Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians

NS a μασι ᾧα
ΤΥ KS DAM, STEN

Wane we

SPAY Che
pata
Ὁ πον
Wo

δεν

ΣΥΝ

ἡ νὸν ¥ et ν

eA
7

x

ne at
: Na
wrists

+: Sse
fa

"Seats

oe
mete)

ἊΣ Rorent eae:
Sata

Paes
iret Ὁ

¥

oe
yes

eeett
= Sh eee eg,

Lays ptt
fyi Paysites
ἧς ae es
hae, ¥ ἢ

ie
noe

J
ve
3

S788
pee a,
tes a ee
mare EP Saelnd
ete mate 4
Se a x A .

Peed ὃς τᾷ Soe Ses
SEG AS ELS ERS HIRO
cto ay eh

SS
Re

Ὁ Se a
ing . pe

a8 Tes ἃ

WORKS BY BISHOP LIGHTFOOT.
NOTES ON EPISTLES OF ST PAUL FROM UN-.
PUBLISHED COMMENTARIES. 8vo. 125.

ANALYSIS OF CERTAIN OF ST PAUL'S EPISTLES.

Reprinted from Bishop LIGHTFOOT’s Commentaries. With Preface by the
BisHoP OF DURHAM. Fceap. 8vo. 15. net.

ST PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. A

Revised Text, with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations. 8vo. 125.

St rAUL oS rial, ΤΟ THE: PHILIPPIANS.:. A.

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

ST PAUL’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 Disser-
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. ParTtTII. 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.
ea nna PREACHED IN ST PAUL'S. Crown 8vo.

SERMONS PREACHED ON SPECIAL OCCASIONS.

Crown 8vo. 6s.

BIBLICAL ESSAYS. 8vo. 12s.
HISTORICAL ESSAYS. Globe 8vo. 4s. net.

[Zversley Series.

INDEX OF NOTEWORTHY WORDS AND PHRASES

FOUND IN THE CLEMENTINE WRITINGS, commonly called the
Homilies of Clement. 8vo. 55.

A CHARGE, delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of

_ Durham, November 25, 1886. 8vo. Sewed. 25.

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

deg me, TESTAMENT DURING THE FIRST FOUR CENTURIES. Crown
vo. τὸς

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

tion and Reception of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Churches, Pott ϑνο 45. 6d.

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.

Crown 8vo. τος, 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. 15. 6d.
SOCIAL ASPECTS OF CHRISTIANITY. Crown 8vo. 6s.

GIFTS FOR MINISTRY. Addresses to Candidates for Ordination.

Crown 8vo. 1s.

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. The Greek Text, with Notes
and Essays. 8vo. 145.

ST PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. The Greek Text,
with Notes and Addenda. 8vo. 10s. 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 rai a ie to the Study of

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

ESSAYS—THE HISTORY OF μβι βμορρρ αν THOUGHT IN THE
WEST. Globe 8vo. 4s, net. [Aversley Series,

THE TWO oti sci THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD.
rown 8vo,

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.

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

ADDRESS TO MINERS, July, 1901. Crown 8vo. Sewed. 6d.
WORDS OF FAITH AND HOPE, Crown 8vo. 4s. 62.
CHRISTIAN SOCIAL UNION ADDRESSES. Crown 8vo. 15. net.
COMMON PRAYERS FOR FAMILY USE. Crown 8vo. 15. net.
VILLAGE SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 6s.

PETERBOROUGH SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 6s.

GENERAL VIEW OF THE HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH

BLE. Revised by WitttAm ALDIs WRIGHT. 8vo. 12s. 6d.

nk AND LETTERS OF THE RT REV. BISHOP WESTCOTT.
By his son, the Rev. ARTHUR WestcorT. With Portraits and other Illustrations, 2 vols,
Ἢ tra crown 8vo. 17s. net. Abridged Edition. Extra crown 8vo. 8s. 6d. net,

MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltp., LONDON.

THE EPISTLES OF ST PAUL.

II.
THE THIRD APOSTOLIC JOURNEY.

3.
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

SAINT 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, CAMBRIDGE.

MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
ST MARTIN’S STREET, LONDON
1910

BS 2ese"
cme
a | 1870

mMiMHTaf Moy γίνεσθε καθὼς κἀγὼ χριοτοῦ,

Παῦλος γενόμενος μέγιστος ὑπογραμμός.
CLEMENT.

Οὐχ ὡς Παῦλος διατάσσομαι ὑμῖν" ἐκεῖνος ἀπόστολος,
ἐγὼ κατάκριτος" ἐκεῖνος ἐλεύθερος, ἐγὼ δὲ μέχρι νῦν δοῦλος.
IGNaTIVvS.

Οὔτε ἐγὼ οὔτε ἄλλος ὅμοιος ἐμοὶ δύναται κατακολουθῆσαι
τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ μακαρίου καὶ ἐνδόξου Παύλου.
Potxycarp.

First Edition printed 1865, Second 1866, Third 1869,
Fourth 1874, Fifth 1876, Sixth 1880, Seventh 1881, Eighth 1884,
Ninth 1887, Tenth 1890, Reprinted 1892, 1896,
1900; 1902, 1905, T9TO

Ζέζ

το
THE RIGHT REV. E. W. BENSON, D.D.,

LORD BISHOP OF TRURO,

IN AFFECTIONATE AND GRATEFUL RECOGNITION
OF

A LONG, CLOSE, AND UNBROKEN FRIENDSHIP,

293830

ΣΝ

4 τε
he ia"
ake :

Le Oe
a aa
te i
}:

Ἦν
fe

aM Ἷ ‘
ay rea
HPht

Che
pee le
ὅδε
ἢ

re is
ἃ te
Soom

$e τ
Med ley
CE rg habe’

Preface to the First Edition.

HE 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 Bentleti Critica Sacra, p. 94 8q., edited
by the Rev. A. A. Ellis.

viii Preface to the First Edition.

out of very imperfect materials, and Lachmann only professed
to give results which were approximate and tentative. Of the
services of Tischendorf in collecting and publishing materials
it is impossible to speak too highly, but his actual text is
the least important and least satisfactory part of his work.
Dr Tregelles, to whom we owe the best recension of the
Gospels, has not yet reached the Epistles of St Paul’. But
apart from the difficulty of choosing a fit guide, there is always
some awkwardness in writing notes to another’s text, and the
sacrifice of independent judgment is in itself an evil; nor will
it be considered unseemly presumption in a far inferior work-
man, if with better tools he hopes in some respects to improve
upon his model. Moreover I was encouraged by the promise
of assistance from my friends the Rev. B. F. Westcott and the
Rev. F. J. A. Hort, who are engaged in a joint recension of the
Greek Testament and have revised the text of this epistle for
my use. Though I have ventured to differ from them in some
passages and hold myself finally responsible in all, I am greatly
indebted to them for their aid.
_ The authorities for the various readings are not given except
in a few passages, where the variations are important enough to
form the subject of a detached note. They may be obtained
from Tischendorf or any of the well-known critical editions.
Here and there, where the text may be considered fairly doubtful,
I have either offered an alternative reading below or enclosed
a word possibly interpolated in brackets; but these are for the
most part unimportant and do not materially affect the sense.
In the explanatory notes such interpretations only are dis-
cussed as seemed at all events possibly right, or are generally
received, or possess some historical interest. By confining
myself to these, I wished to secure more space for matters of
greater importance. For the same reason, in cases of disputed
interpretations the authorities ranged on either side are not
given, except where, as in the case of the fathers, some interest

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

Χ 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, Schéttgen,
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, 1870.

Preface to the First Edition. xi

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

While it has been my object to make this commentary
generally complete, I have paid special attention to everything
relating to St Paul’s personal history and his intercourse with
the Apostles and Church of the Circumcision. It is this feature
in the Epistle to the Galatians which has given it an over-
whelming interest in recent theological controversy. Though
circumstances have for the moment concentrated the attention
of Englishmen on the Old Testament Scriptures, the questions
which have been raised on this Epistle are intrinsically far
more important, because they touch the vital parts of Christi-
anity. If the primitive Gospel was, as some have represented
it, merely one of many phases of Judaism, if those cherished
beliefs which have been the life and light of many generations
were afterthoughts, progressive accretions, having no foundation
in the Person and Teaching of Christ, then indeed St Paul’s
preaching was vain and our faith is vain also. I feel very
confident that the historical views of the 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 such
a subject; for no man was better fitted by the sympathy of
like experiences to appreciate the character and teaching of
St Paul. One who possesses no such qualifications is entitled
to feel and to express still deeper misgivings,

Trinity CoLLEcer,
February 18, 18656

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION. PAGE

De AE GON: 1 COME sacs diccsshasesasshaanivbnencavsnens I—17
IL The Chrrches of Galatea .......ccccsececcsessececavcrecee 18—35
IIT. The Date of the Hpistle ........:0sccvccescossceccsvecees 36—56
IV. Genwineness of the Epistle ...........0-secesecseeeneenes 57—62
V. Character and Contents of the Epistle .........+.00 63—68

TEXT AND NOTES.

ONE AN Seine ly kes daatandac popvenibeuensbadcesuakes AG daadayaen tees 71—86
St Paul's, sojourn tm AAA secsvsveccdceresccesoesoscess 87—90

St Pauls first visit to Jerusalem ........Ψ.ννννννννννννον 91, 92

The name and office of an Apostle .........ccceeeeeeees 92—I01

ΒΝ DIG byes UCuesbunksemearansaccvUavaderenounsrtcered: bvespaadenvabss oa 102—120
τούτον Ὁ BTS. ian cucsaesvessaveasscesersveavias I2I—123

The later visit of St Paul to Jerusalem ....... «ον νος 123—128
Patristic accounts of the collision at Antioch ......... 128— 132
ΕΝ τὸ τον scenocn pennies tenencianadecvausuaedscecens sassaces kinaebuan 133—I51
The interpretation of Deut. XXi, 23 ......0 (0 ονν νον νέννον 152 -- 154

The words denoting ‘Fatth? .......cccccsscssecosscneeves 154—158

LAO JOR OF BOPGHAME cise is es ccsessscevieisvveveavenssaees 158—164

xiv Contents.

PAGE
ἀν, Gers Ni vpaneaneataah padernas cae ἀν διε wupavans dake ἀνα ΠΝ συ τσ τὰν τός —185
St Paul's infirmity in the flesh ...... ὁ κ ον νον οὐ νόνονονος 186---ΙΟἹ
The Various TeAdings 1 iV. 25 rrccccccsccecsceececescsees 192, 193
The meaning of Hagar 2 iv. 25 ...ccccccsccsecsseneeeee 193 —198
Philo’s Allegory of Hagar and Sirah ...c.ccccscssccees 98—200
The Varvous PEAMiNgGS ἔπ V. 1 secvccescscessavcsessecceseses 200—202
Υ, Birth, Bacon sstnn νὰ vedarsinctev lh nieapeedva sey aieslea tecet Saaeb OE 203—226
Patristic Commentaries on this Eppisile ...cccccccsesecees 227—236

DISSERTATIONS.

I. Were the Gulatians Celts or Teutons? ....ccccecececeees 239—251
IL. The Brethren Of the: LORE isiNessssacasactanverovevavecdoene 252—291
TEL. Bt Paed and: He) TAP ic ose sicducnsaneccsunsecvearenea 292—374

WP DIME eis ch ctanciek dwhca vans Wubeda ag uaa eta eau goune geabeande bay ad nena 375-284

THE GALATIAN PEOPLE.

HEN St Paul carried the Gospel into Galatia, he was The Gala-
thrown for the first time among an alien people differing 43"8 8" |
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

eae: te 1
ἰ 9

The
names
Celtxz, Ga-
late, and
Galli.

o%s

‘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 Galata is of late intro-
duction, occurring first in Timeus, a writer of the third
century Bo. 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 ὅ,

1 On these terms see Diefenbach
Celtica τι. p. 6 sq., Ukert Geogr. der
Griech. u. Rom. Th. τσ. Abth. 2, p. 183
sq., Zeuss die Deutschen u. die Nach-
barstiimme Ὁ. 6 sq., Thierry Histoire des
Gaulois τ. p. 28.

2 Hecat. Fragm. 19, 21, 22, ed. Miil-
ler ; Herod. ii. 33, iv. 49. Both forms
Κελτοὶ and Κέλται occur.

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

4 Timeus Fragm. 37, ed. Miiller.
Pausanias says (i. 3. 5) ὀψὲ δέ ποτε av-
τοὺς καλεῖσθαι Taddras ἐξενίκησε" Ked-
τοὶ γὰρ κατά τε σφᾶς τὸ ἀρχαῖον καὶ
παρὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὠνομάζοντο. See also the
passages in Diefenbach Celt. 11. p. 8.

5 This seems the most probable in-

On the other hand, the Romans generally designated

ference from the confused notices in
ancient writers. The most important
passage is Diod. v. 32, τοὺς yap ὑπὲρ
Μασσαλίαν κατοικοῦντας ἐν τῷ μεσογείῳ
καὶ τοὺς παρὰ τὰς “Ades ἔτι δὲ τοὺς ἐπὶ
τάδε τῶν Πυρηναίων ὁρῶν Κ ελτοὺς ὀνο-
μάζουσι" τοὺς δ᾽ ὑπὲρ ταύτης τῆς Κελ-
τικῆς εἰς τὰ πρὸς νότον νεύοντα μέρη,
παρά τε τὸν ὠκεανὸν καὶ τὸ Εἰρκύνιον ὄρος
καθιδρυμένους καὶ πάντας τοὺς ἑξῆς μέχρι
τῆς Σκυθίας, Ταλάτας προσαγορεύουσι
κιτιλ. See also Strabo iv, p. 189, and
other passages cited in Ukert 1. 2,
p- 197 8q., Diefenbach Celt. τι. p. τὸ
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 Galli. Whether this word exhibits the same root

as Celtz and Galatez, 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 iced ope
after the Christian era they prefer Galate, whether speaking W™tets-
of the people of Gaul properly so called or of the Asiatic

colony’. The Romans in turn sometimes borrow Galate from

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. 10, I
have thought it worth while to collect
the following particulars. (1) Before
the Christian era, and for two centuries
afterwards, the form Galatia (Galate) is
almost universally used by Greek writers
to the exclusion of Gallia (Galli), when
they do not employ Celtice (Celts). It
occurson the 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 been in use. It
is currentin Polybius, Diodorus, Strabo,
Josephus, Plutarch, Appian, Pausanias,
and Dion Cassius. It appears also in
Athen. p. 333 p, Clem. Alex. Strom. 1.
p. 359 (Potter), and Origen c. Cels. p.
3358. Even Milian (Nat. An. xvii. 19,
referring however to an earlier writer)
when speaking of the Asiatic people is
obliged to distinguish them as Γαλάτας
τοὺς ἐωούς. On the other hand St Basil
(Op. 1. p. 28, Garnier) describes the
European Gauls as τοὺς ἑσπερίους T'add-
τας καὶ Κελτούς. In Boeckh C. 1. no.
9764 the Asiatic country is called μικρὰ
Γαλατία, ‘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. ii. 20. 17,
ὥσπερ τοὺς Ταλλοὺς ἡ μανία καὶ ὁ olvos
(probably not before 4.D. 100). It oceurs

indeed in the present text of Dioscorides
(1. 92, ἀπὸ T'adXlas καὶ Τυρρηνίας), per-
haps an earlier writer, but the reading
is suspicious, since immediately after-
wards he has ἀπὸ Γαλατίας τῆς πρὸς
ταῖς "Αλπεσιν. 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, note. 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. τι. p. 136, ed.
Dind. The form Γαλλία occurs again
in the Ep. of the Churches of Vienne
and Lyons (Euseb. v. 1) a.D. 177, and in
Theophil. ad Autol. ii. 32 τὰς καλουμένας
Ταλλίας. Itisalsocommon in Herodian.
(3) In the 4th and 5th centuries the
form ‘Gallia’ had to a very great extent
displaced Galatia. See Agathem. il. 4,
Ῥ. 37, τῶν Ταλλιῶν ds πρότερον T'adarias
ἔλεγον, and Theod. Mops. on 2 Tim. iv.
10, Tas viv καλουμένας T'adXias* οὕτως
γὰρ (i.e. Tadarlav) αὐτὰς πάντες ἐκάλουν
οἱ παλαιοί. Accordingly Athanasius
(Apol. ς. Arian. § 1, pp. 97, 98) in the
same passage uses Γαλατία of Asiatic
Gaul, Γαλλίαι of the European pro-
vinces. Ata much earlier date than this
Galen says (Σιν. p. 80, Kuhn), καλοῦσι
γοῦν αὐτοὺς ἔνιοι μὲν T'ardras ἔνιοι δὲ
Γαλλούς, συνηθέστερον δὲ τὸ τῶν Κελτῶν
ὄνομα, but he must be referring in the
first two classes to the usage of the
Greek and Roman writers respectively.

1-.--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 Galatz 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,
fickle temperament, so familiar to us in St Paul’sepistle. They
appear in a ferment of busy turmoil and ceaseless migration*.
They are already in possession of considerable tracts of country
to the south and east of their proper limits. They have over-
flowed the barrier of the Alps and poured into Northern Italy.
They have crossed the 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. It is possible that some of these were fragments
sundered from the original mass of the Celtic people, and
dropped on the way as they migrated westward from the
common home of the Aryan races in central Asia: but more
probable and more in accordance with tradition is the view that
their course being obstructed by the ocean, they had retraced
their steps and turned towards the East again. At all events,

See

See similar notices in Strabo iv. p. 195,
Appian Bell. Hisp.§ 1. The form Γα-
λατία of European Gaul still continued
to be used occasionally, when Τ᾽ αλλία
had usurped its place. It is found for
instance in Julian Hpist. xxiii, and in
Libanius frequently: comp. Cureton
Corp.Ign.p.351. Ammianus(xv.9)can
still say, ‘Galatas dictos, ita enim Gal-
los sermo Graecusappellat.’ Even later
writers, who use Ταλλίαι of the Roman
provinces of Gaul, nevertheless seem to
prefer Ταλατία when speaking of the
western country as a whole, e.g. Joann.
Lydus Ostent. pp. 52, 54 (Wachsmuth),
Hierocl. Synecd. app. p. 313 (Parthey).

1 e.g. in Cesar Bell. Gall. i. τ.
on the main subject of the preceding
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. 1861).
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 eee
Italian peninsula, deluging Rome herself and obliterating the
landmarks of her earlier history. Three or four generations
later another wave of the advancing tide, again diverted south-
ward, pours into Macedonia and Thessaly, for a time carrying
everything before it. The fatal repulse from Delphi, invested Attack on
by Greek patriotism with a halo of legendary glory, terminated ἡ hp io
the Celtic invasion of Greece.

The Gaulish settlement in Asia Minor is directly connect-
ed with this invasion. A considerable force had detached The Gauls
themselves from the main body, refusing to take part in Minor.
the expedition. Afterwards reinforced by a remnant of the
repulsed army they advanced under the command of the chiefs
Leonnorius and Lutarius, and forcing their way through Thrace
arrived at the coast of the Hellespont. They did not long
remain here, but gladly availing themselves of the first means
of transport that came to hand, crossed over to the opposite
shores, whose fertility held out a rich promise of booty. Thence
they overran the greater part of Asia Minor. They laid the

whole continent west of 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 56.»
Strabo xii. p. 566 sq., Memnon (Geogr.
Min. ed. Miller, mr. p. 535 sq.), Justin
xxv. 2 sq., Arrian Syr. 42, Pausanias i.
4-5. See other references in Diefenbach
Celt. 11. Ὁ. 250. It formed the main sub-
ject of several works no longer extant,
the most important of which was the
Ταλατικὰ of Eratosthenes 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. 1638q. 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. See also
his smaller book, Asie Mineure (1862),
Ῥ. 453 8q- 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.0. 230.

Limits of
Galatia.

Galatia
conquered
by the
Romans,

Β.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 in a 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. It was
parcelled out among the three tribes, of which the invading
Gauls were composed, in the following way. The Trocmi
occupied the easternmost portion, bordering on Cappadocia and
Pontus, with Tavium or Tavia as their chief town. The Tolis-
tobogii, who were situated to the west on the frontier of
Bithynia and Phrygia Epictetus, fixed upon the ancient Pessinus
for their capital. The Tectosages settled in the centre between
the other two tribes, adopting Ancyra as their seat of government,
regarded also as the metropolis of the whole of Galatia ®.

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. It was while engaged in
these mercenary services that they first came into collision
with the terrible might of Rome. A body of Galatian troops
fighting on the side of Antiochus at the battle of Magnesia
attracted the notice of the Romans, and from that moment
their doom was sealed. A single campaign of the Consul
Manlius sufficed for the entire subjugation of Galatia.

1 Livy xxxviii. τό.

3 The chronoiogy is somewhat uncer-
tain. See Niebuhr KJ. Schrift. p. 286.
The date given is an approximation.

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

inscriptions, Boeckh 111. nos. 4010, 4011,
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. The con-
querors even granted accessions of territory from time to time
to those Galatian sovereigns who had been faithful to their
allegiance. It was not the policy of the Romans to crush a race
which had acted and might still act as a powerful check on its
neighbours, thus preserving the balance of power or rather of
weakness among the peoples of Asia Minor. At length, after becomes
more than a century and a half of native rule, on the death of long
Amyntas one of their princes, Galatia was formed by Augustus
into a Roman province.

The limits of the province are not unimportant in their
bearing on some questions relating to the early history of the
Gospel. It corresponded roughly to the kingdom of Amyntas, inte al
though some districts of the latter were assigned to a different province.
government. Thus Galatia,as a Roman province, would include,
besides the country properly so called, Lycaonia, Isauria,
the south-eastern district of Phrygia, and a portion of Pisidia*,
Lycaonia is especially mentioned as belonging to it, and there
is evidence that the cities of Derbe and Lystra in particular’
were included within its boundaries. When the province was

i The extent of the kingdom of Thissweeping statement however must
Amyntas may be gathered from the be qualified. See Dion Cass. liii. 26,
following passages: Strabo xii. p. 568, τοῦ δ᾽ ᾿Αμύντου τελευτήσαντος οὐ τοῖς
Dion Cass. xlix. 32 (Lycaonia), Strabo παισὶν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐπέτρεψεν, ἀλλ᾽
xii. p. 569 (Isauria), p. 571 (Pisidia), εἰς τὴν ὑπήκοον ἐσήγαγε" καὶ οὕτω καὶ
Ῥ. 577 (part of Phrygia), xiv. p. 671 ἡ Γαλατία μετὰ τῆς Λυκαονίας Ῥωμαῖον
(Cilicia Tracheia), Dion Cass. xlix. 32 ἄρχοντα ἔσχε" τὰ δὲ χωρία τὰ ἐκ τῆς
(part οὗ Pamphylia). See Becker Rém. «. Παμφυλίας πρότερον τῷ ᾿Αμύντᾳ προσνε-
Alterth, 111. 1. p. 155, Cellarius Not. μηθέντα τῷ ἰδίῳ νόμῳ ἀπεδόθη. Cilicia
Orb. Ant. τι. p. 182. Ofthe formation Tracheia was also separated and as-
of the Roman province Strabo says, signed to Archelaus, Strabo xiv. p. 671.
xii. Ὁ. 567, viv δ᾽ ἔχουσι Ῥωμαῖοι καὶ On the subject generally see Perrot de
ταύτην [τὴν Ταλατίαν] καὶ τὴν ὑπὸ τῷ Ο΄αῖ. Prov. Rom. Paris 1867.
᾿Αμύντᾳ γενομένην πᾶσαν εἰς μίαν συνα- 2 The Lystreni are included by Pliny
γαγόντες ἐπαρχίαν, and similarly p. 569. among the Galatian peoples, ‘H. N. v.

8

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 whieh 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

42. That Derbe also belonged to Ga- Alterth. m1. τ. p. 156.

latia may be inferred from Strabo xii. 2 It might be inferred from the in-
p- 569. See Bottger Beitrige, Suppl. scription, Boeckh 111. p. 82, ᾿Ιουλίου
p. 26. Σεουήρου τοῦ πρώτου τῶν Ἑλλήνων, that

1 Σεβαστὴ Τεκτοσάγων, =. Ἰολιστος the Greeks in Galatia θυ recognised 88
βωγίων, Σ. Τρόκμων. See Becker Rim. 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*. Antiochus

2 Polyb. xxii. 20, Livy xxxviii. 18. In 2 Mace. viii. 20 there is an obscure

2 A Brogitarus is mentioned as priest
of the mother of the gods at Pessinus;
Cicero de Arusp. Resp. 28, pro Sext. 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.

8 Boeckh Corp. Inser. 111. pp. 73—
115.

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

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 chiefly or solely, since the
successes of the Romans in Spain are

ΙΟ

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. With fertile plains rich in agricultural
produce, with extensive pastures for flocks, with a temperate
climate and copious rivers, it abounded in all those resources
out of which a commerce is created*. It was moreover conveni-
ently situated for mercantile transactions, being traversed by a
great high road between the East and the shores of the Augean,
along which caravans were constantly passing, and among its
towns it numbered not a few which are mentioned as great centres
of commerce®, We read especially of a considerable traffic in cloth

mentioned in the following verse, their
victories over Philip and Perseus in
the sth, 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. xii. 3. 4.

2 An anonymous geographer (Geogr.
Min. Miiller, 1. p. 521) describes Gala-
tia as ‘ provincia optima, sibi sufficiens.’
Other ancient writers also speak of
the natural advantages of this country;

isonet p- 199 sq. A modern
traveller writes as follows: ‘Malgrétant
de ravages et 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 |’Asie Mineure.’ And again:
‘Maigré 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 ἃ son heureuse situation, a
un climat admirablement sain, ἃ un
sol fertile, et surtout a ses innombrables
troupeaux de chévres, etc.’ Texier,
Revue des Deux Mondes, 1. ὁ. pp. 597,
602.

8 Strabo, xii. p. 567, especially men-
tions Tavium and Pessinus, describing
the latter as ἐμπορεῖον τῶν ταύτῃ μέγι-
στον. Livy, xxxviii. 18, calls Gordium
‘celebre et frequens emporium.’

THE GALATIAN PEOPLE,

If

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.
the same effect is afforded by the inscriptions found in Galatia,

which present here and there Jewish names and symbols®
amidst a strange confusion of Phrygian and Celtic, Roman and
Greek. At the time of St Paul they probably boasted a large
number of proselytes and may even have infused a beneficial
leaven into the religion of the mass of the heathen population.
Some accidental points of resemblance in the Mosaic ritual may
perhaps have secured for the inspired teaching of the Old
Testament a welcome which would have been denied to its
lofty theology and pure code of morals*.

1 Miiller’s Geogr. Min. 1. ὁ. ‘negotia-
tur plurimam vestem.’ Τὺ 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, 1, 6. p. 602
sq., and especially Ritter’s Erdkunde
xvil1. 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.

® See Boeckh Corp. Inscr. Vol. ut.
P. xviii. In no. 4129 the name’Heafos
occurs with a symbol which Boeckh
conjectures to be the seven-branched
candlestick, We have. also Ἰωάννου
4045, ZdvBaros 4074, Ματατᾶς 4088,
Θαδεὺς 4092. ᾿Ακίλας or’ Axddas & 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 a name
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 (ὑῶν οὐχ ἁπτόμενοι), a state-
ment which has given rise to much
discussion. See Wernsdorff p. 324 sq.
Some have attributed this abstinence to
Jewish influence, but the aversion to.
swine’s flesh was common to several
Eastern peoples. Instances are given

Other testimony to Their in-
fluence.

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 Colosse, though edu-
cated in the same Phrygian worship and subjected to the same
Jewish influences. The tough vitality of the Celtic character
maintained itself in Asia comparatively unimpaired among
Phrygians and Greeks, as it has done in our own islands among
Saxons and Danes and Normans, retaining its individuality of
type after the lapse of ages and under conditions the most
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 65 yeux bleux rappellent le caractére
(3rd ed.). des populations de l’ouest de la France.’

1 Modern travellers have seen, or 2 Hieron. in Epist. ad Gal. lib. τι.
imagined they saw, in the physical fea- pref. ‘Galatasexceptosermone Graeco,
tures of the modern inhabitants of Ga- quo omnis Oriens loquitur, propriam
latia traces of their Celtic origin. So linguam eandem pene habere quam
Texier, l. c. p. 598, ‘Sans chercherase Treveros, nec referre si aliqua exinde
faire illusion, on reconnait quelquefois, | corruperint, quum et Afri Phoenicum
surtout parmi les pasteurs, des types linguam nonnulla ex parte mutaverint,
qui se rapportent merveilleusement 4 et ipsa Latinitas et regionibus quotidie
certaines races de nos provinces de mutetur et tempore’ (viz. P. 1. p. 430,
France. On voit plusdecheveux blonds ed. Vallarsi). By ‘excepto sermone
en Galatie qu’en aucun autre royaume Graeco’ he means that they spoke
de l’Asie Mineure; les tétes carrées et | 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 pans

Galatians of St Paul’s Epistle, for in general the character of chats a
a nation even outlives its language. No doubt it had under-
gone many changes. They were no longer that fierce hardy
race with which Rome and Greece successively had grappled in
a struggle of life and death. After centuries of intercourse
with Greeks and Phrygians, with the latter especially who were
reputed among the most effeminate and worthless of Asiatics,
the ancient valour of the Gauls must have been largely diluted.
Like the Celts of Western Europe, they had gradually dete-
riorated under the enervating influence of a premature or
forced civilisation’. Nevertheless beneath the surface the Celtic
character remains still the same, whether manifested in the
rude and fiery barbarians who were crushed by the arms of
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-

. “ere
which perhaps we may be tempted to press unduly. His de- nee
nunciation of ‘drunkenness and revellings’,’ falling in with the pistol

taunts of ancient writers, will appear to point to a darling sin

of the Celtic people®.

East, 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, xxxvili. 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-

His condemnation of the niggardly

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. 21.

3 Diod. Sic. v. 26 κάτοινοι δὲ ὄντες
καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν τὸν εἰσαγόμενον ὑπὸ τῶν
ἐμπόρων οἶνον ἄκρατον ἐμφοροῦνται καὶ
διὰ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν λάβρῳ χρώμενοι τῷ
ποτῷ καὶ μεθυσθέντες εἰς ὕπνον ἢ μανιώ-
Ses διαθέσεις τρέπονται κιτ.λ.; 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

1

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
Gauls,

1 Gal. vi. 6, 7.

2 Diod. Sic. v. 27 ὄντων τῶν Κελ-
τῶν φιλαργύρων καθ᾽ ὑπερβολήν. Livy,
XXXviil. 27, calls the Galatians ‘ avidis-
sima rapiendi gens.’ Compare Labb,
Conc. v. 49 (ed. Colet) ἐφωράθησαν
τινὲς κατὰ τῶν TadarGv ὀλιγωροῦντες καὶ
παραβαίνοντες δι᾽ αἰσχροκέρδειαν καὶ φιὰλ-
apyuplay x.7.X., in the encyclical letter

against simony, A.D. 459.

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

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

5 Diod. Sic. v. 31 ἀπειληταὶ δὲ καὶ
ἀνατατικοὶ Kal τετραγῳδημένοι bard pxov-
ot, Ammian. 1. c. ‘Metuendae voces
complurium et minaces, placatorum
juxta et irascentium.’

THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 15

how the Gauls would gather about any merchant or traveller
who came in their way, detaining him even against his will and
eagerly pressing him for news’. A late Greek rhetorician com-
mends the Galatians as more keen and quicker of apprehension
than the genuine Greeks, adding that the moment they catch
sight of a philosopher, they cling to the skirts of his cloak, as
the steel does to the magnet*. It is chiefly however on the more
forbidding features of their character that contemporary writers
dwell. Fickleness is the term used to express their tempera- Their
ment®. This instability of character was the great difficulty ee
against which Cesar 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 Aposile’s teaching followed by their rapid apostasy
is only an instance out of many of the reckless facility with
which they adopted and discarded one religious system after
another. To St Paul, who had had much bitter experience of
hollow professions and fickle purposes, this extraordinary levity
was yet a matter of unfeigned surprise. ‘I marvel, he says,
‘that ye are changing so quickly®’ He looked upon it as some
strange fascination. ‘Ye senseless Gauls, who did bewitch you’?’
The language in which Roman writers speak of the martial
courage of the Gauls, impetuous at the first onset but rapidly
melting in the heat of the fray*, well describes the short-lived

-
1 Cesar Bell. Gall. iv. 5. existimavit.? Comp. Motley United

2 Themistius Or. xxiii. p. 299 A
(referred to by Wetstein on Gal. i. 6)
οἱ δὲ ἄνδρες tore ὅτι ὀξεῖς καὶ ἀγχίνοι
καὶ εὐμαθέστεροι τῶν ἄγαν Ἑλλήνων" καὶ
τριβωνίου παραφανέντος ἐκκρέμανται ev-
θὺς ὥσπερ τῆς λίθου τὰ σιδήρια.

8 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

Netherlands 1. Ὁ. 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 Tb, iii. το ‘Quum intelligeret om-
nes fere Gallos novis rebus studere,’

6 Gal. i. 6.

7 Gal. iii. r Q ἀνόητοι Taddrat, rls
ὑμᾶς ἐβάσκανεν ;

8 Livy x. 28 ‘Gallorum quidem etiam

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
some peculiar features of their character. 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-
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 Caesar B. G.
iii. 19, and Polyb. ii. 35.

