its after 
administration, the peoirns would then 
be the high priest; see Philo Jon. 
ii. 12, p. 230 M preOdptov apdotv iva dia 
péeoov Twos GvOperot iAdoKwvTa Ccov: 
but this extension does not seem to 
be contemplated here. 

On the other hand Origen (Iv. p. 692, 
ed. Delarue), misled by 1 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 


/ \ - > 
VO,OS KATA TWY €7TTAaYyYeE- 


also Concil. Antioch. (Routh Rel. Sacr. 
Ill. p. 295), Huseb. Eccl. Th. i. 20. 11, 
Athan. c. Apoll. 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 (II. p. 27, Garnier), and 
it was perhaps owing to his influence 
that the correct interpretation was 
reinstated. So Theodore Mops., Theo- 
doret, Gennadius; andcomp. 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 (1 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 is 
not very great. 

6 S€ pecitns évos ovK eat] ‘no me- 
diator can be a mediator of one 
The very 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 


ae] 


Y 


O 
, - 


hie 


thing, 


iT. 22] 


~~ ~ lol A , 
Awy [Tov Geov]; py yevorro. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


147 
et yap €600n vopos 


e 7 ro / ’ / nv s c 
6 duvauevos Cworromoa, ovtws 逫 vomov [av] Hv 4 


/ 
OrKaloauvn' 


and not absolute. The definite article 
with peoirns expresses the idea, the 
specific type, as 2 Cor. xii. 12 ra on- 
peia TOU drooroXov, Joh. X. II 6 mounny 
6 kados: see Winer § xviii. p. 132. 

6 b€ Geds cis eariv] ‘but God (the 
giver of the promise) zs one. 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- 
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 differs 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 justify 
and give life. This was not the effect 
of the law of Moses.’ 

rav erayyedov| The plural. See the 
note on ver. 16. 

vonos 6 Suvapevos| ‘a law, such as 
could” For the position of the arti- 
cle see note i. 7,and comp. Acts iv. 12. 

(worouoat| 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,’ ete. 

22, 23. In this metaphor, which 


N / \ 
™cdN\Na ouVEeKAELTEY 1 Ypadn Ta TavTa 


describes the position of the Jews 
before Christ, two ideas are involved. 
iret, 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.’ 

ovvekdeccev 7 ypapn| The Scripture 
is here represented as doing that 
which it declares to be done. 

The passage which St Paul has in 
mind is probably either Ps. exliii. 2, 
quoted above ii. 16, or Deut. xxvii. 
26, quoted iii. 10. In Rom. iii. r1o— 
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 ypad7 in the N.T. always 
means a particular passage of Scrip- 
ture; (1) 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 ypa¢ai is universally 
found, e.g. Acts xvii. 11, xviii. 24, 28. 
(2) We meet with such expressions 
ag ‘another scripture’ (Joh. xix. 37), 
‘this scripture’ (Luke iv. 21), ‘every 
scripture’ (2 Tim. iii. 16). (3) ‘H 


I10—2 


Pm 


, oe. are.) a” Le oo yh a ety Ae owe) OOS eC ae ee 


148 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


FINE, 23, 24 


\ / e/ > / 2 / - 
UTo dpuapTiay, wa  émayyeNla éx miatews “Inoov 


Xpistov S004 Tois mieTEVoVeW. 


Bao0 Tou oe éAGetv 


\ , c \ / > , , 2 
THV TIOTLW, UTO VOMOV Eppoupoupeba OUVKNELOMEVOL ELS 


Thy péANOVTav TicTW droKadupbivat. 


/ ’ 
24 QOTE O VO- 


\ ec - / ig / 2 
pos Tawaywyos juwov yéyovey ets Xpictov, wa €k 


ypapi) 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 ii. 
27), Joh. xvii. 12 (Ps. xli. 10; 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 ra 
8.BXia to the ‘ Bible’ 

cuvéxrewrev U0 apuaptiay] i.e, sub- 
jected to the dominion of sin without 
means of escape, a pregnant expres- 
sion: comp. Rom. xi. 32 cvvéxAciev 
yap 6 Geos Tods mavras eis ameiOerav iva 
rovs mavras ekenon. The word ovyki«i- 
ew seems never to mean simply ‘to 
include’ The A.V. has the more 
correct but somewhat ambiguous ren- 
dering ‘conclude’ here. SvyxAcieu <is is 
acommon construction; see Fritzsche 
Rom. i. p. 545. 

ta mavra| The neuter is naturally 
used where the most comprehensive 
term is wanted: comp. 1 Cor. i. 27, 
Col. i. 20, Ephes. i. 10. 

iva] The consciousness of sin is a 
necessary step towards justification. 
See note ii. 19, and comp. Rom. Le. 

€x Tiatews x.T.A.| Not a mere tauto- 
logy after rots musrevovow. St Paul’s 
opponents agreed with him that only 
a believer could obtain the promise, 
They differed in holding that he ob- 
tained it not by his faith but by his 
works. 

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.  é€povpovpeba cuvederopevor} 
‘were shut up and kept in ward’: 
comp. Wisd. xvii. 15 €ppovpeiro eis 
thy aoidnpov ecipxtny KaTakdeEto Geis, 
Plut. de Def. Orac. p. 426 B ovdé 
ppovpety ovyk\€loavtas TH VAR. 

The use of wiorcs in these verses 
(vv. 22, 23, 25) links together its ex- 
treme senses, passing from the one to 
the other, (1) Faith, the subjective 
state of the Christian, (2) Zhe faith, 
the Gospel, the objective teaching, the 
system of which ‘faith’ is the leading 
feature. See the note i. 23, and p. 157. 

24. madaywyos| Comp. I Cor. iv, 15. 
The peedagogus 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 dsddcxados, so that the English 
rendering, ‘schoolmaster,’ conveys a 
wrong idea. ‘The following passage of 
Plato (Lysis p. 208 ¢) is a very com- 
plete illustration of the use which St 
Paul makes of the metaphor; 3é avrov 
eaow apxew ceavtov, } ovde ToUTO emt- 
tpémovoi cor; Tas yap, epn, émurpe- 
movow; ’AXAN apxeu tis cov; “Ode mai- 
daywyds, py. May Soddos wv; ANN 
rl pny; jperepos ye, py. "H Sewwov, qv 
& ey, hevOepov dvta vo SovAov Gpye- 
cOa* ri dé moray ad ovros 6 madaywyds 
cov apyer; "Ayer Snrov, en, eis didac- 
KdXov. Mop pr) Kat ovrot cov Gpxouvcw, 


III. 25—27] EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, 149 
migTews Sicawlwpev? ~%EéOovons S€ THs Tlo-TEws 
ovUKeTL UTO Talaywyov éouev. *rravTes yap viol 


Gceov éore Sia THs TicTEws Ev XpiotwH “Inco: 


e/ 
*7000L 


\ > 
yap eis Xpiotov éBarricOnte, Xpictov évedvcacbe. 


ot bddoKador; Havres dymov. Tapzoh- 
Aovs dpa cor Seordras kai 4pyovras Exov 
0 Tatnp edictnow. On the ‘ pxedago- 
gus’ see Becker and Marquardt Rém. 
Alt. V. 1, p. 114, and Smith’s Dict. of 
Antig. 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 Mosaiclaw. Therabbin- 
ical writers naturalised the word ma- 
daywyes, JIT5H (see Schéttgen here), 

‘and in the Jerusalem Targum it is 
used to translate jos (A.V. ‘a nursing 
father’) Numb. xi. 12. 

The tempting explanation of za:da- 
yoyos eis Xpiorov, ‘one to conduct us 
to the school of Christ, ought pro- 
bably to be abandoned. Even if this 
sense did not require zpos Xprorov or 
els Xptorov, 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 eis Gvopa réAecov (‘full grown’), eis 
peTpov nAuKias Tov mAnpepatos Tov 
Xpiorov. The metaphor of the pseda- 
gogus seems to have grown out of 
eppovpovucOa and thus the main idea 
is that of strict supervision. The za- 
daywyos had the whole moral direction 
of the child, so that ra:daywyia became 
equivalent to ‘moral training, and the 
idea conveyed by the term need not 
be restricted to any one function. 
Compare Plut, Wm. 15 éx d€ rovavrns 
maWaywylas mpos TO Geiov ovTas 7 TdOdLs 
eyeyovet xeiponOns x7... and Liban. Iv, 
437 ed. Reiske (quoted in Wetstein) 
MPOTOV pev Vor Tadayaynoouey avTav 
TIY Tpoaipeciy, ws av THY amo TOD vopou 
(npiav avadvopevat owdpovety dvayxd- 
Covrat. 


25, 26. éopev, eoré] See a similar 


instance of the interchange of the first 
and second persons in 1 Thess. y. 5 
WavTes yap wpeis viot hwrds éore Kai 
viol Nuepas* ovK ea pev vuKTos OvdE OkO- 
Tovs. 

26. mavres yap «rr.] ‘for ye all 
are sons of God by your faith, sons of 
God in Christ Jesus’ The stress of 
the sentence lies on mayres and viol ; 
‘all, 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 (madaywyos) ceases when you 
cease to be children (aides). 

viol Geod] In St Paul the expres- 
sions, ‘sons of God,’ ‘ children of God, 
mostly convey the idea of liberty, as 
iv. 6, 7, Rom. viii. 14 sq (see how- 
ever Phil. ii. 15), in St John of gwile- 
lessness and love, e.g. 1 Joh. iii. 1, 2, 
10. In accordance with this distinc- 
tion St Paul uses vioi as well as réxva, 
St John réxva only. 

ev XpioT@ ‘Invov| The context shows 
that these words must be separated 
from é:a rjs micrews. 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 say, for all 
ye, who were baptized into Christ, did 
put on Christ’: yap introduces the 
explanation of the foregoing év Xpior@ 
*Ingod. 

évedvoagGe| The metaphor has been 
supposed to be taken from the white 
garments in which the newly baptized 
were clothed; see Bingham Christ, 
Antig. xi. 11,§ 1. It is scarcely pro- 
bable however that the ceremonial of 


150 


a8 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


{II1. 28, 29 


oy) - 2 J > 5) r 
ovk €u “lovdatos ovdé “EXAnV, ovK Ev SovAOS OUdE 


> / > »/ yA \ - 4 \ e an 
éXerGepos, ovK em apoev Kat OndXv: TavTes yap vpeEls 


7 > \ > ~ > and 
eis eote €v Xpiotw ‘Inoov. 


28. 


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 (aioyvvny), XxXix. 14 (8eKato- 
cvynv), XXXiX. 19 (PoBov), Ps, xxxiv. 26 
(aicyvynv Kal évtpom7y), xcii. I (edmpe- 
mrevav, OUvapwy), Cili. I, etc. ; Comp. ¢yKop- 
BovocOa 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 
robes. 

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 éu| ‘there is no room for, no 
place for, negativing not the fact 
only, but the possibility, as James i. 17 
map @ ovK éu mapaddayn. The right 
account of ém seems to be given by 
Winer § xiv. p. 96. It is not a con- 
traction of éveori, but the preposition 
ev, evi, Strengthened by a more vigor- 
ous accent, like ém, mapa, and used 
with an ellipsis of the substantive verb. 

"EdAnv] See the note ii. 3. 

apoev kai 67ndv] 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 


\ an A 
*e, de vpmels XpioTo, 


amravres yap vets, 


be an allusion to Gen. i. 27 dpoev kat 
Ondv é€roincev avtovs, and if so, this 
clause will form a climax: ‘even the 
primeval distinction of sex has ceased.’ 
Comp. Col. iii. 11. 

Hither 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. Le.), and by Theodotus 
(Clem. Alex. p. 985). Comp. also the 
remarks of Clement of Alexandria 
himself, pp. 532, 539 8q, besides the 
passage first cited. See the note on 
Clem. Rom.].c. Foranother coincidence 
of St Paul’s language with a saying 
attributed to our Lord, but not found 
in the Gospels, see 1 Thess, y. 21. 

eis €oré] ‘ere one man. Comp. 
Ephes. ii. 15 rovs dv0 xrion év avira eis 
éva xatvov dvOpwrov, and Justin Dial. 
§ 116, p. 344 B ovrws queis of dia Tod 
"Inaod dvoparos ws eis dvOpwros miorev- 
cavtes...Ta pumapa ipatia annuduec- 
pévor x.t.\., Which seems to be a re- 
miniscence of this passage of St Paul. 
The neuter é&, found in some texts, 
destroys the point of the expression, 
the oneness as a conscious agent. 

29. Xpicrov| fare part of Christ, 
are members of Christ,’ not merely 





TII. 29] 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


151 


A - / > > > 
doa tov "ABpaau omépua éore, Kat’ émayyeNiav 


KAnpovopot. 


‘are the property of Christ, are serv- 
ants of Christ.’ The argument turns 
on the entire identity of the Christian 
brotherhood with Christ. 

dpa rod ’ABpaap] ‘then being one 
with Christ, ye ave Abraham’s seed’ ; 


for He is that seed of Abraham, to 
whom the promise was given. See the 
note on ver. 16. 

kar emayyeXiav| emphatic; ‘heirs 
indeed, but heirs by promise, not by 


law. See ver. 18. 


152 


Ambiguity 
of the 
Hebrew. 


Two ren- 
derings. 


(i) Lxx and 
St Paul. 


(ii) Judaic 
writers. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, 


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. 

The words of the original are nbn ombds nbss 5, ‘for (the) curse of 
God (is) he that is hanged.’ The ambiguity arises out of the construction 
of ombx, since the case attached to nddp may denote either the person 
who pronounces the curse, as Judges ix. 57 (On)! nbbs) and 2 Sam. xvi. 12 
anbdsp in the Q’ri), or the person against whom the curse is pronounced, as 
Gen. xxvii. 13 (qnoSp) ; in other words, it represents either a subjective or 
an objective genitive. As we assign one or other sense therefore to the 
dependent case, we get two distinct interpretations. 

1. ‘He that is hanged is accursed in the sight of God.” This is the 
rendering of the Lxx, xexatnpayévos vd Tov Ceod, 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, 

2. The other rendering is, ‘He that hangeth is a contempt of, a 
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 Ebionite 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 God5.’ It is found more- 


eR Rg ER RY SA Sy TS ge PE ag ot 


1 Aquila and Theodotion rendered 
it katdpa Oeod xpeuduevos ; see Field’s 
Hexapla 1. p. 304. The rendering 
of Symmachus, as given in Latin by 
Jerome, was,‘ quia propter blasphemiam 
Dei suspensus est.’ 

2 *Qua de causa iste suspenditur? 
Quia maledixit nomini (Dei)’: see Ugo- 
lin. Thes, xy. p. 766. 

3 aiynd xmbx tp amb 
33, ‘it is contempt before God to 
hang a man.’ 


4 At least so I understand the lan- 
guage of Jerome, l.c.,‘ Haec verba Ebion 
ille haeresiarches semichristianus et se- 
mijudaeus ita interpretatus est, 8: U8pus 
Geod 6 Kpeuduevos, id est, quia injuria 
Dei est suspensus.’ 

° Hieron. l.c., ‘Memini me in alter- 
catione Iasonis et Papisci quae Graeco 
sermone conscripta est ita reperisse, 
Aodopla Geod 6 kpeudmevos, id est, ‘male- 
dictio Dei qui appensus est.’ See be- 
low, p. 153, note 5. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 153 
over in the Peshito 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 ods: as the object, not the sub- 
ject, of nbdp. 

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 implies 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 weicomed*. An interpretation 
started in this way would at length become traditional *. 

But it was especially in controversies with the Christians, as I haye The tex: 
mentioned, that the Jews availed themselves of this passage. In whatever used by 

: : : ; the Jews 
way interpreted, it would seem to them equally available for their purpose. .,ainst 
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- tians, 
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 stumblingblock.’ 


1 ‘Because whosoever blasphemeth 
God shall be hanged.’ 

2 So it may be inferred from a com- 
parison with the translations of Sym- 
machus, of the Peshito, and of the 
Ebionite Gospel. Otherwise the same 
meaning might be got from the other 
rendering, ‘accursed of God,’ and so ‘a 
sinner in the sight of God.’ 

3 Thus the Targum of Pseudo-Jona- 
than, after rendering the passage as 
given above, p. 152, note 3, adds ‘unless 
his sins have occasioned it to him.’ It 
is possible however that this is aimed 
at Christianity. At all events it pre- 
sents a curious contrast to the inter- 
pretation of the older Targum. 

4 See the passages quoted in Schétt- 
gen here. The following is the inter- 


pretation of a learned rabbi of our own 
time: ‘ L’impiccato é (produce) impreca- 
zione contro Dio (cioé: il lasciare il ca- 
davere esposto lungo tempo alla pub- 
blica vista non puod che irritare gli 
animi, e indurli ad esecrare i giudici e 
le leggi) : e (oltraccid) non devi rendere 
impura la tua terra etc.,’ Luzzatto Il 
Pentateuco, Trieste 1858. 

5 In the ‘Dispute of Jason and Pa- 
piscus’; see above, p. 152, note 5, and 
Routh Rel. Sacr. 1. p. 95- 

® Dial. c. Tryph. ¢. 96, p. 323 0 

7 Adv. Judaeos § to. 

8 Hieron. l.c. So too in the work 
of Evagrius (c. 430 A.D., see Gennad. 
Vir. Ill. 50) entitled Altercatio inter 
Theophilum Christianum et SimonemJu- 
daeum, Migne’s Patr. Lat. xx. p.1174 3B. 


154 


and ap- 
plied to 
death by 
cruci- 
fixion, 


Active and 
passive 
meanings 
of Faith 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


The passage in Deuteronomy, 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 (ripwpiav ddAnv 
mpoodiatatrerat KeXev@v Tos aveAovtas avacKkvdomi¢er Oa). 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 (Joh. xviil. 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 manuer 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 Chaldee paraphrase of Deutero- 
nomy employs the same word (aby) which is used in several places in the 
Peshito Syriac to describe the crucifixion of our Lord (e.g. Gal. iii. 1). 
Hence also later Jews, speaking of Jesus, called Him by the same name of 
reproach (\5n, ‘the gibbeted one’), which they found 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. 


Lhe words denoting ‘ Faith. 


The Hebrew 71x, the Greck wioris, the Latin ‘fides, and the English 
‘faith, hover between two meanings; trustfulress, the frame of mind 
which relies on another; and trustworthiness, the frame of mind which 
can be relied upon. Not only are the two connected together grammati- 





1 de Spec. Leg. § 28, U. p. 324 M. 

2 Joseph. Ant. xiii. 14. 2, referred 
to in Winer Realw. s. v. Kreuzigung. 
On this question see Carpzov Appar. 
Crit. p. 591. I have not seen the trea- 
tise of Bornitius mentioned by Winer, 
Diss.de 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 Obs. Sacr. p. 163 
sq. 

3 Cie. Verr. v. 64 ‘crudelissimum 
teterrimumque supplicium.’ 

4 Hisenmenger’s Entd. Judenth. t. 
pp. 88 sq, 287, 496. On the Greek 
terms oraupodv, cxo\omifew, etc., see 
Lipsius de Cruce i. 4 sq (Op. 11. p. 769). 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


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, beliet— 
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- 
hood, for instance, are called ‘the faithful, oi moroi, what is meant by 
this? Does it imply their constancy, their trustworthiness, or their faith, 
their belief? In all such cases it is better to accept the latitude, and 
even the vagueness, of a word or phrase, than to attempt a rigid definition, 
which after all can be only artificial. And indeed the loss in grammatical 
precision is often more than compensated by the gain in theological 
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 ? 

The history of the terms for ‘faith’ in the three sacred languages of 
Christian theology is instructive from more points of view than one. 


sometimes 
combiued. 


1. The Hebrew word signifying ‘to believe, to trust,’ is the Hiphil yyoNn. i. Hebrew. 
The Kal ;s would mean ‘to strengthen, support, hold up,’ but is only found NAS 


in the active participle, used as a substantive with the special sense, ‘ one 
who supports, nurses, trains a child’ (radaywyds, see note, Gal. iii. 24), and 
in the passive participle ‘firm, trustworthy.’ The Niphal accordingly 
means, ‘to be firm, lasting, constant, trusty’; while the Hip/i }woxn, 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 5), and is rendered morevw 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 7312s, ‘firmness, constancy, trust- 
worthiness. This word is rendered in the Lxx most frequently by adn- 
eva, adnOwvos (twenty-four times), or by miotis, murros, a€somioros (twenty 
times); once it is translated éornprypévos (Exod. xvii. 12), once mAovros 
(Ps. xxxvi. 3, where Symm. had dujvexds, Aq. wiorw). It will thus be seen 
that 72108 properly represents the passive sense of aioris, 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 uxx translation, riots, in that passage has helped out this 
meaning ; and in St Paul’s application it is brought still more prominently 
forward. 

Thus in its biblical usage the word 773}08 can scarcely be said ever to 
have the sense ‘belief, trust,’ though sometimes approaching towards it. 


1 Throughout this note I have used = would of course change places. 
the terms ‘active’ and ‘passive’ in 2 «Qui fortis est, idem est fidens,’ 
reference to the act of believing. If says Cicero, Tusc. iil. 7. 
referred to the act of persuading they 3 See the note on Gal. ili, 11. 


156 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

The infinence of the Greek rendering however doubtless reacted upon the 
original, and in the rabbinical Hebrew it seems decidedly to have adopted 
this meaning (see Buxtorf Lex. Rabbin. 8. v.). The Aramaic dialects did 
something towards fixing this sense by an active form, derived from the 
same root }px, but from the conjugation Apfel (corresponding to the 
Hebrew Hiphil). Thus in the Chaldee of the Targum of Jonathan, the 
word denoting the faith of Abraham, Gen. xv. 6, is Xm)2D'N, and the 
Syriac renders zio7s in the New Testament by the same word {Zo180.01. 
ii. Greek. 2. Unlike the Hebrew, the Greek word seems to have started from 
alors. the active meaning. In its earliest use it is opposed to ‘distrust’; Hesiod 
Classical Qpy, 342 rioters 8 Gp rot duds kai amioriat ddecav avdpas (comp. Theogn. 
WHEE. | 831 rioret xpijpat amoXeo anioriy 8 éodwoa); 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. Asch. Kragm. 276 ovx avdpos dpkor wioris ddd’ dpkwv avyp: and riotis 
became a common technical term for a ‘proof’ The transition was aided 
by the indefiniteness of the grammatical form, and such phrases as riorw 
exev twos 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 moros hus both meanings, ‘trusty,’ as Hom. Ji. xvi. 
147 muordraros O¢ of €cxe, and ‘trustful, as “sch. Prom. 917 trois weSapoiots 
krumos motos. So also amucros means both ‘incredulous’ (Hom. Od. xiv. 
150), and ‘incredible’ (Asch. 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’, riots has always the passive sense, ‘ fidelity,’ ‘constancy?’ 
unless the passage in Habakkuk be regarded as an exception’. So again 
there is no clear instance of micros with any but the passive sense. 


Aramaic. 


Old Tesita- 
ment, 


1 Compare fortis, pvijotis, Buttm. 
Ausf. Sprachl. § 119. 24. 


Strom. ii. p. 432, Potter. With these 
data it is difficult to decide between 


2 As illustrating this fact, it is worth 
noticing that the word ‘faith’ occurs 
only twice in the Authorised Version 
of the Old Testament, Deut. xxxii. 20 
(‘children in whom is no faith,’ JOS, 
where it is plainly passive), and Hab. ii. 
43 see note 4. 

3 Besides M3iDN, it occurs as a ren- 
dering of }}ION, IN, NON, and once 
as a paraphrase of mid, Prov. xv. 28. 
In ail these words the passive sense is 
evident. 

4 ii. 4. The original reading of the 
Lxx is not clear, In the Vat. and Sin. 
Mss it is 6 6¢ Gixaos éx mlareds pov, in 
the Alex. and others 6 6é Slxatés wou ek 
risrews. In Hebr. x. 38 too (though 
not without various readings) pov fol- 
lows é/xaos. Comp. also Clem. Alex. 


two solutions; either (1) It may be in- 
ferred from the varying position of you 
that the word had no place in the ori- 
ginal text of the Lxx; in this case St 
Paul (Gal. iil. 11, Rom. i. 17) may have 
quoted directly from the Lxx; or (2)’Ex 
migTews wou was the original reading, 
afterwards altered into pov éx rlerews to 
remove any ambiguity as to the sense. 
In this latter case the uxx translators 
must have read *N3\7DN1 ‘my faith’ (for 
NIVINI ‘his faith,’ the present He- 
brew text), and perhaps intended their 
rendering éx zicrews wou to be under- 
stood, ‘by faith in me’ (see however 
tom. ili. 3 rhv mlorw Too Oeod). That 
the Hebrew text was the same in the 
first and second centuries as at present, 
may be inferred not only from St Pavl’s 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


157 


The usage of the Apocrypha is chiefly valuable as showing how difficult Apocry- 
it is to discriminate the two meanings, where there is no Hebrew original P/4- 


to act as a check, and how easily the one runs into the other; e.g. Ecclus, 
xlvi. 15 €v wires avrov nxpiBacOn mpodnrns Kai eyvaabn ev riare: avrod 
mores opacews, I Mace. ii. 52 "ASpaap ovxi ev meiparu@ evpéOn motos Kai 
eAoyiabn atte eis Sixacoovvny; Hcclus. xlix. 10 €Avtpw@cato adtods év rior 
éAridos. 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 rictis, ‘faith,’ ‘belief? had a 
recognised value as a theological term. 

In the New Testament ziorcs is found in both its passive and its active 
sense. On the one hand it is used for constancy, trustworthiness, whether 
of the immutable purpose of God, Rom. iii. 3 rv mictw rod cod Karap- 
ynoe, or of good faith, honesty, uprightness in men, Matt, xxiii. 23 dpyeare 
ra Bapitepa Tov vomov, THY Kpiow Kal TO Edeos Kal THY Tit (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 this 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 cioris, as a Christian 
virtue, certainly has the active meaning, ‘trust, ‘belief.’ But the use of 
the adjective of moroi for the Christian brotherhood cannot be assigned 
rigidly either to the one meaning or the other. Sometimes the context 
requires the active, as Joh. xx. 27 pw yivov dmioros ada motos (comp. 
Gal. iii. 9), sometimes the passive, as Apoc. ii. 10 yivov micros aypt Oavarou. 
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 mords is in other connexious by far the most common, 
even in the New Testament; for the other, that its opposite dmioros cer- 
tainly means an ‘unbeliever.’ Is not a rigid definition of the sense in such 
a case groundless and arbitrary? 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! ? 


application of the passage (supposing 
him to quote from the Hebrew), but 
also from the fact that all the Greek 
Versions collected by Origen so read it. 
See Jerome on Gal. iii. 11, and on Hab. 
ii, 4, Op. vi. p. 608 sq (ed. Vall.). 

1 The difficulty of exact definition 
in similar cases is pointed out ina sug- 
gestive essay in Jowett’s Epistles of St 
Paul 1. p. 101 (2nd ed.). With Prof. 
Jowett’s applications of his principles I 
am far from agreeing in many cases, 
and I consider his general theory of 


the looseness of St Paul’s language 
an entire mistake; but as a protest 
against the tendency of recent criticism 
to subtle restrictions of meaning, un- 
supported either by the context or by 
confirmed usage, this essay seems to 
me to be highly valuable. The use of 
ol microl is an illustration of this diffi- 
culty. The expression 7d evayyéNor 
rod Xpiorod isanother. What is meant 
by ‘the Gospel of Christ’? Is it ths 
Gospel which speaks of Christ, or the 
Gospel which was delivered by Christ, 


New Tes- 
tament, 


TLoTOS. 





158 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

3. It has been seen that the meaning of the Greek iors was reflected 
on its Hebrew original. No less was this meaning infused into its Latin 
rendering. The verb micrevw was naturally translated by ‘credo,’ but this 
root supplied no substantive corresponding to mioris, no adjective (for 
‘credulus’ was stamped with a bad meaning) corresponding to micros. 
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 zig7is*, 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. In the case of the adjective ‘fideles’ again, the passive 
sense was still more marked, but here too there was no alternative, and the 
original microl was, as we have seen, sufficiently wide to admit it as at all 
events a partial rendering. 

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 zioris, microti, by comprehensive 
words which, uniting in themselves the ideas of ‘ trustfulness’ and ‘trust- 
worthiness,’ of ‘Glauben’ and ‘ Treue,’ do not arbitrarily restrict the power 
of the original. 


iii. Latin. 
Jideés. 


English. 


The faith of Abraham. 


From the investigation just concluded it appears that the term ‘ Faith’ 
can scarcely be said to occur at all in the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old 


Results of 
the fore- 


or the Gospel which belongs to Christ? 
or rather, does it not combine all these 


search would prove this position un- 
tenable. At all events the ordinary 


meanings in itself? 

1 Instances of such expressions are, 
‘facere fidem alicui,’ ‘ habere fidem ali- 
cui’; comp. Ter. Heaut. ili. 3. 10 ‘ Mihi 
fides apud hune 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- 


sense of ‘fides’ in classical writers is 
‘ trustworthiness, credit, fidelity to en- 
gagemenis.’ 

4 The Latin language indeed offered 
two words of a directly active meaning, 
‘fidentia’ and ‘fiducia’; but the former 
of these seems never to have obtained 
a firm footing in the language (see Cic. 
de Inv, il. 163, 165, Tusc. iv. 80), and 
the signification of both alike was too 
pronounced for the sense required. 
‘ Fidentia’ does not occur at all in the 
Latin translations (if the Concordance 
to the Vulgate is sufficient evidence); 
‘fiducia’ is not uncommon, frequently 
as a rendering of rappyola, less often 
of merol@na.s, Odpoos, but never of zi- 
ov. Fides, fiducia, occur together in 
Senec. Ep. 94. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, 159 
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, “9? 
Awe is the prominent idea in the earlier dispensation, ¢izwst 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- 
strange land: by faith he acted upon God’s promise of a race and an inhe- sh 
ritance, though it seemed at variance with 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 life. 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 
great 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 wiovis, in the Aramaic 833°, the hitherto missing term was 
first found. 

As early as 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 2 thesis 
become a standard text in the Jewish schools, variously discussed and aie 
commented upon, and that the interest thus concentrated on it prepared 
the way for the fuller and more spiritual teaching of the Apostles of 
Christ. 

This appears to have been the case in both the great schools of Jewish 
theology, in the Alexandrian or Greeco-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) Alex- 
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 Judaism. 
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 


the direct subject of comment in the 
works of Philo entitled De Migrat. 


1 Acts vii. 2—5, Rom. iv. 16—22, 
Heb. xi. 8—12, 17—19. 


2 1 Mace. ii. 52. Other less distinct 
references in the Apocrypha to the 
faith of Abraham are 2 Macc. i. 2, Ec- 
clus. xliv. 19—21. In both passages 
misTos occurs, but not mlazts. 

3 The history of Abraham is made 


Abrah. 1. p. 436 (Mangey), De Abrah. 
II. p. 1, Quaest. in Gen. p. 167 (Aucher), 
besides being discussed in scattered 
passages, especially in Quis Rer. Div. 
Her. 1. p. 473, De Mutat. Nom. I. p. 
578. 


160 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


Philo’s least ten times!. Once or twice Philo, like St Paul, comments on the 
comments second clause of the verse, the imputation of righteousness to Abraham, but 
ee Pi for the most part the coincidence is confined to the remarks on Abraham’s 

ek 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,’ 
{t 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 sacred 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’ 

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, Abrahain by instruction, Isaac by nature, Jacob by ascetic disci- 
pline®. Abraham therefore is the type of d:SacKcaduxy dpety, he is the man 
who arrives at the knowledge of the true God by teaching (xii. 6) And 
this is the meaning of his successive migrations, from Chaldzea to Charran, 
from Charran to the promised land4, 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 ? 


The story 
of Abra- 
ham an 
allegory. 


His mi- 
grations. 


1 Leg. Alleg. 1. p. 132, Quod Deus 
Imm. I. p. 273, de Migr. Abr. 1. p. 443, 
Quis Rer. Div. Her. 1. pp. 485, 486, de 
Mut. Nom. 1. pp. 605, 606, 611, de Abr. 
II, p. 39, de Praem. et Poen. IL p. 413, 
de Nob. il. p. 442. 

2 de Migr. Abr. 1. p. 456 ris obv 7 
ko\}a. (i.e. which unites him to God) ; 
tls; evdoéBeva Snmov Kal mlares. 

3 de Praem. et Poen. i. p. 412 ék tU- 
pov uefopurodmevos mpos ad7jOevav, didak- 
TikKH xpnodmevos dpern mpds Tedelwow 
GOdov aipetra: thy mpos Tov Oedv TioTiv. 

4 Quis Rer. Div. Her. 1. p. 485 rH 
TENELOTATHY GpEeTav TiaoTLY. 

5 de Abr. I. p. 39 Tiv Baodlda roy 
dpeTav. 

6 de Abr.l.c. Iam not sure that I 
have caught the meaning of the words, 
Kakodawmovias dmoyvwos, evoeBelas yra- 


ots, evdatmovias KNfpos, nor is it easy to 
find an adequate English rendering for 
them. 

7 Quis Rer. Div. Her. i. p. 487. 

8 de Praem., et Poen. 11. p. 413 dkAe 
vots Kat BeBavordrns miorews K.T.dey 
comp. de Nob. I. p. 442. 

9 Aiéackadla, picts, doxyots, de Mut. 
Nom. 1. p. 580, de Abr. 1. p. 9, de Praem. 
et Poen. 1. p. 412. 

10 The change of name from Abram 
to Abraham betokens this progress, de 
Cherub. I. p. 139, de Mut. Nom. 1. p. 
588, de Abr. 11. p. 13, Quaest. in Gen. 
p- 213 (Aucher). 

11 On the meaning of Chaldea and 
Charran see de Migr. Abr. 1. p. 463 sa, 
de Somn. 1. p. 626 sq, de Abr. 1. p. 11 
sq, de Nob. . p. 441, Quaest. in Gen. 
p- 167 (Aucher). 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 161 


The name itself, signifying ‘a cave,’ supplies the answer: the senses 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 27d inhe- 
rich possession of wisdom, the lordship of the spirit over the domain of the ™ 22° 
senses’, And are not its very boundaries significant? 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 
blessings’. 

If as full a record had been preserved of the Rabbinical Schools of (ii) Rab- 
Palestine and Babylonia during the Apostolic age, we should probably binical 
have found that an equally prominent place was assigned to the faith of ~e 
Abraham in their teaching also, The interpretation put upon the passage, 
and the lessons deduced from it, would indeed be widely different ; 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 Esdras, one of the very few Jewish writings which , 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 shall 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’ (vy. 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. l.c. p. 465 tpwyAn 4 Quis Rer. Div. Her.t. p. 487, Quaest. 
76 Tis alcOjoews xwpiov,comp.de Somn. in Gen. p. 216 (Aucher). 


inc. 5 Quaest. in Gen. p. 188 (Aucher). 
2 de Migr. Abr. 1. p. 437. 5 The references are taken from the 
3 ib. p. 444, comp. Quaest. in Gen. text as printed in Gfrérer’s Prophet. 
pp. 211, 229 (Aucher). Vet. Pseudepigr. 


GAL. II 


162 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

to Abraham’s example, may be inferred from the following passage in the 
Mechilta 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... Rabbi 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... What is 
the cause of David’s joy (in Ps. xci. 1)? It is the reward of faith, whereby 
our fathers believed. So Jeremiah (v. 3), O Lord, thine eyes look upon 
Jaith, and Habakkuk (ii. 4), The righteous liveth of his faith...Great 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 we find too that (God) punishes more severely for 
doctrine than for practice, as it is said (in Hosea iv. 1), Hear the word of 
the Lord etc.’ Gfrérer, 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 life®,’ 

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. Itis 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. 


Mechilta. 


Siphri. 


Coinci- 
dences 
and di- 
vergences, 


His promise. See the references in 
Beer’s Leben Abrahams p. 147; comp. 
p. 33- Such a rendering is as harsh 


1 Ugolin. Thes. xtv. p. 202. 
In marked contrast to these earlier 
comments is the treatment of the text, 


Gen. xv. 6, bysome later Jewish writers. 
Anxious, it would appear, to cut 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 


in itself, as it is devoid of traditional 
support. 

2 Ugolin. Thes. xv. p. 554. 

8 Abarbanel Rosh Amanah p. 5 a, 
Maimonides on Mishna Sanhedr. p. 
121 a, referred toin Gfrérer Jahrh. des 
Heils 11. p. 162. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, 


If we look only to the individual man, faith with Philo is substantially 
the same as faith with St Paul. The lessons drawn from the history of 
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, like 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 
Jaith, but Abraham’s seed was almost meaningless to him. 

On the other hand Judaism proper was strong where Alexandrian 
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 sous, 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 
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. 
In order fully to understand its force, or indeed to appreciate its leading 
conception, it would be necessary to take into account the atoning death 
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 
direct bearing on the lesson drawn from Abraham’s example. In a cer- 


tae 


163 


St Paul 
and Philo, 


St Paul 
and Ju- 
daism 

proper. 


Summary, 


Other ele- 
menis in 
St Paul’s 
teaching, 


164 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

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 
both by St Paul and St James ; while the deductions which the two Apostles 
draw from it are at first sight diametrically opposed in terms. ‘We con- 
clude that a man is justified by faith apart from (ywpis) works of law, says 
St Paul (Rom. 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 


Compari- 
son of St 
Paul and 
St James, 


illustrated schools of the day, that the meaning of jaith was variously explained by 
by the the disputants, that diverse lessons were drawn from it—then the case is 
ae as 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 spiritual 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 a prima facie reason for seeking the objects 
of St James’s rebuke clsewhere 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 (vr. p. 302, 
Marsh’s 2nded.). Itis also adopted by 
Neander: see especially his Pflanzung 
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. c. Tryph. p. 370 D ovx ws dpeis 


dmaradre éavrov’s kal dAdo. rues buy 
duo (i.e. Judaizing Christians) xara 
ToUTO, of Aéyoucw STL, Kav GuapTwAol dor 
Oedv 5é ywwdcKovew, od wh Roylonrar 
avrots Kupis auaptiav: and to the 
Clem. Hom. 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,’ 


TV.) 


IV. 


IV. 1—7. In the former para- 
graph St Paul starting from the figure 
of the pzdagogus 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. vymtos, mpo- 
Gecpia), he seems to put forward rather 
the general conception of the office of 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


165 


, V > J “4 
*Aéyw O€, ED O@OV XpovoY O kAnpovoj.os UN TLOS 


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, born 
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 
God 

1. Aéyo 6] ‘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 rotro d€ Aéyo, Gal. 
iii. 17 (with the note), 1 Cor. i. 12. 

vimos| ‘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 
mais and aynp), it probably represents 
the Latin ‘infans.” If so, its use here, 
though sufficiently exact for the pur- 
poses of the comparison, is not tech- 
nically precise. The ‘infantia’ of a 


166 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


(iV. 


b) 7M / is J »/ \ 
€or, ovdev duapeper dovAov KUpLos TavTwY wy, *ddA\a 


? \ > f / -~ 
UTO EMLTPOTTOUS ETTLY KAL OiKOVOKLOUS axXpL THS ToofET=- 


Roman 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 Rom. Recht. ul. p. 25 
sq. Nymeos seems to be here ‘a 
minor’ in any stage of his minority. 
The word is opposed to dvzjp, 1 Cor. 
xiii. 11, Ephes. iv. 13, 14: comp. Dion. 
Hal. iv. 9, Gruter /nscr. p. 682. 9. 
See Philo Leg. ad Cai. 4, 11. p. 549 
vymiov ére ovTa Koutdn Kai ypncovra 
émitpom@yv Kat didacKkadov kai muda- 
yoyov. 

ovdev Stadéper SovAov] 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 his behalf, was termed 
in Attic law xvpios, Meier Ati. Proc. 
p. 450. Prospectively however, though 
not actually, the minor was kvpios mav- 
tov, which the slave was not. 

2. émirpcmous Kal oikovonous] ‘con- 
trollers of his person and property? 
The language is intended, asthe 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., Hi/., 
Interp. Orig.; ‘tutores et actores’ 
Pelag., Hier.; ‘ procuratores et acto- 
res’ Aug.; ‘tutores et dispensatores’ 
Interp. Theod. Mops. The distinction 
given in the above translation seems 
the most probable. The ezirporo. are 
the boy’s legal representatives, his 


guardians (whether ‘curatores’ or 
‘tutores’ in Roman law); the ofkovd- 
por, stewards or bailiffs appointed to 
manage his household or property. 
The word ézirpomos elsewhere in the 
New Testament, Matt. xx. 8, Luke 
viii. 3, is ‘a steward.’ Adopted into 
the Rabbinical language (D}5y70°5s) 
it has a comprehensive meaning, sig- 
nifying sometimes a guardian, sonie- 
times a steward : see Schéttgen here 
and on Luke viii. 3. 

Ths mpobecpias| sc. nuepas, ‘the day 
appointed beyorehand, 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 warpos. 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 in 
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 
§ 186 ‘Si cui testamento tutor sub con- 
dicione aut ex die certo datus sit’: 
comp. Justinian’s Jnstit. 1. xiv. 3; and 
probably more exact information would 
show that the law was not so rigorous 
as is often assumed. Considering then 
(1) That though the term of guardian- 
ship was not generally settled by the 
will 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. nucis] ‘ee, Jews and Gentiles 


IV. 3, 4] 


plas TOU TaTpos. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 167 


74 A e - / s 
S0UTWS Kal nels, OTE FEV VHTTLOL, 


c \ \ = -~ ‘ mm ¢ 
UTO Ta OTOLYELA TOU KOTMOU HuEV SEdovAWpMEVOL* *5TE 


alike, as appears from the whole con- 
text. See the note on ver. II. 

ra ototxeia] ‘the clements, originally 
‘the letters of the alphabet,’ as being 
set in rows. From this primary sense 
the word gets two divergent meanings 
among others, both of which have been 
assigned to it in this passage ; (1) ‘The 
physical elements’ (2 Pet. iii. 10, 12, 
Wisd. vii. 17), as earth, fire, etc. (Her- 
mas V7s, iii. 13), and especially the 
heavenly bodies : comp. Clem. Hom. x. 
9, 25, Justin Apol. ii. p. 44 A ra ovpa- 
ma orotxeia, Dial. p.285 c. They were 
probably so called chronologic:lly, as 
the elements of time (Theoph. ad Aut. 
1. 4 mAwos kat weAnvn Kai doTépes aTot- 
x€la avrov ciaiv, eis onpeia Kal eis Kat- 
povs kal eis nuépas Kal €is evtauTous ye- 
yovora): (2) ‘The alphabet of learning, 
rudimentary instruction’; as Heb. v.12. 

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. Lp. 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 worship of the physical 
elements. The two latter interpreta- 
tions are at all events excluded by 
npeis, Which must include Jews. The 
agreement in favour of this sense of 
oroyeia may, I think, be attributed 
to the influence of a passage in the 
Praedicatio Petri, quoted in Clem. 
Alex. Strom. vi. (p. 760, Potter), Orig. 
an Ioann. iv. 22 (Iv. p. 226, Delarue), 
in which the worship of the Jews is 
classed with that of the heathen; in- 
asmuch as, professing to know God, 
they were in fact by this observance 
of days and seasons Aarpevorres ayye- 
Ros Kai dpyayyéAots, pyvi Kat oeAyvy. 


At all events I can scarcely doubt 
that this interpretation of crotyeia 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 xara thy mapddoow roy apy 
Op@mwv Kata Ta OTOLXELa TOU KOTpOL, 
and ii. 20 ef dweOdvere ctv Xpiot@ aro 
TOV OTOLXEi@Y TOU KOTpOV, Ti ws CadvTES 
ev koop@ Soyparifecde; In these 
passages the words of the context 
which are emphasized seem to show 
that a mode of instruction is signified 
by 7a orovxeia Tov Koopov. 

tov koopou] ‘of the world, i.e. hav- 
ing reference to material and not to 
spiritual things, formal and sensuous. 
The force of rod xéopov is best ex- 
plained bythe parallel passages already 
cited, Col. ii. 8,20. See below, vi. 14. 

4. TO mAnpwpa tov xpovov] 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 7 mpo8ecpia 
row marpos. 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 was su- 


168 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[IV. 5 


oe nrGev TO mnpwpia TOU Xpovov, éLareareiNev 6 Qeos 


TOV VLOV auTou, YEvopevoy €K YUVALKOS, ‘yevopevov U7ro 


VOMOV, *iva TOUS UO VvOMoV 
3 


perseded. This educational work had 
been twofold: (1) 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 etherwise 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. IT. 

mAjpopal ‘the complement. 
word see Colossians, p. 257 sq. 

é£aréoreidev| ‘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. 

yevomevov ex yuvackos| i.e. taking up- 
on Himself our human nature; comp. 
Job xiv. 1, Matt. xi. 11. These pas- 
sages show that the expression must 
not be taken as referring to the mi- 
raculous incarnation. See Basil de 
Spir. Sanci. v. 12. 

yevopevoy Umd voxov] NOt Tov vopoy ; 


On this 


é£ayopaan, iva thy viobe- 


for though Christ was born under 
the Mosaic law, the application of the 
principle is much wider. See the note 
on the next verse. 

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 
borna man, that in Him all men might 
become sons of God; He was born 
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 iii. 14. 

rovs Ud vopov| again not Tov vopor. 
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 positiveordinances. Weseem 
to have the same extension, starting 
from the law of Moses, in 1 Cor. ix. 20, 
eyevouny Tois "Iovdaiots ws “Iovdotos... 
rois U70 vopov ws U0 vouoV. 

é£ayopaon| See the note on iii. 13. 

iva, va} For the repetition of iva, 
and for the general connexion of 
thought, see the note iii. 14. In this 
passage it is perhaps best to take the 
two as independent of each other, in- 
asmuch as the two clauses to which 
they respectively refer are likewise in- 
dependent. Comp. Ephes. v. 26, 27. 

Thy viobe_eciay] not ‘the sonship,’ but 
‘the adoption as sons.’ Yio@ecia seems 
never to have the former sense; see 
Fritzsche on Rom. viii. 15. Potentially 
indeed men were sons before Christ’s 
coming (ver. 1), but actually they were 
only slaves (ver. 3). His coming con- 
ferred upon them the privileges of 
sons: ‘Adoptionem propterea dicit,’ 


TV. 6, 7] 


clay aTo\aBwuer. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


169 


/ / , € 
Sor O€ éEoTeE viol, éLaTréaTENEY O 


\ \ ~~ 4 e rd ~ \ c ~ 
Ocos TO TvEvUAa TOU VIO avTOU Els Tas Kapolas ruav, 


kpacov "ABBa 6 ratup. 
says Augustine with true apprecia- 
tion, ‘ut distincte intelligamus unicum 
Dei filium.’ We are sons by grace; 
He is so by nature. 

amo\dBwpev] The exact sense of the 
preposition will depend on the mean- 
ing assigned to viodeciav. If viobecia 
be taken as adoption, dmoddBopev 
must signify ‘receive as destined for, 
as promised to us, or, as Augustine 
says, ‘nec dixit acctpiamus, sed rect- 
piamus, ut significaret hoc nos ami- 
sisse in Adam, ex quo mortales su- 
mus.” At all events it cannot be 
equivalent to \aBoper. The change to 
the first person plural marks the uni- 
yersality of the sonship: ‘ze, those 
under law and those free from law, 
alike’ 

6. dre eoré viol] ‘because ye are 
sons” 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. 15, 
16. St 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, X1. 15—18, xv. 8. 

xpatov| The word denotes earnest 
and importunate prayer, as in Is. xix. 
20: comp. James V. 4. 

"ABBa 6 watnp| Abba is the Aramaic 
equivalent to the Greek warnp. 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. First, 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- 


J a: leo Fi iS - ? 
7@OTE OUKETL El OOUAOS, AANA 


guage which they ordinarily spoke. In 
this case, in the passage of St Mark 
the words 6 rarjp 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 becoine 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 give 
in Schéttgen, IL p. 252: e.g. a woman 
entreating a judge addresses him 
"5, the second word being kvpre, the 
Greek equivalent to the Aramaic ‘> 
‘my Lord” Tor other examples see 
Rev. ix. 11 (AmoAAvor, ’"ABaddar), xii. 9, 
XX. 2 (Saravas, Avafodos). 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. iil. 28. 

°ABBa] In Chaldee S38, in Syriac 


lo}. In the latter dialect it is said 


to have been pronounced with a dou- 
ble } when applied to a spiritual father, 
with a single 6 when used in its first 
sense: see Bernstein’s Zea. 8. vy. and 
comp. Hoffmann, Gramm, Syr. 1. 1, 
§ 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 ’A88a 6 warnp can only repeat 
the word, ‘Father our Father, in all ° 


170 


, \ / = / \ lod 
vios* €t d€ vids, Kal KANpovopos Oia OeEod. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[IV. 8,9 


A 
Sada TOTE 


\ ? / ? ie = , A S: 
Mev ouUK ElooTEs Oeov EdovlevTaTE Tois QuTEL un OVTW 


re a / = \ , 
Geotss 2vuv b€ yvovTes Qeov, paddov 6é yvwobErTeEs 


three passages where the expression 
occurs. 

o matnp] The nominative with the 
article is here used for an emphatic 
vocative, as e.g. Luke viii. 54 7 mais, 
eyepe. See Winer, § xxix. p. 227. 
This is a Hebraism; comp. Gesen. 
ileb, Gramm. § 107. 

7. owote| ‘therefore, in reference 
to all that has gone before; ‘Seeing 
(1) 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.’ 

ovkére ei] ‘thou art no longer, now 
that Christ has come. The appeal is 
driven home by the successive changes 
in the mode of address; jirst, ‘we, all 
Christians, far and wide, Jews and 
Gentiles alike’? (doAdBwpev, ver. 5); 
next, ‘you, my Galatian converts’ 
{eoré, ver. 6); lastly, ‘each individual 
man who hears my words’ (ei, ver. 7). 

ei O€ vids, kai kKAnpovopos| Comp. 
Rom. vill. 17 ei 6€ réxva, kal KAnpovouo. 
It has been made a question whether 
St Paul is here drawing his 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. ili, 28 ovK 1 apoev Kai OnAv) ; 
by Jewish, the sons inherited un- 
equally, and except in default of male 
heirs the danghters were excluded ; 
Michaelis Laws of Moses ut. 3, § 1. 
See a paper of C. F. A. Fritzsche in 
Fritzsch. Opuse. 1. p. 143. 

dia Geov] ‘heir not vy virtue of 


birth, or through merits of your own, 
but through God who adopted you.’ 
For é:a see the note oni. 1. This is 
doubtless the right reading, having 
the preponderance of authority in its 
favour. All other variations, includ- 
ing that of the received text, «Anpove- 
fos Geov dua Xpiorov, are apparently 
substitutions of a common expression 
for one which is unusual and startling. 

8—11. ‘Nevertheless, in an unfilial 
spirit, ye have subjected yoursclves 
again to bondage, ye would fain submit 
anew toa weak and beggarly discipline 
of restraint. And how much less par- 
donable is this now! For then ye were 
idolaters from ignorance of God, but 
now ye have known God, or rather 
have been known of Him. Yearescru- 
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.’ 

adda} ‘yet still, in spite of your 
sonsnip, referring not to edovAevcare 
with which it stands in close proxi- 
mity, but to the more remote ém- 
otpedere (ver. 9); comp. Rom. vi. 17 
xapis S€ tH Ge@, Ste Fre Sovdot, Ury- 
xovoare O€ €k xapdias x.t.A. The inter- 
vening words (ver. 8) are inserted to 
prepare the way for aku. 

Tore pev ovK eidores| ‘Then it was 
through ignorance of God that ye were 
subject etc.’; a partial excuse for their 
former bondage. For the expression 
eidevae Gedv See I Thess. iy. 5,2 Thess. 
i. 8. 

trois pice py ovow Oevis| ‘to those 
who by nature were not gods, i.e. pH 
ovow Geois adda Satpoviars ; comp. I Cor. 
X. 20 G@ Ovovow [ra €6vn], Saovios Kai 
ov Ge@ Gvovow. This is the correct 
order. On the other hand in the read- 
in: of the received text, rots un picec 
ovow Oeois, the negative affects dice ; 
i.e. py pioer dda Aoy@, ‘not by na- 


IV. 10] 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


171 


c \ ~ ~ / / > > ~ 

U70 Oeov, mus éemmotpepeTe martw émi Ta dobeva 
\ = < / A / 

Kal TTwya oToLXEla, ois wad avwHev SovrdAEvEe OE- 


AeTES "ruepas TapaTnpetove Kal pujvas Kat Katpous 


ture, but by repute’; comp. 1 Cor. viii. 
5 elo Aeyopevor Geo. 

9. yvorres] ‘having discerned, re- 
cognised, to be distinguished from 
the preceding «iddres. See 1 Joh. ii. 
29 éav cid ATE Ort Sixatos eT, yLvad- 
oKere OTe kai was K7A., John Xxi. 
r; Ephes. VW. (5; 0 Cor. ii, 11: comp. 
Gal. ii. 7, 9. While oiSa ‘I know’ re- 
fers to the knowledge ‘of facts abso- 
lutely, ywaoxo ‘1 recognise, being 
relative, gives prominence either to 
the attainment or the manifestation 
of the knowledge. Thus yuwodcxew 
will be used in preference to «idévar; 
(1) 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 ywo- 
oxew lays on the process of reception. 
Both words occur very frequently in 
the First Epistle of St John, and a 
comparison of tlic passages where they 
are used brings out this distinction of 
meaning clearly. 

yvoobevres tro Gcov| added to ob- 
viate any false inference, as though 
the reconciliation with God were at- 
tributable to a man’s own effort. See 
1 Cor. viii. 2 ef tus Soxet eyv@xévat Tt, 
o'r eyva Kabads det yavar® ef d€ Tis 
ayan@ Tov Gedy, ovTos eyvworat Um’ av- 
rov : comp. I Cor. xiii. 12. God knows 
man, but man knows not God or 
knows Him but imperfectly. See also 
1 Joh. iv. 10 ody ore nets nyamnkapev 
tov Geov, add’ Gre adros Hyamnoev Nas. 

mas emotpepete| 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 peraridecde. 


> . 
“Qpa érovs, ’AttiKol 


doer xai mrwxa] ‘weak, for they 
have no power to rescue man from con- 
demnation ; ‘ beggarly, for they bring 
no rich endowment of spiritual trea- 
sures. For da@ev7 see Rom. viii. 3 ro 
advvaroy Tov vopov (comp. Gal. iii. 21), 
Heb. vii. 18 15 dodeves Kai avade)és. 

maw avebey| a strong expression to 
describe the completeness of their 
relapse. 

10. muepas x.7.A.] Comp. Col. ii. 16 
év pépet €opths 7) veounvias ) caSBaror, 
which passage explains the expres- 
sions here, stopping short however of 
eviavtoi. The nuépa: are the days re- 
curring weekly, the sabbaths: ives, 
the monthly celebrations, the new 
moons: xazpoi, the annual festivals, as 
the passover, pentecost, etc.; evavroi, 
the sacred years, as the sabbatical 
year and the year of jubilee. Comp. 
Judith viii. 6 yapis tpocuBBarev kat 
oaBBarwv Kat mpovovpnviay Kal voupn- 
viav Kat éopTav Kal yappoovvay olkov 
‘Iapanx, Philo de Sept. p. 286 M. iva thy 
éBdopddu TYTN KaTa Tavras xpdvous 
mpEpov Kal pnvev kal eviavTav K.T.A. 
For paves in the sense it has here 
comp. Is. Ixvi. 23 kal €orat pny €x py- 
vos kat caBBarov ex gaSBarov. On this 
use of xarpds for an annually recurring 
season see Meeris p. 214 (Bekker), 
Katpus Tous, "EA- 
Anves: and Hesychius, “Qpa érous* xat- 
pos €rous* TO €ap Kal TO Oepos. 

éuavtovs] 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- 
sumed, 

On the Christian observance of days 
in reference to this prohibition of St 


172 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[IV. 11 


\ ’ , ‘: Il > -~ c ~ / > ~ 
KQL €VLAUTOUS $ poBoupat UMAS, MN WWS ELKH KEKO- 


, > € lol 
WlaKa €lS UMas, 


Paul see the excellent remarks of Ori- 
gen, ¢. Cels. viii. 21—23. 

maparnpeiobe| ‘ye minutely, scru- 
pulously observe, literally ‘ye go along 
with and observe’: comp. Ps. cxxix. 3 
€av avouias maparnpnons, Joseph. Ant. 
ili, 5. 5 wmaparnpeiy tas éBdouddas, 
Clem. Hom, xix. 22 apednoavtes thy 
mapatnpnow. In this last passage, 
which enjoins the observance of days 
(emernpnotpot 12€pat), there is apparent- 
ly an attack on St Paul; see above, 
p. 61. There seems to be no authority 
for assigning to waparnpeiv the sense 
‘wrongly observe,’ nor is the analogy 
of such words as zrapaxovewy sufficiently 
close to bear it out. Here the middle 
voice still further enforces the idea 
of interested, assiduous observance ; 
comp. Luke xiv. 1. 

II. Kkexomriaxa] the indicative mood, 
because the speaker suspects that what 
he fears has actually happened. Herm. 
on Soph. Aj. 272 says, ‘uy ears Veren- 
tis quidem est sed indicantis simul 
putare se ita esse ut veretur.’ See 
Winer § lvi. 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 
ordinances. 

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 purpuse. 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’ 
(1 Cor. x. 20)? 

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 ritualistic. 

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 


LV, 52,13] 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


173 


> / 4 > \ ec e ~ 
"Tiverbe ws éyw, OTL Kayw ws vuEls, adedoi, 
, e ~ > / +) / - 13 10 oe of Q > 
S€omat Vvuwv: ovdev pe orKnoate’ “Soidate Se OTL bu 


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 
system. 

Thus the 7i/ualistic 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 crocxeia, ‘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 eflicient 
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 St 
Paul seems to consider them, we get 
as the component parts of each: Ju- 


DAISM ; (1) The spiritwal—absolutely 
good, absorbed in the Gospel; (2) 
The ritualistic—relatively good, oro:- 
xeta: HEATHENISM ; (1) The r?tualis- 
tic—relatively good, oroyeia; (2) 
The spiritwal—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 religions. 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 youto make mesomereturn. 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 2 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, Tiveode ws eyo xr.d.] Of the 


174 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[IV. 14 


’ , ~ i 2 / eles ‘ , 
aoGeverav THs Tapkos EUnyYeALTaunY UELY TO TPOTEPOV* 


4 ~ ? ~ , > 
“kal Tov TElpacpoY Uuwv €y TH TapKt jou oUK e£ouU- 


meaning 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 ; 
(1) ‘For I was once in bondage as 
ye are now, i.e. kayo Hunv “lovdaios 
ws vets viv “lovdaitere. So Eusebius 
(of Emesa ?), Chrysostom, Jerome, and 
apparently Pseudo-Justin Orat. ad 
Graec. § 5; sce p. 60 note 1: (2) ‘ For 
I abandoned my legal ground of right- 
eousness, I became a Gentile like you,’ 
ie. kayo éyevdunv “EXAnv ws vpeis 
yre “EAAnves; comp. ii. 17, 1 Cor. ix. 21. 
This latter sense is simpler grammati- 
cally, as it understands the same verb 
which occurs in the former clause, éye- 
vouny, not jum. 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 
Galatians ; ‘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?’ 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. Hun. i. 2. 116 ‘meus fac 
sis postremo animus, quando ego sum 
tuus.’ 

ovdév pe 7OtxNoate] To these words 
two different meanings have been as- 
signed; (1) ‘Ye never disobeyed me 
before ; do not disobey me now’: (2) 
‘J 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 unknown circumstances to which 
St Paul alludes; see below on ov 
ao Oévevay. 


13. oldare dé] ‘on the contrary ye 
know,’ 

6¢ ao dévevay ths capKos| ‘on account 
of an infirmity 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 ovdéy pe nduxyoare. For the 
expression compare Thucyd. vi. 102 
avrov O€ Tov KUKAov [aipeiv| Nexias due- 
K@duoev" eruye yap ev atte Ov dabéver- 
av vmodeheppevos. Alluding to this 
afterwards in an impassioned appeal, 
Nicias might well have said, 8¢ aaée- 
vetav €owoa Tov KikAoyv. 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 6? do@évecay, as 
if it were 60 doGeveias or év doOeveia, 
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 
infrmitatem 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 doOeveia. Photius (? ap. 
Oecum.) is the first, so far as I have 
noticed, who boldly gives the ungram- 
matical rendering pera aoGeveias. 

To mporepov| ‘on the former of my 


¥V,.15] 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


175 


7 > 7 > c , lol 
Gevnoare ovoe e€emtucate, a\ANa wes ayyeXov E00 
25 , 6 , c \ Al ~ 15 a o e 
edeEacGe ye, Ws Xpiatov Incovv. “zo0v obv 6 jhaxapio- 


15. Tis ody 6 pakapiouds. 


two visits’ To mporepov, which de- 
rives a certain emphasis from the 
article, cannot be simply equivalent 
to mada, ‘some time ago. It may 
mean either (1) ‘formerly,’ with a di- 
rect and emphatic reference to some 
later point of time; comp. Joh. vi. 62, 
ix. 8, 1 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 interpretation. The ex- 
pression therefore seems to justify the 
assumption of two visits to Galatia 
before this letter was written; see pp. 
25, 41. 

14. Tov metpacpoy var k.7.A.] ‘your 
temptation which was in my flesh, 
ie. St Pauls bodily ailment, which 
was a trial to the Galatians and which 
might have led them to reject his 
preaching. Iepacyos, 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 -pos, see 
Buttm. Ausf. Sprachl.§ 119. 23. anm. 
11. 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 roy wetpacpov var 
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 év 
Th oapki pov have given to wetpacpov. 

For vzav some texts have pov tov, 
the received reading, others simply 
rov. Considering however that the 


weight of authority is strongly in fa- 
vour of vay (see below, p. 186, note 1) 
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 pov to be the original reading, 
some have accounted for the variation 
vuav (Reiche, Comm. Crit. m1. 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 rov, it seems to be 
merely the insertion of a classicist. 

ovk e&ovOernaate ovdé e&enricate| 
‘ye did not treat with contemptuous 
indifference or with active loathing’ 
As dronrvew is more usual than ék- 
wrvew in this metaphorical sense, the 
latter seems to be preferred here for 
the sake of the alliteration. 

15. mov ovy 6 paxapirnds vyay ;] 
The reading of the received text differs 
from this in two points: (1) It inserts 
Rv 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 ris 
for vod. On this point there is more 
difficulty. The weight of direct evi- 
dence is certainly in favour of zo. 
but on the other hand it is more pro- 
bable that zod should have been sub 
stituted for ris than conversely ; espe- 
cially as several Greek commentators 
(Theod. Mops., Theodoret, Severianus) 
who read ris explain it by zoo. 

If the reading ris be adopted, the 
choice seems to lie between two out 
of many interpretations which have 
been proposed : (1) ‘ How hollow, how 
meaningless was your rejoicing’ (uu- 
derstanding 7v); (2) ‘What has be- 


176 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


PLY. 26; 87 


\ € - A - \ CoA e/ 2 / \ 
Mos UMW)V, MapTvpw yao UpMLV OTl, €L duvaTov, TOUS 


opbarwors vudv EEopvEavTes EdwKaTé pot. 


yf 
16 NOTE exX- 


Opos vuav yéyova adnbevwy viv; *7ZnAovow vas ov 


come of your rejoicing ? where has it 
vanished ?’ (understanding éoriv). In 
the latter sense it would coincide in 
meaning with vod ody 6 paxapiopos, 
which can only be taken in one way. 
This interpretation seems more natu- 
ral than the former. 

0 pakapiopos vpav] ‘your felicita- 
tion of yourselves, ‘your happiness in 
my teaching,’ as the sense seenis to re- 
quire. vay is probably the subjective 
genitive, though the Galatians were at 
the same time also the object of the 
pakxapiopos. 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 paxapiopos 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 paxa- 
piopos, ‘beatitudo, see Rom. iv. 6, 
9, and Clem. Rom. § 50. 

paptupa| ‘J bear witness, see the 
note on 1 Thess. ii. 12. 

ei Suvatoyv «t.r.] ‘if tt 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 kai rovs 6p@adpovs 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. 

eddxare] ‘ye had given?” The sup- 
pression of the condition expresses 
more vividly their readiness; see Wi- 
ner § xlii. p.321. The insertion of avin 
the received text enfeebles the sense. 

16. a@ore] ‘therefore’ 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 ?’ 

exOpos tpaov] ‘your enemy. It 
was a term by which the Judaizers of 
a later age, and perhaps even at this 
time, designated St Paul; Clem. Hom. 
Ep. Petr. § 2 rov é¢x@pot avépamov 
dvowov twa cat pAvapwodn mpoonka- 
pevor diSackariav, Clem. Recogn. i. 70: 
see p. 61. This quotation suggests 
that dvouos was another of these hos- 
tile names which he is parrying in I 
Cor. ix. 21 7 @y avopos Ceo. 

d\nbevov| probably referring to 
some warnings given during his se- 
cond visit. See the introduction 
p. 25. Compare the proverb, Ter. 
Andr. i. 1. 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 
them.’ 

Znrovow| ‘they pay court to” As 
(nrovv 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 (qos, if cor- 
rectly derived from ¢éw. See 2 Cor. 
Xi. 2, (nA@ yap vuas Ccod Cyr@: 8O 
also Plut. Mor. p. 448 E uo ypeias TO 
Tp@Tov emovrat kal (novo, voTepoy Se 


IV. 18, 19] 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


177 


KaNws, aAXa éxkAEloat Uuas BéNovaow, iva adtovs Gn- 


AouTe. 


Searov oe Cnova Gan év KaXw TavToOTE, Kat 


\ , 
My MOVvOV év TW Trapelval ME TOS Uuas, O-rexvia [40U, ous 


19. TéKVa mov. 


kai pitovow: I Cor. xii. 31, xiv. I, 39, 
Ezek, xxxix. 25. 

adda] is connected not with ¢ndov- 
ow, but with ov xcadés: comp. Aisch. 
Eum. 458 €h0. otros ov Karas, po- 
Ady és oikov, dAAG vw KeAawodpor py 
“NTP KaTéKTa. 

exkAeioat vpas| ‘to exclude, to debar 
you. Ifitis 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 
Vv. 4 xatnpyfOnre amo Tov Xpiorov, ths 
xapitos éferecate. The reading npas, 
though it gives a good sense, is almost 
destitute of authority. 

iva avtovs (ndovre] ‘that, having no 
refuge elsewhere, you may pay court 
to them. For the present indicative 
after ta comp. 1 Cor. iv. 6 ta py 
gvowtebe: a usage quite unclassical, 
but often found in later writers; see 
Winer § xli. p. 362. The future in- 
dicative with iva is comparatively com- 
mon, as e.g. ii. 4. The attempt to 
give wa with the indicative a local 
sense (quo in statu), as opposed to a 
Jinal (e.g. Fritzsche on Matth. p. 836 
sq), may mislead, as seeming to as- 
sume that there is an essential differ- 
ence between the /ocal and the final 
iva. The final sense is derived from 
the docal, 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 iva roveire and iva mage 
is not in the adverb, which is of con- 
stant value, but in the moods. 

(ndotte S€ ta xpeitrw xapiouara is 
interpolated here in many copies from 
1 Cor. xii. 31; comp. iii. 1, note. 


GAL. 


18. xadov d€ (nrotcba «.7.d.] The 
number of possible explanations is 
limited by two considerations: (1) 
That ¢nAodv 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 ¢- 
AoveGa: must be passive and not mid- 
dle; a transitive sense of (nrodcba, 
even if it were supported by usage 
elsewhere, being inexplicable here in 
the immediate neighbourhood of the 
active (nAodv. 

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 py povoy ev Ta 
mapeivat pe. The objection to the latter 
sense is, that it supplies toomuch. But 
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 (nAotcde, found in the 
two best Mss, is in itself but another 


I2 


178 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


(IV. 20 


Sie: - \ b) eaten » 
TAAL WOiVW MEPIS OU poppwlh Xpirros év vuitv. *°7}0e- 
\ -~ \ ¢ = af r 4 > , \ / 
Aor O€ TAPELVAL TTPOS UMAS APTL Kal adNaEa THY Pwvny 


v4 > > a 
MOU, OTL ATropoUpat Ev UELV. 


way of writing the infinitive (nrovc Aa, 
the sounds e and a 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 difficult to 
explain dé, ver. 20, if rexvia pou 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. 1 Cor. iv. 14, ‘Though ye have 
ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have 
ye not many fathers.’ 

texvia pou] ‘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 réxva in preference to rexvia, 
for St Paul does not elsewhere use the 
vocatives réxva,Téxvoy, except in Ephes. 
vi. 1, Col. iii. 20, where he could not 
possibly have had rexvia, and in 1 Tim. 
i, 18, 2 Tim. ii. 1, where rexviov 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 réxva however 
is very highly supported and may per- 
haps be correct. 

makw dive} ‘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 (radvyyeve- 
aia) as opposed to the old birth in 
the flesh. 


poppody ev viv] ie. ‘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 poppods év 
vu 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 1 Thess. ii. 7, v. 4), 
but here the explanation is improba- 
ble. St Paul would have shrunk 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. 1 §§ 40, 41, especially the 
words of mdelovs dvepntrpodvTo Kat 
GvekviaKovTo K.T.A. 

20. mOcdov 8€ x.7.d.] ‘but, speaking 
of my preseuce, Z would I had been 
present with you now. The dé catches 
up the passing thought of mapetva 
(v. 18), before it escapes; comp. 1 
Cor. i. 16 €Bartica Sé kal Tov Srehava 
oixov. The connexion of this clause 
with the previous mapeivac requires 
that the sentence should be continu- 
ous, and that there should be no full 
stop after mpos vuas (ver. 18); see the 
note on ver. 19. All other explana- 
tions seem harsh. Aé 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 texvia pov, 7Oedov be. 

7Oehov as nvyopuny Rom. ix. 3, ¢Bov- 
Aopnvy Acts xxv. 22. The thing is 


DV221,:22]| 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


179 


/ , ¢ € A / / > 
 AéyeTe pot, ol Uo vomov OédNovTeEs Eivat, TOY vO- 
’ , / \ J ’ / ‘ 
Mov ovK adKoveTe; “yeypamTa yap OT ABpaau ovo 
\ ¥ 4 > = / Ny ef > -~ 
vious éxyev, Eva ex THS TawWloKns Kal Eva éx THs édEU- 


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. 

dprx] See the note i. 9. 

addaga tiv horny pov] 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. 

aropodpa ev viv] ‘I am perplexed 
about you, I am at a loss how to deal 
with you’: comp. 2 Cor. vii. 16 6appa 
ev iuiv. The idea of inward question- 
ing is expressed more strongly by dzro- 
peioOa than by dropeiv. It is proba- 
bly a middle rather than a passive; 
though dzopeiy is found as a transitive 
verb in Clem. Hom. i. 11 dropeiv avrov 
metpopevot wos BapBapdy twa Satpover- 
ra, if the text be not corrupt. 

21—27. ‘Yewho 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 fulfilment 
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 
born into slavery (for Sinai is in Ara- 
bia, the land of Hagar and the Haga- 
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. of imo vopuov x«.r.A.] ‘ye, who 
would be subject to law, who must 
needs submit to bondage in some way 
or other.’ Observe here again the 
distinction between voyos and 6 vopos, 
and see the notes on ii. 19, iv. 4, 5. 

tov vopov] ‘the 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). 

ovk axovere] ‘will ye not listen to?’ 
Matt. x. 14, xiii. 13, Luke xvi. 29. 
The other interpretation, ‘Is not the 
law constantly read to you?’ (comp. 
Acts xv. 21, 2 Cor. iii. 14), is less pro- 
bable, because less simple. The va- 
rious reading dvaywacxere, Which has 
respectable authority, is evidently a 
gloss on this latter sense assigned to 
the word. 

22. yéypanra| ‘it ts stated in the 
scriptures, introducing a general re- 
ference, and not a direct quotation; as 
in I Cor. xv. 45. See Genesis xvi, xxi. 

tis tmatdioxns| ‘the bondmaid’ ; 
comp. Gen. xvi. 1 Fv € ait masdiokn 
Aiyunria, 7 dvoza “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 PAryn. p. 239 ra- 
diokn: ToUTO emt THs Oeparaivns oi vuv 
riOéacw, of S apyaios eri rs veandos. 


I2—2 


180 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[IV .:23,-2% 


/ e c - 
Gépas. aA’ 6 [ev | ék THS TWawioKkns KaTa capKa 


/ \ 5) ~ 5) fi \ lon 2 
yeyevynTa, oO 0€ €K THS éAeuOepas ola THS emayyeNias, 


/ / 
4aTWa é€oTW adAnyopoumeva. 


23. add’] ‘but, ie. although sons 
of the same father. The opposition 
implied in aAAa is illustrated by Rom. 
ix. 7 ovS Gr eioly oméppa ’ABpaap, 
mavres Téxva, and ix. 10 é& €vds Koirny 
€xouca. 

kara oapxa] ie. ‘in the common 
course of nature. In some sense 
Ishmael was also a child of promise 
(Gen. xvi. 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- 
mise. 

yeyevynrac| the perfect, ‘is recorded 
as born,’ ‘is born, as we read’: comp. 
1 Tim. ii. 14 7 S€ yur) e€ararnOeica 
ev Tapasace yeyover. 

24. arwal ‘now all these things’; 
not simply 4 ‘which particular things,’ 
but arwa ‘which class of things’: 
comp. Col. ii. 23 driva éorw Royo 
pev €xovra codias, i.e. precepts of this 
sort (with the note). 

dAAnyopovweva| The word has two 
senses: (1) ‘To speak in an allegory,’ 
eg. Joseph. Ant. procem. 4 ra pey 
aimrropévov Tov vouoberou Sekias tra dé 
adAryopodtvros x.t.A.; (2) ‘To treat or 
interpret as an allegory, e.g. Philo 
de Vit. Cont. § 3, I. p. 475 M evtvyxa- 
vovtes yup Tots iepois ypaupact Piroao- 
over thy marpiov pitocodiay addAnyo- 
povrtes, emerdy cvuBodra Ta THs pyTHs 
Epunvelas vonifovor picews amroKxexpup- 
pevns év vmovotas Sydovpevns, Clem. 
Hom. vi. 18, 20, and frequently : comp. 
Plut. Op. Mor. p. 363 D Gomep “EAAnves 
Kpovov addnyopovot rov Xpovov «7.2. 
It is possible that St Paul uses the 
word in this latter sense, referring to 


« , > , 
avTat yap elow ovo 


some recognised mode of interpreta- 
tion. Comp. the note on ovwvorotyet 
ver. 25, and see the remarks p. 198. 

St Paul uses ad\Anyopia here much 
in the same sense as he uses rvzos 
1 Cor. x. II ravra dé rumixads cvve- 
Bavey, not denying the historical 
truth of the narrative, but super- 
posing a secondary meaning. By a 
stricter definition a\Anyopia and rv- 
mos were distinguished as denoting 
the former a fictitious, the latter a 
true narrative. See the definition of 
aAnyopia, Heracl. Alleg. Hom. 5 o 
ada pév ayopevov tporos €repa dé av 
Aéeyet onuaivev. Hence the jealousy of 
the Antiochene fathers (Chrysostom, 
Severianus, Theod. Mops.) in ex- 
plaining that St Paul uses the word 
xataxpnottkes here and does not 
deny the historical truth of the narra- 
tive. 

The author of the Clem. Hom. (ii. 
22) indirectly attacks this allegory : 
see the introduction, p. 61. 

avrat yap «.7.d.] ‘for these women 
are (represent) tevo covenants.” Eiow 
‘are’ not actually, but mystically or 
typically ; Matt. xiii. 39, xxvi. 26— 
28,1 Cor.x.4. The article before dvo 
must be omitted. 

pia pév| ‘one of them, which was 
given from Mount Sinai, bearing 
children unto bondage”? The true 
antithesis would have been érépa 8é, 
but it melts away in the general fu- 
sion of the sentence, vy. 25, 26. For 
yevvooa 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. 

nris| ‘tnasmuch as she? 7 would 
simply declare the fact, 7ris places it 
in dependence on the context. 

25. To yap Bwa x.7.A.] ‘for Sinai 
zs a mountain in Arabia, i.e. in the 
land of bondsmen, themselves de- 


IV. 25] 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, 


ISI 


- / \ > Ny ul ~ > / - 
OaOyKkat, ula ev aro Opous Lua, eis dovdElav yervoca, 
vs > \ rs 2. 45 \ \ > »sf > \ > ~ > 
nmis eotiv Ayap: *%To yap Zwa opos éotiv év TH A- 

aBia: cuvoTtotyet 6€ TH vuv ‘lepovcadnp, SovdAeEv ’ 
pate x i p na, Sovever yap 


scended from Hagar. The stress lies 
on év ti “ApaBia, not on dpos, which 
is unemphatic; or perhaps we should 
render the words, ‘Mount Sinai is in 
Arabia’ (comp. Athan. de Decr. 7, 
I. p. 168, for 75 Suva dpos), as this gives 
a better sense. The Arabians are 
called ‘sons of Hagar,’ Baruch iii. 23: 
see Ewald Gesch. des V. Isr. 1. 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 Bibl. 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, 0°31, 
*Ayapnvoi; and 1 Chron. v. 19, D°8"33, 
*Ayapaior, comp. ver. 10), and the 
*Aypato 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 ro yap Sw4 «.7.X. is par- 
enthetical, and the nominative to ovr- 
orotxet is pia dcabjxn. 

For the various readings in this 
passage and for different interpreta- 
tions of the word ‘Hagar,’ see the de- 
tached notes p. 192 sq. 

cuvotoxei] ‘answers to’; literally, 
‘belongs to the same row or column 
with.’ In military language cvoro.xia 
denotes a file, as cv(vyia does a rank 
of soldiers; comp. Polyb. x. 21.7. The 
use of this word here is best illus- 
trated by the Pythagorean ovaoroxia 
of opposing principles (Arist. Eth. NV. 
i. 6, Metaph. i. 5), which stood thus; 


Good, Bad, 

Finite, Infinite, 

One, Many, 

Permanent, Changing, 
etc. ete. 


Similar also were the ovoro:xia 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 cvorotxia thus ; 

Hagar, the bond- Sarah, the free- 


woman, woman. 
Ishmael, thechild | Isaac, the child of 
after the flesh. promise. 
The old covenant. The new covenant. 
The earthly Jeru- The heavenly Je- 
salem. rusalem. 
ete. ete. 


Theold covenant is thus ovoro.yos with 
the earthly Jerusalem, but avricrotyos 
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 
ovvoto.yet ‘borders ‘upon, ‘is con- 
tiguous to, which is scarcely true 
even in the most forced sense of con- 
tiguity. 

tH vov ‘Iepovoadnp|] The metropolis 
of the Jews is taken to represent the 
whole race. 

Sovdever yap x.t..] ‘is in spiritual 
bondage with her children, just as 
Hagar was in social bondage with her 
child Ishmael. For rév réxvwv atdris 
see Matt. xxiii. 37. 

26. 1 dvw ‘IepovoaAnp| St Paul here 
uses an expression familiar to rab- 
binical teachers, but detaches it from 


182 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[IV. 26,27 


A lod / yA x 26.6 oe oS 1 \ > 
META TWY TEKVWV QUTNS n 0€ avw ‘lepovoadnp edev- 


/ > / \ / - 
Oépa eotiv, Tis EoTIV MNTHP Huw. 


MyeypaTTal Yap, 


> ’ * « > ' Cela \ ’ 
EYPPANOHTI CTEIPA H OY TIKTOYCA, PHZON KAI BOHCON 


those sensuous and material concep- 
tions with which they invested it. See 
the treatise de Hieros. Coelest. in 
Schéttgen’s Hor. Hebr. 1. 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 ‘Iepovoadyp émovpduos, Rev. iii. 
12 kaw ‘lepovcaAnp, XXi. 2 ayia ‘Tepov- 
cadnp: comp. Test. vit. Patr. Dan 5, 
Clem. Rec. i. 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. v. 5. 6); on the other, 
Sinai with its rugged peaks and barren 
sides, bleak and desolate, the oppres- 
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 ‘Iepovoadnp here 
for the typical city, as elsewhere in 
this epistle (i. 17, 18, ii. 1) he employs 
the Graecised form ‘IepoooAvya for the 
actual city. ‘Tepovoadp est appellatio 
Hebraica, originaria et sanctior: ‘Ie- 
pocoAupa, deinceps obvia, Graeca, ma- 
gis politica,’ says Bengel on Rev. xxi. 2, 
accounting for the usage of St John 
(‘in evangelio ‘IepoodAupa, in apoca- 
lypsi ‘Iepoveadnp’), and referring to 
this passage in illustration. In his 
other epistles St Paul has always 


‘TepovoaAnp; Rom. xv. 19, 25, 26, 31, 
1). Cor. :xvi..3: 

pyntTnp nov] ‘the mother of us 
Christians.’ St Paul’s expression was 
borrowed and adapted by Polycarp 
§ 3 tv Sodcioay vpiv riot Aris €ort 
pit np mavray nuev. From a confusion 
of this loose quotation with the original 
text, the word zavrey 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 mavtay npav; or 
perhaps wavroy crept in from Rom. iv. 
16 és é€otw matnp TavT@Y Nov. 

27. St Paul here illustrates the 
allegory by reference to a passage in 
Isaiah liv. 1. This passage in its con- 
text is a song of triumph anticipating 
the deliverance of God’safflicted 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. 1; 
‘Sterilitas Abrahae et Sarae figura 
fuit sterilitatis Sion, Jr Gibborim 
fol. 49. 2, quoted in Schéttgen. Here 
then Sarah =the chosen people =the 
Church of Christ. 

yéypantat yap] from the Lxx where 
some few texts add kai réprov after 
Boncov with the Hebrew. It is quoted 
as St Paul quotes it in Pseudo-Clem. 


IV. 28, 29] 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


183 


“ 


< > > ' o ‘ ‘ , 
H OYK ®AINOYCA OT! TOAAA TA TEKNA Thc épHmoy 


MA&AAON A Thc €yoyYcHC TON ANAPaA. 


/ \ > , > , 
oi, Kata “loaak émayyehas Téxva €oTE. 


Byuets O€, ddEd- 
*9GNN’ 


28. nuets dé—réxva écudr, 


Fpist. ii. § 2,and Justin, Apol. i. c. 53, 
p. 88 o, 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 sq (Eng. Tr.). The Hebrew 
differs somewhat, as do the other 
Greek versions (see Jerome and Pro- 
copius in Js. 1. ¢.). Tap links the quo- 
tation with EnTnp Nay. 

areipa] 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 
Church. Compare the metaphor of 
the dypséAaos, Rom. xi. 17. 

moAAa Ta réexva waddrov 7] for the 
usual Greek mAetova 7, the Hebrew 
idiom (}) oO°25), which has no com- 
parative, being followed. 

Ths €xovans Tov avdpa] 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. 1. ‘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 
born 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. wpeis dé] resuming the main 
subject, ver. 27 being in a manner 
parenthetical. 

kata “Icadx] 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 xara oapxa, but, like Isaac, 
€& emayyeXias. 

The reading nyeis...€cpév, for vpeis 
...eoTé, is very highly supported, but 
perhaps was a transcriber’s correction 
to conform to ver. 26, 31. The direct 
appeal of tzets is more forcible, and 
the change of persons is characteristic 
of St Paul; see the note ver. 7. 

29. €diwxey tov «7.A.] The He- 
brew text, Gen. xxi. 9, has simply 
‘laughing’ (pny). This single word 
the Lxx expands into maifovra pera 
*Icaax Tov viov adrjs. From this it 
may be conjectured that the verse 
originally ended (pny'a A222] pny» 
(comp. Gen. xxxix. 14, 17), the words 
in brackets having dropped out owing 
to the homeeoteleuton. At all events 
the word seems to mean ‘mocking, 
jeering’; ‘ Lusio illa 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, 7m. 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 ete.’ (Ewald’s 


184 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[IV. 30 


/ / G A , 20/7 \ 
WoTEp TOTE O KaTa capka yevynlers EdiwKEev TOV KaTa 


~ e/ \ a 
TVEULA, OUTWS Kai VUV. 
EKBAAE THN TALAICKHN 


%cdANa Ti Neyer 1) yYpabn; 


Kal TON YION AYTHC' 


oY rap 


MH KAHPONOMHCE! 6 Yidc THC TalAICKHC META TOY 


Jahrb. 11.p.13). But beyond the text 
itself two circumstances must be taken 
into account as affecting St Paul’s 
application of it. (1) 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 Apostile’s allu- 
sion, without his endorsing these tra- 
ditions himself. For the rabbinical 
accounts of Ishmael’s insolence to his 
brother see Beer Leben Abrahams, 
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 
Hagarenes especially, see Ps. 1xxxiii. 
6, 1 Chron. y. 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 Ishmacl’s progeny; and he 
would therefore be appealing to the 
national history of the Jews in saying 
‘he that was born 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. 

ovTws Kai vuvy|‘So now the Church 
of God is persecuted by the children 
after the flesh.’ St Paul’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 ypadn)| 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 rjs madioxns pera Tov 
viov tis ékevOépas for the LXX THs mat- 
dickns Tav’Tns jseTa TOU Viod jou “Icadk, 


in order to adapt it to his own con- 
text and to save explanation. For in- 
stances 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 py KAnpovounoe| ‘shall in no 
wise inherit’; comp. Joh. viii. 35 0 
SodXos ov péver ev TH olkia eis TOY aiava 
«7.4. 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 his life. The truth 
which to us appears a truism must 
then have been regarded as a paradox. 
xAnpovonnoe: should probablybe read, 
not kAnpovop.non, as being better sup- 
ported here and in the Lxx; comp. Wi- 
ner § lvi.p.635,and A. Buttmann p. 183. 
31. 610] ‘wherefore, 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 as bondslaves.’ There are 
many variations of reading, but do is 
probably correct. Some copies have 


TVG V8] 


yioy thc Cher eens 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


* O10, 


185 


aeXpoi, ovK éopev 


mraudiokns Tékva, dAAa THs EdEvVOEpas evils TH éNevOe- 


pia n nas Xpioros jAevOepwoer. 


OTHKETE OU KaL MH 


maNw Cuy@ Sovrelas évéexeo Oe. 


1Vs3 0s Veil 


nueis dé, others nets ovv, others dpa or 
dpa ody, and one at least entirely omits 
the connecting particle. The difficulty 
in 6.0 was evidently felt, but sufficient 
allowance was not made for St Paul’s 
freedom in the employment of con- 
necting particles. 

ov maidioxns adda x.7.A.] Observe 
the omission of the article before 
madiokns; ‘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 i. 10 avépa- 
mous TelOw 7) TOV Ceov; 

V. 1. 17 edevOepia 7 k.7.A.] 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 (1) with 
Téxva eopev THS edevbepas, ‘we are sons 
of the free by virtue of the freedom 
which Christ has given us’; or (2) with 
Tis edevOepas alone, ‘ of her who is free 
with that freedom which Christ etc’ 
The latter is perhaps the simpler con- 
struction. In either case rp eAevbepia 
«.7.A. Serves the purpose of an explan- 
atory note. 

If on the other hand we read r7 


THs €\evbepas, 


TH édevdepia iuds K.T.X. 


eAcudepia nas Xptaros nrevdepacer, 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 é” 
eXevGepia exAnOnre, and especially John 
Vili. 36 cay ody 6 vids dpas eAevOepaon, 
ovrws eAevOepar écerbe. The abrupt- 
ness of the sentence, introduced with- 
out a connecting particle, has a fair 
parallel in Ephes. ii. 5 yaperi é€ore ce- 
cwopevor: but the dative, ‘zith’ or 
‘in’ or ‘for freedom,’ is awkward, in 
whatever way it is taken ; see A. Butt 
mann p. 155. 

otnkete] ‘stand firm, stand up- 
right, do not bow your necks to the 
yoke of slavery’; comp. 2 Thess. ii. 15 
dpa obv, adeAdoi, ornkere x.t.A. The 
form orjxw appears not to occur ear- 
lier than the New Testament, where 
with two exceptions (Mark iii. 31, x1. 
25) it is found only in St Paul. 

nmadw] ‘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 was emuorpédere Tau, Ta- 
Atv Gvwbev Sovrevew Gerere. For the 
force of these expressions see the in- 
troduction, p. 30, and the note on iv. 11. 


186 


Refer- 
ences to 
his in- 
firmity. 


Different 
accounts. 


i. A bodily 
complaint 
(tradition). 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, 


St Paul’s infirmity in the flesh. 


In the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (xii. 7) St Paul, after speaking 
of the abundant revelations vouchsafed to him, adds that ‘a thorn’ or 
rather ‘a stake’ was ‘given him in his flesh, a messenger of Satan sent to 
buffet 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 some 
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. 

1. 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 
Tertullian de Pudic. § 13. And this statement is copied or contirmed by 
Jerome (Gal. 1. c.), ‘Tradunt eum gravissimum capitis dolorem saepe per- 
pessum.’ The headache is mentioned also by Pelagius and Primasius (both 


1 Of the three readings, tov me:pac- 
pov jou Tov év, TOY TELpacmov Tov év 
(omitting pov), and Tov Tepacudy buady 
év (omitting rov), I have no hesitation 
in preferring the last; for (1) 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 7ov metpacuov wou, as I have as- 
certained (see Scrivener’s Introduc- 
tion, p. 351, ed. 2). Husebius of 
Emesa here (Cramer’s Catena, p. 65) 


and Origen on Ephes. iii. 14 (Cramer’s 
Catena, p. 158) have a mixed reading tov 
Tetpacuov vay Tov év K.7.A. Husebius 
is overlooked by Tischendorf. 

2 A long list of references to writers 
who have discussed this question is 
given in Wolf Cur. Philol. on 2 Cor. 
xii. 7, Ihave to acknowledge my ob- 
ligations chiefly to Calov. Bibl. Illustr. 
on 2 Cor. 1. c., and Stanley’s Corinth- 
ians, p. 563 sq (2nded.). Ihave had no 
opportunity of using Bertholdt Opusc. 
134 sq, to which I find frequent 
references in recent commentaries. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 187 
on 2 Cor. |. c.). Others seem to have followed a different tradition as to 

the complaint in question!; but in some form or other i//ness was the 
solution which suggested itself to the earliest writers. This appears to 

be the idea of Irenzeus, the first writer who alludes to the subject, and 

of Victorinus, the first extant commentator on the Epistle to the Gala- 
tians*. 

2. ‘Nay, not so,” argued Chrysostom (2 Cor., Gal.), as others probably ii. Perse- 
had argued before him; ‘it cannot have been a headache, it cannot have cution 
been any physical malady. God would not have delivered over the body of Sony si 
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. Gicum., 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 affliction 
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. 1. p. 252) says Tpixav éronod- 
peba Thy adalpecwv* cwadédwpev avTats 
Kal rods év ra Kepadg oKoAoTas* Koud- 
caytes yap ovTor émimdéov huas dduywor* 
7d pev yap Tplxwua huav nv oO Kara Toy 
Blov xécpos, Timal, Soar, XpnuaTwy KTH- 
ets, K.T.A., On Which the editor (p. 756) 
absurdly enough remarks, ‘ex toto 
contextu suspicari datur a nostro per 
oxodora animalcula quae caput pungunt 
intellecta esse.’ The context, if I mis- 
take not, fails to bear out this remark, 
butCotelier’s conjectural interpretation 
is treated as a fact by recent writers, 
and so this is added to the list of tra- 
ditional accounts of St Paul’s com- 
plaint. The list is still further swelled 


dies which Nicetas (see below, note 3) 
attributesto Gregory Nazianzen. Aqui- 
nas mentions the opinion, ‘ quod fuit ve- 
hementer afilictus dolore iliaco’ (colic), 
but I have not noticed it in any earlier 
writer. On the whole the tradition of 
the headache (xegadadyla) is fairly con- 
stant. 

2 Tren. v. 3. 1, but his language is 
obscure. Victorinus says, ‘infirmus 
carne,’ but this again is not free from 
ambiguity. 

3 It was so taken apparently also 
by Greg. Naz. Orat. xx. (de laud. Basil.) 
ad fin. (see the note of Nicetas), and 
by Basil, Reg. Fus. Tract, ad fin. (1. p. 
400, Garnier). 


188 


iii. Carnal 
thoughts 
(Ascetics). 


iv, Spivi- 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


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: (1) St Paul’s carnal 
preaching of the Gospel, as addressed to babes; (2) His mean personal 
appearance ; (3) Some bodily malady, traditionally reported as headache ; 
(4) Persecutions endured by him}. 

3. ‘No,’ thought the monks and ascetics of a somewhat later date, 
‘not persecution. It was surely something which we can realise, something 
which we have 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 delivered, as we have 
entreated Him ; and was only answered, as we have been answered, by the 
indirect assurance, My grace is 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 Monach. 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 
cxodow TH capki 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’ (1 Cor. vii. 7). ‘Ah no, said Luther, ‘he was 
too hard pressed by the devil to think of such things.’ 

4. And in turn Luther propounded his own view of the thorn in the 


1 Ephraem Syrus (on Gal. iv. 18), a 
little earlier than Jerome, says ‘Hither 
disease of his limbs or temptation from 
his enemies.’ 

* Jerome Epist. xxii (ad Eustoch.) 
§ 5, says: ‘Si apostolus vas electionis 
ct separatus in evangelium Christi ob 
carnis aculeos et incentiva vitiorum 
reprimit corpus suum, etc.,’ quoting 
Rom. vii. 24, but he makes no refer- 
ence to either of the passages in St Paul 
which relate to his ‘thorn in the flesh,’ 
and in § 31 of the same letter he says, 
‘Si aliquis te afflixerit dolor, legito, 
datus est mihi stimulus carnis meae,’ evi- 
dently explaining it of some bodily pain. 
The passage in Augustine, Ps. lviii. 
Serm. ii. (Iv. pp. 572, 3), is vague, and 
need not necessarily refer to this kind 
of temptation. Pelagius gives, as one 


interpretation, ‘naturalem infirmita- 
tem’; Primasiusmore definitely, though 
still only as an alternative explanation, 
‘alii dicunt titillatione carnis stimula- 
tum.’ Gregory the Great, Mor. viii. 
c. 29, writes, ‘Sic Paulus ad tertium 
caelum rapius ducitur, paradisi pene- 
trans secreta considerat, et tamen ad 
semetipsum rediens contra carnis bel- 
lum laborat, legem aliam in membris 
sustinet.’ Comp. alsox. 10. And thus, 
as time went on, this opinion gained 
strength, till at length it assumed the 
coarsest and most revolting form. 

3 Corn. a Lapide on 2 Cor. xii. 7 al- 
most exalts this interpretation into an 
article of faith: ‘ Videtur communis 
fidelium sensus, qui hine libidinis ten- 
tationem stimulum carnis vocant: vox 
autem populi est vox dei.’ 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 189 
flesh. He complained that the older churchmen were unable from their tual trials 
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 devil’. 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- Recent 
pretation, criticism has returned to the point from which it started. ‘titics. 
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: (1) The Apostle speaks of physical pain Conditions 
of a very acute kind; for nothing less can be implied by his metaphor of Seas ae 
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- 
comeit. (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 


1 In his shorter and earlier com- 
mentary on the Galatians (1519) Luther 
explains it of ‘persecution’; in his later 
and fuller work (1535) he combines spi- 
ritual temptations with persecution ; 
and lastly in the Table-talk he drops 
persecutionand speaksof spiritual trials 
only, xxiv. § 7 (vol. xx11. p. 1092 of 
the Halle edition), This last passage 
forms a striking contrast to the lan- 
guage of a Lapide quoted in the last 
note. ‘Those were high spiritual temp- 
tations,’ says Luther, ‘which no papist 
has understood,’ with more in the same 
strain. Thus each of these writers 
makes his own interpretation in a man- 
ner a test of orthodoxy. Other refer- 
ences in Luther’s works to the ‘thorn 
in the flesh’ are, vol. vuII. p. 959, XI. 


P. 1437, XI. p. 561. 
2 This seems to be the meaning of 


axodoy: see the notes of Meyer and 
Stanley on 2 Cor. xii. 7. Robertson, 
Lectures ontheCorinthianslix,lx, speaks 
of the thorn as peculiarly suggestive of 
some ‘secret sorrow’; for ‘a thorn is a 
small invisible cause of suffering.’ The 
Greek word however suggests no such 
idea ; nor is it consistent with the fear 
of contempt orloathing expressed in the 
Galatian Epistle. This slight blemish, 
occurring where it does, may well be 
overlooked in the latest utterance of 
one who spoke from deep personal ex- 
perience, having himself maintained a 
hardstruggleagainst ‘fightings without 
and ‘fears within,’ and ‘borne about 
in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus.’ 
The lesson of St Paul’s sufferings is 
nowhere more powerfully brought out 
than in this exposition of the thorn in 
the flesh. 


190 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


so acutely sensible (2 Cor. x. 10), we may perhaps trace the permanent 
effects of his painful malady. (6) His disease was recurring. We first read 
of itin 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’ 
(1 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’ (1 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 himseif’ 
(2 Cor. i. 8, 9). 

Parallel The life of the greatest and best of English kings presents so close a 

oe parallel to the Apostle’s thorn in the flesh, that I cannot forbear quoting 

Parl athe passage at length, though the illustration is not my own}. 

“Tt 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 of 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- 
rerance 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 office. Not 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, 


1 The passage is quoted in Jowett, 1. _ lustration is diminished by the suspi- 
p. 368 (2nd ed.). The value of the il- cion attaching to the so-called Asser. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. IgI 
in the very moment that the marriage-guests were drinking and carousing 
noisily in the festive halls, the evil against which (? warum) he had prayed 
overtook him. He was suddenly seized with fear and trembling ; and to 
the very hour that Asser wrote, to a good old age, he was never sure 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 Life of Alfred, pp. 122—125 (Eng. 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 Conelu- 
assume that the Apostle suffered from acute pain in the head (an account Sion. 
which considering his nervous sensibility is perhaps sufficient 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 conjecture 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, sufficiently 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! 


1 It is put forward in a lively and 
interesting paper in Dr J. Brown’s 
Horae Subsecivae. But the foundation 
on which this opinion is built seems to 
me scarcely strong enough to bear it; 
for (1) The stress of the argument rests 
on what I cannot but think a mistaken 
interpretation of Gal. iv. 15, ‘If it had 
been possible, ye would have plucked 
out your eyes and have given them to 
me.’ Here the English version has 
‘your own eyes,’ which lends some 
countenance to the idea that St Paul 
intended to say they would have re- 
placed his eyes with their own, if it 
could have been done: but the Greek 
is tovs é6¢0adpyods vudy, where dudr is 
as unemphatic as possible, so that the 
meaning is not ‘ your eyes,’ but ‘your 


eyes.’ (2) The expression ryNxa ypdu- 
para (vi. 11) is thought to be illus- 
trated by this view of St Paul’s com- 
plaint, as though his defective eyesight 
explained the allusion to the size of the 
letters, or the length of the epistle, which- 
ever way we take it. It seems to me 
that a much better account can be given 
of that expression: see the note there. 
(3) It is supposed that this defective 
eyesight was a permanent effect of the 
temporary blindness which seized the 
Apostle on the way to Damascus; and 
that thus his thorn in the flesh was 
eminently fitted to be a check on spiri- 
tual pride produced by his ‘visions and 
revelations.’ But the narrative of the 
Acts implies, if it does not state, that 
this blindness was completely healed; 


192 


Varia- 
tions, 


Reading 
adopted. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


The various readings in iv. 25. 


The following are the variations of text, which the opening clause of 


this verse presents. 


(i) ré yap Zwa dpos ¢oriv. So it is read in NCFG, 17; in the Old 
Latin (f.g.), Vulgate, Aithiopic, and Armenian Versions ; in Origen’, 
Epiphanius?, Cyril’, and Damascene; in Victorinus, the Ambrosian 
Hilary (‘Sina autem mons, in his text), Augustine, Jerome, Pelagius, 
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 mons Sina est. The 


Ms & after éeoriy adds dy, in which respect it stands alone (except 
apparently the Memphitic Version); and Epiphanius transposes Sia 
and dpos. 

(ii) ro "Ayap Suwa dpos éoriv. So the Memphitic Version as read by 
Boetticher ; but Wilkins inserts a dé. 

(iii) +o dé "Ayap Swa dpos eariv. Such is the reading of ABDE, 37, 73, 
80, lectionary 40. 

(iv) 1rd yap”Ayap Zwa dpos eotiv. So KLP with the vast majority 
of cursive manuscripts, with both Syriac Versions, and with the 
Greek commentators generally, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, 
Theodoret, Theophylact, and the Gicumenian Catena. This also is 


apparently the reading of Ephraem Syrus. 
(v) 1d yap ”Ayap dpos éoriy found only in the Latin of D and H* 
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 2 Corinthians refers 
to incidents which occurred only four- 
teen years before the letter was written, 
and therefore much later than the Apo- 
stle’s conversion. (4) To the arguments 
already considered, some have added 
the expression arevifev, ‘to look stead- 
fastly,’ twice used of St Paul (Acts 
xiii. g, xxiii. 1), 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 cvvogpus (Acta Paul. 
et Thecl. § 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 is possible that he suf- 
fered from weak eyes, and this may ac- 
count for the incident of Acts xxiii, 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 
complaint. 

1 In Cant. ii. (11. p. 52, ed. Delarue), 
extant only in a Latin translation. 

2 Haeres. p. 695. 

3 Glaphyr. 1. p. 75 (ed. Auberti). 
Cyril is said in other passages to read 
7d 6é”Ayap and 7d yap”Ayap, but Iam 
unable to verify the statement. 

4 The Ambrosian Hilary (in his 
commentary) is also quoted in favour 
of this reading, but his words do not 
bear out the inference. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 193 
original reading we have on the whole a more probable explanation of the 
variations in the text, than on any other hypothesis. By the negligence or 
confusion of a scribe rd "Ayap might easily be substituted for rd ydp, the 
word “Ayap occurring in the immediate context4, As a next step a con- 
necting particle must be supplied ; and d¢ or yap was inserted according to 
the caprice or judgment of the transcriber, thus producing the second and 
third readings, Lastly, the word 3.va, 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 5¢”Ayap cvoro.yei TH viv ‘Iepovcadyjw, but it seems sim- 
pler, if any such solution be adopted, to erase the whole clause ro yap...... 
ev tj "ApaBia. 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 Probable 

and natural interpretation ; ‘ Sinai,’ St Paul argues, ‘is situated in Arabia, interpre 
the country of Hagar’s descendants, the land of bondslaves.” And such ee of 
too seems to be the most probable account of his meaning, even if with the ea 
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 descendants. It is not 7”Ayap, the woman Hagar, but 
ro "Ayap, the thing Hagar, the Hagar of the allegory, the Hagar which is 
under discussion’. 


1 The commentary of Theodore 
Mops. on this passage shows how easily 
*Ayap might be foisted in. The Greek 
text of this writer (in Cramer’s Catena) 
has GAN "Ayap 7 Te Epnuos maca K.T.Xr., 
which makes no sense. The Latin 
translation runs ‘sed et solitudo omnis,’ 
which doubtless represents the original 
reading, a\\a kal 7 Te Epnuos Taca. 
Windischmann’s conjecture to account 
for the insertion of”Ayap in the text of 
St Paul is more ingenious than pro- 
bable. He supposes a critical note, 
& ydp (i.e. dAdo" yap), marking @ 
various reading in the connecting par- 


GAL. 


ticle, to have been transferred from the 
margin to the text. 

2 In his text of the epistle as given 
in Bentleti Crit. Sacr.p. 108. This text 
is much later than his ‘Epistola ad 
Millium’ (Ib. p. 45), in which he starts 
the hypothesis of a gloss. This hypo- 
thesis was adopted by Mill and others, 

3 +6 denotes that ‘Hagar’ is regarded 
not as a person, but as an object of 
thought or of speech. For this use of 
the neuter article see Winer § xvili. 
p. 135, A. Buttmann p. 84. It need 
not necessarily mean ‘the word Hagar’; 
compare for instance Ephes. iv. g ro 5é 


13 


194 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

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 (ro tas “Ayap éoxnvwrar yévos).’ 
‘The Saracens,’ remarks a third writer, perhaps Severianus}, ‘the descend- 
ants of Ishmael, dwell in the desert which reaches as far as Mount Sinai.’ 
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 sons under the Romans.’ 

This however is not the interpretation generally adopted by those who 
retain the received reading. They suppose the Apostle to be calling atten- 
tion not to the locality of Sinai but to the meaning of the word Hagar: 
‘The word Hagar in the language of the Arabians denotes Mount Sinai,’ 
This interpretation, which prevails widely, is put in its most attractive form 
by 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. J 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 the words fall upon our ears, This Hagar is 
Mount Sinai in Arabia, it is difficult 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. 

Independently of any questions that may rise on the interpretation, 
I have endeavoured to show that ‘ Hagar’ ought to be expelled from the 
text on the ground of external authority alone. Yet, if it bea fact that 
Hagar is really another name for Sinai, this fact will go some little way 
towards reinstating “Ayap ; and on this account, as well as in deference to 
the advocacy it has found, it will be worth while to consider the difficulties 
which beset this interpretation. 


Hagar 
taken for 
a name of 
Sinai. 


Objections 
to this. 


avéBn rl éorw; where 76 is the state- 
ment, for the preceding word was not 
dvé8n, but dvaBas. The Ambrosian Hi- 
lary (after the middle of the fourth 
century) explains it ‘causam Agar’: a 
very early example of the sense which 
this word bears in the Romance lan- 
guages, ‘cosa,’ ‘chose.’ 

1 In Cramer’s Catena. It is ano- 
nymous (d\Aos rahw gyolv), but in the 
immediate neighbourhood there is a 
note assigned to Severianus. 

2 Sinai and Palestine p. 50; see 
above, p. 89. 


S i pronounced ‘Chagar’ (or 


rather ‘ Chajar’). The Arabic alphabet 


has two letters, and c a softer 
and a harsher sound, corresponding to 
the one Hebrew guttural M (Cheth). 
The initial letter of ‘Hagar,’ ‘a stone,’ 
is the former of these, a soft guttural 
Ch, and not a simple aspirate. The 


second letter of the word is T> corre- 
sponding to the Hebrew 4, our G, but 
generally pronounced by the Arabs 
softly like the English J, as we pro- 
nounce it in gem. I shall in this note 


represent ¢ by Ch, “G by G, both in 
Italics. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 195 
Agee The evidence on which the assumed fact rests is both deficient (1) Incon- 
in amount and suspicious in character. Not more than two independent clusive 
witnesses, if they be independent, have, so far as I know, been produced, °#4ence. 

(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 (ré 
8€ Bwa Spos ovTw peOcpunveverat TH Emtxwpio avtay yhorrn) ;’ and afterwards 
he speaks of the mountain as ‘bearing the same name with the bondmaid 
(opewvupoy tH SovAn).’ To the same effect writes Theophylact, who is often a 
mere’ echo of Chrysostom, as do one or two anonymous commentators in 
the Gicumenian Catena, without doubt deriving their information from 
the same sourcel. 

(ii) The Bohemian traveller Harant, who visited Sinai in the year 
1598, says: ‘The Arabian and Mauritanian heathen call Mount Sinai Agar 
or Tur*’ 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 


Harant. 


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- 
mately became a protestant. Ifso, he did not necessarily derive his inform- foy, 
ation from the Arabs on the spot, but 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. 
require careful sifting. 


If there be any, it will from the nature of the case 
The word ‘ Hagar’ (Chagar) meaning ‘a rock,’ or 


‘a stone,” must be heard again and again from 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 


1 Chrysostom’s interpretation of the 
passage in St Paul may perhaps under- 
lie the account of the word ‘ Hagar’ 
given in Bar Bahlul’s Syriac Lexicon, 


work was written in Bohemian, but 
translated into German by his brother 
and published by his nephew (see Bal- 
binus Bohem. Doct. 1. p. 104). [A 


0 ¥ ° 0 friend, who has consulted the Bohemian 
Be 40 i> 5 ag ool Las o1 original,informs me that Weissenberg is 
This 2 miswriting of the name of a traveller 


“pb Lyulo : him 
extract, which is taken from the ms 
in the Cambridge University Library, 
I owe to the kindness of R. L. Bensly, 
Esq., of Caius College, 

2 Harant’s authority is generally 
quoted at secondhand through Bi- 
sching’s Erdbeschr, 1. 1. p. 603 (Hamb. 
1792). In Harant’s work itself, Der 
Christliche Ulysses (Niirnb. 1678), the 
passage runs: ‘Den Berg Synai nennen 
die Arabische und Mauritanische Hey- 
den Agar oder Tur: Weissenberg, wie 
auch Tucla, wie Odoardo Barbosa nev’ 
summ. del’ Ind. Orient. bezeuget.? The 


whom Harant quotes, and that Tucla is 
there written Turla.] I give the passage 
of Barbosa to which Harant refers, as it 
stands in the copies which I have con- 
sulted. The title is Primo volume delle 
Navigationi e Viaggi (Venet. 1550 and 
1554); Libro di Odoardo Barbessa or 
Barbosa, p. 313 (323), ‘passato il detto 
monte Sinai, il quale i Mori dimandano 
Turla.’ 

3 The index to Ritter’s Erdkunde, 
Sinai ete. m. p. 1331, 8.V. ‘Hadschar,’ 
‘Hadjar,’ etc., names several ‘ stones’ 
on and about Sinai; ‘ Hadschar Elma,’ 
‘Hadsjar rikkabe,’ ‘Hadj Musa,’ etc. 


13—2 


ments 
accounted 


(2) False 
etymo- 
logy. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


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 Petrzea 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 
found 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. But supposing it were proved that Sinai were so called by the 
Arabs, this word ‘ Chagar’ is not written or pronounced in the same way as 
the proper name ‘ Hagar,’ and etymologically the two are entirely distinct. 


The proper name ‘ Hagar,’ with the simple aspirate (137, in Arabic zo), 
signifies ‘a wanderer or fugitive,’ being connected with the Arabic ‘ Hegira’ 


1 Older critics, as Bochart and others 
(le Moyne Var. Sacr. p. 834, Pfeiffer 
Op. 1. p. 504), assert that Petra itself 
bears the name Hagar (Chagar) in 
Arabic writers, just as in Greek it is 


called Iérpa, and in Hebrew yoo, 
words having the same meaning ‘ rock.’ 
This statement however is founded on 
a twofold error; (1) The vocalisation of 
the proper name referred to is not 
‘Chagar,’ but Chigr’; and (2) The 
place which bears this name ‘ El Chigr’ 
in Arabic writers is not Petra itself, 
but a station several days south of 
Petra on the pilgrims’ route between 
Damascus and Mecca. See Ewald 
Paulus p. 493 8q, Robinson’s Palestine 
etc. 11. p. 522. There is no evidence 
that Petra itself was so called. 

There is a place NO, ‘Chagra,’ 
mentioned four:times in the Targum of 
Onkelos, Gen. xvi. 7, 14, XX. 1, Exod. 
xv. 22. In the second passage it is 
substituted for ‘Bered,’ in the remain- 
ing three for ‘Shur,’ of the original 
text. It must therefore have lain 
somewhere at the south of Palestine in 


the desert on the way to Egypt. In 
Gen. xvi. 7 it occurs in connexion with 
the flight of Hagar. 

I venture to conjecture that there 
was also a place ‘Hagar’ (whether 


or ) in Belka, and that the 


‘appearance of ‘Belka’ in the Arabic 
version of Gal. i. 17 and iv. 25 (see 
above, p. 87) is to be explained by this 
fact. 

2 Wieseler explains Chrysostom’s 
meaning in a different way, insisting on 
the strict sense of wefepunveterar. Ac- 
cording to Fiirst Concord. and Hebr, 
Handb. s.v., 13°D signifies ‘rocky,’ so 
that interpreted in Arabic it would be 


, and to this identity of meaning 


in ‘Sinai’ and ‘Hagar’ he supposes 
Chrysostom to allude. But even if the 
account which Fiirst gives of the word 
‘3’ were altogether satisfactory, it 
would still remain in the highest degree 
improbable that Chrysostom should be 
acquainted with an etymology so ab- 
struse. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 197 
the familiar term for the flight of Mahomet (compare also the Hebrew 
39) and 43‘). Thus it has nothing in common with ‘Chagar, ‘a stone’ 


( ys): which if it occurred in Hebrew would be written 43n. 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 7)n ‘rock,’ but 73m ‘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 language. 
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’? How could they 


1 The close alliance between the tion of the gutturals to each other, see 


gutturals is shown, (1) 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. WD and “ND, 
WY and WMS; (2) By their interchange 
in different languages of the Semitic 
family, e.g. Heb. M13 and Syr. wupD 


(Hoffmann, Gramm. Syr. p. 123), or in 
different dialects of the same language, 
e.g. in the Aramaic dialects the Syriac 
Col. iaaaia with the Chaldee {M3 
(see Gesen. Thes. p. 359, First Aram. 
Idiome § 45); (3) By the confusion of 
sound in the same language or dialect, 
e.g. a Judean in the story professes 
himself unable to distinguish between 
“YDS, ‘alamb,’ ‘Vou, ‘ wool,’ 1DM, ‘ wine,’ 


and “DM, ‘an ass,’ as pronounced by a 


Galilean, when the latter wants to make 
a purchase ; see Fiirst, ib. § 15. There 
was the same confusion also in the Sa- 
maritan pronunciation of the gutturals; 
Gesea. Lehraeb. § 32.1. On the rela- 


Ewald, Ausf. Lehrb. d. Heb. Spr. § 39 
s8q. 

Assemani indeed (Bibl. Or. m1. 2, 
P- 753) gives an instance of the inter- 
change of the gutturals He and Cheth 
in this very word Hagar: ‘Hagar 


- , Arabibus Hagiar, hoc est, 
HK ao in 

Petra ; Ptolemaeo Agra, unde Agraci 
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 (Realw. s.v. Hagariter) is wrong 
in understanding Assemani’s remark 
of the station between Damascus and 
Mecca (see p. 196, note 1), and has been 
blindly followed by others. 

2 rapolknots, Leg. Alleg. i. p. 135 M, 
Sacr. Ab. et Ca. 1. p. 170 (rwapotxet cogig, 
ov xarotxet). Another derivation of 
Hagar, or rathera play upon the word, 
was JIN Ni, ‘here is thy wages’; see 
Beer Leben Abraham’s p. 148. 


Philo’s 
allegory, 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


possibly understand, knowing nothing of Arabic, that he meant to say, 
‘this word Hagar in the Arabic tongue stands for Mount Sinai’? Even if 
it be granted that his readers were acquainted with the fact which was the 
key to his meaning, is ¢v 77 “Apa@ia at all a likely expression to be used by 
any writer for év ry ’ApaBixy yAdoon or ’ApaBiori, unless it were made 
intelligible by the context? Yet this is the meaning generally assigned to 
év ti "ApaBia by those commentators, ancient or modern, who adopt the 
interpretation in question, and indeed seems to be required to justify that 
interpretation. 

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 Sarah’. 


In giving an allegorical meaning to tnis 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 application of the allegorical 
method to this portion of the sacred narrative. Philo’s allegory is as 
follows. 

Abraham—the human soul progressing towards the knowledge of God 
—unites himself first with Sarah and then with Hagar. These two alliances 
stand in direct opposition the one to the other’. Sarah, the princess—for 
such is the interpretation of the word‘4—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’ (aapoiknots), and points therefore 
to something transient and unsatisfying, is a preparatory or intermediate 


1 For Philo’s allegory of Hagar and 
Sarah, see esp. de Congr. Quaer. Hrud. 
Gr. I, P. 519 Sq, 8p. Pp. 521, 522, 530, 
592, and Quaest, in Gen. p. 189 8q, 
233 sq (Aucher). Compare also Leg. 
Alleg. I. p. 135, de Cherub. I. p. 139 sq, 
de Prof. 1. p. 546, de Abr. 1. p. 52, 
de Somn. 1. p. 656. 

2 See the notes on ouveroxe? and 
aAAnyopovpmeva, 

8 de Abr. 1. p. 15 évavridrara dé 
adAnrors elolv of NexOevres yauoe. 


4 In some passages Philo still further 
refines on the change in her name (Gen. 
XVil. 15): e.g. de Mut. Nom. i. p. 590, 
Quaest. in Gen. p. 229 (Aucher), de 
Cherub. 1. p. 139. Her first name Zapa 
(1%) is dpx7 uov, her after-name Zdppa 
(MW) is dpxovca (see Hieron. Quaest. 
in Gen., 111. p. 331). Thus they are 
related to each other as the special to 
the general, as the finite and perishable 
to the infinite and imperishable, 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, 199 
training—the instruction of the schools—secular learning, as it might be 
termed in modern phrase4. Hence she is fitly described as an Egyptian, 
as Sarah’s handmaid. Abraham’s alliance with 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 son, 
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%,’ 

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 
unhistorical. 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 


1) péon Kal éyxixdos tadeia is 
Philo’s favourite phrase, e.g. de Cherub. 
Ta p-L30; 

2 de Congr. Quaer. Hrud. Gr. 1. p. 519 
raitny Mwiicfjs, 76 mapadoéétatov, Kal 
oreipavy amodaiver kal moduyovwrarny : 
comp. de Mut. Nom. 1. pp. 599, 600, 
where he adds xara 7d ddduevov dopa 
td THs xaptros “Avyns 7 pnow, Zretpa 
trexev Era 9 O¢ TONAH ev Téxvos HoGE- 
ynoe (1 Sam. ii. 5). 

3 de Execr. 1. p. 434 7 yap 2pnuos, 
D onolv 6 rpopyrns, elrexvds Te Kal 1ro- 
vrais, Sep Noytov Kal él Wuxs adAd7- 
yyopetrac (Is. liv. 1). The coincidence 
with St Paul is the more striking inas- 
much as Philo very rarely goes beyond 
the Pentateuch in seeking subjects for 
allegorical interpretation. There isin- 
deed no mention of Sarah and Hagar 
here, but it appears, both from the con- 
text and from parallel passages, that 


they are present to his mind. 

4 de Sobr.1. p. 394 codlay pév Ioadk, 
cogiorelay 5é Iopand kex\npwrat: comp. 
de Cherub.1. p. 140, and other passages 
referred to in p. 198, note 1. The 
names give Philo some trouble. Isaac 
of course signifies ‘laughter,’ betoken- 
ing the joy which comes of divine wis- 
dom; see, besides the passages just re- 
ferred to, Leg. Alleg. 1. p. 131, Quod 
Det. Pot. 1. pp. 203, 215. Ishmael he 
contrasts with Israel, the one signifying 
the hearing God, the other the seeing 
God (ON AN W'S, ‘vir videns deum’; 
comp. Hieron. in Gen. Ill. p. 357)- 
Thus they are opposed to each other, 
as axoh to Spacis, as the fallacious to 
the infallible, as the cogicr7s to the 
copes, de Prof. 1. p. 577, de Mut, Nom. 
L p. 609. 

5 de Cherub. 1. p. 140. 


200 


Bearing 
on Inspi- 
ration. 


(x) Posi- 
tion of 
oo. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


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 country as an infallible rule. The power of allegory 
has been differently felt in different ages, as it is differently 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. 1. 


The variations of reading in this verse are the more perplexing, in 
that they seriously affect the punctuation, and thereby the whole texture of 
the passage. The main variations are threefold. 

1. The position of ov». 

(i) It stands after ornxere in NABCFGP and a few of the better cur- 
sive Mss; in f,g, the Vulgate, Gothic, Memphitic, Thebaic!, Aithiopic, 
Armenian, and perhaps the Peshito Syriac? versions; in Origen, 
Basil 4, and Cyril®; in Victorinus, Augustine, and others. The Mem- 
phitic version also inserts yap with rj éAevdepia. 


4 Mor. 14 (tu. p. 247, Garnier), ac- 
cording to some of the best mss. In 
the printed editions however it stands 
after éXevGeplg. In the de Bapt. (un. 


1 TI have ascertained this from the 
ms belonging to Lord Crawford and 
Balearres, 

2 This is doubtful, the order of the 


words being altered in this version. 

3 in Exod. H. 3 (1. p. 139), in Jud. 
H. 9 (u. p. 477), both extant only in 
Latin. 


p. 641, Garnier), a treatise ascribed to 
Basil but of doubtful authorship, its 
place is after or7xere. 

> Glaphyr. I. p- 75. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 201 


(ii) Its position is after éXevepia in CO (by a third hand) KL and very 
many cursive Mss, in Marcus Monachus', Damascene, Theophylact, 
and (cumenius. 

(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 17 yap éAevOepia x.7.A. 

In Asterius? ody is absent after eAevOepia, but, as the context is 
wanting, it is impossible to say whether it occurred after oryjxere or 
not. 

Thus it will be seen that the balance of authority is decidedly in favour 
of placing ov» after orjxere; 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 rp éedevdepia. 

2. The position of juas. It is found, (2) Posi- 

(i) Before Xpucrds in SABDEFGP and some cursive mss, in Origen tion of 
(Latin translation), Theodore of Mopsuestia (Latin translation), and 7/4s- 
Cyril®. 

(ii) After Xpioros in CKL and many cursive Mss, and in Chrysostom, 

Theodoret, Asterius, Marcus Monachus, and Damasceue. 

(iii) After nAevOépwoer in Theophylact. 

The versions and the Latin fathers vary, the majority placing it after 
Xpiords; 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 (Xpiords nuas being perhaps the more natural order), 
so that one authority in favour of as Xpicrds is of more weight than a 
number against it. The order yas Xpuords may therefore be retained with 
confidence. 

3. Besides these, there still remains a third and more important variation. (3) The 

(i) TA édcvdepia 7 is read in D (by the correction of later hands‘) '@/ative. 
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 @icumenius. The 
Atthiopic has ‘ quia Christus nos liberavit; et state igitur, 

(ii) 177 éAevOepia alone is found in SABCDP and a few cursive Mss, in 
the Thebaic and Memphitic versions, and in Damascene and others. 

(iii) 7 €AevOepia in FG, in the old Latin, Vulgate, and Gothic versions, 
in Marcion (or rather Tertullian®), Origen (Latin translation®), in 
Victorinus, Augustine, Jerome, and others. 