1 Cesar’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.

8 The nobler aspect of the Druidical
system has been exaggerated. See the
remarks of M. de Pressensé, Trois Pre-
miers Siécles, 2zme série, 1. p. 52.

THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 17

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 and infect.
their hearts by storm. But the old leaven still remained. The reabartiske
pure and spiritual teaching of Christianity soon ceased to ‘Y-
satisfy them. Their religious temperament, fostered by long

habit, prompted them to seek a system more external and
ritualistic’. ‘Having begun in the Spirit, they would be made

perfect in the flesh®’ Such is the language of the Apostle
rebuking this unnatural violation of the law of progress. At

a later period in the history of the Church we find the Gala-

tians still hankering after new forms of Christianity in the

same spirit of ceaseless innovation, still looking for some

‘other gospel’ which might better satisfy their cravings after

a more passionate worship.

1 Compare the language ofa modern _ from the earliest ages had always been
historian describing the western race 50 keenly alive to the more sensuous
in a much later age; Motley Dutch and splendid manifestations of the de-
Republic m1. p. 26 ‘The stronger in- _yotional principle.’
fusion of the Celtic element, which 2 Gal. iii. 3.

GAL. | 2

«!

What is

meant by

Galatia?

Consider-

ations in
favour of
the Ro-
man pro-
vince.

Il.

THE CHURCHES OF GALATTIA.

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 Lystra’, 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 Béttger Beitriige 1. p. 28 sq., 11: 3 Acts xili, 14—xiv. 24.
p. § s8q., and Renan Saint Paul Ὁ. 51, 4 Acts xvi. 1.
etc. See more on this subject in Colos- 5 Gal. iv. 14.

sions Ὁ. 24 56.

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- aoe
ties which this view creates, there are many reasons which
make it probable that the Galatia of St Paul and St Luke is
not the Roman province of that name, but the land of the
Gauls’. By writers speaking familiarly of the scenes in which
they had themselves taken part, the term would naturally be
used in its popular rather than in its formal and official sense.
It would scarcely be more strange to speak of Pesth and Pres-

burg, of Venice and Verona, as ‘the Austrian cities, than to
entitle the Christian brotherhoods of Derbe and Lystra, Iconium
and Antioch, ‘the Churches of Galatia. Again, analogy is
strongly in favour of the popular use of the term® Mysia,
Phrygia, Pisidia, are all ‘geographical expressions’ destitute of
any political significance ; and as they occur in the same parts
of the narrative with Galatia’, it seems fair to infer that the
latter is similarly used. The direct transition for instance,
which we find from Galatia to Phrygia, is only explicable if the
two are kindred terms, both alike being used in a popular way.
Moreover, St Luke distinctly calls Lystra and Derbe ‘cities of

1 Acts xiv. 11.

2 Gal. iv. 14, vi. 17.

3 2 Tim. iii. 11.

4 Acts xiii. 14, 43, 45, Xiv. 1, xvi. 3.

5 On the other hand in x 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, xviii. 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.

* Acts xiii. 14.

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

4 Boeckh Corp. Inscr. no, 4015 ἡ
βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆμος τῆς λαμπροτάτης μη-
τροπόλεως ᾿Αγκύρας. It is frequently
styled the ‘ metropolis’ in inscriptions
and on coins.

5 Strabo xii. p. 567.

δ 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 Erdkunde
xvi. 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 8q.

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
spirit of the old popular religion. At Ancyra the pile dedi-
cated to the divinities of Augustus and Rome was one of the
earliest and most striking embodiments of the new political
worship which imperial statecraft had devised to secure the
respect of its subject peoples. We should gladly have learnt Silence of
how the great Apostle advocated the cause of the truth against cag “tg
either form of error. Our curiosity however is here disappointed, Luke-
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 icant
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 8q. 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®’ The form of the Greek expression implies that
Phrygia and Galatia here are not to be regarded as separate
districts. The country which was now evangelized might be
called indifferently Phrygia or Galatia. It was in fact the land
originally inhabited by Phrygians, but subsequently occupied
by Gauls: or so far as he travelled beyond the limits of the
Gallic settlement, it was still in the neighbouring parts of
Phrygia that he preached, which might fairly be included
under one general expression *.

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

2 Acts xviii. 23.

2 Acts xv. 40—XVi. 5.

3 Acts xvi. 6 διῆλθον δὲ τὴν Φρυ-
γίαν καὶ [τὴν] Ταλατικὴν χώραν. The
second τὴν of the received reading ought
to be omitted with the best mss, in
which case Φρυγίαν becomes an adjec-
tive. This variety of reading has escaped
the notice of commentators, though it
solves more than one difficulty. On the
occasion of the second visit the words
are (xviii. 23), διερχόμενος καθεξῆς τὴν
Γαλατικὴν χώραν καὶ Φρυγίαν. 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-

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, li. τ. See on the whole subject
Colossians p. 23 54.

5 1 see no reason for departing from
the strictly grammatical interpretation
of Gal. iv. 13, δι᾽ ἀσθένειαν τῆς capKus.

6 Acts xvi. 6.

THE CHURCHES OF GALATITA. 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 ere pry 4
would appear, which humiliated him and prostrated his physical ΠΡΌΣ
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- po
ently, to the Gospel. They may indeed have held the doctrine Goran
of the immortality of the soul, which is said to have formed
part of the Druidical teaching in European δα] δ, 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-
2 Gal. iv. 14, 15. nis nisi hominis vita reddatur, non
8 They believed also in its transmi- posse aliter deorum immortalium nu-

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

24

Earnest-
ness of the
Apostle’s
preaching,

His de-
parture.

Second
visit,
AD. 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
rufiied. 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. iii. 1, προεγράφη. 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 poe ai!
doubtless kept up his intercourse with the Galatian Churches 425
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, οἴ “™*
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-
plies some previous acquaintance with Jewish history and some reaper
habituation to Jewish modes of thought. The same inference

1 Acts xviii. 23. 4 Gal. iv. 13—16. See the notes,
2 Gal. v. 21. 5 τ Cor. xvi. 1—6.
3 Gal. i.g.

26 THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA.

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

The Ga- The Apostle had probably selected as centres of his mission
“oat those places especially where he would find a sufficient body of
setters Jewish residents to form the nucleus of a Christian Church.
of Jewish Jt was almost as much a matter of missionary convenience, as
converts, Sissy : ‘
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.
but were Not however that the Gospel seems to have spread widely
chiety of among the Jews in Galatia, for St Paul’s own language shows
Gentiles.

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. 9 Sq.

2 Rom. i. τό, 11, 9, 10.

3 Gal. iv. 8 ‘Then not knowing
God, ye did service to them which by
nature are no gods.’ See also Gal. ili.
29, V. 2, Vi. 12, and the notes oni. 14
ἐν τῷ γένει pov, ii. 5 πρὸς ὑμᾶς. Ithas
been assumed that St Peter, as the
Apostle of the Circumcision, must have
written to Jewish Christians, and that

therefore, as his epistles are addressed
to the Galatians among others, there
was ὃ 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 διασπορὰ
of the opening salutation is the spiri-
tual dispersion. Comp, 1 Pet. ii. rz,
12.

THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 27

not less rife in the provinces than in the metropolis. Many a
man, who had ποὺ 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. gma
The infection was both sudden and virulent. They were checked πρὶ μάνα
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- δὲ 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 ᾿πῤαναναν
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 3 Gal. iii, 1.
various readings οἱ περιτετμημένοι and 4 Gal. v. 2, 11, Vi. 12, 13.
oi περιτεμνόμενοι have some bearing on 5 Gal. iv. το.
this point. § Gal. ili. 2, iv. 21, v. 4, 18.

2 Gal. v. 7. 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 τοῖς δοκοῦσιν (11. 2),
τῶν δοκούντων elval τι, οἱ δοκοῦντες (il.
6), οἱ δοκοῦντες στύλοι εἷναι (ii. 9), 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.

2 Gal. i. 1.

3 Gal. i. r1, 12.

* Gal. i. 15—ii. 21.

5 Gal. vi. 17.

6. 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. το, ‘DoI
mow persuade men?’ ‘Do I seek to
please men ?’ and on ii. 3, V. 2, II.

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. from with-
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 y Cor. ix. 20, 22. 8 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. πάλιν ἄνωθεν δουλεύειν θέλετε, and
2 Gal. 1. γ. See also iv. 17, vi. 12. v. 1 μὴ πάλιν ζυγῷ δουλείας ἐνέχεσθε.
8 Gal. v. τὸ. 5 Cesar Bell. Gall, vi. 16, quoted

4 Gal. iv. 9 πῶς ἐπιστρέφετε πάλιν Ῥ, 16, note 1.
ἐπὶ τὰ ἀσθενῆ καὶ πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα οἷς

THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA., 21

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; Effect of
but it is at least as likely that the mother country of the ‘e epistle
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

‘a 2 Tim. iv. το. ‘Galatia’ in this 3888 Κρήσκεντα ἐπίτροπον Λουγδούνου

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.
11. p. 960 (ed. Vallarsi), and by Theo-
Adore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret com-
menting on the passage. Itisso taken
also by those mss which read Ταλλίαν
for Tadariay, 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
Κρήσκης τῶν κατὰ Ταλατίαν ἐκκλησιῶν
‘perhaps points to Asiatic Gaul, but is
ambiguous. Later writers made Cres-
-cens visit both the European and the
Asiatic country. A curious coincidence
“of names occurs in Boeckh Inser. no.

TadNas. 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
Γαλατίαν and not Ταλλίαν ; see the
note, p. 3; and to the authorities there
quoted add Theodoret on 2 Tim. iv. ro,
τὰς Ταλλίας οὕτως ἐκάλεσεν" οὕτω γὰρ
ἐκαλοῦντο πάλαι" οὕτω δὲ καὶ νῦν αὐὖ-
τὰς ὀνομάζουσιν οἱ τῆς ἔξω παιδείας μετ-
εἰληχότες. A passage in the Monumen-
tum Ancyranum (Boeckh Inser. no,
4040) presents a coincidence with 2
Tim. iv. ro, in the juxta-position of
Galatia (i.e. European Gaul) and Dal-
matia, ἐξ ‘Ioravlas καὶ Tadarlas καὶ
παρὰ Δαλματῶν.
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’. Asia Minor was the nursery of heresy, and
of all the Asiatic Churches it was nowhere so rife as in Galatia.
The Galatian capital was the stronghold of the Montanist re-
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 ἃ ὥσπερ γὰρ
θεσπίζων τὸ μέλλον αὐτοῖς Taddrats τὴν
τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐξηκρίβου θεολογίαν, κ.τ.λ.;
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. v. 16. 3. Comp. Epiphan.
Haer. xlviii. 14, p. 416.

8 Hieron. 1. 6. 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-
lorynchitaset Ascodrobos et Artotyritas
et caetera magis portenta quam nomina
in aliqua parte Romani orbis audivit?’
The Passalorynchites and Artotyrites
were off-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. 10, speaks of the Asco-
drupi or Ascodrupitae, as a Marcosian
(Gnostic) sect. Epiphanius, l.c., men-
tions Tascodrugitae as a barbarous equi- ἢ
valent toPassalorynchitae. Jerome how-
ever seems to have had in view the sect
called Ascodrogitae by Philastrius, Hae-
res. Ixxv. TheaccountofPhilastrius 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 cireumeunt
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,
lxxxvii; ‘Alia est haeresis quae ad-
serit 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, Manichzans, 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 ie aah
part gallantly. A sketch of their final struggle with and victory 85 ἴα,
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 τ. 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. (1. p. 422 A
ed. Ben.) ἡ Γαλατῶν ἄνοια πλουτούν-
των ἐν πολλοῖς τῆς ἀσεβείας ὀνόμασι,
doubtless alluding to St Paul’s ἀνόητοι
Ταλάται. Compare Basil. Epist. 237
(111. 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) ἄρδην ἀνα-
τραπῆναι πορθηθείσας κώμας, 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-
tians,

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
crown. Going about from place to place, he denounced all
participation in the polluting rites of heathen sacrifice, and
warned his Christian brethren against bartering their hopes of
heaven for such transitory honours as an earthly monarch
could confer. At length brought before the provincial governor,

he was tortured, condemned, and put to death*,

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

2 Ammian. xxii. 9, Liban. Or. xii,
1. p. 398, xvii. 1. p. 513 (Reiske).

3 Julian Epist. 49 ᾿Αρσακίῳ ἀρχιερεῖ
Ταλατίας, preserved in Sozom. v. τό.
The ‘ high priest’ is mentioned in the
Galatian inscriptions, Boeckh nos.
4016, 4020, 4026. Julian seems to have

At Pessinus

taken the worship of the mother of the
gods under his special protection. An
elaborate oration of his (Orat. 3) is de-
voted to this subject. Comp. Gregor.
Naz. 1. p. 10g (ed. Ben.).

4 Sozom. v. 11. The Acts of the
Martyrdom of St Basil of Ancyra
(Ruinart Acta Mart. Since. Ὁ. 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 A. tortures. One or other of these may
Gregory at the same time mentions § be that Busiris, of whom Sozomen
another 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 2 Ammian, xxv. 10.

35

Absence
of direct
evidence.

Diversity
of opinion.

iii.

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. mt.
Victorinus, who wrote about a.p. 360,
mentions thisasan 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. Mare.
v. 2, Epiphan. Haer. xlii. p. 350) the
Epistle to the Galatians stood first, but
I cannot think that his order was chro-

nological. At all events, supposing it to
be so, the fact of his placing the Epistles
to the Thessalonians after the 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 confite-
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 var,
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 setae

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 (6. 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 Florus 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 ‘ Eusebius’
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.

8 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).

4 Praef. ad Rom.

5 Acts xviil. 23, xix. 1.

8 Gal. i. 6.

7 Gal. iv. 20, vi. 17.

38 THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.

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

Sojourn at St Paul’s long sojourn at Ephesus is now drawing to a close.

Ephesus. 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

x Corinth- a letter to the Corinthians, reprobating their dissensions and
ΠΝ 5, exhorting them to acquit themselves of guilt by the punishment
(Spring). 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. 4 τ Cor. iv. 13.
? Acts xx. 19. 5 + Cor. xvi. 8.
3 1 Cor, iv. 9, XV. 32. 6 1 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. abn cy?
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 reiee hha
towards the offender. The crisis was now over. He breathed (Autumn).
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

et Visit to
people in many words*.’ From thence he visited Greece, where Greece. _
1 Acts xix. 21I—4I, XX. Is 4 Gal. vi. 17.
2 2 Cor. ii. 12, 13. 5 2 Cor. vii. s—16.

3 2 Cor. xi. 28. 6 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 4.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

1 Gal. i. 18, ii. 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 chAnEAEE.
ealled 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/#ine4.
St Paul dates from his last visit to Galatia, ‘so soon after I
left you.’ This however seems at variance with the context.

The Apostle is reproaching his converts with their fickleness,

4. Gal, ii, 11. * Acts xvi. 6, Xvili. 23.
2 Acts xv. 30—40. 5 Gal. i. 6. See the note on οὕτως
3 Gal. iv. 13—16. See the notes, ταχέως.

42

Its real
bearing.

This epi-
stle allied

to the ona Character of the epistle is one of great importance.

chrono-
logical
group.

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,’ it must reckon from their first knowledge of the Gospel,
Le. from A.D. 51. Secondly, It is insisted that the period
cannot be extended beyond a few months, or at the outside
two or three years. But quickness and slowness are relative
terms. The rapidity of a change is measured by the import-
ance of the interests at stake. A period of five or ten years
would be a brief term of existence for a constitution or a
dynasty. A people which threw off its allegiance to either
within so short a time might well be called fickle. And if so,
I cannot think it strange that the Apostle, speaking of truths
destined to outlive the life of kingdoms and of nations, should
complain that his converts had so soon deserted from the faith,
even though a whole decade of years might have passed since
they were first brought to the knowledge of Christ. So 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’.

2. On the other hand the argument from the style and
It may
now be regarded as a generally recognised fact that St Paul’s
epistles fall chronologically into four groups, separated from

to find the resultant. I think that the
former consideration may be elimin-

1 The problem of the date of the
Galatian Episile, as it is generally con-

ceived, may be stated thus: Given on
the ane hand the expression ‘so soon,’
tending towards an earlier date, and on
theother the resemblance to the Epistle
to the Romans tending towards a later,

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

one 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 °°"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 episile 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 seston

2 Corinth-

Epistles to the Corinthians and Romans. We have next to send

enquire whether there is sufficient evidence for determining its

44

2 Corinth-
185.

Resem-
blance 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. Ὁ. 50.
interesting to find that the resemblance 2 Gal, iii. rg.
between the two epistles was observed % 2 Cor. v. 21.
by a 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.
Setting aside the personal matter

more striking and definite.

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.
able this coincidence is.

The following table of parallels will show how remark-
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.

8 Compare Gal. i. 9, V. 21, with
2 Cor. xiii. 2, and Gal. iii. 3 with 2 Cor.
viii. 6. Again, the expressions ἀπο-
ρεῖσθαι, κανών, κυρόω, τοὐναντίον, φοβοῦ-
μαι μήπως, and the metaphor κατεσθίειν,

RoMmANS.

iv. 3. What saith the Scrip- Parallel
ture? Abraham believed God, Passages.

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. 9.

46

Parallel

THE DATE OF

GALATIANS.

iii, rr. But that no man is

passages. justified by the law in the sight

of God it is evident, for

THE EPISTLE.

RomMANS.

ili, 21. But now the right
eousness of God without the law
is manifested, being witnessed by

_ the law and the prophets.

‘The just shall live by faith,’

lili, 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. 1518. [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 (κεχάρισται) to Abraham by

promise.

iii, r1g—21. [Put the law was
temporary and ineffective: for]

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

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

iii. 28. [There is no 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

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 (χάρις).

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

xi. 32. God hath concluded
them all in unbelief, that he might
have mercy upon all. 111, 9, 10.
They are all under sin, as it is
written. Comp. 111. 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 THE EPISTLE.

47

Romans.

not received the spirit of bond- Parallel
age again to fear, but ye have Passages.

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).’

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 justitied
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’ (πᾶσα σὰρξ
for πᾶς ζῶν 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, (ἐν τῷ),
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself.

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

vy. 17. For the flesh lusteth

RomAns.

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

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.1z. 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,

ΧΙ, 8, 9, το. He that loveth
another, hath fulfilled the law;...
it is briefly comprehended in this
saying, namely, (ἐν τῷ), Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself...
love is the fulfilling of the law.

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

vii. 23, 25. I 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.

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’,

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,

It will be unnecessary to add many words on a similarity so
great as these passages exhibit. Observe only that it is mani-
fold and various. Sometimes it is found in a train of argument
more or less extended, and certainly not obvious: sometimes in
close verbal coincidences where the language and thoughts are
unusual, or where a quotation is freely given, and where the
coincidence therefore was less to be expected: sometimes in
the same application of a text, and the same comment upon it,
where that application and comment have no obvious reference
to the main subject of discussion. There is no parallel to this
close resemblance in St Paul’s Epistles, except in the case of
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: βαστάζειν, δουλεία, édev- _
θερόω, ἴδε, κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω (ἀνθρώ-
πινον λέγω), κατάρα καταρᾶσθαι, κῶμοι,
μακαρισμός, μέθη, οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσ-
σοντες, ὀφειλέτης, παραβάτης, παρ᾽ ὅ, τί
ἔτι ; τί λέγει ἡ γραφή;

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 sissy ay
first eager thoughts kindled by his zeal for the Gospel striking
suddenly against a stubborn form of Judaism. To the Romans
he writes at leisure, under no pressure of circumstances, in the
face of no direct antagonism, explaining, completing, extending
the teaching of the earlier letter, by giving it a double edge
directed against Jew and Gentile alike. The matter, which in
the one epistle is personal and fragmentary, elicited by the
special needs of an individual church, is in the other general-
ised and arranged so as to form a comprehensive and systematic
treatise. Very few critics of name have assigned a priority
of date to the Roman Epistle.

Thus connected by striking affinities with these two epistles, A connect.
the letter to the Galatians seems naturally to claim an inter- eo densa

between

mediate position, as a chronological link between them. Its ? Corinth-
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.
Strife, emulation, wraths,
factions, backbitings,
whisperings, swellings,
tumults ....., uncleanness
and fornication and las-
civiousness, Xii. 20, 21.

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

Romans.
Unrighteousness, wick-
edness, covetousness,
maliciousness, full of en-
vy, murder, strife, deceit,
malignity, whisperers,
backbiters, etc., i. 29, 303
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-
tinuity
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 ποὺ But the mention of
them is only occasional; it does not colour the whole episile.
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 1 Cor. xv. 19.
* y 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 tee te
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 stall
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. vii. 4.
V. 4, Vi. 4—I0, Vii. 4—7, xi. 23—28, 8 Gal. v. 11.
xii. 7—I0, 12. 4 Gal. Ἃ Io.

52

(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 pomt, 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 It 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 ; and 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,’ ete. I. Walton’s
Life of Herbert.
8 Tom, 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- iment
trines with which the errors of the Judaizers were in direct cera yes ip
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 (δικαιοσύνη) 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 x Cor. i. 30, iv. 4, Vi. 11, 2 Cor,
2 7 Cor. vii. 18. iii. 9.
% Gal. v. 2. 6 2 Cor. Υ. 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
cielo 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 see
unto all men'.’ The admonition is thrown into a general form, &¥i7s:
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 conflicting
probabilities; and it seems to me that the arguments here
advanced, however imperfect, will hold their ground against
those which are alleged in favour of the earlier date. In the
interval then between the writing of the Second Epistle to the
Corinthians and that to the Romans, the Galatian letter ought
probably to be placed. Beyond this I will not venture to define
the time; only suggesting that the greeting from ‘all the bre-
thren which are with me® seems naturally to apply to the little
band of his fellow-travellers, and to hint that the letter was not
despatched from any of the 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. 1. 5. 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
maintained had also been advocated

by Conybeare and Howson (1, 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,

1" Epistle to the Galatians has escaped unchallenged Genuine-
amid the sweeping proscriptions of recent criticism. Its ὁ Ἀνάν
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 or
the one hand, as an exhibition of the working of the. Apostle’s
mind, it lies far beyond the reach of a forger in an age
singularly unskilled in the analysis and representation of the
finer shades of character. The suppressed conflict of feeling,
the intermingling of strong protest and courteous reserve,
the alternation of respectful concession and uncompromising
rebuke—the grammar being meanwhile dislocated and the
incidents obscured in this struggle of opposing thoughts—such
a combination of features reflects one mind alone, and can
have proceeded but from one author. On the other hand,
looking at the passage as a narrative of events, it seems wholly
impossible that the conceptions of a later age should have
taken this form. The incidents are too fragmentary and in-

1 One exception is recorded, which may serve to point a moral.

58 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 entertain. The Gnostic, who wished to advance
his antipathy to Judaism under cover of St Paul’s name, would
have avoided any expression of deference to the Apostles of
the Circumcision. The Ebionite would have shrunk with
loathing from any seeming depreciation of the cherished cus-
toms or the acknowledged leaders of his race, as the tone of
the author of the Clementines shows’. The Catholic writer,
forging with a view to ‘conciliation, would be more unlikely
than either to invent such a narrative, anxious as he would
be to avoid any appearance of conflict between the two great
teachers of the Church. The very unevenness of the incidents
is the surest token of their authenticity.
External On the other hand, the external evidence, though not very
caret 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.
Apostolic 1. The Apostolic Fathers in whose ears the echoes of the
Fathers. ‘A nostle’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 (ὃ 2) ‘His sufferings were before your eyes’
with the implied rebuke may perhaps be a faint reflection of
ΠΣ i 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 Ignatius 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.
viii. 17, Rom. xv. 1.)

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

1 See p. 61.

GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 59

Philad. ὃ τ, 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. το.
Jiphes. § 18, ‘The Cross a stumblingblock’ may be a reminiscence
of Gal. ii. 21.
In E£phes. ὃ τό the expression ‘shall not inherit the kingdom
_ of God’ is probably derived from Gal. v. 21.
Compare also

Trall. ὃ το with Gal. ii. 21.

Magnes. § 5 with Gal. v. 6.

Magnes. § 8 with Gal. v. 4.

Smyrn. ὃ to with Gal. iv. 14. 3

PotycoarP 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.
ce. 5 ‘Knowing then that’ ‘God is not mocked,” we ought, ete,’
from Gal. vi. 7.
9. 6 ‘Zealous in what is good,’ may be taken from Gal. iv. 18;
comp. Tit, ii. 14, τ Pet. iii. 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 Subapostolic Age Other
present one or two vague resemblances on which no stress can aes:

be laid. stolic age.

Barnabas. A passage in the epistle bearing his name, 6. 19,
‘Thou shalt communicate in all things with thy neighbour,’ re-
flects Gal. vi. 6.

Hermas (6. 140 A.D. ἢ) Sim. ix. 13 has ‘They that have believed
in God through His Son and put on these spirits,’ Comp. Gal. iii.
26, 27.
3. The Epistle to the Galatians is found in all the known Canons of
Canons of Scripture proceeding from the Catholic Church in the cat aaa

1 The expression ‘knowing that’
(εἰδότες ὅτι) in Polycarp seems to be a
form of citation. Inc. 1 it introduces
a passage from Ephes. ii. 8, in ὁ. 4 one
from 1 Tim. vi. 7. It occurs once
again in ὁ. 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 doubt
that he is quoting the language of one
greater than himself. They ring al-
most like a sentence of St Paul.

Apolo-
gists.

60

GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE.

second century. It is contained in the Syriac and OLD LATIN
versions, completed, it would appear, some time before the
close of the century. It is distinctly 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 Epistte ΤῸ Dioenetus, c. 4, has the expression, ‘The ob-
servance (παρατήρησιν) of months and of days,’ derived ap-
parently from Gal. iv. 10, ‘Ye observe (παρατηρεῖσθε) 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, etc.’ (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, 12. Moreover, he introduces the first in language closely
resembling that of St Paul, ‘Every race of men will be found
under a curse (ὑπὸ κατάραν) 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 Lxx’.

Again in the Apol.

I. 53, Justin applies Isaiah liv. 1, ‘ Rejoice, thou barren, ete.’

exactly as St Paul applies it in Gal. iv. 27.

ili. 10, 13, 28, iv. 27.

See the notes on

MeEu!rTo in a passage in the ‘Oration to Antoninus,’ lately dis-
covered in a Syriac translation ἢ, uses language closely resembling

Gal. iv. 8, 9.

1 Ine. 5 of the Orat.ad Graecos, often
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, ὃς οὐκ ἐμμ. ἐν
πᾶσιν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ

τοῦ νόμου τοῦ π. αὐτά, for the Ιἰχχ
(which is nearer to the Hebrew) πᾶς ὁ
ἄνθρωπος ὅστις οὐκ ἐμμ. ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς
λόγοις τοῦ ν. τούτου τοῦ π. αὐτούς : in
Deut. xxi. 23, ᾿Επικατάρατος πᾶς, where
the uxx, following the Hebrew, has
Κεκατηραμένος ὑπὸ Θεοῦ πᾶς.

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 Addzus’ (Cureton’s Ane. Syr. Doc,

GENUINENESS OF THE’ EPISTLE. 61

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, Heretical
is also more important, as showing how widely the epistle was re

received. Most of the references quoted below seem to belong

to the first half of the century.

THe Opnites 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. 111. 28, vi. 15, see Hippol. v. 7,

P- 99.
Justin, the Gnostic, alludes to Gal. v.17: Hippol. v. 26, p. 155.

THE VALENTINIANS made use of it, Iren. i. 3.5. A comment on
Gal. vi. 14 is given by Ireneus from their writings, apparently
from the works of Ptolemeus'.

Marcion included it in his Canon and attached great import-
ance to it. See p. 36, note 1. Oomp. also the note on iii. 19.

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

6. Neither is the testimony of Adversaries of the second Adversa-

century wanting to the authenticity of this epistle. ‘anki Bt

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 (λεγόντων τό) “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).

THE ΕἸΒΙΟΝΙΤΕ AUTHOR OF THE CLEMENTINE HomILizs, 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 (ἐναντίος
ἀνθέστηκάς μοι). If thou hadst not been an adversary, thou
wouldest not have calumniated and reviled my preaching...If
thou callest me condemned (κατεγνωσμένον), thou accusest God

p. 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. 1x. 1.

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, Hac. ap. Clem. Alex. 6. 53, p.
982 (Potter), where Gal. iii, 19, 20 is
quoted: but the date and authorship
of these excerpts are uncertain.

62

Apocry-
phal Acts.

Irenzeus,
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 (παρατήρησιν)
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 : vill. 4 to Gal. i. 6; xviii, 21 to Gal. 1. 85 viii. 18
(δ ἀγγέλου νόμος ὡρίσθη) to Gal. lil. 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 Paunt anD Tuecta ὃ 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, IRENZUS, 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.

ἴω 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 peint 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™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- hd
press some truth more strongly on his readers. Here the °w» 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 Threefold
sections of two chapters each, the first couplet (i, ii) containing 2V5!"-
the personal or narrative portion, the second (iii, iv) the argu-
mentative or doctrinal, and the third (v, vi) the hortatory
or practical. It will be borne in mind however, that in a
writer like St Paul any systematic arrangement must be more
or less artificial, especially where, as in the present instance, he
is stirred by deep feelings and writes under the pressure of
an urgent necessity. The main breaks however, occurring at
the end of the second and fourth chapters, suggest this three-
fold division; and though narrative, argument, and exhortation,
are to some extent blended together, each portion retains for
the most part its own characteristic form.

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

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

ἱ ee , ; h
1. The salutation and ascription of praise so worded as to in- λα ΝΑ μὴ

troduce the main subject of the letter (1. 1—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. 11—18. See the notes on πηλίκοις γράμμασιν ἔγραψα.
GAL. 5

66 CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.

Analysis 3. This Gospel came directly from God.
nator (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. r—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. 1r—2z).

[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. Docrrinat, 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 (iii. 6—9).

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

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

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

(i) It was an inferior dispensation, given as a witness against
sin, a badge of a state of bondage, not as contrary to, but
as preparing for, the Gospel (iii. 1g—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. 21---- 31).

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

ΠΙ|. 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—5s).
(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; Ye:

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. 1,
said Luther, ‘is my epistle; I have § lxxxv. p. 139.
betrothed myself to it: it is my wife.’

ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ.

WHY SEEK YE THE LIVING AMONG THE DEAD?

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

ΠΡΟΣ

ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ.

ΑΥ̓ΛΟΣ ἀπόστολος οὐκ ἀπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι᾽ ἀν-
θρώπου, ἀλλὰ διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ πατρὸς

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 official
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.

‘PavL AN APOSTLE, whose authority
does not flow from any human source,
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 CouRcHES 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. οὐκ ἀπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι᾽ ἀνθρώ-
που] ‘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. Διά, as distinguished from
ἀπό, 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 Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς δι’ οὗ ra
πάντα, or (2) the human agency em-
ployed in carrying out the divine pur-
pose, ég. 1 Cor. iii. 5 διάκονοι δι’ ὧν
ἐπιστεύσατε. 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 διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,
which was to follow.

ἀλλὰ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] 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.

[I. 2, 3

~ ’ \ ~ ε \ 9 ts
TOU ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν EK νεκρῶν, "καὶ οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ παν-

/ ~ ΠῚ / ~ ,
TES ἀδελφοί, ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς TaXartias.

ϑχάρις

ca \ 2 / 4 A lal \ \ , e ~ 9 ΄-
ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρος καὶ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ

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, 15—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.

καὶ Θεοῦ πατρός] It might be ex-
pected that the first preposition (ἀπὸ)
would have been resumed here, as
more appropriate. It is incorrect
however to say that διὰ 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 (διὰ) coin-
cides with its source (ἀπό). The point
of the sentence would have been
blunted by inserting ἀπό. Nor indeed
is the extension of διὰ 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. ᾿Από,
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 (ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ
δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτόν, Rom. xi. 36),
and may therefore be 1 egarded 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. ὃ xlvii. Ὁ, 473 sq. Marcion
(Hieron. ad 1.) cut the knot by omit-
ting καὶ Θεοῦ πατρός, and apparently
reading ἑαυτὸν for αὐτόν.

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).

τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν] ‘who
raised Him from the dead! This
expression occurs elsewhere with a
more general reference to Christian
faith or Christian life: Rom. iy. 24,
viii. 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 σὺν ἐμοὶ πάντες ἀδελφοί] ‘all
the brethren who are with me’ Ῥτο-
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,’ 1.6. 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

1. 4]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, 73

~ ~ / \ 4 ΄σ ~ ~
Χριστοῦ, “τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτὸν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιών ἡμῶν,
ε 5 ~ ,’ ~ 7A ~ ~
ὅπως ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς EK τοῦ αἰώνος TOU ἐνεστῶτος πονη-

4. ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν.

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.

ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Γαλατίας] ‘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. 1,
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. χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη, κιτιλ] On
this form of salutation see the notes
1 Thess. 1. 1.

4. τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτόν, κιτ.λ.] ‘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.

περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν] The mss here, as

in several other passages, are divided
between περὶ and ὑπέρ, though here
the balance of authority is perhaps in
favour of περί. Generally it may be
said that περὶ is used of things, ὑπὲρ
of persons, as 1 Pet. iii. 18 ὅτι καὶ
Χριστὸς ἅπαξ wept ἁμαρτιῶν ἀπέθανεν
δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, but exceptions
are very numerous, and in Heb. v. 3
we have περὶ ἑαυτοῦ προσφέρειν περὶ
ἁμαρτιῶν (not ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν, aS some
read), though just before (ver. 1) the
expression used is προσφέρῃ ὑπὲρ ἁμαρ-
τιῶν. Where περὶ is used of persons,
it is frequently explained by some
clause added, 6... Matt. xxvi. 28 τὸ
περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον eis ἄφεσιν
ἁμαρτιῶν. With this compare the par-
allel passages Luke xxii. 19, 20 (ὑπὲρ
ὑμῶν), Mark xiv. 24 (ὑπὲρ πολλῶν, the
correct reading), where there is no
explanatory clause. All this follows
from the meaning of the prepositions,
ὑπὲρ having a sense of ‘interest in,’
which is wanting to wepi. The dis-
tinction is marked in Athenag. Resurr.
I, λόγων διττῶν τῶν μὲν ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀλη-
θείας των δὲ περὶ τῆς ἀληθείας κ.οτ.λ.
(comp. ὃ 11). Neither conveys the
idea of a vicarious act (ἀντί), though
such will frequently appear in the
context. On ὑπὲρ and περὶ see Winer
§ xlvii. p. 479, and especially Wieseler’s
note here.

ἐξέληται] ‘deliver’ strikes the key-
note of the epistle. The Gospel isa
rescue, an emancipation from a state
of bondage. See esp. iv. 9, 31, V. I, 13.

TOU αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ] the
correct reading, in which the detached
position of πονηροῦ is emphatic: ‘with
all its evils’ Comp. Arist. Hth. Nic.
i. 13 καὶ yap τἀγαθὸν ἀνθρώπινον
ἐζητοῦμεν καὶ τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν ἀνθρω-
πίνην, Polit. ii. 9 τῶν γ᾽ ἀδικημάτων
ἑκουσίων τὰ πλεῖστα συμβαίνει K.T.X.
The reading of the received text, τοῦ

74 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[1.5

μὰ

΄ \ \ / ΄ ΄ 4 \ ε =
5 ε
ροῦ κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Se ἡ
΄σ “ >
δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων" ἀμήν.

ἐνεστῶτος αἰῶνος πονηροῦ, 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, Epist. Clem.
I, ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος “πονηροῦ τὸν ἐσό-
μενον ἀγαθὸν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ μηνύσας
βασιλέα (where αἰῶνος found in some
texts after πονηροῦ 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. 1 John v.19 6 κόσμος ὅλος ἐν
τῷ πονηρῷ κεῖται, Barnab. § 2. At all
events a possible interpretation is thus
suggested. Comp. Polyb. xviii. 38. 5
τὸν ἐνεστῶτα βασιλέα.

τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος] The pre-
sent transitory world, elsewhere 6 νῦν
αἰών, 6.9. 1 Tim. vi. 17, 6 αἰὼν τοῦ Kio-
pov τούτου Ephes. ii. 2, and most fre-
quently ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος, 6... Rom. xii. 2, as
opposed to the other world, the world
of eternity, ὁ αἰὼν ἐκεῖνος Luke xx. 35,
ὁ αἰὼν ὁ ἐρχόμενος Luke viii. 20, αἰὼν
μέλλων Hebr. vi. 5, and often in the
plural, οἱ αἰῶνες οἱ ἐπερχόμενοι Ephes.
li. 7, οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων, and οἱ αἰῶνες
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, ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν αἰώνων, I Tim. i,
17. .See especially Ephes. ii. 2—7, and
comp. [Clem. Rom.] ii. § 6 ἔστιν δὲ
οὗτος ὁ αἰὼν καὶ ὁ μέλλων δύο ἐχθροί.
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-
στὼς here in the sense of ‘impending,’
as referring to the final apostasy. In

other passages however ἐνεστῶτα is
plainly ‘present’ as opposed to μέλ-
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 ὁ χρόνος ὁ ἐνεστὼς
is ‘the present tense.’ Comp. Philo
de Plant. Noe ii. ὃ 27, p. 346 M rpi-
μεροῦς χρόνου, ὃς εἰς τὸν παρεληλυθότα
καὶ ἐνεστῶτα καὶ μέλλοντα τέμνεσθαι
πέφυκεν. Hven in passages where it
seems at first sight to have the sense
‘impending, soon to come,’ as in 1 Cor.
Vii. 26 διὰ τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν ἀνάγκην,
2 Thess. ii. 2 ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα, its
proper meaning is more appropriate.
κατὰ τὸ θέλημα] ‘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 τοῦ καλέσαντος, ver. 6.

τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς judy] Comp.
Phil. iv. 20. Does ἡμῶν refer te Θεοῦ
as well as πατρός, ‘Our God and Fa-
ther’? On the whole this seems pro-
bable; for the article, not being neces-
sary before Θεοῦ, seems to be added
to bind the two clauses together and
connect both with ἡμῶν. The same
construction is Justified i in the case of
the similar expression, ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 Cor. i. 3, ΕΡΗΘ8, 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.
Ill. 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 / 74 e/ / / 3 \ ~
Θαυμαζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ

΄ “ - «
καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι Χριστοῦ εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγ-

ἡὶ δόξα] ‘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 δόξα 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 ἐστὶν in such cases rather than
ἔστω. It is an affirmation rather than
a wish. Glory is the essential attri-
bute of God. See 1 Pet. iv. 11 6
ἐστὶν ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος, and the
doxology added to the Lord’s prayer,
Matt. vi. 13.

eis τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων] ‘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-
verts. This is the sole instance where
St Paul omits to express his thank-
fulness in addressing any church. See
the introduction, p. 64.

‘I marvel that ye are so ready to
revolt from God who called you, so
reckless 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. οὕτως ταχέως] ‘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,’ ¢.e. quick-
ly after the opportunity is offered, a
sense which the present tense (uerari-
θεσθε) would facilitate. See 1 Tim.
Vv. 22 χεῖρας ταχέως μηδενὶ ἐπιτίθει,
2 Thess. ii. 2 εἰς τὸ μὴ ταχέως σαλευ-
θῆναι. In this case there will be no
reference to any independent point of
time.

μετατίθεσθε] ‘are turning rene-
gades’; the middle voice, as may be
seen from the passages quoted below.
MerarideoGa is used (1) of desertion
or revolt, z.e. of military or political
defection, as in Polyb, xxvi. 2. 6 ra-
χέως καὶ τοὺς πολιτευομένους μετα-
θέσθαι πρὸς τὴν Ῥωμαίων αἵρεσιν, and
frequently (2) of a change in religion,
philosophy, or morals, 1 Kings xxi.
25 ὡς μετέθηκεν αὐτὸν ᾿Ιεζάβελ ἡ γυνὴ
αὐτοῦ, Iambl. Protrept. c. 17 μετα-
θέσθαι ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀπλήστως καὶ ἀκολάσ- ᾿
τως ἔχοντος βίου ἐπὶ τὸν κοσμίως. Dio-
nysius of Heraclea, who from being a
Stoic became an Epicurean, was called
μεταθέμενος, ‘turncoat’ (ἄντικρυς ἀπο-
δὺς τὸν τῆς ἀρετῆς χιτῶνα ἀνθινὰ μετημ-
φιάσατο Athen. vii. p. 281 p). The
word is frequently used however of
‘conversion’ in a good sense, as in
Justin Apol. τι. pp. 83 B, ΟΙ D, ete.

τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι] ‘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 Θεοῦ, see the note on i. 15.

76 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[1.7

t VN > sf 3 ; ΄ 3 ε 7
γέλιον, 70 οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, εἰ μή τινές εἰσιν οἱ Tapac-
= , / \ /
σοντες ὑμᾶς Kal θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι TO εὐαγγέλιον

Χριστοῦ] is generally omitted in the
Latin authorities, while some others
read Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ,
and even Θεοῦ. All these may possi-
bly have been glosses to explain τοῦ
καλέσαντος. 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 τῇ χάριτί ἐστε
σεσωσμένοι. It is found however in
the best Mss, and is supported by such
passages as Acts xv. 11, διὰ τῆς χάρι-
τος τοῦ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ πιστεύομεν σω-
θῆναι. If retained, it must be taken
after χάριτι, and not with τοῦ καλέσαν-
ros as in the Peshito, for ὁ καλέσας
in St Paul’s language is always the
Father.

6,7. εἰς ἕτερον 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 ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον.

ἕτερον implies a difference of kind,
which is not involved in ἄλλο. The
primary distinction between the words
appears to be, that ἄλλος is another
as ‘one besides, ἕτερος another as
‘one of two.’ The fundamental sense
of érepos is most clearly marked in its
compounds, as ἑτερόφθαλμος, ‘one-
eyed. Thus ἄλλος adds, while ἕτερος
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. ὃ

ἥν pov katnyopyons...... εἰσαῦθις ὅταν
διακονῶ, ἑτέρῳ μοι χρήσῃ διακόνῳ, ζ.6.
‘changed,’ where ἄλλῳ could not stand.
In Exod. i. 8 ἀνέστη δὲ βασιλεὺς ἕτερος
ἐπ᾿ Αἴγυπτον, 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
ἄλλος is generally confined to a nega-
tion of identity, ἕτερος sometimes im-
plies the negation of resemblance. See
2 Cor. xi. 4, where the two words are
used appropriately, as they are here.
In many cases however they will be
interchangeable: comp. Matt. xi. 3
with Luke vii. 20. Hesychius explains
ἕτερον ἄλλον" ἢ ἀλλοῖον᾽ ἢ ἕν τοῖν δυοῖν"
ἢ ἀριστερόν, νέον, δεύτερον.

7. εἰ μή τινές, κιτιλ.] ‘Only in this
sense is it another gospel, in that it
is an attempt to pervert the one true
Gospel.’ Ei μὴ 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 ἀλλά; see the
note oni. 19. Here the following θέ-
λοντες, which is slightly emphatic (‘at-
tempting to, though without success’),
justifies the exception taken by εἰ μή.

τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες] a some-
what unusual construction for of τα-
ράσσουσιν. It occurs however even in
classical writers, 6.9. Soph. Gd. Col.
1023 ἄλλοι yap of σπεύδοντες, Lysias
pro Arist. bon. ὃ 57 εἰσὶ δέ τινες of
προαναλίσκοντες (the latter passage is
quoted with others by Winer, § xviii.
p. 136), and more commonly in the
New Testament, 6... Col. 11, 8 βλέ- |
πετε μή τις ἔσται ὁ συλαγωγῶν, Luke
xviii. 9. See the note on 111. 21. For
τινὲς 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]

TOU Χριστοῦ :

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 77

\ > \ ~ a f 2
ὃ άλλα καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐ-

ρανοῦ εὐαγγελίζηται [ὑμῖν] παρ᾽ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα

ὑμῖν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.

ταράσσοντες] not ‘troubling your
minds,’ but ‘raising seditions among
you, shaking your allegiance,’ a con-
tinuation of the metaphor of perari-
Gece. The phrase ταράττειν τὴν πόλιν
is commonly used of factions, e.g. Ari-
stoph. Hg. 863. See the note on v. 10.

μεταστρέψαι] properly, ‘to reverse,
to change to the opposite, and so
stronger than διαστρέψαι, which is sim-
ply ‘to distort,’ ‘wrench’: comp. Arist.
Rhet. i. 15 καὶ τὸ τοῦ Ξενοφάνους pera-
στρέψαντα φατέον κιιλ. What was
the idea prominent in the Aposile’s
mind when he called this heresy a
‘reversal’ of the Gospel may be ga-
thered from iii. 3.

τοῦ Χριστοῦ] 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
(εὐαγγελίζηται) : in the latter, a fact
which had actually occurred, and was
occurring (εὐαγγελίζεται).

καὶ ἐάν) preserves its proper sense
of ‘etiamsi,’ as distinguished from ἐὰν
καὶ ‘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 ἐὰν καὶ as it
occurs in vi. I, ἐὰν καὶ προλημφθῇ.

ἡμεῖς] ‘we. 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 προειρήκαμεν Kal ἄρτι πάλιν

ὑμῖν] is doubtful, being found both
before and after εὐαγγελίζηται in dif-
ferent texts, and in some omitted en-
tirely.

map ὅ] 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.

ἀνάθεμα] is the common (Hellen-
istic), ἀνάθημα 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 ; ἀνά-
θημα getting to signify ‘devoted’ in
a good, and ἀνάθεμα in a bad sense.
See Trench. WV. 7. Synon. ὃ v. p. 143
Fritzsche on Rom. ix. 3. This is a
common phenomenon in all languages,
6.9. 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

, sl ~ t
λέγω, εἴ Tis ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελίζεται παρ᾽ ὃ παρελάβετε,

pa 3
ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.

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 ἀνάθεμα,
as Theodorct (on Rom. ix. 3) does to
ἀνάθημα. ᾿Ανάθημα 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 ἀνάθεμα here
means ‘excommunicated’ or ‘accurs-
ed’; ze. 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 OU, 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 dva-
Bena, ἀναθεματίζειν, 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 ἄγγελος ἐξ
οὐρανοῦ. In course of time ἀνάθεμα,
like the corresponding On, 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 1 Cor. xvi. 22, explaining
ἀνάθεμα ἔστω by ἀλλότριος ἔστω τοῦ
κοινοῦ σώματος τῆς ἐκκλησίας.

το " \ > , ἢ \ ‘
apTt yap ἀνθρώπους πείθω ἢ Tov

9. ὡς προειρήκαμεν] 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 (λέγω) where St Paul is writing
in his own person, and the plural
(προειρήκαμεν) Where he is speaking
of the joint labours of himself and his
colleagues, is to be observed. See the
note on ἡμεῖς ver. 8.

καὶ ἄρτι πάλιν] ‘so now again,’
ἄρτι here denotes strictly present, as
opposed to past time—a late use of the
word. See Lobeck Phryn. p. 18 sq.

πάλιν] ‘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 προείρηκα (which indeed is
found in some texts), as throughout
the epistle he writes in his own per-
son alone ; and (2) The words καὶ ἄρτι
mark some greater distinction of time
than this interpretation would allow.

ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελίζεται] 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.

to. ‘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.’

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

I. τι]

Θεόν: 1

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

79

ἢ ζητῶ ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκειν: εἰ ἔτι ἀνθρώποις

as Χριστοῦ δοῦλος οὐκ av ἤμην.
“Tywpilw δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐ-

11. γνωρίζω γάρ.

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 ἄρτι has therefore no connexion
with the ἄρτι of ver. 9. The sup-
pressed allusion to the Judaizers also
explains the particle yap: ‘I speak
thus strongly, for my language shall
not be misconstrued, shall wear no
semblance of compromise.’

ἀνθρώπους πείθω ἢ τὸν Θεόν] ‘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, ἀνθρώπους
πείθομεν, Θεῷ δὲ πεφανερώμεθα), yet
πείθω 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: “ἀνθρώ-
πους, homines; hoc sine articulo: at
mox τὸν Θεόν, Deum cum articulo.
Dei solius habenda est ratio.” See
also the note on iv. 31.

. ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκειν] Sot Thess. ii. 4:

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

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

Χριστοῦ δοῦλος οὐκ ἂν ἤμην] “7
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-
para τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, vi. 17); ‘I should
not have been branded as His slave,
I should not have suffered for Him,’
Comp. v. 11, ‘If I yet preach cir-
cumcision, why am I yet persecuted?’

11, 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.’

11. Γνωρίζω ὑμῖν] ‘IZ 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
ἄνθρωπον, are confined to the epistles
of this chronological group.

The best authorities are nearly
equally divided between δὲ and γάρ.

80 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[I. 12, 13

A a 3 ~ « 2 4 \ ᾽,
αγγελισθὲν ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον.
12 δὲ \ ? \ \ > θ 7 / 4 ΠΛ af

οὐδὲ yao ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον αὐτὸ οὔτε
ἐδιδάχθην, ἀλλὰ δι’ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

> \ \ 3 ᾽ ΄-
᾿βἠκούσατε γὰρ τὴν ἐμὴν ἀναστροφήν ποτε ἐν τῷ Ἰου-

12. οὐδὲ ἐδιδάχθην.

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 δὲ may possibly have been sub-
stituted for yap here, because it is
found with γνωρίζω (-ζομεν)ὴ in 1 Cor.
xy. I, 2 Cor. viii. 1.

ἔστιν] 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.

κατὰ ἄνθρωπον] ‘after any human
fashion or standard.’ See on iii. 15.

12. οὐδὲ yap ἐγώ] ‘For to go a
step farther back, neither did J my-
self receive it from man.’ The: force
of the particle οὐδὲ is best sought for
in the context. Οὐδὲ ἐγὼ παρέλαβον
answers to ro εὐαγγελισθὲν tn’ ἐμοῦ
οὐκ ἔστιν, aS παρὰ ἀνθρώπου answers
to κατὰ ἄνθρωπον. Others explain it
‘I 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 ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον] The idea
in the preposition is sufficiently wide
to include both the ἀπὸ and διὰ of
ver. 1. I do not think the distinction
given by Winer ὃ xlvii. p. 463, and
others, between λαμβάνειν παρὰ Κυρίου
and λαμβάνειν ἀπὸ Κυρίου (1 Cor. xi.
23), as denoting respectively direct
and indirect communication, can be
insisted upon. It is true, that while
ἀπὸ contemplates only the giver, παρὰ
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 παρὰ will be used in prefer-
ence to ἀπό, be the communication
direct or indirect; so Phil. iv. 18 de-
ξάμενος mapa ᾿ΕἘπαφροδίτου τὰ παρ᾽
ὑμῶν: comp. Plat. Symp. 202 ΕΒ. The
verb παραλαμβάνειν may be used either
of the ultimate receiver or of any in-
termediate agent, provided that the
idea of transmission be retained; Zz.
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 παραγγελία.

οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην] The authorities being
nearly equally divided between οὔτε
and οὐδέ, I have with some hesitation
retained the former in the text, as
being the less regular collocation (οὐ-
dé...ovre), and therefore more likely to
be altered. In this case another οὔτε
is to be understood before παρέλαβον,
the δὲ of οὐδὲ having reference to the
former sentence. See Winer ὃ lv. 6,
p. 617, and esp. A. Buttmann p. 315.

ἐδιδάχθην is added to explain and
enforce παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον, and
thus to bring out the contrast with
δ ἀποκαλύψεως: “1 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,
non 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. 81

δαϊσμῷ, ὅτι καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν ἐδίωκον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ
Θεοῦ καὶ ἐπόρθουν αὐτήν, **kal προέκοπτον ἐν τῷ Ἰου-
δαϊσμῷ ὑπὲρ πολλοὺς συνηλικιώτας ἐν τῷ γένει μου,
περισσοτέρως ζηλωτὴς ὑπάρχων τών πατρικῶν μου

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. ἠκούσατε) ‘ye heard, “1 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—1o: comp. Phil. iii. 6, 1 Tim. i.
13. The A.V., ‘ye have heard,’ gives
a wrong meaning.

ἀναστροφήν ποτε] for the more usual
ποτε ἀναστροφήν, as ver. 23 6 διώκων
ἡμᾶς ποτέ. 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 ὃ xx.
p. 169 sq.

ἸΙουδαϊσμῷ] ‘observance of Jewish
rites’ The word does not in itself
imply any disparagement. Comp. 2
Mace. ii. 21 τοῖς ὑπὲρ τοῦ Ἰουδαϊσμοῦ
φιλοτίμως ἀνδραγαθήσασιν, xiv. 38
σῶμα καὶ ψυχὴν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ᾿Ιουδαϊσμοῦ
παραβεβλημένος, and ᾿Ιουδαΐζειν 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 Χριστιανός, likewise
a term of reproach in the first in-
stance, is a parallel.

GAL.

ἐπόρθουν «r.d.] ‘I devastated the
Church, as Acts ix. 21 οὐχ οὗτός
ἐστιν ὁ πορθήσας ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ τοὺς
ἐπικαλουμένους κιτιλ. Compare ἔλυ-
μαίνετο τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, Acts Viii. 3.

14. συνηλικιώτας] ‘of my own age,
who embraced the religion of their
fathers with all the ardour of youthful
patriotism. The Attics use the simple
form ἡλικιώτης, While the compound
belongs to the later dialect. Com-
pare the similar instances of πολίτης
(συμπολίτης, Ephes. ii. 19), φυλέτης
(συμφυλέτης, τ 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.

ἐν τῷ γένει μου] ‘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’
(συγγενεῖς). Comp. also Rom. ix. 3
ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν pov τῶν συγγενῶν
μου κατὰ σάρκα.

περισσοτέρως ζηλωτὴς ὑπάρχων] The
adverb περισσοτέρως, which is fre-
quent in St Paul, seems always to re-
tain its comparative force. Here it
is explained by ὑπὲρ πολλούς. For
(nior}s ὑπάρχων comp. Acts xxi. 20
πάντες ζηλωταὶ τοῦ νόμου ὑπάρχουσιν.
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, ζηλωτὴς
or καναναῖος, i.e. ἴδ). A portion of

6

82

παραδόσεων.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[I. 15, 16

SSre δὲ εὐδόκησεν ὁ ἀφορίσας με ἐκ κοι-

/ \ - / ~
Alas μητρός μου καὶ καλέσας διὰ τῆς χαριτος αὐτοῦ

τό

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. 25 864, p. 322, VI. p. 340.

τῷν πατρικῶν pov παραδόσεων] “47
the traditions handed down from
my fathers” It is doubtful whether
the law of Moses is included in this
expression. In Josephus ra ἐκ παρα-
δόσεως τῶν πατέρων (Antig. xiii. το. 6),
ἡ πατρῴα παράδοσις (ib. 16. 2), are the
Pharisaic traditions, as distinguished
from the written law. See also Matth.
xv. 2, 3, 6, Mark vii. 3, 5, 8, 9, 13.
These passages seem to show that the
word παράδοσις, 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 adyisers. I did not betake
myself to the elder Apostles, as I
might naturally have done. I se-
cluded myself in Arabia, and, when I
emerged from my retirement, instead
of going to Jerusalem, I returned to
Damascus.’

15. ὁ ἀφορίσας] ‘who set me a-
pari, devoted me to a special pur-

> , A e\ > ~ > 3 aN er ᾿ ,
ἀποκαλύψαι Tov υἱον αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἵνα εὐαγγελί-

pose’: Rom, i. 1 ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐ-
αγγέλιον Θεοῦ. See also Acts xiii. 2
ἀφορίσατε δή μοι καὶλ. The words ὁ
Θεὸς 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. ὃ, 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 efforts:
εὐδόκησεν, ἀφορίσας, ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός
μου, καλέσας, χάριτος αὐτοῦ.

ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου] ‘from before
my birth, before I had any impulses,
any principles of my own. For the
expression see Judges xvi. 17 ἅγιος
Θεοῦ ἐγώ. εἰμι ἀπὸ κοιλίας μητρός μου,
Is. xliv. 2, 24, xlix. I, καὶ ὁ πλάσας pe
ἐκ κοιλίας δοῦλον ἑαυτῷ, Psalm Ixx. 6
ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου σύ μου εἶ σκεπα-
στής, and frequently in the yxx. 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.

καλέσας διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ] 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 (ὁ ἀφορίσας pe x.t.A.);
Secondly, the conversion and call to
the Apostleship, which took place on
the way to Damascus, Acts ix. 3 sq
(καλέσας διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ); and
Thirdly, the entering upon his min-
istry in fulfilment of this call, Acts ix.
20 8q, ΧΙ. 2, 3 (ἀποκαλύψαι ἐν ἐμοὶ
iva εὐαγγελίζωμαι).

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

I. 17, 18]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 83

> \ 3 ~ 3} 3) " 9 7
ζωμαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, εὐθέως οὐ προσανεθέμην
\ \ . 17 δὲ 2 A 6 3 [ἢ ,
σαρκὲ καὶ αἵματι, “‘ovde ἀνῆλθον eis ἹἱἹεροσόλυμα
\ \ \ > os > / 3 \ > ΄σ΄ 3
πρὸς τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστόλους, ἀλλα ἀπῆλθον εἰς

ε /
Ἀραβίαν, καὶ πάλιν ὑπέστρεψα εἰς Δαμασκόν"

ν)
18 tor

17. οὐδὲ ἀπῆλθον εἰς Ἵερ.

termines the meaning of ἐν ἐμοί. It
does not speak of a revelation made
inwardly to himself, but of a revela-
tion made through him to others.
The preposition ἐν is used in prefer-
ence to διά, 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 ἐδό-
ξαζον ἐν ἐμοὶ τὸν Θεόν, I Tim, i. τό
διὰ τοῦτο ἠλεήθην ἵνα ἐν ἐμοὶ πρώτῳ
ἐνδείξηται Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς τὴν ἅπασαν
μακροθυμίαν πρὸς ὑποτύπωσιν τῶν μελ-
λόντων πιστεύειν κιτιλι, 2 Cor. xiii. 3
τοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ λαλοῦντος Χριστοῦ, Phil.
i. 30. The rendering of ἐν ἐμοὶ
‘within me,’ i.e. ‘in my heart,’ seems
neither to suit the context so well,
nor to be so natural in itself.

εὐθέως ov προσανεθέμην x.r.A.| ‘forth-
with, instead of conferring with flesh
and blood, etc., 1 departed to Arabia,
On ἀνατίθεσθαι see the note ii. 2. In
the double compound προσανατίθεσθαι
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. νεοττός) προσαναθέσθαι
ὀνειροκρίτῃ, Diod. Sic. xvii. 116 τοῖς
μάντεσι προσαναθέμενος περὶ τοῦ on-
μείους Comp. Lucian Jup. Trag. ὃ 1
(II. p. 642) ἐμοὶ mpocavabov, λάβε pe
σύμβουλον πόνων. See the note ii. 6.

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

17. ἀνῆλθον) ‘I came up, This

verb and ἀναβαίνειν are used especially
of visiting Jerusalem, situated in the
high lands of Palestine, as xarépye-
σθαι, καταβαίνειν, are of leaving it. See
Luke x. 30, Acts xi, 27, xii. 19, xv. 1,
2, XXi. 15, xxv. I, 6, 7, and especially
Acts xviii. 22, xxiv. 1. In the two
last passages ἀναβαίνειν and καταβαί-
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 ἀπῆλθον 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 ἀπῆλθον 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.

τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστόλους) ‘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, οἵτινές εἰσιν
ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις of καὶ πρὸ
ἐμοῦ γέγοναν ἐν Χριστῷ, where how-
ever the construction is doubtful.

eis Δαμασκόν) 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 ᾽} 7 2. A 3 ε ε
εἰτὰ μετὰ ἔτη τρία ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ἱστο-
΄ ΄σ 7 \ \ /
pnoa Κηφᾶν, καὶ ἐπέμεινα πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡμέρας δεκα-
’ ε a > / 3 3 \
πέντε: “étepov δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ

18. μετὰ τρία ἔτη.

him more than a fortnight; and of all
the other Apostles I saw only James
the Lord’s brother. As in the sight of
God, I declare to you that every word
I write is true. Then I went to the
distant regions of Syria and Cilicia.
Thus I was personally 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, ἔπειτα pera ἔτη τρία] From
what point of time are these three
years reckoned? Probably from the
great epoch of his life, from his con-
version. The ‘straightway’ of ver. 16
leads to this conclusion; ‘At first I
conferred not with flesh and blood, it
was only after the lapse of three years
that I went to Jerusalem.’

Ἱεροσόλυμα] is generally a neuter
plural. In Matt. ii. 3 however we
have πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα. See A. Butt-
mann Gramm. p. 16. On the forms
Ἱεροσόλυμα and Ἱερουσαλὴμ see the
note iv. 26.

ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν] ‘to visit Cephas.’
ἱστορῆσαι 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 ἀνὴρ
ὧν ἐγὼ κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον ἱστόρησα τὸν πόλε-
μον, and Clem. Hom. viii. 1, etc. St
Peter is mentioned by St Paul only in
this epistle and 1 Corinthians. Κη-
φᾶν is the right reading here, though
there is respectable authority for Πέ-
τρον. 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 Πέτρος for the
less common Κηφᾶς, e.g. here and ii.
9, 11, 14. In the Peshito Version
Cephas, as the Aramaic name, is not
unnaturally adopted throughout this
epistle.

δεκαπέντε] A later form for the
more Classical πεντεκαίδεκα. 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
1ΧΧ,

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. εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον] 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 εἰ μὴ 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.

xxi. 27; see Fritzsche on Rom. um.
Ῥ. 195. But on the other hand the
sense of ἕτερον naturally links it with

I. 20—22]

Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 85

a Se γράφω ὑμῖν,

a o~ ef 3 / » 3
ἰδοὺ ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι. "“"ἔπειτα ἦλθον

3 ~ ’ \ ΄-΄ 7
εἰς τὰ κλίματα τῆς Συρίας καὶ τῆς Κιλικίας.

εἰ μή, from which it cannot be sepa-
rated without harshness, and ἕτερον
carries τῶν ἀποστόλων 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. ἰδοὺ ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ] A form
of asseveration equivalent to ‘I call
you to witness,’ and so followed by
ὅτι. See 2 Tim. ii. 14, iv. 1 διαμαρτύ-
ρεσθαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ. For ἰδοὺ 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 ὅτε here. Perhaps however
the occurrence of ἴδε ὅτι 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. Inthe 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 Csesarea mentioned there is
doubtless Stratonis, and not Philippi,
as some maintain. Not only was this
the more probable route for him to
take, but St Luke’s language requires
it; for (1) The words κατήγαγον, ἐξαπ-

24 nUNV δὲ

έστειλαν, imply a seaport and an em-
barkation: and (2) Ceesarea, 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 Ceesarea
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
constantly little better than an appen-
dage of Syria,’ Gesch. des V. Isr. vt.
p. 406. At this time however it was
under a separate administration. The
words τὰ κλίματα seem to show that
‘Syria and Cilicia’ are here men-
tioned under one general expression,
and not as two distinct districts,

τὰ κλίματα] Rom. xv. 23, 2 Cor.
xi. 10. A comparatively late word,
see Lobeck Paral. p. 418. It is found
in Pseudo-Aristot. de Mundo c. x, and
several times in Polybius,

22. ἤμην ἀγνοούμενος κιτλ] “1
remained personally unknown? A
strong form of the imperfect, as ἀκού-
ovres ἦσαν ‘they kept hearing’ (ver.
23): see Winer, ὃ xlv. 5, p. 437 84.

86 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[I. 23, 24

7 ΄σ ’ ~ 7 ΄: 7
ἀγνοούμενος τῷ προσώπῳ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Ἰουδαίας
~ , ~ 23 / δὲ > / = - e ὃ /
ταῖς ἐν Χριστῷ, Ξμόνον δὲ ἀκούοντες ἦσαν ὅτι Ὁ διώκων
lol \ ΄σ 7 \ 7 . 7
ἡμᾶς ποτὲ νῦν εὐαγγελίζεται THY πίστιν ἣν ποτε ἐπόρ-

’ / > \ \ 7
θει, “καὶ ἐδόξαζον ἐν ἐμοὶ Tov Θεὸν.

ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις κιτ.λ.] ‘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 Judea
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
ταῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Was necessary when
speaking of the Christian brother-
hoods of Judzea; for the unconverted
Jewish communities might still be
called ‘the Churches of Judea.’ See
the note on 1 Thess. ii. 14, τῶν ἐκ-
κλησιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ τῶν οὐσῶν ἐν τῇ
Ἰουδαίᾳ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.

23. ὅτι] 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. iii. ro.

Ὃ διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτέ] ‘Our per-
secutor of former times’; 6 διώκων
being used as a substantive, ie. with-
out reference to time, as Matt. xxvii.
40 ὁ καταλύων τὸν ναόν: see Winer,
§ xlv. 7, p. 444. On the position of
ποτέ, see the note on ver. 13.

τὴν πίστιν] It is a striking proof of
the large space occupied by ‘faith’ in
the mind of the infant Church, that it
should so soon have passed into a syn-
onym for the Gospel. See Acts vi. 7.
Here its meaning seems to hover be-
tween the Gospel and the Church.
For the various senses of πίστις, see
the notes on iii. 23, vi. 10, and the
detached note on the term ‘ faith.’

24. ἐν ἐμοί] See the note ver. 16,
and comp. Is. xlix. 3 δοῦλός μου εἶ
σὺ Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ἐν σοὶ ἐνδοξασθήσομαι.
‘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 i Par in-
engaged him while there, of all the circumstances of a crisis which must “ pa
have shaped the whole tenour of his after life, absolutely nothing is known.
‘Immediately, says St Paul, ‘I went away into Arabia.’ The historian
passes over the incident without a mention. It is a mysterious pause,

a moment of suspense in the Apostle’s history, a breathless calm which
ushers in the tumultuous storm of his active missionary life.

Yet it may be useful to review the speculations to which this incident
has given rise, even though we cannot hope to arrive at any definite
result; for, if such a review bears no other fruit, it will at least bring

out more clearly the significance of the incident itself.
Of the place of the Apostle’s sojourn various opinions have been held. Conjec-
Arabia is a vague term, and affords scope for much conjecture. pps bay

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

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 ΕΠ Belka, and is contiguous to Jerusalem. Now the only
district, so far as I can discover, which bears or has borne the name of
El Belka, is the region lying to the east and north-east of the Dead Sea?,
If so, how are we to account for this translation of ’ApaBia 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 συνστοιχεῖ
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 was made directly from the
Greek. The translator notunfrequently
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 Hrdkuwnde x11. p. 426

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

8 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. το,

88 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

2. Arabia, in the widest use of the term, might extend to the gates
of Damascus, and even include that city itself. ‘You cannot any of you
deny,’ says Justin, arguing against his Jew as to the interpretation of
a passage in one of the prophets, ‘that Damascus belongs and did belong
to Arabia, though now it has been assigned to Syropheenicia’ 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

(2) The
country
near Da-
mascus.