1 Gallandi vit. p. 47. tereaque D** addidit signa quibus 7 xs 
2 In Ps. v. Hom. 5, Cotel. Mon. ante nuas ponendum esse significaret, 
Eccl. u. p. 46. sed videntur ea signa rursus deleta 
3 The Latin of D has ‘qua libertate esse.’ Tischendorf Cod. Clarom. 
nostra.’ It has been suggested to me 5 adv. Mare. v. 4. 
that tra was originally a direction to 6 in Gen. H. 7 (a. p. 78), in Cant. 
transpose ‘ nos.’ i. 6 (UI. p. 52). 


4 «D** et D*** praeposuerunt 7, prae- 


202 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


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. 

First. The reading 77 éAevOepia without 7 is so difficult as to be almost 
unintelligible. At a certain point Bengel’s rule, ‘proclivi 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 17 éAevdepia 7 to have been the original reading, 
the omission of 7 in some texts admits of a very simple explanation. 
Standing immediately before jas (which in its proper position, as we have 
seen, precedes Xpiorés) it would easily drop out through the carelessness of 
transcribers. In this case too the transposition Xpioros nuas for nas 
Xpioros was probably made for the sake of euphony to avoid the juxta- 
position of 7 7uas which came together in the original text. 

At the same time the testimony in favour of r7 ¢Aevdepia 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, 7 éAev9epia, found chiefly in the Latin copies, is not 
very easily accounted for, but was perhaps substituted for rm eAevdepia 7 
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, ris 
édevbépas TH ehevbepia 7) Nuas Xpioros jrevOepacev, Zryxere ovv «7A, 


V. 2, 3] 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


203 


af > \ -~ / -~ / > 
"Ide éryw TaiAXos Néeyw Uulv, OTL, Eav TrepiTEeuvno Ge, 
e ~ > ; / , 
Xpictos vas ovdev wPpednoe? Fuaptvpoma d€ madw 


\ > / / J ? / > ‘ 
TAVTL avopwrw TEPLTEMVOMEVW, OTL OehEeTHS ETTLV 


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, and 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 
aad us. We, the true disciples of 
Christ, hope to be justified of faith, 
not of works, in the Spirit, not in the 
flesh.’ 

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 pernicious and fatal in itself. 

“de] so to be accented rather than 
ide. According to the ancient gram- 
marians, the pronunciation of common 
dialect was ide, \aBe, of the Attic idé, 
AaBé. See Winer § vi. p. 55 sq. 

éy® Iavdos] Whatis the exact force 
of this? Is it (1) An assertion of 
authority? ‘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 
of 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. 1, where the words auras dé 
€ya Taddos 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 so strongly. 

mepitepwynobe| ‘suffer yourselves to 
be circumcised’ ; see the note on zepr- 
Tepvopev@ Ver. 3. 

3. The argument 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 fulfil it therefore 
he is bound, and he cannot plead the 
grace of Christ; for he has entered 
on another mode of justification.’ 

paptvpopa o¢ maduv] ‘Christ benefit 
you? nay, I protest again’? The 
adversative sense of d¢ is to be ex- 
plained by the idea of odedjoe. 
Ild\w refers to the preceding Eye ; 
‘IT have said it, and I repeat it with 
protestation.’ 

paprvpopat] ‘I protest, i.e. 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 jap- 
rup6, ‘I bear witness.’ See the notes 
on 1 Thess. ii. 12. For the dative 
avOpérm compare Acts xx. 26. This 
use of the dative is a remnant of the 
fuller construction paprvpecdai twi re 
(Judith vii. 28 paprupdpeba vpiv ror 
ovpavoy kai thy viv), the accusative 
being suppressed and the verb used 
absolutely without reference to the 
person of the witness. 

mepirepvonera ‘who undergoes cir- 
cumcision, as mepiréuynobe ver. 2, 
and of repirepvopevor Vi. 13 (the better 
reading). In all these cases the pre- 
sent tense is more appropriate than 


204 


iA \ / n~ 
oXOV TOV VOMOY TOoLNo aL. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[V. 4—6 


4xatnpynOnte amo Xpirrov, 


€ ~ An , 

oirwes év vouw dixaovobe, THs xapitos é€errEcaTe. 
Sipeis yao mvevmaTe éx miotews é€ATIOa SiKatoovrns 
> 2 = = af 
dmekdexomeba: Sev yap Xpiotw [’Incov] ote meprToun 


the past. It is not the fact of their 
having been circumcised which St 
Paul condemns (for this is indifferent 
in itself), but the fact of their adlow- 
ing themselves to be circumcised, be- 
ing free agents. 

4. KatnpynOnre, e&erécare| The aor- 
ists represent the consequences as in- 
stantaneous ; ‘Ye are then and there 
shut out from Christ.’ For similar 
instances see Joh. xv. 6 éay py tis 
petvn év éuol, €BANOn ew ws TO KAHuA, 
Rev. x. 7: comp. Winer § xl. p. 345. 

KaTnpynOnre amo Xpiorov | a pregnant 
expression for catnpynOnre Kai €x@pio- 
Onte amo Xpiorov, ‘Ye are nothing as 
regards Christ, ye are entirely sepa- 
rate from Him’; as Rom. vii. 2, 6; 
comp. 2 Cor. xi. 3 @Oapy ta vonpatra 
Upov aro THs amAotntos, Col. ii. 20. 

oitwves Stxarcovabe] ‘all ye who seek 
your justification. See on mepitepvo- 
eva, Ver. 3. 

e&enéaate| ‘are driven forth, are 
banished with Hagar your mother’: 
see iv. 30 €xBade tHv maidioxny. The 
words exmimrevy and exBadAev are cor- 
relatives in this sense; e.g. Thucyd. 
vi. 4 tro Sapioy kcal Gdr@v “Idvev éx- 
mimrovoty...rovs d€ Sauiovs Avakiras 
‘Pyyivev tipavvos ov moAA@ VaTeEpov 
exBadov «7A. For the form é&e- 
méoate see Lobeck Phryn. p. 724, 
Winer § xiii. p. 86. 

5. npets 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 
lil. 10. 

mvevpatt] ‘spiritually, or ‘by the 
Spirit. It is almost always difticult 
and sometimes, as here, impossible to 
say when zvetyua 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. 

éAmida}] here used in a concrete 
sense, ‘the thing hoped for’; comp. 
Coli. 5 ray eArida thy aroKxepevny vty, 
Tit. ii. 13 mpoodexopevoe THY paxapiay 
é\rida, Heb. vi. 18; and see the note 
on éerayyeXia, iii. 14. 

amekdexopeba] ‘wait eagerly, or 
perhaps ‘patiently’; used especially 
in speaking of the future redemption ; 
comp. Rom. viii. 19, 23, 25, 1 Cor.i. 7, 
Phil. iii. 20. Compare the do in azo- 
kapadoxia, and see a paper by C. F. A. 
Fritzsche in Fritzsch. Opuse. p. 156. 

6. yap] explaining the emphatic 
mvevpatt ex tmigtews Which has gone 
before: ‘By the Spirit, for the dispo- 
sitions of the flesh, such as circumci- 
sion or uncircumcision, are indifferent: 
JSrom faith, for faith working by love 
is all powerful in Christ Jesus,’ 

St Paul had before pronounced a 
direct and positive condemnation of 
circumcision. He here indirectly qua- 
lifies this condemnation. Circumci- 
sion is neither better nor worse than 
uncircumcision in itself (see especially 
1 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. 

miotis «.7.A.] ‘In his stat totus 
Christianismus, says Bengel. 

évepyoupern | ‘ working’ ; the middle 
voice according to the general usage 
of St Paul. The Spirit of God or the 
Spirit of Evil évepyci; the human agent 
or the human mind evepyetrac: see the 
note on 1 Thess. ii. 13. On the other 
hand evepyetoOa is never passive in 
St Paul (as it seems to be taken here 
by Tertullian adv. Mare. v. 4, ‘di- 


V.7,.8] 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


205 


2 / af > / > A , ; > , 
Tt toxver oUTE adkpoBvaoTia, a\Aa Tiotis OL ayamnns 


EVEP'YOUMEVN. 


/ - / lol / 
METpexeTE Kadws’ Tis Uuads évexoveyv aAnOeia ju) 


A 


10 6 oa She \ > ? ~ - en. 
TELVEC UAL H TELOMOVH OUK €K ‘TOU KaXovuyTos uMas, 


cendo per dilectionem perfici’), and 
therefore this passage does not ex- 
press the doctrine of ‘fides caritate 
formata.’ 

These words 80 dyamrns évepyoupnévn 
bridge over the gulf which seems to 
separate the language 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 1 Thess. i. 3, Col. i. 4, 5. 
See the note on the former of these 
two passages. 

7—11. ‘Ye were running a gal- 
lant race. Who has checked you in 
your mid career? Whence this dis- 
loyalty to the truth? 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? A little leaven leaveneth 
the wholelump. Do not mistake me: 
I do not confound you 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- 
eumcision 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. *Erpéxere xadas] ‘ Ye were run- 


ning bravely, again a reference to 
St Paul’s favourite metaphor of the 
stadium. See ii. 2, 1 Cor. ix. 24—27, 
Phil. iii. 14, 2 Tim. iv. 7. 

évéxowev] 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 mpoxomreww, ‘to clear a way,’ 
‘to act as pioneer’; comp. Greg. Naz. 
Or. xiv. 31 (I. p. 279 ed. Ben.) 7 Kaxtas 
eyxonmtoperns Svomadcia tTaeY tovnpay 
f} dperns ddomowoupéns evmabeia Tav 
RBeAriovev. 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. 
4,1 Thess, ii. 18. Compare the pas- 
sive, Rom. xv. 22, 1 Pet. iii. 7. See 
the note on Péovotrres, ver. 26, 

The testimony in favour of evéxoyrev 
is overwhelming. Otherwise the re- 
ceived reading dvexowev suits the 
metaphor of the stadium better; for 
avaxorrew ‘to beat back’ would apply 
to the paSdodxo (Thue. v. 50) who 
kept the course: comp. Lucian Wigr. . 
§ 35 (1. p. 77) e&émeurrov te Kal dvexo- 
mropny, Polye. § 5 dvaxérrecOat amo 
Tov embvyiav. The word éyxomrew 
seems to have given offence to tran- 
scribers: in 1 Thess. ii 18, as here, 
dvakorresy stands as a various reading ; 
in Acts xxiv. 4, I Pet. iii. 7, éxxomrew. 

8. mewrporn] with a faint reference 
to the preceding weideo@a; ‘ You have 
refused to obey the truth, you have 
rendered another obedience which is 
not of God. reccpovn (Ignat. Rom. 3, 
Justin Apol. I. c. 53, p. 17 E; comp. 
mAnopovn, Col. ii. 23), like the English 
‘persuasion, may be either active or 


206 


Supa Cuun bAov TO upapa Cupot. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[V. 9—18 


3 / 
ey mremroWa 


~~ > et > A 
eis mas év Kupiw, 674 ovdev GAXO GpovnceTe* 6 Ce 


Se r \ / es si N aes 
Tapacowy Uuas BacTaoel TO KplMa, OOTIS EaV 7. 


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 KadovrTos]| 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 act; see the note 
on 1 Thess. v. 24, and comp. Winer 
§ xlv. p. 444. 

9g. ‘This proverb is quoted also in 
1 Cor. v. 6. Comp. Hosea vii. 4. 

Does it apply here (1) To the doc- 
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 1 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. xvi. 6 and Schiétt- 
gen on I Cor. v. 6. Heathen nations 
also regarded leaven as unholy. Plu- 
tarch, Quaest. Rom. 109 (p. 289 B), in 
answer to the question why the Fla- 
men Dialis was not allowed to touch 
leaven, explains it, 7 (dyn Kal yéyover 
€x POopas aitn Kai Pbeipe ro Pipapa 
pryvupern. See Trench On the Para- 
bles, p. 111. 

For the expression (vypotv ro upa- 
pa see Exod. xii. 34. 


Teva) 

Io. eyw| emphatic, ‘Z, who know 
you so well, who remember your for- 
mer zeal’: iv. 14, 15. 

wémovbal still dwelling on the same 
word, reiGecdar wecoporn ; see Winer 
§ lxviii. p. 793 sq. 

eis vpas] ‘in regard to you’; see 
Winer § xlix. p. 496: comp. 2 Cor. 
Vili. 22 memovOnoer mokAH TH eis Vas, 
2 Cor. ii. 3 memorOas emi wavras vpas 
Ore x.7.A., 2 Thess. ili. 4 wevot@apev ev 
Kupio ep’ vpas om x.7.A. As in the 
passage last cited, ¢v Kupio here de- 
notes not the object of the writer's 
confidence, but the sphere in which it 
is exercised. 

ovdev GAXo povncere| ‘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 
eTpeXeTE KAAOS, VEY. 7. 

tapacowy] ‘raises seditions, excites 
tumults among you, the metaphor 
being continued in dvacrarouvres Ver. 
12. See the note oni. 7. 

Baorace:| ‘shall bear as a burden; 
it shall press grievously on him’: see 
Vi. 2, 5. 

kpiua] On the accent of this word, 
which is xpiua in classical writers, see 
Lobeck Pural. p. 418, Fritzsche Rom. 
1. p. 96, Lipsius Gram. Unters. p. 40. 
Compare the note on orvaAoy, ii. 9. 

doris eav 4] 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 malicious 
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 JZ, who have incurred the 
deadly hatred of the Judaizers, who 


V.12] 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


207 


, ’ , > \ Sf / tome, , 
d€, adeAOL, EL TEpLTOUNHY ETL KNPVTTW, Ti ETL SiwKOLAL | 


> ! \ / A = 
apa KATHPYNTAL TO oKavoaXov TOU OT aupou = 


a oeNov 


\ / e - ney 
Kal a7roKOWovTat ol dvacoTaTourTeEs Upas. 


am exposed to continual persecution 
from them, do J preach circumcision ?’ 

ért xknpvoow| For an explanation 
of this ér1, see the notei.1o. Perhaps 
however it should be explained rather 
by the form which the slander of his 
enemies would take; ‘You s¢i// preach 
circumcision, though you have become 
a Christian: why should not we con- 
tinue to do the same?’ 

ri ért] The second ér is probably 
argumentative, ‘this being the case, 
as in Rom. iii. 7, ix. 19. 

apa] ‘so it appears!’ dpa introduces 
a false statement or inference also 
in 1 Cor. v. 10, xv. 14, 15, 18, 2 Cor. i. 
17. It is here ironical; ‘So I have 
adopted their mode of justification ; 
I am silent about the Cross of Christ! 
no one takes offence at my preaching 
now; ail goes on pleasantly enough!’ 
The oravpés 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 so: comp. 1 Cor. i. 23. 

oxaydador] almost confined, it would 
appear, to biblical and ecclesiastical 
Greek. oxavdcdnOpov 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- 
cance. 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. 
lil. 2, 3 BAewere Tiy Karatopny” peis yap 
€o ev 7 wepttoun, Where the same idea 
appears, clothed in similar language. 
épedov] Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 8, 2 Cor. xi. 
I, in both of which passages the irony 
is plain. In this construction with the 
indicative, which appears only in later 
writers, the original meaning of épeXov 
is lost sight of, and it is treated as a 
mere particle; see Winer § xli. p. 377, 
A. Buttmann § 139, 10, p. 185. 
droxéwovrat] 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 droxoyyorra: by all the Greek com- 
mentators, I believe, without excep- 
tion (the Latin fathers, who read ‘ ab- 
scindantur’ in their text, had more 
latitude), and seems alone tenable. 
See for instance dzroxexoppévos, Deut. 
XXlii. 1, and indeed doxémrecOar 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 mepirépvew and droxonrew see Dion 
Cassius lxxix. 11 (quoted by Bentley 
Crit. Sacr. 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 dwoxortovrai twes Kat 
eis pntépa Geay ra pvotnpia avadépover 
See also [ Bardesanes] de Fato § 20, in 
Cureton’s Spic. Syr. p. 32. Thus by 
‘glorying in the flesh’ the Galatians 
were returning in a very marked way 


208 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[V. 13, 14 


3°Yueis yap én’ édevOepia exdnOnte, adedAoi* jo- 
vov mn THv €AevOEpiay cis dopunv TH TapKl, ava oa 


Tis dyamns SovAeveTe GAArAOLS. 


14£ \ - / 
0 Yap Tas voLOS 


, / ? Ce) 3 , ‘ 
év évi oyw weTAnpwTal, €v TW Aramtceic TON 


to the bondage of their former hea- 
thenism. See iv. 9, v. I. 

dvacrarobrtes| stronger than rapac- 
covres; ‘They not only incite you to 
sedition, but they overthrow the whole 
framework of your heavenly polity.’ 
For dvasrarotv, a word unknown to 
classical writers, who would use ava- 
orarous rovetv instead, see Acts xvii. 6, 
xxi. 38. ‘Well does he say dvacrarovy- 
res, remarks Chrysostom, ‘for aban- 
doning their 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 liberty.’ 

én’ édevSepia] For xadeiv emi see 
1 Thess. iv. 7: comp. Ephes. ii. 10, and 
Winer § xlviii. p. 492. 

povov py] 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. 1 sq, Phil. iii, 13 sq 
(notes). 

povov pr k.t.d.] ‘only turn not your 
liberty” Some mss supply dere, which 


is perhaps a retranslation from ‘detis’ 
of the Latin versions. For similar in- 
stances of ellipsis see the notes ii. 9, 10. 
The omission of the verb after the 
prohibitive 7) is common in animated 
passages in classical writers: e.g. Arist. 
Ach. 345 dha py po tpopacw. See 
the instances in Jelf’s Gramm. § 897. 
Comp. Matt. xxvi. 5 yn ev rH éopri. 
apoppnv| The word is peculiar to 
St Paul among the New Testament 
writers, occurring Rom. vii. 8, I1, 
2 Cor. v. 12, xi. 12 (twice), 1 Tim. v. 14. 
dia tis dyanns Sovdevere] Both aya- 
ans and dovAevere are emphatic. St 
Paul’s meaning may be expressed by 
a paraphrase thus; ‘ Your desire to be 
in bondage: I too recommend to youa 
bondage, the subservience of mutual 
love. Temper your liberty with this 
bondage, and it will not degenerate 
into licence.’ A similar contrast be- 
tween true and faise servitude ap- 
pears in 1 Pet. i 16 ws eAevOepor Kai 
Ha) @s emikaduppa EexovTes THS Kakias 
Thy edevOepiav, GAN’ ws Geov SovdAor. 
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.’ 
6 mas vopos| ‘the entire law.’ The 
idea of totality is expressed more 
strongly by the exceptional position of 
the article instead of the more usual 
order ras 6 vopos; comp. I Tim. i. 16 
Tv aracav pakpobupiav, Plat. Gorg. p. 
470 E év rovT@ 7 Taca evdaipovia eoriv, 
Ignat. Magn. 1 tiv macav émnpecav. 
menAnpota] ‘is summarily ful- 
filled? For the force of the perfect 
see Winer § xl. p. 341, A. Buttmann 
p. 172. Tertullian (adv. Mare. p. 4) 


V. 15—17] 


TAHCION COY WC CEAYTON. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


209 


> \ > / 
Sei 6€ a@ANANOUS OaKVETE 


\ , , \ > , ~ x 
Kal kateoGiete, BEmeETE YH UT a\AHAWY avadwOiTE. 
, , , ~ ’ 
“Aéyw O€, mvevuaTe TEepiTaTEiTE, Kal émOuplav 


> \ / 
G@apkos ov py TEAETHTE. 


hints that Marcion perverted the 
meaning of the tense to suit his pur- 
pose, ‘si sic vult intelligi adimpleta 
est, quasi jam non adimplenda.’ The 
present wAnpotra in the received text 
enfeebles the sense. The meaning of 
mAnpovy here is not to ‘sum up, com- 
prehend,’ but ‘to perform, complete,’ 
as appears from the parallel passage, 
Rom. xiii. 8 6 dyamdv rov Eerepor, vonov 
metAnpwxev ; 80 that ev évi oye, ‘in 
one maxim or precept, means ‘in the 
observance of one maxim or precept.’ 

év t@| probably neuter, in apposi- 
tion to the sentence ; comp. Rom. xiii. 
g, 10. See above on iv. 25. 

rov wAnoiov|] In the original text 
(Lev. xix. 18) 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- 
bour 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, Vv. 43. 

geavtov] The received text has éav- 
rov, 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 éavrov for 
the first and second persons. The case 
however with respect to the New Tes- 
tament seems to stand thus; that 
whereas (1) in the plural we always 
find éavrmy etc., never juay ator, 
uUuaov avtay etc., as mere reflexives, 
yet (2) in the singular there is not one 
decisive instance of éavrod in the first 


GAL. 


™ yap capé émbupuet cara 


or second person; the authority of 
the best mss being mostly against it. 
See A. Buttmann p. 99; and for the 
testimony of the ss in this text (Lev. 
xix. 18) as quoted in the N, T., Tischen- 
dorf on Rom. xiii. 9. 

15. Bdemere «.t.d.] 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, you thereby 
renounce your allegiance to the daw.’ 

In this passage the Spirit is doubly 
contrasted, first, with the flesh, and 
secondly, with the Jaw. 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 Romans. 

16. mvevpari|the dative of the rule 
or direction : see the notes v. 25, vi. 16. 

ov pn TeAeonte] ‘ye shall in no wise 
Julfil’ <A strong form of the future 
especially frequent in later Greek; 
see Lobeck Phryn. p. 724. 


14 


210 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[V. 18 


- \ \ - A -~ , - ~ 
TOU TVEUUATOS, TO SE TVEUUA KATA THS TapKos’ TavTa 
ie 4 / esas / cr 
yap aAAnAos avTikerTtal, iva pn, a é€av OeAnTE, TavVTA 


TOWMTE. 


17. ro O€ wvevpal ‘but the Spirit 
strives, fights against the flesh. As 
ertOupetv cannot apply to the Spirit, 
some other verb must be supplied in 
the second clause. Throughout this 
passage the mvedyua 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 1. p. 354 8q. 

Taira yap «.7.A.] 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? How otherwise 
do you not always obey the dictates of 
your conscience ?” 

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 é€ay GéAnte] The parallel passage, 
Rom. vii. 15, 16, determines the mean- 
ing of Oédkew here. It denotes the 
promptings of the conscience ; ‘video 
meliora proboque.’ 

18. mvedpate dyeobe] Comp. Rom. 
Vili. 14 Goou yap mvevpari Gcov Ayovrat. 

ovk €or U7r0 vopov |‘You haveescaped 
from the dominion oflaw.’ See on ver. 
23. An anonymous writer in Cramer’s 
Catena p. 81 (where the words are 
wrongly assigned to Chrysostom) says, 
ov voL@ T@ arrethovvre SovAats, mvevpate 
d€ TO dyovte téxva Geod. For vopos 
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.’ 

drwa] ‘such as are, not a, ‘which 
are’; the list not being exhaustive, but 
giving instances only. See on iv. 24. 

Though no systematic classification 


18? \ / af 6 > > Nt Pte \ , 
El O€ TTVEUMATL aAYyETUE, OUK EOTE UTTO VOHOV. 


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 : (1) Sen- 
sual passions, ‘fornication, unclean- 
ness, licentiousness’; (2) Unlawful 
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 theirreligious 
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. 

mopveta k.7-A.| The same three words 
occur together in a different order 
2 Cor. xii. 21. The order here is per- 
haps the more natural; zopveia a spe- 
cial form of impurity, dka@apcia un- 
cleanness in whatever guise, doéAyeva 
an open and reckless contempt of pro- 
priety. 

axabapcia] 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. 

doédyera] ‘wantonness.’ A man may 
be dxa@apros and hide his sin; he does 
not become agedyjs until he shocks 
public decency. In classical Greek the 
word acéAyera generally signifies in- 
solence or violence towards another, as 
it is defined in Bekker’s Anecd. p. 451, 
7 pet emnpeacpov Kal Opacvtnros Bia. 
In the later language, in the New Tes- 
tament for instance, the prominent 


V. 19, 20] 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, 


Zit 


\ , > \ ” cod , . 3 
*davepa 6€ €oTW Ta epya THS wapKos, dTwa éotw 
/ > / > 
mopveia, axalapoia, doedyea, *€idwodaTpeia, pap- 
, af of , > ~ 
Maxela, ExOpat, Epis, Gros, Ouuoi, epibetar, diyorracia, 


20. €xOpa, épecs. 


idea is sensuality, according to the 
loose definition in Etym. Magn. éror 
porns mpos Tacay dorny: comp. Polyb. 
XXXVii. 2 7oAA dé Tis doéAyera Kal wept 
Tas g@patikas emiOupias ait@ cuve Enxo- 
Aovdex. Thus it has much the same 
range of meaning as dSprs. 

20. In spiritual things two sins are 
named ; cidwAoXarpeia the open recog- 
nition of false gods, and @apyakeia the 
secret tampering with the powers of 
evil. 

appakeial not ‘poisoning’ here, but 
‘sorcery, witchcraft, as its association 
with ‘idolatry’ shows: comp. Rev. xxi. 
8 happakois kai eid@AoAdTpas. On the 
different kinds of @appaxeia see espe- 
cially Plato Legg. xi. pp. 932, 933: 
comp. Philo de Migr. Abr. p. 449 M 
) ovx pas Tous éraotdods Kai papya- 
KeuTas avticopiarevortas T@ Oeiw Aoya, 
Quod Det. Pot. p.198 Mrovs év Aiyirre 
T® oopatt codiotas ovs pappakéas 6vo- 
pacer, Plato Symp. p. 203 D dewvos yons 
kai happakeds kai copioryns. This isa 
common sense of dappakevs, Pappakeia, 
in the Lxx. It isa striking coincidence, 
if nothing more, that dappaxeiac were 
condemned by a very stringent canon 
of the council held at Ancyra the capi- 
tal of Galatia (about a.D. 314); see 
Hefele Concilieng. 1. p. 209. For the 
prevalence of yonreia in Asia Minor 
see Greg. Naz. Orat. iv. 31 (1. p. 91); 
comp. 2 Tim. iii, 13. 

20, 21. e¢yOpa x.r.d.] A principle 
of order may be observed in the enu- 
meration which follows; (1) ¢yépa, a 
general expression opposed to ayamn, 
breaches of charity in feeling or in act: 
from this point onward the terms are 
in an ascending scale: (2), (3) pis 
‘strife’ not necessarily implying self- 
interest ; (jos ‘rivalry,’ in which the 
idea of self-assertion is prominent: 


(4), (5) @vpot ‘wraths,’ a more passion- 
ate form of épis; épiOeiae ‘factious ca- 
bals,’ a stronger development of ¢jXos: 
(6), (7) hostility has reached the point 
where the contending parties separate; 
such separation is either temporary 
(S:xooracia ‘ divisions’), or permanent 
(aipéoes ‘sects, heresies’): (8) p@dvor, 
a grosser breach of charity than any 
hitherto mentioned, the wish to de- 
prive another of what he has; (9) 
ova, the extreme form which hatred 
can take, the deprivation of life. 

The first four words épis (jos Gupot 
eptOetae occur in the same order 2 Cor. 
xii. 20: comp. Rom. xiii. 13. 

(ros ] ‘emulation, rivalry, not ne- 
cessarily, like @@ovos, 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, (jAos falls in 
the scale of Christian ethics (see Clem. 
Rom. §§ 4—6), while razeevérns for in- 
stance rises. 

Ovpoi] ‘outbursts of wrath? On 
6vpos in its relation to opyy, as the 
outward manifestation to the inward 
feeling,see Trench, NV. 7. Syn. § xxxvii. 
p. 123. The plural is frequent even 
in classical writers: see Lobeck on 
Soph. Aj. 716. 

epiGeiat] ‘caballings” Derived from 
épidos, the word signifies properly 
‘working for hire’; hence it gets to 
mean ‘the canvassing of hired parti- 
zans’ (Suidas, epideverOar spor éore 
r@ dexater Oat, kal yap 9 epiOeia etpnrar 
aro ths Tov pucbod Sdcews) and hence 
more generally ‘factiousness’; comp. 
Arist. Polit. v. [viii.] 3, wetaBadXover 
& ai wodcreiae kai Gvev oracews dia Te 
ras epibeias worep ev ‘Hpaia’ €€ aiperav 
yap dia TovTo e€xoijoay KAnpwrds, ote 


14—2 


212 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[V..2%, 322 


, , ‘ , , - A: oe 
aipéres, *POdvor, [povor], weOar, Kwp01, Kal TA Gpmore 
/ a / - \ \ ~ / 
TouTos' a TpoAEyw Uuiv Kabws [Kai] mpoetrov, Bt ot 
\ cod , / 4 , 
TA TOLAVTA TPATTOVTES Bactrciav Geov ov KAnpovopn- 


Govolyv. 


npovvro rovs epiOevopevovs. Thusit has 
no connexion with épis, unless indeed 
both are to be referred ultimately to 
the same root épa épda, as is maintain- 
ed by Lobeck Pathol. p. 365. Comp. 
Fritzsche Rom. 1. p.143. For epideia 
following upon (yAos see James iii. 14, 
ei Oe (yAov mixpov ExeTe kai eptOeiav, and 
ib. ver. 16. 

aipeces] A more aggravated form 
of diyooracia, when the divisions have 
developed into distinct and organized 
parties: comp. I Cor. xi. 18 dxovw ox io- 
pata év vpiv vmapxew kal pépes te 
mictev@, det yap kal aipecers év vpiv 
eivat, and the remarks of Tertullian de 
Praescr. Haer. § 5, thereon. 

21. Oovor] On the distinction of 
(ros the desire to be as well off as 
another, and @@évos the desire to de- 
prive another of what he has, see 
Aristotle het. ii. 9, 10, 11, who says, 
610 Kal emeikes Eat oO (Hdos Kal ém- 
exov, TO O€ POoveiy davdov kai pav- 
Aov. Compare Trench MW. 7. Syn. 
§ xxvi. p. 82, and to the references 
there given add Asch. Agam. 939 6 
S apOounrés y ov emifnros wéder, and 
Thucyd. ii. 64. 

govoc] is omitted by some editors 
with a few of the most ancient texts, 
as an interpolation from Rom. i. 29, 
where @@dvov dévov 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. Eur. Troad. 763 6dvov 
dovov te. For the paronomasia see 
Winer § lxviii. p. 658. 

peat, K@por| as Rom. xili. 13; comp. 


22° be \ r if jie 3 > y 
O 0€ Kap7TOS TOV TYEULaTOS EoTL ayarTnN, 


Dion Cass. xv. 3 wéOar re Kat KGpor 

& mpodeyw «.7.d.] “For the construc- 
tion comp. Joh. viii. 54 dv vpeis Néyere 
drt Ocds Yar eoriv. 

mpoeirov] probably on the occasion 
of his second visit. Seei.9, iv. 13, 16, 
and the introduction p., 25. 

Baoweiav «.7.A.] Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 9, 
10, XV. 50. 

22. 06 5€ xapros|] The Apostle had 
before mentioned the works 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. Eph. v. 9,11, 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. ‘he 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 cata- 
logue falls into three groups of three 
each. The first of these comprises 
Christian habits of mind in their more 
gencral 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- 
ance.’ 

ayarn x.t.\.| The fabric is built up, 
story upon story. Love is the foun- 
dation, joy the superstructure, peace 
the crown of all. 

pakpoOupia x.t.A.] This triad is again 
arranged in an ascending scale ; paxpo- 
Oupia is passive, ‘patient endurance 
under injuries inflicted by others’; 


V. 23, 24] 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


213 


Xapa, Eipyvn, waxpobumia, yonatoTns, ayabwouvn, Tic- 


oh > / 
Tis, “SmpavTns, éyKpaTea. 


\ > / > 
KaT&a& TWY TOLOUTWY OUK 


a / 24 e \ ~ =~ > ~ \ / 
€OTLVY VOMOS. Ol 0€ TOU Xpiarou “Incou thy capKka 
> , ‘ ~ fé - > 
€oTavpwoav ouy Tois Tatnpacw Kal Tais émOupias. 


xpnororns, neutral, ‘a kindly disposi- 
tion towards one’s neighbours’ not ne- 
cessarily taking a practical form ; aya- 
6aovrn, active, ‘gooduess, beneficence’ 
as an energetic principle. For the 
first two words compare 1 Cor. xiii. 4 
1 ayamn paxpobupei xpnotevera. The 
second is distinguished from the third 
as the 70s from the évépyera; ypnaro- 
ts is potential dyabwovvn, dyabaotvvn 
is energizing xpyororns. 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 V. 7. Syn. 
§ lxiii. p. 218 sq. 

miotis] 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. Rom. 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 7 dyamn...mavta morevet. 

23. mpaitns| ‘meckness’ is joined 
with wioris (used apparently in the 
same sense as here) in Ecclus. xlv. 4 
év migret Kal TpavTyTt avtou jyiacey (SC. 
Moiojv). On the meaning of rpairns 
see Trench NV. 7. Syn. S§ xlii, xliii. 
p. 140 sq; and on the varying forms 
mpaos (-orns), mpavs (-drns), Lobeck 
Phryn. p. 403, Lipsius Gram. Unters. 
p. 7. The forms in v are the best 
supported in the New Testament: see 
A. Buttmann pp. 23, 24. 

Kata Tay TowvTwy x.t.r.] ‘against 
such things? Law exists for the pur- 
pose of restraint, but in the works of 
the Spirit there is nothing to restrain ; 
comp. 1 Tim. i. 9 cides rotro, dre dicate 


vopos ov Keirat, dvopots d€ Kai avurrordk- 
tows «.7.A. Thus then the Apostle sub- 
stantiates the proposition stated in 
ver. 18, ‘If ye are led by the Spirit, 
ye are not under lax,’ 

24. oi d€ rov Xpicrod “Incod] ‘now 
they that are of Christ Jesus” Seve- 
ral of the Greek fathers strangely con- 
nected rod Xpiorovd with riy odpka, 
‘these persons have crucified the flesh 
of Christ,’ explaining it in various 
ways; see e.g. Clem. Alex. Fragm. 1015 
(Potter). Origen however, who so took 
it, seems not to have had 8¢ in his text, 
and therefore made oi a relative agree- 
ing with réyv rovovty, which he took as 
masculine. See Jerome’s note here. 

*Inaod | 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 Xpioris “Ingovs. This order 
occurs also in Ephes. iii. 1, 11, Col. ii. 6, 
but in both passages with some varia- 
tion of reading. 

éotavpwaar] ‘crucified. The aorist 
is to be explained either (1) By refer- 
ence to the time of their becoming 
members of Christ in baptism, as Rom. 
Vi. 6 6 wadais nuav avOpwros cuve- 
cravpw6n; 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, xarnp- 
yn@nre. 

trois maOrjpacw x.7.A.] ‘the affections 
and the lusts’; comp. Col. iii. 5, 1 Thess. 
iv.5,andsee Trench V. 7. Syn. §1xxxvii. 
p. 305. The two words are chiefly 
distinguished as presenting vice on 
its passive and its active side respect- 
ively. Comp. Joseph. [?] Mace. $3. At 
the same time wa@jpara perliaps re- 
tuins something of the meaning which 


214 


a ir / ‘ - 
Set CWMEV TVEVMATL, TVEVMATL KAL TTOLYWLED. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[V. 25, 26 


26 


pay] 


ywopeba KevddoEo1, dAAynAOUs TeOKaNOUMEVOL, AAHAOUS 


p0ovovvtes. 


26. aAAnAots POovoivres. 


it has in Greek philosophy ; and, if so, 
it is more comprehensive than ¢mév- 
pia; see for instance Arist. Hih. Nic. 
ii. 4 Aeyo S€ adn pev éxcOvpiav 
opynv poBov Opagos x.T.d. 

25. ‘You have crucified your old 
selves : you 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 Rom. 
vi. 2—14, where the same thoughts are 
expanded. 

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. 1, 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. 

ei CSpev mrvevpartt] ‘if we live to the 
Spirit. The dative here is safest in- 
terpreted by the corresponding datives 
in the parallel passage, Rom. vi. 2, Io, 
Tij quaptia arobaveiy, Ver. II vexpovs pev 
TH auaptia (avtas d€ T@ Oe@: comp. 
also Rom. xiv. 8, Kupi@ (épev, Kupio 
amoOynaKkopev, 2 Cor. Vv. 15. 

mvevpate Kal ororxoper] ‘let us also 
walk by the Spirit’ The dative with 
aroxew, mepirareiy, etc., marks the 
line or direction; as Polyb. xxviii 
5, 6 BovAopevor orotyeiv TH THS TUyKAN- 
tov mpodeoer. Comp. Fritzsche Rom. 
III, 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. 15, 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. 

ywopeba] not oper. This vain- 
glorying was a departure from their 
spiritual standard. 

cevodokor] ‘vainglorious.’ So kevo- 
Soéia, Phil. ii. 3, and occasionally in 
Polybius and later writers. In Wisd. 
Xiv. 14 xevodogia seems to mean rather 
‘vain opinion,’ ‘ folly.’ 

mpokarovpevor] ‘ provoking, challeng- 
ing to combat. Both this word and 
POoveiy are ama€ eyoueva in the New 
Testament. In the Lxx @6oveiv oc- 
curs once only, Tob. iv. 16; mpoxadei- 
oOat never. 

adAndrovs POovodvres}| 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 Pdoveiy 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 éyxérrew ver. 7. Comp. also 
Heb. viii. 8 peudopevos avrovs (the cor- 
rect reading). So too wodepeiy takes 
an accusative, e.g. Ignat. Trail. 4. 

VI. 1—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 ? 
Then correct the offender in a spirit 
of tenderness. Correct and reinstate 
him. Remember your own weakness; 
reflect that you too may be tempted 


Viral 
VI. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


215 


‘AdeAgol, éav Kat mpoAnpply avOpwros ev Tut 


, c ~ € \ 
TAPATTWUATL, UMEIS OL TVEUMATIKO! KaTapTICETE TOV 


cod ) , wh - 
TOLOUTOV EV TYEUMATL TPAVTNTOS, DKOTWY TEaVTOV fut) 


some duy, 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 
his 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. Hach of us must carry 
his own load.’ 

1. adeddoi| ‘Brothers.’ ‘A whole 
argument lies hidden under this one 
word,’ says Bengel. See iii. 15, iv. 12 
and especially vi. 18. 

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 |een 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. 

éav kai] See the note on i. 8. 

mpornupby | ‘be surprised, detected 
in the act of committing any sin,’ so 
that his guilt is placed beyond a doubt. 
For this sense of mpodAapBavew, ‘to 
take by surprise, to overpower before 


one can escape, see Wisd. xvii. 16 
mpornupbeis tv Svoddukroy €Epyevev 
avaykny : comp. kareiAnrrat, J oh. viii. 4. 
The word cannot here mean ‘be be- 
trayed into sin, for neither will the 
preposition év admit this meaning, nor 
is it well suited to the context. 

vpeis of mvevparixoi] St Paul had 
once and 2gain 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 himseif 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 jpeis of Suvarot. In this 
case there would be a slight shade of 
irony in wvevparixoi. 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 rvev- 
parekoi, see I Cor, ii. 13, 15, lil. I. 

xarapritere| ‘correct, restore. The 
idea of punishment is quite subordi- 
nate to that of amendment in xarapri- 
¢ere, which on this account is preferred 
here to xoAd(ere or even vovdereire, 
though the latter occurs in a similar 
passage, 2 Thess. iii. 15 pu ws €x@pov 
nyeiabe GAXG vovbereire ds ddeAov. On 
xarapri¢ew see the note 1 Thess. ili. Io. 
It is used especially as a surgical term, 
of setting a bone or joint; see the 
passages in Wetstein on Matt. iv. 21. 

év mvevpare mpadtntos| Comp. 1 Cor. 
iv, 21 ev dyann mvevpati Te mpavtnros. 


216 


Kal ou mepac Ons. 


¢ / \ , od a 
ovTwS dvaTANPWwOETE TOV VoMoy TOU Xpiozov. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[Vl. 2—4 


*GNAnAWY Ta Bapn BacTaCeTE, Kat 


3 > \ 
€l yao 


- > oe s/ Arele , a \ oe 
SOKEL TIS Eival TL MNOEV WY, Ppevarara €auTov? *7To O€ 


2. olTws dvamwAnpwoaTe. 


Gentleness is a characteristic of true 
spirituality. By their conduct towards 
wrong-doers their claim to the title of 
avevpatixot Would be tested. 

cxorev| The transition from the 
plural to the singular gives the charge 
a direct personal application; ‘each 
one of you individually.’ Compare the 
cat ov, 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 laze, let it be the 
law of Christ.’ The Apostle seems to 
have used both Bapy and vopor (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 gopri- 
(ere tous avOpemovs dhopria dvaBac- 
raxra, Acts xv. 10 éemiOeivac Cvyov ov 
ovTe ol marépes jay ovTe nuets ioyv- 
capev Baotrdca, ver. 28 pndév wA€ov 
emitidecOat vpiv Bapos. For the ‘law 
of Christ,’ always in contrast to the 
law of Moses, see 1 Cor, ix. 21 évvopos 
Xptorod, Rom. iii. 27 dca wolov vopov; 
Tav Epywv; ovyi, adda Sia vopou Tic- 
Tews, Vill. 2 0 vouos TOU mvEvpaTOS THS 
(ofs x.7.A.; comp. James i. 25, ii. 12. 

adAAnA@v ra Bapy «.7.A.| Comp. Matt. 
viii, 17, Rom. xv, I ta doGevnpata tov 
abvvatov Baotafev, Ignat. Polyce. 1. 
mavras Baotate ws Kai oe 6 Kupwos, 
and again wdvrey tas vooous Baotace, 
Epist. ad Diogn. § 10 dots To rob 
mnotov avadéxerat Bapos. Here the po- 
sition of a\AndA@y 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.’ 

avandnpocete| ‘ye will rigorously 
Julfil, the idea of completeness being 


contained in the preposition. It is 
difficult to decide here between the 
readings dvamAnpwoere and avamAnpo- 
care, the external authority for either 
being nearly balanced. On the whole 
the preference may perhaps be given 
to avamAnpdoere 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 ava- 
mAnpsdoare 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 Xptorov} is added in a manner 
mapa mpooboxiav; ‘ 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. 

et yap Soxet tis x.7.A.] Comp. Plat, 
Apol, p. 41 E éav Soxéai te eivas pndéev 
ovres, Arrian Hpict. ii. 24 doxav pev 
tis ewat ov & ovdcis: and for ovdev 
etva, see I Cor. xiii. 2, 2 Cor. xii. 11. 

pndev wv] ‘being nothing, ie. ‘see- 
ing that he is nothing, not ‘if he 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 1 Cor. 
iii. 7, xv. 9, 10, 2 Cor, ili. 5. 

pevarrara} ‘ deceives by his fancies, 
comp. Tit. i. 10 waraoAdyo kat ppeva- 
More is implied by this word 


, 
TaTat. 


VL. 5] 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


217 


oe , dd \ , > 3 

Epyov éavTou SoximaleTw ExacTos, Kai TOTE Eis EauTOY 
\ , v7 \ ’ > \ oY, 

MOvov TO Kavynua Efe, Kal OUK Els TOV ETEpoV? SéKa- 
\ Gis7 / , 

aTos yap TO idiov poptiov Bactace. 


than by dzaray, for it brings out the 
idea of subjective fancies and thus en- 
forces the previous Soxet. It was pos- 
sibly coined by St Paul, for it seems 
not to be found in any earlier writer, 
and at a later date occurs chiefly, if 
not solely, in ecclesiastical authors. 

4. To d€ épyov éavrov] ‘his own 
work’ ; €oyov, emphatic by its position, 
stands in contrast to doxet and dpeva- 
mara; and this contrast is enhanced 
by the addition of €avrod. 

doxipaléera| ‘let him test, examine’ ; 
see the notes on 1 Thess. ii. 4, v. 21. 

eis €autov k.7.d.] ‘in himself and not 
by comparison with others? ‘Probi- 
tas in re, non in collatione,’ says Cas- 
talio. For the preposition compare 
Ephes. iil. 16 xparawwOjvat eis Toy €ow 
avOpw7ov, Rom. iv. 20, xv. 2, xvi. 6, 
etc.: Winer § xlix. p. 496. 

To kavxnpal ‘his ground for boast- 
ing’; xavynua is the matter of kavxn- 
ois; compare Rom. iii, 27 with iv. 2, 
and 2 Cor. i. 12 9 yap Kavxnots jpov 
atrn eorly x.7.A. With i. 14 671 kavynua 
Upav ecper, 

rov €repov] ‘his neighbour. For the 
article compare Rom. ii. 1, xiii. 8, 
nor. Vi. 1, 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 Gud that worketh 
in you, or 2 Cor. xii. 10 ‘when [ am 
weak, then I am strong’ Compare 
also his language in speaking of the 
law, Romans vi, Vii. 

70 idtov hopriov] It is difficult to 


establish any precise distinction be- 
tween qopriov here and fdpn, 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 
Bapn points to a load of which a man 
may fairly rid himself when occasion 
serves, moptioy to a load which he is 
expected to bear. Thus gdoprior 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 
metaphor of Christian warfare in which 
each soldier bears his own kit (dop- 
riov), as each is supplied with his own 
provisions (épdd:a, Clem. Rom. 2), and 
each receives his proper pay (o wu 
1 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 
80, Bacrafew To idvov dopriov refers 
rather to the discharge of the obliga- 
tions themselves than to the punish- 
ment undergone for their neglect. 

Baorace| ‘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 teachers” Such a 
turn of the sentence however, inas- 


218 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[VI. 6, 7 


6 / Ne ivie \ U ~ 
Kowwveitw 6€ 6 KaTnHXOuUMEVOS TOY NOYOV TH KAaTN- 


~ > ~ > - \ = \ > 
NOUVTL Ev TAG ayabots. "un wravacbe, Geos ov puKTn- 


piCerar’ 0 yap éav oreipyn avOpwros, TovTO Kat Oepioe’ 


much as it is not obvious, might be 
expected to be marked in some more 
decided way than by the very faint 
opposition implied by 6e. 

6. Kotvwveira| ‘let him impart to’; 
literally ‘let him go shares with.’ The 
word is properly intransitive and 
equivalent to Kkowwvos etvac ‘to be a 
partner with” It may be construed 
with all three cases: (1) The genitive 
of the thing which is participated in: 
once only in the New Testament, 
Heb. ii. 14 kexowarnkev aiuatos Kai cap- 
kos; comp. Prov. i. 11, 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 Aisch. 
c. Cles. p. 63 of droddmevor kal Kata- 
kow@rvngavres Ta THS TiAEws ioxupa, 
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 
kowvvos, and expresses the person or 
thing with which the other makes 
common cause. He who xoweret in 
this case may be cither the receiver, as 
Roni. Xv. 27 rots mvevparikois avTov €Kot- 
yvovnoav Ta €6vn, or the giver, as Rom. 
Xli. 13 tals xpelats Tay ayioy Kowwvodr- 
res. Here the latter is intended. 

catnxovpevos | ‘instructed. Theword 
in this sense is not peculiar to biblical 
Greek. karjynos ‘oral instruction’ 
occurs as early as Hippocrates p. 28. 
25 Katnxnovos idiwréwy, and probably 
xatnxetv ‘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 amdoroXos, p. 92 
note 3. 

ev naow adyabois|‘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 1 Thess. li. 6, 
9, 2 Cor. xi. 7 sq, Philbtiyewtossa: 
1 Tim. v. 17, 18, and especially 1 Cor. 
ix. 11. 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 aya@ois, ‘temporal blessings,’ see 
Luke i. 53, xii. 18, 19, xvi. 25. Com- 
pare Barnabas § 19 xowarnoes ev 
Tact TO TANGLOV Gov. 

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. ov puxrnpi¢erar] ‘is not mocked,’ 
Muxrnpicew, 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 


VL. 8, 9] 


8 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, 


219 


74 / 2 / A ~ ‘ 
OTL O OTELNWY ELS THY DapKa EavTOU &€K THs capKos 


, , e \ / ? \ ~ , a 
Gepice pbopar, O O€ OTELOWY eis) “TO TWVEV [Aa €K TOU 


, , \ cea, 
mvevpatos Gepioer Cwny aiwvoy. 


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 
puxtnp is frequently connected with 
elpwveia, as in Lucian Prom. ¢. 1; 
compare Pollux ii. 78 kai rov elpwva 
Tives peuxtipa Kadovot. In writers on 
rhetoric puxtnpipos is ordinarily 
treated as a species of cipwreia; see 
for instance four different treatises on 
‘tropes’ in the Rhet. Gracc. Ul. pp. 
205, 213, 235, 254 (ed. Spengel). 
Similarly Quintilian, viii. 6, 59, well 
defines it, ‘dissimulatus quidam sed 
non latens risus.’ Such is the force of 
puxtnpicerae in this passage: ‘you 
cannot with impunity turn your pro- 
fessions to contempt, you cannot with 
God indulge in a postica sanna. 

0 yap eay x.7.A.] A common proverb 
not only in the Bible (Job iv. 8), but 
elsewhere; e.g. Cic. de Orai. ii. 65 
‘ut sementem feceris, ita metes,’ and 
Gorgias in Arist. 2/et. iii. 3 ot d€ rata 
aioxpas pev €ometpas Kakas Sé eb€pioas 
(see Plato Phaedr. 260 co, 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 (1 Cor. xvi. 1). We may there- 
fore conjecture that niggardliness was 
a besetting sin with them (sce 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 of seed sown (6 éav omeipy). In 
tiie present the metaphor is otherwise 
applied, and the harvest is made to 
depend on the nature of the ground 


\ \ \ 
%To O€ KaNOY Tol- 


in which it is cast (eis), as in the para- 
bleof the sower. In moral husbandry 
sowers choose different soils, as they 
choose <ifferent 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. 

éavtov] which disturbs the equi- 
librium of the clauses, is added to 
bring out the idea of selfishness. 

pOopav] ‘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. 1 Cor. xv. 42 omeipera 
ev pOopa, Col. ii. 22 & éorw ravta eis 
pOopav rH droxpyoe. The metaphor 
suggests that déopay 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 tolife eternal, and so forms the 
link of connexion between the emblem 
and the thing signified. In (@7 aidvws 
the metaphor is finally abandoned. 

g. Having passed from a particular 
form of beneficence (ver. 6) to bene- 
ficence in general (vv. 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 7) éyxaxnonre 
kadotrowovrres. The word xadororeiv 
includes dya@oroeiy and more, for 
while 7a ayaa ure beneficent actions, 
kind services, etc., things good in their 
results, ra xada are right actions, such 
as are beautiful in themsclyes, things 
absolutely good. In this passage, as 
in 2 Thess. /.c., the antithesis of caddy 
and xaxov seems to be intended, though 
it can scarcely be translated into Eng- 
lish ; ‘in eed? doing let us uot show an 
ild heart,’ 


220 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[VI. 10 


- \ > lod - \ ? \ 
OUVTES fr) EYKakwmEev" Kalpo yap tim Cepicouey my 


> , 
EKAVOMEVOL, 


eyxaxopey| ‘turn cowards, lose 
heart’; €ykaxetv or evkaxety is the cor- 
rect word in the New Testament, not 
éxkaxeiv. It is read persistently in a 
few of the best mss, though in all 
six passages where it occurs €xkakety 
is found as a various reading; see the 
note on 2 Thess. iil. 13. 

xaip@ idio) ‘at its proper season, 
i.e. the regular time for harvest; comp. 
1, Lima. 6, vi. 85, Tit. 23: 

pe) ekAvdpevor] ‘tf we faint not, as 
husbandmen overcome with heat and 
fatigue. Comp. James v.7. For ék- 
AveowOar compare I Macc. iii. 17, Matt. 
xv. 32, Mark viii. 3. On the synonymes 
here used Bengel remarks: ‘ éxxaxeiv 
[rather ¢yxaxety] est in velle, éxdver Oat 
est in posse. To this it may be added 
that exAveoOa is a consequence of ey- 
xaxew ; the prostration of the powers 
following on the submission of the will. 

10, ws Kaipov éxopev] ‘as we sind 
a seasonable time, as opportunity pre- 
sents.” The xacpos here answers to the 
xaipos 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 ws 7d 
pas éxere (as it is read in the best 
Mss), Ignat. Smyrn. 9 os €rt Kaupiv 
Zxopev, [Clem. Roui.] ii. 8 dbs ody eoper 
emi yns, 1b. § 9 ws Exopev xarpov. The 
distinction is introduced by transla- 
tion; the original ws covers both 
meanings. 

Tovs oiketous x.7.A.] ‘the members of 
the household of the faith’: compare 
Ephes. ii. 19 ovvmodirat trav ayiwy Kat 
oixeiot Tou Gcov. Similarly the Church 
is elsewhere spoken of as the house of 
God, 1 Tim. iii. 15, 1 Pet. iv. 17; comp. 
1 Pet. ii. 5, Heb. iii. 6. We need not 
therefore hesitute to assign this mean- 
ig to ofxeior here. Comp. Clem. Lee. 


10 »/ > € \ at > , 
dpa ovy ws Kaipov Exopuev, epyaCdpuela 


p- 45, l. 31 (Syr.). In this case rijs 
mictews Will probably be nearly equi- 
valent to tov evayyedliov; see above, 
p. 157. On the other hand, oiketos 
rivos is not an uncommon phrase in pro- 
fane writers for ‘acquainted with,’ e.g. 
proocodias, yewypadias, odvyapxias, 
Tupavvidos, tpupns; see the passages 
in Wetstein: but this sense would be 
insipid here. 

11. Atthis 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.17, 18), 
with perhaps a single sentence of ex- 
hortation, as ‘If any one love not the 
Lord Jesus Christ, ete’ (1 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 
follow. 

"ISere «.t.A.] ‘Look you in what 
large letters I write with mine oun 
hand? In the English version the 
words are translated ‘How large a 
letter I have written with mine own 
hand.” It is true indeed that ypdp- 
para sometimes signifies ‘a letter’ 
(Acts xxviii. 21, 1 Mace. v. 10, comp. 
Ignat. Polyc. 7, Clem. Hom. xii. 10), 
and therefore myAixa ypaupara might 
mean ‘how long a letter’; but on the 
other hand, it seems equally clear that 


VI. rr} 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


221 


\ 5) \ \ , ‘ \ \ \ ? / 
To ayalov mpos Tavtas, padiaTa O€ mpds TOUS oiKElous 


TNS WiTTEWS. 


™Tdere mnXikois vuty ypauyarw eypawa TH éun 


ypaupaow ypadew ‘to write with Let- 
ters’ cannot be used for ypdypyata 
ypahew ‘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 iabouring, the irregu- 
larity of the handwriting being ex- 
plained by his defective eyesight or 
by his bodily suffering? But here 
again myXixots 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 adyav peiCooty expr}raro 
ypdppacw éupaivar 6 Ort ovTE avros epv- 
Opia ovTe dpveirat ta eyoueva. The 
boldness of the handwriting answers 
to the force of tlie Apostle’s convic- 
tions. The size of the characters will 
arrest the attention of his readers in 
spite of themselves. 

vpiv| Its right place is after mAc- 
xots, though a few mss have transposed 
the words. Standing therefore in this 
position, it cannot well be taken with 
éypawa, ‘i write’ or ‘I wrote to you’ ; 
but is connected rather with mnAikurs, 


which it emphasizes, ‘how large, mark 
you’; see eg. Plat. Theaet. p. 143 E 
dkovoat mavu Gov ofw dpiv tdv To 
TOY perpakl@ evTeTvxNKa. 

eypaya] ‘J 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 ¢ypaya see Philem. 19, 21, 
1 Pet. v. 12, 1 Joh. ii. 14, 21, 26, v. 13; 
comp. eréoretka, 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, 
seeins to be groundless; for (1) 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, 
eg. in Mart. Polyc. § 1 éypawaper 
Upiv, deol, Ta KaTa TOUS papTupHaav- 
tas, these words occurring immedi- 
ately after the opening salutation; 
comp. ézreniva, Acts xxili. 30, 2 Cor. ix. 
3, Ephes. 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 éypavu 
in no way prejudices the question 
whether the whole letter or the last 
paragraph only was written by St 
Paul. 

12, 13. ‘Certain men have an ob- 
ject in displaying their zeal for carnal 
ordinances. Theseare they, whowould 
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- 


222 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[Va oresers 


o¢/ / : a , = 
xeppt. “ooo. GéXNovowy EevTpoTwTHoa Evy TapKl, OVTOL 


> , eon , , J = A 
dvayKaCovow UPas mepiTemver Gat, JLOvVOV tva TW aoTavpw 


cand lanl \ YZ 
Tov Xpirtov py OwKwvTat. 


13 O 7) \ \ e / 
VOE Yap Ol TEPLTEMVO- 


> / / > \ / lol 
pevol avTol vouoy duvAaccovow, adda GeNovow vas 


sistency. They advocate circumcision, 
and yet they themselves 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. Even the 
profession of Jesus as Messiah by the 
Christians was a less formidable obsta- 
cle to their intercourse with the Jews 
than their abandonment of the law. 

12. evmpoowmjoa k.t.r.] ‘to show 
Jair 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 evrpocanjncat 
as on év capxi, 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, oirwes €E@ bev paivortat 
opatot (Matt. xxiii. 27). The adjec- 
tive evmpoowmos is not uncommon in 
classical Greek, and generally has this 
sense, ‘specious, plausible,” eg. De- 
mosth. p. 277 Adyous evmpoowrous Kal 
pvbovs cuvGeis kat SueEeAOav. The verb 
evrpoowrt¢ery (?) occursin Symmachus, 
Ps. cxli. 6. 

ev capki| ‘in the flesh, i.e. in ex- 
ternal rites. It has been taken by 
some as equivalent to capkikol ovTes, 


but, besides that this interpretation 
is harsh in itself, év capxi here cannot 
well be separated from ev r7 vperépa 
capxi of the following verse. 

povov iva] seemingly elliptical; ‘only 
(their object in doing so is) that they 
may not etc.’ See the note on ii. Io. 

T® oTavpO tov Xprorod] 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. 11 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. xi. 20, 30, 2 Cor. ii. 13. 

dioxovta] The reading dexovrat, 
however well supported, can only be 
regarded as a careless way of writing 
Sudkeovra. In the same way in ver. 10 
many texts read épya(oueba for épya- 
(opeOa; compare Rom. y. 1, ¢youev 
and é€xwpev. 

13. ovde yap «.7.A.] ‘for even the 
advocates of circumcision themselves 
do not keep the law? The allusion 
here is not to the impossibility 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- 
ously. 

of mepitepvopevor] ‘the circumcision 
party, the advocates of circumcision.’ 
See the apt quotation from the apo- 
eryphal book Act. Petr. et Paul. § 63 
(p. 28, ed. Tisch.), where Simon says 
of the two Apostles, otro: of mepi- 
Tepvopevor Tavovpyot ciow, to which 
St Paul replies, rpo rod nas émvyvevat 


VI. 14, 15] 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


223 


, Sf > ~ € 3 \ / 
mepiTeuverUa, iva Ev TH UMETEDA TapKi KavynTwvTa. 
> \ \ \ i = > > an ~ 
“4éuol o€ jan yevoito Kavyaoba, Ee wu} ev THO oTAVPM 
‘ 
a , col ~ o 3 > > 
Tov Kupiov jHuwv Inoov Xpirtov, ov ov Emol Koopos é- 


/ > \ / af \ ’ 
oTavpwrat Kayw KoTpw. “ouUTE yap TEPLTOMN TL EGTIV 


Thy adnOevav capKos €oxopmev TepiTopny* 
dre S€ ean 7 adndeca, ev TH Kapdias 
mepiropy Kat wepiTepvopeOa kal Te- 
ptitéuvoper: and compare the some- 
what similar classical usage in the ex- 
pression oipéovres Plat. Theuet.p. 181A. 
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 mepitepvopevo. rather than 
mepitetunpévor, 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 mepitepyopevor, as probably 
the original reading, of which zrepure- 
Tpnuévor is SO Obvious a Correction. 

vouov| ‘They are no rigorous ob- 
servers of Jaz, regarded as a prin- 
ciple. On the absence of the article, 
see the references in the note on 
v. 18. 

buas, vperépa] opposed to avroi ; 
‘Indifferent themselves, they make 
capital out of you.’ 

€v TH vpetepa x.t.A.] i.e. that they 
may vaunt your submission to this 
carnal rite and so gain credit with the 
Jews for proselytizing. Comp. Phil. 
lil. 3 kavy@pevote €v Xpiote “Incod kai 
ovk ev capki memobores. 

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’ 

1 yévoiro} with the infinitive. This 
is the common construction in the Lxx, 
Gen. xliv.7, 17, Josh. xxii. 29, xxiv. 16, 
1 Kings xxi. 3, 1 Mace. ix. 10, xili. 5. 

ev T® otavpo| Again not ‘in my 
sufferings for Christ’ (2 Cor. xii. 9, 10), 
but ‘in His sufferings for me’ (Phil. 
iii. 3). The offence of the cross shall 
be my proudest boast. 

dv ot] probably refers to oravpe ; 
‘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 Xprarov, we 
should have expected rather é€y o or 
civ o. For the same image as here 
compare Col. ii. 14 avro jpKev ex rod 
pécou TpognrA@cas avTO Te oTaup@ (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 xoopos, the material 
universe, is the sphere of external or- 
dinances. 