3) Mount
inai.

μηται τῇ Συροφοινίκῃ λεγομένῃ seem to
refer to the arrangement of these pro-
vinces by Hadrian, See Becker and
Marquardt Rim. Alterth. 111. 1, p. 195

τὰ μέρη τῆς Λιβύης τῆς κατὰ Κυρήνην,
‘and the territories of Africa which
is our country.’ There can scarcely be

a doubt however that here Wj 98 ‘our

country’ isa corrupt reading of |, os

‘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 Einl. p. 737. Such geographi-
cal notices as that of El Belka point to
@ more eastern origin.

1 Dial. c. Tryph. p. 305 A. See also
other authorities in Conybeare and
Howson, 1. p. 117,118. Tertullian (adv.
Jud. 6. g and adv. Mare. iii. 13) ob-
viously copies Justin and must not be
considered an independent authority.
The words of Justin εἰ καὶ νῦν προσνενέ-

sqq and comp. [Bardesanes] de Fato,
in Cureton’s Spicil. Syr. p. 30. On
the limits of Arabia see also Ephr. Syr.
Op, Syr. τ. p. 464 8q.

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 algo (p. 400).

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

EPISTLE ΤῸ THE GALATIANS. 89

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 law In the rugged and barren region, whence it issued, Signifi-
he saw a fit type of that bleak desolation which it created and was in- cance of
tended to create in the soul of man. In the midst of such scenes and ee
associations, his spirit was attuned to harmony with his divine mission, ἢ ;
and fitted to receive fresh ‘visions and revelations of the Lord.’ Thus in

the wilderness of Sinai, as on the Mount of the transfiguration, the three
dispensations met in one. Here Moses had received the tables of the

law amid fire and tempest and thick darkness. Here again Elijah, the
typical prophet, listened to the voice of God, and sped forth refreshed

on his mission of righteousness. And here lastly, in the fulness of time,

St Paul, the greatest preacher of Him of whom both the law and the
prophets spoke, was strengthened and sanctified for his great work, was

taught the breadth as well as the depth of the riches of God’s wisdom,

and transformed from the champion of a bigoted and narrow tradition into

the large-hearted Apostle of the Gentiles”.

What was the length of this sojourn we can only conjecture. The Its dura-
interval between his conversion and his first visit to Jerusalem, St Paul 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 Acts ix. 43, xviii. 18, xxvii. 7. Cer-

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.

8 The notices of time in the narra-
tive of the Acts are these: He remain-
ed with the disciples in Damascus some
days (ἡμέρας τινὰς) and straightway (εὐ-
Géws) he began to preach (ἐκήρυσσεν)...
and Saul was the more strengthened...
and when many days (ἡμέραι ἱκαναὶ)
were accomplishing (ἐπληροῦντο) the
Jews took counsel to slay him, in con-
sequence of which he left and went to
Jerusalem (ix. 20—26). Ἡμέραι ἱκαναὶ
is an indefinite period in St Luke, which
may vary according to circumstances ;

tainly the idea connected with ἱκανὸς
in his language is that of largeness ra-
ther than smallness ; comp. Luke vii.
12, Acts xx. 37 (ἱκανὸς κλαυθμός). In
the txx it is frequently employed to
translate ‘WY ‘mighty,’ e.g. Ruth i. 20,
21. Again the wide use of the Hebrew
DD’, which St Luke is copying, allows
of almost any extension oftime. Hence
πολλαὶ ἡμέραι in the txx denotes any
indefinite period however long; Gen.
XXXVii. 34, 2 Sam. xiv. 2, 1 Kings iii.
11 (‘a long life’). Hven Demosthenes,
de Cor. p. 258, can speak of the in-
terval between the battles of Haliartus
and Corinth as οὐ πολλαὶ ἡμέραι, 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.

gO

Its pur-
pose.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

commenced his active labours’. ‘Zmmediately, 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
Jlesh 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

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*’?

self-devotion.

1 It must in this case be placed be-
fore the notice of his active preaching,
ix. 20 καὶ εὐθέως, κιτιλ. Some have
put it later and seen anindirect allusion
to it in the expression μᾶλλον évedv-
ναμοῦτο, 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 (icumenian 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 non retulerit adcar-

nem et sanguinem,’ explaining it, ‘id est
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 know nothing, 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, oth Sunday after
Trinity, said of Elijah.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. ΟἹ

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- te Ἄδα
tifying them, the fact that in each narrative this is stated to have been g Luke
St Paul’s first appearance in Jerusalem since his conversion and to have
followed after a sojourn in Damascus, must be considered conclusive. Nor
indeed is there any inconsistency in the two narratives. Though they con-
tain but few incidents in common, they for the most part run parallel with
each other ; and even in particulars in which there is no coincidence, there
is at least no direct contradiction. On the other hand the aspect of events but under
presented in the two accounts is confessedly different. And this will different
almost always be the case in two independent narratives. In the case of pe ata
St Paul and St Luke this divergence is due to two causes: ὅ

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 respective
scenes which he describes. In such cases the one narrator will present P1#0S-
rather the external view of events, while the other dwells on their inner
history, on those relations especially which have influenced his own charac-
ter and subsequent actions: the former will frequently give broad and
general statements of facts, where the latter is precise and definite.

Secondly. The different objects of the two writers. The one sets (2) Their
himself to give a continuous historical account; the other introduces inci- difference
dents by way of allusion rather than of narrative, singling out those espe- °°
cially which bear on the subject in hand. In the particular instance before
us, it is important to observe this divergence of purpose. St Luke dwells
on the cnange which had come over Saul, transforming the persecutor of
the Gospel into the champion of the Gospel. St Paul asserts his own inde-
pendence, maintaining that his intercourse with the leaders and the Church
of the Circumcision had been slight. The standing-point of the historian
is determined by the progress of events, that of the Apostle by the features
of the controversy. Thus occupying different positions, they naturally lay
stress each on a different class of facts, for the most part opposite to,
though not inconsistent with, each other.

The narratives may best be compared by considering the incidents under
two heads ;

1. St αν intercourse with the Apostles. The narrative of the Acts St Paul’s
relates that when St Paul visited Jerusalem he was regarded with suspicion ‘lations
by the disciples; that Barnabas introduced him to ‘the Apostles,’ relating LUNE τ
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-

92

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) with

the Jewish
Chris-
tians.

Meaning
of the
term in
classical
writers.

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 Judea.’ 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 Ceesarea, whence he forthwith embarked.
To a majority therefore of the Christians at Jerusalem he might, and to
the Churches of Judea 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 ἀπόστολος in the first instance is an adjective signifying
‘despatched’ or ‘sent forth.’ Applied to a person, it denotes more than
ἄγγελος. 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 ἐν [or els]
Ἱερουσαλὴμ and πρὸς τοὺς ᾿Ελληνιστὰς
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.’

8 It occurs of a person in Herod, i.
21, Vv. 38. With this exception, no in-
stances are given in the Lexicons of its
use by classical authors even of a late
date with any other but the Attic mean-
ing; nor have I succeeded in finding any
myself, though Hesychius explains ἀπό-
στολος᾽ στρατηγὸς κατὰ πλοῦν πεμπό-
μενος. 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
Attic dialect; and in the classical Greek of a later period also, except in
this sense, the word appears to be of very rare occurrence.

A little more 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 uxx, in ®Mong the
1 Kings xiv. 6, as a translation of miby, where it has the general sense of ahi
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 Lxx and New
Testament and in the official language
of the Jews. See the notes on κατη-
χεῖν, Vi. 6 ; πτύρεσθαι, Phil. i. 28 ; yoy-
γυσμός, Phil. ii. 14.

1 It was also used by Symmachus to
translate ἫΝ in Is. xviii. 2: see below.
The word ἀποστολὴ occurs in a few pas-
sages in the ixx, and ἀποστέλλω is
the common translation of 2.2). Justin
therefore (Dial. c. Tryph. 6. 75, p. 300 Ὁ)
is so far justified in saying that the pro-
phets are called apostles, καὶ ἄγγελοι καὶ
ἀπόστολοι τοῦ Θεοῦ λέγονται οἱ ἀγγέλ-
λειν τὰ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀποστελλόμενοι προ-
φῆται...λέγει γὰρ ἐκεῖ 6 “Hoatas ἀπο-
στεῖλόν we. The Syriac renders ἀπό-
στολος by the word corresponding to
the Hebrew.

2 Such for instance as the bearers of
the instructions contemplated in Acts
ΧΧΥΪ, 21, οὔτε γράμματα περὶ σοῦ
ἐδεξάμεθα ἀπὸ τὴς ᾿Ιουδαίας οὔτε παρα-
γενόμενός τις τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἀπήγγειλεν.
Eusebius (Montf. Coll. Nov. τι. 425),
evidently thinking o this passage,
says: ἀποστόλους δὲ εἰσέτι viv ἔθος
ἐστὶν ᾿Ιουδαίοις ὀνομάζειν τοὺς ἐγκύκλια
γράμματα παρὰ τῶν ἀρχόντων αὐτῶν
ἐπικομιζομένους. The passage in Isaiah
Xviii, 1, 2, which is read in the xx,

Thus in

Oval...6 ἀποστέλλων ἐν θαλάσσῃ ὅμηρα
καὶ ἐπιστολὰς βιβλίνας ἐπάνω τοῦ ὕδατος,
and in which for ὅμηρα Symmachus
had ἀποστόλους, 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, πορεύσονται yap
ἄγγελοι κοῦφοι πρὸς ἔθνος x.T.r., the
true Apostles were referred to in con-
trast with the false. See Procopius in
Esaiam, 1.6. 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. xvz. 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 ἀποστολή, Julian Epist. 25
τὴν λεγομένην παρ᾽ ὑμῖν ἀποστολὴν κω-
λυθῆναι.

4 See the important passage in Epi-
phanius, Haer. xxx. p. 128, τῶν rap
αὐτοῖς ἀξιωματικῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐναρίθμιος ny.
εἰσὶ δὲ οὗτοι μετὰ τὸν πατριάρχην ἀπό-

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 office the Apostles were twelve in number,
According to the prevailing view this limit was strictly observed, an excep-
tion however being made in the case of St Paul. Nay so far has the idea
of this restriction of number been carried by some, that they hold the elec-
tion of Matthias to have been a hasty and ill-advised act, and to have been
subsequently reversed by an interposition of God, St Paul being substituted
in his place*. It is needless to say that the narrative of St Luke does not
betray the faintest trace of such a reversal. And with regard to the general
question, it will I think appear, that neither the Canonical Scriptures nor
the early Christian writings afford sufficient ground for any such limitation
of the apostolate.

In the Gospels the word ‘Apostle’ is of comparatively rare occurrence.
Those, whom it is customary with us to designate especially ‘the Apostles,’
are most often entitled either generally ‘the disciples’ or more definitely
‘the Twelve. Where the word does occur, it is not so used as to lend any
countenance to the idea that it is in any way restricted to the Twelve.
In St Matthew it is found once only, and there it is carefully defined, ‘the
twelve Apostles’ (x. 2). In St Mark again it occurs in one passage alone,
where it has a special reference to the act of sending them forth (vi. 30,
οἱ ἀπόστολοι, Compare ἀποστέλλειν, 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,

στολοι καλούμενοι, προσεδρεύουσι δὲ τῷ
πατριάρχῃ, K.TA.; and p. 134, συμβέ-
βηκε.. «γέρας τῷ ᾿Ιωσήπῳ τῆς ἀποστολῆς
δοῦναι τὴν ἐπικαρπίαν" καὶ μετ᾽ ἐπιστο-
λῶν οὗτος ἀποστέλλεται εἰς τὴν Κιλικῶν
γῆν, κιτ΄λ.

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.

3 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 (ἀπέστειλας) me into
the world, even so have I also sent (ἀπ-
écretha) them into the world.’ Comp,
Justin Apol. τ. ὁ. 63, Pp. 95 Ὁ, 96 c.

3 See Schaff History of the Apo-
stolic Church, I. Ὁ. 194.

4 Luke vi. 13 ἐκλεξάμενος ἀπ᾽ av-
τῶν δώδεκα obs καὶ ἀποστόλους ὠνόμα-
σεν.

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

Σ EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 95

In the account of the foundation of the apostolate then, and in the
language used in the Gospels of the Twelve, there is no hint that the
number was intended to be so limited. It is true that twelve is a typical Twelve a
number, but so is seven also. And if the first creation of the diaconate typical
was not intended to be final as regards numbers, neither is there any ck
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 na de
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

1 Matth, xix. 28, Luke xxii. 30:
comp. Barnab. § 8 οὖσιν δεκαδύο εἰς μαρ-
τύριον τῶν φυλῶν ὅτι δεκαδύο ai φυλαὶ
τοῦ Ἰσραήλ. See Justin Dial. c. Tryph.
42, p. 260 σ. An Ophite writing re-
presented the Twelve as actually taken
from the twelve tribes: Hippol. Haer.
v. 8, p. £09.

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

8 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 ἀπόστολοι ἐκκλησιῶν) and Epaphro-
ditus (Phil. 11, 25 ὑμῶν δὲ ἀπόστολος).
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. xy. 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 λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι Kal οἱ ἀδελφοὶ
τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Ἱζηφᾶς, 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 λοιποὶ 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.£. iii. 20), but he seems
to disclaim for himself the title of an
Apostle (Jude 17, 18). Whether Hege-
sippus (Euseb. H. ΕἸ. 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 Christians other-
wise unknown to us, are called distinguished members of the apostolate,
language which indirectly implies a very considerable extension of the
term', In 1 Thess. ii. 6 again, where in reference to his visit to Thessalonica
he speaks of the disinterested labours of himself and his colleagues,
adding ‘though we might have been burthensome to you, being Apostles
of 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). St Paul himself also in two different

James as an Apostle or not, may be
questioned: his words are, Διαδέχεται
δὲ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων
ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ Κυρίου ᾿Ιάκωβος (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 ᾿Ασπάσασθε ᾿Ανδρό-
γικον Kal’ louvlay τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ
συναιχμαλώτους μου, οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπί-
ono. ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, οἱ καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ
γέγοναν ἐν Χριστῷ. Except to escape
the difficulty involved in such an ex-
tension of the apostolate, I do not
think the words οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι
ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις would have been
generally rendered, ‘who are highly es-
teemed by the Apostles.’ The Greek
fathers took the more natural interpre-
tation. Origen says, ‘Possibile est et
illud intellegi quod fortassis ex illis sep-
tuaginta duobus qui et ipsi apostoli
nominati sunt, fuerint:’ Chrysostom
still more decisively, τὸ ἀποστόλους εἶναι
μέγα" τὸ δὲ ἐν τούτοις ἐπισήμους εἶναι,
ἐννόησον ἡλίκον ἐγκώμιον, and similarly
Theodoret. In this case ᾿Ιουνίαν (or
᾿Ιουνιἂν) is probably a man’s name,
Junias contracted from Junianus, asitis
taken by Origen (on Rom, xvi. 21, T, rv.
Ῥ. 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; βαβαὶ, πόση τῆς yuvat-

Kos ταύτης ἣ φιλοσοφία, ὡς καὶ τῆς τῶν
ἀποστόλων ἀξιωθῆναι προσηγορίας.

3 Not Timothy, though Timothy
also had been with him at Thessalonica,
and his name, like that of Silvanus,
is joined to the Apostle’s own in the
opening salutation. But Timothy is
distinctly excluded from the apostolate
in 2 Cor. i. 1, Col. i. 1, ‘Paul an Apo-
stle and Timothy the brother’; and
elsewhere, when St Paullinks Timothy’s
name with his own, he drops the title
of Apostle, e.g. Phil. i. x ‘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, προσεκλίθητε ἀπο-
στόλοις μεμαρτυρημένοις (i.e. St Peter
and St Paul) καὶ ἀνδρὲ δεδοκιμασμένῳ
παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς (Apollos). If therefore there
is a reference in 1 Cor. iv. 9 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 insufficient to supply
a decisive answer to these questions; but they enable us to draw roughly
the line, by which the apostolate was bounded.

(i) The Apostles comprised the jirst 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-
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 doubiless ‘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.

abbas’ in two places.

2 Luke xi. 49, 2 Pet. ili. 2, and so
perh. Rev. xviii. 20: comp. Polyc. § 6.

ὃ Eiphes. 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 ἀπεκαλύφθη τοῖς
ἁγίοις ἀποστόλοις αὐτοῦ καὶ προφήταις.
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.

7

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 call 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 οὗ 88
his Apostleship (1 Cor. ix. 2). In another passage he speaks in like manner ῬφβθΟ,
of his having wrought the signs of an Apostle among them (2 Oor. 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
we 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- 4Postolic
selves as distinct from the Apostles!, Several of them include St Paul by ἢ ink Ni
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 suc-
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 bisuereg

1 Clem. § 42, Ignat. Rom. § 4, Po- 8 Hermas Sim. ix. 15, 16: comp.

οὐ ἦγο, § 6, Barnab. 88 5, 8, Ep. ad Diogn.
Sit.

2 8.47. Seeabove, note 2,p.96. Eu-
sebius, ili. 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.

Vis. iii. 5, Sim. ix. 25. The data with
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 (cire. 140), Fragm. Murat. in
Routh Rel. Sacr.t. 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

still recog-
nising
Twelve as
typical.

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 also*, Philip the Evangelist is so styled occasionally; but in
some instances at least he has been confused with Philip, one of the
Twelve®, Origen discusses the term as capable of a very wide application*;
and Eusebius, accounting for St Paul’s expression (1 Cor. xv. 7), speaks of
‘numberless apostles’ besides the Twelve’.

Nor will it weigh as an argument on the other side, that many writers
speak of the Twelve as the founders of the Church, or argue on the typical
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 ἀποστέλλειν 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.
Ῥ. 3, ‘Thaddeus the Apostle one of the
Seventy’; p. 34, ‘Addewus 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 ἀποστολικός,
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 Φίλιπ-
πος ὁ συναπόστολος ἡμῶν.

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

5 H. E. i, 12 εἶθ᾽ ὡς παρὰ τούτους,
κατὰ μίμησιν τῶν δώδεκα πλείστων ὅσων
ὑπαρξάντων ἀποστόλων, οἷος καὶ αὐτὸς
ὁ Παῦλος ἦν, προστίθησι λέγων " "Ἑπειτα
ὥφθη τοῖς ἀποστόλοις πᾶσι. 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 8q.

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 18. xvii. 6, and Hieron, in Is.
Iv. pp. 194, 280, ed. Vallarsi, The
Apost. Const. (viii. 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. 26ο σ: comp.
Apol, τ. p. 78 A, ἀπὸ yap Ἱερουσαλὴμ
ἄνδρες δεκαδύο τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἐξῆλθον els τὸν
κόσμον : Iren. iv. 21. 3, ‘dodecastylum
firmamentum Ecclesiae,’ ib. Fragm, Ὁ,
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, Alez. 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.

TP DIED, ὦ
CAST Bay
ry 7)

4

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.

447-3 + 2 P38 4
agit 54 Ve complet sham ttl pe ee A ya
~ eee? )
le

oe

‘You ©

II.

‘EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

{II. 1, 2

af A ΄
"Ἔπειτα διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν πάλιν ἀνέβην

ε /
els Ἱεροσόλυμα μετὰ BapyaBa, συνπαραλαβὼν καὶ Ti-
ΤΣ δεν \ ΜΝ. / Nits / > ~
τον" “ἀνέβην δὲ κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν, Kal ἀνεθέμην αὐτοῖς

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.’

διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν] 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 διὰ δ. ἐτῶν, in
preference to μετὰ ὃ. ἔτη, 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 πάλιν ἀνέβην, ‘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 xy.) 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
AD. 38, and that of the conversion
to about a.p. 36, the Jewish mode
of reckoning being adopted. For διά,
‘after the lapse of, see Acts xxiv. 17,
and Winer, § xlvii. p. 475.

καὶ Τίτον] 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—I15, viii. 16, 23, xii. 18.

κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν] ‘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.’

ἀνεθέμην] The middle ἀνατίθεσθαι
has the sense ‘to relate with a view
to consulting,’ ‘to refer, as 2 Mace. iii.
9; see also Acts xxv. 14, τῷ βασιλεῖ
ἀνέθετο τὰ κατὰ Tov Παῦλον, 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 προσανατίθεσθαι, i, 16,
ii. 6.

1.2]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

103

4 5 ΄ eA , 2 - » 2. FSF
TO εὐαγγέλιον ὃ κηρύσσω ἐν τοῖς ἐθνεσιν, κατ᾽ ἰδίαν
on a 7 3 \ ud Δ »
δὲ τοῖς δοκοῦσιν, μὴ πως εἰς KEVOY τρέχω ἢ ἔδραμον.

ὃ κηρύσσω] “7 preach, ποὺ ἐκήρυσ-
σον, ‘I preached,’ for his Gospel had
not changed. See the note on οὐκ ἔστιν,
i, 1.

κατ᾽ ἰδίαν δὲ τοῖς Soxotaw] ‘but in
private to those of repute.” The fore-
going avrois is best referred to the
Christians of Jerusalem generally, as
implied from Ἱεροσόλυμα (ver. 1). Ifso,
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.

τοῖς δοκοῦσιν] ‘the men of repute, of
position’ See Eur. 1766. 294 λόγος
γὰρ ἔκ τ᾽ ἀδοξούντων ἰὼν κἀκ τῶν δοκούν-
των, With Pilugk’s note; Heracl. 897
εὐτυχίαν ἰδέσθαι τῶν πάρος ov δοκούντων,
Herodian vi. 1 τῆς συγκλήτου βουλῆς
τοὺς δοκοῦντας καὶ ἡλικίᾳ σεμνοτάτους
κιτλ. 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 δοκοῦντες, (2) to
the addition of στύλοι εἶναι, εἶναί τι, 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
nezation 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 τοῖς δοκοῦσιν see the
note on ver. 6.

μή mos εἰς κενὸν τρέχω k.7.A.] ‘lest I
might be running, or had run, to no
purpose. The kindred passage 1 Thess.
iii. 5, μήπως ἐπείρασεν ὑμᾶς ὁ πειράζων
καὶ εἰς κενὸν γένηται ὁ κόπος ἡμῶν, Sees
to show that τρέχω is here the sub-
junctiverather than the indicative, this
being moreover the more likely mood
in itself. See the note there. The use
of the subjunctive (τρέχω) here, rather
than the optative (τρέχοιμι), 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 (τρέχω) to the indi-
cative (ἔδραμον) is rendered necessary
by the change of tense, since the conse-
quences of the past were no longer
contingent but inevitable: comp. iv. 11.

τρέχω] is a reference to St Paul’s
favourite metaphor of the stadium ; see
v. 7 and the note there. For the ex-
pression εἰς κενὸν τρέχειν 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 ἢ
So Tertullian takes it, adv. Mare. i. 20,
Υ͂. 3, and esp. iv. 2. This is perhaps
the prima facie sense of the passage,
slightly favoured by οὐδὲν mpocave-
Gevro, ver. 6. But on the other hand
such an admission would be so entirely

104

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[11. 3

ϑάλλ᾽ οὐδὲ Τίτος ὁ σὺν ἐμοὶ Ἕλλην ὧν ἠναγκάσθη

alien to the spirit of the passage, so
destructive of St Paul’s whole argu-
ment, and so unlikely under the cir-
cumstances, that this interpretation
must be abandoned. The words there-
fore must be taken to express his fear
lest the Judaic Christians, by insisting
on the Mosaic ritual, might thwart his
past and present endeavours to esta-
blish a Church on a liberal basis. By
conferring with them, and more espe-
cially with the Apostles of the Circum-
cision, he might not only quiet such
lurking anxiety (μήπως) 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 ἠναγκάσθη, and τῇ ὑποταγῇ, 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 οἷς οὐδὲ 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,

ΤΙ. 4]

περιτμηθῆναι"

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. οὐδὲ 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 ὁ σὺν
ἐμοὶ 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.

Ἕλλην dv] ‘being a Greek, perhaps
giving the reason why the point was

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

105

ἀδιὰ δὲ ποὺς παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλ-

not conceded. There seems to be a
tacit allusion to the case of Timothy.
‘You maintain, St Paul seems to ar-
gue, ‘that I allowed the validity of
the Mosaic lawincircumcising Timothy
(Acts xvi. 1,3). But Timothy was haif
of Jewish parentage. How did I act
in the case of Titus, a true Gentile?
I did not yield for a moment,’

In Ἕλλην all idea of nationality is
lost: comp. Mark vii. 26 Ἑλληνὶς Συ-
ροφοινίκισσα (or Σύρα Φοινίκισσα) τῷ
γένει. Thus the Peshito sacrificing
the letter to the spirit frequently
translates Ἕλλην ‘an Arameean,’ e.g.
here and iii. 28. See Colossians, p. 390.

ἠναγκάσθη] ‘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.

[il. 5

/ ~ ~ 3
φους, οἵτινες παρεισῆλθον κατασκοπῆσαι τὴν ἐλευθερίαν
ξ ~ ε ᾽ὔ ν᾿ “- “. ε ς ~ /
NMWV, NV ἔχομεν EV Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἵνα ἡμᾶς καταδουλω-
- ἊΝ \ « of - ε - .«
σουσιν, δοἷς οὐδὲ πρὸς ὥραν εἰξαμεν TH ὑποταγὴ, ἵνα

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.

διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρεισάκτους «.7.A.] ‘ 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, m 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 διὰ τοὺς παρ. Ψευδ,
compare Acts xvi. 3 περιέτεμεν αὐτὸν
διὰ τοὺ ς Ιουδαίους.

Of other possible explanations two
deserve to be considered; (1) That
there is an ellipsis of οὐκ ἠναγκάσθη
περιτμηθῆναι OY οὐ περιετμήθη after διὰ
τοὺς παρεισ. Ψευδαδ, So Fritzsche,
Opuse. Ὁ. 181. (2) That the paren-
thesis flows back into the main pro-
position, so that the regular construc-
tion would have been διὰ τοὺς παρεισ.
Wevdad. οὐδὲ πρὸς ὥραν εἴξαμεν, the οἷς
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. ὃ 8 (v1 p.
424, ed. Ben.).

παρεισάκτους, παρεισῆλθον] The me-
taphor is that of spies or traitors in-
troducing themselves by stealth into
the enemy’s camp, as in Jude 4 παρ-
εἰσέδυσαν yap τινες ἄνθρωποι. See
Plut. Popl. 17 ἐπιβουλεύων δὲ τὸν
Πορσίναν ἀνελεῖν παρεισῆλθεν εἰς τὸ
στρατόπεδον, Polyb. i. 7. 3, ii 55. 3.
For παρεισάγειν see 2 Pet. ii. 1. The
adjective occurs in Strabo, xvii. p.
794 παρείσακτος ἐπικληθεὶς Tiroeuaios.
The camp thus stealthily entered is
the Christian Church. Pharisees at
heart, these traitors assume the name
and garb of believers.

κατασκοπῆσαι ‘to act as spies on.
κατασκοπεῖν generally signifies ‘to ex-
amine carefully,” the form κατασκο-
mevew 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.

καταδουλώσουσιν] ‘reduce to abject
slavery.’ The reading of the received
text, καταδουλώσωνται, 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

Il. 6]

᾽ “ / \ ~
7 ἀλήθεια τοῦ εὐαγγελίου διαμείνη πρὸς ὑμᾷς"
δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι"

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. 3608sq. This, though not a classical
usage, is justified by similar con-
structions of ὅπως, ὄφρα, in classical
writers.

5. οἷς οὐδὲ κιτ.λ.)] ‘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
οὐδὲ in some texts see the detached
note, p. 122.

τῇ ὑποταγῇ] ‘by the submission which
was required of us, or possibly ‘the
submission with which we are taunted,’
as in 2 Cor. i. 17 μήτι ἄρα τῇ ἐλαφρίᾳ
ἐχρησάμην;

ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ εὐαγγελίου] ‘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.

διαμείνῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς] ‘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—9. ‘The elder Apostles, I say,
who are so highly esteemed, whose
authority you so exclusively uphold—
for myself, I care not that they once
knew Christ in the flesh: God does
not so judge men; He measures them
not by the outward advantages they
have had, not by the rank they hold,
but by what they are, by what they
think and do—well, these highly es-

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

107

A
6 ἀπὸ

ε ΄σ 7 > 3 ἡ
ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν, οὐδέν

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 δοκοῦντες 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
Genevan in verse 9.

τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί ri] ‘those who
are looked up to as authorities” The
expression is sometimes used in a de-
preciatory way, as in Plat. Apol. 41 x
ἐὰν δοκῶσί τι εἶναι μηδὲν ὄντες, Euthyd.
303 Ο τῶν πολλῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῶν

108

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

{Il. 7, 8

, , \
μοι διαφέρει, πρόσωπον Θεὸς ἀνθρώπου οὐ λαμβάνει"
$13 PNR \ ῃ 5 a pe , 73 \
ἐμοὺ yap ot δοκοῦντες οὐδὲν προσανέθεντο, Ἰαλλὰ
/ ε
τοὐναντίον ἰδόντες ὅτι πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον
΄ > , \ , ΄σ a ε
τῆς ἀκροβυστίας καθὼς Πέτρος τῆς περιτομῆς, δὺ yap

σεμνῶν δὴ καὶ δοκούντων τι εἶναι οὐδὲν
ὑμῖν μέλει, Gorg. 472 A ἐνίοτε γὰρ ἂν
καὶ καταψευδομαρτυρηθείη τις ὑπὸ ποὰλ-
λῶν καὶ δοκοίντων εἶναί τι, and passages
from later writers quoted in Wetstein:
comp. Gal. vi. 3 εἰ yap δοκεῖ τις εἶναί τι
μηδὲν ὦν, 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 οἱ ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι οὗ 2 Cor. xi. 5,
xii. 11.

ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν] Does ὁποῖοί ποτε
here mean ‘ qualescunque,’ or has ποτὲ
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 ποτὲ
never occurs with the meaning ‘cun-
que’ in the New Testament, and ac-
cordingly it is rendered in the Latin
versions ‘aliquando,” This decides
the import of the whole phrase. It
does not mean ‘what reputation they
enjoyed, but ‘what was their posi-
tion, what were their advantages in
former times, referring to their per-
sonal intercourse with the Lord. The
‘knowing Christ after the flesh’ (2 Cor.
y. 16) is in itself valueless in the
sight of God. The same reproach is
conveyed by the words here, as in
2 Cor. xX. 7 τὰ κατὰ πρόσωπον βλέπετε.

πρόσωπον λαμβάνει] A translation
of the Hebrew O'25 XW) which signi-
fies properly ‘to accept the face’
(Gesenius 7168. p. 916, 8. Vv. Nw3), Or
perhaps better, ‘to raise the face’ of
another (opposed to op bn ‘to
make the countenance fall,’ e.g. Job
xxix. 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
πρόσωπον as ‘a mask,’ so that πρόσω-
πον λαμβάνειν 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,
προσωπολήμπτης, προσωπολημπτεῖν, Cte.
which appear to occur there for the
first time.

Θεὸς ἀνθρώπου] The natural order is
altered for two reasons; (1) To give
Θεὸς an emphatic position, and (2) To
keep the contrasted words Θεὸς ἀν-
O@pemov together.

ἐμοὶ yap κιτ.λ.] The sentence, which
was begun in ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων
εἶναί τι 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 ὁποῖοί ποτε
ἦσαν οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει, 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 ὃ Ixiii.
Ῥ. 711 sq. But the interposition of the ᾿
words πρόσ. ©. avOp. οὐ λαμβ. is an
objection to this construction.

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

11. 9]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

109

Ε 3 A ~ nw 3
ἐνεργήσας Πέτρῳ εἰς ἀποστολὴν τῆς περιτομῆς ἐνήργη-
\ of \ , A f
σεν καὶ ἐμοὶ εἰς Ta ἔθνη, καὶ γνόντες THY χάριν τὴν
~ / 7 / \ ~ \ 3 , ε
δοθεῖσαν μοι, Ἰάκωβος καὶ Κηφᾶς καὶ “Iwavyns, οἱ
~ / > \ ᾽) > \ \ /
δοκοῦντες στύλοι εἶναι, δεξιὰς ἔδωκαν ἐμοὲ καὶ 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. πεπίστευμαι τὸ 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 ἐπιστεύθησαν τὰ λόγια τοῦ
Θεοῦ.

τὸ εὐαγγ. τῆς ἀκροβυστίας] denotes
a distinction of sphere and not ἃ dif-
ference of type: see Tertul. Praescr.
Haer. 23 ‘Inter se distributionem
officii ordinaverunt, non separationem
evangelii, nec ut aliwd alter sed ut
aliis alter praedicarent.’