Some texts insert the article before 
koopos and xoop@—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 paraliel passage, v. 6. Some of 
these interpolations have very consi- 
derable ms authority. The reading 


224 


f / ; \ \ , 
oUTE dkpoBvaTtia, dA\NG Kay KTIOLS. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[VI. 16 


16 \ J r 
Kat Oool TA 


/ 7 > / > \ \ »” 
KaVOVL TOUTW TTOLYNTOVGL, ElpIYN Ew aUTOUS Kat EdEOS, 


adopted is the shortest form, and 
doubtless represents the genuine text. 
ovre yap x.t.A.] In this annibilation 
of the world all external distinctions 
have ceased to be. This sentence oc- 
curs again, v. 6 and 1 Cor. vii. 19, in 
substantially the same words. 
Nevertheless this passage is said by 
several ancient authors (Photius Am- 
phil. Qu. 183, G. Syncellus Chronogr. 
p. 27; see also Cotel. on Apost. Const. 
vi. 16, Cod. Bodl. Zthiop. 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 Ofenb. d. Johann. 
I. p. 232. Cedrenus (Hist. Comp. p. 4) 
states that the Revelation of Moses 
was identified by some persons (d@act 
twes) With the ‘Little Genesis.’ This 
latter title is another name for the 
Book of Jubilees, which of late years 
has been discovered in an Aithiopic 
translation. In the Book of Jubilees 
however the words in question do not 
occur; see Ewald’s Jarhb. m1. p. 74. 
Kavi) Kriots | ‘a new creature.” Com- 
pare the parallel passage, 2 Cor. v. 17 
et Tis €v Xpiot® Kawn xriows. This 
phrase kaw7 xriow, AWIN ANA, is a 
common expression in Jewish writers 
for one brought to the knowledge of 
the true God. See the passages in 
Schéttgen 1. p. 704. The idea of spi- 
ritual enlightenment as a creating 
anew appears also in madvyyevecia ‘re- 
generation’; see also Ephes. iv. 24 
Kkatvov avOpamov kriaOévra; comp. 
Ephes, ii. 10, 15, Col. iii. 10; and 2 
Cor. iv. 16, dvaxawvovo Ga. 
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.’ 

door] ‘as many as; no matter 
whether they are of the circumcision 
or of the uncircumcision, 

atoxncovow] ‘shall walk? This 
reading is to be preferred to cro- 
xovow, bothas having somewhat 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. 

T® kavove TovT@| ‘by this line, cor- 
responding to the meaning of orocxeiv. 
Kavoy 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 ré atte orovxeiy, 
where xavov is interpolated in some 
texts from this passage. 

kal emt Tov "Ilopand «.7.Ar.] ‘yea upon 
the Israel of 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 NW. T. 
Syn. § Xxxix. p. 129 sq, and compare 
Ephes. ii. 12 awnANorpi@pevoe Tis ToL 
teias Tov “Iopank, Rom. ix. 4 otrwes 
eiow “IopanXira, ay 7 viebecia «Td. 
(comp. 2 Cor. xi. 22, Phil. iii. 5), John 
i. 48 Se dhnOas "Iopanhizns, compared 
with ver. 50 ob Bacideds et rov “Iopann. 
St Paul is perhaps referring here to 
the benediction cipyyn émit roy “Iopana, 
which closes Psalms exxv, exxviii, and 
must have been a familiar sound in 
the ears of all devout Israelites. 

The ‘Israel of God’ is in implied 


VL. 47] 


Aet2 \ \ ~ ~ 
kat ert Tov ‘IapanrX Tov Qeou. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 22 


wm 


™ rou Nowrovu KoOTrOUS 


‘ , > \ \ \ ~~») - 
{LoL oELs TAaVEXETW* EYW yap Ta OTiyuaTa TOU "Tia0u 


€v TO OW { B Ce 
0 TWUATL wou BacTaCw. 


contrast to the ‘Israel after the fiesh’ 
(1 Cor. x. 18); comp. Rom. ix. 6 ov 
yap mavres of €& “Iopand ovrot "Iopana, 
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 xal is epexeyetic, i.e. it intro- 
duces the same thing under a new 
aspect, as in Heb. xi. 17, etc.; see 
Winer § liii. p. 545 sq. 

17. 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 Aourov | ‘henceforth’ differs from 
To Aorov, as ‘in the time to come’ 
from ‘throughout the time to come.’ 
Compare vucros and vixcra. In the 
New Testament it occurs only here 
and Ephes. vi. 10, where however the 
received reading is ro Aourov. 

ta otiypata] ‘the brands,’ i.e. the 
marks of ownership branded on his 
body. These oriypara were used ; (1) 
In the case of domestic slaves. With 
these however branding was not usual, 
atleast among the Greeksand Romans, 
except to mark such as had attempted 
to escape or had otherwise miscon- 
ducted themselves, hence called orcy- 
paria, ‘literati’ (see the ample collec- 
tion of passages in Wetstein), and such 
brands were held a badge of disgrace ; 
Pseudo-Phocyl. 212 oriypara py ypa- 
wns emoveidifwy Oeparovra, Senec. de 
Benef. iv. 37, 38. (2) Slaves attached 
to some temple (iepddovdor) or persons 
devoted to the service of some deity 
were so branded: Herod. ii. 113 drew 
avOparayv emiBarnrat orlypata ipa, 


GAL. 


€wurov didods Ta Oca, otk EEeats Tov- 
tov avvaoGa, Lucian de Dea Syr. § 59 
orifovra dé mavtes of pév és Kaprovs 
ot d€ és avyévas; Philo de Mon. m. p. 
221 M.: comp. 3 Macc. ii.29. The pas- 
sage of Lucian is a good illustration of 
Rev. xiii. 16,17. (3) Captives were so 
treated in very rare cases. (4) Soldiers 
sometimes branded the name of their 
commander on some part of their 
body ; see Deyling Obs. Sacra mL 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 fepis dodXos 
is mentioned in a Galatian inscription, 
Texier Asie Mineure t. 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 ry véxpwow Tot 
"Inaot év te oapate wepipepovtes, Xi. 23. 
See the introduction, p. 51 sq. 

Whether the stigmata of St Francis 
of Assisi can be connected by any 
historiéal 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 
jater Aquinas paraphrases the words, 
‘portabat insignia passionis Christi,’ 
but explains this expression away in 
the next sentence. 


= 


15 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


[VI. 18 


*“H yapis Tov Kuplou juav “Incov Xpirtou pera 


- / € ~ 32 , 
TOU TVEVMATOS UMWY, AOEADOL. 


*Ingod | So it is read in the majority 
of the older Mss. All other variations, 
including the received reading rod xv- 
piov Incod, are inferior, for the personal 
naie of the owner alone is wanted. 

Baocraf(w| St Chrysostom has pro- 
bably caught the right idea, ovx eizev 
éxw dAda Baoralo, dorep tis emi Tpo- 
maios peya Ppovav. Compare the use 
of wepibépovres in 2 Cor. iv. 10 already 
quoted. For Baordafw see Acts ix. 15. 

18. peta rod mvevparos tpar] ‘with 


AML. 


your spirit’; perhaps in reference to 
the carnal religion of the Galatians, as 
Chrysostom suggests. This allusion 
however must not be pressed, for the 
same form of benediction occurs in 
Philem. 25, 2 Tim. iv. 22. 

adeAgoi] ‘brothers, in an unusual 
and emphatic position; comp. Philem. 
7. St Paul’s parting word is an ex- 
pression of tenderness ; * [ta mollitur,’ 
says Bengel, ‘totius epistolae severi- — 
tas,’ See the note on vi. 1. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


The Patristic Commentaries on this Epistle. 


THE patristic commentaries on the Galatians, extant either whole or in part, 
are perhaps more numerous than on any other of St Paul’s Epistles. The 
earlier of these have for the most part an independent value; the later 
are mere collections or digests of the labours of preceding writers and have 
no claim to originality. In the list which follows an asterisk is prefixed to 
the name of the author in cases where fragments only remain. 

In drawing up this account I have had occasion to refer frequently to 
Cave’s Script. Eccles. Hist. Liter. (Oxon. 1740), to Fabricius’s Bibliotheca 
Greca (ed. Harles), and to Schréckh’s Christliche Kirchengeschichte. 
Special works relating to the subject, to which reference is also made, are 
Simon’s Histoire Critique des Principaux Commentateurs du N. T. 
(1693), Rosenmiller’s Historia Interpretationis Librorum Sacrorum 
(1795 —1814), and a treatise by J. F. S. Augustin in Nésselt’s Opuse. m1. 
p. 321 sq. 

1. EARLIER COMMENTARIES. 

(a) Greek and Syrian Fathers. 

(i) *OnteENnzEs (+ 253). The recently discovered list of Origen’s works 
drawn up by Jerome mentions fifteen books on the Epistle to the Galatians, 
besides seven homilies on the same (Redepenning in Niedner’s Zeitschr. 
1851, pp. 77, 78); while the same Jerome in the preface to his Commen- 
tary (vII. p. 370, ed. Vall.) says of this father, ‘Scripsit ille vir in epistolam 
Pauli ad Galatas quinque proprie volumina et decimum Stromatum suorum 
librum commatico super explanatione ejus sermone complevit: tractatus 
quoque varios et excerpta quae vel sola possint sufficere composuit.’ The 
two accounts 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 Latin dress either in the translation of Pamphilus’s Apology (Origen, 
Op. tv. p. 690, Delarue), or in Jerome’s Commentary (Gal. v. 13). On the 
other hand there can be no 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 modern, is due to him. A 
deep thinker, an accurate grammarian, a most laborious worker, and a 
most earnest Christian, he not only laid the foundation, but to a very 
great extent built up the fabric of Biblical interpretation. 

(ii) Epurazm Syrus (+ 378), the deacon of Edessa. An Armenian 
yersion of a commentary on the Scriptures, including St Paul’s Hpistles, 


is—2 


227 


Books of 
reference, 


1. EARLIER 
CoMMEN- 
TARIES. 

(a) Greek 
and Sy- 
rian, 
Origen. 


Bphraem 
Syrus. 


228 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

purporting to be by this author, was published at Venice in 18361. 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 VIL 
p- 217, Schréckh xv. p. 527; and the article by E. Rédiger 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 Rédiger 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”. 

The five writers whose names follow all belong to the great Antiochene 
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 Czesarea, 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 
Antiochene school see Neander Church Hist. 1. p. 498, I. p. 497 8q 
(Eng. trans.), Reuss Gesch. d. Heil. Schr. § 518 (3te ausg.), Kihn Die 
Bedeutung der Antioch. Schule (1867), Th. Forster Chrysostom u. sein 
Verhdliniss zur Antiochenischen Schule (1869). 

(iii) *Eusesius Emisenvs (+ about 360), so called from the name of his 
see Emesa or Emisa (Hums), a native of Edcssa. 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. Itis described by Jerome, as ‘ad Galatas libri decem’ 
(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 Opuse. Gree. ete. 1829, and by Thilo Ueber die Schriften 
d. Euseb. v. Alexandrien u. d. Euseb. v. Emisa (1832). See also Fabricius 
VIL. p. 412, Schréckh v. p. 68 sq. The publication of Cramer’s Catena has 
since added materix!s for an account of this writer. 

(iv) JoanNES CuRysosTomus (+ 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 interrupted 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 

1 Zenker Bibl. Orient. also men- 
tions as published at Venice in 1833 a 
book by Aucher, bearing the title S. P. 


School of 
Antioch. 


Eusebius 
of Emisa, 


Chryso- 
stom. 


though advertised, seems never to have 
appeared. 
2 Through the kindness of Dr Rieu 


Ephraemi Syri Comment, in Epist. S. 
Pauli ete. ex antiquissima Armenica 
versione nunc primum latuitate dona- 
tum. But it is not included in a re- 
cent catalogue of the works printed 
at the Armenian press at Venice, and 


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 Religion, 1889, p. 287 sq.] 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 229 


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, ie. before a.p. 398, when 
St Chrysostom 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. /pist.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) *SEVERIANUS (about 400), bishop of Gabala in Syria, first the friend Severia- 

and afterwards the opponent of Chrysostom; see Schréckh x. p. 458 sq. 'US 
He wrote an Expositio in Epistolam ad Galatas (Gennad. de Vir. Illustr. 
c. 21, Hier. Op. 1. p. 981). Gennadius speaks of him as ‘in divinis scrip- 
turis eruditus’ Several fragments of this work are preserved in Cramer’s 
Catena, pp. 16, 18, 23, 29, 39, 49, 55, 58, 59, 64, 66, 70, 82, 93, and one at 
least in the Gicumenian commentary (Gal. i. 13). Like most writers of the 
Greeco-Syrian School he maintained the literal meaning of Scripture against 
the allegorists. See Cave 1. p. 375, Fabricius x. p. 507. 

(vi) THroporus MopsvrstTENws (+ 429), a native of Tarsus, so called Theodore 
from the see of Mopsuestia which he held. He wrote commentaries on al] of Mopsu- 
St Paul’s Epistles; see Ebed Jesu’s Catalogue in Assemann. Bib/. Orient. Gali 
Ill. p. 32. Several fragments of these in the original are preserved in the 
Catena}, and have been collected and edited by O. F. Fritzsche Theod. 
Mops. Comment. in N. T. (1847). This editor had before written a mono- 
graph De Theodori Mopsuesteni Vita et Scriptis (1836). Fritzsche’s mono- 
graph and collection of fragments are reprinted in the edition of Theodore’s 
works in Migne’s Patrol. Grec. txv1. 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. Lat. oxtt), where they are incor- 
porated nearly entire under the name of Ambrose; and a few years since 
Dom Pitra, Spicil. 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 Corbey 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. 232) 
on Romans and Corinthiaus, and the two together were entitled Hxpositto 
Suncti Ambrosii in Epistolas 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 Theo- 
dore in Mai Nov. Patr. Bibl. vit. 1.p. 408  doret. 


230 


Theo- 
doret. 


Euthalius. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


conjecture of Dom Pitra, that the great Hilary was their author. The 
true authorship was ascertained by Professor Hort! from a comparison 
with the Greek fragments of Theodore, and pointed out by him in the 
Journ. of Clas. and Sacr. Phil. tv. p. 302 (Camb. 1859). Though much 
marred by an indifferent Latin translator’, this commentary is inferior in 
importance to the works of Jerome and Chrysostom alone among the 
patristic expositions now extant. Theodore wasa leader of religious thought 
in his day, and as an expositor he has frequently caught the Apostle’s 
meaning where other commentators have failed®. Among his contempo- 
raries he had a vast reputation, and was called by the Nestorian Christians 
‘the Interpreter’ par excellence: see Renaudot Lit. Orient. 1 p. 616, 
In the Catholic Church of a later date the imputation of heresy over- 
shadowed and darkened his fame. On this writer see Fabricius x. p. 346 

sq (esp. p. 359), Rosenmiiller m1. p. 250 sq, Schr6éckh xv. p. 197 sq. 

(vii) THEopoRETUS (+ about 458), bishop of Cyrus, a native of Antioch 
and a disciple of Theodore. His commentaries on St Paul are superior to 
his other exegetical writings and have been assigned the palm over all 
patristic expositions of Scripture. See Schréckh xvut. p. 398 sq, Simon 
Pp. 314 sq, Rosenmiiller rv. p. 93 sq, and the monograph of Richter de 
Theodoreto Epist. Paulin. 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 will 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 
apologizes for attempting to interpret St Paul after two such men (pera 
tov deiva kai tov Seiva) who are ‘luminaries of the world’: and he professes 
rothing more than to gather his stores ‘from the blessed fathers.’ In these 
expressions he alludes doubtless to Chrysostom and Theodore. 

(viii) Hursauivus, 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 JVotitia printed in Hierocl. Synecd. p. 79, ed. 
Varthey), wrote his work while a young man in the year 458. On his date 
see Zacagni Collect. Mon, Vet. 1. pp. 402, 536, Fabricius 1x. p. 287. Eutha- 
lius edited the Epistles of St Paul, dividing them into chapters (ke@adaza) and 
verses (orixor), writing a general preface and arguments to the several epi- 


1 Whilst the first edition of this 
work was going through the press, my 


a matter of conjecture. 
2 Thus for instance he makes Theo- 


attention was directed by Dr Hort to 
an article by J. L. Jacobi in the Deutsche 
Zeitschr. f. Christl. Wissensch. Aug. 
1854, In which, unknown to him, his 
conclusions had been anticipated. A 
more recent writer (Reinkens Hilarius 
von Poitiers, Schaffhausen 1864) states 
fairly the objections to Dom Pitra’s 
view, but is apparently ignorant that 
the question of authorship is no longer 


dore fall into the common error of 
interpreting cuvarorxe?, Gal. iv. 25, ‘is 
contiguous to’ (‘affinis,’ ‘confinis’) ; 
but the context, as well as the Greek 
fragment which has lcoduvaye?, shows 
that the blunder is the translator’s own. 

3 The first volume of a very careful 
edition of these Commentaries has re- 
cently appeared, by the Rev. H. B. 
Swete, Cambridge, 1880. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


stles, and marking and enumerating the scriptural quotations. The divisions 
into chapters and the headings of the chapters he borrowed from some 
earlier writer (Zacagni, 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. |xxxvi, Ixxxvii. Reasons however have been as- 
signed for thinking that Euthalius in this work was largely indebted to a 
much earlier critic, Pamphilus the martyr (+ 309): see Tregelles in Horne’s 
Introduction, p. 27. On the stichometry of Euthalius see Mill Proleg. p. xc, 
Scrivener’s Introduction, pp. 49, 58, and especially Tregelles, l.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 Zacagni’s Collect. Mon. Vet. 1. p. 402 sq, and may be found in 
Gallandi x. p. 197 sq. 

(ix) *GrnNapIvs (+ 471), patriarch of Constantinople. A few extracts 
in the printed editions of the Gicumenian Catena bear the name of Gen- 
nadius, and the number might be increased by consulting the mss. I 
suppose these are rightly attributed to the patriarch of Constantinople, 
among whose works they are included in Migne’s Patrol. Grec. Uxxxv. 
p. 1611, 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) *Puorrus (+ about 891), patriarch of Constantinople. For the fullest 
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 (cu- 
menian Catena, taken it would appear from a Commentary on St Paul’s 
Epistles no longer extant. Cave indeed asserts (11. p. 49) that a Ms 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 
(Ff. 1. 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 Gicumenian Catena. It is acen- 
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 
writer. 

(b) Latin Fathers. 

(i) OC. Marius Vicrorinus (about 360), an African, surnamed the Phi- 
losopher, converted to Christianity in old age, taught rhetoric at Rome 
when Jerome was a boy. He wrote commentaries apparently on all St 
Paul’s Epistles (Hieron. de Vir. Illustr. 101, pref. ad Gal.), of which the 
expositions of the Galatians, Philippians, and Ephesians alone are extant. 
They were tirst published by Mai Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. m1. 2, p. 1 (1828), 
and may be found in Migne Pair. Lat. vit. p. 1145. It is difficult to 
understand the reputation which Victorinus had for eloquence. His work 
on the Galatians is obscure, confused, and as an exposition almost worthless, 


231 


Genna- 
dius. 


Photins. 


(b) Latin. 


Victori- 
nus. 


Hilary. 


Jerome. 


Augustine. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


but it now and then preserves a curious fact (e.g. about the Symmachians, 
p. 16) and is interesting as the earliest extant commentary on this epistle. 
‘There is a lacuna from v. 18 to the end of the chapter. On this writer see 
Mai’s Preface, p. x sq, and the article in Smith’s Dict. of Biography. 

(ii) AMBROSIASTER, 80 called because his commentary was wrongly 
ascribed to St Ambrose and is commonly printed with the works of that 
father: see the Benedictine Edition, u. App. p. 20 sq. It is however 
quoted by Augustine (cont. Duas Epist. Pelag. 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 1 Tim. iii. 15) who was bishop of Rome from 
366 to 384. See Schréckh vr. p. 210, xtv. p.310. 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 111. 
p. 589 sq. I have generally quoted this commentator as the Ambrosian 
Hilary, or as Hilary simply. 

(iii) Evsresrus SopHronius Hreronymus. His ‘Commentaria in Eppt- 
stolam ad Galatas’ (vu. p. 367 ed. Vallarsi) were written about the year 
387 (Hieron. Vit. xt. 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 Fabricius rx. 
p. 269) whom in allusion to his blindness he calls ‘my seer’ (videntem 
meum), one Alexander whom he designates an ancient heretic (of whom 
nothing is known), ‘the Laodicene who has lately left the church’ (meaning 
Apollinarius; see Fabricius viii. p. 589), Eusebius of Emisa, and Theodorus 
of Heraclea (+ about 355; see Fabricius 1x. p. 319). Of these writers he 
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. 

(iv) AvrRELIus AucustiNnus; ‘Expositio Epistolae ad Galatas,’ written 
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 ‘luterpreter of Scripture’ are sufficiently vindicated by 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


Archbishop Trench (in his introduction to the ‘Exposition of the Sermon 
on the Mount’) against the attacks of writers 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 this 
faculty Augustine was wanting, and owing to this defect, as a continuons 
expositor he is disappointing. With great thoughts here and there, his 
commentary on the Galatians is inferior as a whole to several of the patristic 
expositions. 

(v) Prtacrus, the great heresiarch, wrote his commentaries on the 
thirteen epistles of St Paul in Rome, 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 
futhered upon Jerome, and are generally printed in the editions of his works 
(xi. 2, p. 135 ed. Vall.). 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 (Znst. 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 their merits. 
Gocd accounts of this commentary will be found in Simon p. 236 sq, 
Schréckh xtv. p. 338 sq, and Rosenmiiller m1. p. 503 sq. 

(vi) Magnus Auretivus Cassioporus (+ after 562). ‘Complexiones in 
Epistolas Apostolorum, in Acta, et in Apocalypsin, 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, Lat. uxx. 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 
1 Joh. v. 7. Sce Schréckh xvi. p. 153, Rosenmiiller v. p. 412 sq. 

2. SEconparyY COMMENTARIES, excerpts, compilations, and collections of 
varivrum notes, mostly of a later date. 

(a) Greek Writers. 

These are compiled from the Greek fathers already mentioned, but 
especially from Chrysostom. 


1 Migne’s Patrol. Lat. uxx. p. 1119 
sq. The identity of the work of which 
Cassiodorus speaks with this commen- 
taryis inferred from his description, for 
he does not himself mention the true 
author, though protesting against as- 
signing it to Gelasius. On the other 
hand Cassiodorus a little later mentions 


what apparently he regards as another 
work the description of which would 
suit this commentary equally well: 
‘Tertium vero codicem reperi epistola- 
rum Sancti Pauli, qui a nonnullis beati 
Hieronymi adnotationes brevissimas 
dicitur continere, quem vobis pariter 
Christo largiente dereliqui.’ 


233 


Pelagius. 


Cassiodo- 
rus. 


2. Laver 
CoMMEN- 
TARIES. 


(a) Greek. 


234 


Damas- 
cene. 


Cramer’s 
Catena. 


(Ecume- 
nius 


Theophy- 
lact. 


(b) Latin. 


Primasius. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


(i) Joannes DaMAsceNus (about 750). A commentary on St Paul’s 
Epistles, being an epitome of Chrysostom (see Fabricius 1x. p. 281, 
Schriéckh xx. p. 207), printed in Jo. Damasce. Op. m1. p. 1 sq (ed. Le Quien). 

(ii) ANonymMous CaTENa (date uncertain), first published by Cramer 
(Oxon. 1842). The authorship of the comments is very frequently noted 
(though not always correctly) either in the text or in the margin, but some- 
times they are anonymous. The portion on the Galatians seems to be made 
up entirely of extracts from four commentators. Chrysostom is by far the 
largest contributor; Theodore of Mopsuestia comes next; and a few 
fragments (enumerated above, pp. 228, 229) bear the names of Eusebius of 
Emisa and Severianus. Of the anonymous fragments, those which belong 
to Chrysostom and Theodore can be verified: and such as remain after 
this verification ought probably to be assigned to either Eusebius or 
Severianus. 

(iii) Cicumentus (roth 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. Fabricius v1. p. 693, Rosenmiiller Iv. p. 263. Though this 
commentary seems to be anonymous in the Mss, it appears on the whole 
more probable than not, from internal evidence, that Cicumenius 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. F. 8. Augustin de Cat. Patr. Grec. p. 366. There are 
considerable variations in the different mss of this work; see Fabricius 
1. c. p. 696, and Cramer’s Catena p. 411. The names on the margin of the 
printed editions in the portion relating to the Galatians are Photius 
(apparently by far the largest contributor), Joannes (i.e. Chrysostom), 
Gennadius, Severianus, Theodoret, Cyril, and Cicumenius, The mss in 
some instances supply names to extracts which in the printed editions 
are anonymous. ‘lhe few extracts from Cyril do not appear to be taken 
from a commentary on this epistle. 

(iv) THEopHYLAOTUs (latter part of the 11th 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 vi. p. 591. 

To these should be added the commentary of Eurnymius ZicaBENus 
(about 1110), which is said to exist in Ms, but has never been printed. 


(b) Latin Writers. 


These are derived from the four Latin commentators, Hilary (Ambro- 
siaster), Jerome, Augustine, and Pelagius, directly or indirectly. 

(i) Primasius (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 e:litio princeps is by Gagnée (Lyons, 1537). This work 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 23 


mn 


is printed also in the Magn. Bibl. Vet. Patr. vi. 2, p. 18 sq and in Migne’s 
Patrol. Lat. uxvut. p. 415. See Rosenmiiller v. p. 12, Cave 1 p. 525, 
Schréckh xvi. p. 538. 

It will be scen that the majority of the commentaries which follow Revival of 

were written about the middle of the ninth century within a period of a Biblical 
few years. The interest in Biblical studies was evidently very keen at this !@*""'¢- 
time, 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-quarters 
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 
and extension of Western Christendom under Charlemagne. 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 Primasius, together with the 
Latin translation of Theodore’s work (then attributed to St Ambrose) 
which was made use of in sonie 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) Sxputtus (Scotus? 8th or 9th century?). ‘Jn omnes S. Pauli Sedulius. 
Epistolas Collectaneum, 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 5th century, 
with whom he has been confused. See Cave 1. p. 15, Simon p. 379. This 
commentary is printed in Magn. Bibl. Vet. Patr. v. 1, p. 438, and in 
Migne’s Patrol. Lat. cit. p. 181. 

(iii) Ciaupius TAURINENSIS (+ about 840), less correctly cailed ‘ Altis- Claudius. 
siodorensis’ 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. Bibl. Vet. Patr. 1x. p. 66, 
Migne’s Patrol, Lat. civ. 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 Schréckh xxm1. 

p. 281, Cave 11. p. 16. 


(iv) Frorus Luepunensis, surnamed ‘Magister’ (+ after 852). A Florus. 
commentary on St Paul’s Epistles, being a catena from the works of 


236 


Rabanus 
Maurus. 


Glossa 
Ordinaria. 


Haymo. 


Aitto, 
Lanfranc, 
Bruno, 
Herveus. 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


Augustine. The portion relating to the Galatians is not taken from 
Augustine’s exposition of the epistle, but is culled from his works generally. 
This commentary is printed among the works of Bede (vr. p. 690, ed. Basil. 
1563), to whom it was ascribed; but the probable authorship was pointed 
out by Mabillon Vet. Anal. pp. 18, 488 (1723). On this work see Simon 
p. 339, Cave I. p. 24. It is printed in Migne’s Patrol. Lat. cx1x. p. 363. 

(v) Rasanus Maurus (+ 856), archbishop of Mentz, Hnarrationum 
in Epistolas B. Pauli libri triginta, a catena from the fathers, the names 
being given. The commentary on the Galatians in tiis 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. cx1, cxm. 

(vi) WALAFREDUS STRABo or Strabus (+ 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 Rosenmiiller v. p. 135, and especially Simon p. 377. 
Printed in Migne’s Patrol. Lat. oxiv. p. 570. 

(vii) Haymo, bishop of Halberstadt (+ 853), wrote a commentary on 
St Paul’s Epistles, which has been attributed also to his contemporary 
Remierus (of Lyons?). See Cave u. pp. 28, 42, Schréckh xx p. 283, 
Simon p. 365. Printed in Migne’s Patrol. Lat. cxvit. p. 669. 

Later commentaries still, differing little in character from those just 
enumerated and for the most part equally unoriginal, are those of ATTo 
VERCELLENSIS (+ about 960), Migne’s Patrol. Lat. CxxxIv. p. 491; see 
Schréckh xxii. p. 302: of Lanrranc (+ 1089), an interlinear gloss and 
commentary, Migne cL. p. 259; see Simon p. 385, Schréckh xxIv. p. 334; 
the authorship however has been questioned: of Bruno CaRTHUSIANUS 
(+ 1101), the founder of the order, Migne ciimr. p. 281; see Simon p. 387: 
and of Herveus Douensis (about 1130), Migne CLXxxI. p. 1129; see Cave 
I. 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. 


DISSERTATIONS, 





JE 
WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 





168 
THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 


Il. 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 





WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 


OLLOWING the universal tradition of ancient 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- Teutonic 
ever has been claimed for them by several writers, more especially ee 
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 sane 
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 
affections 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 his 


1 Tmther’s later commentary on Gal. i. 6. 


240 


French 
and Ger- 
man wri- 
ters. 


WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 


countrymen in representing this as a special failing of the Teutonic 
race. The Roman 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 different. In their eyes Gauls and Germans 


of Greeks 
and Ro- 
mans. 


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 alike, 
obscured the minor differences 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 


1 Texier in the Revue des deux fairly and clearly stated also in Brandes 
DMondes, 1841, IV. p. 575- Keltenund Germanen (Leipz. 1857). See 
2 Galater p. 528. especially his summary, p.ix. The only 
3 The authorities will be found in really important exception among an- 
Diefenbach’s Celtica u. Theyare very cient authors is Dion Cassius, who 


WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 241 


Cesar 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. 
Still 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. 
ruthless hordes who poured into Italy and sacked Rome, the sacrile- 


Classical writers uniformly regard the 


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 
whose proper home was north of the Alps and west of the Rhine. ae 
On this point there is little or no wavering, I believe, from first 
to last. 


affinities of some obscure tribe, springing up in the early twilight of 


It would not be strange that an incorrect view of the 


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 different 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 Rhine the boun- 
dary-line between the Gauls on the 
left bank, and the Celts on the right 
bank. See Brandes p. 202. Thus he 
identifies the Celts with the Germans, 
and distinguishes them from the Gauls. 
Extreme paradoxes have been held by 
some recent writers. On the one hand 
Holtzmann, Kelten und Germanen 
(1855), maintains that the Celts and 


GAL. 


Germans of the ancients (the inhabit- 
ants of Gaul as well as of Germany) 
were Teutonic in the language of 
modern ethnography (see esp. p. 157) ; 
on the other, Mone, Celtische For- 
schungen (1857), is of opinion that 
Germany as well as Gaul was of old 
occupied by races which we should call 
Celtic. 


16 


242 


Jerome’s 
account of 
the Gala- 
tians, 


WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 


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. 

The testimony of one of these witnesses is especially valuable. 
Jerome, who writes at the close of the fourth century, had spent 
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 
This author states that the 


Galatz were so called from the whiteness of their complexion (yada), 


testimony of the Christian Lactantius. 


described by Virgil (An. viii. 660), Zum lactea colla awro innec- 
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-Grecia 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). 


boasts a Greek origin, and the Galatians are not descended from 


It is true that Gaul produces orators, but then Aquitania 


these but from the fiercer Gaulish tribes (de ferocioribus Gallis sint 


profecti).’ Though betraying the weakness common to all ancient 


1 Jerome mentions his visit to Ga- seen Ancyra the capital of Galatia. 


latia (totius Galatiae iter), and his 
sojourn in Gaul (Rheni semibarbarae 
ripae) in the same letter (Hpist. ili, 1. 
pp. 10,12). While in Gaul, he appears 
to have stayed some time ‘apud Tre- 
veros’ (Epist. vy, 1. p. 15). Elsewhere 
he tells us that he paid this visit to 
Gaul when a very young man (adoles- 
centulus, adv. Jovin. ii. 7, 1. p. 335). 
Lastly, in his commentary on this 
epistle (vir. p. 430), he mentions having 


TT pa425- 

3 It is scarcely necessary to say that 
Jerome here misses the point of St 
Paul’s rebuke. The Galatians were 
intellectually quick enough (see p. 15, 
note 1). The ‘folly’ with which they 
are charged arose not from obtuseness 
but from fickleness and levity; the 
very versatility of their intellect was 
their snare. The passage of Hilary to 
which Jerome refers is not extant. 


WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 243 


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 Its_ 

and conviction, this passage suggests another very important con- mag Set 
The influence of the Christian Church must have been 


largely instrumental in spreading information of this kind. The 


sideration. 


Roman official was under no obligation to learn the language of the 
people whom he governed ; 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 Roman empire’. At the same time the feeling of 
brotherhood inspired by Christianity surmounted the barriers of race 
There 


is no more striking phenomenon in the history of the early centuries 


and language and linked together the most distant nations. 


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 are the 


same lan- 
guace with 
‘which is spoken throughout the East, the Galatians use as their ae fre- 

veri, 
native tongue a language almost identical with that of the Treveri; 


concludes the passage above quoted ; ‘ Besides the Greek,’ he says, 


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,’ says 
Prof. Max Miller, ‘owes more than 
its first impulse to Christianity. The 
pioneers of our science were those very 
apostles who were commanded to go 
into all the world and preach the Gospel 
to every creature; and their true suc- 
¢essors, the missionaries of the whole 


Christian Church’ (Science of Language, 
1st series, p. 121). 

2 See above, p. 12, note 2. The cor- 
rect form is Treveri, not J'reviri: see 
Gliick Die bei Ceasar vorkommenden 
Keltischen Namen (1857), p. 155. 

3 Even Niebuhr, who maintained 
the Celtic origin of the Galatians, con- 


16—2 


244 WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 
sche were This question is not free from difficulty. The fact that German 
aus, 


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 affected 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’. 
The 


testimony of Cesar leans the same way, though here again there is 


Elsewhere he speaks of them plainly as Belgians and Gauls’. 


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 German 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 (Vortrige 
tiber Rom. Gesch. uu. p. 181). This 
view is opposed by Dr Latham (Ger- 
mania of Tacitus, p. 98, comp. p. 
exlv), who upholds the testimony of 
Jerome. In a later work (Prichard’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- 
vonians. 

1 Tac. Germ. 28 ‘ Treveri et Nervii 
circa adfectationem Germanicae origi- 
nis ultro ambitiosi sunt, tamquam per 
hance gloriam sanguinis a similitudine 
et inertia Gallorum separentur. Ipsam 
Rheni ripam haud dubie Germanorum 
populi colunt, Vangiones, Triboci, 
Nemetes,’ Strabo (iv. p. 194) says 
Tpnovtpois dé suvexeis Nepovio. kal roiro 
Tepuavixdy %Ovos. If kal roiro here 
refers to Tpyovipors, which however is 
very questionable (see Ukert nm. 2, p. 


361, note 65), it would seem that 
Strabo did not care to dispute their 
claims. 

2 Ann.i. 43,44, iii. 44, Hist. iv. 71, 73. 

8 Bell. Gall. viii. 25 ‘ Treveros quo- 
rum civitas propter Germaniae vicinita- 
tem quotidianis exercitata bellis cultu 
et feritate non multum a Germanis 
differebat.’ 

* Bell. Gall. ii. 4, 24, V- 35 45) Vie 
2, 7, 8, vil. 63. So too Mela iii. 2 
calls them ‘ciarissimi Belgarum.’ Dion 
Cassius in like manner, xxxix. 47, xl. 
31, li. 20, separates them from his 
KeArol (i.e. Germans). See Diefenb. 
Celt. 11. 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; 
(1) The names of places and, what is 
more important, of persons among the 


WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 245 


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 sub. 
a German-speaking population, but history is not silent as to the Paadt 
About the close of the third century a colony of Franks by 
erman 
This was settlers. 


change. 
settled in the waste lands of the Nervii and Treveri'. 
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’. 


Belge are Celtic. Thus we find proper 
names having well-known Celtic ter- 
minations, and occasionally even iden- 
tical with the names of Gallic places 
and heroes: see Zeuss Die Deutschen 
etc. p. 189. This is true even of the 
Treveri, e.g. Cingetorix (Bell. Gall. 
vy. 3) compared with Vercingetorix (ib. 
vii. 4); see Brandes, p. 84. (2) Cxsar 
relates that the maritime parts of 
Britain were peopled by the Belgx 
(v. 12, comp. ii. 4), and the British 
on the sea-coasts were certainly Celts. 
These facts seem decisive. On the 
other hand (3) Cwsar speaks of a 
difference of language between the 
three divisions of Gaul, the Belge, the 
Aquitani, and the Celt (‘hi omnes 
lingua institutis legibus inter se diffe- 
runt,’ i, 1), 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), ovoyAwtrous 6’ ov mavras, 
GAN évlous puxpdv mapadddrrovras Tats 
yAwrras, iv. p. 176. (4) Cesar 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 
reasonable. 

Of the two great branches of the 
Celtic family philologers for the most 
part assign the ancient Belge to the 
Cymric (see Diefenbach 11. p. 58 sq, 
Thierry 1, p. 153, 4me ed., Brandes 
p. 85 sq), and as the tradition seems 
to connect the Galatians with the 
Belgs, 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. 

1 Eumen. Paneg. Constantio Ces. c. 
a1, ‘Tuo, Maximiane Auguste, nutu 
Nerviorum et Treverorum arva jacentia 
laetus postliminio restitutus etreceptus 
in leges Francus excoluit,’ Paneg. Vet. 
p. 207 Gruter ; comp. ib, Paneg. Con- 
stantino Aug. cc. 5, 6, Gruter p. 181. 
See Brandes pp. 243, 267, Gibbon’s De- 
cline and Fall c. xiii; comp. tb. c. xix. 

2 Perrot (De la Disparition de la 
Langue Gauloise en Galatie, p. 180 sq 
in the Revue Celtique, no. 2, Aois 


246 


Evidence 
afforded 
by the 
Galatian 
language. 


(t) Termi- 
nations of 
proper 
names of 
places 


and per- 
sons. 


WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 


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’. 


(1) Several Galatian names of places and persons exhibit Celtic 
terminations. These are as follows: 

Of places : 

-BRIGA, Eccobriga (/éin. Ant. p. 203, ed. Wess., Zab. Peut.); 


Ipetobrigen (Jtin. Hieros. p. 574). 
Gr. Celt. p. 101, Gliick p. 126. 
-IACUM. 


It signifies ‘a hill’; see Zeuss 


Rosologiacum (Jtin. Ant. p. 143); Acitorihiacum (Tab. 
Peut.) ; Teutobodiaci (Plin. v. 42); Timoniacenses (? Plin. v. 42). 
On this very common Celtic termination see Zeuss G. C. p. 772. 

Of persons : 

-anaTus. Eposognatus (Polyb. xxii. 20): compare Critognatus, 
Boduognatus (Cesar), and several Celtic names in inscriptions; 
(gnath, ‘consuetus’; Zeuss G. C’. p. 82, and compare 7b. p. 19). 

-mMaRUS. Combolomarus (Liv. xxxviil. 19); Chiomara (Polyb. 
xxii, 21); compare Virdumarus, Indutiomarus (Cesar), and other 


names in Gallic inscriptions ; (mar, ‘magnus’; see Zeuss G. C. p. 19, 


Gliick p. 77). 
-ORIUS. 


Acichorius (Paus. x. 19. 4): Orestorius (Paus. x. 22. 2); 


Comontorius (Polyb. iv. 46. 3); see Zeuss G. C. p. 741. 


-RIX. 


1870) seeks to invalidate Jerome’s tes- 
timony altogether, but his arguments 
do not seem to me to be substantial. 
He believes that the Celticlanguage 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. 

1 The account which follows perhaps 


Adiatorix® (Cic. Fam. ii. 12, Strabo xii. p. 534); Albiorix, 


needs some apology from 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. Atall events 
the general results will not, I think, be 
invalidated by any inaccuracy or weak- 
ness that there may be in the details. 
2 The first element in this word also 
occurs in several Celtic names, Adia- 
tunnus, Adiatumarus, etc., Gliick p. 1. 


WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 247 


Ateporix (Boeckh Jnscr. 4039); @ very common Celtic termination, 
e.g. Dumnorix, Ambiorix, Vercingetorix, etc.; (‘rex,’ ‘princeps,’ 
Zeuss G. C. p. 25, where instances are given). 

-TARUS, -TORUS; Bogodiatorus (Strabo xii. p. 567); Brogitarus 
(Cie. Harusp. Resp. 28); Deiotarus (Cic. pro Rey. Deiot., comp. 

Boeckh Inscr. 4072). See Zeuss G. C. 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 in a large apa and 
proportion of the Galatian names and words which have been pre- = 
served, 

Strabo tells us (xii. p. 567) that the great council of the Galatian Dryneme- 
people met at a place called Drynametum (Apvuvaiperov). Now is 
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 great temple,’ 


in the province of Bordeaux, of which it is said 


Nomine Vernemetis voluit vocitare vetustas, 


Quod quasi fanwm ingens Gallica lingua refert'; 


in another Vernemetum also in Britain (/tin. Ant. p. 479); and in 
several other names: comp. Diefenb. Celt. 1. p. 83, I. p. 329, Zeuss 
G. C. pp. 11, 186, Gliick p. 75. The first syllable of Drynemetum 
again represents the Celtic (Welsh) derw, ‘quercus,’ whence Druid 
(‘derwydd’), Derwent, etc.: see Zeuss G. C. pp. 8, 16, and Diefenb, 
I. p. 160. Thus ‘Drynemetum’ 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, mare. 
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. 1. p. 160, 


Zeuss G. C. p. 101). A second name assigned to this same king was 


1 Venant. Fortun. i. 9. 


248 


and 
others. 


Galatian 
tribes. 


WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 


Pravsvus, ‘the terrible’ (Strab. iv. p. 187; see Thierry 1. p. 218, and 
especially Diefenb. 11. p. 252). Again, another commander in this 
expedition is called Crrrruntus, ‘the famous, the glorious’ (Pausan. 
x. 19. 43 certh, ‘celebrated,’ certhrwyz, ‘glory’; Thierry 1. p. 219, 
from Owen’s Welsh Dict.). Boterus again (Pausan. ib.), also written 
Belgius (Justin. xxiv. 5), presents the same Celtic root which appears 
in ‘Belge’ (comp. Diefenb. 1. p. 200, I. 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 office (cygwiawr, ‘colleague,’ Thierry 
L ip. 225). 

Among later Galatian names of persons we meet with G#ZzATO- 
piastus (Boeckh Jnscr. 4039), doubtless to be connected with the 
‘Gesatze’ of whom we read among the western Gauls, and whose 
name, signifying ‘ warriors,’ is derived from the Gallic word geswm, 
‘a spear’ (Ces. B. G. iii. 4; comp. Serv. in Virg. Zn. viii. 662, 
Diefenb. 1. p. 126) ; and Brocoris (Boeckh Jnscr. 4118), the root of 
which appears in Brogitarus, Allobroges, etc.; Zeuss G. C. p. 106; 
Glick p. 27. Again the name Biruitus, Bitovitus, or Bitcetus, 
seems to occur both in Asiatic (Appian J/zihr. 111) and in Euro- 
pean Gaul (ib. Celé. 12, Liv. Hpit. lxi); for the reasons given 
(Wernsdorff p. 164) for assigning the first of these, who slew Mith- 
ridates, to the western nation seem insuflicient. Nor is this the 
only proper name which links the two countries together. Strabo 
(xiii. p. 625) mentions one Apogocion, a Galatian; the name 
Adbogius appears on an inscription relating to Rhenish Gaul 
(Steiner Cod. Inscr. Rom. Rhen. no. 440). 

Again, of the three tribes which composed the Galatian people 
two at least proclaim their Celtic descent in their names. The 
Trctosac# or Tectosages bear identically the same name with a tribe 
of western Gauls (Ces. B. G. vi. 24) whom we find moving eastward 
and occupying a district which was properly German (see Diefenb. 11. 
p- 264 sq). Similarly both the component parts of ToLisToBocH, 
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 


WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 249 


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. 5); 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. 
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. 


occurs in Galatia itself under the form Tolosocorium (Zab. Peut.), 


Cass. Exc. 1. p. 133, ed. L. Dind.). 
Indeed this name 


The second element in the com- 
Tt is the 


and ToAaora xwpiov (Ptol. v. 4). 
position of Tolostobogii or Tolostoboii is no less Celtic. 
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. C. p. 69, comp. 

p. 58, and compare the proper name Adobogius already referred to). 

Even in the third and remaining tribe the Trocmi Celtic affinities 

have been pointed out (Diefenb. 1. 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 area 
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 papxa, mentioned 


1 Diefenbach, Celt. 1. p. 248, quotes sent some variations, there seems to be 


Solinus (¢. 42) as mentioning a Galatian 
tribe ‘ Ambiani,’ this being the ancient 
Gaulish name for the modern ‘ Amiens.’ 
But there seems to be an accidental 
error here. In the most recent and 
most critical edition of Solinus (c. 41, 
ed. Mommsen, 1864) the word is ‘Am- 
bitoti’; and in the corresponding pas- 
sage of Pliny (v. 42), from which Soli- 
nus borrowed, Sillig reads ‘Ambitouti.’ 
Though the mss in both authors pre- 


no authority for Ambiani. 

I notice also that the names of seve- 
ral Galatian places begin with Reg-, as 
Reganagalla, Regemnezus, Regemau- 
recium, Regetmocata, Regomori; see 
Wernsdorff pp. 232, 3. This may be 
the same word which appears in many 


, Gallic names, as Rigodulum, Rigoma- 


gus, etc.; see Diefenbach 1. p. 53, U. 
p- 331, Zeuss G. C. p. 25. 


250 


Result. 


Supposed 
German 
affinities, 


how to be 
explained, 


WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 


by Pausanias (x. 19) as the name for a horse among the Gauls of the 
Delphic expedition (Diefenb. 1. p. 67). 

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 will appear uncertain. But taken as a whole the evidence, 
if I mistake not, places the result beyond a doubt; and the few 
German etymologies real or imagined, which have been alleged on 
the other side, will be quite insufficient to turn the scale. Thus it is 
asserted that the names of the leaders of the Asiatic expedition, 
Lutarius and Leonnorivs, are both German ; and that the Galatian 
tribe TrevToBop1aci and the Galatian town GERMANOPOLIS 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 
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 Althochd. 
Sprachsch. tv. p. 555); but among the Gallic chieftains one Lucterius 
is mentioned (Cesar B. G, vii. etc.), and the identity of the names 
Lutarius and Lucterius is at least not improbable (Diefenb. 11. p. 253; 
Zeuss, G. C. 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 (Acia Sanct. Jul. 1. 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, 


Bodiocasses, Bodiontici, Bodicus, etc.; see Zeuss G. C. p. 27, Gliick 





WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 251 


p. 53), then the Teutobodiaci were not necessarily Teutons any more 
than Thessalonica was Thessalian. The remaining word Germano- 
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 possible 

swept away with the hordes of Gaulish invaders a small body of pen 
Germans also settled in Asia Minor, and this may be the true 
account of the names Lutarius and Teutobodiaci. 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 
history. 

There is every reason then for believing that the Galatian Conclu- 

settlers were genuine Celts, and of the two main subdivisions va 
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 
country 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 
theories. 


II. 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD". 


N the early ages of the Church two conflicting opinions were - 
- held 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 


1 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 Briefe Zweener Brii- 
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, Derots adehq@otset rats dded- 
gaits rod Kuplov (Leyden, 1839); of 
Schaf, Das Verhdltniss des Jakobus Bru- 
ders des Herrn zu Jakobus Alphai (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. Lamalso largely 
indebted to the ability and learning of 
Mill’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 
Séhne Zebedii Vettern des Herrn (1840, 
p. 648), and Ueber die Briider des Herrn, 
etc. (1842, p. 71). In preparing for 
the second edition I looked over the 
careful investigation in Laurent’s Neu- 
test. Studien p. 155 8q (1866), where 
the Helvidian hypothesisismaintained, 
but saw no reason to make any 
change in consequence. The works of 
Arnaud, Recherches sur U Epitrede Jude, 
and of Goy (Mont. 1845), referred to in 
Bishop Eliicott’s Galatians i. 19, I have 
not seen. My object in this disserta- 
tion is mainly twofold; (1) To place the 
Hieronymian hypothesis in its true 
light, 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 7a péca in literature 
and theology, as well as in politics, ix 
dudorépwv 7 Ore ob EvvnywrlgovTo 7 
POdvw Tov mepietvar SiepOelpovro. I sup- 
pose it was because he considered it idle 
to discuss a theory which hadno 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, 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 253 


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 


2 _ propounds 
fourth century Jerome struck out a novel hypothesis. One Helvi- ed by 


dius, who lived in Rome, had attacked the prevailing view of the peas 
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 Helvidius, 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 Alpheus 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 sufiicient importance either from Names 
assigned 
to these 


sideration, and I shall therefore investigate their several claims. *h*?® 


their real merits or from their wide popularity to deserve con- 


As it will be convenient to have some short mode of designation, 


1 Adv. Helvidium de Perpetua Virginitate B. Marie, 1. p. 206 (ed. Vall.). 
Comp. Comment. ad Gal. i. 19. 


254 


Arbitrary 
assump- 
tions 


to be set 
aside. 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 


T shall call them respectively the Hpiphanian, the Helvidian, and 
the Hieronymian 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 
built upon arbitrary assumptions or improbable combinations of 
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 Alpheus 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 different 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®. 

In them- 


selves indeed they can neither be proved nor disproved. But it is 


All such assumptions it will be necessary to set aside. 


safer to aim at the most probable deduction from known facts than 
And, where 
the question is so intricate in itself, there is little temptation to 


to build up a theory on an imaginary foundation. 


leg. Wieseler Ueber die Briider 
etc., l.c., p. 80 sq. According to this 
writer the James of Gal. ii, g and of the 
Acts is the son of Alpheus, not the 
Lord’s brother, and therefore different 
from the James of i.19. See his notes 
on Gal. i. 19, ii. g. An ancient writer, 
the pseudo-Dorotheus (see below, p. 
286, note), had represented two of the 
name as bishops of Jerusalem, making 


the son of Alpheus the successor of the 
Lord’s brother. 

2 The writers mentioned in Schaf, 
1b Late 

3 Lange in Herzog’s Real-Encycl. in 
the article ‘Jakobus im N.T.’ 

4 Theophylact; see below, p. 290. 

5 Renan Vie de Jésus p. 24. But in 
Saint Paul p. 285 he inclines to the 
Epiphanian view. 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 255 


introduce fresh difficulties by giving way to the license of con- 
jecture. 
To confine ourselves then to the three accounts which have the Relationof 
: 5 : . the three 
greatest claim to a hearing. It will be seen that the hypothesis accounts, 
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 born 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 
somewhat as follows: Sa 
The list of the Twelve Apostles contains two of the name of The sonof 
James, the son of Zebedee and the son of Alpheus. But elsewhere Eee 
we read of a James the Lord’s brother. What account are we to >rother; 
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 Alpheus, 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? 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 Alphzus 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 eke 
stated elsewhere that Mary the mother of James the less and of ™°ther. 


256 


Meaning 
of theterm 
Brethren. 


Jerome’s 
theory 
supple- 
mented. 


Alpheus 
the same 
with Clo- 
pas, 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 


Joseph (or Joses) was present at the crucifixion (Matt. xxvii. 56, 
Mark xv. 40). This Mary therefore must have been the wife of 
Alpheus, for Alphzus 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 Alpheus 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? The following 
is the explanation. The term ‘brethren’ is used in four different 
senses in Holy Scripture: it denotes either (1) 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, affectu.? 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 
besides. 

(i) Zhe identity of Alpheus and Clopas. These two words, 
it is said, are different renderings of the same Aramaic name ‘55pm 
or » &\3, (Chalphai), the form Clopas being peculiar to St John, 
the more completely grecized Alpheus taking its place in the other 
Evangelists. The Aramaic guttural Cheth, when the name was 
reproduced in Greek, might either be omitted as in Alpheus, or 
replaced by a x (or xy) asin Clopas. Just in the same way Aloysius 
and Ludovicus are recognised Latin representatives of the Frankish 
name Clovis (Clodovicus, 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 Clopz, (or Cleophe, as he writes it): it may be, he suggests, 


1 This illustration is taken from Mill, p. 236. 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 


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 Alpheus which is scarcely consistent 
with this identity’. 
his other works, though he refers several times to the subject. 


Neither have I found any traces of it in any of 
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 aSyrian Greek, who, 
even if he were unable to read the Peshito version, must at all 
events have known that Chalphai was the Aramezan rendering or 
rather the Aramzan original of AA¢aios, it might not unnaturally 
occur to graft this identification on the original theory of Jerome. 
(ii) The identity of Judas the Apostle and Judas the Lord's 
brother. In St Luke’s catalogues of the Twelve (Luke vi. 16, Acts 
i. 13) the name ‘Judas of James’ (‘Iovéas “IaxwBov) occurs. Now 
we find a Judas also among the four brethren of the Lord (Matt. 
xiii. 55, Mark vi. 3); and the writer of the epistle, who was doubt- 
less the Judas last mentioned, styles himself ‘the brother of James’ 
(Jude 1). This coincidence suggests that the ellipsis in ‘Judas of 
James’ should be supplied by brother as in the English version, 
not by son which would be the more obvious word. Thus Judas 
I do not 
know when the Hieronymian theory received this fresh accession, 


the Lord’s brother, like James, is made one of the Twelve. 


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 a Judas among the Lord’s brethren, but also a Symeon or 


1 adv. Helvid. § 15, 1. p. 219. 

2¢ Alpheus, fugitivus [}2N; the 
Greek of Origen was doubtless olxéye- 
vos, see p. 626], sed melius millesimus 
[Abs] vel doctus [F)2N]’; mr. p. 89: 
and again, ‘ Alpheus, millesimus, sive 
super os [7152 ?] ab ore non ab osse.’ 
ib. p.g8. Thus he deliberately rejects 


GAL. 


the derivation with a Cheth, which is 
required in order to identify ‘ Alpheus’ 
with ‘Clopas.’ Indeed, as he incor- 
rectly wrote Cleopas (or Cleophas) for 
Clopas with the Latin version, this 
identification was not likely to occur 
to him. 
3 See below, p. 289. 


17 


257 


Jude the 
Lord’sbro- 
ther one 
of the 
Twelve, 


and per- 
haps Si- 
mon also. 


258 


Jerome 
himself 


(i) claims 
no tradi- 
tional 
sanction 
for his 
theory, 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 


Simon. Now it is remarkable that these three names occur together 
in St Luke’s list of the Twelve: James (the son) of Alpheus, 
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, Lebbeus or Thaddeus. Can this have been a mere 
accident? 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 
three 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. 

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: 

(1) Jerome claims no traditional support for his theory. This 
is a remarkable feature in his treatise against Helvidius. He 
argues the question solely on critical and theological grounds. His 
opponent had claimed the sanction of two older writers, Tertullian 
and Victorinus of Pettaw. Jerome in reply is obliged to concede 
him Tertullian, whose authority he invalidates as ‘not a member 
of the Church,’ but denies him Victorinus. 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 pseudo-Hippolytus 
however confuses him with Jude; ‘Si- (1. App. p. 30, ed. Fabric.). Perhaps 
mon CananaeuscognomentoJudas,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. u.p, Sanct. c. 81. See Mill p. 248. 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 259 


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, Irenzus, 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 offers 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, J 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) Jerome does not hold his theory staunchly and consistently. (i) and 
The references to the subject in his works taken in chronological pee yee 
order will speak for themselves. The theory is first propounded, ‘tently, 
as we saw, in the treatise against Helvidius 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 own 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 illa quae scripsimus 


his contenti esse debemus’); after which he goes on inconsistently 


1 See however below, p. 278, note 1. 

2 He sets aside the appeal to autho- 
rity thus: ‘Verum nugas terimus, et 
fonte veritatis omisso opinionum rivu- 
los consectamur,’ adv. Helvid. 17. 

3 de Vir. Illustr. 2 ‘ut nonnulli ex- 
istimant, Joseph ex alia uxore; ut au- 


tem mihi videtur Mariae sororis matris 
Domini...... filius’; Comment. in Matth. 
xii. 49 (vir. p. 86) ‘Quidam fratres 
Domini de alia uxore Joseph filios 
suspicantur...nos autem, sicut in libro 
quem contra Helvidium scripsimus 
continetur etc.’ 


17—2 


260 


but wavers 
in his view, 


and seems 
at length 
to aban- 
don it. 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 


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. xxii. 22), but he preeminently so, 
to whom the Lord at His departure had committed the sons of His 
mother (i.e. 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 
Tilustrious 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 
Yet after all in a still later work, the Epistle 
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, 


or Escha by name*.’ 


adding ‘although others contend that the mother of James and 


1 ¢Quod autem exceptis duodecim 8 ‘Sequentes deliramenta apocry- 


quidam vocentur apostoli, illud in causa 
est, omnes qui Dominum viderant et 
eum postea praedicabant fuisse aposto- 
los appellatos’; and then after giving 
instances (among others 1 Cor. xv. 7) 
he adds, ‘Unde vehementer erravit qui 
arbitratus est Jacobum hunc de evange- 
lio esse apostolum fratrem Johannis;... 
hic autem Jacobus episcopus Hierosoly- 
morum primus fuit cognomento Justus 
etc.’ (viI. p. 396). These are just the 
arguments which would be brought 
by one maintaining the Epiphanian ac- 
count. Altogether Jerome’s language 
here is that of a man who has commit- 
ted himself to a theory of which he has 
misgivings, and yet from which he is 
not bold enough to break loose. 
2 See p. 259, note 3. 


phorum et quandam Melcham vel Hs- 
cham mulierculam confingentes.’Comm. 
in Matth. 1. ¢. ‘Nemo non videt,’ 
says Blom, p. 116, ‘illud nomen NUN 
[wife, woman] esse mere fictitium, nec 
minus posterius [prius] 7321 [queen].’ 
(Comp. Julius Africanus in Routh’s Rel. 
Sacr. 11. p. 233, 339.) If so, the work 
must have been the production of some 
Jewish Christian. But Escha is nota 
very exact representation of NWS (L- 
shah). On the other hand, making al- 
lowance for the uncertain vocalisation 
of the Hebrew, the two daughters of 
Haran (Gen. xi. 29) bear identically the 
same names: ‘ the father of Milcah (uxx 
Medxd) and the father of Iscah (M5D*) 
Lxx Iecxd).’ Doubtless these names 
were borrowed thence. 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 261 


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 ? 
Tf 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 


E to Je- 
theory exposes, when examined, many vulnerable parts. rome’s 


(x) The instances alleged notwithstanding, the sense thus as- ay Tee of 
signed to ‘brethren’ seems to be unsupported by biblical usage. In We eee 
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- (2) Rela- 
poses two, if not three, of the Lord’s brethren to be in the number pe Se 
of the Twelve. This is hardly reconcileable with the place they hold eee 
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 


) Epist. cxx, 1. p. 826. Comp. Tischendorf’s Evang. Apocr. p. 104. 


262 


especially 
James and 
Jude. 


(3) Their 
connexion 
with Jo- 
seph and 
Mary. 


(4) James 
the less. 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 


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). 

And scarcely more consistent is this theory with what we know of 
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) But again: the Lord’s brethren are mentioned in the 
Ccospels in connexion with Joseph His reputed father and Mary 
His mother, never once with Mary of Clopas (the assumed wife of 
Alpheus). It would surely have been otherwise, if the latter 
Mary were really their mother. 

(4) Jerome lays great stress on the epithet minor applied to 
James, as if it implied éwo 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’ (6 puxpos). 
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 


1 See above, p. 95. ring to stature, as appears from Plato, 
3 As in Xen. Mem. 1. 4. 2 ’Apiorb- Symp. 173 B; and in Arist. Ran. 708 
Onmov Tov piKpdv émcxadoduevov, refer- KyYevyévns 6 utxpés. 





THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 263 


is no Scriptural or early sanction for speaking of the son of Zebedee 
as ‘James the Great.’ 

(5) The manner in which Jude is mentioned in the lists of the (5) The 
Twelve is on this hypothesis full of perplexities. mene 


In the first place Judein the 
it is necessary to translate “Iaxwfov not ‘the son’ but ‘the brother ree ae 


welve. 
of James,’ though the former is the obvious rendering and is sup- 


ported by two of the earliest versions, the Peshito Syriac 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 
Alpheus and Jude his brother,’ or ‘James and Jude the sons of 
Alpheus,’ as in the case of the other pairs of brothers? Then again, 
if Simon Zelotes is not a brother of James, why is he inserted by St 
Luke between the two? If he also is a brother, why is the designa- 
tion of brotherhood (‘Tax Pov) 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 Lebbzus (at least according to a well- 
supported reading) ; in St Mark (iii. 18) Thaddeus ; 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 
the Curetonian Syriac, which for Tov- 


das odx 6 "Iokapiirns reads ACR. 