8. ὁ évepyjoas Πέτρῳ] ‘He that
worked for Peter” For the omis-
sion of ὁ Θεὸς comp. i. 6, 15; for ἐνερ-
yew see the note on 1 Thess. ii. 13.
The dative Πέτρῳ ought probably to be
translated ‘for Peter,’ not ‘in Peter’;
comp. Prov. xxxi. 12 ἐνεργεῖ yap TO
ἀνδρὶ (γυνὴ ἀνδρεία) εἰς ἀγαθὰ πάντα τὸν
βίον. ΑΒ ἐνεργεῖν is an inseparable
compound, it is doubtful whether the
preposition could govern Πέτρῳ, and
accordingly the construction elsewhere
is ἐνεργεῖν ἔν τινι. Comp. Acta Paul.
et Thecl. ὃ 40 6 yap σοὶ συνεργήσας
eis TO εὐαγγέλιον κἀμοὶ συνήργησεν eis
τὸ λούσασθαι.

9. Of the two words ἰδόντες and
γνόντες, 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.

᾿Ιάκωβος καὶ Κηφᾶς καὶ Ἰωάννης] The
best supported and doubtless the right
reading. The variation Πέτρος καὶ
Ἰάκωβος καὶ ᾿Ιωάννης 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.

στύλοι] ‘pillars’ A natural meta-
phor occurring now and then in clas-
sical writers (eg. Eur. Jph. T. 57
στῦλοι yap οἴκων εἰσὶ παῖδες ἄρσενες,
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 ἑπτὰ στύλους
ὑπάρξαντας κόσμῳ, said of the patri-
archs. Soin Clem. Rom. ὃ 5 the Apo-
stles Peter and Paul are called oj
μέγιστοι καὶ δικαιότατοι στύλοι ; Comp.
Iren. iv. 21. 3. In this metaphor the

110

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

{Il. 10

, « ¢ ~ > \ of > \ \ > 4
κοινωνίας, iva ἡμεῖς εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, αὐτοὶ δὲ Els THY περι-
,ὔ / ΄σ - / a \
τομήν. “μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν, ὃ καὶ
3 / A ~ ~
ἐσπούδασα αὐτὸ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι.

Church is regarded as the house or
temple of God; as Rev. iii. 12 ποιήσω
αὐτὸν στύλον ἐν τῷ ναῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ pov:
comp. 1 Tim. iii. 15. The accent of
στύλος is doubtful. On the one hand
the υ is universally long in poetry even
of a late date (see Rost u. Palm,
Griech. Wéorterb. 8. v., and comp.
Orac. Sib, iii. 250, 251) On the
other, the authority of the oldest ac-
cents in the Mss, and the quantity of
the Latin ‘stylus, are in favour of
στύλος. The latter not improbably
represents the common pronunciation
of the Apostolic age. See Lipsius
Gramm. Unters. p. 43.

δεξιὰς ἔδωκαν] ‘gave pledges’ The
outward gesture is lost sight of in this
expression, as appears from the fact
that the plural δεξιὰς δοῦναι, δεξιὰς
λαμβάνειν, is often used of a single
person; 1 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
κοινωνίας), 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 ἔστι δὲ ἡ πίστις αὕτη Be-
βαιοτάτη παρὰ τοῖς Πέρσαις, comp. J us-
tin xi. 15. 13); ana 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 μέγιστον mapa πᾶσι
τοῖς ἐκείνῃ βαρβάροις παράδειγμα τοῦ
θαρσεῖν τοῖς ὁμιλοῦσιν, 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. 1 δε-
ξιὰς mapa βασιλέως φέροντες, Ages. 3.
4; comp. Tacit. Hist. i. 54, ii. 8.

κοινωνίας] ‘of fellowship,’ not a su-
perfluous addition, for ‘to give the
hand’ (7) }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. Zhes. p. 566.

iva ἡμεῖς] 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 Judea. Inde-
pendently of their request, it was my
own earnest desire.’

μόνον] ‘only they asked us’: comp.
Ignat. Rom. 5 μόνον ἵνα ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
ἐπιτύχω. For similar instances of an
ellipsis after μόνον, see vi. 12, 2 Thess.
ii. 7 μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ μέσου
γένηται. The latter passage presents
an exact parallel also in the derange-
ment of the order for the sake of em-
phasis.

T'wo 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

II. 11, 12]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

IIt

Ore δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν, κατὰ πρόσ-

> ~ , 74
WTOV αὐτῷ aVYTETTHY, 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.

ὃ καὶ ἐσπούδασα κιτ.λ.} ‘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 (μνη-
povevopev) to the singular (ἐσπούδασα)
is significant. Before St Paul had any
opportunity of fulfilling this request,
he had parted from Barnabas ; Acts
XV. 39.

αὐτὸ τοῦτο] is best taken in apposi-
tion with 6, see Winer ὃ 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. I maintained my independence
and my equality. At Antioch I was
more thanan equal. I openly rebuked
the leading Apostle of the Circumci-
sion, for his conduct condemned itself.
He had been accustomed to mix freely
with the Gentiles, eating at the same
table with them, But certain persons
arrived from James, and he timidly
withdrew himself. He had not cou-
rage to face the displeasure of the
Jewish converts. The rest were car-
ried away by his example. Even Bar-
nabas, my colleague, and _ fellow-
apostle of the Gentiles, went astray.’

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

/ >
κατεγνωσμένος ἦν. "“πρὸ

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. 1—3) is out of
the question, for St Paul is plainly
narrating events in chronological or-
der. Neither again is it probable
that a later occasion (Acts xviii. 23)
can be intended; for after the sepa-
ration of Paul and Barnabas, there is
no notice of their meeting again.

To this passage is probably to be
attributed the ecclesiastical tradition
that 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. H. £. iii. 22,
36, Chrysost. Op. 111. p. 70, ed. Ben.

κατεγνωσμένος]) not ‘reprehensible,
but ‘condemned.’ His conduct carried
its own condemnation with it, as St
Paul shows vy. 15 sq: comp. Rom.
Xiv. 23 ὁ diaxpwopevos, ἐὰν φάγῃ, κα-
τακέκριται, Joh. ili, 18 ὁ μὴ πιστεύων
ἤδη κέκριται, Barnab. 10 κεκριμένοι
ἤδη τῷ θανάτῳ, Joseph. B. V. ii. 8. 6
ἤδη γὰρ κατεγνῶσθαί φασι κιτιλ. 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.

[12

~ \ ᾽ ~ \ > \
τοῦ yap ἐλθεῖν τινας ἀπὸ

’
συνησθιεν"

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

(II. 13

3 / \ ~ >
Ιακώβου μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν
ε 45 /

ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον, ὑπέστελλεν Kal ἀφώριζεν

« / / \ - \

ἑαυτόν, φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς, "καὶ συνυπ-
, > ΄σ \ e δι ΄- «.« \

ἐκρίθησαν αὐτῷ [καὶ] ot λοιποὶ Ἰουδαῖοι, ὥστε Kat

12. ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν.

12. ἐλθεῖν τινὰς ἀπὸ ᾿Ιακώβου] ‘ 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, τινὲς ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξελθόντες ἐτάραξαν
ὑμᾶς..«οἷς οὐ διεστειλάμεθα, and xv. I
τινὲς κατελθόντες ἀπὸ τῆς Ιουδαίας. The
terms on which St James stood with
believers of this stamp may be ga-
thered from the language in Acts xxi.
20 sq.

συνήσθιεν] The Judaizers who trou-
bled the Charch 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 ἐθνικῶς. And when
in this instance he separated himself
from the Gentiles, he practically dis-
sembled his convictions.

ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον] ‘but when they came,’
The reading ἦλθεν yields no good
sense, whether we refer it to St
James with Origen (c. Cels. ii. 1 ἐὰλ-
θόντος ᾿Ιακώβου) 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 εἴ τις σπλάγ-
xva καὶ οἰκτιρμοί. 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 ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν, ver. 11, is
the probable cause of the mistake.

ὑπέστελλεν καὶ ἀφώριζεν] ‘gradually
withdrew and separated himself.
Both verbs govern éavrov: compare
Polyb. vii. 17. 1 ὑπέστειλαν ἑαυτοὺς
ὑπό τινα προπεπτωκυῖαν ὀφρύν. The
words describe forcibly the cautious
withdrawal of a timid person who
shrinks from observation, ὑπέστελλεν
denoting the partial, ἀφώριζεν the
complete and final separation. The
word ὑποστέλλειν 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
mnilitary rather than from nautical
matters. Comp. στέλλεσθαι, 2 Thess.
iii. 6.

τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς] not ‘Jews’ but.
Sconverts 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 λοιποὶ Ἰουδαῖοι] i.e. the rest
of the Jewish converts resident at
Antioch, who, like St Peter, had
mixed freely with the Gentiles until

II. 147.

Βαρνάβας συναπήχθη αὐτῶν τί ὑποκρίσει
ρν ἤχ ; ρίσει.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

113

τὰ GN’

> ε > ~ \ \ ’ ~

OTE εἶδον OTL οὐκ ὀρθοποδοῦσιν προς τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ
> ~ ~ 9» / 3

εὐαγγελίου, εἶπον τῷ Κηφᾷ ἔμπροσθεν πάντων Εἰ σὺ

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 ὑπόκρισις, 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 ὑπόκρισις 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’; Zp. Petr. § 2.
See on ver. 11. ;

καὶ Βαρνάβας] ‘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. 10 he commends Mark to the
Colossian Church, as being the cousin
of Barnabas.

συναπήχθη αὐτῶν τῇ ὑποκρίσει] ‘was

GAL.

carried away with their dissimula-
tion, as the A.V. rightly. Their
dissimulation was as a flood which
swept every thing away with it.
Comp. 2 Pet. iii. 17 iva μὴ τῇ τῶν abéc-
μων πλάνῃ συναπαχθέντες ἐκπέσητε
«7.A., Zosimus Hist. v. 6 καὶ αὐτὴ δὲ ἡ
Σπάρτη συναπήγετο τῇ κοινῇ THs Ἕλλά-
δος ἁλώσει. 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. οὐκ ὀρθοποδοῦσιν πρὸς «.7.d.]
ie. ‘they diverge from the straight
path of the Gospel truth” The word
ὀρθοποδεῖν 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 εὐθυπορεῖν. The prepo-
sition πρὸς here denotes not the goal to
be attained, but the line of direction to
be observed: see Winer § xlix. p. 505.
For ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ εὐαγγελίου see the
note on ii. 5.

εἶπον] 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.

[11. 15, 16

Ἴ ὃ ΄ ε 7 » ~ \ , > ee ~ ~
ovdatos ὕπαρχων ἐθνικῶς καὶ οὐχ ᾿Ιουδαϊκῶς Gis, πῶς
τ 4
τὰ ἔθνη ἀναγκάζεις Ἰουδαΐζειν ; ᾿δἡμεῖς φύσει ᾿Ιουδαῖοι
\ > > > 54 ε eae: ¢: Fed “4 ry >
καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνών ἁμαρτωλοί, "εἰδότες δὲ OTL οὐ δικαι-
~ ᾽ ᾽ of “4 >
οὔται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως

blended together that they cannot be
separated without violence. The use
of the word ἁμαρτωλοί, 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.

Ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων] almost equiva-
lent to φύσει ᾿Ιουδαῖοι below; see i.
14. In such cases ὑπάρχων implies a
contrast between the original and the
after state, e.g.in Phil. 11. 6. Here it
is very emphatic ; ‘If you, born and
bred a Jew, discard Jewish customs,
how unreasonable to impose them on
Gentiles.’

ἐθνικῶς ys] 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 Ceesarea (Acts x. 28), and
just lately at Antioch (ver. 12), though
at the exact moment when St Paul
was speaking, he was living Ιουδαϊκῶς
and not ἐθνικῶς.

οὐχ ᾿Ιουδαϊκῶς] The best mss agree
in reading the aspirated form οὐχ.
For other examples of anomalous
aspirates in the Greek Testament see

Winer § v. p. 48, and comp. the note
on Phil. ii. 23 ἀφίδω. In this parti-
cular instance the aspirate may per-
haps be accounted for by the yA with
which the Hebrew word (O° 117) re-
presented by Ἰουδαῖοι commences.

ἀναγκάζεις 1.6. 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.

Ἰουδαΐζειν] ‘to adopt Jewish cus-
toms, opposed to ἐθνικῶς ζῆς which in
connexion with Ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων is
equivalent to ἑλληνίξεις : comp. Esth.
Vili. 17 καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν περιετέμον-
To καὶ ᾿Ιουδάϊζον διὰ τὸν φόβον τῶν Ἴου-
δαίων, Plut. Vit. Cic.7 ἔνοχος τῷ ᾿Ιουδαΐ-
ζειν. See the note on Ἰουδαϊσμός, 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 etc.’ The
δὲ of ver. 16, which is omitted in the ~
received text, is certainly genuine.

15. φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι) ‘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.

II. 16]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

15

9 ~ ~ eS ~ > \ 9 ~ > 1s

Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστον ᾿Ιησοὺν ἐπιστευ-

ε ~ 4 “- >

σαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθώμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ
« ᾽ / > ὲ

ἐξ ἔργων νόμον, ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμον οὐ δικδιωθήρσετδι

cal

16. διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ,

ἐξ ἐθνῶν] Not ‘of Gentile descent,’
but ‘taken from, belonging to the
Gentiles’; comp. Acts xv. 23.

ἁμαρτωλοί] ‘sinners’ The word
was almost a synonyme for ἔθνη in
the religious phraseology of the Jews.
See 1 Mace. ii. 44, Clem. Hom. xi. 16
οὕτως ὡς οὐχὶ “Iovdaios, ἁμαρτωλὸς
κιτιλ.; and compare Luke vi. 32, 33
with Matt. v. 47, and especially Matt.
xxvi. 45 with Luke xviii. 32. Here
ἁμαρτωλοὶ is used in preference to
ἔθνη, not without a shade of irony, as
better enforcing St Paul’s argument.
See the note on ver. 17.

16. ἐὰν μή] retains its proper
meaning, but refers only to οὐ δικαι-
ovra, ‘He is not justified from works
of law, he is not justified except
through faith.’ See the note oni. 19.

καὶ ἡμεῖς) ‘we ourselves, notwith-
standing our privileges of race. Com-
pare καὶ αὐτοί, ver. 17.

ἐπιστεύσαμεν] ‘became believers,’
See the note on 2 Thess.i. 10. The
phrase πιστεύειν εἴς or ἐπί τινα is pe-
culiarly Christian; see Winer § xxxi.
p- 267. The constructions of the
LXX are πιστεύειν τινί, rarely πιστεύειν
ἐπί τινι ΟΥ ἔν τινι, and once only ἐπί
τινα, Wisd. xii. 2 πιστεύειν ἐπὶ Θεόν.
The phrase, which occurs in the re-
vised Nicene and other creeds, m-
orevew εἰς ἐκκλησίαν, 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 πιστεύειν eis should
be reserved for belief in God or in
Christ. See the passages in Suicer
Thesaur. 8. Vv. πιστεύειν, and Pearson
On the Creed Art. Ix.

ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ] 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
ἐκ πίστεως and διὰ τῆς πίστεως. Both
prepositions are used elsewhere by
St Paul with δικαιοῦν, δικαιοσύνη, in-
differently; though where very great
precision is aimed at, he seems for an
obvious reason to prefer διά, as in
Ephes. ii. 8, 9, Phil. iii, 9 μὴ ἔχων
ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου ἀλλὰ
τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ κιτιλ., which
words present an exact parallel to the
former part of this verse, οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων
νόμου, ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χρι-
στοῦ. Faith is strictly speaking only
the means, not the source of justifi-
cation. The one preposition (διὰ)
excludes this latter notion, while the
other (€x) might imply it. Besides
these we meet also with ἐπὶ πίστει
(Phil. iii. 9), but never διὰ πίστιν,
*propter fidem,’ which would involve
a doctrinal error. Compare the care-
ful language in the Latin of our Arti-
cle xi, ‘yer fidem, non propter opera.’

ὅτι] is the best supported, and
doubtless the correct reading. The
reading of the received text διότι has
probably been imported from the pa-
rallel passage, Rom. iii. 20.

ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων κιτ.λ] A quotation
from the Old Testament, as appears
from the Hebraism ov πᾶσα, and
from the introductory ὅτι. 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 δικαιωθήσεται
ἐνώπιόν σου πᾶς ζῶν. For πᾶς ζών, ἃ

8—2

116

TACA οδρξ.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

ΗΠ 17

Tei δὲ ζητοῦντες δικαιωθῆναι ἐν Χριστῷ

eye ς 53
εὑρέθημεν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἁμαρτωλοί, ἄρα Χριστὸς ἁμαρτίας

very common Hebrew synonyme, πᾶσα
σάρξ (wWa-53) 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 ἐξ ἔργων
νόμου as a comment of his own, to de-
scribe the condition of the people
whom the Psalmist addressed. In
the context of the passage in the Ro-
mans (iii. 19) this comment is justified
by his explanation, that ‘whatever is
stated in the law applies to those
under the law.’

For οὐ πᾶσα see Winer ὃ 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 Χριστὸς
ἁμαρτίας διάκονος 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 ἄρα is preferable to
dpa.

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
abandonment of the law was wrong,
inasmuch as it led to so false an infer-
ence: ‘To abandon the law is to com-
mit sin; it must therefore be wrong
to abandon the law in order to be jus-
tified in Christ, for this is to make
Christ a minister of sin’: or (2) It is
an argument on the part of St Paul to
show that to abandon the law is not
to commit sin; ‘It cannot be 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 ἁμαρτωλοί (‘sinners’ from
a Jewish point of view), which it had
in ver. 15, and is more consistent with
the indicative εὑρέθημεν, 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 Χριστὸς
ἁμαρτίας διάκονος 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 (ie. to put ourselves in the
position of the heathen), may it not be
argued that Christ is thus made a

II. 18, 19]

/ ‘i \ ᾽ὔ ὰ 18
διάκονος; μή γένοιτο

EPISTLE ΤῸ THE GALATIANS.

117

> \ ε 7 ~
εἰ yap ἃ κατέλυσα ταῦτα

, 3 ὃ a , 9 A , a 19 > \
παλιν οἰκοῦομω, παραβατην ἐμαντον συνιστανω eyo

minister of sin?’ This interpretation
best developes the subtle irony of
ἁμαρτωλοί; ‘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 εὑρέθημεν, and with St Paul’s
usage of μὴ γένοιτο 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
διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον 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 μὴ γένοιτο 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
ἄρα concludes.

evpéOnuev] 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 iufluence of the Ara-
maic dialect: see Cureton Corp. Ign.
Ῥ. 271.

ἁμαρτίας διάκονος} while yet He is
δικαιοσύνης διάκονος, thus making a
direct contradiction in terms.

μὴ γένοιτο] ‘Nay, verily, ‘Away with
the thought.’ This is one out of
several Lxx renderings of the Hebrew
nbv5n (‘ad profana’ and so ‘absit,’ see
Gesenius 7168. Ὁ. 478). Another ren-
dering of the same is ἵλεως (sc. ὁ Θεὸς)
which occurs Matt. xvi. 22 ἵλεώς σοι
Κύριε, ‘far be it from thee, Lord’: see
Glass. Phil. Sacr. p. 538. Μὴ γένοιτο
is not however confined to Jewish
and Christian writings, but is frequent
for instance in Arrian; see Raphel
Annot. Rom. iii. 4.

18. ‘If, after destroying the old
law of ordinances, I attempt to build
it up again, I condemn myself, I
testify to my guilt in the work of
destruction” The pulling down and
building up have reference doubtless
to the Mosaic law, though expressed
as a general maxim (ταῦτα) The dif-
ficulty however is to trace the con-
nexion in γάρ.

With the interpretation of ver. 17
adopted above, it seems simplest to
attach yap to μὴ γένοιτο, ‘ Nay verily,
Jor, 8ο 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 γὰρ after
μὴ γένοιτο comp. Rom. ix. 14, 15, xi. 1.

mapaBarny ἐμαυτὸν συνιστάνω] “7
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 ἁμαρτωλός. Having passed
on from this to ἁμαρτία, St Paul at
length throws off the studied ambi-
guity of ἁμαρτωλός (‘a non-observer of
the law, and ‘a sinner’) by substitut-
ing the plain term παραβάτης.

ἐμαυτὸν συνιστάνω is opposed to
Χριστὸς ἁμαρτίας διάκονος, though from
its position ἐμαυτὸν cannot be very
emphatic.

συνιστάνω] ‘I prove, like συμβιβά-
ζω, as Rom. iii. 5, v. 8; comp. 2 Cor.
ih Ὁ

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 ‘I 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 ἐγὼ is
explained by the following verse, ζῶ
δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ K.T.A.

118

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[II. 20

A ε a ,
γὰρ διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον, ἵνα Θεῴ ζήσω" "Χριστῷ
συνε / ‘ - δὲ O δ. τὰν > / δὲ ; Σ \ x

νεσταύρωμαι" Cw δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὲ Χρισ-

διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον] 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 παιδαγωγὸς εἰς
Χριστόν. 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 ὁ νόμος. At least it seems
never to be quoted otherwise. Νόμος
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 διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον 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. 1718 moral effects. The law re-
veals 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. vy. 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 condemns him hopelessly, for
ΒΟ 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. v. 20. The se-
cond stage (διὰ νόμου) is a necessary
preparation for the third (νόμῳ ἀπέ-
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, vy. 1,
and the note on iv, 11.

νόμῳ ἀπέθανον] ‘I died to law’
For the dative comp. Rom. vi. 2, 11
(τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ), and for the idea of ‘ dying
to the law’ Rom. vii. 1—6, esp. ver. 4
kai ὑμεῖς ἐθανατώθητε τῷ νόμῳ, and ver.
6 κατηργήθημεν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου ἀποθα-

II. 20]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

119

’ dA A ~ ~ ? , 3 / ~ ΄ ~ cn
Tost ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί, ἐν πίστει ζώ TH τοῦ υἱοῦ
~ ~ ΄: > , Ys \ [4 Α
τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντος με καὶ παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν

20. τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντος.

νόντες ἐν ᾧ κατειχόμεθα (literally, ‘we
were nullified, i. 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.

Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι)] “7 have
been crucified with Christ? A new
turn is thus given to the metaphor of
death. In the last verse it was the
release from past obligations ; here it
is the annihilation of old sins. The
two however are not unconnected.
Sin and law loose their hold at the
same time. The sense of feebleness,
of prostration, to which a man is re-
duced by the working of the law, the
process of dying in fact, is the moral
link which unites the two applications
of the image: see Rom. vii. 5, 9—11.
Thus his death becomes life. 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 ἡμέρα in 1 Thess. v. 2—8.

For the idea of dying with Christ
etc., see Rom. vi. 6 ὁ παλαιὸς ἡμῶν
ἄνθρωπος συνεσταυρώθη : comp. Gal. v.
24, vi. 14, Rom. vi. 8, Col. ii. 20, ἀπο-
θανεῖν σὺν Χριστῷ, and Rom. vi. 4, Col.

ii. 12, συνταφῆναι. Comp. Ignat. Rom.
§ 7 ὁ ἐμὸς ἔρως ἐσταύρωται. The cor-
relative idea of rising and reigning
with Christ is equally common in St
Paul.

ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ] 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.
I am merged in Christ.’ See on ἐγὼ
ver. 19.

ὃ δὲ viv ζῶ] Not exactly ἣν viv ζῶ
ζωήν, but ὁ 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 ὃ γὰρ ἀπέθανεν, τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ
ἀπέθανεν ἐφάπαξ, ὃ δὲ ζῇ, (ἢ τῷ Θεῷ,
Plut. Mor. p. 100 F ὃ καθεύδουσι, τοῦ
σώματος ὕπνος ἐστὶ καὶ ἀνάπαυσις.

νῦν] ‘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.

ἐν πίστει] ‘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 τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ may be
pleaded the great preponderance of
the older authorities: for τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ
Χριστοῦ, the testimony of a few ancient
copies, and the difficulty of conceiving
its substitution for the other simpler
reading.

pe...euou] ‘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. οὐκ ἀθετῶ «.t.A.] “1 do not set
at nought the grace of God. Setting

120

A ~
ὑπερ ἐμοῦ.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[1]. 21

oI 9 > ~ \ ’ “- em > A
*oux ἀθετῶ τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ" εἰ γὰρ

\ / / af \ ‘ Ων
διὰ νόμου δικαιοσύνη, apa Χριστὸς δωρεὰν ἀπέθανεν.

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

plained by a supplied clause, as above.

δωρεάν] not ‘in vain,’ but ‘uselessly,
without sufficient cause” or, as we
might say, ‘gratuitously,’ John xv. 25
ἐμίσησάν pe δωρεάν (Ps, xxxiv. 19);
comp. Lxx of Ps. xxxiv. 7 δωρεὰν
ἔκρυψάν μοι διαφθοράν, Hebr. ὩΣ,
where Symmachus had ἀναιτίως; Ec- —
clus. xx. 23.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 121
Various Readings in ii. 5.
The reading which is given in the text, οἷς οὐδὲ πρὸς Spay, is doubtless
correct. Two variations however occur, which deserve notice.
1. The omission of οὐδέ. (1) The

The negative is found in all the Greek uncial mss (i.e, in SABCEF se ip pt
GKLP) except D, in which however it is inserted by a later hand, and viaanrtaraend
apparently in all or nearly all the Greek cursive mss, It is expressly
mentioned by the Ambrosian Hilary! and by Jerome?, as the reading of
the Greek copies. It is found also in the Gothic, Memphitic, Thebaic, both
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 Omittedin
omitted ‘in plurimis codicibus et Latinis et Graecis, is not worthy of credit. 5°me few.
He may indeed have found the omission in some Greck 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. ttaced to
And to the Old Latin version all or nearly all the existing authorities for Latin,
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 6 contra dicunt:
Nec ad horam cessimus, et hoc aiunt
convenire causae ete.’

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

3 Tertull. adv. Mare. v. 3.

* Haer, p. 112 and p. 814.

5 Ep. ad Tars. § 2.

§ Orig. 6. Cels. vii. 21 (1. p. 709,
Delarue) οὐδέποτε ἐν χώρᾳ ὑποτεταγ-
μένος ἀνθρώποις ὡς κρείττων γενόμενος,
where the conjecture οὐδὲ πρὸς ὥραν is
possibly correct,

? Epist. 37.

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

9 Iren. ili. 13. 3.

10 adv. Mare. v. 3.

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

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

18 ad 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!

Tertul- Tertullian indeed accuses Marcion of interpolating the negative; but
lian’s no weight attaches to his assertion. The African father, not finding it
charge in his own Latin copy and finding it in Marcion’s recension, caught at what
against : : ΩΣ
Marcion, 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. vy. 8, Rom. v. 14,
1 Cor. v. 6, [Col. ii. 18]: comp. Joh. vi. 64, ix. 273,
Omission The omission once made, arguments were not wanting to support it.
how ac- ‘Tertullian found that the negative vitiated the sense of the passage.
“phe 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 οὐδέ 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 cireum-
cised*, Several modern critics, who retain it, hold that he was.

2. The omission of ois.

1 De Doctr. Christ. ὃ. 15.

2 For 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.

* So Victorinus and the Ambrosian

Hilary. Thisis also the opinion of Ter-
tullian (adv. Mare.v. 3), if l 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 οὐδέ, and (2) The
retained in some few which want οὐδέ ; but for the most part the two are relative.
omitted or retained together. Here again the Greek texts are as unani-
mous as in the former case. The obvious motive of this omission is the
improvement of the grammar by the removal of a redundant word.
This assumed necessity of altering the text somehow, in order to
correct the grammar, may have been the first 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 ; spr cad
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 argument from Argu- —
the striking coincidence of circumstances, and the negative argument from oe ae
the difficulty of finding any equally probable solution, or indeed any pro- ΤΣ por ben,
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 ea F
important features. The geography is the same. In both narratives the ayy
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 time 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. iii. 13. 3 ‘Si quis igitur di-
ligenter ex Actibus Apostolorum seru-
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. Vv. 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

visits of the Acts.

8 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
Opusc. 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. v. no. το,
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’ (ἐξ αὐτῶν) 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) Nor indeed can this visit be identified with any other recorded in
St Luke. It has been taken by some for instance for the second visit of
the Acts. To this supposition the date alone is fatal. The second visit of
the Acts synchronizes, or nearly 808, with the persecution and death of
Herod, which latter event happened in the year 44. But at least 12 or 13,
probably 15 or 16 years, had elapsed since St Paul’s conversion, before he
paid the visit in question. And no system of chronology at all probable
will admit of so early a date for his conversion as would thus be required.
But again, according to the narrative of the Acts St Paul’s Apostolic mis-
sion commenced after the second visit’, whereas the account in the Epistle

(ii) Nega-
tive.
Difficulty
of other
solutions.

2 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 δύ Luke’s notices are, xv. 2 yevo-
μένης στάσεως καὶ fnrnoews οὐκ ὀλί-
yns τῷ Παύλῳ καὶ τῷ Βαρνάβᾳ πρὸς
αὐτούς, at Antioch; xv. 5 ἐξανέστησαν
dé τινες, at Jerusalem before the con-
gress; XV. 7 πολλῆς δὲ ζητήσεως Ὑενο-
μένης, at Jerusalem at the congress.

8 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, 20—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, κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν
καιρόν. 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), (τ), (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 οὗ the
the Epistle he states that he went up by revelation. Here however there ΤΉ τὴ
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 away (ἀπέλυσαν). So they
being sent forth by the Holy Ghost (ἐκπεμφθέντες ὑπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύ-
ματος) etc.’
(y) Acts xv. 28, ‘It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.’
(6) St Paul speaks of his communications as made to the Apostles in (Ὁ) Cha-
private: St Luke’s narrative describes a general congress of the Church. acter of
The divergence is due to the different aims of the two writers. St Paul boners
is dwelling on what he owed or did not owe to the Twelve. St Luke de- ms ;

(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 publie
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 recognised, though not dwelt upon, by the writer. The very form of
St Paul’s expression, ἀνεθέμην αὐτοῖς, κατ᾽ ἰδίαν δὲ τοῖς δοκοῦσιν, 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 revealed
itself in the process. It would seem moreover, that by the time the con-
gress met, St Paul’s work was already done. His large experience gained
in contact with the Gentile Churches had told upon the Twelve. If they
hesitated at first, as they may have done, they hesitated now no longer.
Opinions in favour of liberal measures towards the Gentiles would come
with more force from the leading Apostles of the Circumcision. His own
voice raised in their cause might only inflame the passions of the bigoted
and prejudice the result. So we find that when the council meets, Paul
and Barnabas confine themselves to narrating the success of their labours
among the Gentiles. As regards the matter under dispute they are en-
tirely passive.

(ii) More startling at first sight than these apparent discrepancies

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 127
are the direct omissions of St Paul, on the supposition that he is speaking
of the visit of Acts xv.

(a) Above all, how comes it, that while enumerating his visits to Jeru- (a) 2nd
salem, St Paul should mention the first and third, and pass over the second ἘΣ to
recorded in the Acts? a,

The answer is to be sought in the circumstances under which that visit
was paid, The storm of persecution had broken over the Church of Jeru-
salem. One leading Apostle had been put to death ; another rescued by
a miracle had fled for his life. At this season of terror and confusion Paul
and Barnabas arrived. It is probable that every Christian of rank had
retired from the city. No mention is made of the Twelve; the saluta-
tions of the Gentile Apostles are received by ‘The Elders” They arrived
charged with alms for the relief of the poor brethren of 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.

(Ὁ) The omission of all mention of the Apostolic decree is a less con- (Ὁ) 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

1 St Luke dismisses this visit in a
very few words; xi. 30 ἀποστείλαντες
πρὸς τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους διὰ χειρὸς Bap-
νάβα καὶ Σαύλου, xii. 25 Βαρνάβας δὲ
καὶ Σαῦλος ὑπέστρεψαν ἐξ ἹἹερουσαλήμ,
πληρώσαντες τὴν διακονίαν, συμπαρα-
λαβόντες ᾿Ιωάννην τὸν ἐπικληθέντα Μάρ-
κον. 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

remain at Jerusalem. It is mentioned
by Apollonius (circ. a.D. 200, ap. Eu-
seb. Ε΄. E. v. 18, ws ἐκ παραδόσεως), and
by Clem. Alex. Strom. vi, p. 762, ed.
Potter. The latter gives, as his author-
ity, the Praedicatio Petri, and quotes
the words μετὰ δώδεκα ἔτη ἐξέλθετε εἰς
τὸν κόσμον. 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,

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 nian’s conscience.
(2) The object of the decree was to relieve the Gentile Christians

from the burden of Jewish observances.
we will protect you from any further exactions,’

It said, ‘Concede so much and
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 inci- The conduct of St Peter at Antioch has been a great stumblingblock
sour αν both in ancient and modern times. It has been thought strange that the

St Peter's Very Apostle, to whom was specially vouchsafed the revelation that there is
character, 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 sq., and de Pressensé
Trois Premiers Siécles, tre série, I. p.
457 84., seem to me on the whole
among the most truthful, preserving
@& 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, inthe Nouvelle
Revue de Théologie, xi1. p. 324, XIII. Ὁ.
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 rash
to conclude that it ended as the other had ended, that the revulsion of
feeling was as sudden and complete, and that again he went out and wept
bitterly, having denied his Lord in the person of these Gentile converts.

The history of the patristic interpretations of this passage is painfully Becomes a
instructive. The orthodox fathers of the early Church were sore pressed epi ae
both by heretics and unbelievers. On the one hand Ebionite writers, like ΣΝ
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, "Ὁ

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 ment.
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,
BE; 33.