Wmawh, ‘Judas Thomas,’ ice. 
‘Judas the Twin.’ It seems therefore 
that the translator took the person in- 
tended by St John to be not the Judas 
Jacobi in the list of the Twelve, but 
the Thomas Didymus, for Thomas was 
commonly called Judas in the Syrian 
Church ; e.g. Euseb. H. E. i. 13 Iovdas 
6 kal Owuds, and Acta Thomae 1 "Iovéda 
Owug TQ Kal Acdduy (ed. Tisch. p. 190); 
see Assemani Bibl. Orient. 1. pp. 100, 
318, Cureton’s Syriac Gospels p. li, 
Anc. Syr. Documents p. 33. As 
Thomas (Aléuuos), ‘the Twin,’ is pro- 
perly a surname, and this Apostle must 
have had some other name, there 


seems no reason for doubting this very 
early tradition that he also was a Jude. 
At the same time it is highly impro- 
bable that St John should have called 
the same Apostle elsewhere Thomas 
(Joh. xi. 16, xiv. 5, Xx. 24 etc.) and here 
Judas, and we may therefore conclude 
that he is speaking of two different per- 
sons. The name of the other brother 
is supplied in Clem. Hom. ii. 1 rpocéri 
6é Owpmds xal’ENéfepos ol Sidunor. 

The Thebaic version again for ody 
6 "Ioxapiérns substitutes 6 Kavavirns. 
Similarly in Matth. x. 3 for Oaddaios 
some of the most important mss of the 
Old Latin have ‘Judas Zelotes’; andin 
the Canon of Gelasius Jude the writer 
of the epistle is so designated. This 
points to some connexion or confusion 
with Simon Zelotes. See p. 258, note. 


(6) Pune- 
tuation of 
Joh. xix. 
25. 


Jerome’s 
hypothe- 
sis must 
be aban- 
doned 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 


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? 

(6) Lastly; in order to maintain the Hieronymian theory it is 
necessary to retain the common punctuation of John xix. 25, thus 
But it is at least 
The 
case of the Herodian family is scarcely parallel, for Herod was a 


making ‘Mary of Clopas’ the Virgin’s sister. 


improbable that two sisters should have borne the same name. 


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 
The Greek at 
all events admits, even if it does not favour, this interpretation, for 


sister, and Mary of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene’.’ 


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 
I have 


examined the Scriptural evidence, and the conclusion seems to be, 


evidence in its favour is to be sought in Scripture alone. 


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 Séhne Zebedii 
etc. p. 672. This writer identifies the 
sister of the Lord’s mother (John xix. 
25) with Salome (Mark xv. 40, xvi. 1), 
who again is generally identified with 
the mother of Zebedee’s children (Matt. 
ZXVii. 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 "Iwdvyns for "Iwo 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 
rv. 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 our Lord, if it ex- 
isted. 

The Jerusalem Syriac lectionary 
gives the passage John xix. 25 not less 
than three times. In two of these 
places (pp. 387, 541, the exception being 
P- 445) @ 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. 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 265 


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- 


4 soi . : laced b 
phanian and the Helvidian have higher claims to acceptance. They ae of te 


remaining 


both assign to the word brethren its natural meaning; they both ;., 


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- 


: 3 : id 
notice. A very short time before the Lord’s death His brethren Pa 


refuse to accept His mission: they are still unbelievers. Immedi- evel 
ately after His ascension we find them gathered together with the 
Apostles, evidently recognising Him as their Master. Whence comes 
this change? 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 
resurrection. 

This interposition, we may suppose, was the turning-point in 
the religious life of the Lord’s brethren; the veil was removed at 


1 See below, p. 274. 


266 


Objections 


to both. 


(1) Repeti- 
tion of 
names. 


Cousin- 
hood on 
eitier 

mothers 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 


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. 

Two objections however are brought against both these theories, 
which the Hieronymian escapes. 

(1) They both, it is objected, assume the existence of two pairs 
of cousins bearing the same names, James and Joseph the sons of 
Alpheus, and James and Joseph the Lord’s brothers. If 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 Alpheus, we get a third name 
Symeon or Simeon common to the two families, Let us see what 
this objection really amounts to. 

It will be seen that the cousinhood of these persons is represented 
as a cousinhood on the mothers’ side, and that it depends on three 
assumptions: (1) The identification of James the son of Alpheus 
in the list of the Twelve with James the Little the son of Mary: 
(2) The identification of ‘Mary of Clopas’ 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. Quaest. ad Marin. ii. 5 (Op. Iv. p. 945, 
2 Eusebius however makes ‘Mary of Migne). 
Clopas’ a different person from Mary 3 As 770d KAwra may mean either 


the mother of James and Joses; the daughter or the wife or the mother 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 267 


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 fathers’ side. Yet this result again must be cies 
considered on the whole improbable. I see no reason indeed for 
doubting the testimony of Hegesippus, who was perhaps born 
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 Alpheus 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. p. 104), Hvang. Inf. 
Arab. 29 (ib. p. 186), and the marginal 
note on the Philoxenian version, Joh. 
xix. 25, 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 ? 

2 Of the three names Alpheus (the 
father of Levi or Matthew, Mark ii. 14, 
and the father of James, Matt. x. 3, 
Mark iii. 18, Luke 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; 
(1) 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. (2) The ver- 
sions however bring them together. 
Cleopx (or Cleophz) is read in the Pe- 
shito, Old Latin, Memphitic, Vulgate, 
and Armenian text of St John. (3) Of 
these the evidence of the Peshito is par- 


ticularly important in a matter relating 
to Aramaicnames. While for AXdaios 
in all five places it restores what was 
doubtless the original Aramaic form 


a&\y5, Chalphai; on the other hand, 


it gives the same word Waasio 


Kledpha (i.e. KXedras) in Luke xxiy. 18 
and in John xix. 25, if the printed texts 
may be trusted. The Jerusalem Syriac 


too renders KAwrds by 2 


(Kleophas), and ’AAgaios by owals 
(Chalphai). (4) The form Kndwzds, 
which St John’s text gives, is confirmed 
by Hegesippus (Kuseb, H. H. iii. 11),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 Xad¢) 
in fact does occur in 1: Mace. xi. 7o. 
(5) It is true that K\edras is strictly a 
Greek name contracted from KyXeéra- 
tpos, like ’Avrizas from’ Avriratpos, etc. 
But it was a common practice with the 
Jews to adopt the genuine Greek name 
which bore the closest resemblance in 
sound totheirown 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 


268 


The names 
are com- 
mon, 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 


But, whether they were cousins or not, does the fact of two 


families having two or three names in common constitute any real 


difficulty? Is not this a frequent occurrence among ourselves? 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 


Synieon, were among the most common, being consecrated in the 


affections of the Jews from patriarchal times. 


Twelve the name of James appears twice, Symeon twice. 


In the list of the 
In the 


New Testament no less than twelve persons bear the name of 


Symeon or Simon, and nearly as many that of Joseph or Joses’. 


Alpheus. But the identification of 
names does not carry with it the iden- 
tification of persons. St Paul’s Epa- 
phras for instance is probably a dif- 
ferent person from his Epaphroditus. 

A Jewish name ‘ Alfius’ occurs in 
an inscription ALFIVS . IVDA . ARCON . 
arcostnacoevs (Inser. Gudii, p. eclxiii. 
5), and possibly this is the Latin sub- 
stitute for Chalphai or Chalphi, as ’A)- 
gatos is the Greek; Alfius being a not 
uncommon Latin name. One would be 
tempted to set down his namesake also, 
the ‘fenerator Alfius’ or ‘ Alphius’ of 
Horace (Epod. ii. 67, see Columella 1. 
7. 2), for a fellow-countryman, if his 
talk were not so pagan. 

11 am arguing on the supposition 
that Joses and Joseph are the same 
name, but thisis atleast doubtful. In 
St Matthew, according to the best au- 
thorities, the Lord’s brother (xiii. 55) is 
"Iwonp, the son of Mary (xxvii. 56) 
*Iwofs. In St Mark on the other hand 
the latter word is found (the geni- 
tive being differently written "Iwafros 
or "Iwo7, 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 Séhne Zebe- 
dii etc. p. 678) that St Matthew’s text 
suggests the real difference, and that 
the original reading in Mark vi. 3 was 
"Iwo7id; but if so, the corruption was 


very ancient and very general, for Iw- 
ond is found in & alone of the uncial 
manuscripis. A similar confusion of 
these names 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 
weshouldalmost certainly read ‘Joseph’ 
for ‘Joses’ of the received text. Iam 
disposed to think the identification of 
the names Joses and Joseph improbable 
for two reasons: (1) It seems unlikely 
that the same name should be repre- 
sented in Greek by two such divergent 
forms as "Iwofs, making a genitive 
"Iwofros, and Iwai or ldéenmos, which 
perhaps (replaced by a genuine Greek 
name) became ‘Hyjoirmos. (2) The 
Peshito 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 Iwdvyns, Zabdai for ZeB8e- 
datos. Following this rule, it ought, if 
the names were identical, to have re- 


stored Am crs (Joseph) for the Greek 


"Iwofjs, in place of whichithas Qs 


(Josi, Jausi, or Jisi). In Matt. xxvii, 
56, Mark xv. 40, the Memphitice Ver- 
sion separates Mapla [) rod] “IaxwéBou 
[rod uxpod] and "Iwof[ros] prnp, 
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 Delitzsch 
in Laurent Neutest. Stud. p. 168.] 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 269 


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? 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, the 
name Joseph or Joses occurs twice at least? in a list of thirty-four 
direct ancestors. 

(2) When acertain Mary is described as ‘the mother of James,’ (2) ‘Mary 
is it not highly probable that the person intended should be the es 
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 will 
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? In only two passages is she called simply ‘the 
mother of James’; in Mark xvi. 1, 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- 
It would seem then that this Mary and 


this James, though not the most famous of their respective names 


planation can be given. 


and therefore not at once distinguishable when mentioned alone, 


1 The popularity of this name is 
probably due to Simon Maccabezus. 

2 And perhaps not more than twice 
"Iwo (vv. 24, 30). In ver. 26 ’Ilwonx 
seems to be the right reading, where 
the received text has "Iwo7d; and in 
ver. 29 “Incod, where it has "Iwof. 


Possibly “Iwoyx may be a corruption 
for "Iwo}¢ through the confusion of 5 
and 7, which in their older forms resem- 
ble each other closely; but if so, it is a 
corruption not of St Luke’s text, but of 
the Hebrew or Aramaic document from 
which the genealogy was derived. 


270 


The two 
theories 
compared. 


{1) Rela- 
tion of the 
brethren 
to Joseph 
and Mary. 


(2) Virgin- 
ity of 
Mary. 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 


were yet sufficiently well known to be discriminated from others, 
when their names appeared in conjunction. 

The objections then which may be brought against both these 
theories In common are not very serious; and up to this point in 
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. 

1. The Epiphanian view assumes that the Lord’s brethren had 
really no relationship with Him; and so far the Helvidian has 
the advantage. But this advantage is rather seeming than real. 
Tt is very natural that those who called Joseph His father should 
call Joseph’s sons His brethren. And it must be remembered that 
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. Certain expressions in the evangelical narratives are said to 
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 (éws od) 


' Luke ii. 33 6 warip airod kal 4 ave taken offence and substituted 
Lejrnp, li. 41, 43 of yoveis avrod, the ‘Joseph and Mary,’ ‘Joseph and His 
correct reading. Later transcribers mother,’ in all three places. 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 


she brought forth a son’ (i. 25)'; while St Luke speaks of her bring- 
ing forth ‘her jirstborn son’ (ii. 7). St Matthew’s expression how- 
ever, ‘ti/l 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, ‘Hvery male that openeth the 
womb shall be called holy to the Lord’ (ii. 23). Thus ‘firstborn’ does 
not necessarily suggest ‘later-born,’ 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 tov mpwréroxov ought to be reject- 2 For parallel instances see Mill, 


ed from St Matthew’s text, having pp. 304 sq. 
been interpolated from Luke ii. 7. 


yf. 


(3) Our 
Lord’s dy- 
ing words. 


Conelu- 
sion. 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 


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. But one objection has been hurled at the Helvidian theory — 
with 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? 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? 
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. 

Thus it would appear that, taking the scriptural notices alone, 
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- 

1 This argument is brought 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. 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 


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’. 


1 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 ms, no. 2397, of the date 
1302 or 1303. It is given in Grabe’s 
Spicil. u. p. 34, Routh’s Rel. Sacr, 1. 
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 evyan- 
gelistae et Jacobi: Maria Magdalene: 
istae quatuor in Evangelio reperiuntur. 
Jacobus et Judas et Joseph filii erant 
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: hance 
eandem Cleophae quidam dicunt quod 
duos viros habuerit. Maria dicitur 
illuminatrix sive stella maris, genuit 
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 difficulties in which we are involved 
by some of the statements, the following 
reasons seem conclusive: (1) The last 
sentence ‘ Maria dicitur etc.’ isevidently 


GAL. 


very late, and is, as Dr Mill says, ‘justly 
rejected by Grabe.’ Grabe says, ‘ad- 
didit is qui descripsit ex suo’; but the 
passage is continuous in the ms, 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’ istaken 
from Jerome (adv. Helvid.) almost word 
for word, as Dr Millhas 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 ms and writing 
these remarks, if I had known at the 
time, that the passage was written by a 
medieval namesake of the Bishop of 
Hierapolis, Papias the author of the 
‘Klementarium,’ who lived in the r1th 
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 
Vocabulist. I have not had access to 
a printed copy, but there is a ms of 
the work (marked Kk. 4. 1) 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 
Routh copies his note, neither the one 
nor the other got on the right track. 


18 


273 


274 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 


Hebrew 1. The GosPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS, one of the earliest 
Gospel. 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. Illustr. 2). I have adopted the reading 
‘Dominus,’ as the Greek translation has Kvptos, 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, xxvi. 39, 42, Mark 
x. 38, 39, xiv. 36, Luke xxii. 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 him 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 
(1 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 
devotion. 

Gospel of 2. The GosPpEL accorDING To PETER was highly esteemed by the 


Bett Docetz of the second century. Towards the close of that century, 


I made the discovery while the first as Blom suggests (p. 83): but it is more 
edition of thiswork waspassingthrough probable that a transcriber of Jerome 


the press [1865]. carelessly wrote down the familiar 
1 There might possibly have been phrase ‘the cup of the Lord.’ 
an ambiguity in the Hebrew original 2 Comp. Mart. Polyc. 14 &v T@ wo- 


owing to the absence of case-endings, tzplw rod Xprorot cov. 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 275 


Serapion, bishop of Antioch, 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. £. 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. ProvrevaNGELIuM JAcoBI, a purely fictitious but very early Protevan- 


narrative, dating probably not later than the middle of the second Sarena 


apocry- 
hal 
espoused to him, having sons of his own (§ 9, ed. Tisch. p. 18) but gospels. 


century, represents Joseph as an old man when the Virgin was 


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 Psewdo-Matther Evang. 
(§ 32, ed. Tisch. p. 104), Huang. de Nativ. Mar. (§ 8, 1b. p. 111), His- 
toria Joseph. (§ 2, tb. p. 116), Hvang. Thome (§ 16, p. 147), Hvang. 
Infant. Arab. (§ 35, p- 191), besides the apocryphal Gospels mentioned 
by Jerome (Comm. in Matth. T. vu. 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 Earuiest VERSIONS, with the exception of the Old Latin Older 


Versions. 
1 For this fragment see Routh’s Rel. 2 See below, p. 281. 
Sacr. 1. p. 452, and Westcott History 3 As appears from the fact mentioned 
of the Canon, p. 385. by Jerome; see above, p. 260, note 3. 


18—2 


276 


Clemen- 
tine 
writings. 


Hegesip- 
pus. 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.. 


and Memphitic 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 CuRETONIAN 
Syriac translates Mapia “IaxwBov (Luke xxiv. 10) ‘ Mary the daughter 
of James.’ The Pesuiro in John xix, 25 has, ‘ His mother and His 
mother’s sister and Mary of Cleopha and Mary Magdalene’; and in 
Luke vi. 16, Acts i 13, it renders ‘Judas son of James.’ One of the 
old Egyptian versions again, the THExaic, in John xix. 25 gives 
‘Mary daughter of Clopas,’ and in Luke vi. 16, Acts i. 13 ‘Judas son 
of James.’ 

5. The Crementine Homi.tss, 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 AexGeis 
adeAgos Tot Kupiov, xi. 35), an expression which has been variously 
interpreted as favouring all three hypotheses (see Blom, p. 88: Schlie- 
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 oF 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 Alpheus is distinctly mentioned 
among the Twelve as one of the disputants (i. 59). 

7. HeceEsippus (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’ (wera to paprupyoat laxwBov 


1 The word Aex@els is most naturally and thusto favourthe Epiphanian view. 
taken, I think, to refer to the reputed See the expressions of Hegesippus, and 
brotherhood of James,asaconsequence of Eusebius, pp. 277, 278. 
of the reputed fatherhood of Joseph, 2 See the next dissertation. 





THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 277 


Tov Sixa.ov ws Kal 0 Kupuos eri tO att@ Adyw, Tadw O x TOD Oeiov avrod 
Svupedv 6 tod KAwrd xabiotarar éricKxoros, dv mpodbevto ravtes bvta 
aveyiov Tov Kupiov deirepov’, Euseb. H. £. 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. £. iii. 32) 
speaks of ‘the child of the Lord’s paternal uncle, the aforesaid Symeon 
son of Clopas’ (6 éx Geiov rot Kupiov 6 zpoeipnuevos Svpewy vids KAwra), 
to which Eusebius adds, ‘for Hegesippus relates that Clopas was the 
brother of Joseph.’ 
called the Lord’s brother, while James is always so designated. And 


Thus in Hegesippus Symeon is never once 


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 (oi aro yévouvs tod Kvpiov) grandsons of Judas 
who was called His brother according to the flesh’ (rot xara capka 
Aeyomevov avtod adeAdpov); Euseb. H. Z. 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. Z. ii. 23) Hegesippus relates that ‘the Church was 
committed in conjunction with the Apostles® to the charge of (d:a- 


Sexerar Tv éxxAnoiav peta Tév arocrTohwv) the Lord’s brother James, 


1 For devrepoy comp. Euseb. H. E. 
iii. 14. 

2 A different meaning however has 
been assigned to the words: rd\w and 
detrepov being taken to signify ‘another 
child of his uncle. another cousin,’ and 
thus the passage has been represented 
as favouring the Hieronymian view. So 
for instance Mill p. 253, Schaf p. 64. 
On the other hand see Credner Hinl. 
p. 575, Neander Pflanz. p. 559 (4te 
aufi.). To this rendering the presence 
of the definite article alone seems fatal 
(6 x Tod Gelov not érepos Tay Ex Tod Belov) ; 
but indeed the whole passage appears to 
be framed so as to distinguish the rela- 
tionships of the two persons; whereas, 


had the author’s object been to repre- 
sent Symeon as a brother of James, no 
more circuitous mode could well have 
been devised for the purpose of stating 
so very simple a fact. Let meadd that 
Eusebius (/.c.) and Epiphanius (Haeres. 
pp. 636, 1039, 1046,ed. Petav.) must have 
interpreted the words as I have done. 
Whether av’rod should be referred to 
*IdxwBov or to Kvpios is doubtful. If 
to the former, this alone decides the 
meaning of the passage. This seems the 
more natural reference of the two, but 
the form of expression willadmit either. 
3 Jerome (de Vir. Ill. § 2) renders it 
‘post apostolos,’ as if wera rods arocréd- 
Xovs ; Rufinus correctly ‘eum apostolis.’ 


278 


Tertul- 
lian. 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 


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 
pera TOV arogro\wv May distinguish St James not from but among 
the Apostles; as in Acts v. 29, ‘Peter and the Apostles an- 
swered.’ 

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. 

8. TERTULLIAN’s authority was appealed to by Helvidius, and 
Jerome is content to reply that he was not a member of the Church 
(‘de Tertulliano nihil amplius dico quam ecclesiae hominem non 
fuisse,’ adv. Helvid. § 17). 
that Tertullian held the Lord’s brethren to be sons of Joseph and 


Mary. This assumption, though probable, is not absolutely certain. 


It is generally assumed in consequence 


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. 
the authority of others', whose testimony certainly did not go beyond 


Accordingly in reply Jerome alleges on his own side 


1 ‘Numquid non possum tibi totam 
veterum scriptorum seriem commo- 
vere: Ignatium, Polycarpum, Irenaeum, 
Justinum Martyrem, multosque alios 
apostolicos et eloquentes viros?’ (adv. 
Helvid. 17). I have already (p. 130, 
note 3) mentioned an instance of the 
unfair way in which Jerome piles to- 
gether his authorities. In the present 
case we are in a position to test him, 
Jerome did not possess any writings of 
Ignatius which are not extant now; 
and in no place does this apostolic 
father maintain the perpetual virginity 
of St Mary. In one remarkable passage 


indeed (Ephes. 19), which is several 
times quoted by subsequent writers, 
he speaks of the virginity of Mary as 
a mystery, but this refers distinctly to 
the time before the birth of our Lord. 
To this passage which he elsewhere 
quotes (Comment. in Matth. T. vu. 
p- 12), Jerome is doubtless referring 
here. 

In Cowper’s Syriac Miscell. p. 61, 
I find an extract, ‘Justin one of the 
authors who were in the days of Augus- 
tus and Tiberius and Gaius wrote in the 
third discourse: That Mary the Gali- 
lean, who was the mother of Christ who 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 279 


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 Carn. 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. Mare. iv. 19, de Carn. Christ.7). Itis therefore highly probable 
that he held the Helvidian view. 


was so strenuous an advocate of asceticism is worthy of notice. 


Such an admission from one who 


9. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (about A.D. 200) in a passage of the Clement 
Hypotyposeis preserved in a Latin translation by Cassiodorus (the sree 
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 cigar 
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). 


was crucified in Jerusalem, had not been 
with a husband. And Joseph did not 
repudiate her, but Joseph continued in 
holiness without a wife, he and his five 
sons by a former wife: and Mary con- 
tinued without a husband.’ The editor 
assigns this passage to Justin Martyr ; 
but not to mention the anachronism, 
the whole tenor of the passage and the 
immediate neighbourhood of similar 
extracts shows that it was intended for 
the testimony (unquestionably spuri- 
ous) of some contemporary heathen 
writer to the facts of the Gospel. 

1 We read in Cassiodorus (de Inst. 
Div. Lit. 8), ‘In epistolas autem cano- 
nicas Clemens Alexandrinus presbyter, 
qui et Stromateus vocatur, id est, in 
epistola (-am?) S. Petri prima (-am?) 
S. Johannis prima (-am?) et secunda 
(-am?) et Jacobiquaedam Attico sermo- 
ne declaravit. Ubi multa quidem sub- 
tiliter sed aliqua incaute loquutus est, 
quae nos ita transferri fecimus in Lati- 
num, ut exclusis quibusdam offendicu- 


This statement is explicit. 


lis purificata doctrina ejus securior 
possit hauriri.’ If ‘Jude’ be substi- 
tuted for ‘James,’ this description ex- 
actly applies to the Latin notes extant 
under the title Adwmbrationes. This 
was a very easy slip of the pen,and I can 
scarcely doubt that these notes are the 
same to which Cassiodorus refers as 
taken from theHypotyposeis of Clement. 
Dr Westcott (Canon, p. 401) has pointed 
out in confirmation of this, that while 
Clement elsewhere directly quotes the 
Epistle of St Jude, he never refers to 
the Epistle of St James. Bunsen has 
included these notes in his collection of 
fragments of the Hypotyposeis, Anal. 
Anten. 1. p. 325. It should be added 
that the statement about the relation- 
ship of Jude must be Clement’s own and 
cannot have been inserted by Cassiodo- 
rus, since Cassiodorus in common with 
the Latin Church would naturally hold 
the Hieronymian hypothesis. 

2 ‘Frater erat ejus [filius] Joseph.’ 
Theinsertion of ‘ filius’ (with Bunsen) is 


280 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 


On the other hand, owing to an extract preserved in Eusebius, his 


authority is generally claimed for the Hieronymian view ; ‘Clement,’ 


Quota- says Eusebius, ‘in the sixth book of the Hypotyposeis gives the 
escieay following account: Peter and James and John, he tells us, after the 


resurrection of the Saviour were not ambitious of honour, though 
the preference shown them by the Lord might have entitled them 
to it, but 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); Zhe Lord after 
the resurrection delivered the gnosis to James the Just’ and John 
and Peter. These delivered it to the rest of the Apostles; and the 
rest of the Apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. 
Now there are two Jameses, one the Just who was thrown down from 
the pinnacle (of the temple) and beaten to death with a club by a fuller, 
and another who was beheaded’ (H. E. ii. 1). 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- 
dorus had it ornot. Perhaps the Greek 
words were ddcAdos atrov twv Iwond, 
which would account for the omission. 

1 Credner, Hinl. p. 585, condemns the 
words 7@ dixalw as spurious. Though 
it might be inferred from the previous 
extract given by Husebius that the son 
of Zebedee is meant here, I believe 
nevertheless that they are genuine, 
For (1) They seem to be required as the 
motive for the explanation which is 
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. g as the pillars of 
Jewish Christendom. (3) Eusebius in- 
troduces the quotation as relating to 
James the Just (rept atrod), 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, 
Tatra éstw dad To\\Gy mdvu byw Ta 


kepada a pnow mapadedwxévac Mapt- 
duvytov “ldxwBov rod Kuplourov ddedpév, 
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 (ras dé 
éfaddayas tabras tas mouldas év Te 
émvypapoudry kat Aiyumrtous evayyediw 
keipévas €xovow, ib. v. 7, p. 98), it is 
probable that the account of Clement 
coincided with that of the Ophites. The 
words T@ dixalw are represented in the 
Syriac translation of Husebius of which 
the existing ms (Brit. Mus. add. 14,639) 
belongs to the 6th century. 

I hold 7@ dixatw therefore to be the 
genuine words of Clement, but I do not 
feel so sure that the closing explanation 
Ovo dé -yeyovacw "TaxwBo x.7.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. Pp. 321. 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 281 


His sole object was to distinguish the son of Zebedee from the Lord’s 
brother ; and the son of Alpheus, 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. ORIGEN (+ 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 Gospel 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’ (tn Matt. xiii. 55, 1. p. 462)°. 


1 For instance he distinguished Ce- 
phas of Gal. ii. g from Peter (see 
above, p. 129), and represented St Paul 
as a married man (Euseb. H. E. iii. 
30). 

2 On the supposition that Clement 
held the Hieronymian theory, as he is 
represented even by those who them- 
selves reject it, the silence of Origen, 
who seems never to have heard of this 
theory, is quite inexplicable. Epipha- 
nius moreover, who appears equally 
ignorant of it, refers to Clement while 
writing on this very subject (Haeres. p. 
119, Petav.). Indeed Clement would 
then stand quite alone before the age 
of Jerome. 

3 In Joann. ii. 12 (Catena Corder. 
P- 75) ideA\pods pév otk elye vce, 
odre ris wapGévov Trexovons étepov ovde 


This passage 


avros éx Tod “Iwond tvyxdvwv vouw 
Tovyapoov éxpynudticay airov addedpol, 
viol Iwan ovres éx mporebvnkuias -yuvat- 
kés: Hom. in Luc. 7 (i1. p. 940, ed. 
Delarue) ‘Hi enim filii qui Joseph dice- 
bantur non erant orti de Maria, neque 
est ulla scriptura quae ista commemo- 
ret.’ In this latter passage either the 
translator has been confused by the 
order in the original or the words in 
the translation itself have been dis- 
placed accidentally, but the meaning 
is clear. 

4c. Cels. i. 47 (1. Pp. 363) od Too- 
odrov Sia 7o mpds aluaros cuyyevés 7 THD 
Kowny avtav avacrpodyy boov dia 7d 
HOos Kal Tov Abyov. 

5 Op. mm. p. 462 sq. Mill, pp. 261, 
273, has strangely misunderstood the 
purport of this passage. He speaks of 


Aposto- 
lical Con- 
stitutions. 


Victor- 
inus of 
Pettaw. 


Eusebius 
of Cxesa- 
rea. 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 


shows not only that Origen himself favoured the Epiphanian view 
which elsewhere he has directly maintained, but that he was wholly 
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 Alpheus, making him, like 
St Paul, a supernumerary apostle, and thus counting fourteen in all 
(vi. 12, 13, 14; compare li. 55, vil. 46, vill. 4). 

VicToRINUS PErAVIONENSIS (about 300) was claimed by Hel- — 
Jerome denied this and put 


12. 
vidius as a witness in his own favour. 
inacounterclaim. 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. Evusrprus or Casarea (f about 340) distinguished James the 
Lord’s brother from the Twelve, representing him as a supernumerary 
apostle like St Paul (Comm. in Isat. in Montfaucon’s Coll. Nov. Patr. 


il. p. 422; fast. Heel. 1. 12; comp. vil. 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, 12, 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, kal oljae do-yov 
éxew x.7.A., Which, though most im- 
portant, he has himself omitted in 
quoting the passage, he could scarcely 
have failed to see Origen’s real mean- 
ing. 

1 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. 1. app. p. 30) it is said 
of James the son of Alpheus, xypic- 
cwv é ‘Tepoveadtp bro "lovdalwy xara- 
Nevo Gels dvatpetrat kal Odrrera: éxet Tapa 





7@ vaw. He is thus confused or iden- 
tified with James the Lord’s brother. 
But this blundering treatise wascertain- 
ly not written by the bishop of Portus: 
see Le Moyne in Fabricius 1. p. 84, and 
Bunsen’s Hippol. 1. p. 456 (ed. 2). On 
the other hand in the work De LXX 
Apostolis (Fabricius 1. app. p. 41), 
also ascribed to this writer, we find 
among the 7o the name of "Idxwfos 6 
adedpobeos éxlaxoros ‘Tepoco\tpwv, who 
is thus distinguished from the Twelve. 
This treatise also is manifestly spuri- 
ous. Again Nicephorus Callistus, H. 2. 
ii. 3, cites as from Hippolytus of Portus 
an elaborate account of our Lord’s 
brethren following the Epiphanian view 
(Hippol. Op. 1. app. 43, ed. Fabric.); 
but this account seems to be drawn 
either from Hippolytus the Theban, 
unless as Bunsen (l. c.) supposes this 
Theban Hippolytus be a mythical per- 
sonage, or from some forged writings 
which bore the name of the older Hip- 
polytus. 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 283 


passage he explains that this James was called the Lord’s brother, 
because Joseph was his reputed father (Hist. Heel. ii. 1)’. 

14. Oyrit or JERUSALEM (f 386) comments on the successive ee en if 
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. Touttée). It may be 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, kat trois droardAots Kal “laxwBw TH TavTyS THS 
exxAynoias émurxdrw) Cyril seems to make the same distinction, but 
here again the inference is doubtful. 

EG: 


authority for their opinion (against the virginity of the Lord’s 


Hinary or Poitiers (7 368) denounces those who ‘claim Hilary of 


Poitiers. 
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’ (Comm. in Matth. i. 1, p. 671, ed. Bened.). 


1 "TdxwBov tov tod Kuplov deyouevor 
adehpov, drt 6h kal ovTos Tod "Iwan 
Gvopacto mais, Tod dé Xpicrod warhp 
6 “Iwojp, @ prnorevOcioa 1» mapbévos 
«.7.A. On the whole this passage seems 
to be best explained by referring otros 
to Képios. But this is not necessary ; 
for dvoudferPas (or KahetoOat) mais Twos 
is a good Greek phrase to denote real 
as well as reputed sonship: as Asch. 
Fragm. 285 aids’ émr’ “Ardavros matdes 
dvopacuévat, Soph. Trach. 1105 6 ris 
dplorns unrpds wvouacuévos, Hur. Elect. 
935: comp. Ephes. iii. 15 rév marépa 
é& ov Taca warp dvoudterar. The word 
vouacro cannot at all events, as Mill 
(p. 272) seems disposed to think, imply 
any doubt on the part of Eusebius about 
the parentage of James, for the whole 
drift of the passage is plainly against 
this. The other reading, 871 57 cal odros 


Tod Iwand rod vourtoudvou oiovel marpds 
700 Xpiorod, found in some mss and in 
the Syriac version, and preferred by 
Blom. p. 98, and Credner Einl. p. 585, 
I cannot but regard as an obvious alter- 
ation of some early transcriber for the 
sake of clearness. 

Compare the expressions in i. 12 els 
6é kal ovTos Tav Pepomév wy GdedPav jy, 
and ili. 7 rod Kuplou xpnuatlfwv déed- 
gos. He was a reputed brother of the 
Lord, because Joseph was His reputed 
father. See also Eusebius On the Star, 
‘Joseph and Mary and Our Lord with 
them and the five sons of Hannah 
(Anna) the first wife of Joseph’ (p. 17, 
Wright’s Transl.). The account from 
which this passage is taken professes 
to be founded on a document dating 
A.D, 119. 


284 


Victor- 
inus the 
Philo- 
sopher. 


Ambrosi- 


aster. 


Basil. 


Gregory 
Nyssen. 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 


Thus he not only adopts the Epiphanian solution, but shows himself 
entirely ignorant of the Hieronymian. 

16. VICTORINUS THE PHILOSOPHER (about 360) takes «i pu in 
Gal. L 19 as expressing not exception but opposition, and distinctly 
states that James was not an Apostle: ‘Cum autem fratrem dixit, 
apostolum negavit.’ 

17. The AmBrosiaAN Hitary (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 will 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. 

18. Basi, THE GREAT (f 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’ (Hom. wm Sanct. Christ. Gen. Ul. 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. §§ 23, 24), it may perhaps be inferred that he accepted 
that account of the Lord’s brethren which ran through these apo- 
cryphal gospels. 

19. His brother Grecory NyssEn (+ 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 

2 This very moderate expression of signed to an appendix as of doubtfulau- 
opinion is marked by the editors witha thenticity. The main argument urged 


caute legendum in the margin; andin against itis the passage here referred 
Garnier’s edition the treatise is con- to. (See Garnier, m. pref. p. xv.) 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 285 


Evangelists (besides St John) the mother of James and Joses is the 

mother of God and none else',’ being so called because she under- 

took the education of these her stepsons ; and he supposes also that 

this James is called ‘the little’ by St Mark to distinguish him from 

James the son of Alpheus who was ‘great,’ because he was in the 
number of the Twelve Apostles, which the Lord’s brother was not 

(in Christ. Resurr. ii. Opp. 11. pp. 412, 413, ed. Paris, 1638). 

The ANTIDICOMARIANITES, an obscure Arabian sect in the Antidico- 


latter half of the fourth century, maintained that the Lord’s mother reaeiaea 


20. 


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 Collyridians, likewise in 
Arabia, who going to the opposite extreme paid divine honours to 
the Virgin (Epiphan. Haeres. lxxviii, lxxix’). 

21. EPpIpPHANIUS a native of Palestine became bishop of Con- Epipha- 


stantia in Cyprus in the year 367. ae 


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, 


1 Similarly Chrysostom, see below, 
p- 289, note 1. This identification of 
the Lord’s mother with the mother of 
James and Joses is adopted and simi- 
larly explained also in one of the apo- 
eryphal gospels: Hist. Joseph. 4 (Tisch. 
p. 117). Possibly Gregory derived it 
from some such source. It was also 
part of the Helvidian hypothesis, where 
it was less out of place, and gave Jerome 
an easy triumph over his adversary 
(adv. Helvid. 12 etc.), It is adopted 
moreover by Cave (Life of St James the 
Less, § 2), who holds that the Lord’s 
brethren were sons of Joseph, and yet 
makes James the Lord’s brother one 
of the Twelve, identifying Joseph with 
Alpheus. Fritzsche also identifies 
these two Maries (Datth. p. 822, Mare. 


p- 697). 


* The names are plainly terms of 
ridicule invented by their enemies. Au- 
gustine supposes the ‘ Antidicoma- 
rianitw#’ of Epiphanius (he writes the 
word ‘Antidicomaritz’) to be the same 
as the Helvidians of Jerome (adv. 
Haer. 84, vil. p. 24). They held the 
same tenets, it is true, but there 
seems to have been otherwise no con- 
nexion between the two. Considera- 
tions of time and place alike resist this 
identification. 

Epiphanius had heard that these 
opinions, which he held to be deroga- 
tory to the Lord’s mother, had been pro- 
mulgated also by the elder Apollinaris 
or some of his disciples; but he doubted 
about this (p. 1034). The report was 
probably circulated by their opponents 
in order to bring discredit upon them. 


286 


Helvidius, 
Bonosus, 
and Jovi- 
nianus. 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 


ed. Petav.). He moreover discusses the subject incidentally in other 
parts of his great work (pp. 115, 119, 432, 636), and it is 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 in 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 celibacy 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). 

22. Somewhere about the year 380 Hetvipius, who resided in 
Rome, published a treatise in which he maintained that the Lord’s 
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 Bonosus, bishop of Sardica in Illyria, 
about the same 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 Conciliengesch. u. pp. 47, 
48)’. 


1 The work ascribed to Dorotheus Hist. Lit.1. p. 163); and I have there- 
Tyrius is obviously spurious (see Cave _ fore not included his testimony in this 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 287 


In earlier times this account of the Lord’s brethren, so far as it Motive of 
the Helvi- 


was the badge of a party, seems to have been held in conjunction gjans, 


with Ebionite views respecting the conception and person of Christ’. 
For, though not necessarily affecting the belief in the miraculous 
Incarnation, it wis yet a natural accompaniment of the denial 
thereof. 


virginity was very different. They endeavoured to stem the current 


The motive of these latter impugners of the perpetual 


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 
summed 


to Helvidius created a new epoch in the history of this controversy. up. 


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 
If 
it had been otherwise, writers like Origen, the two Hilaries, and 


or sect or church, until it was put forward by Jerome himself. 


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 
orsmall. Thirdly: this solution seems especially to represent the 
Palestinian view. 

In the year 382 (or 383) Jerome published his treatise ; and the Jerome’s 
effeet of it is visible at once. irene 

AmBROSE in the year 392 wrote a work De Institutione Virginis, Ambrose. 


list. The writer distinguishes James 
the Lord’s brother and James the son of 


stantiate the assertions in the following 
note of Gibbon, Decline and Fall c. xvi, 


Alpheus, and makes them successive 
bishops of Jerusalem. See Combefis 
in Fabricius’ Hippol. 1, app. p. 36. 

i [I fear the statement in the text 
may leave a false impression. Previous 
writers had spoken of the Ebionites as 
holding the Helvidian view, and I was 
betrayed into using similar language. 
But there is, so far as I am aware, no 
evidence in favour of this assumption. 
It would be still more difficult to sub- 


‘This appellation (‘ bretkren’) was at 
first understood in the most obvious 
sense, and it was supposed that the 
brothers of Jesus were the lawful issue 
of Joseph and Mary. A devout respect 
for the virginity of the mother of God 
suggested to the Gnostics, and after- 
wards to the Orthodox Greeks, the ex- 
pedient of bestowing a second wife on 
Joseph, etc.’] 2nd ed. 


288 


Pelagius. 


Augustine. 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 


in which he especially refutes the impugners of the perpetual virginity 
of the Lord’s mother. 
obscure he speaks to this effect: ‘The term brothers has a wide 


In a passage which is perhaps intentionally 


application ; it is used of members of the same family, the same race, 
the same country. Witness the Lord’s own words / will declare thy 
name to my brethren (Ps. xxii. 22). St Paul too says: I could wish 
to be accursed for 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. 

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). 

At the same time Jerome’s hypothesis found a much more weighty 
advocate in St Aueustine. In his commentary on the Galatians 
indeed (i. 19), written about 394 while he was still a presbyter, he 
otfers the alternative of the Hieronymian and Epiphanian accounts. 
But in his later works he consistently maintains the view put forward 


1 The passage, which I have thus 
paraphrased, is ‘ Fratres autem gentis, 
et generis, populi quoque consortium 
nuncupari docet Dominus ipse qui dicit: 
Narrabo nomen tuum fratribus meis ; 
in medio ecclesiae laudabo te. Paulus 
quoque ait: Optabam ego anathema esse 
pro fratribus meis. Potuerunt autem 
fratres esse ex Joseph, non ex Maria, 


Quod quidem si quis diligentius prose- 
quatur inveniet. Nos ea prosequenda 
non putavimus, quoniam fraternum no- 
men liquet pluribus esse commune’ 
(u. p. 260, ed. Ben.), St Ambrose 
seems to accept so much of Jerome’s 
argument as relates to the wide use 
of the term ‘brothers’ and nothing 
more. 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 


by Jerome in the treatise against Helvidius (/n Joh. Evang. x, m1. 


2. p. 368, ib. xxviii, m1. 2. p. 508; Hnarr. im Ps. cxxvil, Iv. 2. p. 


1443; Contr. Faust. xxii. 35, VUI. p. 383; comp. Quaest. XVIT in 


Matth., ut. 2. p. 285). 


Thus supported, it won its way to general acceptance in the Latin 


Church; and the WesTERN SERVICES recognise only one James besides 
the son of Zebedee, thus identifying the Lord’s brother with the son 


of Alpheus. 


In the East also it met with a certain amount of success, but this Chryso- 


was only temporary. CuRysosTom 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, VII. p. 775 John vii. 5, Vill. p. 284; see also on 


1 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. i. 25, 1. ¢.)* 


Hitherto he betrays no knowledge of the Hieronymian account. 


1 A comment attributed to Chryso- 
stom in Cramer’s Catena on 1 Cor. ix. 
4—7, but not found in the Homilies, is 
still more explicit ; "AdeApovs rod Ku- 
plov Aéyer Tods vomcbévras elvac avTov 
adedgous* émerdy yap obTos 6 Xpnuarifaw 
kal a’ros Kata T7Hv Kowry Sdzav elrey 
avrovs* Tovs 5€ viovs “Iwand héyet, of 
dded¢gol tod Kuplou éxpnudticay dia THv 
mpos Tiv Beordkov pwnotelav Tod “Iwond. 
Aéyet 6¢’TaxwBov érloxorror ‘lepocohipuv 
Kal Iwond ouwvuunov To Tarépt kai Zi- 
puva kal "Iotéa. I give the passage 
without attempting to correct the text. 
This note reappears almost word for 
word in the @cumenian catena and in 
Theophylact. If Chrysostom be not the 
author, then we gain the testimony of 
some other ancient writer on the same 
side, Compare also the pseudo-Chry- 
sostom, Op. Il. p. 797. 

The passages referred to in the text 
show clearly what was Chrysostom’s 
earlier view. To these may be added 


GAL. 


the comments on 1 Cor. xv. 7 (x. 
355 D), where he evidently regards 
James as not one of the Twelve; on 
Matth. x. 2 (vir. pp. 368, 9), where he 
makes James the son of Alpheus a tax- 
gatherer like Matthew, clearly taking 
them to be brothers; and on Matth. 
xxvii. 55 (vil. p. 827 A), where, like 
Gregory Nyssen, he identifies Mapia 
*TaxwBov with the Lord’s mother. The 
accounts of Chrysostom’s opinion on 
this subject given by Blom p. rir sq, 
and Mill p. 284 note, are unsatis- 
factory. 

The Homilies on the Acts also take 
the same view (IX. pp. 23 B, 26 4), 
but though these are generally ascribed 
to Chrysostom, their genuineness is 
very questionable. In another spurious 
work, Opus imp. in Matth., vi. p. 
elxxiv £, the Hieronymian view ap- 
pears; ‘Jacobum Alphaei lapidantes : 
propter quae omnia Jerusalem de- 
structa est a Romanis.’ 


19 


290 


Theodo- 
ret. 


Cyril of 
Alexan- 
dria. 


Theophy- 
lact. 


Pastern 
Churches. 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 


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 
Alpheus. And THEODORET, who for the most part closely follows 
Chrysostom, 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 Cyrit or ALEXANDRIA for 
instance (Glaphyr. im Gen. lib. vil. p. 221), and seems to have been 
held by later Greek writers almost, if not quite, universally. In 
THEOPHYLACT indeed (on Matth. xiii. 55, Gal. i. 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- 
ern Churches continued to distinguish between James the Lord’s 
brother and James the son of Alpheus. The GREEK, Syrian, and 
Coptic CALENDARS assign a separate day to each. 

The table on the next page gives a conspectus of the patristic 
and early authorities. 

1 ray Tod KiX\wma, dep cal 6 evayye- exposition however is somewhat con- 
duorns é\eyev. He is referring, I sup- fused, and it is difficult to resist the 
pose, to the lists of the Apostles which _ suspicion that it has been interpolated, 


mention James the son of Alpheus. 2 See the remarks of Mill, p. 228. 
See above, p. 267. This portion of his 


THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 291 


(TERTULLIAN, 
A. Sons of HE tvIpIvs, 
Joseph and Bonosvs, 
Mary. JOVINIANUS (1), 


ANTIDICOMARIANITES, J EARLY VERSIONS 
3 


CLEMENTINE Ho- 
MILIES (1), 
ASCENTS OF 


GOSPEL OF PETER, A. or B. ‘ Brethren’ 
‘ i JAMES, 
PROTEVANGELIUM etc., | | U7 @ stract sense. 
HEGESIPPUS, 
CLEMENT OF ALEX., James the Just not 
APOST. CONSTIT., 
ORIGEN, one of the Twelve. : 
CYRIL OF JERU- 
EUSEBIUS, 
SALEM (1), 
HILARY OF POITIERS, 
VICTORINUS THE 
AMBROSIASTER, 
PHILOSOPHER. 
B. Sons of GREGORY OF NYSSA, 
Joseph by a EPIPHANIUS, 
Sormer wife. AMBROSE, 
[Curysostom], 
| Cyr OF ALEX., 
EASTERN SERVICES 
(Greek, Syrian, and. BASIL, 
Coptic), B or ©. Perpetual |Caruotic wri- 
LATER GREEK virginity of Mary. TERS GENE- 
WRITERS. J RALLY, 
J EROME, 
PELAGIUS, 
AUGUSTINE, 


©. Sons of the |[Curysostou], 
Virgin’s sister. | THEODORET, 
WESTERN SERVICES, 
LATER LATIN 
\ WRITERS. 


Uncertain. HEBREW GOSPEL, VICTORINUS PETAVIONENSIS. 


Levirate. THEOPHYLACT. 


19—2 


Three 
Apostles 
alone 
besides 
St Paul 
promi- 
nent. 


The four 
meet toge- 
ther at a 
great 
crisis. 


III 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


HREE 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 effectively 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 





ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 293 


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 4 

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- Questions 
tions of much wider interest are suggested by the accounts of this sas ea 
conference: What degree of coincidence or antagonism between Meeting: 
Jewish and Gentile converts may be discerned in the Church? 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? What in fact is the secret 
history—if there be any secret history—of the origin of Catholic 
Christianity ? 

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 +." . 


the 
Epistle to the Galatians is the true key to the position. In the first Galatian 


place, it is one of the very few documents of the Apostolic ages, Suh 
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. 


204 


Apology 
for this 
essay. 


Proposed 
sketch of 
the rela- 
tions of 
Jewish 
and 
Gentile 
Christ- 
ians. 


Three 
main 
divisions 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


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 
problem. 

Thus the attempt to decipher the relations between Jewish and 
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 
all 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 will be supplied to all ob- 
jections of this class. 

I purpose therefore to sketch in outline the progressive history 
of the relations between the Jewish and Gentile converts in the 
early ages of the Church, as gathered from the Apostolic writings, 
aided by such scanty information as can be got together from other 
sources. This will be a fit and indeed a necessary introduction to 
the subject with which the Epistie to the Galatians is more directly 
concerned, the positions occupied by St Paul and the three Apostles 
of the Circumcision respectively. 

This history falls into three periods which mark three distinct 
stages in its progress: (1) The Extension of the Church to the Gen- 





ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 295 


tiles; (2) The Recognition of Gentile Liberty ; (3) The Emancipa- of eee 
su . 
tion of the Jewish Churches’. ei 


1. The Extension of the Church to the Gentiles. 


It appears from the Apostolic history that the believers in the The early 
‘ ; : - ; Jol Church of 
earliest days conformed strictly to Jewish customs in their religious Jerysa- 


life, retaining the fixed hours of prayer, attending the temple wor- im, 
The Church was 


still confined to one nation and had not yet broken loose from the 


ship and sacrifices, observing the sacred festivals. 
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 off, if it was ever to attain to a healthy 
maturity. This emancipation then was the great problem which the 


The Master Himself had left no express OurLord’s 


Apostles had to work out. 
teaching. 


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 abolished 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 


change. 


1 Jmportant works treating of the re- 
lation between the Jewish and Gentile 
Christians are Lechler’s Apostolisches 
und Nachapostolisches Zeitalter (2te 
aufi.1857),and Ritschl’s Entstehung der 
Altkatholischen Kirche (2te aufl. 1857). 
I am indebted to both these works, but 
to the latter especially, which is very 
able and suggestive. Ritschl should be 
read in his second edition, in which 


with a noble sacrifice of consistency to 
truth he has abandoned many of his 
former positions, and placed himself in 
more direct antagonism to the Tiibin- 
gen school in which he was educated. 
The historical speculations of that 
school are developed in Baur’s Paulus 
and Christenthum und die Christliche 
Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, in 
Schwegler’sNachapostolischesZeitalter. 


296 


Jews of 
the Dis- 
persion. 


First day 
of Pente- 
cost. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


The 
dispersion was the link which connected the Hebrews of Palestine 


And soon enough the pressure of events began to be felt. 


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 Czsars, 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. 

The very baptism of the Christian Church opened the path for its 
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 


1 The distinction between proselytes 
of the covenant or of righteousness and 
proselytes of the gate is found in the 
Gemara: the former were circumcised, 
and observed the whole law; the latter 
acknowledged the God of Israel and 
conformed to Jewish worship in some 
respects, but stood without the cove- 
nant, not having been incorporated by 
the initiatory rite. The former alone, 
it would appear, are called rpoon\uroe 
in the New Testament ; the latter, who 


hardly form a distinct class, are ol ce- 
Bouevo. tov Oedv, ot edoeBeis etc. In 
speaking therefore of ‘ proselytes of the 
gate’ Iam using a convenient anachro- 
nism. 

2 «Trust not a proselyte,’ said one 
of the rabbis, ‘till twenty-four genera- 
tions; for he holds his leayen.’ Yalkut 
(Shimoni) on Ruthi. 11, 12,§601. See 
also the passages given by Danz in 
Meuschen Test. Illustr. p. 651. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 297 


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 
At length a breach 


was made, and the assailants as might be expected were Hellenists. 


by adoption, the proselytes of the covenant. 


The first step towards the creation of an organised ministry was also Appoint- 
the first step towards the emancipation of the Church. The Jews ae 
of Judea, ‘ Hebrews of the Hebrews,’ had ever regarded their Hel- eae 
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. 


Hebrews (Acts vi. 1),’ which was met by the appointment of seven 


Hence ‘arose a murmuring of the Hellenists against the 


persons specially charged with providing for the wants of these neg- 
lected poor. Ii 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 effects of this measure soon became visible. Sedaae 
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 Nicolas, the only one of the 
remaining five whose name reappears in 
history, liberty is degraded into licence. 
I see no valid reason for doubting the 
very early tradition that the Nicolaitans 
(Apoc. ii. 6, 15) derived their name from 
him, If there was a traitor among the 
Twelve, there might well be a heresi- 
arch among the Seven. Nor is it likely 


that an account so discreditable to one 
who inthe New Testamentis named only 
inconnexion with his appointmentto an 
honourable oftice would have been circu- 
lated unless there were some foundation 
in fact. At the same time the Nicolai- 
tans may have exaggerated and per- 
verted the teaching of Nicolas, lIren- 
wus (i. 26, 3) and Hippolytus (Haer. 


298 


Stephen’s 
testimony. 


Indirect 
conse- 
quences, 


Philip 
converts 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


SrepHen is the acknowledged forerunner of the Apostle of the 
Gentiles. He was the first 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 ; 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. 
justification. 


army of martyrs is shed. 


The accused attempts no denial, but pleads 
To seal this testimony the first blood of the noble 


The indirect consequences of his martyrdom extend far beyond 


the immediate effect of his dying words. 


Stephen.’ 


abroad throughout the regions of Juda and Samaria (viii. 1).’ 


A persecution ‘arose about 


The disciples of the mother Church ‘were scattered 


Some 


of the refugees even ‘travelled as far as Phenice and Cyprus and 


Antioch (xi. 19).’ 


of the first Gentile congregation. 


This dispersion was, as we shall see, the parent 


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 PaI.ip. 


The sacred narrative mentions 


two incidents in his career, each marking an onward stride in the 


free development of the Church. 


Vii. 36) believe him to have been the 
founder of the sect; while Clement of 
Alexandria (Strom. ii. p. 411, lii. p. 522, 
Potter) attributes to him an ambiguous 
saying that ‘the flesh must be abused 
(detv rapaxpicOat 77 capxl),’ of which 
these Nicolaitans perverted the mean- 
ing; and in attempting to clear his 
reputation relates a highly improbable 
story, which, if true, would be far from 
creditable, In another passage of Hip- 
polytus, a fragmeut preserved in Syriac 
(Lagarde’s Anec. Syr. p. 87, Cowper’s 
Syr. Miscell. p. 55) and taken from the 
‘Discourse on the Resurrection’ ad- 
dressed to Mammeza, this writer again 





It is therefore not without signi- 


represents Nicolas as the founder of the 
sect, speaking of him as ‘stirred by a 
strange spirit’ and teaching that the 
resurrection is past (2 Tim. ii. 18), but 
not attributing to him any directly im- 
moral doctrines. A common inter- 
pretation, which makes Nicolaus a 
Greek rendering of Balaam, is not 
very happy; for NixéAaos does not al- 
together correspond with any possible 
derivation of Balaam, least of all with 
oy yon ‘the destroyer of the people,’ 
generally adopted by those who so ex- 
plain Nixéd\aos. See below, p. 309, 
with the notes. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 299 


ficance that years afterwards we find him styled ‘the Evangelist’ 
(xxi. $), as if he had earned this honourable title by some signal 
service rendered to the Gospel. 

1. The Samaritan occupied the border land between the Jew ( hie, 
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 
With a bold venture of faith Philip offers the Gospel to 


His overtures are welcomed with joy, and 


hopes. 
this mongrel people. 
‘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. 1417). ‘He who eats the bread of a 
Samaritan,’ said the Jewish doctor, ‘is as one who eats swine’s 
flesh’,’ They 
have no share in the resurrection of the dead*.’ In opening her 


treasures to this hated race, the Church had surmounted the first 


‘No Samaritan shall ever be made a proselyte. 


barrier of prejudice behind which the exclusiveness of the nation 


1 Mishnah Shebiith viii. 10. 

2 Pirke Rabbi Elieser 38. The pas- 
sage so well illustrates the statement in 
the text, that I giveit in full: ‘ What did 
Ezraand Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel 
and Jehoshua the son of Jehozadak? 
(They went) and they gathered together 
all the congregation into the temple of 
the Lord, and they brought 300 priests 
and 300 children and 300 trumpets and 
300 scrolls of the law in their hands, 
and they blew, and the Levites sang 
and played, and they banned the Cuth- 
gans (Samaritans) by the mystery of 
the ineffable name and by the writing 
which is written on the tables and by 
the anathema of the upper (heavenly) 
court of justice and by the anathema of 
the nether (earthly) court of justice, 
that no one of Israel should eat the 
bread of a Cuthwan for ever. Hence 
they (the elders) said: Whosoever eats 
the bread of a Cuthan is as if he ate 


swine’s flesh ; andno Cuihzan shallever 
be made a proselyte: and they have no 
share in the resurrection of the dead; 
for itis said (Ezra iv. 3) Ye have nothing 
to do with us to build an house unto 
our God, (that is) neither in this world 
nor in the future. And that they 
should have neither portion nor inhe- 
ritance in Jerusalem, as it is said (Neh. 
li. 20), But ye had no portion nor right 
nor memorial in Jerusalem. And they 
communicated the anathema to Israel 
which is in Babylon. And they put 
upon them anathema upon anathema. 
And king Cyrus also decreed upon them 
an everlasting anathema as it is said 
(Ezra vi. 12), dnd the God that has 
caused His name to dwell there etc.’ 
Several passages bearing on this subject 
are collected in the article ‘Samaritan 
Pentateuch,’ by Mr E. Deutsch, in 
Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible. 


300 


(2) The 
Ethiopian 
eunuch. 


Conver- 
sion of 
Cornelius. 


Signifi- 
cance of 
this event. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


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). 

2. Nor was it long before Philip broke through a second and 
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. 1), the Ethiopian chamberlain laboured under a two- 
fold disability. This double line 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. 

The venture of the subordinate minister however still wanted the 
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 still ‘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). 

The case of Cornelius does not, I think, differ essentially from 


the case of the Ethiopian eunuch, There is no ground for assuming 


1 Amos ix. 7, ‘Are ye not as the children of the Ethiopians unto me, O 
children of Israel ?’ 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 301 


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. lvi. 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 dors 
with a larger measure of success. With the dying words of Stephen, 4™40ck- 
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 Antioch, 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 offered 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 Antioch The name 
first the brethren were called by a new name—a term of ridicule ee 
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 


1 xi.20. Icannotdoubtthat"EAAnvas requires it; but external authority pre- 
is correct, as the preceding “Iovdaiovs ponderates in favour of ‘EAXquoras. 


302 


The first 
step gain- 
ed. 


Questions 
yet unset- 
tled. 


Sui of 
Tarsus 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


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. 

Thus the first stage in the emancipation of the Church was 
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. 

So it was with the growth of Gentile Christendom. The Gentiles 
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 ? What submission, if any, must they yield to the Mosaic 
law? Should they be treated as in all respects on an equality with 
the true Israelite? 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. 

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. Sauu 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 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 303 


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 (ix. 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 Gentile 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. zoes to 
Doubtless he seemed to all to be the fittest instrument for carrying Paneek 
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 tae 


the 
mother 
asserting itself. Two circumstances especially were instrumental] Church. 


the wane, while the independence of the Gentiles was gradually 


in reversing the positions hitherto held by these two branches of 
the Church, 

1. It has been seen that the martyrdom of Stephen marked an (1) With- 
epoch in the emancipation of the Church. The martyrdom of James ae 
the son of Zebedee is scarcely less important in its influence on her *¢s- 
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 Ohurch 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. 127, n. 1. 


304. 


(2) Famine 
relieved by 


Gentile 
alms. 


New stage 
of the 
Gospel. 


St Paul’s 
first mis- 
sionary 
journey. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


2. About the same time another incident also contributed to 
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 Judea, 
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 Judiea laid themselves under fresh 
obligations to the heathen converts. 

Events being thus ripe, Saul still residing at Antioch is set apart 
by the 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 
visited, its character is signally manifested in the conversion of 
the Roman proconsul, Sergius Paulus. And soon it becomes evident 
that the younger Church must supplant the elder. At Antioch in 
Pisidia matters are brought to a crisis: the Jews reject the offer 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 everlasting 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 





ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 305 


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 roe load 
of Jewish and Gentile converts. All such questions, it would seem, gumcision 
had been tacitly passed over, neither side perhaps being desirous of ree 
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. 1). 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 
the part taken by the leading Apostles in these controversies’, and pale 
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 
different positions of the writers and the different 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 pan 
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. 

1. The arrangement of the disputed points was effected by a Thedecree 
mutual compromise. On the one hand it was decided once and for ae "tae 
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 offered to idols, and from 


blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.’ 


1 See above, p. 126 sq, and the notes on ii. r—ro. 
GAL. 20 


306 


Emanci- 
pating 
clause. 


Restrict- 
ive 
clauses. 


The decree 
disregard- 
edbysome. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
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’. 


The first of these decisions was a question of principle. 


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 


1 See Ritschl, p. 127. 

2 This seems to me much simpler 
than explaining the clauses as enfore- 
ing the conditions under which prose- 
lytes of the gate were received by the 
Jews. In this latter case ropveia will 
perhaps refer to unlawful marriage, 


e.g. within the prohibited degrees of 
kindred (Levit. xviii. 18), as it is inter- 
preted by Ritschl p. 129 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. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. “BOF, 


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 effect of the decree was to wrest the 
sceptre from their grasp and place it in the hands of the Gentile 
Church. 

Even the question of circumcision, on which an absolute decision Circumci- 
had been pronounced, was revived again and again. Long after, the ee 
Judaizing antagonists of St Paul in Galatia attempted to force this ss 
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- 


: : ; seeds strictive 
and definite, was thus parried or resisted, the restrictive clauses were clauses 


not uni- 
formly 


neous character of these prohibitions showed that, taken as a whole, enforced, 


with much greater reason interpreted with latitude. The miscella- 


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 offence 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 Antioch 


‘ caeere . : d th 
of Syria and Cilicia, to which alone the Apostolic letter was addressed Tae 
and on which alone therefore the enactments were directly bind- ant De 


ing (xv. 23), it was doubtless long observed. The close communica- 


20—2 


308 


St Paul 
to the Co- 
rinthians. 