2 Tertull. adv. Mare. i. 20, v. 3, de
Praescr. ¢. 23: comp. Iren. 111, 12. 15.

8 See esp. Hieron. in Ep. ad Gal.
praef. (vu. 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.

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

5 Augustin. ap. Hieron. Op. τ.
Epist. exvi. The passage in Cyprian,
to which Augustine appears to refer, is
in Epist. xxi, 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 πῶς οὖν τινὲς τὴν
ξήτησιν ταύτην ἔλυσαν, Gregor. Magn,
in Ezech. Lib. τι. 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, acknowledging the justice
of the rebuke, set them an example of submission. Thus he in fact sub-
stituted the much graver charge of dishonesty against both Apostles, 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 loc.) simply copies
the words of Gregory, and his language
must not be taken as evidence of the
prevalence of the opinion in his time.
Cicumenius however, or a commenta-
tor in the Gicumenian 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. (τ. Ὁ. 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
discipulorum Pauli,’ Assemann. Bibl.
Orient. ut. Ὁ. 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
reprehensum Petrum non esse,’ a
strange specimen of criticism. It pro-
voked replies from Boileau, Disquisit.
Theolog. in Galat. ii. 10, Paris, 1713;
Calmet, Dissert. 111. p. 519, Paris, 1720;
Deyling, Obs. Sacr. τι. p. 520, Lips.
1737. The first of these I have not
seen: the last two might be called
satisfactory, if there were any case on
the opposite side.

It was enforced with much perverse ingenuity and

* Hieron. Epist. exii (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.

8 See Hieron. 1. 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 Didymus 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, and of Theodore of Heraclea,
Augustine in reply (Hieron. Op. Epist.
cxvi, p. 775) understands him to say
that the view of Origen was held by 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,
iii. 19, p. 387. Another of Jerome’s
masters also, Gregory Nazianzen, had
taken the honest view, attributing St
Peter’s error however not to cowardice
but to mistaken policy, Carm. 1. p.
522, ed, Caillau, ὡς συντράπεζος οὐ
καλῶς ἣν ἔθνεσιν, εἰ καὶ τόδ᾽ Ger ὠφελή-
σειν τὸν λόγον. Unless his text is here
mutilated, Gregory’s memory has failed

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 131
misapplied eloquence by Chrysostom in his exposition of this epistle, and Chryso-
in a separate homily devoted specially to the subject’. And about the stom.
same time that these discourses were delivered, it found another inde-
pendent and equally able advocate in Jerome, who maintained it in his
commentary on the Galatians with characteristic vigour. The advocacy of
Jerome gave rise to a controversy between the two great Latin fathers, Contro-
which became famous in the history of the Church?. Augustine wrote to Versy of
remonstrate with Jerome. To admit that the two leading Apostles con- paras
spired to act a lie, he represented, was in fact to undermine the whole gustine.
authority of Scripture. He therefore entreated Jerome, like Stesichorus
of old, to sing a palinode, adding that the truth of Christendom is incom-
parably more beautiful than the Helen of Greece, for offending whom the
heathen poet had been struck blind’. Jerome replied by another classical
allusion. Let Augustine beware of provoking a contest, so he hinted, in
which the crushing blows of aged Entellus, if once provoked, might prove
more than a match for the youth and nimbleness of Dares*. In the cor-
respondence which ensued Augustine had much the best of his adversary
both in argument and in temper. It closes with a letter from Augustine
in which he exposes Jerome’s subterfuges and demolishes his appeal to
authority®. The glory of Augustine’s victory however is somewhat tar-
nished by a feeble attack made at the same time on those noble labours in
Biblical criticism which have earned for Jerome the gratitude of after ages.

To this letter of Augustine Jerome seems to have made no reply. His
pride had been deeply wounded by the successful assaults of a younger
rival, as he regarded Augustiue: and a direct confession of wrong could
only be expected from a nature more frank and chivalrous than Jerome’s.
But at a later date he tacitly adopted Augustine’s view, and whether from
accident or design, in the same writing, though on a different topic, made
honourable mention of his former opponent®. With this sequel the whole

him as to the particular act which
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 favour. Augustine in
reply can only name Cyprian and Am-
brose.

1 The Latin title of this homily is
‘In illud, in faciem Petro restiti’ (m1.
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.

2 An account of this controversy is
given in Mohler, Gesammelte Schriften,
Ῥ. 184. 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

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. lxvii.

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

5 ΤΌ. Ep. cxvi.

6 Hieron. c. Pelag. i. 22 (τι. p. 718).
This treatise (iii. 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

O-—-2

132 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 originab 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‘,

Later
writers.

writing this, had in mind the tribute of Ezech.xlviii.35 (11.p.1046, ed. Schulze),

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 (11.
Ῥ. 264), 6. Rufin. iii. 2 (τι. p. 532),
Comm, in Philem, (v11. p. 755); but the
inference is scarcely borne out by the
passages themselves. Jerome’s change
of opinion did not escape Augustine,
who alludes to it in a letter to Ocea-
nus, August. Epist. clxxx (1, p. 634,
ed. Ben.).

1 e.g. Méhler Gesamm, Schr. p. 18.

2 Primasius (circ. 550), commenting
on this epistle, omits to notice the opi-
nion of Origen and Jerome. Strangely
enough the commentary of Theodoret
(cire. 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

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. τι. 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).
8 It is maintained by one of the
commentators in the (icumenian 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. τι. 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 m. p.
772).

ΠῚ. 1]
ITI.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

133

> 7 7 7 ΄σ > } -
”Q. ἀνόητοι Γαλαται, τίς ὑμᾶς ἐβάσκανεν, οἷς

κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμοὺς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς προεγράφη ἐσταυρω-

Ill. 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. Yousuffered 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.’

ἐβάσκανεν] ‘fascinated you. St
Paul’s metaphor is derived from the
popular belief in the power of the evil
eye. Comp. Ignat. Rom. ὃ 3 οὐδέ-
more ἐβασκάνατε οὐδένα (or οὐδενί),
Wisd. iv. 12 βασκανία γὰρ φαυλότητος
ἀμαυροῖ τὰ καλά, and see especially
the discussion in Plutarch, Symp. v.
7, p. 680 0 περὶ τῶν καταβασκαίνειν
λεγομένων καὶ βάσκανον ἔχειν ὀφθαλμὸν
ἐμπεσόντος λόγου κιτιλ. If the deri-
vation of βασκαίνειν now generally
adopted (see Benfey Wurzel. τι. p.
104), from βάζω, βάσκω (φάσκω), be
correct, the word originally referred
to witchery by spells or incantations
(‘mala fascinare lingua’); but as it
occurs in actual use, it denotes the
blighting influence of the evil eye, of
which meaning indeed the popular
but now exploded derivation (διὰ

φαέων, καίνουσαν Tzetz.) is an evidence.
See Bacon’s Essays ix. This belief is
not confined to the Hast 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 Realwdérterd. 8. v.
Zauberet, and in an article by O.
Jahn, tiber den Aberglauben des bi-
sen Blicks etc. in the Verhandl. der
Sdichs. Gesellsch. 1855, p. 31. The
word βασκαίνειν 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 ἡ yn (‘envious’ or ‘covet-
ous,’ eg. Prov. xxiii. 6, Tobit iv. 16,
Kcclus. xiv. 10, and compare the ὀφ-
θαλμὸς πονηρὸς of the Gospels); and
in the Latin invideo it has swallowed
up every other meaning. The false
teachers envy the Galatians this liber-
ty in Christ, have an interest in sub-
jecting them again to bondage: see
iv. 17, vi. 12, and 2 Cor. xi. 20. This
idea however is subordinate to the
other, for where βασκαίνειν 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 βασκανία (διότι πολλὴν ἔχου-
σιν εὐπάθειαν καὶ τρόπον τῆς φύσεως,
Alex. Aphrod., Probl. Phys. ii. 53: see
also the passages in Jahn, p. 39), and
such an allusion would be very signi-
ficant here; but the metaphor must
not be overcharged.

ἐβάσκανεν (for which some copies
read ἐβάσκηνεν) is probably the first
aorist with a; see Ignat. 1. 6. On

134

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

(III. 2

~ , ’ ~ > 49 “ 5 ᾽
μένος; "τοῦτο μόνον θέλω μαθεῖν αφ ὑμῶν, ἐξ ἔρ-
’ \ on! > / s\ > 3 ~
ywv νόμου τὸ πνεῦμα ἐλάβετε ἢ ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως;

forms in ἡ and a, see Buttmann «4 μα 7
Sprachl. ὃ τοι. 4, A. Buttmann p. 35,
and Lobeck Phryn. p. 25, Paral.
p. 22.

The words τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι
of the received text have no place
here, but are added from v. 7.

ois κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμούς] ‘ before whose
eyes’: comp. Arist. Ran. 626 ἵνα σοὶ
kar’ ὀφθαλμοὺς λέγῃ. This expression
is slightly stronger than πρὸ ὀφθαλ-
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 ὥσπερ ἰώδη τινὰ καὶ φθοροποιὸν
ἀκτῖνα ἐξιᾶσιν ἀπὸ τῆς κόρης αὐτῶν καὶ
αὕτη εἰσιοῦσα διὰ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν τοῦ
φθονουμένου τρέψει τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ τὴν
φύσιν κιτιλ., Heliod. ΖΕ ἢ. iii. 7 διὰ
τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν τὰ πάθη ταῖς ψυχαῖς
εἰστοξεύονται (these references I owe
to Jahn, p. 33); and comp. Ecclus,
xviii. 18 δόσις βασκάνου ἐκτήκει ὀφθαλ-
μούς, xiv. 8, Test. cit 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.’

mpoeypadn| ‘was posted up, pla-
carded.’ The verb προγράφειν is ca-
pable of two meanings; (1) ‘To write
beforehand, as Rom. xv. 4 ὅσα yap
προεγράφη εἰς τὴν ἡμετέραν διδασκαλίαν
ἐγράφη. This sense however is ex-
cluded here, as the words κατ᾽ ὀφθαλ-
μοὺς 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 τι ἂν προγράφω-
μεν ἐν τοῖς πινακίοις : comp. Justin
Apol. ii. Ῥ. 52 Β ἐὰν δὲ ὑμεῖς τοῦτο
προγράψητε, ἡμεῖς τοῖς πᾶσι φανερὸν
ποιήσομεν. These would sometimes
be notices of a trial or condemnation ;
comp. Jude 4 of πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι
eis τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα, With Demosth. p.
1151 τοὺς πρυτάνεις mpoypahew αὐτῷ
τὴν κρίσιν ἐπὶ δύο ἡμέρας, Plut. Camill.
9 τῆς δίκης προγεγραμμένης : 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 (βασκάνιον or προβασκάνιον,
Epist. Jer. 69) against all Judaic sor-
ceries. The compound verb mpoypd-
dew seems never to be used of paint-
ing, as some take it here.

ἐν ὑμῖν is omitted after προεγράφη
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 88
a redundant expression enforcing the
idea of ois κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμούς, and to be
taken with προεγράφη.

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
jlesh? To what purpose then did ye
suffer persecution from these carnal
teachers of the law? Will ye now

III. 3, 4]

3 εἴ aay / 3 =
οὕτως ἀνόητοι ἐστε!

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS,

> ’
ἐναρξαμενοι

135

ἤ wn
πνεύματι νῦν

Ν᾿ Μὲ Xen θ ὅν 4 “ 2 (θ op rsdes of
σαρκι ETLTE ELOVUE g TODQAUTA EMAVETE εἰκῆ: EL YE

stultify your past sufferings? I can-
not believe that ye will’

2. ἀκοῆς] in itself may mean either
‘a hearing’ or ‘areport.’ For the latter
sense see Rom. x. 16, quoted from
the uxx of Is. liii. 1. The former
meaning however is more probable
here, as presenting a better contrast
to ἔργων, which requires some word
expressing the part taken by the Ga-
latians themselves : comp. 1 Thess. ii. 13.

πίστεως] ‘which comes of faith,
the subjective genitive. The parallel-
ism of Rom. x. 17, dpa ἡ πίστις ἐξ
ἀκοῆς, ἡ δὲ ἀκοὴ διὰ ῥήματος, is only
apparent, A true parallel is the phrase
ὑπακοὴ πίστεως, Rom. i. 5, xvi. 26. At
all events πίστεως cannot be consi-
dered equivalent to τῆς πίστεως (see
on i, 23), taken as an objective geni-
tive, with the sense ‘listening to the
doctrines of the faith.’

3. οὕτως] refers to what follows:
‘ How senseless to reverse the natural
order of things!’

ἐναρξάμενοι ἐπιτελεῖσθε) 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 ἐνάρχεσθαι of the initiatory rites
see Pollux viii, 83, and comp. eg.
Eur. Jph. Aul. 1471; for ἐπιτελεῖν
Herod. ii. 63 (θυσίας, εὐχωλάς), iv. 186
(νηστείας καὶ ὁρτάς).

ἐπιτελεῖσθε is perhaps the middle
voice rather than the passive, as in
Clem. Rom. ὃ 55 πολλαὶ γυναῖκες ἐνδυνα-
μωθεῖσαι...ἐπετελέσαντο πολλὰ ἀνδρεῖα,
and frequently in classical writers,
eg. Plat. Phil. 27 © κάλλιον ἂν καὶ τὴν
κρίσιν emreAcoaiveba, 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 Lxx or New Testament.

4. τοσαῦτα ἐπάθετε eixn;| ‘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. 11. 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, ἐπάθετε has
been interpreted in a good sense, as
if referring to the spiritual blessings
of the Galatians: but πάσχειν seems
never to be so used in the New Testa- _
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 τὸν θεὸν ὑπομνῆσαι μὲν ὅσα
παθόντες ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ πηλίκων εὐεργε-
σιῶν μεταλαβόντες κ-.τ.λ.

εἰκῇ] ‘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.’

εἴ ye καὶ εἰκῇ} ‘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 καὶ widens this, implying
an unwillingness to believe on the part
of the speaker. Hermann’s distinction
(ad Viger. p. 834) that εἴγε assumes
the truth of a proposition while εἴπερ
leaves it doubtful, requires modifying

136

A 7 A
καὶ εἰκῆ.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[III. 5—7

᾽ = ~ \ ~
50 οὖν ἐπιχορηγῶν ὑμῖν TO πνεῦμα Kal ἐνερ-

a U 3 ¢ oA 2 of / 3\ 3 3 “-“
γῶν δυνάμεις ἐν ὑμῖν, ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἢ ἐξ ἀκοῆς

πίστεως:

ἐλογίοθη ἀὐϊτῷ εἰς AIKAIOCYNHN,

before it is applied to the New Testa-
ment, where εἴπερ is, if anything, more
directly affirmative than εἴγε. 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 οὖν marks its resumption ;
‘Well then, as I said, ete.’

ὁ ἐπιχορηγῶν] ‘He that supplieth
bountifully’ ; comp. Phil. i. 19 ἐπιχο-
ρηγίας τοῦ πνεύματος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
Even the simple word implies more
or less of liberality, and the com-
pound ἐπιχορηγεῖν expresses this idea
more strongly. See 2 Pet. i. 5 ἐπιχο-
ρηγήσατε ἐν τῇ πίστει ὑμῶν THY ἀρετήν,
and compare the use of the substan-
tive ἐπιχορήγημα in Athen. iv. p. 140 6
ἐπάϊκλα μὲν λέγεται ταῦτα, ὄντα οἷον
ἐπιχορηγήματα τοῦ συντεταγμένου τοῖς
φειδίταις ἀΐκλου, i.e. the luxuries, the
superfluities of the meal.

ἐνεργῶν δυνάμεις ἐν ὑμῖν)] Comp.
1 Cor. xii. 10 ἐνεργήματα δυνάμεων
(with vv. 28, 29), Matt. xiv. 2 ai δυνά-
pets ἐνεργοῦσιν ἐν αὐτῷ (comp. Mark vi.
14). These passages favour the sense
‘worketh miraculous power inv you,’
rather than ‘worketh miracles among
you’; and this meaning also accords
better with the context: comp. 1 Cor.
xii. 6 καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς Θεὸς ὁ ἐνεργῶν τὰ
πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν. What was the exact
nature of these ‘ powers,’ whether they
were exerted over the physical or the

\ ' . a
°xaOws “ABpadm émicteycen τῷ Θεῷ καὶ

Tevives Υ
γινώσκετε apa

moral world, it is impossible to deter-
mine. The limitations implied in
1 Cor. xii. 10, and the general use of
δυνάμεις, 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.

καθώς] The answer to the question
asked in the former verse is assumed,
‘Surely of faith: and so it was with
Abraham. Καθώς, though not a good
Attic word, is common in later Greek;
see Lobeck Phryn. p. 425.

᾿Αβραὰμ ἐπίστευσεν x.t.A.] from the
Lxx of Gen. xv. 6. The Hebrew has
in the second clause ΠΡῚΝ 10 AawM
‘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.

ΠῚ. 8—10]

ε ε > / - Soy) 8 3 3 ,
ὅτι οἱ ἐκ πίστεως, οὗτοι υἱοί εἰσιν ᾿Αβρααμ.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

137

8 Tpot-

δοῦσα δὲ ἡ γραφὴ ὅτι ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοῖ τὰ ἔθνη ὁ
Θεό λί 5 ᾿Αβραὰμ ὅτι ἐνεγλ
€0s, προευηγγελίσατο τῷ ραὰμ ὅτι ἐνεγλογη-

θήσοντὰδι EN οοὶ TANTA

, 3 ca \ ~ -~ » 4
πίστεως εὐλογοῦνται σὺν τῷ πιστῷ Αβρααμ.

τὸ

9 e/ ε ?
@WOTE Ol EK
14

OTOL

ἔθνη.

ἡ. οὗτοί εἰσιν υἱοὶ ᾿Αβραάμ

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 Gentiles 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.’

γινώσκετε] ‘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 weil as to the
special argumentative particle dpa,
and possibly also to the meaning of the
verb γινώσκειν (‘to perceive’ rather
than ‘to know’; see the note iy. 8, 9);
comp. I John ii, 29 ἐὰν εἰδῆτε ὅτι δί-
καιός ἐστιν, γινώσκετε OTL πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν
τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται. On
the other hand, for the imperative see
Heb. xiii. 23.

οἱ ἐκ πίστεως] ‘they whose starting-
point, whose fundamental principle is
faith’ Comp. Rom. ii. 8 of ἐξ ἐριθείας,
Rom. iy. 14 of ἐκ νόμου.

8. ἡ γραφή] ‘the scripture’ per-
sonified. This instance stands by itself
in the New Testament, the personifi-
cation elsewhere not going beyond

λέγει OF εἶπεν, or such expressions as
συνέκλεισεν, Ver. 22. The attributing
‘sight’ to the sacred writings is how-
ever found in a not uncommon Jewish
formula of reference MN nD, ‘Quid
vidit?’ see Schéttgen here. On the
meaning of γραφή, ‘a passage of Scrip-
ture,’ see the note iii. 22.

δικαιοῖ] 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.
vy. 2, and Winer ὃ xi. 2, p. 280.

προευηγγελίσατο] 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.

ἐνευλογηθήσονται «7.A.] A fusion
of the two passages, Gen. xii. 3 καὶ
[ἐν]ευλογηθήσονται ἐν σοὶ πᾶσαι ai φυ-
λαὶ τῆς γῆς, and Gen. xviii. 18 καὶ
ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν αὐτῷ (Αβραὰμ)
πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς, ἴῃ both of which
the Lxx agrees with the Hebrew.
Comp. Clem. Rom. § Io.

ἐν coi] ‘in thee, as their spiritual
progenitor.

10, II, 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 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, [III, 13
yap ἐξ ἔργων νόμου εἰσίν, ὑπὸ κατάραν εἰσίν. γέ-
\ 4 > ’ Ὁ 2 >
ypantat yap oTt émikatdpatoc πᾶς, Oc οὐκ ἐμ-
μένει TACIN τοῖο γεγρὰμμένοις EN TH βιβλίῳ

τοῦ νόμου, TOY ποιῆοσδι

aYTA.

εἶ \ > /
"Ort δὲ ἐν νόμῳ
έ

᾽ \ ~ ‘\ ~ ~ ~ ε ς ,
οὐδεὶς δικαιοῦται παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ δῆλον, ὅτι ὁ δλίκδιος

where spoken of as the source of life
(vv. II, 12).

10,11. ‘On the other hand all who
depend on works of law are under a
curso, 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. ὅσοι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου εἰσίν] ‘those
who are of works of law, whose cha-
racter is founded on works of law.

ἐπικατάρατος k.r.A.| A quotation from
Deut. xxvii. 26. The passage is the
closing sentence of the curses pro-
nounced on Mount Ebal, and as it
were the summary of the whole. The
words run in the LXxx, ἐπικατάρατος
πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ὃς οὐκ ἐμμένει ἐν πᾶσιν
τοῖς λόγοις τοῦ νόμου τούτου τοῦ ποιῆσαι
αὐτούς. For τοῖς λόγοις τοῦ νόμου τού-
του ἃ slight modification is introduced
by St Paul, that the sentence may ex-
plain itself. The words πᾶς, πᾶσιν,
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,
Pp. 322 0, quotes the passage exactly in
the words of St Paul, though differing
from Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, and Sa-
maritan texts, and applies it in the

same way: see above, p. 60, and the
note on ver. 13.

11. The same proposition proved
in another way; δέ, ‘Then again,’

ὁ δίκαιος κιτλ. From Habak. ii.
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), AN’ nN. py’
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 Lxx have
ἐὰν ὑποστείληται, οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ Ψυχή
μου ἐν αὐτῷ, ὁ δὲ δίκαιός μου ἐκ πίστεως
(or ἐκ πίστεώς μου) ζήσεται : see below,
p.156. The author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, who gives both clauses
of the verse, though reversing the or-
der, quotes from the Lxx (see Bleek,
Heb. 1. ¢.).

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 ΠΟ
is not directly ‘faith,’ meaning ‘ trust,
belief, but ‘steadfastness, faithful-
ness. The context however justifies
πίστις, even in the sense ‘trust,’ as a
paraphrastic rendering, and it was so
translated by Symmachus, Aquila, and
Theodotion, and in the other Greek
versions. See p.156,note 4. Targum
Jon. has ;inpwyp, ‘their truth.’ In its
original context the passage has refer-
ence to the temporal calamities in-
flicted by the Chaldean invasion. Here

III. 12, 13]

ἐκ πίοτεως ZHCETAI’

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

6 δὲ νόμος

139

οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ

͵7ὔ 3 > ε ᾿ 3 ᾿ ’ > 3 συν
πίστεως, GAN ὁ ποιήοδο aYTA ZHCETA! ἐν AYTOIC.
- , ~ 7 ~ ,
Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νομου,
\ ~~ , εὖ ,
γενόμενος ὑπερ ἡμών KaTapa, OTL γέγραπται ἐπι-

ἃ 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, ἐν
τούτῳ πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων δικαιοῦται) there
is perhaps a tacit allusion to the words
ὁ δίκαιος κιτιλ. 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.’

ὁ ποιήσας 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 αὐτὰ is
explained by the words which in the
original text precede the passage
quoted, πάντα τὰ προστάγματά pov καὶ
πάντα τὰ κρίματά μου, 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.’

ἡμᾶς] The Apostle is here thinking
of the deliverance of himself and the
Jewish race: see ra ἔθνη, ver. 14.

ἐξηγόρασεν)͵ 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.

v. 16, Col. iv. 5, τὸν καιρὸν ἐξαγορα-
ζόμενοι.

κατάρα] as 2 Cor. v. 21 τὸν μὴ γνόντα
ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν :
comp. Protev. Jac. ὃ 3, where Anna,
complaining of her barrenness says,
κατάρα ἐγενήθην ἐγὼ ἐνώπιον τῶν υἱῶν
Ἰσραήλ. The expression is to be ex-
plained partly by the Hebrew idiom,
the paucity of adjectives frequently
oceasioning the use of a substantive
instead, but still more by the religious
conception which it involves. The
victim is regarded as bearing the
sins of those for whom atonement is
made. The curse is transferred from
them to it. It becomes in a certain
sense the impersonation of the sin
and of the curse. This idea is very pro-
minent in the scape-goat, Lev. xvi.
5 84. : see especially the language of
the Epistle of Barnabas, § 7, where
the writer explains the scape-goat as a
type of Christ. Compare also Lev. iv.
25 ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ τῆς ἁμαρτίας,
and iv. 29 ἐπιθήσει τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ
ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν τοῦ ἁμαρτήματος
αὐτοῦ. In Hebrew ΝΠ 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 φάρ-
μακον ἀποπέμπειν καὶ ἀλιτηρίου ἀπαλ-
λάττεσθαι, and especially the Egyp-
tians, Herod. ii. 39 κεφαλῇ δὲ κείνῃ
(1.6, of the victim) πολλὰ καταρη-
σάμενοι épovot,..carapéovrar δὲ
τάδε λέγοντες τῇσι κεφαλῇσι, εἴ τι μέλ-
λοι ἢ σφίσι τοῖς θύουσι ἢ Αἰγύπτῳ τῇ
συναπάσῃ κακὸν γενέσθαι, εἰς κεφαλὴν
ταύτην τραπέσθαι.

γέγραπται] in Deut. xxi. 23, where
the LXxX runs κεκατηραμένος ὑπὸ Θεοῦ
πᾶς κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ EvAov. The passage

140

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[III. 14

KaTdpatoc πᾶς ὃ κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου, “iva εἰς
τὰ ἔθνη ἡ εὐλογία τοῦ ᾿Αβραὰμ γένηται ἐν Χριστῷ
n 1 Y βρᾶαμ γενῆ ρ

14. ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ.

is quoted by Justin, Dial. p. 323 6,
exactly as by St Paul; see p. 60,
and the note on ver. 10. Our Lord
had died the death of the worst
malefactors: He had undergone that
punishment, which under the law be-
tokened the curse of God. So far He
had become κατάρα. But He was in
no literal sense κατάρατος ὑπὸ Θεοῦ,
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.

τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν κ-τ.λ.] ‘we, 1.6. all
the faithful, whether Jews or Gentiles,
may receive the promise. The divine
promise in the New Testament is
always ἐπαγγελία not ὑπόσχεσις, ‘ pol-
licitum’ not ‘promissum,’ a gift
ciously bestowed and not a pledge
obtained by negotiation. Indeed the
substantive ἐπαγγελία is scarcely ever
used (Acts xxiii. 21 is an excep-
tion) of anything else but the divine

promise. The phrase λαμβάνειν τὴν
ἐπαγγελίαν 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-
τυγχάνειν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας Heb. vi. 15,
περιμένειν τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν, Acts i. 4.
With this use of ἐπαγγελία, compare
that of ἐλπίς, πίστις, etc., for the ob-
ject of faith, of hope, etc.

I5—18. ‘Brethren, let me draw
ap 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. ᾿Αδελφοῖ] ‘Brethren. There is
a touch of tenderness in the appeal
here, as if to make amends for the
severity of the foregoing rebuke, iii.
I 86. : comp. iv. 31, Vi. I.

κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω] ‘I speak after
the manner of men, I argue from
the practice of men’; see Rom. iii. 5,
I Cor. ix. 8, and Rom. vi. 19 ἀνθρώ-
mivov λέγω. Comp. also 1 Cor. iii. 3

IIT. 15]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS,

141

΄ ε ~ , ; /
Ἰησοῦ, iva τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος λάβωμεν

~ /
διὰ τῆς πίστεως.

Αδελφοί, κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω.

« ᾽ /
ὅμως ἀνθρώπου

/ ’ ὃ \ ἰθ a NN > ὃ /
κεκυρωμένην διαθήκην οὐδεὶς ἀθετεῖ ἡ ἐπιδιατασσεται.

κατὰ ἄνθρωπον περιπατεῖτε, Gal. i. 11,
1 Cor. xv. 32 εἰ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον ἐθηριο-
μάχησα κατιλ., ‘If from nothing more
than worldly motives I fought with
beasts etc.,’ where the false interpre-
tation of κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, ‘metaphori-
cally, has been supported by the
mistaken analogy of the passage
in our text. For the usage of xara
ἄνθρωπον in profane authors see the
quotations in Wetstein on Rom,
ili. 5.

ὅμως ἀνθρώπου] The force is well
given in the A. V., ‘though it be but
a man’s covenant,’ i.e. καίπερ ἀνθρώπου
οὖσαν, ὅμως x.7.A.; comp. I Cor. xiv. 7
ὅμως τὰ ἄψυχα φωνὴν didovra, Pausan.
i. 28. 1 Κύλωνα...ἀνέθεσαν τυραννίδα
ὅμως βουλεύσαντα. In classical writers
this displacement of ὅμως, 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 ὦ fortiort
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.
1 sq). See esp. Heb. vi. 16. The
a fortiori character of the reasoning
however is dismissed in the single
word ὅμως, except so far as it is
picked up again in rod Θεοῦ (ver. 17),
and does not reappear, as some have
thought, in ὅς ἐστιν Χριστός.

διαθήκην] ‘a covenant. This word
(frequently in the plural διαθῆκαι) in
classical writers almost always sigui-
fies ‘a will, a testament.’ There are
some few exceptions, however, eg.
Arist. Av. 439 ἣν μὴ διάθωνταί γ᾽ οἵδε
διαθήκην ἐμοί. On the other hand in
the Lxx it is as universally used of
a covenant (most frequently as a trans-

lation of m3), whether as a stipula-
tion between two parties (συνθήκη,
‘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 διαθήκη. 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 ΙΙΧΧ translators and the
New Testament writers probably pre-
ferred διαθήκη to συνθήκη when speak-
ing of the divine dispensation, be-
cause the former term, like ἐπαγγε-
dia, better expresses the free grace
of God. The later Greek translators
frequently substituted συνθήκη, where
the uxx has διαθήκη, sometimes per-
haps not without a polemical aim.

142
16

σπέρματι αὐτοῦ.

ἀθετεῖ Comp. Philo Fragm. τι. p.
675 Μ ἀλλὰ ὅτι ἡ διαθήκη ἀθετεῖται.

ἐπιδιατάσσεται] ‘adds fresh clauses.’
Virtually the doctrine of the Judaizers
was the annulling of the promise (ἀθέ-
tnots); apparently it was but the im-
posing new conditions (ἐπιδιάταξις).
On either shewing it was a violation
of the covenant. The meaning of ém-
διατάσσεσθαι is partially illustrated by
ἐπιδιαθήκη, Which signifies ‘a second
will, Joseph. B. J. ii. 2. 3 ἀξιῶν τῆς
ἐπιδιαθήκης τὴν διαθήκην εἶναι κυριωτέ-
ραν, and § 6, Ant. xvii. 9. 4.

16. ἐρρέθησαν] For the form see
Lobeck Phryn. p. 447, Buttmann
Ausf. Sprachi, τι. p. 165.

ἐπαγγελίαι] The plural, for the pro-
mise was several times repeated to
Abraham: comp. Rom. ix. 4, and 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 καὶ
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 λέγει] seems to be used imper-
sonally, like the Attic φησὶ in quoting
legal documents, the nominative be-
ing lost sight of. If so, we need not
enquire whether ὁ Θεὸς or ἡ γραφὴ is
to be understood. Comp. λέγει, Rom,
xv. 10, Ephes. iv. 8, v. 14; and φησίν,
I Cor. vi. 16, 2 Cor. x. 10 (Υ. 1.).

καὶ τοῖς oméppaowk.t.Ar.| This com-

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

(III. 16

“~ \ A / e > , \ n
τῷ δὲ ABpaau ἐρρέθησαν ai ἐπαγγελίαι, καὶ τῷ
3 ’ ι “ t
οὐ λέγει KAI τοῖς 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 σπέρμα)
is only used to signify ‘grain’ or ‘crops,’
e.g. I Sam. viii. 15, the sacred writer
could not under any circumstances
have said ‘seeds as of many.’ Nor is
it a complete answer to this objection
that the same word in Chaldee is
several times used in the plural in the
sense which it has here; Gen. x. 18,
Josh. vii. 14, Jer. xxxiii. 34. But the
very expression in St Paul, which starts
the objection, supplies the answer also.
It is quite as unnatural to use the
Greek σπέρματα with this meaning, as
to use the Hebrew p'ytt. No doubt
by a forced and exceptional usage
σπέρματα might be so employed, as
in Plato Legg. ix. 853 0 ἄνθρωποί re
καὶ ἀνθρώπων σπέρμασι νομοθετοῦμεν,
4 Mace. ὃ 17 ὦ τῶν ᾿Αβραμιαίων σπερ-
μάτων ἀπόγονοι παῖδες ᾿Ισραηλῖται, 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 τέκνα or οἱ ἀπό-
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

III. 17]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

143

‘ \ A ε 3 \ ‘ a ' ͵
ἐπὶ πολλών, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐφ᾽ Evos Kai τῷ σπέρματί coy,

.« + 7
ὃς ἐστιν Χριστός.

τοῦτο δὲ λέγω" διαθήκην προ-
Y ρ

\ “ ~ \ /
κεκυρωμένην ὑπο τοῦ Θεοῦ ὃ μετὰ τετρακόσια 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
natural ; the Israel after the fiesh 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 promise,’

See especially the remarks of Tho-
luck, Das Alte Test. im Neuen Test.
Pp. 44 sq.

ἐπὶ πολλῶν] See Winer ὃ xlvii. p. 393.

ὅς ἐστιν Χριστός] For the attrac-
tion see Winer § xxiv. p. 206 sq.