St John 
to the 
Asiatic 
churches. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


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 Pisidia, 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 
to have been enforced. St Paul, writing to the Corinthians, discusses 
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 (1 Cor. v. 1—13, vi. 18—20). 
Of eating meats sacrificed to idols he speaks as a thing indifferent 
in itself, only to be avoided in so far as it implies participation in idol 
worship or is offensive 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 offered 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’ (1 Cor. viii. 1—13, x. 14—22). This wise 
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 
been foreclosed. Once again we come across the same topics in 
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 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


to the one true God. Our Lord in St John’s vision denounces them 
through the symbolism of the Old Testament history. In the Church of 
Pergamos, were certain Nicolaitans ‘holding the doctrine of Balaam 
who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of 
Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication’ (ii. 
¥4). At Thyatira the evil 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 God’s servants 
to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols.’ I see no 
The 
two offences singled out are those to which Gentile churches would 


reason for assuming a reference here to the Apostolic decree. 


be most liable, and which at the same 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 matter 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 assumed”, 
In both cases the practice was justified by a vaunted knowledge which 


held itself superior to anysuch restrictions’. But at Corinth this temper 


1 Yet the expression o} Bdd\\w é?’ 
buds Go Bdpos (ii. 24) looks like a re- 
ference to the decree. 

2 The coincidence of the two Apostles 
extends also to their language. (1) If 
St John denounces the offence as a fol- 
lowing of Balaam, St Paul uses the 
same Old Testament illustration, 1 Cor. 
x. 7, 8, ‘Neither be ye idolaters, as were 
some of them; as it is written, The 
people sat down to eat and drink, and 
rose up to play: neither let us commit 
fornication, as some of them com- 
raitted, and fell in one day three and 
twenty thousand.’ (2) If St John 
speaks of ‘casting a stumblingblock 
(cxdvdadov) before the children of Is- 
rael,’ the whole purport of St Paul’s 
warning is ‘to give no offence’ (uj 
oxavdadifev, Vili. 13, ampboxoma -yivec- 
6a, X. 32). With all these coinci- 
dences of matter and language, it is 
a strange phenomenon that any critic 


should maintain, as Baur, Zeller, and 
Schwegler have done, that the denun- 
ciations in the Apocalypse are directed 
against St Paul himself. 

3 Comp. Apoc. ii. 24 dco ovx éxovcw 
Tiy dvdaxhnvy tavTnv, otTwWes otk Eyvw- 
cav Ta Babéa rod Darava, ws dé- 
youo.v. The false teachers boasted a 
knowledge of the deep things of God; 
they possessed only a knowledge of the 
deep things of Satan. St John’s mean- 
ing is illustrated by a passage in Hip- 
polytus (Haer. v. 6, p. 94) relating to 
the Ophites, who offer other striking 
resemblances to the heretics of the 
Apostolic age; émexaX\ecay éautods yw- 
cTixous, PdoxovTes 4ovar TA BAON yiraw- 
oxetv: see also Iren. ii. 28. 9. St 
Paul’s rebuke is very different in form, 
but the same in effect. He begins 
each time in a strain of noble irony. 
‘We all have knowledge’; ‘I speak as 
to wise men’: he appears to concede, 


310 


Object of 
the enact- 
ments not 
defined. 


St Paul’s 
authority 
recog- 
nised. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


was still immature and under restraint: while in the Asiatic churches 
it had outgrown shame and broken out into the wildest excesses’. 
Thus then the decree was neither permanently nor universally 
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 ali 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 Church of Antioch, influenced doubt- 


less by St Paul, took the larger and truer view ; Jewish and Gentile 


the letter of the decree. 


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. 
the Spirit of Christ ; but neither was it a direct breach of compact. 


This was not the Truth of the Gospel, it was not 


2. Scarcely less important than the settlement of the disputed 


to defer, to sympathize, even to en- 
courage: and then he turns round up- 
on the laxity of this vaunted wisdom 
and condemns and crushes it: ‘I will 
eat no flesh while the world standeth, 
lest I make my brother to offend’; 
‘I would not that ye should have fel- 
lowship with devils.’ 

1 The subject of ei6wAcdura does not 
disappear with the apostolic age: it 
turns up again for instance in the 
middle of the second century, in Agrip- 
pa Castor (Euseb. H. H. iv. 7) writing 


against Basilides, and in Justin (Dial. 
35, P- 253 D) who mentions the Basili- 
deans among other Gnostic sects as 
‘participating in lawless and godless 
rites’: comp. Orac. Sib. ii. 96. Both 
these writers condemn the practice, the 
latter with great severity. When the 
persecution began, and the Christians 
were required to deny their faith by 
participating in the sacrifices, it be- 
came a matter of extreme importance 
to avoid any act of conformity, how- 
ever slight. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 311 


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- rh aan 
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 
different 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 all 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 


misunderstood. 


3. The Emancipation of the Jewish Churches. 


We have seen hitherto no signs of waning affection for the law Zeal for 


- Ceol « the law. 
in the Jewish converts to Christianity as a body. On the contrary pas 


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 a circular letter to the 


312 


Reasons 
for its ob- 
servance 
in the 
mother 


Clurch. 


Fall of Je- 
rusalem, 


A.D. 70. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


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, inculeating 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 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 313 


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 


2 


man*. He was succeeded by his cousin Symeon, the son of Clopas 


and nephew of Joseph. 


Under these circumstances the Church was reformed at Pella. ae # 
enure 


Its history in 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 
by Celsus (Orig. c. Cels. iv. 52, p. 544, 
Delarue). The shade of doubt which 
rests on the authorship of this dia- 
logue is very slight. Undue weight 


1 Euseb. H. E. iii. 5 xard twa 
xXpnopwov Tots avT60c doxiwors Gc’ daroKa- 
AvWews Exdodévra K.T.r. 

2 Hegesippus in Euseb. H. E. ii. 23 


Kal evOvs Ovecractaves ro\LopKet avrous, 
and the pseudo-Josephus also quoted 
there, raira dé cup BéBynxev “Tovdators 
Kar éxdlknow laxwBov rod dixaiou x.7.d. 

3 The Church of Pella however con- 
tributed one author at least to the 
ranks of early Christian literature in 
Aviston, the writer of an apology in 
the form of a dialogue between Jason 
a Hebrew Christian and Papiscus an 
Alexandrian Jew: see Routh 1. p. 93. 
One of his works however was written 
after the Bar-cochba rebellion, to which 
it alludes (Euseb, H. E. iv. 6); and 
from the purport of the allusion we 
may infer that it was this very dia- 
logue. The expulsion of the Jews by 
Hadrian was a powerful common-place 
in the treatises of the Apoloyvists; see 
e.g. Justin Martyr Apol. i. 47. On 
the other hand it cannot have been 
written long after, for it was quoted 


seems to be attributed to the fact of 
its being quoted anonymously; e.g. in 
Westcott’s Canon, p. 93, Donaldson’s 
Christian Literature etc. 1. p. 58. If 
I am right in conjecturing that the 
reference to the banishment of the 
Jews was taken from this dialogue, 
Kusebius himself directly attributes it 
to Ariston. The name of the author 
however is of little consequence, for the 
work was clearly written by a Hebrew 
Christian not later than the middle of 
the second century. Whoever he may 
have been, the writer was no Ebionite, 
for he explained Gen. i. 1, ‘In filio fecit 
Deus caelum et terram’ (Hieron. Quaest. 
Hebr. in Gen., 111. p. 305, ed. Vall.) ; 
and the fact is important, as this is the 
earliest known expression of Hebrew 
Christian doctrine after the canonical 
writings, except perhaps the Testa- 
ments of the Twelve Patriarchs. 


314 


of the 
change. 


(i) The 
law loses 
its power. 


(2) Jews 
and 
Christians 
in anta- 
gonism, 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


would be powerfully felt, in the change of opinion produced within 
the Church itself and in the altered relations between the converted 
and unconverted Jews. 

(1) The loss of their great leader at this critical moment was 
compensated to the Church of the Circumcision by the stern 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. 

(2) At the same time it wholly changed their relations with 
their unconverted countrymen. Hitherto they had maintained such 
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 effect 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 

1 See especially Graetz Geschichte by this writer, whose account is the 
der Juden iv. p. 112 sq. The antago- more striking as given from a Jewish 


nism between the Jews and Christians _ point of view. 
at this period is strongly insisted upon 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 315 


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 Difficulties 
and dis- 


people must have worked as leaven in the minds of the Christians ..) ions. 


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 too was removed. After a long tenure of office he was martyred Gland 
at a very advanced age in the ninth year of Trajan. His death, *?- 1° 
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. E.iv.22. dpa péxpe trav rire xpsvwv Tapbévos Ka- 
This writer also mentions grandsons @apa cai ddvadMopos Ewewev 7 ExkAnoia, 
of Jude the Lord’s brother as ruling év adyjd\w mov cKoTe PwrevdvTwv elaére 
over the Churches and surviving till  rdre ray, el kal rwes Urnpxov, Tapapéel- 
the time of Trajan; H. E£. iii. 32. pew émixe_povvTwy xk.T.A.: COMP. iv. 22. 

4 Euseb. H. E. iii. 32 émidréya as 3 See below, p. 325, note 5. 


316 


Rebellion 
of Bar- 
cochba. 
A.D. 132— 
135¢ 


Zilia Ca- 
pitolina. 


The 
church 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


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-cochba,’ ‘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 Ailia 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 


1 Justin Apol. i. 31, p. 72 E, &v 7@ = Ces. viii. 69. 


viv yeyernuévy lovdatky modkéuw Bapxw- 3 Sulpicius Severus (H. S. ii. 31) 
xéBas 6 THs "lovdalwy dmocrdcews dp- speaking of Hadrian’s decree says, 
xnyérns Xptoriavods udvous eis Tyuwplas ‘Quod quidem Christianae fidei pro- 
deeds, el 7) Apvoivro "Incoty Tov Xpicrdv _ficiebat, quia tum pene omnes Chris- 
Kal Bracdnuoter, éxédevey dmayecOa. tum Deum sub legis observatione cre- 


2 Justin Apol. i. 47, p. 84 B, Dial. debant; nimirum id Domino ordinante 
110, Pp. 337 D; Ariston of Pella in  dispositum, ut legis servitus a libertate 
Euseb. H. E. iv. 6; Celsus in Orig.c. _ fidei atque ecclesiae tolleretur.’ 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 317 


disastrous outbreak of the Jews the main part of the Christians reconsti- 
had left their retirement in Pella and returned to their original wee 
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 Alia Capito- 
lina was very differently 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 eek 
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 


grounds’, 


1 H. E. iii. 32, 35, iv. 5. Husebius 
seems to narrate all the incidents af- 
fecting the Church of the Circumcision 
during this period, as taking place not 
at Pella but at Jerusalem. 

2 Huseb. H. E. iv. 6 rs abroéc éx- 
kAnglas €& €vav cvyKpornbelons. 

3 As early as the middle of the 
second 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. c. 
Tryph. § 47; see Schliemann Clement. 
p. 553 8q). In the next chapter Justin 
alludes with disapprobation to some 
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 Epiphanius and Jerome, 
who distinguish them by the respec- 
tive names of ‘Nazarenes’ and ‘ Ebion- 
ites.’ Ireneus (i. 26. 2), Tertullian 
(de Praescr. 33),and Hippolytus (Haer. 
Vil. 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 hereties: and 
moreover, being few in number and 
living 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 Catholics 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 ("HSiwvato dudorepo) 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 


318 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


Nand 1. The NAzARENEs appear at the close of the fourth century as 
renes. 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 


tenets. : [ 
inference?, 


They held themselves bound to the Mosaic ordinances, 
Ne- 


vertheless they did not consider the Gentile Christians under the 


rejecting however all Pharisaic interpretations and additions. 


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 
Nazarenes and alludes to some differ- 
ences of opinion among the Ebionites 
properly so called ; but in this case it is 
not easy to identify his two classes with 
the Pharisaic and Essene Ebionites of 
whom J shall have to speak later. Euse- 
bius, who also describes two classes of 
Ebionites (H. E. iii. 27), seems to have 
taken his account wholly from Irenezus 
and Origen. If, as appears probable, 
both names ‘Nazarenes’ and ‘Ebion- 
ites’ were originally applied to the 
whole body of Jewish Christians indis- 
criminately, the confusion of Origen 
and others is easily explained. In re- 
cent times, since Gieseler published his 
treatise Ueber die Nazarder und Ebioni- 
ten (Staéudlin u. Tzschirner Archiv fiir 
Kirchengesch. iv. p. 279 sq, 1819), the 
distinction has been generally recog- 
nised. A succinct and good account of 
these sects of Judaizers will be found in 
Schliemann Clement. p. 449 sq, where 
the authorities are given; but the dis- 





covery of the work of Hippolytus has 
since thrown fresh light on the Essene 
Ebionites. The portion of Ritschl’s 
work (p. 152 sq) relating to these sects 
should be consulted. 

1 Kpiphan, Haer. xxix. 7; comp. 
Hieron. de Vir. Ill. § 3. 

2 See the account in Schliemann, 
Pp. 445 Sq, with the authorities there 
given and compare Ritschl p. 152 sq. 

3 Hieron, in Is. ix. 1 (Iv. p. 130), 
‘Nazaraei...hune locum ita explanare 
conantur: Adveniente Christo et prae- 
dicatione illius coruscante prima terra 
Zabulon et terra Nephthali scribarum 
et Pharisaeorum est erroribus liberata 
et gravissimum traditionum Judaica- 
rum jugum excussit de cervicibus suis, 
Postea autem per evangelium apostoli 
Pauli, qui novissimus apostolorum 
omnium fuit, ingravata est, id est, 
multiplicata praedicatio; et in termi- 
nos gentium et viam universi maris 
Christi evangelium splenduit,’ 





ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
Their doc- 


trine of the person of Christ has been variously represented ; but this 


when they too should be brought to confess Christ. 


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 
loftier conception of the person of Christ and by a frank recognition 
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 


document still extant furnishes an example. 


‘Testaments of the twelve Patriarchs 


1 Haer. Xxx. 9. 

2 It is printed in Grabe’s Spicil. SS. 
Patr, 1. p. 145 sq (ed. 2, 1700), and in 
Fabricius Cod. Pseudepigr. Vet. Test.1. 
Pp. 519 sq (ed. 2, 1722), and has re- 
cently been edited with an introduc- 
tory essay by Sinker (Cambridge, 1869). 
Ritschl in his first edition had assigned 
this work to a writer of the Pauline 
school. His opinion was controverted 
by Kayser in the Strassburg. Beitr. z. 
den Theol. Wissensch. 111. p. 107 (1851), 
and with characteristic honesty he 
withdrew it in his second edition, at- 
tributing the work to a Nazarene au- 
thor (p. 172 sq). Meanwhile Ritschl’s 
first view had been adopted in a mo- 
nograph by Vorstman Disquis. de Test. 
xii. Patr. (Roterod. 1857), and defend- 


The book called the 


was certainly written after 


29 


ed against Kayser. The whole tone 
and colouring of the book however 
seem to show very plainly that the 
writer was a Jewish Christian, and the 
opposite view would probably never 
have been entertained but for the pre- 
conceived theory that a believer of the 
Circumcision could not have written 
so liberally of the Gentile Christians 
and so honorably of St Paul. Some 
writers again who have maintained 
the Judaic authorship (Kayser for in- 
stance, whose treatise I only know at 
second hand) have got over this as- 
sumed difficulty by rejecting certain 
passages as interpolations. On the 
other hand Ewald pronounces it ‘mere 
foliy to assert that Benj. c. 1 (the 
prophecy about St Paul) was a later 


319 


Their rela- 
tion to the 
Twelve. 


Testa- 
ments of 
the Twelve 
Patri- 
archs, 


320 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


the capture of Jerusalem by Titus and probably before the rebellion 
of Bar-cochba, 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 


Hebrew unites the fullest recognition of the Gentile Churches. Our Lord is 
ae. % 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. Vil. p. 329), and certainly such 
arbitrary assumptions would render 
criticism hopeless. 

Whether Ritschl is right or not in 
supposing that the author was actually 
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 
ib. Pp. 333). 

1 The following dates have been 
assigned to it by recent critics; a.p. 
100-135 (Dorner), 100-120 (Wieseler), 
133-163 (Kayser), 1oo-153 (Nitzsch, 
Liicke), 117-193 (Gieseler), 100-200 
(Hase), about 150 (Reuss), go-r1o (E- 
wald). These dates except the last are 
taken from Vorstman 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-cochba 
seems to show that it was written 
before that time. It is directly named 
by Origen (Hom. in Jos. xv. 6), and 


probably was known to Tertullian (ec. 
Marc. v. 1, Scorpiace 13), and (as I be- 
lieve) even earlier to Ireneus (Fragm. 
17, p- 836 sq Stieren). 

2 Levi to avaxaworootvra Tov vouov 
év duvawer bWicrov. ‘The law of God, 
the law of the Lord,’ are constant 
phrases with this writer; Levi 13, 19, 
Judas 18, 26, Issach. 5, Zabul. to, Dan 
6, Gad 3, Aser 2, 6, 7, Joseph 11, Benj. 
to: 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.’ 

3 See Ewald Gesch. 1. p. 490. 

4 Simeon 5, 7, Issach. 5, Dan 5, 
Nepht. 6, 8, Gad 8, Joseph 19, besides 
the passages referred to in the next 
note. 

5 Reuben 6 pds tov Aevt éyyloare... 
avros yap evhoyjnoer Tov "Iopand Kai Tov 
‘Tovdav, Judas 21 Kal vov réxva pov aya- 
myoare Tov Aevt...éuol yap édwke Kupros 
THv Baci\elay Kdxelvy Thy ieparelay Kat 
bréraie Thy Bacieiav Ty lepwodvy’ éuot 
édwxe Ta él THs yns KaKkelyw TH ev 








ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 321 


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 ae 
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 Gentiles 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 ever’.’ 

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 ExioniTEs were a much larger and more important body Their 


They were not confined to the neighbourhood tenets. 


than the Nazarenes. 
of Pella or even to Palestine and the surrounding countries, but were 
found in Rome 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 


tation, Levi 6 epOace dé 7H dpyn Kupiov 
ém’ a’rovs els TéXos, from 1 Thess. ii. 16. 


ovpavois, tb. 25 Aevt mpwros, devTEpos 
éyw, Nepht. 5 Aevt éxparnoe tov HALov 


kai lovdas d8acas ériace THv ceNjvHY. 

tebevt 6;:7- 

2 Benj. 11. Besides this prophecy 
the work presents several coincidences 
of language with St Paul (see Vorst- 
man p. 115 sq), and at least one quo- 


GAL. 


On the whole however the language in 
the moral and didactic portions takes 
its colour from the Epistle of St James, 
and in the prophetic and apocalyptic 
from the Revelation of St John. 

3 Epiphan. Haer, xxx. 18. 


21 


322 


Relation 
to the 
Judaizers 
of the 
apostolic 


age. 


Another 
type of 
Ebionism, 


derived 
from the 
Essenes. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


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 
Circumcision. 

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. 

The 
doctrines of the Christian school bear so close a resemblance to the 


rejection and hatred of St Paul. Their 
differences consisted in (1) Their view 


This foreign element was probably due to Essene influences, 


1 For the opinions of these Ebion- 
ites see the references in Schliemann 


p. 481 sq, and add Hippol. Haer. vii. 
3 ef yap Kal Erepds Tis memounKer TA EV 
vouw mpoorerayuéva, Tv av éxeivos 6 
Xpiores* StvacOar 5é xal Eavrods dpolws 
TomoavTas Xpirtovs yevécPar* Kal yap 
kal avrov dmolws dvOpwirov elvar macw 
éyoucw. 

2 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 


of what constituted the law, and (2) 
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, ete. 

The Ebionites of earlier writers, as 
Ireneus and Hippolytus, belong to the 
Pharisaic type; while those of Epipha- 
nius are strongly Essene. 





ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


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 Essene or Gnostic 
Ebionism to distinguish it from the common type, Pharisaie Ebion- 
ism or ELbionism proper. 

If Pharisaic Ebionism was a disease inherent in the Church of 
the Circumcision from the first, Essene Ebionism seems to have been 
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 especially the careful investi- on the fulfilment of these prophecies: 


gation of Ritschl p. 204 sq. 

2 Ritschl (p. 223), who adopts this 
view, suggests that this sect, which had 
stood aloof from the temple-worship 
and abhorred sacrifices, would be led to 
welcome Christ as the true prophet, 
when they saw the fulfilment of His 
predictions against the temple. In 
Clem. Hom. iii. 15 great stress is laid 


comp. also Clem. Recogn. i. 37 (especi- 
ally in the Syriac). 

3 Clem. Hom. ii. 17 pera Kabaipeow 
Tov aylov Témou evayyédov ddnbes Kptda 
StarenpOjvar els Eravopfwow Tray éco- 
pévwv alpécewv: comp. Clem. Recogn. 
i. 37, 64, iii. 61 (in the Syriac, as be- 
low, p. 330, note 1). See also Epiphan, 
Haer. xXx. 2. 


PN Ve 


Its later 
origin, 


324 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 

but This prominence is probably due in some measure to their greater 

ene 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 

ous prose- Paets : =e ; 

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 inte the hands 

Book of of Hippolytus the writer on heresies*, from whom our knowledge of 

chasai. 


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. 100). 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 


1 Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 6. katholische Kirche. Hilgenfeld has 


2 Paedag. ii. « (p. 174 Potter), where 
St Matthew is said to have lived on 
seeds, berries, and herbs, abstaining 
from animal food. See Ritschl p. 224. 

3 Clem. Hom, xii. 6, comp. viii. 15, 
xv. 7. 

+ Haer. ix. 13. See a valuable 
paper on the Elchasaites by Ritschl in 
Niedner’s Zeitschrift 1v. p. 573 sq 
(1853), the substance of which is given 
also in the second edition of his Alt- 


edited the fragments of the book of 
Elxai in his Novum Testamentum extra 
Canonem Receptum, fase. 111. p. 153 8g 
(1866). The use made of it by Hpi- 


phanius is investigated by Lipsius, 
Quellenkritik des Epiphan. p. 143 sq. 

5 Clem. Recogn. viii. 48, ix. 19. 
Even in classical writers the Seres or 
Chinese are invested with something 
of an ideal character: e.g. Plin. vi. 24, 
Strabo xv. p. 7o1, Mela iii. 7. 


But in 





ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 325 


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 
‘Elchasai,’ adds this 


father, ‘delivered it to a certain person called Sobiai.’ 


received the revelation, the founder of the sect. 
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. 
part only, whether the name Elchasaism is coextensive with Essene 

The Its pre- 
Whether pes 
the book itself was really as early as the reign of Trajan or whether 


Whether this was the sacred book of the whole sect or of a 


Ebionism or not, it is unimportant for my purpose to enquire. 


pretended era of this revelation is of more consequence. 


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- 
lustrates this fact (Geogr. Graec. Min. 
I. p. 514, ed. Miiller), the name dis- 
appears when the text is correctly read 
(‘se regentes,’ and not ‘Serae gentes’). 

1 yp> bon. Epiphanius correctiy ex- 
plains it d¥vauis Kexaduupévn, Haer. 
xix. 2. See Ritschl 1]. c. p. 581, and 
Altkath. Kirche p. 245. Other ex- 
planations of the word, given in Hil- 
genfeld 1. c. p. 156, in M. Nicolas Evan- 
giles Apocryphes p. 108 (1866), and by 
Geiger Zeitsch. der Deutsch. Morgenl. 
Geselisch. xvu11. p. 824 (1864), do not 
recommend themselves. ‘The name is 
differently written in Greek, HAyaca, 
EAxcoac and HAga. The first, which 
is most correct, is found in Hippolytus 
who had seen the book. 

2 From yay. Accordingly Hippo- 
lytus (ix. 17) relates that the Elcha- 


saite missionary Alcibiades made a 
mystery of his teaching, forbidding it 
to be divulged except to the faithful; 
see Ritschl1l.c. p. 589. Ewald however 
(Gesch. vit. p. 159) derives Sobiai from 
i.e. mTiTat. ls 
OSS Ie Barricral. See also 


Chwolson die Ssabier ete. 1. p. 111. 

3 Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 7. 

4 Hilgenfeld (p. xxi) maintains the 
early date very positively against 
Ritschl. Lipsius (1. ¢.) will not pro- 
nounce an opinion. 

5 See above, p. 315 sq. In the pas- 
sage there quoted Hegesippus speaks of 
these heresies ‘as living underground, 
burrowing (¢wAevévTwr)’ until the reign 
of Trajan. This agrees with the state- 
ment in the Homilies (ii. 17) already 
referred to (p. 323, note 3), that the 
true Gospel (i.e. Essene Ebionism) was 


326 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


Without attempting to discriminate the different forms of doc- 
trine which this Essene Ebionism comprised in itself—to point out 
for instance the distinctive features of the book of Elchasai, of the 


Essene 
Ebionites 
distin- 
guished 
from Pha- 
risaic, 


Homilies, and of the Recognitions respectively—it will be sufficient 
to observe the broad line of demarcation which separates the Essene 
from the Pharisaic type’. Laying almost equal stress with the 
others on the observance of the law as an essential part of Christi- 
anity, the Essene Ebionites undertook to settle by arbitrary criticism 
what the law was*. By this capricious process they eliminated from 
the Old Testament all elements distasteful to them—the doctrine of 
sacrifices especially, which was abhorrent to Essene principles—cut- 
ting down the law to their own standard and rejecting the prophets 
wholly. As a compensation, they introduced certain ritual obsery- 
ances of their own, on which they laid great stress; more especially 
lustral washings and abstinence from wine and from animal food. In 
their Christology also they differed widely from the Pharisaic Ebion- 
ites, maintaining that the Word or Wisdom of God had been incarnate 
more than once, and that thus there had been more Christs than 
one, of whom Adam was the first and Jesus the last. Christianity in 
fact was regarded by them merely as the restoration of the primeval 
religion: in other words, of pure Mosaism before it had been cor- 
rupted by foreign accretions. Thus equally with the Pharisaic Ebion- 
ites they denied the Gospel the character of a new covenant; and, as 
a natural consequence, equally with them they rejected the authority 
and reviled the name of St Paul’. 


and allied If the Pharisaic Ebionites are the direct lineal descendants of 


to the 
Colossian 
heretics. 


the ‘false brethren’ who seduced St Paul’s Galatian converts from 


their allegiance, the Essene Hbionites bear a striking family likeness 


first ‘secretly propagated’ after the 
destruction of the temple. The opi- 
nions which had thus been progressing 
stealthily now showed a bold front; 
but whether the actual organization 
of the sect or sects took place now or 
at a still later date (after the rebellion 
of Bar-cochba), it is impossible to say. 

1 The chief authorities for the Hs- 
sene Ebionites are Epiphanius (Haer. 








xix, xxx); Hippolytus (Haer. ix. 13— 
17) and Origen (Euseb. H. E. vi. 38), 
whose accounts refer especially to the 
book of Elchasai; and the Clementine 
writings. 

2 See Colossians p. 372. 

3 See Epiphan. Haer. xxx. 16, 25,Orig. 
ap. Euseb. l. c. tov dméctodov réXcov 
aOere.; besides the passages in the 
Clementine writings quoted in the text. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


to those other Judaizers against whom he raises his voice as endan- 


gering the safety of the Church at Colossae’. 
Of the hostility of these Christian Essenes to St Paul, as of their 


other typical features, a striking example is extant in the fictitious 


writings attributed to the Roman bishop Clement. 


served in two forms: the Homilies, extant in the Greek, apparently ean 3 


These are pre- 


an uniform work, which perhaps may be assigned to the middle 


or latter half of the second century; and the Recognitions, a composite 


production probably later than the Homilies, founded, it would 


appear, partly on them or some earlier work which was the common 


basis of both and partly on other documents, and known to us through 


the Latin translation of Rufinus, who avowedly altered his original 


with great freedom’. 


In the Homilies Simon Magus is the impersonation of manifold rate aes 
t Paul in 


heresy, and as such is refuted and condemned by St Peter. the Homi- 


Among 


other false teachers, who are covertly denounced in his person, we 


cannot fail to recognise the lineaments of St Paul*. 


1 See Colossians p. 73 sq. 

2 The only complete editions of the 
Homilies are those of Dressel, Clemen- 
tis Romani quae feruntur Homiliae 
Viginti (1853), and of Lagarde, Cle- 
mentina (1865); the end of the 19th 
and the whole of the 20th homily 
haying been published for the first 
time by Dressel. The Recognitions 
which have been printed several times 
may be read most conveniently in 
Gersdorf’s edition (Lips. 1838). A 
Syriac version lately published by 
Lagarde (Clementis Romani Recogniti- 
ones Syriace, Lips. et Lond. 1861) is 
made up partly of the Recognitions (i, 
ii, iii, iv), and partly of the Homilics 
(x, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, the xth book being 
imperfect). The older of the two ex- 
tant mss of this version was actually 
written a.p. 411, the year after the 
death of Rufinus; but the errors of 
transcription, which it exhibits, show 
that it was taken from an earlier ms. 
We are thus carried back to a very re- 
mote date. The first part, containing 
the early books of the Recognitions, is 
extremely valuable, for it enables us to 


Thus St Peter 


measure the liberties which Rufinus 
took with his original. An important 
instance of his arbitrary treatment will 
be given below, p. 330, note r. Two 
abridgments of the Homilies are ex- 
tant. These have been edited by Dres- 
sel, Clementinorum Epitomae duae (Lips. 
1859), one of them for the first time. 
Of those monographs which I have read 
on the relations between the different 
Clementine writings, the treatise of 
Uhlhorn, Die Homilien und Recognt- 
tionen etc. (GOdttingen, 1854), seems 
to me on the whole the most satis- 
factory. It is dangerous to express an 
opinion where able critics are so di- 
vided; and the remarks in the text are 
not hazarded without some hesitation. 
Baur, Schliemann, Schwegler, and 
Uhlhorn, give the priority to the 
Homilies, Hilgenfeld and Ritschl to 
the Recognitions, Lehmann partly to 
the one and partly to the other, while 
Reuss and others decline to pronounce 
a decided opinion. 

3 See on this subject Schliemann 
Clement. pp. 96 sq, 534 Sq: comp. 
Stanley’s Corinthians, p. 366 sq. 


327 


eal 


lies, 


328 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


charges his hearers, ‘Shun any apostle, or teacher, or prophet, who 
does not first compare his preaching with James called the brother 
of my Lord and entrusted with the care of the Church of the He- 
brews in Jerusalem, and has not come to you with witnesses’ ; lest 
the wickedness, which contended with the Lord forty days and pre- 
vailed not, should afterwards fall upon the earth as lightning from 
heaven and send forth a preacher against you, just as he suborned 
Simon against us, preaching in the name of our Lord and sowing 
error under the pretence of truth; wherefore He that sent us said, 
Many shall come to me in sheep’s clothing, but within they are ravening 
wolves (xi. 35).’ The allusions here to St Paul’s rejection of ‘com- 
mendatory letters’ {2 Cor. iii. 1) and to the scene on the way to 
Damascus (Acts ix. 3) are clear. In another passage St Peter, after 
explaining that Christ must be preceded by Antichrist, the true pro- 
phet by the false, and applying this law to the preaching of Simon 
and himself, adds: ‘If he had been known (é éywwwoxeto) he would 
not have been believed, but now being not known (ayvoovpevos) he 
is wrongly believed...being death, he has been desired as if he were 
a saviour...and being a deceiver he is heard as if he spake the 
truth (ii. 17, 18).’ The writer seems to be playing with St Paul’s 
own words, ‘as deceivers and yet true, as unknown and yet well 
known, as dying and behold we live (2 Cor. vi. 8, 9).? In a third 
passage there is a very distinct allusion to the Apostle’s account of 
the conflict at Antioch in the Galatian Epistle: ‘If then,’ says St 
Peter to Simon, ‘our Jesus was made known to thee also and con- 
versed with thee being seen in a vision, He was angry with thee as 
an adversary, and therefore He spake with thee by visions and 
dreams, or even by outward revelations. Can any one be made wise 
unto doctrine by visions? If thou sayest he can, then why did the 
Teacher abide and converse with us a whole year when we were awake ? 
And how shall we ever believe thee in this, that He was seen of thee ? 
Nay, how could He have been seen of thee, when thy thoughts are 


contrary to His teaching? If having been seen and instructed of 


1 kal pera papripwy mpocedy\v0o7a. carried on from the former clause u7 
It is needless to insert ui with Schlie- —rporepov dvriBdddovTa. 
mann and Schwegler: the negative is 





ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 329 


Him for a single hour thou wast made an Apostle, then preach His 
words, expound His teaching, love His Apostles, do not fight against 
me His companion. For thou hast withstood and opposed me (évav- 
tios avOéorynxds pov), the firm rock, the foundation of the Church. 
Tf thou hadst not been an adversary, thou wouldest not have calum- 
niated and reviled my preaching, that I might not be believed when 
T told what I had heard myself in person from the Lord, as though 
forsooth I were condemned (xatayvwoévros) and thou wert highly re- 
garded’, Nay, if thou callest me condemned (kareyvwopevor), thou 
accusest God who revealed Christ to me and assailest Him that called 
me blessed in my revelation? (xvii. 19).’? In this same bitter spirit 
the writer would rob him of all his missionary triumphs and transfer 
them to his supposed rival: the Apostleship of the Gentiles, accord- 
ing to the Homilies, belongs not to St Paul but to St Peter: Barnabas 
is no more the companion nor Clement the disciple of St Paul but of 
St Peter®. 

Again in the letter of Peter to James prefixed to the Homilies, in the 
emanating from the same school though perhaps not part of the ee 2 
work itself, and if so, furnishing another example of this bitterness 
of feeling, St Peter is made to denounce those Gentile converts who 
repudiate his lawful preaching, welcoming a certain lawless and 
foolish doctrine of the enemy (rod éy@pod avOpwrov avopov twa Kal 
dvapdn didacxadiav), complaining also that ‘certain persons at- 
tempted by crafty interpretations to wrest his words to the abolish- 
ing of the law, pretending that this was his opinion, but that he did 
not openly preach it,’ with more to the same effect (§ 2). 

In the Recognitions, probably a later patch-work‘, the harsher in the _ 
features of the Essene-Ebionite doctrine, as it appears in the Homilies, cae 
are softened down, and these bitter though indirect attacks on St Paul 


1 The existing text has kal é¢uoB pros ei k.T.X. 


evdoxiwodvros, for which some have pro- 3 See also other references to St 
posed to read xal un evdoxwodvros. It Paul noted above, p. 61. 
is better perhaps to substitute cod or 4 Not much earlier than the middle 


ovdauod for éuod, though neither is a of the third century; for a portion of 
neat emendation. Some change how- the treatise de Fato, written probably 
ever is absolutely needed. by a disciple of Bardesanes, is worked 

2 700 émi droxahvpe: wakaploayTos we. upin the later books; unless indeed this 
The allusion is to Matt. xvi. 17, waxa- —_isitself borrowed from the Recognitions. 


330 


and in the 
Ascents of 
James. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


omitted ; whether by the original redactor or by his translator Ru- 
finus, it is not easy to say’. Thus in the portions corresponding to 
and probably taken from the Homilies no traces of this hostility 
remain. But in one passage adapted from another work, probably 
the ‘Ascents of James’,’ it can still be discerned, the allusion having 
either escaped notice or been spared because it was too covert to 
give offence. It is there related that a certain enemy (homo quidam 
inimicus) raised a tumult against the Apostles and with his own 
hands assaulted James and threw him down from the steps of the 
temple, ceasing then to maltreat him, only because he believed him 
to be dead; and that after this the Apostles received secret informa- 
tion from Gamailiel, that this enemy (inimicus ille homo) had been 
sent by Caiaphas on a mission to Damascus to persecute and slay 
the disciples, and more especially to take Peter who was supposed 
to have fled thither (i. 70, 71)°. The original work, from which this 
portion of the Recognitions seems to have been borrowed, was much 
more violent and unscrupulous in its attacks on St Paul; for in the 
‘Ascents of James’ Epiphanius read the story, that he was of Gen- 
tile parentage, but coming to Jerusalem and wishing to marry the 
high-priest’s daughter he became a proselyte and was circumcised : 
then, being disappointed of his hope, he turned round and furiously 


attacked the Mosaic ordinances (Haer. xxx. 16). 


1 In one instance at least the change 
is due to Rufinus himself. His trans- 
lation of Clem. Recogn. iii. 61 contains 
a distinct recognition of St Paul’s A- 
postieship, ‘Nonum (par) omnium gen- 
tium et illius qui mittetur seminare 
verbum inter gentes.’ (On these cufv- 
ylac of the false and the true see above, 
p. 328.) But the corresponding pas- 
sage in the Syriac version (p. 115, 1. 20, 
Lagarde) is wholly different, and trans- 
lated back into Greek will run thus: 7 
Oe évvdtyn (cugvyia) Tod orépuaros T&v 
figaviey Kal tov evayyeNlov Tod meEmrro- 
pévov els émictpodrv, dTay eExpifwOn 7d 
dy.ov kal els Thy epjywow avtov Cjcovce 
76 Bdédvypa: see Dan. ix. 27, and com- 
pare Clem. Hom. ii. 17 (quoted above, 
p- 323, note 3). Thus the commenda- 


tion of St Paul, which is wholly alien 
to the spirit of these Clementine writ- 
ings, disappears. 

2 Uhlhorn, p. 366. Epiphanius men- 
tions this book, avaBa@yol laxwBov, as 
being in circulation among the Ebion- 
ites (xxx. 16). It was so called doubt- 
less as describing the ascents of James 
up the temple-stairs, whence he ha- 
rangued the people. The name and the 
description of its contents in Epi- 
phanius alike favour the view that it 
was the original of this portion of the 
Recognitions. But if so, the redactor 
of the Recognitions must have taken 
the same liberties with it as he has 
done with the Homilies. 

3 This passage is substantially the 
same in the Syriac. 





ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 331 


In the earlier part of the third century these Gnostic Ebionites Activity of 
seem to have made some futile efforts to propagate their views. An ais 
emissary of the sect, one Alcibiades of Apamea in Syria, appeared 
in Rome with the pretended revelation of Elchasai, and (thinking at Rome, 
himself the better juggler of the two, says Hippolytus) half suc- eee 
ceeded in cajoling the pope Callistus, but was exposed and defeated by 
the zealous bishop of Portus who tells the story (//aer. ix. 13—17). 

Not many years after another emissary, if it was not this same and Caesa- 
Alcibiades, appears to have visited Czesarea, where he was confronted es 247? 
and denounced by Origen’. 

This display of activity might lead to an exaggerated estimate The 


“ aed 5 Church 
of the influence of these Judaizing sects. It is not probable that o¢ eres 


tine not 


they left any wide or lasting impression west of Syria. In Palestine py nis. 


itself they would appear to have been confined to certain localities 
lying for the most part about the Jordan and the Dead Sea. After 
the reconstitution of the mother Church at Aflia Capitolina the Chris- 
tianity of Palestine seems to have been for the most part neither Ebion- 
ite nor Nazarene. It isa significant fact, implying more than appears 


at first sight, that in the Paschal controversy which raged in the Paschal 
ontro- 


middle and later half of the second century the bishops of Cesarea one} 


and Jerusalem, of Tyre and Ptolemais, ranged themselves, not with 
the Churches of Asia Minor which regulated their Easter festival by 
the Jewish passover without regard to the day of the week, but with 
those of Rome and Alexandria and Gaul which observed another 
rule; thus avoiding even the semblance of Judaism’. But we have 
more direct testimony to the main features of Palestinian doctrine 
about the middle of the second century in the known opinions of two 
writers who lived at the time—Justin as representative of the Sa- 
maritan, and Hegesippus of the Hebrew Christianity of their day. 
The former of these declares himself distinctly against the two cha- 
racteristic tenets of Ebionism. Against their humanitarian views Justin. 
he expressly argues, maintaining the divinity of Christ®. On the 
1 Kuseb. H. E. vi. 38. This extract 247. See Redepenning Origenestt.p.72. 
is taken from Origen’s Homily on tlie 2 Euseb. H. HE. v. 23, 24. See below, 


82nd Psalm, which appears to have p. 343, note 2. 
been delivered in Cesarea about a.p. 8! Diabet. as, 27. 


Los) 
Ww 


Hegesip- 
pus, 


tN 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


universal obligation of the law he declares, not only that those who 
maintain this opinion are wrong, but that he himself will hold no 
communion with them, for he doubts whether they can be saved’. 
Tf, as an apologist for the Gospel against Gentile and Jew, he is 
precluded by the nature of his writings from quoting St Paul’, whose 
name would be received by the one with indifference and by the 
other with hatred, he still shows by his manner of citing and ap- 
plying the Old Testament that he is not unfamiliar with this Apo- 
stle’s writings®. The testimony of Hegesippus is still more important, 
for his extant fragments prove him to have been a thorough Hebrew 
in all his thoughts and feelings. This writer made a journey to 
Rome, calling on the way at Corinth among other places; he ex- 
presses himself entirely satisfied with the teaching of the churches 
which he thus visited; ‘Under each successive bishop,’ he says, ‘and 


in each city it is so as the law and the prophets and the Lord 


preach*.’ 


1 Dial. ec. 47, 48. 

2 See Westcott’s argument (Canon 
p. 116 sq) drawn from the usage of 
other apologists, Tertullian for in- 
stance, who does not quote even the 
Gospels in his Apology. 

3 See the introduction, p. 60, and 
the notes on iii. 28, iv. 27. 

4 In Euseb. H. E. iv. 22. The ex- 
tract ends, yevouevos 5¢ év Pau diado- 
xv éronoduny wéxpis Avixjrov of did- 
kovos nv’ EdevOepos* kai rapa Avexyjrou 
diadéxerar Dwrnp, med’ dv EdevOepos* ev 
éxdotn O€ Siadoxyyn Kal év éxdory mode 
otrws éxer ws 6 vomos KypUTTEL Kal ob 
rpopjra kal 6 Kupios. If the text be 
correct, duadoxv Emornoduny Must mean 
‘I drew up a list or an account of the 
successive bishops’ (see Pearson in 
Routh 1. p. 268 sq); and in this case 
Hegesippus would seem to be referring 
to some earlier work or earlier portion 
of this work, which he now supple- 
ments. Possibly however the conjec- 


tural reading diarpiByny érornoduny, ‘1 
continued to reside,’ may be correct: 
but the translation of Rufinus, ‘ per- 
mansi inibi (i.e. Romae) donee Aniceto 
Soter et Soteri successit Eleutherus,’ 


Was the doctrine of the whole Christian world at this 


is of little or no weight on this side; 
for he constantly uses his fluency in 
Latin to gloze over his imperfect 
knowledge of Greek, and the evasion 
of a real difficulty is with him the rule 
rather than the exception. If we re- 
tain dcadox7v, the words of Hegesippus 
would still seem to imply that he left 
Rome during the episcopate of Anice- 
tus. Eusebius indeed (H. E. iv. 11) 
infers, apparently from this passage, 
that he remained there till Eleutherus 
became bishop; and Jerome (de Vir. 
Ill. 22), as usual, repeats Eusebius. 
This inference, though intelligible, 
seems hardly correct; but it shows 
almost conclusively that Eusebius did 
not read duarpiByv. The early Syriac 
translator of Eusebius (see above, p. 
280, note) certainly read diadoxny. 
The dates of the accession of the suc- 
cessive bishops as determined by Lip- 
sius are, Pius 141 (at the latest), 
Anicetus 154—156, Soter 166 or 167, 
Lleutherus 174 or 175, Victor 189, 
Zephyrinus 198 or 199, Callistus 217, 
Urbanus 222; Chron. der Rim. Bisch. 
p. 263. But there is considerable 
variation in the authorities, the ac- 








ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


time (A.D. 150) Ebionite, or was the doctrine of Hegesippus Ca- 
tholic ? 


formation which leaves no doubt as to the true answer. 


There is no other alternative. We happen to possess in- 
Eusebius 
speaks of Hegesippus as ‘having recorded the unerring tradition of 
the apostolic preaching’ (H. £#. iv. 8); and classes him with Dio- 
nysius of Corinth, Melito, Ireneus, and others, as one of those in 
whose writings ‘the orthodoxy of sound faith derived from the apo- 
stolic tradition had been handed down’.’ 


have been mistaken, for he himself states that Hegesippus ‘left the 


In this Eusebius could not 


JSullest record of his own opinions in five books of memoirs’ which 
were in his hands (H. #. iv. 22). It is surely a bold effort of recent 
criticism in the face of these plain facts to set down Hegesippus as 
an Ebionite and to infer thence that a great part of Christendom was 
Ebionite also. True, this writer gives a traditional account of St 
James which represents him as a severe and rigorous ascetic?; but 
between this stern view of life and Ebionite doctrine the interval 
may be wide enough ; and on this showing how many fathers of the 
Church, Jerome and Basil for instance in the fourth century, Ber- 
nard and Dominic and Francis of Assisi in later ages, must plead 
guilty of Ebionism. True, he used the Hebrew Gospel ; but what 
authority he attributed to it, or whether it was otherwise than or- 
thodox, does not appear. True also, he appeals in a passage already 
quoted to the authority of ‘the law and the prophets and the 


Lord®’; but this is a natural equivalent for ‘the Old and New Tes- 


cession of Anicetus being placed by ed Boniface, Camb. 1864) the hero is 


some as early as a.D. 150; see the 
lists in Clinton’s Fasti Romani u. p, 
534 84. 

1H. E. iv. 21 wy kai eds tds Tis 
dmocToNKhs wapadécews H THs wyLovs 
mlorews Eyypados katHAOev dpbodokia. 

2 Kuseb. H. EL. ii. 23. See the ac- 
count of St James below. 

8 See the passage quoted above, p. 
332, note 4. For the inferences of the 
Tiibingen school see Schwegler Nachua- 
post. Zeitalter 1. p. 355, Baur Christen- 
thum etc, p. 78. A parallel instance 
will serve the purpose better than much 
argument. In a poem by the late 
Prof. Selwyn (Winfrid, afterwards call- 


spoken of as ‘Printing heaven’s mes- 
sage deeper in his soul, By reading 
holy writ, Prophet and Law, And four- 
fold Gospel.’ Here, as in Hegesippus, 
the law is mentioned and ‘the Apo- 
stle’ is not. Yet who would say that 
this passage savours of Ebionism? 
Comp. Ireneus Haer. ii. 30. 6 ‘Relin- 
quentes eloquia Domini et Moysen et 
reliquos prophetas,’ and again in Spicil. 
Solesm. 1. p. 3, and the Clementine 
Epistles to Virgins i. 12 ‘Sicut ex lege 
ac prophetis et a Domino nostro Jesu 
Christo didicimus’ (Westcott Canon p. 
185, 4th ed.). So too Apost. Const. ii. 
39 META Thy avayvwow TOD vouou Kal Tov 


333 


not an 
Ebionite, 


Ebionism 
not preva- 
lent in 
other 
churches, 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


tament,’ and corresponding expressions would not appear out of 
place even in our own age. True lastly, he condemns the use made 
of the text, ‘Eye hath not seen nor ear heard’ etc.", as contradicting 
our Lord’s words, ‘Blessed are your eyes for ye see, etc.’; but he is 
here protesting against its perverted application by the Gnostics, 
who employed it of the initiated few, and whom elsewhere he 
severely denounces; and it is a mere accident that the words are 
quoted also by St Paul (1 Cor, ii. 9). 
point him out as a Hebrew, but not one brands him as an Ebionite, 
The decisive evidence on the other side is fatal to this inference. If 


Hegesippus may be taken as a type of the Hebrew Church in his 


Many of the facts mentioned 


day, then the doctrine of that Church was Catholic. 
And if the Palestinian Churches of the second century held 


Catholic doctrine, we shall see little or no reason to fix the charge 


of Ebionism on other communities farther removed from the focus 


mpopyntray Kal Tod evaryyedlov, Hippol. 
Haer. viii. 19 wAetv te 6 abray...per 
pabnkévar 7 Ek vomou Kal mpopynTuy Kai 
evayyeNlwv. 

1 The fragment to which I refer is 
preserved in an extract from Stepha- 
nus Gobarus given in Photius Bibl. 
232. After quoting the words ra jro- 
pacpéva Tots Sixaios dyaba ore 6¢Pah- 
pads eidev ove ots Hxovcey ovTe él Kap- 
Olay av@peémov avé8n, Stephanus pro- 
ceeds, “Hyjotmmos pévto, apxaids Te 
avinp kal amooroNKes, ev TO TWeuTTW THY 
Umopynudatwy, ovK 010’ 6 Te Kal wabdy, 
parny wev elpicGa Tatra héye kal KaTa- 
Wevdecbar Tovs Taira dapuévous THY TE 
Geiwy ypapay Kat Tov Kupiov déyovTos 
Makdpro of 6¢8adpol buav k.7.r. It is 
not surprising that this writer, who 
lived when Gnosticism had passed out 
of memory, should be puzzled to 
‘know what had come to Hegesip- 
pus’: but modern critics ought not to 
have gone astray. Hegesippus can 
hardly be objecting to the passage 
itself, which is probably a quotation 
from Is. lxiv. 4. His objection there- 
fore must be to some application of 
it. But whose application? Even 
had there been no direct evidence, it 
might have been gathered from the 


argument which follows that he re- 
ferred to the esoteric teaching of the 
Gnosties; but the lately discovered 
treatise of Hippolytus establishes the 
fact that it was a favourite text of 
these heretics, being introduced into 
the form of initiation: see v. 24, 26, 
27 (of Justin the Gnostic), vi. 24 (of 
Valentinus). This is the opinion of 
Lechler p. 463, Ritschl p. 267, West- 
cott Canon pp. 206, 281, Bunsen Hip- 
polytus £. p. 132 (2nd ed.), and Hilgen- 
feld Apost. Véiter p. 102, but otherwise 
Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. 1876, p. 203 8q. 
Yet Baur (Christenthum p. 77, Paulus 
p. 221), and Schwegler (1. p. 352), forcing 
an unnatural meaning on the words, 
contend that Hegesippus is directly 
denying St Paul’s claim to a revelation 
and asserting that this privilege belongs 
only to those who have seen and 
heard Christ in the flesh. It is worth 
noticing that the same quotation, ‘eye 
hath not seen ete.,’? is found in the 
Epistle of Clement (c. 34); and this 
epistle was referred to by Hegesippus, 
as the notice of Eusebius seems to im- 
ply (H. EZ. iv. 22), with approval. This 
very mention of Clement’s epistle is in 
itself asecondary evidence that Hegesip- 
pus recognised the authority of St Paul. 





ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 335 


of Judaic influences. Here and there indeed Judaism seems to have 
made a desperate struggle, but only to sustain a signal defeat. At 
Antioch this conflict began earlier and probably continued longer 
than elsewhere ; yet the names of her bishops Ignatius, Theophilus, 
and Serapion, vouch for the doctrine and practice of the Antiochene 
Church in the second century. In Asia Minor the influence first of 
St Paul and then of St John must have been fatal to the ascendancy 
of Ebionism. A disproportionate share indeed of the faint light 
which glimmers over the Church of the second century is concen- 
trated on this region: and the notices, though occasional and frag- 
mentary, are sufficient to establish this general fact. The same is 
true with regard to Greece: similar influences were at work and 
with similar results. The Churches of Gaul took their colour from 
Asia Minor which furnished their greatest teachers: Irenzus bears 
witness to the Catholicity of their faith. In Alexandria, when at 
length the curtain rises, Christianity is seen enthroned between 
Greek philosophy and Gnostic speculation, while Judaism is far in 
the background. The infancy of the African Church is wrapt in 
hopeless darkness: but when she too emerges from her obscurity, 
she comes forward in no uncertain attitude, with no deep scars as 
of a recent conflict, offering neither a mutilated canon nor a dwarfed 
theology. The African Bible, as it appears in the old Latin ver- 
sion, contains all the books which were received without dispute for 
two centuries after. The African theology, as represented by Ter- 
tullian, in no way falls short of the standard of Catholic doctrine 
maintained in other parts of Christendom. 

But the Church of the metropolis demands special attention. At The 
Rome, if anywhere, we should expect to see very distinct traces of ae i 
these successive phenomena, which are supposed to have extended 
throughout or almost throughout the Christian Church—first the 
supremacy of Ebionism—then the conflict of the Judaic with the 
Pauline Gospel—lastly, towards the close of the second century, 
the triumph of a modified Paulinism and the consequent birth of 
Catholic Christianity’. Yet, even if this were the history of Catho- 


1 The episcopate of Victor (about gen critics (see Schwegler 11. p. 206 sq) 
A.D. 190—200) is fixed by the Tiibin- as the epoch of the antijudaic revolu- 


336 


Heretics 


congregate 


there. 


Secession 
of Juda- 
izers. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


licity at Rome, it would still be an unfounded assumption to extend 
the phenomenon to other parts of Christendom. Rome had not yet 
learnt to dictate to the Church at large. At this early period she 
appears for the most part unstable and pliant, the easy prey of 
designing or enthusiastic adventurers in theology, not the originator 
of a policy and a creed of her own. The prerogative of Christian 
doctrine and practice rests hitherto with the Churches of Antioch 
and Asia Minor. 

But the evidence lends no countenance to the idea that the 
tendencies of the Roman Church during this period were towards 
Ebionism. Her early history indeed is wrapt in obscurity. If the 
veil were raised, the spectacle would probably not be very edifying, | 
but there is no reason to imagine that Judaism was her character- 
istic taint. As late heathen Rome had been the sink of all Pagan 
superstitions, so early Christian Rome was the meeting-point of all 
heretical creeds and philosophies. If the presence of Simon Magus 
in the metropolis be not a historical fact, it is still a carrying out 
of the typical character with which he is invested in early tradition, 
as the father of heresy. Most of the great heresiarchs—among others 
Valentinus, Marcion, Praxeas, Theodotus, Sabellius—taught in Rome. 
Ebionism alone would not be idle, where all other heresies were 
active. But the great battle with this form of error seems to have 
been fought out at an early date, in the lifetime of the Apostles 
themselves and in the age immediately following. 

The last notice of the Roman Church in the apostolic writings 
seems to point to two separate communities, a Judaizing Church 
and a Pauline Church. The arrival of the Gentile Apostle ‘in the 
metropolis, it would appear, was the signal for the separation of 
the Judaizers, who had hitherto associated with their Gentile bre- 
thren coldly and distrustfully. The presence of St Paul must have 
vastly strengthened the numbers and influence of the more liberal 


tion in the Roman Church. This date immediate predecessor of Victor; see 
follows necessarily from their assump- above, p. 332, note 4. They suppose 
tion that Hegesippus was an Ebionite; however that the current had been 
for his approval of this church extends setting in this direction some time 
to the episcopate of Hleutherus, the before. 








ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 337 


and Catholic party; while the Judaizers provoked by rivalry re- 
doubled their efforts, that in making converts to the Gospel they 
might also gain proselytes to the law’. Thus ‘in every way Christ 
was preached.’ 

If St Peter ever visited Rome, it must have been at a later St Peter 
date than these notices. Of this visit, far from improbable in itself, pesto: 
there is fair if not conclusive evidence ; and once admitted, we may 
reasonably assume that important consequences flowed from it. Where 
all is obscurity, conjecture on one side is fairly answered by conjec- 
ture on the other. We may venture therefore to suggest this, as a 
not unlikely result of the presence of both Apostles in Rome. As 
they had done before in the world at large, so they would agree to do 
now in the metropolis: they would exchange the right hand of fel- 
lowship, devoting themselves the one more especially to the Jewish, 
the other to the Gentile converts. Christian Rome was large enough A twofold 
to admit two communities or two sections in one community, until sii 
the time was ripe for their more complete amalgamation. Thus 
either as separate bodies with separate governments, or as a con- 
federation of distinct interests represented each by their own ofiicers 
in a common presbytery, we may suppose that the Jewish and 
Gentile brotherhoods at Rome were organized by the combined action 
of the two Apostles. This fact possibly underlies the tradition that 
St Peter and St Paul were joint founders of the Roman Church: and 
it may explain the discrepancies in the lists of the early bishops, 
which perhaps point toa double succession. At all events, the presence 
of the two Apostles must have tended to tone down antipathies and to 
draw parties closer together. The Judaizers seeing that the Apostle 
of the Circumcision, whose name they had venerated at a distance 
but whose principles they had hitherto imperfectly understood, was 
associating on terms of equality with the ‘ hated one,’ the subverter 
of the law, would be led to follow his example slowly and suspi- 


ciously: and advances on the one side would be met eagerly by 


1 The inferences in the text are the circumcision) are my fellow-work- 
drawn from Phil. i. r5—18, compared _ ers etc,’ 
with Col. iv. 11 ‘These only (i.e. of 


GAL. 22 


338 


united 
under 


Clement, 


Clement’s 


Epistle. 


A.D. 95 


Testimony 


2 


of Igna- 


tius. 
A.D. 10 


Pie, 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


advances on the other. Hence at the close of the first century we 
see no more traces of a twofold Church. The work of the Apostles, 
now withdrawn from the scene, has passed into the hands of no un- 
worthy disciple. The liberal and catholic spirit of Clement eminently 
fitted him for the task of conciliation ; and he appears as the first 
bishop or presiding elder of the one Roman Church. This amalga- 
mation however could not be effected without some opposition ; the 
extreme Judaizers must necessarily have been embittered and alien- 
ated: and, if a little later we discern traces of Ebionite sectarianism 
in Rome, this is not only no surprise, but the most natural conse- 
quence of a severe but short-lived struggle. 

The Epistle te the Corinthians written by Clement in the name 
of the Roman Church cannot well be placed after the close of the 
first century and may possibly date some years earlier. It is not 
unreasonable to regard this as a typical document, reflecting the 
comprehensive principles and large sympathies which had been im- 
pressed upon the united Church of Rome, in great measure perhaps 
by the influence of the distinguished writer. There is no early 
Christian writing which combines more fully than this the distinctive 
features of all the Apostolic Epistles, now asserting the supremacy of 
faith with St Paul, now urging the necessity of works with St James, 
at one time echoing the language of St Peter, at another repeating 
the very words of the Epistle to the Hebrews’. Not without some 
show of truth, the authority of Clement was claimed in after genera- 
tions for writings of very ditferent tendencies. Belonging to no 
party, he seemed to belong to all. 

Not many years after this Epistle was written, Ignatius now on 
his way to martyrdom addresses a letter to the Roman brethren. It 
contains no indications of any division in the Church of the metro- 
polis or of the prevalence of Ebionite views among his readers. On 
the contrary, he lavishes epithets of praise on them in the opening 
salutation ; and throughout the letter there is not the faintest shadow 
of blame. His only fear is that they may be too kind to him and 


deprive him of the honour of martyrdom by their intercessions. To 


1 See Westcott History of the Canon p. 24 sq. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 339 


the Ephesians, and even to Polycarp, he offers words of advice and 
warning ; but to the Romans he utters only the language of joyful 
satisfaction’. 

But in a church thus formed we might expect to meet with other 
and narrower types of doctrine than the Epistle of Clement exhibits. 
Traditional principles and habits of thought would still linger on, 
modified indeed but not wholly transformed by the predominance of 
a Catholicity which comprehended all elements in due proportion. 
One such type is represented by an extant work which emanated from 
the Roman Church during the first half of the second century’. 

In its general tone the Shepherd of Hermas confessedly differs Shepherd 


‘ : f Herm: 
from the Epistle of Clement; but on the other hand the writer was aur Ebion. 


certainly no Ebionite, as he has been sometimes represented. If he BH 
dwells almost exclusively on works, he yet states that the ‘elect of c. a.v. 145. 
God will be saved through faith*’: if he rarely quotes the New Tes- 
tament, his references to the Old Testament are still fainter and 
scantier: if he speaks seldom of our Lord and never mentions Him 
by name, he yet asserts that the ‘Son of God was present with His 
Father in counsel at the founding of creation‘, and holds that the 
world is ‘sustained by Him®.’ Such expressions no Ebionite could 
have used. Of all the New Testament writings the Shepherd most 


resembles in tone the Epistle of St James, whose language it some- 


1 This is the case, even though we 
should accept only the parts preserved 
in the Syriac as genuine; but the 
Greek (Vossian) Epistles are still more 
explicit. They distinctly acquit the 
Romans of any participation in heresy; 
speaking of them as ‘united in flesh 
and spirit with every commandment 
of Christ, filled with the grace of God 
inseparably, and strained clear of 
every foreign colour (drodwhicpévors 
amo mavrds ddXoTplov xpwuaros).’ At 
the same time the writer appears in 
other passages as a stubborn opponent 
of Judaism, Magn. 8, 10, Philad. 6. 

2 On the date of the Shepherd see 
above, p. 9g, note 3. 

’ Vis. iii. 8: comp. Mand. viii. 

4 Sim. ix. 12. The whole passage 
is striking: Ilpdrov, pnut, ravTwy, Kv- 


pre, TOOTS por SjAwoov’ 7 mérpa Kal H 
mvrn tis éotw; ‘H wérpa, pyoly, airy 
Kal 7 1UAn 6 vids TOD Oeod éorl. Ids, 
onul, Kbpre, ) wéTpa Tadaid éorw, H OE 
min Kawn; “Axove, yal, kai ove, 
actvere. 6 sev vids TOO Ocod macys THs 
kricews abtod mpoyeréarepos EoTW, WOTE 
cbuBovdov adtov yevéoOar Te Twarpl Tis 
xtloews altod* dia TovTO Kal madatds éo- 
tw. ‘H dé tidy Oia Th Kav}, Pyul, Kbpre; 


oe f 3 s\3. , ~ t n~ cod 
Ort, pnoly, er’ EcXaTov Ty HuEepav TIS 


cuvrerelas pavepds eyévero, dia TovTo 
kawh eyévero % mvAn, va ol mwéAdovTes 
cwtecba dv aris els Thy Baci\elay eic- 
é\wot Tod Oeod. 