17. τοῦτο δὲ λέγω] ‘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 λέγω δὲ
τοῦτο, ὅτι ἕκαστος κιτιλ. 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.

προκεκυρωμένην] 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 Χριστὸν found in the received
text after rod Θεοῦ must be struck
out asa gloss. The balance of autho-
rity is decidedly against it.

τετρακόσια κιτιλ.}] 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, ἡ δὲ κατ-

144

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[III. 18

sf Ent , BOY SS A
τριάκοντα ἔτη γεγονὼς νόμος οὐκ ἀκυροῖ Els TO KaT-

αργῆσαι τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν.
κληρονομία, οὐκέτι ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας"

οἰκησις τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ἣν κατῴκησαν
ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ ἐν γῇ Χαναὰν ἔτη
τετρακόσια τριάκοντα πέντε (the last
word however being erased). The
Alex. Ms reads παροίκησις, παρῴκησαν,
adds after Χαναὰν the words αὐτοὶ καὶ
oi πατέρες αὐτῶν, 80 as to bring out the
revised chronology more clearly, and
omits πέντε. 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. ὃ 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. εἰ yap «.7.A.] ‘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. Νόμος and ἐπαγ-
yeAia are used without the article, as
describing two opposing principles,

οὐκέτι] is here logical, ‘this being
once granted, it is not etc.,’ as Rom.
vii. 17, xi. 6. Ἔτι is so used fre-
quently.

18 > \ > / «
εἰ γαρ ἐκ νόμου ἡ

τῷ δὲ ᾿Αβραὰμ

κεχάρισται] ‘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. First; Instead of justifying
it condemns, instead of giving life it
kills; it was added to reveal and mul-
tiply transgressions. Secondly ; It was
but temporary; when the seed came
to whom the promise was given, it
was annulled. Thirdly; It did not
come direct from God toman, There
was ἃ 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. τί οὖν 6 vopos;] ‘ what then is the
law ?’, as 1 Cor. iii. 5 τί οὖν ἐστὶν
᾿Απολλώς; τί δέ ἐστιν IadAos; the cor-
rect reading. Comp. also Rom, iii, 1.

τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν] How is this
to be interpreted? Is it (1) ‘To check
transgressions’? comp. Clem. Hom. xi.
16 παραπτωμάτων χάριν ἡ τιμωρία ἕπε-
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.
Υ. 20) sin or transgression. The use
of χάριν (comp. I Joh. iii. 12) is sufti-

III. 19]

δι ἐπαγγελίας κεχάρισται ὁ Θεος.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

145

19 7 3 e A τ
TL οὖν O νομος:

cant / / / 7 - »
τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν προσετέθη, ἄχρις οὗ ἔλθη
- > / 4
TO σπέρμα w ἐπήγγελται, διαταγεὶς δι ἀγγέλων ἐν

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 eontext, ‘able to
give life’ (ver. 21), ‘included all under
sin’ (ver. 22). Comp. ii. 10.

προσετέθη] This reading, which is
much better supported than ἐτέθη,
expresses more strongly the adven-
titious character of the law; comp.
ἐπιδιατάσσεται Ver. 15, and Rom. vy. 20
νόμος δὲ παρεισῆλθεν iva πλεονάσῃ
τὸ παράπτωμα.

ἔλθῃ] For the omission of ἂν see
A. Buttmann § 33, p. 198; for the con-
junctive, the note on τρέχω ii. 2.

τὸ σπέρμα x.7.A.| ‘the seed to whom
the promise has been given, i.e. Christ.
ἐπήγγελται 18 probably a passive, as
2 Mace. iv. 27.

duatayeis δ ἀγγέλων] ‘ordered, or
administered by the medium of
angels. The first meution of angels
in connexion with the giving of the
law is in the benediction of Moses,
Deut. xxxiili, 2 wip ΓΔ 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 N33" is unsupported: and
Ewald, Gesch. des V. Isr. 11. 257, still
further changes ΠῚ 2ΔῚ into nan.
The Lxx render the words σὺν μυριάσι
Κάδης, but introduce the angels in the
following clause ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ ἄγγελοι
per’ αὐτοῦ, 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 ἐλά-
Bere τὸν νόμον eis διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων
(comp. vv. 35, 38), Heb. ii. 2. See
also Joseph. Ant. xv. 5. 3 ἡμῶν δὲ τα
κάλλιστα τῶν δογμάτων καὶ τὰ ὁσιώ-
Tara τῶν ἐν τοῖς νόμοις δ ἀγγέλων
παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ μαθόντων, Philo de
Somn. p. 642 M, and the Book of Ju-
bilees c. 1 (Hwald’s Jahrb. 11. p. 233,
I. 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 τ. Ὁ. 226,
Ῥ. 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 (δ ἀγγέλων). 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,

[III. 20, 21

/ \ / \
χειρὶ μεσίτου" “ὁ δὲ μεσίτης ἑνὸς οὐκ ἔστιν, ὃ δὲ

Θεὸς εἷς ἐστίν. “ὁ οὖν

ἐν χειρ!ῇ! A Hebraism or Arama-
ism, nearly equivalent to διά: comp.
Acts vii. 35. Itis a frequent Lxx trans-
lation of “53, occurring especially in
the expression ἐν χειρὶ Mion, 6.8.
Num. iv. 37, 41, 45, etc. In Syriac we

meet with such phrases as (4s05 pa
(1.6. ἐν χειρὶ πνεύματος, Acts iv. 25,
Pesh.), ἰζαι δου σι ,...59 (ic. ἐν χειρὶ
πίστεως, Hab. ii. 4, Hexapl.).

μεσίτου͵ The mediator is Moses.
This is his common title in Jewish
writers. In the apocryphal ἀνάβασις
or ἀνάληψις Moses says to Joshua προ-
εθεάσατό με ὁ Θεὸς mpd καταβολῆς κόσ-
μου εἶναί με τῆς διαθήκης αὐτοῦ μεσί-
την, Fabric. Cod. Pseud. Υ̓. 7. τ. p. 845.
See the rabbinical passages in Wet-
stein, and Philo Vit. Moys. iii. το,
p. 160 M οἷα μεσίτης καὶ διαλλακτής.
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 Moscs appear clearly, e.g.
Exod. xx. 19, and Deut. v. 2, 5, Κύ-
ptos 6 Θεὸς ὑμῶν διέθετο πρὸς ὑμᾶς δια-
θήκην... «κἀγὼ εἱστήκειν ἀνὰ μέσον Κυρίου
καὶ ὑμῶν κιτιλ. The reference in St
Paul seems to be to the first giving
of the law: if extended to its after
administration, the μεσίτης would then
be the high priest; see Philo Mon.

ii. 12, Ὁ. 230 M μεθόριον ἀμφοῖν ἵνα dia

μέσου τινὸς ἄνθρωποι ἱλάσκωνται Θεόν:
but this extension does not seem to
be contemplated here.

On the other hand Origen (rv. 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

/ \ ~ 9
VOMOS κατα τῶν ἐπαγγε-

also Concil. Antioch. (Routh Rel. Saer.
ΠῚ. Ὁ. 295), Huseb. Eccl. Th. i. 20. 11,
Athan. δ. 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 (111. 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. iz
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.

ὁ δὲ μεσίτης ἑνὸς οὐκ ἔστιν) ‘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

III. 22]

~ ~ -- A ,
λιῶν [τοῦ Θεοῦ]; μὴ γένοιτο.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

147
εἰ yap ἐδόθη νόμος

ε 7 lan a LJ / 4“ ἘΝ e
ὁ δυνάμενος ζωοποιῆσαι, ὄντως ἐκ νόμου [ἀν] ἦν ἡ

tA
δικαιοσύνη"

and not absolute. The definite article
with μεσίτης expresses the idea, the
specific type, as 2 Cor. xii. 12 τὰ o7-
μεῖα τοῦ ἀποστόλου, Joh, Χ. II ὁ ποιμὴν
ὃ καλός: see Winer § xviii. p. 132.

ὁ δὲ Θεὸς εἷς ἐστίν] ‘but God (the
giver of the promise) ts one.” Unlike
the luw, the promise is absolute and
unconditional. It depends on the sole
decree of God. There are not two
contracting parties. There is nothing
of the nature of a stipulation. The
giver is everything, the recipient no-
thing. Thus the primary sense of
‘one’ here is numerical. The further
idea of unchangeableness may per-
haps be suggested; but if so, it is
rather accidental than inherent. On
the other hand this proposition is
quite unconnected with the funda-
mental statement of the Mosaic law,
‘The Lord thy God is one God, though
resembling it in form.

21. ‘Thus the law 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.’

τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν) The plural. See the
note on ver. 16.

νύμος ὃ δυνάμενος] ‘a law, such as
could,” For the position of the arti-
cle see note i. 7,and comp. Acts iv. 12.

ζωοποιῆσαι] including alike the spi-
ritual life in the present and the glo-
rified life in the future, for in the
Apostle’s conception the two are
blended together and inseparable.
The ‘inheritance’ applies to both.
Compare the scriptural use of ‘salva-
tion,’ ‘the kingdom of heaven,’ etc.

22, 23. In this metaphor, which

/ \
“ἀλλὰ συνέκλεισεν ἡ γραφὴ Ta πάντα

describes the position of the Jews
before Christ, two ideas are involved.
First, that of constraint or oppres-
sion. They were brought under the
dominion of sin, were locked up in
its prison-house, and so were made
to feel its power. Secondly, that of
watchful care. They were fenced
about as a peculiar people, that in
due time they might become the de-
pository of the Gospel and the centre
of its diffusion. The first idea is pro-
minent in ver. 22, the second appears
in ver. 23.

22. ‘On the contrary, as the pas-
sage of Scripture testifies, the law con-
demned all alike, yet not finally and
irrevocably, but only as leading the
way for the dispensation of faith, the
fulfilment of the promise.’

συνέκλεισεν ἡ γραφή] 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. 1o—
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 γραφὴ 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 γραφαί is universally
found, e.g. Acts xvii. 11, xviii. 24, 28.
(2) We meet with such expressions
as ‘another scripture’ (Joh. xix. 37),
‘this scripture’ (Luke iv. 21), ‘every
scripture’ (2 Tim. iii, 16). (3) ‘H

10-2

148

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

(IIT. 23, 24

© \ e / e/ c > / 3 , 3 “-“
ὑπὸ ἀμαρτίαν, ἵνα ἡ ἐπαγγελία EK πίστεως Ιησοῦ

~ ~ a f
Χριστοῦ δοθῆ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν.

3ϑ'πρὸ τοῦ δὲ ἐλθεῖν

A , e A / > / / >
THY πίστιν, ὑπὸ νόμον ἐφρουρούμεθα συνκλειομενοι εἰς

τὴν μέλλουσαν πίστιν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι.

ε ,
4΄στε ὁ VO-

~ / ’ / 3
μος παιδαγωγὸς ἡμῶν γέγονεν εἰς Χριστόν, ἵνα ἐκ

γραφὴ 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. lxix.
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
βιβλία to the ‘ Bible,’

συνέκλεισεν ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν 1.6. sub-
jected to the dominion of sin without
means of escape, ἃ pregnant expres-
sion: comp. Rom. xi. 32 συνέκλεισεν
yap ὁ Θεὸς τοὺς πάντας eis ἀπείθειαν iva
τοὺς πάντας ἐλεήσῃ. The word συγκλεί-
εἰν seems never to mean simply ‘to
include’ The A.V. has the more
correct but somewhat ambiguous ren-
dering ‘conclude’ here. Συγκλείειν εἰς is
acommon construction; see Fritzsche
Rom. τι. p. 545.

ra πάνταὶ The neuter is naturally
used where the most comprehensive
term is wanted: comp. 1 Cor. i. 27,
Col. i. 20, Ephes. i. ro.

iva] The consciousness of sin is a
necessary step towards justification.
See note ii. 19, and comp. Rom. Le.

ἐκ πίστεως κιτιλ.] Not a mere tauto-
logy after τοῖς πιστεύουσιν. 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. Ἶ

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. ἐφρουρούμεθα συνκλειόμενοι}
‘were shut up and kept in ward’:
comp. Wisd. xvii. 15 ἐφρουρεῖτο εἰς
τὴν ἀσίδηρον εἱρκτὴν κατακλεισθείς,
Plut. de Def: Orac. p. 426 B οὐδὲ
φρουρεῖν συγκλείσαντας τῇ ὕλῃ.

The use of πίστις 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) The faith,
the Gospel, the objective teaching, the
system of which ‘faith’ is the leading
feature. See the note i. 23, and p. 157.

24. παιδαγωγός Comp. 1 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 διδάσκαλος, 80 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; Σὲ αὐτὸν
ἐῶσιν ἄρχειν σεαυτοῦ, ἢ οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἐπι-
τρέπουσί σοι; Πῶς γάρ, ἔφη, ἐπιτρέ-
πουσιν; ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἄρχει τίς σου; "Ode παι-
δαγωγός, ἔφη. Μῶν δοῦλος ὦν; ᾿Αλλὰ
τί μήν; ἡμέτερός γε, ἔφη. Ἦ δεινόν, ἦν
δ᾽ ἐγώ, ἐλεύθερον ὄντα ὑπὸ δούλου ἄρχε-
σθαι" τί δὲ ποιῶν αὖ οὗτος ὁ παιδαγωγός
σου ἄρχει; ἼΑγων δήπου, ἔφη, εἰς διδασ-
κάλου. Μῶν μὴ καὶ οὗτοί σου ἄρχουσιν,

III. 25—27]

πίστεως δικαιωθώμεν"

3 ε ’ 3
οὐκέτι ὑπὸ παιδαγωγὸν ἐσμεν.
Θεοῦ ἐστὲ διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ"

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

55 ἐλθούσης δὲ

149

,
πίστεως
’ \
πάντες yap viol

τῆς
26

ε
δσοι

3 \ > /
γὰρ eis Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε.

οἱ διδάσκαλοι; Lavras δήπου. ἸΤαμπόλ-
λους ἄρα σοι δεσπότας καὶ ἄρχοντας ἑκὼν
ὁ πατὴρ ἐφίστησιν. On the ‘ pedago-
gus’ see Becker and Marquardt Rom.
Alt. γ. τ, Ὁ. 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 παι-
δαγωγός, IIH (see Schéttgen here),
and in the Jerusalem Targum it is
used to translate ᾿ξ (A.V. ‘a nursing
father’) Numb. xi. 12.

The tempting explanation of παιδα-
yoyos eis Χριστόν, ‘one to conduct us
to the school of Christ,’ ought pro-
bably to be abandoned. Even if this
sense did not require πρὸς Χριστὸν or
εἰς Χριστοῦ, 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 εἰς ἄνδρα τέλειον (‘full grown’), εἰς
μέτρον ἡλικίας τοῦ πληρώματος τοῦ
Χριστοῦ. The metaphor of the pzeda-
gogus seems to have grown out of
ἐφρουρούμεθα and thus the main idea
is that of strict supervision. The παι-
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. Wum. 15 ἐκ δὲ τοιαύτης
παιδαγωγίας πρὸς TO θεῖον οὕτως ἡ πόλις
ἐγεγόνει χειροήθης κιτιλ., and Liban. rv,
437 ed. Reiske (quoted in Wetstein)
πρῶτον μὲν νύμῳ παιδαγωγήσομεν αὐτῶν
τὴν προαίρεσιν, ὡς ἂν τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου
ζημίαν ἀναδυόμεναι σωφρονεῖν ἀναγκά-
fovra.

25, 26. ἐσμέν, ἐστέ] See a similar

instance of the interchange of the first
and second persons in 1 Thess. v. 5
πάντες yap ὑμεῖς viol φωτός ἐστε καὶ
υἱοὶ ἡμέρας" οὐκ ἐσ μὲν νυκτὸς οὐδὲ σκό-
τους.

26. πάντες γὰρ κιτιλ.] Sfor ye all
are sons of God by your faith, sons of
God in Christ Jesus’ The stress of
the sentence lies on πάντες and υἱοί ;
‘all, Jews and Gentiles alike, those
under the law and those without the
law ; ‘sons’ (υἱοί), claiming therefore
the privileges, the liberty of sons, so
that the rigorous supervision of the
tutor (παιδαγωγός) ceases when you
cease to be children (παῖδες).

υἱοὶ Θεοῦ] 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 guile-
lessness and love, e.g. 1 Joh. iii. 1, 2,
10, In accordance with this distinc-
tion St Paul uses υἱοὶ as well as τέκνα,
St John τέκνα only.

ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ] The context shows
that these words must be separated
from διὰ ris πίστεως. 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 ali
ye, who were baptized into Christ, did
put on Christ’: yap introduces the
explanation of the foregoing ἐν Χριστῷ
Ἰησοῦ.

ἐνεδύσασθε) The metaphor has been
supposed to be taken from the white
garments in which the newly baptized
were clothed; see Bingham Christ,
Aniig. xi. 11,§ 1. It is scarcely pro-
bable however that the ceremonial of

150

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[III. 28, 2g

/ - ε > ’ ag)
αδ οὐκ ἔνι ᾿Ιουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ
3 ’ 3 ᾽ of \ ΄σ ΄ \ ε ~
ἐλείθερος, οὐκ eu ἀρσεν καὶ θῆλυν: πάντες yap ὑμεῖς

- ? \ > ΄σ ’ “~
eis ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ἰησοῦ.

et δὲ ὑμεῖς Χριστοῦ,

28. ἅπαντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς.

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 (αἰσχύνην), xxix. 14 (δικαιο-
σύνην), XXXix. 19 (φόβον), Ps. xxxiv. 26
(αἰσχύνην καὶ ἐντροπήν), xcil. I (evmpé-
πειαν, δύναμιν), iil. I, ete. ; COMp. ἐγκομ-
βοῦσθαι τ Pet. v. 5. See also Schitt-
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 barricr 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
@ promise, which no law can set aside.’

οὐκ ἔνι] ‘there is no room for, no
place for, negativing not the fact
only, but the possibility, as James i. 17
map ᾧ οὐκ ἕνι mapaddayn. The right
account of ἔνε seems to be given by
Winer ὃ xiv. p. 96. It is not ἃ con-
traction of ἔνεστι, but the preposition
ἐν, evi, Strengthened by a more vigor-
ous accent, like ἔπι, πάρα, and used
with an ellipsis of the substantive verb.

Ἕλλην») See the note ii. 3.

ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ] The connecting par-
ticle is perhaps changed in the third
clause, because the distinction now
mentioned is different in kind, no
longer social but physical. There may

be an allusion to Gen. i. 27 ἄρσεν καὶ
θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς, and if so, this
clause will form a climax: ‘even the
primeval distinction of sex has ceased.’
Comp. Ool. 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. Ὁ. 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.Lc. Foranother coincidence
of St Paul’s language with a saying
attributed to our Lord, but not found
in the Gospels, see 1 Thess, vy. 21.

els ἐστέ] ‘are one man’ Comp.
Ephes. ii. 15 rods δύο κτίσῃ ἐν αὑτῷ eis
ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον, and Justin Dial.
§ 116, p. 344 B οὕτως ἡμεῖς of διὰ τοῦ
Ἰησοῦ ὀνόματος ὡς els ἄνθρωπος πιστεύ-
σαντες...τὰ ῥυπαρὰ ἱμάτια ἀπημφιεσ-
μένοι κιτιλ., Which seems to be ἃ re-
miniscence of this passage of St’ Paul.
The neuter ἕν, found in some texts,
destroys the point of the expression,
the oneness as ὦ conscious agent.

29. Χριστοῦ] ‘are part of Christ,
are members of Christ, not merely

TIT. 29]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[51

af Oe 9 \ , 2 / 3 3 “
ἄρα τοῦ ᾿Αβραὰμ σπέρμα ἐστέ, κατ᾽ ἐπαγγελίαν

κληρονόμοι.

‘are the property of Christ, are serv-
ants of Christ.’ The argument turns
on the entire identity of the Christian
brotherhood with Christ.

ἄρα τοῦ ᾿Αβραάμ) ‘then being one
with Christ, ye are Abraham’s seed’ ;

for He is that seed of Abraham, to
whom the promise was given. See the
note on ver. 16.

κατ᾽ ἐπαγγελίαν) emphatic; ‘heirs
indeed, but heirs by promise, not by
law. See ver. 18.

152

Ambiguity
of the
Hebrew.

Two ren-
derings.

() Lxx and
ὁ 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 ΡΠ pnbs nbsp "5, ‘for (the) curse of
God (is) he that is hanged.’ The ambiguity arises out of the construction
of πος, since the case attached to nbsp may denote cither the person
who pronounces the curse, as Judges ix. 57 (on) nbbp) and 2 Sam. xvi. 12
(indSp in the Q’ri), or the person against whom the curse is pronounced, as
Gen. xxvii. 13 (πὸ) ; 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, κεκατηραμένος ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, adopted in substance, it
would appear, by St Paul; and seems to have obtained the sufirages 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, Siphrt*, and in the so-called Targum of Jonathan®. This rendering
appeared also in the Ebionite Gospel*. And in one of the earliest Chris-
tian apologies, a Jewish interlocutor brought forward this text, quoting it
in the form, ‘He that hangeth is a reviling of God®.’ It is found more-

1 Aquila and Theodotion rendered 4 At least so I understand the lan.

it κατάρα Θεοῦ κρεμάμενος ; see Field’s
Hexapla τ. 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.

s δον ands otp ΒΓ
“4, ‘it is contempt before God to
hang ἃ man.’

guage of Jerome, l.c., ‘ Haec verba Ebion
ille haeresiarches semichristianus et se-
mijudaeus ita interpretatus est, ὅτι ὕβρις
Θεοῦ ὁ κρεμάμενος, id est, quia injuria
Dei est suspensus,’

5 Hieron. l.c., ‘Memini me in alter.
catione Iasonis et Papisci quae Graeco
sermone conscripta est ita reperisse,
λοιδορία Θεοῦ ὁ κρεμάμενος, 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 D'n>N as the object, not the sub-
ject, of nddp.

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 welcomed*. An interpretation
started in this way would at length become traditional 4.

But it was especially in controversies with the Christians, as I have The text
mentioned, that the Jews availed themselves of this passage. In whatever νος ad Ἶ
way interpreted, it would seem to them equally available for their purpose. against
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 Pau! 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 hlasphemeth
God shall be hanged.’

pretation of a learned rabbi of our own
time: ‘L’impiccato ὃ (produce) impreca-

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.’

8 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 Schdtt-
gen here. The following is the inter-

zione contro Dio (cioé: il lasciare il ca-
davere esposto lungo tempo alla pub-
blica vista non pud che irritare gli
animi, e indurli ad esecrare i giudici e
le leggi) : 6 (oltraccid) non devi rendere
impura la tua terra etc.,’ Luzzatto 11
Pentateuco, Trieste 1858.

5 In the ‘Dispute of Jason and Pa-
piscus’; see above, p. 152, note 5, and
Routh Rel. Sacr. τ. p. 95.

6 Dial. c. Tryph. 6. 96, p. 323 9.

7 Adv. Judaeos § το.

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-
duewm, Migne’s Patr, Lat. xx. p.1174 8B.

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 (τιμωρίαν ἄλλην
προσδιατάττεται κελεύων τοὺς ἀνελόντας ἀνασκολοπίζεσθαι). 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. xviii. 32) sees a pro-
vidence in the delivering over of our Lord to the Romans to be put to
death, so that He might die in the manner He himself had foretold. It
had been employed occasionally in seasons of tumult by their own princes’,
but was regarded as an act of great atrocity. Even the Roman looked
upon crucifixion with abhorrence*. To the Jew it was especially hateful,
owing in part no doubt to the curse attaching to this ignominious exposure
of the body in the passage of Deuteronomy. For though this passage did
not contemplate death by crucifixion, the application was quite legitimate.
It was the hanging, not the death, that brought ignominy on the sufferer
and defilement on the land. Hence the Chalgee paraphrase of Deutero-
nomy employs the same word (25x) 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 (Sn, ‘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,

The words denoting ‘ Faith.’

The Hebrew 731s, the Greek πίστις, the Latin ‘fides, and the English
‘faith,’ hover between two meanings; trustfulness, 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, τι. p. 324 M.

2 Joseph. Ant. xiii. 14. 2, referred
to in Winer Realw. 5. 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. Saer. p. 163
sq.
3 Cic. Verr. v. 64 ‘crudelissimum
teterrimumque supplicium.’

4 Hisenmenger’s Entd. Judenth. 1.
pp. 88 sq, 287, 496. On the Greek
terms σταυροῦν, σκολοπίζειν, 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, belief—
these are the links which connect the two extremes, the passive with the
active meaning of ‘faith.’ Owing to these combined causes, the two senses
will at times be so blended together that they can only be separated by
some arbitrary distinction. When the members of the Christian brother-
hood, for instance, are called ‘the faithful, of πιστοί, 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.

155

sometimes
combined.

1, The Hebrew word signifying ‘to believe, to trust,’ is the Hiphil }"pxn. i. Hebrew.
The Kal }>s would mean ‘to strengthen, support, hold up,’ but is only found 77)>%

in the active participle, used as a substantive with the special sense, ‘ one
who supports, nurses, trains a child’ (παιδαγωγός, see note, Gal, iii. 24), and
in the passive participle ‘firm, trustworthy.’ The Niphal accordingly
means, ‘to be firm, lasting, constant, trusty’; while the Hiphii }oxn, 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,
2 or 5), and is rendered πιστεύω 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 7))N, ‘firmness, constancy, trust-
worthiness. This word is rendered in the Lxx most frequently by ἀλή-
θεια, ἀληθινός (twenty-four times), or by πίστις, πιστός, ἀξιόπιστος (twenty
times); once it is translated ἐστηριγμένος (Exod. xvii. 12), once πλοῦτος
(Ps. xxxvi. 3, where Symm. had διηνεκῶς, Aq. πίστιν). It will thus be seen
that 3s properly represents the passive sense of πίστις, as indeed the
form of the word shows. But it will at times approach near to the active
sense; for constancy under temptation or danger with an Israelite could
only spring from reliance on Jehovah. And something of this transitional
or double sense it has in the passage of Habakkuk ii. 4%. The lati-
tude of the Lxx translation, πίστις, 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 73\nN 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. iii. 7.
referred to the act of persuading they 5. See the note on Gal. iii, rr.

156

Aramaic.

ii. Greek.
πίστις.

Classical
writers.

Old Tesia-
ment,

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

The influence 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 ᾿ξ, but from the conjugation Aphel (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\20°N, and the

Syriac renders πίστις in the New Testament by the same word ἸΖαλουσι.

2. Unlike the Hebrew, the Greek word seems to have started from
the active meaning. In its earliest use it is opposed to ‘distrust’; Hesiod
Op. 342 πίστεις δ᾽ Gp τοι ὁμῶς καὶ ἀπιστίαι ὥλεσαν ἄνδρας (comp. Theogn.
831 πίστει χρήματ᾽ ἀπώλεσ᾽ ἀπιστίῃ δ᾽ ἐσάωσα); and this is perhaps the sense
most favoured by analogy4. 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. Aisch. Fragm. 276 οὐκ ἀνδρὸς ὅρκοι πίστις ἀλλ᾽ ὅρκων ἀνήρ : and πίστις
became a common technical term for a ‘proof’ The transition was aided
by the indefiniteness of the grammatical form, and such phrases as πίστιν
ἔχειν τινός 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 πιστὸς has both meanings, ‘trusty,’ as Hom. 177. xvi.
147 πιστότατος δέ οἱ ἔσκε, and ‘trustful, as Alsch. Prom. 917 τοῖς πεδαρσίοις
κτύποις πιστός. So also ἄπιστος means both ‘incredulous’ (Hom, Od. xiv.
150), and ‘incredible’ (isch. 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’, πίστις 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 πιστὸς with any but the passive sense.

1 Compare λῆστις, μνῆστις, Buttm. Strom. ii. p. 432, Potter. With these

Ausf. Sprachl. § 119. 24.

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,’ ἸῸΝ,
where it is plainly passive), and Hab. ii.
43 see note 4.

3 Besides MIN, it occurs as a ren-
dering of }}}DN, TION, NON, and once
as a paraphrase of nid, Prov. xv. 28.
In all these words the passive sense is
evident.

‘ii. 4. The original reading of the
Luxx is not clear. In the Vat. and Sin.
Mss it is ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεώς μου, in
the Alex, and others ὁ δὲ δίκαιός μου ἐκ
πίστεως. In Hebr. x. 38 too (though
not without various readings) pov fol-
lows δίκαιος. Comp. also Clem, Alex.

data it is difficult to decide between
two solutions; either (1) It may be in-
ferred from the varying position of μου
that the word had no place in the ori-
ginal text of the txx; in this case St
Paul (Gal. iii. rr, Rom.i, 17) may have
quoted directly from the ixx; or (2)’Ex
πίστεώς μου was the original reading,
afterwards altered into μου ἐκ πίστεως to
remove any ambiguity as to the sense.
In this latter case the uxx translators
must have read ‘MIN ‘my faith’ (for
JNIVWONA ‘his faith,’ the present He-
brew text), and perhaps intended their
rendering ἐκ πίστεώς μου to be under-
stood, ‘by faith in me’ (see however
Rom. iii. 3 τὴν πίστιν τοῦ Θεοῦ). That
the Hebrew text was the same in the
first and second centuries as at present,
may be inferred not only from St Paul’s

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 Pha-
to act as a check, and how easily the one runs into the other; e.g. Ecclus,
xlvi. 15 ἐν πίστει αὐτοῦ ἠκριβάσθη προφήτης καὶ ἐγνώσθη ἐν πίστει αὐτοῦ
πιστὸς ὁράσεως, τ Mace. ii. 52 ᾿Αβραὰμ οὐχὶ ἐν πειρασμῷ εὑρέθη πιστὸς καὶ
ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην; Heclus, xlix. 10 ἐλυτρώσατο αὐτοὺς ἐν πίστει
ἐλπίδος. 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 πίστις, ‘faith,’ ‘belief? had a
recognised value as a theological term.

In the New Testament πίστις is found in both its passive and its active New Tes-
sense. On the one hand it is used for constancy, trustworthiness, whether tament.
of the immutable purpose of God, Rom. iii. 3 τὴν πίστιν τοῦ Θεοῦ καταρ-
γήσει, or of good faith, honesty, uprightness in men, Matt, xxiii. 23 ἀφήκατε
τὰ βαρύτερα τοῦ νόμου, τὴν κρίσιν καὶ τὸ ἔλεος καὶ τὴν πίστιν (see the note on
Gal. vy. 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 πίστις, as a Christian
virtue, certainly has the active meaning, ‘trust ‘belief.’ But the use of
the adjective οἱ πιστοὶ 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 μὴ γίνου ἄπιστος ἀλλὰ πιστός (comp.
Gal. 111. 9), sometimes the passive, as Apoc. ii. 10 γίνου πιστὸς ἄχρι θανάτου.
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 πιστὸς is in other connexions by far the most common,
even in the New Testament; for the other, that its opposite ἄπιστος cer-
tainly means an ‘unbeliever.’ Is not a rigid definition of the sense in such
ὃ 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! ?

πιστός.

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 τι. p. ror (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
οἱ πιστοὶ is an illustration of this diffi-
culty. The expression τὸ εὐαγγέλιον
τοῦ Χριστοῦ isanother. What is meant
by ‘the Gospel of Christ’? Is it the
Gospel which speaks of Christ, or the
Gospel which was delivered by Christ,

158

iii. Latin.
Sides.

English.

Results of
the fore-

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

3. It has been seen that the meaning of the Greek πίστις was reflected
on its Hebrew original. No less was this meaning infused into its Latin
rendering. The verb πιστεύω was naturally translated by ‘credo,’ but this
root supplied no substantive corresponding to πίστις, no adjective (for
‘credulus’ was stamped with a bad meaning) corresponding to πιστός.
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 πίστις 2, 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 πιστοὶ 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 πίστις, πιστοί, 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.

Lhe 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

or the Gospel which belongs to Christ?
or rather, does it not combine all these
meanings in itself?

1 Instances of such expressions are,
‘facere fidem alicui,’ ‘ habere fidem ali-
cui’; comp. Ter. Heaut. iii. 3. το ‘ Mihi
fides apud hunce est me nihil facturum.’
The trustworthiness, demonstrability,
proof of the object, transferred to the
subject, becomes ‘assurance, conviction,’
and so Cicero Parad. 9, in reference to
arguments in public speaking says,
‘fides est firma opinio.’ See the whole
passage. This sense of ‘conviction ’ is,
I believe, the nearest approach to the
Christian use of the term. It never,
so far as I am aware, signifies trustful-
ness, confidence, as a quality inherent
or abiding in a person. To assert a
negative however is always dangerous,
and possibly wider knowledge or re-

search would prove this position un-
tenable. At all events the ordinary
sense of ‘fides’ in classical writers is
‘trustworthiness, credit, fidelity to en-
gagements.’

2 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. ii. 163, 165, Tuse. 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 παρρησία, less often
of πεποίθησις, θάρσος, but never of zi-
ors. 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. ton.
Awe is the prominent idea in the earlier dispensation, trust in the later.

At the same time, though the word itself is not found in the Old Testament,

the idea is not absent; for indeed a trust in the Infinite and Unseen, sub-
ordinating thereto all interests that are finite and transitory, is the very

essence of the higher spiritual life.