5 Sim. ix. 14 7d 8voua Tod vlod rod 
Qcod péya éort kal axdpynrov kal tov 
kocuwov boy Bacrdger. On the whole 
subject see Dorner Lehre etc. 1. p. 186 
sq, Westcott Canon p. 200 sq. 


22—2 


340 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


times reflects: but the teaching of St James appears here in an 
exaggerated and perverted form. ‘The author lays great stress on 
works, and so far he copies his model: but his interpretation of 
works is often formal and ritualistic, and in one passage he even 
states the doctrine of supererogation’. Whether the tone of this 
writing is to be ascribed to the traditional feelings of Judaism yet 
lingering in the Church, or to the influence of a Judaic section still 
tolerated, or to the constitution of the author’s own mind, it is im- 
possible to say. The view of Christian ethics here presented devi- 
ates considerably, it is true, from St Paul’s teaching; but the devi- 
ation is the same in kind and not greater in degree than marks a _ 
vast number of medizval writings, and may in fact be said to cha- 
racterize more or less distinctly the whole medieval Church. Thus 
it affords no ground for the charge of Ebionism. Hermas speaks of 
law indeed, as St James speaks of it; yet by law he means not the 
Mosaic ordinances but the rule introduced by Christ. On the other 
hand his very silence is eloquent. There is not a word in favour of 
Judaic observances properly so called, not a word of denunciation 
direct or indirect against either the doctrine or the person of St 
Paul or his disciples, In this respect the Shepherd presents a marked 
contrast to the truly Ebionite work, which must be taken next in 
order. 

Roman The Clementine writings have been assigned with great confi- 


origin of ah gate ‘ 
Gain: dence by most recent critics of ability to a Roman authorship*®. Of 


mentines 
question- 
ed. argument—indeed almost the only argument—in its favour is the 


the truth of this view I am very far from convinced. The great 


fact that the plot of the romance turns upon the wanderings of this 
illustrious bishop of Rome, who is at once the narrator and the hero 
of the story. But the fame of Clement reached far beyond the 
limits of his own jurisdiction. To him, we are specially told by a 


contemporary writer, was assigned the task of corresponding with 


1 Sim, v. 3: comp. Mand. iv. 4. unanimous opinion of those who in 
? So for instance Baur, Schliemann, later days have critically examined the 
Ritschl, Hilgenfeld: and this view is Clementina.’ Uhlhorn is almost alons 
adopted by Dean Milman Latin Chris- among recent critics in raising his voice 
tianity 1. p. 31, who speaks of itas‘the against this general verdict: p. 370 sq. 





ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 341 


foreign churches’. His rank and position, his acknowledged wisdom 
and piety, would point him out as the best typical representative of 
the Gentile converts: and an Ebionite writer, designing by a reli- 
gious fiction to impress his views on Gentile Christendom, would 
naturally single out Clement for his hero, and by his example enforce 
the duty of obedience to the Church of the Circumcision, as the 
prerogative Church and the true standard of orthodoxy. At all 
events it is to be noticed that, beyond the use made of Clement’s 
name, these writings do not betray any familiarity with or make any 
reference to the Roman Church in particular*. On the contrary, the 
scenes are all laid in the East; and the supreme arbiter, the ulti- 
mate referee in all that relates to Christian doctrine and practice, 
is not Peter, the Clementine Apostle of the Gentiles, the reputed 
founder of the Roman Church, but James the Lord’s brother, the 
bishop of bishops, the ruler of the mother Church of the Circum- 
cision. 

If the Roman origin of these works is more than doubtful, the 
time of writing also is open to much question. The dates assigned 
to the Homilies by the ablest critics range over the whole of the 
If the Roman 
authorship be abandoned, many reasons for a very early date will fall 


second century, and some place them even later. 
to the ground also. Whenever they were written, the Homilies are Their im- 
among the most interesting and important of early Christian writings ; oe es 
bat they have no right to the place assigned them in the system of ated. 

a modern critical school, as the missing link between the Judaism of 

the Christian era and the Catholicism of the close of the second 
century, as representing in fact the phase of Christianity taught at 


Rome and generally throughout the Church during the early ages. 


1 Hermas Vis. ii. 4 méuper ody KX7- 
pms els Tas €£w modets* exelvy yap ém- 
TETPATT AL. 

2 The Epistle of Clement to James, 
prefixed to the work, is an exception; 
for it gives an elaborate account of the 
writer’s appointment by St Peter as 
his successor. The purpose of this let- 
ter, which is to glorify the see of Rome, 
shows that it was no part of and proba- 


bly is later than the Homilies them- 
selves. 

If the Homilies had really been 
written bya Roman Christian, the slight 
and incidental mention of St Peter’s so- 
journ in Rome (i. 16,comp. Recogn.i. 74) 
would have thrown considerable doubt 
on the fact. Butif they emanated from 
the East, from Syria for instance, no 
explanation of this silence is needed. 


342 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


The very complexion of the writer’s opinions is such, that they can 
hardly have been maintained by any large and important community, 


They can- at least in the West. Had they presented a purer form of Judaism, 
not repre- 
sent the 


decane might have been made out. But the theology of the Clementines 


Church. does not lie in a direct line between the Old Testament and Catholic 


founded on the Old Testament Scriptures, a more plausible case 


Christianity : it deviates equally from the one and the other. In its 
rejection of half the Mosaic law and much more than half of the 
Old Testament, and in its doctrine of successive avatars of the 
Christ, it must have been as repugnant to the religious sentiments 
of a Jew trained in the school of Hillel, as it could possibly be to a ~ 
disciple of St Paul in the first century or to a Catholic Christian in 
the third. Moreover the tone of the writer is not at all the tone 
of one who addresses a sympathetic audience, His attacks on St 
Paul are covert and indirect; he makes St Peter complain that he 
has been misrepresented and libelled. Altogether there is an air 
of deprecation and apology in the Homilies. If they were really 
written by a Roman Christian, they cannot represent the main body 
of the Church, but must have emanated from one of the many 
heresies with which the metropolis swarmed in the second century, 
when all promulgators of new doctrine gathered there, as the 
largest and therefore the most favourable market for their spiritual 
wares. 

Notice in There is another reason also for thinking that this Gnostic 

Epp oly- Hbionism cannot have obtained any wide or lasting influence in the 
Church of Rome. During the episcopate of Callistus (a. D. 219— 
223) a heretical teacher appears in the metropolis, promulgating 
Elchasaite doctrines substantially, though not identically, the same 
with the creed of the Clementines, and at first seems likely to attain 
some measure of success, but is denounced and foiled by Hippolytus. 
It is clear that this learned writer on heresies regarded the Elcha- 
saite doctrine as a novelty, against which therefore it was the more 
necessary to warn the faithful Christian. If the Ebionism of the 
Clementines had ever prevailed at Rome, it had passed into oblivion 


when Hippolytus wrote. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 343 
The few notices of the Roman Church in the second century No Ebion- 
5 : a ee . ite lean- 
point to other than Ebionite leanings. In their ecclesiastical ordi- snpaaniehe 


Roman 


nances the Romans seem anxious to separate themselves as widely Ghuskins 


Thus they extended the Friday’s 


fast over the Saturday, showing thereby a marked disregard of the 


as possible from Jewish practices. 


sabbatical festival’. Thus again they observed Easter on a different 
day from the Jewish passover ; and so zealous were they in favour 
of their own traditional usage in this respect, that in the Paschal Evidence 


i : ; of the Pas 
controversy their bishop Victor resorted to the extreme measure of chal con- 


renouncing communion with those churches which differed from it’. RES: 
This controversy affords a valuable testimony to the Catholicity of 
It is clear that the churches 


ranged on different sides on this question of ritual are nevertheless 


Christianity at Rome in another way. 


substantially agreed on all important points of doctrine and practice. 
This fact appears when Anicetus of Rome permits Polycarp of 
Smyrna, who had visited the metropolis in order to settle some dis- 
puted points and had failed in arranging the Paschal question, to 
It is distinctly stated by Ire- 


nus when he remonstrates with Victor for disturbing the peace of 


celebrate the eucharist in his stead. 


In its creed the Roman 
Church was one with the Gallic and Asiatic Churches; and that this 


the Church by insisting on non-essentials’. 


creed was not Ebionite, the names of Polycarp and Ireneus are 
guarantees. Nor is it only in the Paschal controversy that the 
Jatholicity of the Romans may be inferred from their intercourse 


1 Tertull. de Jejun. 14; see Neander index of Judaic or antijudaic leanings: 


Ch. Hist. 1. p. 410 (Bohn). 

2 On the Paschal controversy see 
Fuseb. H. E. v. 23—25. Polycrates on 
behalf of the Asiatic Churches claimed 
the sanction of St John; and there 
seems no reason to doubt the validity 
of this claim. On the other hand a 
different rule had been observed in the 
Roman Church at least as far back as 
the episcopate of Xystus (about 120— 
129) and perhaps earlier. It seems 
probable then that the Easter festival 
had been established independently by 
the Romans and those who followed 
the Roman practice. Thus in the first 
instance the difference of usage was no 


but when once attention was called to 
its existence, and it became a matter of 
controversy,the observance of the Chris- 
tian anniversary on the same day with 
the Jewish festival would afford a 
handle for the charge of Judaism; and 
where it was a matter of policy or of 
principle to stand clear of any sympa- 
thy with Jewish customs (as for in- 
stance in Palestine after the collision of 
the Jews with the Romans), the Roman 
usage would be adopted in preference 
to the Asiatic. 

3 In Euseb. H. E. v. 24 7 dtadwrla 
THs vnorelas THv Ouovoay THs mloTeEws 
ouvlotnow, and the whole extract. 


344 


Other 
communi- 
cations 
with 
foreign 
churches. 


Internal 
condition 
of the 
Roman 
Church. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


with other Christian communities. The remains of ecclesiastical 
literature, though sparse and fragmentary, are yet sufficient to reveal 
a wide network of intercommunication between the churches of the 
second century ; and herein Rome naturally holds a central position. 
The visit of Hegesippus to the metropolis has been mentioned already. 
Not very long after we find Dionysius bishop of Corinth, whose 
‘orthodoxy’ is praised by Eusebius, among other letters addressed 
to foreign churches, writing also to the Romans in terms of cordial 
On the Catholicity of the African Church 


I have already remarked: and the African Church was a daughter 


sympathy and respect’. 


of the Roman, from whom therefore it may be assumed she derived 
her doctrine’. 

The gleams of light which break in upon the internal history of 
the Roman Church at the close of the second and beginning cf the 
third century exhibit her assailed by rival heresies, compromised by 
the weakness and worldliness of her rulers, altogether distracted and 
unsteady, but in no way Ebionite. One bishop, whose name is not 
given, first dallies with the fanatical spiritualism of Montanus; then 
suddenly turning round, surrenders himself to the patripassian spe- 
culations of Praxeas*. Later than this two successive bishops, 
Zephyrinus and Callistus, are stated, by no friendly critic indeed but 
yet a contemporary writer, the one from stupidity and avarice, the 
other from craft and ambition, to have listened favourably to the 
heresies of Noetus and Sabellius*. It was at this point in her history 
that the Church of Rome was surprised by the novel doctrines of the 
Elchasaite teacher, whom I have already mentioned more than once. 
But no one would maintain that at this late date Ebionism predo- 
minated either at Rome or in Christendom generally. 


Ebionites indeed there were at this time and very much later. 


2 -In Kuseb, H. EH. iv. 23. 

* Tertull. de Praescr. 36. Cyprian 
Hpist. 48 (ed. Fell) writing to Cornelius 
speaks of Rome as ‘Hicclesiae catholicae 
radicem et matricem,’ in reference to 
the African Churches. 

3 Tertull. adv. Prax.1. Tertullian, 
now a Montanist, writes of Praxeas 
who had persuaded this nameless bishop 


of Rome to revoke his concessions to 
Montanism, ‘Ita duo negotia diaboli 
Praxeas Romae procuravit, prophetiam 
expulit et haeresim intulit, paracletum 
fugavit et patrem erucifixit.’ For spe- 
culations as to the name of this bishop 
see Wordsworth’s Hippolytus pp. 131, 
132. 
4 Hippol. Haer, ix. 7 8q. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 345 


Even at the close of the fourth century, they seem to have mustered 
in considerable numbers in the east of Palestine, and were scattered 


But their existence was Ebionism 


through the great cities of the empire. 
dies out. 


About the middle of the fifth century 
They would gradually be absorbed 


not prolonged much later. 
they had almost disappeared’. 
either into the Catholic Church or into the Jewish synagogue : into 
the latter probably, for their attachment to the law seems all along to 
have been stronger than their attachment to Christ. 

Thus then a comprehensive survey of the Church in the second 
century seems to reveal a substantial unity of doctrine and a general 
recognition of Jewish and Gentile Apostles alike throughout the 
greater part of Christendom. At the same time it could hardly 
happen, that the influence of both should be equally felt or the au- 
St 


Paul and the Twelve had by mutual consent occupied distinct spheres 


thority of both estimated alike in all branches of the Church. 


of labour ; and this distribution of provinces must necessarily have 
produced some effect on the subsequent history of the Church*. The 
communities founded by St Paul would collect and preserve the 
letters of their founder with special care; while the brotherhoods 
evangelized by the Apostles of the Circumcision would attribute a 
superior, if not an exclusive, value to the writings of these ‘pillars’ 
of the Church. 


find that in individual writers of the second century and in different 


It would therefore be no great surprise if we should 


parts of the early Church, the Epistles of St Paul on the one 
hand, the Apocalypse of St John or the letter of St James on 


the other, were seldom or never appealed to as authorities*. The 


1 Theodoret, Hauer. Fab, ii. 11, men- 
tions the Ebionites and the Elchasaites 
among those of whom ovdé Bpaxd éé- 
pewe elavor. 

2 Gal. ii. g; see Westcott’s History 
of the Canon p. 77 sq, ed. 4. 

3 Many false inferences however, 
affecting the history of the Canonical 
writings, have been drawn from the 
silence of Eusebius, which has been 
entirely misapprehended: see Con- 
temporary Review, January, 1875, p. 
169 sq, Colossians p, 52 sq. 


The phenomenon exhibited in the 
Ancient Syriac Documents (edited by 
Cureton, 1864) is remarkable. Though 
they refer more than once to the Acts 
of the Apostles (pp. 15, 27, 35) as the 
work of St Luke and as possessing 
canonical authority, and though they 
allude incidentally to St Paul’s labours 
(pp. 35, 61, 62), there is yet no refer- 
ence to the epistles of this Apostle, 
where the omission cannot have been 
accidental (p. 32), and the most im- 
portant churches founded by him, 


346 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


equable circulation of all the apostolic writings was necessarily the 
work of time. 

Use of the PFVHE foregoing account of the conflict of the Church with Judaism 

oer has been necessarily imperfect, and in some points conjectural ; 
but it will prepare the way for a more correct estimate of the re- 
lations between St Paul and the leading Apostles of the Circum- 
cision. We shall be in a position to view these relations no longer 
as an isolated chapter in history, but in connexion with events before 
and after: and we shall be furnished also with means of estimating 
the value of later traditional accounts of these first preachers of the 
Gospel. | 

Sr Pavt. Sr Pavt himself is so clearly reflected in his own writings, that 
a distorted image of his life and doctrine would seem to be due only 
to defective vision, Yet our first impressions require to be corrected 
or rather supplemented by an after consideration. Seeing him 
chiefly as the champion of Gentile liberty, the constant antagonist 
of Jew and Judaizer, we are apt to forget that his character has 
another side also. By birth and education he was a Hebrew of the 
Hebrews: and the traditions and feelings of his race held him in 
honourable captivity to the very last. 

His por- Of this fact the narrative of the Acts affords many striking 

aeagas examples. It exhibits him associating with the Apostles of the 
Circumcision on terms of mutual respect and love, celebrating the 
festivals and observing the rites of his countrymen, everywhere 
giving the precedence to the Jew over the Gentile. 


Its truth But the character of the witness has been called in question. 
eee This narrative, it is said, is neither contemporary nor trustworthy. 


It was written long after the events recorded, with the definite 
purpose of uniting the two parties in the Church. Thus the in- 
cidents are forged or wrested to subserve the purpose of the writer. 
It was part of his plan to represent St Peter and St Paul as living 
on friendly terms, in order to reconcile the Petrine and Pauline 


factions. 


as Ephesus, Thessalonica, Corinth, Apostles’ Hand of Priesthood from 
ete., are stated to have received ‘the John the Evangelist’ (p. 34). 





ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 347 


The Acts of the Apostles in the multiplicity and variety of its 
details probably affords greater means of testing its general character 
for truth than any other ancient narrative in existence ; and in my 
opinion it satisfies the tests fully. But this is not the place for such 
an investigation. Neither shall I start from the assumption that it 
has any historical value. Taking common ground with those whose 
views I am considering, I shall draw my proofs from St Paul’s 
Epistles alone in the first instance, nor from all of these, but from 
such only as are allowed even by the extreme critics of the Tiibingen but esta- 


lished b 
school to be genuine, the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and his own ; 


writings. 


Galatians’. It so happens that they are the most important for my 


purpose. If they contain the severest denunciations of the Judaizers, 
if they display the most uncompromising antagonism to Judaism, 
they also exhibit more strongly than any others St Paul’s sympathies 
with his fellow-countrymen. 
These then are the facts for which we have St Paul’s direct per- 
(1) (1) Posi- 


3 : tion of the 
He assigns to them the prerogative over Jews. 


sonal testimony in the epistles allowed by all to be genuine. 
The position of the Jews. 
the Gentiles ; a prior right to the privileges of the Gospel, involving 
a prior reward if they are accepted and, according to an universal 
rule in things spiritual, a prior retribution if they are spurned (Rom. 
i. 16, ii. 9, 10). In the same spirit he declares that the advantage 

is on the side of the Jew, and that this advantage is ‘much every 

His (2) His 


affection 
earnestness and depth of feeling are nowhere more striking than for them. 


way’ (Rom. ili. 1, 2). (2) His affection for his countrymen. 
when he is speaking of the Jews: ‘Brethren, my heart’s desire and 
prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved: for I bear 
them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to 
knowledge’ (Rom. x. 1, 2). Thus in spite of their present stubborn 
apostasy he will not allow that they have been cast away (xi. 1), 


1 These four epistles alone were 
accepted as genuine by Baur and 
Schwegler. Hilgenfeld, who may now 
be regarded as the chief of the Tii- 
bingen school, has in this, as in many 
other points, deserted the extreme po- 
sition of Baur whom he calls the ‘great 


master.’ He accepts as genuine 1 Thes- 
salonians, Philippians, and Philemon: 
thus substituting, as he expresses 
it, the sacred number Seven for the 
heathen Tetractys of his master: see 
Zeitsch. fiir wissensch. Theol. v. p. 226 
(1862). 


348 


(3) His 
practical 
care for 
them. 


(4) His 
conforin- 
ity to their 
usages. 


(5) His use 
of the Old 
Testa- 
ment. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE, 


but looks forward to the time when ‘all Israel shall be saved’ (xi. 26). 
So strong indeed is his language in one passage, that commentators 
regarding the letter rather than the spirit of the Apostle’s prayer, 
have striven to explain it away by feeble apologies and unnatural 
interpretations: ‘I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience 
also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have great heavi- 
ness and continual sorrow in my heart: for I could wish that my- 
self were accursed from Christ (avafeua elvar avtos eyo aro Tod 
Xpwrrod) for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh’ (Rom. 
ix. 1—3). (3) His practical care for his countrymen. The collection 
of alms for the poor brethren of Judea occupies much of his atten- 
tion and suggests messages to various churches (Rom. xv. 25, 26; 
1 Cor. xvi. 1—6; 2 Cor. viii, ix; Gal. ii. 10). It is clear not only 
that he is very solicitous himself on behalf of the Christians of the 
Circumcision, but that he is anxious also to inspire his Gentile con- 
verts with the same interest. (4) His conformity to Jewish habits 
and usages. St Paul lays down this rule, to ‘become all things to 
all men that he may by all means save some’ (1 Cor. ix. 22). This 
is the key to all seeming inconsistencies in different representations 
of his conduct. In his epistles we see him chiefly as a Gentile 
among Gentiles; but this powerful moral weapon has another edge. 
Applying this maxim, he himself tells us emphatically that ‘unto the 
Jews he became as a Jew, that he might gain the Jews ; unto them 
that are under the law as under the law, that he might gain them 
that are under the law’ (1 Cor. ix. 20). The charges of his Judaizing 
opponents are a witness that he did carry out his maxim in this 
direction, as in the other. With a semblance of truth they taunt 
him with inconsistency, urging that in his own practice he had 
virtually admitted their principles, that in fact he had himself 
preached circumcision’. (5) His reverence for the Old Testament 
Scriptures. This is a strongly marked feature in the four epistles 
which I am considering. They teem with quotations, while there 
are comparatively few in his remaining letters. For metaphor, 


allegory, example, argument, confirmation, he draws upon this inex- 


1 See above, p. 28 sq, and notes oni. 10, il. 3, V. 2, II. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 349 


haustible store. However widely he may have differed from his 
rabbinical teachers in other respects, he at least did not yield to 
them in reverence for ‘the law and the prophets and the psalms.’ 
These facts being borne in mind (and they are indisputable) the 
portrait of St Paul in the Acts ought not to present any difficulties. 
It records no one fact of the Apostle, it attributes no sentiment to 
him, which is not either covered by some comprehensive maxim 
or supported by some practical instance in his acknowledged letters. 
On the other hand the tone of the history confessedly differs some- Difference 
what from the tone of the epistles. Nor could it possibly have been Pe ob 
otherwise. Written in the heat of the conflict, written to confute iipis en 
unscrupulous antagonists and to guard against dangerous errors, 
St Paul’s language could not give a complete picture of his relations 
with the Apostles and the Church of the Circumcision. Arguments 
directed against men, who disparaged his authority by undue exalt- 
ation of the Twelve, offered the least favourable opportunity of 
expressing his sympathy with the Twelve. Denunciations of Ju- 
daizing teachers, who would force their national rites on the Gentile 
Churches, were no fit vehicle for acknowledging his respect for and 
conformity with those rites. The fairness of this line of argument 
will be seen by comparing the differences observable in his own 
epistles. His tone may be said to be graduated according to the 
temper and character of his hearers. The opposition of the Galatian 
letter to the Mosaic ritual is stern and uncompromising. It was 
written to correct a virulent form of Judaism. On the other hand the 
remonstrances in the Epistle to the Romans are much more moderate, 
guarded by constant explanations and counterpoised by expressions 
of deep sympathy. Here he was writing to a mixed church of Jews 
and Gentiles, where there had been no direct opposition to his 
authority, no violent outbreak of Judaism. If then we picture him 
in his intercourse with his own countrymen at Jerusalem, where the 
claims of his nation were paramount and where the cause of Gentile 
liberty could not be compromised, it seems most natural that he 
should have spoken and acted as he is represented in the Acts, 
Luther denouncing the pope for idolatry and Luther rebuking Carl- 


St Paul’s 
relations 
with the 
Three as 
described 
in this 
epistle. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE 


stadt for iconoclasm writes like two different persons. He bids the 
timid and gentle Melancthon ‘sin and sin boldly’: he would have 
cut his right hand otf sooner than pen such words to the antinomian 
rioters of Munster. It is not that the man or his principles were 
changed: but the same words addressed to persons of opposite tem- 
pers would have conveyed a directly opposite meaning. 

St Paul’s language then, when in this epistle he describes his 
relations with the Three, must be interpreted with this caution, that 
it necessarily exhibits those relations in a partial aspect. The pur- 
port of this language, as I understand it, is explained in the notes: 
and I shall content myself here with gathering up the results. 

(1) There isa general recognition of the position and authority 
of the elder Apostles, both in the earlier visit to Jerusalem when 
he seeks Peter apparently for the purpose of obtaining instruction in 
the facts of the Gospel, staying with him a fortnight, and in the later 
visit which is undertaken for the purpose, if I may use the phrase, 
of comparing notes with the other Apostles and obtaining their 
sanction for the freedom of the Gentile Churches. (2) On the other 
hand there is an uncompromising resistance to the extravagant and 
exclusive claims set up on their behalf by the Judaizers. (3) In 
contrast to these claims, St Paul’s language leaves the impression 
(though the inference cannot be regarded as certain), that they had 
not offered a prompt resistance to the Judaizers in the first instance, 
hoping perhaps to conciliate them, and that the brunt of the contest 
had been borne by himself and Barnabas. (4) At the same time 
they are distinctly separated from the policy and principles of the 
Judaizers, who are termed false brethren, spies in the Christian 
camp. (5) The Apostles of the Circumcision find no fault with 
St Paul’s Gospel, and have nothing to add toit. (6) Their recog- 
nition of his office is most complete. The language is decisive in 
two respects: it represents this recognition first as thoroughly mu- 
tual, and secondly as admitting a perfect equality and independent 
position. (7) At the same time a separate sphere of labour is 
assigned to each: the one are to preach to the heathen, the other to 


the Circumcision. There is no implication, as some have represented, 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 351 


that the Gospel preached to the Gentile would differ from the Gospel 
preached to the Jew. Such an idea is alien to the whole spirit of 
the passage. Lastly, (8) Notwithstanding their distinct spheres of 
work, St Paul is requested by the Apostles of the Circumcision to 
collect the alms of the Gentiles for the poor brethren of Judea, and 
to this request he responds cordially. 

With the exception of the incident at Antioch, which will be References 
considered presently, the Epistle to the Galatians contains nothing eae 
more bearing directly on the relations between St Paul and the Apo- !!**: 
stles of the Circumcision. Other special references are found in the 
Epistles to the Corinthians, but none elsewhere. These notices, slight 
though they are, accord with the view presented by the Galatian 
letter. St Paul indeed says more than once that he is ‘not a whit 
behind the very chiefest Apostles’ (trav vzepXiav arocréAwy, 2 Cor. 
xi, 5, Xli. rr), and there is in the original a slight touch of irony which 
disappears in the translation: but the irony loses its point unless the 
exclusive preference of the elder Apostles is regarded as an exag- 
geration of substantial claims. Elsewhere St Paul speaks of Cephas 
and the Lord’s brethren as exercising an apostolic privilege which 
belonged also to himself and Barnabas (1 Cor. ix. 5), of Cephas and 
James as witnesses of the Lord’s resurrection like himself (1 Cor. xv. 
5,7). Im the last passage he calls himself (with evident reference 
to the elder Apostles who are mentioned immediately before) ‘the 
least of the Apostles, who is not worthy to be called an Apostle.’ In 
rebuking the dissensions at Corinth, he treats the name of Cephas 
with a delicate courtesy and respect which has almost escaped notice. 
When he comes to argue the question, he at once drops the name of 
St Peter; ‘While one saith, I am of Paul, and another, I am of 
Apollos, are ye not carnal? What then is Apollos, and what is 
Paul?’ Apollos was so closely connected with him (1 Cor. xvi. 12), 
that he could use his name without fear of misapprehension, But in 
speaking of Cephas he had to observe more caution: certain persons 
persisted in regarding St Peter as the head of a rival party, and 
therefore he is careful to avoid any seeming depreciation of his 


brother Apostle. 


352 


Noantago- 
nism be- 
tween St 
Paul and 
the other 
Apostles. 


Sr Perrr 
claimed by 
Ebionites 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


In all this there is nothing inconsistent with the character of 
St Paui as drawn in the Acts, nothing certainly which represents 
him as he was represented by extreme partisans in ancient times, by 
Ebionites on the one hand and Marcionites on the other, and as he 
has been represented of late by a certain school of critics, in a posi- 
tion of antagonism to the chief Apostles of the Circumcision, I 
shall next examine the scriptural notices and traditional represen- 
tations of these three. 

1. The author of the Clementine Homilies makes St Perer 
the mouth-piece of his own Ebionite views. In the prefatory letter 
of Peter to James which, though possibly the work of another 
author, represents the same sentiments, the Apostle complains that 
he has been misrepresented as holding that the law was abolished 
but fearing to preach this doctrine openly. ‘Far be it,’ he adds, 
‘for to act so is to oppose the law of God which was spoken by 
Moses and to which our Lord bare witness that it should abide for 
ever. For thus He said, Heaven and earth shall pass away: one jot 
or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law. And this He 
said that all things might be fulfilled, Yet these persons professing 
to give my sentiments (tov éuov vody érayyeAopevor) I know not how, 
attempt to interpret the words that they have heard from me more 
cleverly (@poviwwrepov) than wyself who spoke them, telling their 
pupils that this is my meaning (¢povnya), though it never once 
entered into my mind (6 éyo ovde éveOuunfyy). But if they dare to 
tell such falsehoods of me while I am still alive, how much more 
will those who come after me venture to do it when I am gone (§ 2).’ 
It has been held by some modern critics that the words thus put 
into the Apostle’s mouth are quite in character; that St Peter did 
maintain the perpetuity of the law; and that therefore the tradi- 
tional account which has pervaded Catholic Christendom from the 
writing of the Acts to the present day gives an essentially false view 
of the Apostle. 

I think the words quoted will strike most readers as betraying a 
consciousness on the part of the writer that he is treading on hollow 


and dangerous ground. But without insisting on this, it is im- 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


353 


portant to observe that the sanction of this venerated name was and also 


claimed by other sectarians of opposite opinions. Basilides (about 
A.D. 130), the famous Gnostic teacher, announced that he had been 
instructed by one Glaucias an ‘interpreter’ of St Peter’. An early 
apocryphal writing moreover, which should probably be assigned to 
the beginning of the second century and which expressed strong anti- 
judaic views’, was entitled the ‘Preaching of Peter.’ I do not see 
why these assertions have not as great a claim to a hearing as the 
opposite statement of the Ebionite writer. They are probably ear- 
lier; and in one case at least we have more tangible evidence than 
The 


probable inference however from such conflicting statements would 


the irresponsible venture of an anonymous romance writer. 


be, that St Peter’s true position was somewhere between the two 


extremes. 


1 Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. p.898, Potter. 

2On this work, the xyjpuvyya Ilé- 
tpov, see Schwegler Nachap. Zeit. u. 
p- 30 sq. Its opposition to Judaism 
appears in an extantfragment preserved 
in Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. p. 760, unde 
kata ‘Lovdatous céBeobe...wore kal vues 
dclws kal Sixaiws wavOdvovres a mapadi- 
Gopev bpiv pudraccecbe, Kaus Tov Oedy 
61a 700 Xpiorod ceBomevor’ evpowev yap 
ev Tals ypadpais xaOws 6 Kupios déyee* 
‘Tdod diarideuac buiy Kawi diabjKnv 
x.7.. The fragments of this work are 
collected by Grabe, Spicil. 1. p. 62 sq. 
It was made use of by Heracleon the 
Valentinian, and is quoted more than 
once, apparently as genuine, by Clement 
of Alexandria. 

The identity of this work with the 
Praedicatio Pauli quoted in the trea- 
tise De Baptismo Haereticorum printed 
among Cyprian’s works (App. p. 30, 
Fell) seems to me very doubtful, though 
maintained by several able critics. 
The passage there quoted is strangely 
misinterpreted by Baur (Christenthum 
p. 53). I give his words, lest I should 
have misunderstood him: ‘Auch die 
kirchliche Sage, welche die Apostel 
wieder zusammenbrachte, lisst erst 
am Ende nach einer langen Zeit 
der Trennung die gegenseitige Aner- 
kennung zu Stande kommen. Post 


GAL, 


tanta tempora, hiess es in der Pra- 
dicatio Pauli in der Stelle, welche sich 
in der Cyprian’s Werken angehangten 
Schrift de rebaptismate erhalten hat 
(Cypr. Opp. ed. Baluz. s. 365 f.), Petrum 
et Paulum post conlationem evangelii 
in Jerusalem et mutuam cogitationem 
[?]etaltercationem et rerum agendarum 
dispositionem postremo in urbe, quasi 
tune primum, invicem sibi esse cogni- 
tos.’ Baur thus treats the comment of 
the writer as if it were part of the 
quotation. In this treatise the writer 
denounces the Praedicatio Pauli as 
maintaining ‘adulterinum, imo interne- 
cinum baptisma’; in order to invalidate 
its authority, he proceeds to show its 
thoroughly unhistorical character; and 
among other instances he alleges the 
fact that it makes St Peter and St Paul 
meet in Rome as if for the first time, 
forgetting all about the congress at Je- 
rusalem, the collision at Antioch, and 
so forth. Schwegler takes the correct 
view of the passage, 1. p. 32. 

Other early apocryphal works attri- 
buted to the chief Apostle of the Cir- 
cumcision are the Gospel, the Acts, 
and the Apocalypse of Peter; but our 
information respecting these is too 
scanty to throw much light on the pre- 
sent question: on the Gospel of Peter 
see above, p. 274. 


23 


by oppo- 


site sects 


354 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


But we are not to look for trustworthy information from such 


sources as these. If we wish to learn the Apostle’s real attitude in 


the conflict between Jewish and Gentile converts, the one fragment- 


St Paul’s 
notice of 
the occur- 
rence at 
Antioch. 


ary notice in the Epistle to the Galatians will reveal more than all 
the distorted and interested accounts of later ages: ‘ But when Ce- 
phas came to Antioch I withstood him to the face, for he was con- 
demned (his conduct condemned itself). For before that certain 

came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles, but when they came, 

he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision: 

and the rest of the Jews also dissembled with him, so that even Bar- 

nabas was carried away with their dissimulation (ovvaryjy6n adtav TH 

vrokpice). But when I saw that they walked not straight according 
to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Cephas before all, If thou, 

being born a Jew (Iovdatos vrapywv), livest after the manner of the 

Gentiles and not after the manner of the Jews, how compellest thou 

the Gentiles to live like the Jews? etc. (u. 11—14).’ 

Now the point of St Paul’s rebuke is plainly this: that in sane- 
tioning the Jewish feeling which regarded eating with the Gentiles 
as an unclean thing, St Peter was untrue to his principles, was acting 
hypocritically and from fear. In the argument which follows he 
assumes that it was the normal practice of Peter to live as a Gentile 
(eCOvixads Cys and not ebvixas éfys), in other words, to mix freely with 
the Gentiles, to eat with them, and therefore to disregard the dis- 
tinction of things clean and unclean: and he argues on the glaring 
inconsistency and unfairness that Cephas should claim this liberty 
himself though not born to it, and yet by hypocritical compliance 
with the Jews should practically force the ritual law on the Gentiles 


and deprive them of a freedom which was their natural right’, 


1 I do not see how this conclusion 
can be resisted. According to the Tii- 
bingen view of St Peter’s position, his 
hypocrisy or dissimulation must have 
consisted not in withdrawing from, but 
in holding intercourse with the Gen- 
tiles; but this is not the view of St Paul 
on any natural interpretation of his 
words; and certainly the Ebionite wri- 
ter already quoted (p. 252) did not so 
understand his meaning. Schwegler (1 


p- 129) explains cuvumexplOncay aire 
‘were hypocritical enough to side with 
him,’ thus forcing the expression itself 
and severing it from the context; but 
even then he is obliged to acquit the 
other Jewish Christians at Antioch of 
Ebionism. Hilgenfeld (Galater p. 61 
sq) discards Schwegler’s interpretation 
and explains vzroxpiois of the self-con- 
tradiction, the unconscious inconsist- 
ency of Jewish Christian or Ebioniie 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 355 


How St Peter came to hold these liberal principles, so entirely Hi copes 
ait : ‘ : with an 
opposed to the narrow traditions of his age and country, is explained ineident 


related in 


by an incident narrated in the Acts. He was at one time as rigid the Anis 


and as scrupulous as the most bigoted of his countrymen: ‘nothing 
common or unclean had at any time entered into his mouth (x. 14, 
xi, 8).’? Suddenly a light bursts in upon the darkness of his religious 
convictions. He is taught by a vision ‘not to call any man common 
or unclean (x. 28).’ His sudden change scandalizes the Jewish 


brethren: but he explains and for the moment at least convinces 


(xi. 18). 
And if his normal principles are explained by the narrative of and aed 
. . . . 8 c a 
the Acts, his exceptional departure from them is illustrated by his racter = 


character as it appears in the Gospels. The occasional timidity Fan Gare 


and weakness of St Peter will be judged most harshly by those who Péls- 
have never themselves felt the agony of a great moral crisis, when 
not their own ease and comfort only, which is a small thing, but 
the spiritual welfare of others seems to clamour for a surrender 
of their principles. His true nobleness—his fiery zeal and over- 
flowing love and abandoned self-devotion—will be appreciated most 
fully by spirits which can claim some kindred however remote with 
his spirit. 

Thus the fragmentary notices in the Gospels, the Acts, and the 
Epistles of St Paul, combine to form a harmonious portrait of a 
character, not consistent indeed, but—to use Aristotle’s significant 
phrase—consistently inconsistent (o“aA@s dvwpadov) ; and this is a 
much safer criterion of truth. But there is yet another source oi The First 
information to be considered—his own letters. If the deficiency of fu ey 
external evidence forbids the use of the Second Epistle in contro- 
versy, the First labours under no such disabilities ; for very few of 
the apostolical writings are better attested. 

To this epistle indeed it has been objected that it bears too 
manifest traces of Pauline influence to be the genuine writing of St shows the 


Seed ; influence 
Peter. The objection however seems to overlook two important of St Paul, 


principles: but inconsistency isnot dis- the context which denounces St Peter 
simulation or hypocrisy, and thisinter- for abandoning a certain line of con- 
pretation, like the former, loses sight of duct from timidity. 


os 


356 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


considerations. /érst. 


St Paul as the chief preacher of Christianity in countries Hellenic 


If we consider the prominent part borne by 


by race or by adoption ; if we remember further that his writings 
were probably the first which clothed the truths of the Gospel and 
the aspirations of the Church in the language of Greece; we shall 
hardly hesitate to allow that he ‘had a great influence in moulding 
this language for Christian purposes, and that those who afterwards 
trod in his footsteps could hardly depart much from the idiom thus 
moulded’. Secondly. It is begging the whole question to assume 
that St Peter derived nothing from the influence of the Apostle of 
the Gentiles. 


other to be impressed. His superior in intellectual culture, in 


The one was essentially a character to impress, the _ 


breadth of sympathy, and in knowledge of men, his equal in love and 
zeal for Christ, St Paul must have made his influence felt on the 
The 
weighty spiritual maxims thrown out during the dispute at Antioch 


frank and enthusiastic temperament of the elder Apostle. 


for instance would sink deep into his heart’: and taking into account 
the many occasions when either by his writings or by personal inter- 
course St Paul’s influence would be communicated, we can hardly 
doubt that the whole effect was great. 


but bears But after all the epistle bears the stamp of an individual mind 
eae quite independent of this foreign element. The substratum of the 
stamp 


thoughts is the writer’s own. Its individuality indeed appears more 
in the contemplation of the life and sufferings of Christ, in the view 
taken of the relations between the believer and the world around, 
in the realisation of the promises made to the chosen people of old, 
in the pervading sense of a regenerate life and the reiterated hope of 
a glorious advent, than in any special development of doctrine: but 
it would be difficult to give any reason why, prior to experience, we 


should have expected it to be otherwise. 


1 Schleiermacher, Einl. ins N. T. 
p. 402 Sq. 

? See 1 Pet. ii. 24 ras duaprlas nua 
autos dvqveyxev ev TH Gwpyate avrov ert 
70 Evov, wa Tais duaptias droyevopuevor 
Ty Stxacoctvy Shown. This is the 
most striking instance which the epistle 


exhibits of coincidence with St Paul’s 
doctrinal teaching (though there are 
occasionally strong resemblances of 
language). With it compare Gal. ii. 20 
Xpisr@ cwecratpwyar’ [0 5é odxérs ey, 
§7 6 év €uol Xprords «.7.D. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 357 


Altogether the epistle is anything but Ebionite. Not only is the = a mind 
: ; ; b 
‘law’ never once named, but there is no allusion to formal ordinances ee a 


of any kind. The writer indeed is essentially an Israelite, but he eka ars 
is an Israelite after a Christian type. When he speaks of the truths 
of the Gospel, he speaks of them through the forms of the older 
dispensation : he alludes again and again to the ransom of Christ’s 
death, but the image present to his mind is the paschal lamb 
without spot or blemish ; he addresses himself to Gentile converts, 
but he transfers to them the cherished titles of the covenant race ; 
they are the true ‘dispersion (i. 1)’; they are ‘a chosen generation, 
a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people (ii. g).’ The 
believer in Christ is the Israelite; the unbeliever the Gentile (ii. 12). 

Corresponding to the position of St Peter as he appears in the ee 
apostolic history, this epistle in its language and tone occupies a Paul and 
place midway between the writings of St James and St Paul. With ehaane 
St James it dwells earnestly on the old: with St Paul it expands 
to the comprehension of the new. In its denunciation of luxurious 
wealth, in its commendation of the simple and homely virtues, in its 
fond reference to past examples in Jewish history for imitation or 
warning, it recalls the tone of the head of the Hebrew Church: in 
its conception of the grace of God, of the ransom of Christ’s death, 
of the wide purpose of the Gospel, it approaches to the language of 
the Apostle of the Gentiles. 

With St Paul too the writer links himself by the mention of two Mark and 
names, both Christians of the Circumcision, and both companions of Raa 
the Gentile Apostle; Mark who, having accompanied him on his 
first missionary tour, after some years of alienation is found by his 
side once more (Col. iv. 10), and Silvanus who shared with him the 
labours and perils of planting the Gospel in Evrope. Silvanus is 
the bearer or the amanuensis of St Peter’s letter; Mark joins in the 
salutations (v. 12, 13). 

Thus the Churches of the next generation, which were likely to St Peter 
be well informed, delighted to unite the names of the two leading ee 
Apostles as the greatest teachers of the Gospel, the brightest examples peri as 
of Christian life. At Rome probably, at Antioch certainly, both these dition. 


358 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


Apostles were personally known. We have the witness of the one 


Rome. church in Clement; of the other in Ignatius. The former classes 

them together as the two ‘noble ensamples of his own generation,’ 

‘the greatest and most righteous pillars’ of the Church, who ‘for 
Antioch. hatred and envy were persecuted even unto death (§ 5).’ The latter 
will not venture to command the Christians of Rome, ‘as Peter and 
Paul did; they were Apostles, he a convict; they were free, he a slave 
to that very hour’.’ Clement wrote before the close of the first 
century, Ignatius at the beginning of the second. It seems probable 
that both these fathers had conversed with one or other of the 
Besides Antioch and Rome, the names of St Peter 
and St Paul appear together also in connexion with the Church of 
Corinth (1 Cor. i. 22). 


voice, though here the later date of her testimony detracts somewhat 


two Apostles. 


Corinth. This church again has not withheld her 
from its value*. Dionysius bishop of Corinth, writing to the Romans 
during the episcopate of Soter (c. 166—174), claims kindred with 
them on the ground that both churches alike had profited by the 
joint instruction of St Peter and St Paul’. 


Misrepre- But though the essential unity of these two Apostles is thus 
sentations 
of extreme 


parties. 


recognised by different branches of the Catholic Church, a disposition 
to sever them seems early to have manifested itself in some quarters. 
Even during their own lifetime the religious agitators at Corinth 
would have placed them in spite of themselves at the head of rival 
parties. And when death had removed all fear of contradiction, 
extreme partisans boldly claimed the sanction of the one or the other 


1 Rom. 4. The words cvx ws Ilé- kal yap dudw kal els trav nwerépay Ko- 


tpos kat Ilatdos diatdooomar duiv gain 
force, as addressed to the Romans, if we 
suppose both Apostles to have preached 
in Rome. 

2 The language of Clement however 
implicitly contains the testimony of this 
church atan earlier date: for he assumes 
the acquiescence of the Corinthians 
when he mentions both Apostles as of 
equal authority ($§ 5, 47). 

3 In Euseb. H. E. ii. 25 rHv avo 
Ilérpov xai IlavAov gurelav yevnbeioav 
“Pwpualwy re kal Kop Piwy cuvexepacare. 


pwOov porijcavres Huds ouolws cdidakar, 
Guolws 6€ Kat els rhv "IraNiav dudce 
didazavres euaptipnoay Kara Tov avrov 
kaipdv. All the mss and the Syriac 
version here have gurevoavres; but 
gpotrnoavres is read by Georgius Syn- 
cellus, and Rufinus has ‘adventantes’ ; 
the sense too seems to require it. In 
any case it is hardly a safe inference 
that Dionysius erroneously supposed 
the Churches of Rome and Corinth to 
have been founded by both Apostles 
jointly. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 359 


for their own views. The precursors of the Ebionites misrepresented 
the Israelite sympathies of St Peter, as if he had himself striven 
to put a yoke upon the neck of the Gentiles which neither their 
fathers nor they were able to bear. The precursors of Marcionism 
exaggerated the antagonism of St Paul to the Mosaic ritual, as if 
he had indeed held the Jaw to be sin and the commandment neither 
holy nor just nor good. It seems to have been a subsidiary aim of Concilia- 


s ? tory aim 
St Luke’s narrative, which must have been written not many years Aethe 


after the martyrdom of both Apostles, to show that this growing rex 
tendency was false, and that in their life, 2s in their death, they were 
not divided. A rough parallelism between the career of the two 
reveals itself in the narrative when carefully examined. Recent 
criticism has laid much stress on this ‘conciliatory’ purpose of the 
Acts, as if it were fatal to the credit of the narrative. But denying 
the inference we may concede the fact, and the very concession 
draws its sting. Such a purpose is at least as likely to have been 
entertained by a writer, if the two Apostles were essentially united, 
as if they were not. The truth or falsehood of the account must be 
determined on other grounds. 

2. While St Peter was claimed as their leader by the Judaizers, St Jon 


: not claim- 
no such liberty seems to have been taken with the name of Sr ed by 


Joun’. Long settled in an important Gentile city, surrounded by ea 
a numerous school of disciples, still living at the dawn of the second 
century, he must have secured for his teaching such notoriety as 
protected it from gross misrepresentation. 

His last act recorded in St Luke’s narrative is a visit to the His posi- 


tion in the 
newly founded Churches of Samaria, in company with St Peter (viii. apostolic 


history. 


1 In the portion of the first book of in their writings. In another passage 


the Recognitions, which seems to have 
been taken from the ‘Ascents of James,’ 
the sons of Zebedee are introduced with 
the rest of the Twelve confuting here- 
sies, but the sentiments attributed to 
them are in no way Ebionite (i. 57). 
It is this work perhaps to which Epi- 
phanius refers (xxx. 23), for his notice 
does not imply anything more than a 
casual introduction of St John’s name 


Epiphanius attributes to the sons of Ze- 
bedee the same ascetic practices which 
distinguished James the Lord’s brother 
(Haer. lxxviii. 13); and this account 
he perhaps derived from some Essene 
Ebionite source. But I do not know 
that they ever claimed St John in the 
same way as they claimed St Peter and 
St James. 


360 


His life in 
relation to 
his writ- 
ings. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


14). He thus stamps with his approval the first movement of the 
Church in its liberal progress. From the silence of both St Paul 
and St Luke it may be inferred that he took no very prominent 
part in the disputes about the Mosaic law. Only at the close of 
the conferences we find him together with St Peter and St James 
recognising the authority and work of St. Paul, and thus giving 
another guarantee of his desire to advance the liberties of the Church. 
This is the only passage where he is mentioned in St Paul’s Epistles. 
Yet it seems probable that though he did not actually participate in 
the public discussions, his unseen influence was exerted to promote 
the result. As in the earliest days of the Church, so now we may. 
imagine him ever at St Peter’s side, his faithful colleague and wise 
counsellor, not forward and demonstrative, but most powerful in 
private, pouring into the receptive heart of the elder Apostle the 
lessons of his own inward experience, drawn from close personal 
intercourse and constant spiritual communion with his Lord. 

At length the hidden fires of his nature burst out into flame. 
When St Peter and St Paul have ended their labours, the more 
active career of St John is just beginning. If it had been their task 
to organize and extend the Church, to remove her barriers and to 
advance her liberties, it is his special province to build up and 
complete her theology. The most probable chronology makes his 
withdrawal from Palestine to Asia Minor coincide very nearly with 
the martyrdom of these two Apostles, who have guided the Church 
through her first storms and led her to her earliest victories. This 
epoch divides his life into two distinct periods: hitherto he has lived 
as a Jew among Jews; henceforth he will be as a Gentile among 
Gentiles. The writings of St John in the Canon probably mark the 
close of each period. The Apocalypse winds up his career in the 
Church of the Circumcision ; the Gospel and the Epistles are the crown- 
ing result of a long residence in the heart of Gentile Christendom. 

Both the one and the other contrast strongly with the leading 
features of Ebionite doctrine; and this fact alone would deter the 
Judaizers from claiming the sanction of a name so revered. 

Of all the writings of the New Testament the AProcaLyPsE is 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 361 


most thoroughly Jewish in its language and imagery. The whole The Apo- 
; : : calypse 

book is saturated with illustrations from the Old Testament. It qebrew in 

speaks not the language of Paul, but of Isaiah and Ezekiel and pe 

Daniel. Its tone may be well described by an expression borrowed 

from the book itself; ‘the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of pro- 

phecy (xix. 10).’ The doctrine of Balaam, the whoredoms of Je- 

zebel, the song of Moses, the lion of Judah, the key of David, the 

great river Euphrates, the great city Babylon, Sodom and Egypt, 

Gog and Magog, these and similar expressions are but the more 

striking instances of an imagery with which the Apocalypse teems. 

Nor are the symbols derived solely from the canonical Scriptures ; 

in the picture of the New Jerusalem the inspired Apostle has bor- 

rowed many touches from the creations of rabbinical fancy. Up to 

this point the Apocalypse is completely Jewish and might have 

been Ebionite. But the same framing serves only to bring out more but not 


E 
strongly the contrast between the pictures themselves. The two slg pa 


distinctive features of Ebionism, its mean estimate of the person '!™* 
of Christ and its extravagant exaltation of the Mosaic law, are 
opposed alike to the spirit and language of St John. It might have ee 
been expected that the beloved disciple, who had leaned on his 
Master’s bosom, would have dwelt with fond preference on the hu- 
manity of our Lord: yet in none of the New Testament writings, 

not even in the Epistles of St Paul, do we find a more express re- 
cognition of His divine power and majesty. He is ‘the Amen, the 
faithful and true witness, the beginning (the source) of the creation 

of God (iii. 14).’ ‘Blessing, honour, glory, and power’ are ascribed 

not ‘to Him that sitteth on the throne’ only, but ‘to the Lamb for 

ever and ever (v. 13).’? His name is ‘the Word of God (xix. 13).’ 
Therefore he claims the titles and attributes of Deity. He de 
clares himself ‘the Alpha and Omega, the first and last, the begin- 

ning and the end (xxii. 13; comp. i. 8).’ He is ‘the Lord of lords 

and the King of kings (xvii. 14, xix. 16).’ And so too the Ebionite 
reverence for the law as still binding has no place in the Apocalypse. The law, 


~<a 


The word does not occur from beginning to end, nor is there a single 
allusion to its ceremonial as an abiding ordinance. The Paschal 


36 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE, 


Lamb indecd is ever present to St John’s thought ; but with him it 


signifies not the sacrifice offered in every Jewish home year by year, 


but the Christ who once ‘was slain, and hath redeemed us to God 


by his blood out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation 


(vii. 9).’ 


All this is very remarkable, since there is every reason 


to believe that up to this time St John had in practice observed 


the Jewish law’. 


1 Certain traditions of St John’s 
residence at Ephesus, illustrating his 
relation to the Mosaic law, deserve no- 
tice here. They are given by Polycrates 
who was himself bishop of Ephesus 
(Kuseb. H. H.v. 24). Writing to pope 
Victor, probably in the last decade of 
the second century, he mentions that 
he ‘numbers (éywv) sixty-five years in 
the Lord’ (whether he refers to the 
date of his birth or of his conversion, is 
uncertain, but the former seems more 
probable), and that he has had seven 
relations bishops, whose tradition he 
follows. We are thus carried back to 
a very early date. The two statements 
with which we are concerned are these. 
(1) St John celebrated the Paschal day 
on the 14th of the month, coinciding 
with the Jewish passover. It seems to 
me, as I have said already (see p. 343), 
that there is no good ground for ques- 
tioning this tradition. The institution 
of such an annual celebration by this 
Apostle derives light from the many 
references to the Paschal Lamb in the 
Apocalypse; and in the first instance 
it would seem most natural to celebrate 
it on the exact anniversary of the Pass- 
over. It is more questionable whether 
the Roman and other Churches, whose 
usage has passed into the law of Chris- 
tendom, had really the apostolic sanc- 
tion which they vaguely asserted for 
celebrating it always on the Friday. 
This usage, if not quite so obvious as 
the other, was not unnatural and pro- 
bably was found much more convenient. 
(2) Polycrates says incidentally of St 
John that he was ‘a priest wearing the 
mitre and a martyr and teacher (és 
€yev7n 0 iepeds 74 méradov Teopexws Kai 
fuaptus Kat dvdaoKados).’ The reference 


To him however it was only a national custom 


in the réraXov is doubtless to the metal 
plate on the high-priest’s mitre (Exod. 
XXVill. 36 métadov xpvcody xKadapér, 
comp. Protevang. ¢. 5 To mwétTahov Tod 
iepéws); but the meaning of Polycrates 
is far from clear. He has perhaps mis- 
taken metaphor for matter of fact (see 
Stanley Apostolical Age p. 285); in 
like manner as the name Theophorus 
assumed by Ignatius gave rise to the 
later story that he was the child whom 
our Lord took in his arms and blessed. 
I think it probable however that the 
words as they stand in Polycrates are 
intended for a metaphor, since the short 
fragment which contains them has seve- 
ral figurative expressions almost, if not 
quite, as violent; e.g. weya\a ocroxeta 
kexolunra: (where crovyeta means ‘lu- 
minaries,’ being used of the heavenly 
bodies); MeXrwva rév edvodxov (proba- 
bly a metaphor, as Rufinus translates 
it, ‘propter regnum dei eunuchum’; see 
Matt. xix.12and comp. Athenag. Suppl. 
33 34, Clem. Alex. Paed. iii. 4, p. 269, 
Strom. iil. 1. p. 509 Sq); Tv puKpdv mov 
avOpwrov (‘my insignificance’; comp. 
Rom. vi. 6 6 madads qudv dvOpwros, 
2 Cor. iv. 16 0 €£w judy dvOpwros, 1 Pet. 
lll. 4 6 Kpumrds tis Kapdlas dv@pwrros). 
The whole passage is a very rude speci- 
men of the florid ‘ Asiatic’ style, which 
even in its higher forms Cicero con- 
demns as suited only to the ears of a 
people wanting in polish and good taste 
(‘minime politae minimeque elegantes,’ 
Orator, 25) and which is described by 
another writer as kourwdns kal dpvaryua- 
tias Kal Kevod yaupiiaros Kal Pidoriulas 
dvwyadrou weotés, Plut. Vit. Anton. 2; 
see Bernhardy Griech. Litt. 1. p. 465. 
On the other handit is possible—I think 
not probable—that St John did wear 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 363 


and not an universal obligation, only one of the many garbs in which 
religious worship might clothe itself, and not the essence of religious 
life. 


nothing ; and therefore he passes it over as if it were not. 


In itself circumcision is nothing, as uncircumcision also is 
The 
distinction between Jew and Gentile has ceased ; the middle wall of 
partition is broken down in Christ. If preserving the Jewish ima- 
gery which pervades the book, he records the sealing of twelve 
thousand from each tribe of Israel, his range of vision expands at 
once, and he sees before the throne ‘a great multitude, which no man 
could number, of all nations and kindreds and peoples and tongues 
(vii. 9).’ 
up their own watchword ‘knowledge (yous) and retorting upon 


If he denounces the errors of heathen speculation, taking 


them that they know only ‘the depths of Satan (ii. 24)',’ on the 
other hand he condemns in similar language the bigotry of Jewish 
prejudice, denouncing the blasphemy of those ‘ who say they are Jews 
and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan’ (ii. 9 ; comp. ili. 9). 


A lapse of more than thirty years spent in the midst of a The Gos- 
Gentile population will explain the contrast of language and imagery sae 
contrasted 
and com- 
The language and pared with 
i i the Apoca- 
colouring of the Gospel and Epistles are no longer Hebrew ; but so lypse. 


between the Apocalypse and the later writings of St John, due allow- 


ance being made for the difference of subject”. 


far as a Hebrew mind was capable of the transformation, Greek or 


this decoration as an emblem of his 
Christian privileges ; nor ought this view 
to cause any offence, as inconsistent 
with the spirituality of his character. 
If in Christ the use of external symbols 
is nothing, the avoidance of them is no- 
thing also. But whether the statement 
of Polycrates be metaphor or matter of 
fact, its significance, as in the case of 
the Paschal celebration, is to be learnt 
from the Apostle’s own language in the 
Apocalypse, where not only is great 
stress laid on the priesthood of the be- 
lievers generally (i. 6, v. 10, xx. 6), but 
even the special privileges of the high- 
priest are bestowed on the victorious 
Christian (Rev. ii. 17, as explained by 
Ziillig, Trench, and others: see Stanley 
l, c, p. 285; comp. Justin Dial. 116 
apxeparixdy Td aAnOuwdv yévos éouev Tov 


Qcod, and see Philippians p. 252). Tha 
expression is a striking example of the 
lingering power not of Ebionite tenets 
but of Hebrew imagery. 

1 See above, p. 309, note 3. 

2 Owing to the difference of style, 
many critics have seen only the alterna- 
tive of denying the apostolic authorship 
either of the Apocalypse or of the Gos- 
pel and Epistles. The considerations 
urged in the text seem sufficient to 
meet the difficulties, which are greatly 
increased if a late date is assigned to 
the Apocalypse. Writers of the Tii- 
bingen school reject the Gospel and 


Epistles but accept the Apocalypse.. 


This book alone, if its apostolical au- 
thorship is conceded, seems to me to 
furnish an ample refutation of their 
peculiar views. 


364 


Sr Jamzs 
holds a 
local office. 


Reasons 
for his 
appoint- 
ment. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


rather Greco-Asiatic. The teaching of these latter writings it will 
be unnecessary to examine; for all, I believe, will allow their 
general agreement with the theology of St Paul; and it were a bold 
criticism which should discover in them any Ebionite tendencies. 
Only it seems to be often overlooked that the leading doctrinal 
ideas which they contain are anticipated in the Apocalypse. The 
passages which I have quoted from the latter relating to the divinity 
of Christ are a case in point: not only do they ascribe to our 
Lord the same majesty and power; but the very title ‘the Word,’ 
with which both the Gospel and the first Epistle open, is found 
here, though it occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. On 
the other hand, if the Apocalypse seems to assign a certain pre- 
rogative to the Jews, this is expressed equally in the sayings of 
the Gospel that Christ ‘came to his own (i. 11),’ and that ‘Salvation 
is of the Jews (iv. 22),’ as it is involved also in St Paul’s maxim 
‘to the Jew first and then to the Gentile.’ It is indeed rather a 
historical fact than a theological dogma. The difference between the 
earlier and the later writings of St John is not in the fundamental 
conception of the Gospel, but in the subject and treatment and 
language. The Apocalypse is not Ebionite, unless the Gospel and 
Epistles are Ebionite also. 

3. St James occupies a position very different from St Peter 
or St John. If his importance to the brotherhood of Jerusalem was 
greater than theirs, it was far less to the world at large. In a 
foregoing essay I have attempted to show that he was not one of the 
Twelve. This result scems to me to have much more than a critical 
interest. Only when we have learnt to regard his office as purely 
local, shall we appreciate the traditional notices of his life or estimate 
truly his position in the conflict between Jewish and Gentile Chris- 
tians, 

A disbeliever in the Lord’s mission to the very close of His 
earthly life, he was convinced, it would seem, by the appearance of 
the risen Jesus’. This interposition marked him out for some special 


work. Among a people who set a high value on advantages of race 


1 See above, p. 265. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 305 


and blood, the Lord’s brother would be more likely to win his way 
than a teacher who would claim no such connexion. In a state 
of religious feeling where scrupulous attention to outward forms was 
held to be a condition of favour with God, one who was a strict 
observer of the law, if not a rigid ascetic, might hope to obtain 
a hearing which would be denied to men of less austere lives and 
wider experiences. These considerations would lead to his selec- 
‘tion as the ruler of the mother Church. The persecution of Herod 
which obliged the Twelve to seek safety in flight would naturally be 
the signal for the appointment of a resident head. At all events 
it is at this crisis that James appears for the first time with his 
presbytery in a position though not identical with, yet so far 
resembling, the ‘bishop’ of later times, that we may without much 
violence to language give him this title (Acts xii. 17, xxi. 18). 

As the local representative then of the Church of the Circum- His allegi- 
cision we must consider him. To one holding this position the law =a, chat 
must have worn a very different aspect from that which it wore to 
St Peter or St John or St Paul. While they were required to be- 
come ‘all things to all men,’ he was required only to be ‘a Jew to 
the Jews.’ No troublesome questions of conflicting duties, such as 
entangled St Peter at Antioch, need perplex him. Under the law 
he must live and die. His surname of the Just’ is a witness to his 
rigid observance of the Mosaic ritual. A remarkable notice in the 
Acts shows how he identified himself in all external usages with 
those ‘many thousands of Jews which believed and were all zealous 
of the law (xxi. 20).’? And a later tradition, somewhat distorted in- 
deed but perhaps in this one point substantially true, related how by 
his rigid life and strict integrity he had won the respect of the whole 
Jewish people? 

A strict observer of the law he doubtless was; but whether to The ac- 


this he added a rigorous asceticism, may fairly be questioned. The ae. 


1 In the account of Hegesippus, re- H. E. iv. 5), either in memory of their P"S 


ferred to in the following note, 6 dixacos predecessor or in token of their own 
‘Justus’ is used almost as a proper rigid lives: compare also Acts i. 23, 
name. Two later bishops of Jerusalem xviii. 7, Col. iv. 11 (with the note). 

in the early part of the second century 2? Hegesippus in Euseb. H. E. ii, 
also bear the name ‘Justus’ (Euseb. 23. 


366 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


account to which I have just referred, the tradition preserved in 
Hegesippus, represents him as observing many formalities not en- 
joined in the Mosaic ritual. ‘He was holy,’ says the writer, ‘from 
his mother’s womb. He drank no wine nor strong drink, neither 
did he eat fiesh. 


himself with oil; he did not use the bath. 


No razor ever touched his head; he did not anoint 
He alone was allowed to 
enter into the holy place (<is ta dya). For he wore no wool, but 
only fine linen. And he would enter into the temple (vadv) alone, 
and be found there kneeling on his knees and asking forgiveness for 
the people, so that his knees grew hard like a camel’s knees, because 
he was ever upon them worshipping God and asking forgiveness for 


not trust- 
worthy. 


the people.’ There is much in this account which cannot be true: 
the assigning to him a privilege which was confined to the high- 
priest alone, while it is entangled with the rest of the narrative, is 
plainly false, and can only have been started when a new generation 
had grown up which knew nothing of the temple services’. Moreover 
the account of his testimony and death, which follows, not only con- 


tradicts the brief contemporary notice of Josephus®, but is in itself 


1 It is perhaps to be explained like 
the similar account of St John: see 
above, p. 362, note. Compare Stan- 
ley Apostolical Age p. 324. Epiphanius 
(Haer.|xxviii. 14) makes the same state- 
ment of St James which Polycrates 
does of St John, réradov émi r7ys Kepa- 
Ajs epbpece. 

2 Josephus (Antig. xx. g. 1) relates 
that in the interregnum between the 
death of Festus and the arrival of Albi- 
nus,the high-priest Ananus theyounger, 
who belonged to the sect of the Saddu- 
cees (notorious for their severity in 
judicial matters), considering this a fa- 
vourable opportunity xaGifer cvvédpiov 
Kpir@v, Kal mapayayov eis avrd Tov 
adedpdv "Incod rod Aeyouévov Xpiorod, 
TaxwBos dvoua ait@, Kai twas érépous, 
&s TapavouncavTwy KaTnyoplay momoa- 
wevos mapedwke AevoOncouévouvs. This 
notice is wholly irreconcilable with the 
account of Hegesippus. Yet it is pro- 
bable in itself (which the account of 
Hegesippus is not), and is such as Jo- 


sephus might be expected to write if he 
alluded to the matter atall. His stolid 
silence about Christianity elsewhere 
cannot be owing to ignorance, for a sect 
which had been singled out years before 
he wrote as a mark for imperial ven- 
geance at Rome must have been only 
too well known in Judxa. On the other 
hand, if the passage had been a Chris- 
tian interpolation, the notice of James 
would have been more laudatory, as is 
actually the case in the spurious passage 
of Josephus read by Origen and Euse- 
bius (H. E. ii. 23, see above, p. 313, 
note 2), but not found in existing copies. 
On these grounds I do not hesitate to 
prefer the account in Josephus to that 
of Hegesippus. This is the opinion of 
Neander (Planting 1. p. 367, Eng. 
Trans.),of Ewald (Geschichte v1. p. 547), 
and of some few writers besides (so 
recently Gerlach Rémische Statthalter 
eic. p. 81, 1865): but the majority take 
the opposite view. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


so melodramatic and so full of high improbabilities, that it must 


throw discredit on the whole context’. 


367 


‘We are not therefore justified in laying much stress on this He was 


tradition. It is interesting as a phenomenon, but not trustworthy as 


a history. Still it is possible that James may have been a Nazarite, 


may have been a strict ascetic. 


will view with impatience, as unworthy an Apostle of Christ. 


this is unreasonable. 


1 The account is briefly this. Cer- 
tain of the seven sects being brought by 
the preaching of James to confess Christ 
the whole Jewish people are alarmed. 
To counteract the spread of the new 
doctrine, the scribes and Pharisees re- 
quest James, as a man of acknowledged 
probity, to ‘persuade the multitude not 
to go astray concerning Jesus.’ in order 
that he may do this to more effect, on 
the day of the Passover they place him 
on the pinnacle (rrepiyov) of the tem- 
ple. Instead of denouncing Jesus how- 
ever, he preaches Him. Finding their 
mistake, the scribesand Pharisees throw 
him down from the height; and as he 
is not killed by the fall, they stone him. 
Finally he is despatched by a fuller’s 
club, praying meanwhile for his mur- 
derers. The improbability of the nar- 
rative will appear in this outline, but it 
is much increased by the details. The 
points of resemblance with the portion 
of the Recognitions coujectured to be 
taken from the ‘ Ascents of James’ (see 
above, p. 330) are striking, and recent 
writers have called atteniion to these as 
showing that the narrative of Hegesip- 
pus was derived from a similar source 
(Uhlborn Clement. p. 367, Ritschl p. 226 
sq). May we not go a step farther and 
hazard the conjecture that the story of 
the martyrdom, to which Hegesippus is 
indebted, was the grand finale of these 
‘Ascents,’ of which the earlier portions 
are preserved in the Recognitions? The 
Recognitions record how James with 
the Twelve refuted the Jewish sects: 
the account of Hegesippus makes the 
conversion of certain of these sects the 
starting-point of the persecution which 
led io his martyrdom. In the Recog- 


Such a representation perhaps some 


But 


Christian devotion does not assume the same 


nitions James is represented ascending 
the stairs which led up to the temple 
and addressing the people from these: 
in Hegesippus he is placed on the pin- 
nacle of the temple whence he delivers 
his testimony. In the Recognitions he 
is thrown down the flight of steps and 
loft as dead by his persecutors, but is 
taken up alive by the brethren; in 
Hegesippus he is hurled from the still 
loftier station, and this time his death 
is made sure. ‘Thus the narrative of 
Hegesippus seems to preserve the con- 
summation of his testimony and his 
sufferings, as treated in this romance, 
the last of a series of ‘Ascents,’ the 
first of these being embodied in the 
Recognitions. 

If Hegesippus, himself no Ebionite, 
has borrowed these incidents (whether 
directly or indirectly, we cannot say) 
from an Ebionite source, he has done 
no more than Clement of Alexandria 
did after him (see above, p. 324), than 
Epiphanius, the scourge of heretics, 
does repeatedly. The religious romance 
seems to have been a favourite style of 
composition with the Essene Ebionites: 
and in the lack of authentic informa- 
tion relating to the Apostles, Catholic 
writers eagerly and unsuspiciously ga- 
thered incidents from writings of which 
they repudiated the doctrines. It is 
worthy of notice that though the Essenes 
are named among the sects in Hege- 
sippus, they are not mentioned in the 
Recognitions; and that, while the Re- 
cognitions lay much stress on baptisms 
and washings (a cardinal doctrine of 
Essene Ebionism), this feature entirely 
disappears in the account of James 
given by Hegesippus. 


perhaps 
an ascetic. 


368 


St James 
stands a- 
part from 
the Twelve 
in the 
Acts, 


and in the 
Catholic 
Epistles. 


The 
Gospel a 
higher 
law. 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


outward garb in all persons, and at all times ; not the same in James 
as in Paul; not the same in medieval as in protestant Christianity. 
In James, the Lord’s brother, if this account be true, we have the 
prototype of those later saints, whose rigid life and formal devotion 
elicits, it may be, only the contempt of the world, but of whom 
nevertheless the world was not and is not worthy. 

But to retrace our steps from this slippery path of tradition to 
firmer ground. The difference of position between St James and 
the other Apostles appears plainly in the narrative of the so-called 
Apostolic council in the Acts. It is Peter who proposes the eman- 
cipation of the Gentile converts from the law ; James who suggests 
the restrictive clauses of the decree. It is Peter who echoes St Paul’s 
sentiment that Jew and Gentile alike can hope to be saved only 
‘by the grace of the Lord Jesus’; James who speaks of Moses 
having them that preach him and being read in the synagogue every 
sabbath day. I cannot but regard this appropriateness of sentiment 
as a subsidiary proof of the authenticity of these speeches recorded 
by St Luke. , 

And the same distinction extends also to their own writings. 
St Peter and St John, with a larger sphere of action and wider obli- 
gations, necessarily took up a neutral position with regard to the 
law, now carefully observing it at Jerusalem, now relaxing their 
observance among the Gentile converts. To St James on the other 
hand, mixing only with those to whom the Mosaic ordinances were 
the rule of life, the word and the thing have a higher importance. 
The neutrality of the former is reflected in the silence which per- 
vades their writings, where ‘law’ is not once mentioned’. The 
respect of the latter appears in his differential use of the term, 
which he employs almost as a synonyme for ‘Gospel’*.’ 

But while so using the term ‘law,’ he nowhere implies that the 


Mosaic ritual is identical with or even a necessary part of Chris- 


1 As regards St John this is true dpapria éoriv 7 dvoula. In St Peter 
only of the Epistles andthe Apocalypse: neither véuos nor dvoula occurs. 
in the Gospel the law is necessarily 2 The words evayyédov, evaryyeNlfe- 
mentioned by way of narrative. In «6a, do not occur in Si James. 
1 Joh. iii. 4 it is said significantly, 7 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 369 


tianity. On the contrary he distinguishes the new dispensation as 
the perfect law, the law of liberty (i. 25, ii. 12), thus tacitly implying 
imperfection and bondage in the old. He assumes indeed that his 
readers pay allegiance to the Mosaic law (ii. 9, 10, iv. 11), and he 
accepts this condition without commenting upon it. But the mere 
ritual has no value in his eyes, When he refers to the Mosaic law, 
he refers to its moral, not to its ceremonial ordinances (ii. 8—r1). 
The external service of the religionist who puts no moral restraint 
on himself, who will not exert himself for others, is pronounced 
deceitful and vain. The external service, the outward garb, the very 
ritual, of Christianity is a life of purity and love and self-devotion"’. 
What its true essence, its inmost spirit, may be, the writer does not 
say, but leaves this to be inferred. 

Thus, though with St Paul the new dispensation is the negation St James 
of law, with St James the perfection of law, the ideas underlying ar 
these contradictory forms of expression need not be essentially dif- 
ferent. And this leads to the consideration of the language held by 
both Apostles on the subject of faith and works. 

The real significance of St James’s language, its true relation Faith and 
to the doctrine of St Paul, is determined by the view taken of the ae 
persons to whom the epistle is addressed, If it is intended to coun- 
teract any modification or perversion of St Paul’s teaching, then there 
is, though not a plain contradiction, yet at all events a considerable 
divergency in the mode of dealing with the question by the two 
Apostles. I say the mode of dealing with the question, for antino- 
mian inferences from his teaching are rebuked with even greater 
severity by St Paul himself than they are by St James*. If on the 
other hand the epistle is directed against an arrogant and barren 
orthodoxy, a Pharisaic self-satisfaction, to which the Churches of the 
Circumcision would be most exposed, then the case is considerably 
altered. The language of the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians 


1 James i. 26,27. Coleridge directs New Testament and elsewhere, as the 


attention to the meaning of Opycxela, ‘cultus exterior,’ see Trench Synon. 
and the consequent bearing of the text, § xlviii. 
in a well-known passage in Aids to 2 eg. Rom. vi. 15—23, 1 Cor. vi. 


Reflection, Introd. Aphor.23. Forthe 9g—2z0, Gal. v. 13 sq. 
signification of @pycxela both in the 


GAL. 24 


370 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


at once suggests the former as the true account. But further con- 
sideration leads us to question our first rapid inference. Justifica- 
tion and faith seem to have been common terms, Abraham’s faith 
a common example, in the Jewish schools’. This fact, if allowed, 
counteracts the prima facie evidence on the other side, and leaves us 
free to judge from the tenour of the epistle itself. Now, since in 
this very passage St James mentions as the object of their vaunted 
faith, not the fundamental fact of the Gospel ‘Thou believest that 
God raised Christ from the dead?,’ but the fundamental axiom of the 
law ‘Thou believest that God is one*’; since moreover he elsewhere 
denounces the mere ritualist, telling him that his ritualism is nothing 
worth ; since lastly the whole tone of the epistle recalls our Lord’s — 
denunciations of the scribes and Pharisees, and seems directed 
against a kindred spirit; it is reasonable to conclude that St James 
is denouncing not the moral aberrations of the professed disciple of 
St Paul (for with such he was not likely to be brought into close 


~ contact), but the self-complacent orthodoxy of the Pharisaic Christian, 


Ebionite 
misrepre- 
sentations 
of St 
James 
explained. 


who, satisfied with the possession of a pure monotheism and vaunting 
his descent from Abraham, needed to be reminded not to neglect the 
still ‘weightier matters’ of a self-denying love. If this view be cor- 
rect, the expressions of the two Apostles can hardly be compared, for 
they are speaking, as it were, a different language. But in either case 
we may acquiesce in the verdict of a recent able writer, more free than 
most men both from traditional and from reactionary prejudices, that 
in the teaching of the two Apostles ‘there exists certainly a striking 
difference in the whole bent of mind, but no opposition of doctrine*.’ 

Thus the representation of St James in the canonical Scriptures 
differs from its Ebionite counterpart as the true portrait from the 
caricature. The James of the Clementines could not have acquiesced 
in the apostolic decree, nor could he have held out the right hand 
of fellowship to St Paul. On the other hand, the Ebionite picture 


was not drawn entirely from imagination. A scrupulous observer 


1 See above, p. 164. * Bleek (Hinl. in das N. T. p. 550), 

* Rom. &. 9. who however considers that St James 

3 ii, 19. Comp. Clem. Hom. iii. is writing against perversions of St 
6 sq. Paul’s teaching. 


» ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 371 


of the law, perhaps a rigid ascetic, partly from temper and habit, 
partly from the requirements of his position, he might, without any 
very direct or conscious falsification, appear to interested partisans of 
a later age to represent their own tenets, from which he differed less 
in the external forms of worship than in the vital principles of 
religion. Moreover during his lifetime he was compromised by those 
with whom his office associated him, In all revolutionary periods, 
whether of political or religious history, the leaders of the movement 
have found themselves unable to control the extravagances of their 
bigoted and short-sighted followers: and this great crisis of all 
was certainly not exempt from the common rule. St Paul is con- 
stantly checking and rebuking the excesses of those who professed to 
honour his name and to adopt his teaching: if we cannot state this 
of St James with equal confidence, it is because the sources of infor- 
mation are scantier. 

Of the Judaizers who are denounced in St Paul’s Epistles this His rela- 
much is certain; that they exalted the authority of the Apostles of poe 
the Circumcision : and that in some instances at least, as members of 77*: 
the mother Church, they had direct relations with James the Tord’s 
brother. But when we attempt to define these relations, we are lost 
in a maze of conjecture. 

The Hebrew Christians whose arrival at Antioch caused the Antioch. 
rupture between the Jewish and Gentile converts are related to have 
‘come from James’ (Gal. ii. 12). Did they bear any commission 
from him? If so, did it relate to independent matters, or to this 
very question of eating with the Gentiles? It seems most natural 
to interpret this notice by the parallel case of the Pharisaic brethren, 
who had before troubled this same Antiochene Church, ‘going forth’ 
from the Apostles and insisting on circumcision and the observance 
of the law, though they ‘gave them no orders’ (Acts xv. 24). But 
on the least favourable supposition it amounts to this, that St James, 
though he had sanctioned the emancipation of the Gentiles from the 
law, was not prepared to welcome them as Israelites and admit 
them as such to full communion: that in fact he had not yet over- 
come scruples which even St Peter had only relinquished after many 


24.2 


372 


Galatia. 


Corinth. 


The two 
Judaizing 
parties. 


ST PAUL AND THE THuEe. 


years and by a special revelation; in this, as in his recognition of 
Jesus as the Christ, moving more slowly than the Twelve. 

Turning from Antioch to Galatia, we meet with Judaic teachers 
who urged circumcision on the Gentile converts and, as the best 
means of weakening the authority of St Paul, asserted for the Apostles 
of the Circumcision the exclusive right of dictating to the Church. 
How great an abuse was thus made of the names of the Three, I trust 
the foregoing account has shown: yet here again the observance of 
the law by the Apostles of the Circumcision, especially by St James, 
would furnish a plausible argument to men who were unscrupulous 
enough to turn the occasional concessions of St Paul himself to the 
same account. But we are led to ask, Did these false teachers belong . 
to the mother Church? had they any relation with James? is it 
possible that they had ever been personal disciples of the Lord Him- 
self ? 


remembering that there was a Judas among the Twelve, we cannot 


There are some faint indications that such was the case ; and, 


set aside this supposition as impossible. 

In Corinth again we meet with false teachers of a similar stamp; 
whose opinions are less marked indeed than those of St Paul’s 
Galatian antagonists, but whose connexion with the mother Church 
is more clearly indicated. It is doubtless among those who said 
‘T am of Peter, and I of Christ,’ among the latter especially, that we 
are to seek the counterpart of the Galatian Judaizers’. To the latter 
class St Paul alludes again in the Second Epistle: these must have 
been the men who ‘trusted to themselves that they were of Christ’ 


(x. 7), who invaded another’s sphere of labour and boasted of work 


1 Several writers representing dif- 
ferent schools have agreed in denying 
the existence of a ‘Christ party.’ Pos- 
sibly the word ‘party’ may be too 
strong to describe what was rather a 
sentiment than an organization. But 
if admissible at all, I cannot see how, 
allowing that there were three parties, 
the existence of the fourth can be ques- 
tioned. For (1) the four watchwords 
are co-ordinated, and there is no indi- 
cation that éya dé Xpistod is to be 
isolated from the others and differently 


interpreted. (2) The remonstrance im- 
mediately following (weuépiorar 6 Xpe- 
orés) shows that the name of Christ, 
which ought to be common to all, had 
been made the badge of a party. (3) 
In 2 Cor. x. 7 the words et ris rézrovDev 
€avT@ Xpiorod eivac and the description 
which follows gain force and definite- 
ness on this supposition. There is in 
fact more evidence for the existence of 
a party of Christ than there is of a 
party of Peter. 


a 
\, a 


“Vosr 
‘ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 373 


which was ready to hand (x. 13—16), who were ‘false apostles, crafty 
workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ’ (xi. 13), 
who ‘commended themselves’ (x. 12, 18), who vaunted their pure 
Israelite descent (xi. 21—23). It is noteworthy that this party of 
extreme Judaizers call themselves by the name not of James, but of 
Christ. This may perhaps be taken as a token that his concessions 
to Gentile liberty had shaken their confidence in his fidelity to the 
law. The leaders of this extreme party would appear to have seen 
Christ in the flesh: hence their watchword ‘I am of Christ’; hence 
also St Paul’s counter-claim that ‘he was of Christ’ also, and his 
unwilling boast that he had himself had visions and revelations of 
the Lord in abundance (xii. I sq). On the other hand, of the party 
of Cephas no distinct features are preserved ; but the passage itself 
implies that they differed from the extreme Judaizers, and we may 
therefore conjecture that they took up a middle position with regard 
to the law, similar to that which was occupied later by the Naza- 
renes. In claiming Cephas as the head of their party they had 
probably neither more nor less ground than their rivals who shel- 
tered themselves under the names of Apollos and of Paul. 

Is it to these extreme Judaizers that St Paul alludes when he Letters of 
mentions ‘certain persons’ as ‘needing letters of recommendation to AReea 
the Corinthians and of recommendation from them’ (2 Cor. iii. 1)? If 
so, by whom were these letters to Corinth given? By some half-Judaic, 
half-Christian brotherhood of the dispersion? By the mother Church 
of Jerusalem? By any of the primitive disciples? By James the 
Lord’s brother himself? It is wisest to confess plainly that the facts 
are too scanty to supply an answer. We may well be content to 
rest on the broad and direct statements in the Acts and Epistles, 
which declare the relations between St James and St Paul. A habit 
of suspicious interpretation, which neglects plain facts and dwells on 
doubtful allusions, is as unhealthy in theological criticism as in social 
life, and not more conducive to truth. 

Such incidental notices then, though they throw much light on Inferences 
the practical difficulties and entanglements of his position, reveal cork rig 


nothing or next to nothing of the true principles of St James. Only 


374 


ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 


so long as we picture to ourselves an ideal standard of obedience, 
where the will of the ruler is the law of the subject, will such notices 
cause us perplexity. But, whether this be a healthy condition for 
any society or not, it is very far from representing the state of Christ- 
endom in the apostolic ages. If the Church had been a religious 
machine, if the Apostles had possessed absolute control over its 
working, if the manifold passions of men had been for once anni- 
hilated, if there had been no place for misgiving, prejudice, trea- 
chery, hatred, superstition, then the picture would have been very 
different. But then also the history of the first ages of the Gospel 
would have had no lessons for us. As it is, we may well take 
courage from the study. However great may be the theological 
differences and religious animosities of our own time, they are far 
surpassed in magnitude by the distractions of an age which, closing 
our eyes to facts, we are apt to invest with an ideal excellence. In 
the early Church was fulfilled, in its inward dissensions no less than 
in its outward sufferings, the Master’s sad warning that He came 
‘not to send peace on earth, but a sword,’ 


INDEX. 


ApranaM, the faith of, p. 158 sq (pas- 
sim) 

accusative, for other objective cases, v. 
7, 26 

Acichorius, p. 248 

Acts of the Apostles, its scope and cha- 
racter, p. 346 sq, 359; its relation 
to St Paul’s Epistles, ii. 1 sq, p. g1 
sq, 123 8q (passim), 305 sq, 346 sq, 
359 

Acts, passages commented on; (ix. 
20—26) p. 89; (XV. 29) P. 305 8q; 
(xvi. 6) p. 20, 223 (XXVill. 21) Pp. 93 

Aelia Capitolina, foundation of, p. 316; 
Church of, p. 317 

aeons, the two, i. 4 

Africa, the Church of, p. 335, 344 

Alcibiades of Apamea, p. 33! 

Aleuin founds a school of biblical in- 
terpretation, p. 235 

Alexandria, the Church of, p. 335 

Alfred’s (king) imalady, p. 1g0 sq 

Alphaeus, to be identified with Clopas? 
p- 256 sq, 267, 290; with Alfius? p. 
268 

Ambrose (the friend of Origen), a trea- 
tise by, p. 60 

Ambrose (St), commentary wrongly 
ascribed to, p. 229, 232; on the 
Lord’s brethren, p. 287 sq 

Ambrosiaster: see Hilary 

Ancient Syriac Documents (Cureton’s), 
P- 60, 100, 345 

Ancyra, p. 6, 8, 11, 13, 20SQ, 32, 34 
8q, 242, V. 20 

Andronicus and Junia (-as), p. 96, 98 

angels administering the iaw, iii. 19 

Anselm, commentary ascribed to, p. 236 

Antidicomarianites, p. 285 


Antioch, foundation of the Church at, 
p- 301; the new metropolis of Christ- 
endom, p. 304; St Peter reputed 
bishop of, ii. 11; catholicity of, p. 335, 
341; Judaizers at, ii. 12 sq, p. 371; 
biblical school of, p. 228; see Paul 
(St) 

Antioch in Pisidia, St Paul preaches at, 
P- 304 

aorist, uses of, v. 4, 24, Vl. 2; episto- 
lary, vi. 11 

Apocryphal Gospels, on the Lord’s bre- 
thren, p. 260, 274 8q 

Apollos, not an Apostle, p. 96, 98 

apologists, references to Galatians in, 
P59 Bq 

Apostle, meaning of the term, p. 92 sq; 
not limited to the twelve, p. 93 sq, 
260; qualifications and functions of, 
P- 97 Sq (passim) 

apostolic congress and decree, ii. 1 8q. 
(passim), p. 125 8q., 305 Sq (passim), 
350 

Apostolical Constitutions, mention of 
Philip in, p. 100; on the Jameses, 
p. 282 

apostolic fathers, references to Gala- 
tians in, p. 58 sq; use of the term 
‘ Apostle’ in, p. 99 

Arabia, meaning of, p. 88; St Paul’s 
visit to, p. 87 sq, 194 

Arabians, called Hagarenes, iv. 25; 
their enmity to the Jews, iv. 29 

Arabic version of the New Testament, 
p. 87 sq 

Ariston of Vella, p. 152 sq 

article, the definite, i. 4, 7, 10, 13, 23, 
lil, 20, 21, iv. 6, 31, V. 14, P- 193: 
see also vduos 


376 


Artotyritae, p. 32 

Ascents of James, p. 276,-330, 359, 367 

Ascodrobi, ete., p. 32 

Asia, meaning of, in N.T., p. 19 

aspirates, anomalous, il. 14 

Atto Vercellensis, his commentary on 
St Paul, p. 236 

Augustine (St), 
rome, p. 131 §q} 
Galatians, p. 232; 
brethren, p. 288 sq 

aBBG, iv. 6 

ayadd, vi. 6 

dyaoro.eiv, Kadomorety, Vi. 9 

ayabwotrn, xpnoToTys, V. 22 

adedgol, emphatic, iil. rs, vi. 1, 18 


Fer] 


his dispute with Je- 
commentary on 
on the. Lord’s 


aderety, il. 21 

aipeots, VY. 20 

aidv, 1. 4 

axaBapoia, V. 19 

akon, ili. 2 

GAVGea, 7 ad. TOO edayyentou, li. 5 
adAnyopety (-yopia), iv. 24 
Gdos, Erepos, 1. § 
apapTwards, ii. 14, 15, 17, 18 
ay omitted, ili. 19, iv. 15 
avaBalvew, 1. 17 

avddeua, avadnua, i. 8 
avaKkdmTELV, V. 7 
avacraTooy, V. 12 
avatl@ec@at, il. 2 
avépxecOat, 1. 17 
ameK6éxecOat, V. 5 

amo, 6d, i. 1 

amé, mapa, i. 12 
amoxomrecOat, V. 12 
amro\appdvew, iv. 5 
amopeiv (-petc@at), iv. 20 
dméaToNos, Pp. 92 Sq 

dpa, V. 113 (apa), ii. 17 
dprt, i. 9 

acéNyeta, V. 19 

arevifew, p. 1G2 

avTo To00TO, il. 10 
adoplfey, ii, 15 

Apoppy, V- 13 


Barcochba, rebellion of, p. 313, 316 
Barnabas, an apostle, p. 96, 98, 100; Jo- 


INDEX. 


seph, not Joses, p. 268; his estrange- 
ment from St Paul, ii. 13 

Barsabas, Joseph or Joses? p. 268; 
identified with Matthias, p. 97 

Basil (St), on the Lord’s brethren, 
p. 284 

Basilides, and eléwdéGuTa, p. 310 

Bede, commentary wrongly ascribed to, 
p- 236 

Belgae, a Celtic people, p. 244 

Belka (el), p. 87, 196 

biblical studies, Antiochene School of, 
p. 228; revival of, under Charle- 
magne, p. 235 

Bolgius, p. 248 

Bonosus, p. 286 

branding among the ancients, vi. 17 

Brennus, p. 247 

brethren of the Lord, p. 252 sq (pas- 
sim) 

‘brother,’ wide use of the term, p. 256, 
261, 288 

Bruno Carthusianus, his commentary 
on St Paul, p. 236 

Backaivew, lil. I 

Baordgew, vi. 17 


Cassiodorus, his notes on St Paul, p. 
233; he expurgates the commentary 
of Pelagius, ib.; he translates the 
notes of Clement of Alexandria, p. 
279 

Catena (Cramer’s),on Galatians, p. 234 

causa, ‘a thing,’ early use of, p. 194 

Celsus quotes Galatians, p. 61 

Celtae, the name, p. 2 sq; its use in 
Dion Cassius, p. 240; migrations of 
the, p. 4 sq (passim), 241; distin- 
guished from Germans, p. 240 sq 

Cephas, use of the name, i. 18; falsely 
assigned to different persons, p. 129 

Cerethrius, p. 248 

chiasm, the figure, iv. 5 

Christian, the name, p. 301 

chronology of the exodus, iii. 17; of 
St Paul, see Paul 

Chrysostom (St), his homily on St Peter 
at Antioch, p. 131, 229; his com- 
mentary on Galatians, p. 228sq; on 


INDEX. 


St Paul’s infirmity, p. 187; on Hagar, 
p- 195; on the Lord’s brethren, p. 
257, 289 sq 

circumcision, the question of, p. 305 
sq (passim), ii. 1 sq (passim) 

Claudius Altissiodorensis (or Tauri- 
nensis), his commentary on St Paul, 
P. 235 

Clement of Alexandria, on Cephas at 
Antioch, p. 129; on the Lord’s bre- 
thren, p. 279 sq; on the Nicolaitans, 
p. 298; his use of the word ‘apostle,’ 
p- roo; his commentary on the Ca- 
tholic Epistles, p. 279 

Clement of Rome, his position in the 
Church, p. 100, 338, 341; his Epistle, 
P. 338, 358 

Clementine Homilies, their scope and 
complexion, p. 340 sq; editions and 
epitomes of, etc. p. 327; their Ro- 
man origin doubtful, p. 340 sq; 
their representation of St James, 
p- 274, 276, 370 sq; attacks on St 
Panes eT, 903; LV. LO, LO; 24). p: 
61 sq, 129, 327 Sq; limitation of 
the term ‘apostle’ in, p. roo; letter 
of Peter prefixed to, p. 329; letter 
of Clement prefixed to, p. 341 

Clementine Recognitions, composition 
of, p. 329 sq; editions and trans- 
lations of, p. 327; Ascents of James 
incorporated in, p. 276, 330, 359, 
367; allusion to St Paul in, iv. 16; 
arbitrary alteration of Rutinus in, 
P- 330 

Cleopas, the name, p. 267 

Clopas, p. 256 sq, 267 sq, 277; to be 
identified with Alphaeus? p. 257, 
267, 290 

collection of alms for Judea, p. 25, 55, 
304, il. 10, Vi. 7 

Collyridians, p. 285 

Corinth, the Church of, its catholicity, 
p. 358; parties in, p. 372 sq; Ju- 
daizers in, ib.; the offender in, p. 
54, Vi. [ 

Corinthians, 1st Epistle to the, when 
written, p. 38; compared with Gala- 
tiams, p. 51 sq, 64; passages com- 


377 
mented on, (i. 12) p. 372, (ii. g) p. 
334, (Vili. 1—13, X. 14—22) p. 308 

Corinthians, 2nd Bpistle to the, when 
written, p. 39; tone of, p. 51; com- 
pared with Galatians, p. 44, 49, 64 

Cornelius, conversion of, p. 300 sq 

Cramer’s Catena, on Galatians, p. 234 

Crescens, p. 3! 

cross, offence of the, p. 153 sq 

crucifixion, not a Jewish punishment, 
p. 154 

crucifying with Christ, ii. 20, vi. 14 

Cyril of Alexandria, on the Lord’s bre- 
thren, p. 290 

Cyril of Jerusalem, on the Lord’s bre- 
thren, p. 283 

Kaus, li. 5 

kal édv, éav xal, i. 8 

kawh Krlows, Vi. 15 

katpol, iv. 10 

Kaneiv, 6 kad@y (kadécas), i. 6, Vv. 8; 
xanetv él, Vv. 13 

Kadorroety, Vi. 9 

Kava, Vi. 16 

kara avOpwrov, i. 11, iil. 15 

karaBalvey, i. 17 

Karaprifew, Vi. 1 

KatacKomely, ll. 4 

KatépxetOat, i, 17 

KaTnxelv, Vi. 6 

Kadxnows, Kavynua, Vi. 4 

Kevodoéos (-doéla), v. 26 

kNua, 1. 21 

kotNlas (ék), i. 15 

Kowwvetv, V1. 6 

Kpavew, iv. 6 

Kptuwa (kptua), Vv. 10 

Xa pw, lll. 19 

xelp, év xeupl, ili. 19 

xpnororys (ayabwotvn), Vv. 22 


Damascenus (Johannes), his commen- 
tary on St Paul, p. 234 

dative, uses of, ii. 19, v. 16, 25, Vi. 
12, 16 

Deuteronomy, passages commented on; 
(xxi. 23) p. 152 8q; (xxvii. 26) iii. 
10; (XxXxili. 2) iii. (9 

Didymus of Alexandria, on St Peter at 


378 


Antioch, p. 130; his commentary on 
St Paul, p. 232 

Dionysius of Corinth, p. 34 

dispersion, the, p. 296 

Dorotheus Tyrius, the pseudo-, p. 286 

Drynaemetum, p. 247 

dying and being buried with Christ, 
li. 20 

Sexarrévre, i. 18 

deéids Sobvar, Naw Bavew, li. g 

da with gen., i. 1; did (€x) micrews, ii. 
16; with accus., iv. 13 

Giadyxy, ii. 15 

Soxety eivai Tu (xs), ii. 6, vi. 3: of Soxody- 
Tes, li. 2 

Suvders, ill. 5 

Swpedy, il. 21 


Eastern Churches, testimony respecting 
the Jameses, p. 290 

Ebionites, different classes of, p. 317, 
321 sq (passim) 

Egyptians, Gospel of; saying ascribed 
to our Lord in, iii. 28; tradition re- 
specting gnosis in, p. 280 

Elchasai or Elxai, book of, p. 324 sq; 
see Hippolytus 

Elieser (Rabbi), on the Samariians, 
P- 299 

ellipsis, after iva, ii. g ; with névor, ii. Io, 
vi. 12; with wy, v. 13; of the name 
of God, i. 6, 15, v. 8 

Ephesians, ii. 20, ili. 5, commented on, 
P- 97 

Ephraem Syrus, his commentary on St 
Paul, p. 227; on Hagar, p. 194 

Epiphanius, on the Lord’s brethren, 
Pp. 253 sq (pxssim), 285 sq; on the 
Nazarenes, p. 319 

Esdras, 4th book of, on faith, p. 161 

Essene Ebionism, p. 322 sq (passim) 

Ethiopian eunuch, conversion of, p. 
300 

Eusebius of Caesarea, Syriac transla- 
tion of, p. 280, 283, 332, 358; the 
passage H. EH. ii. 1 commented on, 
p. 280; on the Lord’s brethren, 
p. 282; his silence misinterpreted, 


P- 345 


INDEX. 


Kusebius of Emesa, his commentary 
on St Paul, p. 37, 228 

Euthalius, his edition of St Paul, p. 230 

Euthymius Zigabenus, hiscommentary, 
P- 234 

evil eye, iii. 1 

Exodus, xii. 40 commented on, iii. 17 

exodus, chronology of the, iii. 17 

éav kal, kal édv, i. 8 

€auTou, V. 14 

eykaxelv (€xxaxew), Vi. 9 

éyxomrew, V. 7 

el ye, eltrep, ili. 4 

el uh (éav wh), i. 19, ii. 16 

eldévar, See ywudoKew 

eldwb0ura, p. 308 sq 

eis, V. IO, Vi. 4 

éx, Oud, with wicrews, ii. 16; of éx mé- 
orews, ill. 73 éx xouNlas, i. 15 

éxxAnola, i. 22 

éxNveg Oat, Vi. 10 

"EAAn?, il. 3 

éXtls, V. 5 

év éuol, i. 16 

évdpxe Oat, lil. 3 

évdver Oat, iil. 27 

evepyeiv, ii. 8, ill. 5, Vv. 6 

éveoTws, 1. 4 

évi, ili. 28 

eLaryopagev, lil. 13 

émayyeAla, ili. 14 

émidtardooer Oa, lil. 15 

émiteeic Bat, lil. 3 

émitpomos, iv. 2 

émixopnyeiv, ill. 5 

epifeia, V. 20 

EppéOn, iii. 16 

érepos, GANos, i. 16; 6 Erepos, Vi. 4 

ért, 1. 10, V. 11 

evayyertferat, i. 9 

evvoixos, Pp. 362 

eUmpocwreiv, Vi. 12 

evpeOhvat, li. 17 


nuépat, p. 89 


Faith, words denoting, p. 154 8q; not 
in the O.T., p. 155, 158 8q; of Abra- 
ham, p. 158sq; Philo on, p. 1598q, 


INDEX. 


163; rabbinical teachers on, p. 161 sq, 
163: see James the Lord’s brother 

fascination, iii. 1 

fides, fidelis, fidentia, fiducia, p. 158 

first-born, meaning of, p. 271 

Florus Magister, his commentary on 
St Paul, p. 235 

Francis (St) of Assisi, his stigmata, 
Vi. 17 

fulness of time, iv. 4 

future tense, uses of, vi. 5, 16 


Gaezatodiastus, p. 248 

Galatae, the name, p. 2 sq 

Galatia, geographical limits of, p. 6, 7, 
18 sq; mixed population of, p. 8 sq; 
Jews in, p. 9 8q, 25 8q¢; Romans in, 
p- 68q, 9; trade of, p. 10; fertility of, 
ib.; used of European Gaul, p. 3, 31 

Galatia, the people of, alien to Asia, p. 1; 
their origin, migrations, and early 
history, p. 4sq (passim); their lan- 
guage, p. 12, 246 sq; their three 
tribes, p. 7, 248; their national cha- 
racter, p. 128q; their religion, p. 8, 
II, 16 sq, 21, 23, 30; mutilation 
among, p.16, v.12; witchcraft among, 
v. 20; were they Celts or Teutons? 
P-2398q (passim); supposed German 
affinities explained, p. 2508q; names 
among, p. 246 

Galatia, the Churches of, their locality, 
p. 20 Sq; composition of, p. 26; St 
Paul’s intercourse with, p. 21 sq 
(passim), 41; Judaism in, p. 27 sq, 
372 Sq; persecutions of, iii. 4; later 
history of, p. 31 sq; heresies of, 
p- 328q; martyrs of, p. 33 sq 

Galatians, Epistle to the, date of, p. 36 
sq (passim); St Paul’s companions 
at the time, i. 2; object of, p. 31; 
style and features of, p. 43 sq, 63 sq, 
i. 1, 6; its resemblance to 2 Cor., p. 
438q; and to Rom., p.45sq; genu- 
ineness of, p. 57 8q; external testi- 
mony to, p. 588sq; analysis of, p. 65 
8q ; postscript to, p. 65, vi. 113 com- 
mentaries on, p. 227 sq (passim); its 


379 


importance in modern controversy, 
p. 68, 293 

Galli, Gallia, the names, p. 2 sq 

Gauls: see Celtae, Galatae, Galli 

Gelasius (Pope), commentary falsely 
ascribed to, p. 233 

Genesis, passages commented on, (xv. 
6) p. 15984; (XV. 13) iii. 17; (xxi. 9, 
10) iv. 29, 30 

Gennadius, his commentary on St Paul, 
p- 231 

Gentiles, the Gospel preached to, p. 295 
sq (passim); emancipation and pro- 
gress of, p. 302 sq (passim) 

Germanopolis, p. 250 sq 

Glossa Ordinaria, p. 236 

Gordium, p. 10, 20 

Gregory Nazianzen, on St Peter at 
Antioch, p. 130 

Gregory Nyssen, on the Lord’s bre- 
thren, p. 284 

guardianship, ancient laws respecting, 
iv. 1 

gutturals interchanged in the Semitic 
languages, p. 197 

yevv ay, lv. 24 

ywaokew, eldévar, ili. 7, iv. 9 

yvopifw tuiv, 1. 11 

ypdmmara, Vi. IT 

ypag7, iii. 8, 22 


Habakkuk, ii. 4 commented on, p. 156, 
ili, 11 

Hadrian, his treatment of Jews and 
Christians, p. 316 sq 

Hagar, meaning of, p. 87 sq, 193 §q; 
places bearing the name, p. 196; a 
synonyme for Sinai?, p. 89, 196 sq, 
iv. 25; doubtful reading, p. 192 sq 

Hagarenes, iv. 25, 29 

Harant, der Christliche Ulysses, p. 195; 
on Hagar, 7b. 

Haymo, commentary on St Paul, p. 236 

Hebrews, Gospel of the; account of our 
Lord appearing to James, p. 274 

Hegesippus, his sojournin Rome, p. 332; 
not an Ebionite, p. 333 sq; on the 
Lord’s brethren, p. 276sq; on James 
the Lord’s brother, p. 365 sq; on 


380 


heresies in the Church of Jerusalem, 
P. 315 £4; 325 84 

Hellenists, theirinfluencein theChurch, 
P- 297 Sq 

Helvidius, on the Lord’s brethren, p. 
253 8q (passim), 286 

Hermas, the Shepherd of ; its date, p. 99; 
its character and teaching, p. 339 sq; 
use of the term ‘apostle’ in, p. 99 

Herod, persecution of, p. 124, 127 

Herveus Dolensis, commentary on St 
Paul, p. 236 

Hilary (Ambrosiaster), commentary on 
St Paul, p. 229, 232; on the Lord’s 
brethren, p. 284 

Hilary of Poitiers, on the Gauls, p. 2423 
on the Lord’s brethren, p. 283; com- 
mentary wrongly ascribed to, p. 229 

Hippolytus on the Nicolaitans, p. 297 
sq; on the book of Elchasai, p. 
324 Sq, 331, 342; St John illustrated 
from, p. 309; the pseudo-, concern- 
ing the Lord’s brethren, p. 282 


James the Lord’s brother, was he an 
apostle? i. 19, Pp. 95, 100, 261 Sq 
(passim); our Lord’s appearance to 
him, p. 265 sq, 274, 364; his po- 
sition, li. g, p. 364 sq (passim); his 
asceticism, p. 365 sq; his relation 
to the Judaizers, p. 29, 306, 365, 371 
sq (passim); to St Peter and St John, 
p. 368; to St Paul (faith and works), 
p. 164, 369, v. 6; his death, p. 313, 
366 sq; account of him in the He- 
brew Gospel, p. 274; in the Clemen- 
tines, p. 276; among the Ophites, p. 
280: see also Ascents of James 

James the son of Alphaeus, p. 254 sq 
(passim) 

James the son of Mary, p. 255 sq (pas- 
sim); why called 6 uxpéds, p. 262, 285 

James the son of Zebedee, martyrdom 
of, p. 303; was he a cousin of our 
Lord? p. 264 

Jason and Papiscus, Dialogue of, p. 152 
sq: see Ariston 

idols, things sacrificed to, p. 308 sq 


INDEX. 


Jerome, his commentary on the Gala- 
tians, p. 232; his disputes with Au- 
gustine, p. 130 sq; his visit to Gaul 
and Galatia, p. 242; his disingenu- 
ousness, p. 130, 278; his allegorizing, 
p- 90; on the Galatian language, p. 
12, 243; on Galatian heresies, p. 323 
on the origin of the Galatian people, 
p- 242 Sq; on the Nazarenes, p. 317; 
on the Lord’s brethren, p. 253 sq 
(passim), 287; on the thorn in the 
flesh, p. 186, 187 sq; commentary of 
Pelagius ascribed to him, p. 233 

Jerusalem, the fall of, p. 312 sq; the 
early Church of, p. 295 sq (passim); 
its waning influence, p. 303 sq (pas- 
sim); outbreak of heresies in, p. 315 
Sq; reconstitution of, p.316sq; the 
new, heavenly, Jerusalem, iv. 26; see 
also Paul (St), collection of alms 

Jewish names, exchanged for heathen, 
p- 267 sq; abbreviated, p. 268 

Ignatius, his testimony to Galatians, p. 
58 sq; to the Roman Church, p. 338; 
on St Peter and St Paul, p. 358 

imperfect tense, iv. 20 

John (St), was he the Lord’s cousin? 
p. 264; his position in the Church, 
D- 359 8; On efdwdOuTa, p. 309; tra- 
ditions relating to, p. 362 sq; not 
claimed by Ebionites, p. 359; Gospel 
and Epistles of, p. 363; Apocalypse 
of, p. 360 sq 

John, Gospel of, xix. 25 commented 
on, p. 264, 205 

Joseph, a common name, p. 268; oc- 
currence in our Lord’s genealogy, p. 
269; the same with Joses? p. 268 

Joseph, the Virgin’s husband, early 
death of, p. 270 

Josephus, on the death of St James, 
p- 366 sq; the pseudo-, p. 313 

Joses, the son of Mary, p. 268 

Jovinianus, p. 286 

Irenzus, on the Paschal controversy, 
P- 343 

Isaac, explained by Philo, p. 199 

Ishmael, meaning of, p. rgq; rabbiaical 
accounts of, iv. 29 


INDEX. 


Israel (Israelite), force of, vi. 16; ex- 
plained by Philo, p. 199 

Judaizers, ii. 1 sq (passim), 12, vi. 12, 
13, P. 17 8q, 305 sq (passim), 317 sq 
(passim), 349 sq (passim), 371 sq 
(passim) 

Judas, the Apostle and the Lord’s 
brother the same? p. 95, 257 8q 
(passim) 

Judas, a name of Thomas, p. 263 

Julian and the Galatians, p. 33 sq 

Juliopolis (Gordium), p. 20 

Justin Martyr, not an Ebionite, p. 331 
8q; acquainted with St Paul’s 
Epistles, iii. 10, 13, iv. 27, p. 60: 
Orat. ad Graec. wrongly ascribed to, 
p- 60; a fragment wrongly ascribed 
to, p. 278 sq 

Justus, the name, p. 365 

We (l60d) S71, 1. 20; ide or idé, V. 2 

“Iepooé\uma, 1. 18; (‘Iepovoad7u) iv. 26 

ixavds, p. 89 

wa, with indic., ii, 4, iv. 17; ellipsis 
with, ii. 9; repeated, iii. 14, iv. 5 

*Tovdattew, ii. 14 

*Iovdaikés with aspirate, ii. 14 

Tovdaicpos, i. 13 

isropeiv, i. 18 


Lactantius, on the Galatian people, p. 
242 

Lanfranc, his commentary on St Paul, 
p. 236 

Law, the; St Paul’s conception of, ii. 
19 8q, ili. 10 sq, 19, 24, iv. 5, TI, 30, 
vi. 2. Our Lord’s teaching as regards, 
p- 295; zeal for and decline of, p. 311 
sq (passim); relation of St Peter to, 
Pp. 352 8q; of St John to, p. 359 
sq; of St James to, p. 365 sq: 
see Paul (St), and vdjos 

leaven, a symbol, v. 9 

Leonnorius, p. 5, 250 sq 

Lutarius, p. 5, 250 sq 

Luther, on the Epistle to the Galatians, 
p. 18; on the Galatian people, p. 239; 
on the thorn in the flesh, p. 188 sq; 
his different language at different 
times, p. 349 Sq 


381 


Aéyewv, Aéyer impersonal, iii. 16; Aéyw 
6é, iv. 1 

Nourés, difference of 7d Aourdy and rod 
Aourrod, Vi. 17 


Maccabees, First Book of, viii. 2 com- 
mented on, p. 9 

Marcion, the canon of; order of St 
Paul’s Epistles in, p. 36; Galatians 
in, p. 61; omissions in his text, i. 1, 
ili. 6 

Mary, different persons bearing the 
name, p. 255 Sq, 259 Sq, 262, 269, 
285, 289 

Mary, the Lord’s mother; her virginity, 
p- 2708q; commended to the keeping 
of St John, p. 272 

Melito, p. 362 

Moses, called a mediator, iii. 19; Keve- 
lation of, vi. 15 

Muratorian Canon, order of St Paul’s 
Epistles in, p. 37 

pakapiouos, iv. 15 

MapTipomat, V. 3 

uegirns, iii. 19 

peractpépev, 1. 7 

peraribecba, 1. 6 

vy with indic., iv. rr 

By yévorro, ii. 17, Vi. 4 

unmws, construction with, ii. 2 

puxpds (6), p. 262 

buxrnpifew, Vi. 7 


Nazarenes, p. 317 sq 

neighbour, meaning of, v. 14 

Nervii, a Celtic people, p. 244 

Nicolas and the Nicolaitans, p. 297 sq 

vaiios, iv. 1 

vouos and 6 véuos, ii. 19, iv. 4, 5, 21, 
vy. 18, vi. 13 


(@cumenius, Catena bearing his name, 
P. 234 

Old Testament, interpretation of types 
in, ili. 16 

Ophites, their use of Galatians, p. 61; 
reference to, in the Apocalypse, p. 
309; their use of the Gospel of the 
Ligyptians, p. 280 

optative, not after final particles, ii. 2 


382 


Origen, his commentaries on Galatians, 
p- 227; on St Peter at Antioch, p. 
130; on the Lord’s brethren, p. 281 
sq; on the Ebionites, p. 317, 3313 
misinterpretations of, ili. 19, Vv. 24 

o and w confused, vi. 12 

oixetos, Vi, 10 

olkovomos, iv. 2 

Suws, ili, 15 

dvoudgerPat, p. 283 

6pOorrodetv, ii. 14 

do7is, ds, distinguished, iv. 24, 26, Vv. 19 

é7. with quotations, i. 23 

ovde...obre, i. 12 

ovx«ére logical, iii. 18 

ov wh with fut. ind., iv. 30 

ov mas for ovdeis, 11. 16 

bpedov, V. 12 

ws, ‘while,’ vi. ro 


Palestine, Churches of, 331 sq 

Papias distinguishes other disciples 
from the Apostles, p. 99; passage 
wrongly ascribed to, p. 273 

Papias (the medieval), his Hlementa- 
rium, Pp. 273 

Paschal controversy, p. 331, 343 

Passalorhynchitae, p. 32 

Paul (St), chronology of his early life, 
ii. I, p. 124; his qualifications and 
conversion, p. 3028q ; date of his apo- 
stolic commission, i. 1, p. 98, 124; 
visit to Arabia, p. 87 sq; at Damas- 
cus, i. 17, 18, p. 89; first visit to Je- 
rusalem, p. gi sq, i. 21, 22; first 
missionary journey, p. 304 sq ; third 
visit to Jerusalem, ii. 1 sq (passim), 
123 sq (passim), 305 sq; conflict 
with St Peter at Antioch, ii. 11 sq, 
p- 128 sq, p. 354 Sq; preaching 
in Galatia, p. 22 sq (passim), 41; 
sojourn at Ephesus, p. 38; history 
in the years 57, 58, p. 38 sq; his 
personal appearance, p. 191; eye- 
sight, vi. 11, p. 191; thorn in the 
flesh, p. 23, 186 sq (passim), iv. 13 
8q; on the support of the ministry, 
vi. 6; on eldwddduTa, p. 308 sq; re- 
lation to the Apostles of the cireum- 
cision, p. 57, 91 8q, 126 8q, 292 sq 


INDEX. 


(passim), 350 sq (passim), ii. 1 sq 
(passim), (see James, Peter, John) ; 
relations to his countrymen, p. 346 
sq; accounts of him in the Acts, p. 
346; in the Zest. xii. Patr. p. 319,321} 
attacks of Judaizers on, i. 10, p. 27 8q 
(see Judaizers,Clementine Homilies) ; 
his teaching compared with Philo, p. 
163, 199; with rabbinical writers, p. 
163; on the law (see Law); his use of 
metaphors, ii. 20, iv. 19, vi. 8 

Paul (St), Epistles of; order in differ- 
ent canons, p. 36 sq ; four chronolo- 
gical groups of, p. 42 sq; postscripts 
to, vi. 11; partial reception of, p. 345; 
questioned by modern critics, p. 347 

Pauli Praedicatio, p. 353 

Pelagius, his commentary on St Paul, 
p. 233; on the Lord’s brethren, p. 288 

Pella, Church of, p. 313 sq, 317: see 
Ariston i 

perfect, uses of, ii. 7, iii. 18, iv. 23, V. 14 

Pessinus, p. 6, 8, 10, 20, 21, 34, V. 12 

Peter (St), his vision, and its effects, ii. 
12, 14, p. 355; at Antioch, ii. rr sq, 
p. 128 sq, 354 Sq, 356; at Rome, p. 
337 84, 353; his character, p. 129, 
355 sq; how regarded by St Paul, 
p- 351; how represented by the Cle- 
mentines, il. II, 13, P. 324, 327 8q, 
3523; by Basilides, ete. p. 353; cou- 
pled with St Paul in early writers, 
Pp. 358; writings ascribed to, p. 353 

Peter (St), rst Epistle of; to whom writ- 
ten, p. 26; its character, etc., p. 
356 sq; its resemblance to St Paul, 
P- 355 84 

Peter, Gospel of; its docetism, p. 274 
sq; account of the Lord’s brethren 
in, ib. 

Peter, Preaching of; tradition pre- 
served by, p. 127 ; influence of a pas- 
sage in, iv. 3; not Ebionite, p. 353 

Philip the deacon ; his work, p. 298 sq; 
confused with the Apostle, p. 100 

philology, advanced by Christian mis- 
sions, p. 243 

Philo, his doctrine of faith, p. 159 sq, 
163; allegory of Abraham, p. 160 sq; 
of Hagar and Sarah, p. 198 sq; on the 


INDEX. 


name of Hagar, p. 197; on those of 
Isaac and Ishmael, p. 199 

Photius, his commentary on St Paul, 
p- 231 

Polycarp, the Epistle of, p. 59, iv. 26; 
at Rome, p. 343 

Polycrates (of Ephesus), his date and 
style, p. 362; traditions preserved 
by, Pp. 343, 362 84 

Prausus, p. 248 

Primasius, his commentary on St Paul, 
Pp. 234 

proselytes, different classes of, p. 296 

Protevangelium, on the Lord’s bre- 
thren, p. 275, 281 

mabjpara, émiOuptat, V. 24 

madaywyos, iil. 24 

matoloxn, iv. 22 

mapd, a7, i. 12 

mapddocts, i. 14 

mapahauBaver, 1. 12 

maparnpeiv, iv. 10 

mapeloaxros, mapeedGeiy, li. 4 

maoxew, lil. 4 

meidw, i. 10; mémoOa els (€ri), V. 10 

meipacuos, iV. 4 

reopnovy}, V. & 

aepl, Urép, 1. 4 

mepiocorépws, 1. 14 

mepitéuvecOat, oi mepiTeuvopuevol, V1. 13 

mepitoun, ol €x mepirou7s, li. 12 

méradov, p. 362, 366 

mureve, constructions with, ii. 16; 
mwurever bal tt, ii. 7 

mloris, i. 23, ili. 23, V- 22, Pp. 152 8q 
(passim) 

moTos, p. 156 8q 

mAnpovy, V. 14 

mAnpwua, Td 1. TOD xpovou, iv. 4 

moré, meaning, ii. 6 ; displaced, i. 13, 23 

apauTns (mpabrys), V. 23 

mpoypagey, ili. 1 

rpodecpuia, iv. 2 

mpokaneioOa, Vv. 26 

mporauBaver, Vi. I 

mpos, li, 14 

mpocavariecat, i. 16, ii. 6 

mpocwmov AauSdverp, ii. 6 

mpoTepov, Td Tp., iV. 13 

WPwTOToKos, P. 271 


383 


g~appaxela, V. 20 

POovety (with accus.), v. 26 
POovos, SHros, V. 21 

p0opa, vi. 8 

goprlov, Bdpos, Vi. § 
ppevarraray, Vi. 3 


Rabanus Maurus, his commentary on 
St Paul, p. 236 

regeneration, vi. 15 

Revelation ii, 24 commented on, p, 
309 

Romans, epistle to the; when written, 
p. 40; resemblance to Galatians, p. 
45 8q (passim) ; contrast to Galatians, 
P- 349 

Romans xvi. 7 commented on, p. 96 

Rome, Church of ; early history, p. 335 
sq; succession of bishops, p. 3323 
recognition of St Peter and St Paul 
by, p. 358 

Rufinus, his translation of Eusebius, 
p. 3323; of the Clementine Recogni- 
tions, p. 327, 330 


Salome, p. 264 

Samaritans, how regarded by the Jews, 
Pp. 299; conversion of, ib. 

Sarah (Sarai), meaning of the word, 
p- 198; typifies Jerusalem, iv. 27: 
see also Hagar 

Scripture and scriptures, iii. 22 

Sedulius, his commentary on St Paul, 
P- 235 

Serapion, on the Gospel of Peter, p. 
275 

Seres, mythical character of, p. 324 5q 

Seven, appointment of the, p. 297 

Seventy, the; called apostles, p. 100 

Severianus, his commentary on Gala- 
tians, p. 229; (?) on Hagar, p. 194 

Silas, an apostle (?) p. 96, 98 

Simon or Symeon, different persons 
called, p. 257 sq, 266; a common 
name, p. 268 sq 

Sinai, St Paul at, p. 88; allegorical 
meaning of, iv. 25: see Hagar 

spirit and the Spirit, v. 5, 17 

stadium, St Paul’s metaphor of the, ii. 
2,V.7 


384 


Stephanus Gobarus, on Hegesippus, p. 
334 ; 

Stephen (St), influence and work of, p. 
298, 301 

Symeon, son of Clopas, p. 266 sq, 276 
sq; his martyrdom, p. 315 :see Simon 

Syriac translations; of the Clementines, 
P: 327, 330; of Ignatius, p. 339; of 
Eusebius, see Eusebius 

oxdyvdadov, V. II 

oKddoy, p. 187 sq 

omépuara (plural), iil, 16 

orTnKew, V. I 

orlypata, Vi. 17 

oTolxeia, iv. 3 

crv, usage and accent, ii. 9 

ouyyeves, i. 14 

ovyknelew els (i176), iil. 22 

ouy- superfluous (cuvmdixwwrys), i. 14 

ouwardyeoOar with dative, ii, 13 

ouvioTdvery, il. 18 

cuvoTto.xetv (-xla), iv. 24, Pp. 230 


Tavium, p. 6, 8, 10, 20 

Tectosages (-gae), p. 6, 248 sq 

Tertullian, charges against Marcion, p. 
122, 129; on the Lord’s brethren, 
p- 253, 258, 278 sq; on St Paul’s 
infirmity, p. 186; on Praxeas, p. 344 

Testaments of Twelve Patriarchs, p. 
319 sq j 

Teutobodiaci, p. 250 sq 

Theodore of Mopsuestia, his commen- 
tary on St Paul’s Epistles, p. 229 sq; 
error in the Greek text, p. 193; in 
the Latin translation, p. 230; on St 
Peter at Antioch, p. 132; on Hagar, 
P. 194, 196° 

Theodoret, his commentary on St Paul’s 
Epistles, p. 230; on St Peter at An- 
tioch, p. 132; on Hagar, p. 194, 196; 
on the Lord’s brethren, p. 257, 290 

Theophylact, his commentary on St 
Paul’s Epistles, p. 234; on the Lord’s 
brethren, p. 254, 290 

Thomas (St), his name Judas, p. 263 

thorn in the flesh: see Paul (St) 


CAMBRIDGE °: 





INDEX. ' 


Timotheus, circumcision of, ii. 3; not 
an apostle, p. 96, 98 

Timothy, Second Epistle to, iv. 10 com- 
mented on, p. 3, 31 

Titus, mission of, ii. 1; cireumcision of, 
etc, li. 3, p. 122 

Tolistobogii, p. 6, 248 sq 

Tolosa, p. 249 

transcribers, fidelity of, ii. 12 

Treveri, the name how written, p. 243; 
were Celts, not Germans, p. 243 8q; 
later German settlement among, p. 
245 

Trocmi, p. 6, 249 

Tapacceyv, i. 7, V. 10 

Taxéws, Pp. 41, 1.6 

réxva (viol) Geod, iii. 26 

texvla, iv. 19 

tpéxew, see stadium 

Aunol (plural), v. 20 


Versions, testimony respecting the 
Lord’s brethren, p. 264,275 sq; Itala, 
Da22 

Victor of Rome, p. 335 sq, 343 

Victorinus the philosopher, his com- 
mentary on St Paul, p. 231; on the 
date of Galatians, p. 36; on the Lord’s 
brethren, p. 284; he mistakes the 
Latin version, p. go 

Victorinus Petavionensis, on the Lord’s 
brethren, p. 258, 282 

viobecia, iv. 5 

viol Geod, ili. 26 

bmapxew, il. 14 

diép, tepl, i. 4 

Umrooré\Aew, 1, £2 


Walafredus Sirabo, his commentary, 
p. 236 

Western Services, testimony respecting 
the Jameses, p. 289 


Zealots, i. 14 
(Nos, V. 20, 21 
§mdodv, iv. 17 
tnrwr7js, i. 14 





PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 








Bible. N.T. BS 
2685 
Saint Paul's Epistle to the ~L5 » 
Galatians. 


TRO ETN MONE! 


sr 


i 
i aN he 2) tah 


anerageenne 


a 


ra 
RIE rg ce ae nn SER a SEAR Pr 0 earch La eee 


x 


Sone 


sek 
=a) 
eS 


<a! 


si ies 
PVE RY 


tye 


1 


sophie ay eee enn peepee ees + 


Ry at TT RI CNN IAI Se Se tn tL PP EET 


nn 


Xo 6 - ‘ 
ape yaar eer me 
ny : 2 3 


ey. 
( 
fsck 
1. 


ey rete 


ge 


~ Dect eit Seen 
aoe ot eee et ae eR 


Coe ee reper ty brn 


SpA 
haa GF 


ree 


ae 


Se 


Ale 


Pane