In Abraham, the father of the chosen race, this attitude of trustfulness Lesson of

was most marked. By faith he left home and kindred, and settled in a Abra-
strange land: by faith he acted upon God’s promise of a race and an inhe- faith
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 πίστις, in the Aramaic 813%, 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 eta δῇ
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 Grzeco-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 °°**8™
commented upon’. The passage of Genesis (xv. 6), doubly familiar to us
from the applications in the New Testament, is quoted or referred to at

1 Acts vii. 2—5, Rom. iv. 16—22, the direct subject of comment in the
Heb. xi. 8—12, 17—19. works of Philo entitled De Migrat.
2; Mace. ii. 52. Other less distinct <Abrah.1. p. 436 (Mangey), De Abrah.
references in the Apocrypha to the 11. p.1, Quaest.in Gen. p. 167 (Aucher),
faith of Abraham are 2 Macc. i. 2, He- * besides being discussed in scattered
clus. xliv. 19—21. In both passages passages, especially in Quis Rer. Div.
πιστὸς occurs, but not πίστις. Her. i. p. 473, De Mutat. Nom. 1. p.
8 The history of Abraham is made 578.

160

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
ma ese for the most part the coincidence is confined to the remarks on Abraham’s

wai faith. Sometimes indeed faith is deposed from its sovereign throne by
being co-ordinated with piety’, or by being regarded as the reward? rather
than the source of a godly life. But far more generally it reigns supreme
in his theology. It is ‘the most perfect of virtues‘,’ ‘the queen of virtues®.’
It is ‘the only sure and infallible good, the solace of life, the fulfilment of
worthy hopes, barren of evil and fertile in good, the repudiation of the
powers of evil, the confession of piety, the inheritance of happiness, the
entire amelioration of the soul, which leans for support on Him who is the
cause of all things, who is able to do all things, and willeth to do those
which are most excellent®.’ They that‘ preserve it 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, Abraham by instruction, Isaac by nature, Jacob by ascetic disci-
pline®, Abraham therefore is the type of διδασκαλικὴ ἀρετή, 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 Chaldza to Charran,
from Charran to the promised land™, For Chaldzea, 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?

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

The story
of Abra-
ham an
allegory.

His mi-
- grations.

1 Leg. Alleg. 1. p. 132, Quod Deus aus, εὐδαιμονίας κλῆρος, nor is it easy to

Imm. τ. p. 273, de Migr. Abr. τ. p. 443,
Quis Rer. Div. Her. 1. pp. 485, 486, de
Mut. Nom. τ. pp. 605, 606, 611, de Abr.
II. p. 39, de Praem. et Poen. τι, Ῥ. 413,
de Nob. τι. p. 442.

2 de Migr. Abr. τ. Ὁ. 456 rls οὖν 7
κόλλα (i.e. which unites him to God);
tis; εὐσέβεια δήπου καὶ πίστι».

3 de Praem. et Poen. Il. Ὁ. 412 ἐκ τύ-
gov μεθορμισάμενος πρὸς ἀλήθειαν, διδακ-
τικῇ χρησάμενος ἀρετῇ πρὸς τελείωσιν
ἦθλον αἱρεῖται τὴν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν πίστιν.

4 Quis Rer. Div. Her. 1. p. 485 τὴν
τελειοτάτην ἀρετῶν πίστιν.

5 de Abr. τι. p. 39 τὴν βασιλίδα τῶν
ἀρετῶν.

8 de Abr. l.c. Iam not sure that 1
have caught the meaning of the words,
κακοδαιμονίας ἀπόγνωσις, εὐσεβείας γνῶ-

find an adequate English rendering for
them.

7 Quis Rer. Div. Her. τ. p. 487.

8 de Praem. et Poen. τι. p. 413 ἀκλι-
νοῦς καὶ βεβαιοτάτης πίστεως K.T.ey
comp. de Nob. τι. p. 442.

9 Διδασκαλία, φύσις, ἄσκησις, de Mut.
Nom. τ. p. 580, de Abr. τ. p. 9, de Praem.
et Poen. 1. p. 412.

10 The change of name from Abram
to Abraham betokens this progress, de —
Cherub. τ. p. 139, de Mut. Nom. τ. p.
588, de Abr. 11. p. 13, Quaest. in Gen.
Ῥ. 213 (Aucher).

11 On the meaning of Chaldwa and
Charran see de Migr. Abr. τ. p. 463 8q,

_ de Somn. 1. p. 626 sq, de Abr. τι. p. τι

sq, de Nob. τι. 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 thereby1, 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 #nd inhe-
rich possession of wisdom, the lordship of the spirit over the domain of the “icomaties
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 shonepte ust
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 4 Esdras.
can be attributed with any confidence to the Apostolic age, great stress is
laid on faith. In the last days, it is said, ‘the land of faith shall be barren’

(or ‘the land 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’ (v. 24). Immunity from punishment is promised to the man
‘who can escape by his works and by his faith whereby he has believed’
(ix. 8). God watches over those ‘who have good works and faith in the
Most High’ (xiii. 31)*.

There is however other evidence besides. For though the extant works
of Rabbinical Judaism are, as written documents and in their present form,
for the most part the productions of a later age, there can be little doubt
that they embody more ancient traditions, and therefore reflect fairly,
though with some exceptions, the Jewish teaching at the Christian era.

Thus the importance then attached to faith, and the significance assigned

1 de Migr. Abr. 1.6. p. 465 τρῴώγλη 4 Quis Rer. Div, Her.t. p. 487, Quaest.
τὸ τῆς αἰσθήσεως xwplov,comp.de Somn. in Gen. p. 216 (Aucher).

lc. 5 Quaest. in Gen. p. 188 (Aucher),
2 de Migr. Abr. τ. p. 437. § 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. 311: ‘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-
cousness... 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 righieous liveth of his faith...Great is
faith’; with more to the same effect. This passage should be taken in
connexion with the comment in Siphrvi 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 Ὁ. 5 a,
Maimonides on Mishna Sanhedr. p.
121 a, referred toin Gfrérer Jahrh. des
Heils τι. p. 162.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, 163

If we look only to the individual man, faith with Philo is substantially St Paul
the same as faith with St Paul. The lessons drawn from the history of #24 Philo.
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 St Paul

Judaism was weak, and weak where it was strong. The oppressive rule of 20d Ju-
Syrians and Romans had served only to develope and strengthen the anna
national feeling. ‘We are Abraham’s sons, we have Abraham to our aio
father’: such was their religious war-cry, full of meaning to every true
Israelite. It was a protest against selfish isolation. It spoke of a
corporate life, of national hopes and interests, of an outward community,
a common brotherhood, ruled by the same laws and animated by the same
feelings. In other words, it kept alive the idea of a Church. This was the
point of contact between St Paul’s teaching and Rabbinical Judaism. But
their agreement does not go much beyond this. With them indeed he
upheld the faith of Abraham as an example to Abraham’s descendants.
But, while they interpreted it as a rigorous observance of outward ordi-
nances, he understood by it a spiritual state, a steadfast reliance on the
unseen God. With them too he clung to the fulfilment of the promise, he
cherished fondly the privileges of a son of Abraham. But to him the link
of brotherhood was no longer the same blood, but the same spirit: they
only were Abraham’s sons who inherited Abraham’s faith.

Thus the coincidences and contrasts of St Paul’s doctrine of faith and of Summary.
his application of Abraham’s history with the teaching of the Jewish doctors
are equally instructive. With the Alexandrian school it looked to the growth
of the individual man, with the Rabbinical it recognised the claims of the
society : with the one it was spiritual, with the other it was historical. On
the other hand, it was a protest alike against the selfish, esoteric, individual-
ising spirit of the one, and the narrow, slavish formalism of the other.

This sketch is very far from doing justice to St Paul’s doctrine of faith. Other ele.
In order fully to understand its force, or indeed to appreciate its leading ™ents in
conception, it would be necessary to take into account the atoning death Ὑρκνρρτὰς
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-

II—2

164

Compari-
son of St
Paul and
St James,

illustrated
by the
facts col-
lected.

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 (χωρίς) 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
schools of the day, that the meaning of faith was variously explained by
the disputants, that diverse lessons were drawn from it—then the case is
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 elsewhere than in the disciples of St Paul, and the
facts collected above destroy the force of any argument founded on the
mere coincidence of the examples chosen},

1 This view of the Epistle of St
James is taken by Michaelis (v1. p. 302,
Marsh’s 2nded.). Itis also adopted by
Neander: see especially his Pflanzung
Ῥ. 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 οὐχ ws ὑμεῖς

ἀπατᾶτε ἑαυτοὺς καὶ ἄλλοι τινὲς ὑμῖν
ὅμοιοι (i.e. Judaizing Christians) κατὰ
τοῦτο, ot λέγουσιν ὅτι, κἂν ἁμαρτωλοὶ ὦσι
θεὸν δὲ γινώσκουσιν, οὐ μὴ λογίσηται
αὐτοῖς Κύριος ἁμαρτίαν: 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,’

IV. 1]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

165

IV. "Aéyw δέ, ἐφ᾽ ὅσον χρόνον 6 κληρονόμος νήπιός

IV. 1—7. In the former para-
graph St Paul starting from the figure
of the peedagogus 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. νήπιος, προ-
Gecpia), he seems to put forward rather
the general conception of the office of

a guardian, than any definite statute
regulating it. His language indeed
agrees much better with our simpler
modern practice, than with Roman
law, which in this respect was artificial
and elaborate.

‘I described the law as our tutor.
I spoke of our release from its re-
straints. Let me explain my meaning
more fully. An heir during his mi-
nority is treated as a servant. Not-
withstanding his expectations as the
future lord of the property, he is sub-
ject to the control of guardians and
stewards, until the time of release
named in his father’s will arrives. In
like manner mankind itself was a
minor before Christ’s coming. It was
subject, like a child, to the discipline
of external ordinances. At length
when the time was fully arrived, God
sent His own Son into the world, 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,’

I. Λέγω δέ] ‘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 τοῦτο δὲ λέγω, Gal.
iii. 17 (with the note), 1 Cor. i. 12.

νήπιος] ‘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 ἀνήρ), 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. 2

, ἤ / / af \
ἐστιν, οὐδὲν διαφέρει SovAov κύριος πάντων wy, "ἀλλα
ε 3 3 \ 3 / of “
ὑπὸ ἐπιτρόπους ἐστὶν καὶ οἰκονόμους ἄχρι τῆς προθεσ-

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 Rim. Recht. ul. p. 25
sq. Nymos seems to be here ‘a
minor’ in any stage of his minority.
The word is opposed to ἀνήρ, 1 Cor.
xiii. 11, Ephes. iv. 13, 14: comp. Dion.
Hal. iv. 9, Gruter Jnscr. p. 682. 9.
See Philo Leg. ad Cai. 4, 1. p. 549
νήπιον ἔτι ὄντα κομιδῇ καὶ χρήζοντα
ἐπιτρόπων καὶ διδασκάλων καὶ παιδα-
yoyov.

οὐδὲν διαφέρει δούλου] 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 κύριος, Meier Ait. Proc.
p. 450. Prospectively however, though
not actually, the minor was κύριος πάν-
των, which the slave was not.

2. ἐπιτρόπους καὶ οἰκονόμους ‘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., Hil.,
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 ἐπίτροποι are
the boy’s legal representatives, his

guardians (whether ‘curatores’ or
‘tutores’ in Roman law); the οἰκονό-
μοι, stewards or bailiffs appointed to
manage his household or property.
The word ἐπίτροπος elsewhere in the
New Testament, Matt. xx. 8, Luke
viii. 3, is ‘a steward.’ Adopted into
the Rabbinical language (ΘΒ. ΞΔ)
it has a comprehensive meaning, sig-
nifying sometimes a guardian, some-
times a steward : see Schéttgen here
and on Luke viii. 3.

τῆς προθεσμίας 8c. ἡμέρας, ‘the day
appointed beforehand, generally as a
limit to the performance or non-per-
formance of an action; in this case as
the time at which the office of guardian
ceases. A difficulty however presents
itself in πατρός. 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 swb con-
dicione aut ex die certo datus sit’:
comp. Justinian’s Jnstit. τ, 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. ἡμεῖς} ‘we, Jews and Gentiles

IV. 3, 4]

ca ,
μίας TOU πατρὸς.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS,

167

e/ ~ ε 3
βρὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς, ὅτε ἦμεν νήπιοι,

4 ἱΐ \ ~ “Ὁ 4 65 ὃ ὃ , 4°
ὑπὸ Ta στοιχεῖα TOV κόσμου ἡμεν δεδουλωμένοι" “ὃτε

alike, as appears from the whole con-
text. See the note on ver. 11.

τα στοιχεῖα] ‘the elements, 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 Vis, iii. 13), and especially the
heavenly bodies : comp. Clem. Hom. x.
9, 25, Justin Apol. ii. p. 44 A τὰ ovpa-
νια στοιχεῖα, Dial. p. 285 0. They were
probably so called chronologically, as
the elements of time (Theoph. ad Aut.
i. 4 ἥλιος καὶ σελήνη καὶ ἀστέρες στοι-
χεῖα αὐτοῦ εἰσίν, εἰς σημεῖα καὶ εἰς και-
ροὺς καὶ εἰς ἡμέρας καὶ εἰς ἐνιαυτοὺς γε-
γονότα): (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. Ep. ad Diog. ὃ 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
ἡμεῖς, Which must include Jews. The
agreement in favour of this sense of
στοιχεῖα 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.
in 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 λατρεύοντες ἀγγέ-
λοις καὶ ἀρχαγγέλοις, μηνὶ καὶ σελήνῃ.

At all events I can scarcely doubt
that this interpretation of στοιχεῖα 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 κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀν-
θρώπων κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου,
and ii. 20 εἰ ἀπεθάνετε σὺν Χριστῷ ἀπὸ
τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ κόσμου, τί ὡς ζῶντες
ἐν κόσμῳ δογματίζεσθε; In these
passages the words of the context
which are emphasized seem to show
that a mode of instruction is signified
by τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου.

τοῦ κόσμου] ‘of the world, i.e. hav-
ing reference to material and not to
spiritual things, formal and sensuous.
The force of rod κόσμου is best ex-
plained by the parallel passagesalready
cited, Col. ii. 8,20. See below, vi. 14.

4. τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ 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 ἡ προθεσμία
τοῦ πατρός. 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.

fIV. 5

Wea, ‘ / a , , \
δὲ ἦλθεν TO πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς
\ \ lo , , / ε \
TOV υἱον αὐτοῦ, γενόμενον EK γυναικος, γενόμενον ὑπὸ
/ 5 \ ξ \ U > , e/ \ e δι
νόμον, Siva τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον ἐξαγοράση, ἵνα τὴν υἱοθε

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, vy. 19, 21. (2) Positive. The
comparison of the child implies more
than a negative effect. A moral and
spiritual expansion, whichrendered the
world more capable of apprehending
the Gospel than it would have been
at an earlier age, must be assumed,
corresponding to the growth of the
individual; since otherwise the meta-
phor would be robbed of more than
half its meaning.

The primary reference in all this is
plainly to the Mosaic law: but the
whole context shows that the Gentile
converts of Galatia are also included,
and that they too are regarded as hav-
ing undergone an elementary disci-
pline, up to a certain point analogous
to that of the Jews. See the remarks
on ver. II.

πλήρωμα] the complement. On this
word see Colossians, Ὁ. 257 8q.

ἐξαπέστειλεν] ‘He sent forth from
Himself, as His representative’: ‘ex

caelo ὦ 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.

γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός] 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. Sanct. v. 12.

γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον] not τὸν νόμον ;

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
born a 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.

τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον] again not τὸν νόμον.
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,
ἐγενόμην τοῖς Ιουδαίοις ws ᾿Ιουδαῖος...
τοῖς ὑπὸ νόμον ὡς ὑπὸ νόμον.

ἐξαγοράσῃ] See the note on iii. 13.

iva, ἵνα] For the repetition of ἵνα,
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.

τὴν viobeciay| not ‘the sonship,’ but
‘the adoption as sons.’ Yiodecia 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]

> f
σίαν ἀπολάβωμεν.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

169

4 / 3 7
ὅτι δέ ἐστε υἱοί, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ

~ ~ ~ ΄. \ 7 a
Θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα TOU υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς Tas καρδίας ἡμῶν,

~ ΄ ς ,
κράζον ᾿Αββᾶ ὁ πατηρ.
says Augustine with true apprecia-
tion, ‘ut distincte intelligamus unicum
Dei filium.’ We are sons by grace;
He is so by nature.

ἀπολάβωμεν] The exact sense of the
preposition will depend on the mean-
ing assigned to υἱοθεσίαν. If υἱοθεσία
be taken as adoption, ἀπολάβωμεν
must signify ‘receive as destined for,
as promised to us, or, as Augustine
says, ‘nec dixit accipiamus, sed reci-
piamus, ut significaret hoc nos ami-
sisse in Adam, ex quo mortales su-
mus. At all events it cannot be
equivalent to λάβωμεν. The change to
the first person plural marks the uni-
versality of the sonship: ‘we, those

under law and those free from law,

alike,’

6. ὅτι ἐστὲ υἱοί] ‘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, xi. 15—18, xv. 8.

κρᾶζον] The word denotes earnest
and importunate prayer, as in Is. xix,
20: comp. James Υ. 4.

"ABBa ὃ πατήρ] Abba is the Aramaic
equivalent to the Greek πατήρ. 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-

4 ee 53 ca >
7@OTE οὐκέτι εἶ δοῦλος, ἀλλὰ

guage which they ordinarily spoke. In
this case, in the passage of St Mark
the words ὁ πατὴρ may perhaps be an
addition of the Evangelist himself, ex-
plaining the Aramaic word after his
wont. Secondly, It may have taken
its rise among the Jews of Palestine
after they had become acquainted with
the Greek language. In this case it is
simply an expression of importunate
entreaty, illustrating the natural mode
of emphasizing by repetition of the
same idea in different forms, This
latter explanation seems simpler, and
best explains the expression as coming
from our Lord’s lips. It is moreover
supported by similar instances given
in Schéttgen, 11. p. 252: e.g. ἃ woman
entreating a judge addresses him ‘1
5, the second word being κύριε, the
Greek equivalent to the Aramaic "2
‘my Lord” For other examples see
Rev. ix. 11 (AmoAAvor, ᾿Αβαδδών), xii. 9,
XX. 2 (Σατανᾶς, Διάβολος). Whichever
explanation be adopted, this phrase is
a speaking testimony to that fusion of
Jew and Greek which prepared the
way for the preaching of the Gospel
to the heathen. Accordingly St Paul
in both passages seems to dwell on it
with peculiar emphasis, as a type of
the union of Jew and Gentile in Christ:
comp. iii. 28.

*ABBa] In Chaldee S38, in Syriac

1a]. In the latter dialect it is said

to have been pronounced with a dou-
ble ὃ when applied to a spiritual father,
with a single 6 when used in its first
sense: see Bernstein’s Lew. s. v. and
comp. Hoffmann, Gramm. Syr. 1. 1,
§ 17. With the double letter at all
events it has passed into the Huropean
languages, as an ecclesiastical term,
‘abbas,’ ‘abbot. The Peshito in ren-
dering ᾿Αββᾶ 6 πατὴρ can only repeat
the word, ‘Father our Father, in all

170

\ ’ , ce
vios* εἰ δὲ vids, καὶ κληρονόμος διὰ Θεοῦ.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS,

[IV. 8,9

> \ /
δἀλλὰ πότε

\ > > , \ 2D 7 ΄- ἤ \ o
μὲν οὐκ εἰδοτες Θεὸν ἐδουλεύσατε τοῖς φύσει μη οὖσιν
~ δὲ νν Ἁ ’ / ~ ‘ /
θεοῖς" ϑνῦν δὲ γνόντες Θεόν, μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες

three passages where the expression
occurs.

ὁ πατήρ] The nominative with the
article is here used for an emphatic
vocative, as e.g. Luke viii. 54 ἡ παῖς,
ἔγειρε. See Winer, § xxix. p. 227.
This is a Hebraism; comp. Gesen.
Heb, Gramm. § 107.

7. ὥστε] ‘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,’

οὐκέτι ef] ‘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’ (ἀπολάβωμεν, ver. 5);
next, ‘you, my Galatian converts’
(ἐστέ, ver. 6); lastly, ‘each individual
man who hears my words’ (εἶ ver. 7).

εἰ δὲ υἱός, καὶ κληρονόμος] Comp.
Rom. viii. 17 εἰ δὲ τέκνα, καὶ κληρονόμοι.
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 Jaw 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 οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ) ;
by Jewish, the sons inherited un-
equally, and except in default of male
heirs the daughters were excluded ;
Michaelis Laws of Moses mt. 3, ὃ 1.
See a paper of C, F. A. Fritzsche in
Fritzsch. Opuse. τ. Ὁ. 143.

διὰ Θεοῦ] ‘heir not by virtue of

birth, or through merits of your own,
but through God who adopted you.’
For διὰ 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, κληρονό-
μος Θεοῦ διὰ Χριστοῦ, are apparently
substitutions of a common expression
for one which is unusual and startling.

8—11. ‘Nevertheless, in an unfilial
spirit, ye have subjected yourselves
again to bondage, ye would fain submit
anew to a 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. Ye arescru-
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.’

ἀλλά] ‘yet still, in spite of your
sonship,’ referring not to ἐδουλεύσατε
with which it stands in close proxi-
mity, but to the more remote ém-
στρέφετε (ver. 9); comp. Rom. vi. 17
χάρις δὲ τῷ Θεῷ, ὅτι ἦτε δοῦλοι, ὑπη-
κούσατε δὲ ἐκ καρδίας καιτιλ. The inter-
vening words (ver. 8) are inserted to
prepare the way for πάλιν.

Tore μὲν οὐκ εἰδότες] ‘Then it was
through ignorance of God that ye were
subject etc.’; a partial excuse for their
former bondage. For the expression
εἰδέναι Θεὸν see 1 Thess. iv. 5, 2 Thess.
i. 8.

τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς] ‘to those
who by nature were not gods, i.e. μὴ
οὖσιν θεοῖς ἀλλὰ δαιμονίοις ; comp. 1 Cor.
X. 20 ἃ θύουσιν [ra ἔθνη], δαιμονίοις καὶ
οὐ Θεῷ θύουσιν. This is the correct
order. On the other hand in the read-
ing of the received text, τοῖς μὴ φύσει
οὖσιν θεοῖς, the negative affects dice ;
ie. μὴ φύσει ἀλλὰ λόγῳ, ‘not by na-

IV. 10]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

171

~ ~ 7 / 4 Ἁ ~
ὑπὸ Θεοῦ, πῶς ἐπιστρέφετε πάλιν ἐπὶ τὰ ἀσθενῆ
> st ἢ , 7
kal πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα, οἷς πάλιν ἄνωθεν δουλεύειν θέ-
΄ \ \
λετε; “ἡμέρας παρατηρεῖσθε καὶ μῆνας Kal καιροὺς

ture, but by repute’; comp. 1 Cor. viii.
5 εἰσὶν λεγόμενοι θεοί.

9. γνόντες] ‘having discerned, re-
cognised, to be distinguished from
the preceding εἰδότες. See 1 Joh. 11,
29 ἐὰν εἰδῆτε ὅτι δίκαιός ἐστιν, γινώ-
σκετε ὅτι καὶ πᾶς κιτιλ., John xxi.
17, Ephes. v. 5, 1 Cor, ii, 11: comp.
Gal. ii. 7, 9. While οἶδα ‘I know’ re-
fers to the knowledge of facts abso-
lutely, γινώσκω ‘I recognise, being
relative, gives prominence either to
the attainment or the manifestation
of the knowledge. Thus γινώσκειν
will be used in preference to εἰδέναι;
(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 γινώ-
oxew lays on the process of reception.
Both words occur very frequently in
the First Epistle of St John, and a
comparison of the passages where they
are used brings out this distinction of
meaning clearly.

γνωσθέντες ὑπὸ Θεοῦ] 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 εἴ τις δοκεῖ ἐγνωκέναι τι,
οὔπω ἔγνω καθὼς δεῖ γνῶναι" εἰ δέ τις
ἀγαπᾷ τὸν Θεόν, οὗτος ἔγνωσται ὑπ᾽ av-
τοῦ : 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 ὅτι ἡμεῖς ἠγαπήκαμεν
τὸν Θεόν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι αὐτὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς.

πῶς ἐπιστρέφετε)] 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 μετατίθεσθε.

ἀσθενῆ καὶ πτωχά] ‘weak, for they
have no power to rescue man from con-
demnation ; ‘ beggarly, for they bring
no rich endowment of spiritual trea-
sures. For ἀσθενῆ see Rom. viii. 3 τὸ
ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου (comp. Gal. iii. 21),
Heb. vii. 18 τὸ ἀσθενὲς καὶ ἀνωφελές.

πάλιν ἄνωθεν] a strong expression to
describe the completeness of their
relapse.

10. ἡμέρας x.7.A.] Comp. Col. ii. 16
ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ veounvias ἢ σαββάτων,
which passage explains the expres-
sions here, stopping short however of
évavrol. The ἡμέραι are the days re-
curring weekly, the sabbaths: μῆνες,
the monthly celebrations, the new
moons: καιροί, the annual festivals, as
the passover, pentecost, etc.; ἐνιαυτοί,
the sacred years, as the sabbatical
year and the year of jubilee. Comp.
Judith viii. 6 χωρὶς προσαββάτων καὶ
σαββάτων καὶ προνουμηνιῶν καὶ voupn-
νιῶν καὶ ἑορτῶν καὶ χαρμοσυνῶν οἴκου
Ἰσραήλ, Philo de Sept. p. 286 M. ἵνα τὴν
éBdouddu τιμήσῃ κατὰ πάντας χρόνους
ἡμερῶν καὶ μηνῶν καὶ ἐνιαυτῶν κοτιλ.
For μῆνες in the sense it has here
comp. Is. Ixvi. 23 καὶ ἔσται μὴν ἐκ μη-
νὸς καὶ σάββατον ἐκ σαββάτου. On this
use of καιρὸς for an annually recurring
season see Meeris p. 214 (Bekker),
“Ὥρα ἔτους, ᾿Αττικοί" καιρὸς ἔτους, Ἕλ-
Anves: and Hesychius, Ὥρα ἔτους" και-
pos ἔτους" τὸ €ap καὶ τὸ θέρος.

ἐνιαυτούς] 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

\ 3 / ὸ XE ~ ε ΄σ ’ ἃ.
καὶ ἐνιαυτούς; “Φοβοῦμαι ὑμᾶς, μή πὼς εἰκῆ κεκο-

᾽ὔ >
πίακα εἰς ὑμάς.

Paul see the excellent remarks of Ori-
gen, 6, Cels. viii. 21—23.

παρατηρεῖσθε] ‘ye minutely, scru-
pulously observe, literally ‘ye go along
with and observe’: comp. Ps. cxxix. 3
ἐὰν ἀνομίας παρατηρήσῃς, Joseph. Ant.
iii. 5. 5 παρατηρεῖν τὰς ἑβδομάδας,
Clem. Hom, xix. 22 ἀμελήσαντες τὴν
παρατήρησιν. In this last passage,
which enjoins the observance of days
(ἐπιτηρήσιμοι ἡμέραι), there is apparent-
ly an attack on St Paul; see above,
p. 61. There seems to be no authority
for assigning to παρατηρεῖν the sense
‘wrongly observe,’ nor is the analogy
of such words as παρακούειν sufficiently
close to bear it out. Here the middle
voice still further enforces the idea
of interested, assiduous observance ;
comp. Luke xiv. 1.

II. κεκοπίακα] the indicative mood,
because the speaker suspects that what
he fears has actually happened. Herm.
on Soph. Aj. 272 says, “μή ἐστι 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 purpose. This appears from
_ bis 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

ἯΥ, 12, 13]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

173

γίνεσθε ὡς ἐγώ, ὅτι κἀγὼ ws ὑμεῖς, ἀδελφοί,
΄“ / ᾽ - ᾽
δέομαι ὑμῶν: οὐδέν με ἠδικήσατε" ""οἴδατε δὲ ὅτι δι

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 ritualistic 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 στοιχεῖα, ‘elementary
systems of training.’ They had at least
this in common, that as ritual systems
they were made up of precepts and
ordinances, and thus were represent-
atives of ‘law’ as opposed to ‘grace,’
‘promise,’ that is, as opposed to the
Gospel. Doubtless in this respect
even the highest form of heathen reli-
gion was much lower and less efficient
than the Mosaic ritual. But still in an
imperfect way they might do the same
work: they might act as a restraint,
which multiplying transgressions and
thus begetting and cherishing a con-
viction of sin prepared the way for the
liberty of manhood in Christ.

Thus comparing the two together
from the point of view in which St
Paul seems to consider them, we get
as the component parts of each: Ju-

DAIsM ; (1) The spiritual—absolutely
good, absorbed in the Gospel; (2)
The ritualistic—relatively good, στοι-
χεῖα : HeaTHEnism ; (1) The rtt¢walis-
tic—relatively good, στοιχεῖα ; (2)
The spiritual—absolutely bad, anta-
gonistic to the Gospel.

If this explanation of St Paul’s mean-
ing be correct, it will appear on the
one hand that his teaching has nothing
in common with Goethe’s classifica-
tion, when he placed Judaism at the
head of Ethnic 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 myrace: I became a Gentile,
even as ye were Gentiles. And now I
ask youtomake me some return. I ask
you to throw off this Judaic bondage,
and to be free, as I am free. Do not
mistake me; I have no personal com-
plaint ; ye did me no wrong. Nay,ye
remember, when detained by sickness
I preached the Gospel to you, what a
hearty welcome ye gave me. My in-
firmity might well have tempted you
to reject my message. It was far
otherwise. Ye did not spurn me, did
not loathe me; but received me as an
angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself.
And what has now become of your
felicitations ? 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 ὡς ἐγώ κ-ιτιλ.} Of the

174

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[IV. 14

͵ὔ ~ > ’ ~ 4 / \
ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν TO πρότερον"
14 \ ‘ Q ε “- ? a“ / 3 ᾽ me
Kal τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν ἐν TH σαρκί μου οὐκ ἐξου

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, ie. κἀγὼ ἤμην ᾿Ιουδαῖος
ὡς ὑμεῖς νῦν *lovdaifere. So Eusebius
(of Emesa ?), Chrysostom, Jerome, and
apparently Pseudo-Justin Orat. ad
Graec. ὃ 5; see p. 60 note 1: (2) ‘ For
I abandoned my legal ground of right-
eousness, I became a Gentile like you,’
Le. κἀγὼ ἐγενόμην Ἕλλην ὡς ὑμεῖς
ἦτε Ἕλληνες ; 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-
νόμην, not ἤμην. 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.’

οὐδέν με ἠδικήσατε] To these words
two different meanings have been as-
signed; (1) ‘Ye never disobeyed me
before ; do not disobey me now’: (2)
‘I have no personal ground of com-
plaint.’ The latter seems better adapt-
ed to the context. Possibly however
the real explanation is hidden under
some unknown circumstances to which
St Paul alludes; see below on δι

> ,
ἀσθένειαν.

13. οἴδατε δέ] ‘on the contrary ye
know.’

δ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκός] ‘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 οὐδέν με ἠδικήσατε. For the
expression compare Thucyd. vi. 102
αὐτὸν δὲ τὸν κύκλον [αἱρεῖν] Νικίας διε-
κώλυσεν᾽" ἔτυχε γὰρ ἐν αὐτῷ bv ἀσθένει-
αν ὑπολελειμμένος. Alluding to this
afterwards in an impassioned appeal,
Nicias might well have said, δὲ ἀσθέ-
νειαν ἔσωσα τὸν κύκλον. 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 δ ἀσθένειαν, as
if it were δ ἀσθενείας or ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ,
as is frequently done. The ambiguity
of the Latin ‘per infirmitatem’ gave
the Latin fathers a license of inter-
pretation which the original does not
allow: Jerome however recognises the
proper meaning of the preposition,
though wrongly explaining it ‘propter
infirmitatem carnis vestrae.” Of the
Greek fathers, Chrysost., Theodoret,
and Theod. Mops. slur over the pre-
position, interpreting the passage
however in a way more consonant with
the sense ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ. Photius (? ap.
Oecum.) is the first, so far as I have
noticed, who boldly gives the ungram-
matical rendering μετὰ ἀσθενείας.

τὸ πρότερον] ‘on the former of my

IV. 15]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

175

\ 3 / ε γ᾽ tal
θενήσατε οὐδὲ ἐξεπτύσατε, ἀλλὰ ὡς ἄγγελον Θεοῦ
"Ὁ 7 ,ὔ € \ 3 ~ 15 ~ ἫΝ ε
ἐδέξασθέ με, ὡς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν. ‘ov οὖν 6 μακαρισ-

15. τίς οὖν ὁ μακαρισμός.

two visits.” Τὸ πρότερον, which de-
rives a certain emphasis from the
article, cannot. be simply equivalent
to πάλαι, ‘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. τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν K.7T.A.] ‘your
temptation which was in my flesh,
ie. St Paul’s bodily ailment, which
was a trial to the Galatians and which
might have led them to reject his
preaching. Πειρασμός, 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 -μός, 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 τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν
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 ἐν
τῇ σαρκί pov have given to πειρασμόν.

For ὑμῶν some texts have μου τόν,
the received reading, others simply
rov. Considering however that the

weight of authority is strongly in fa-
γοῦν of ὑμῶν (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
ὑμῶν (Reiche, Comm. Crit. τι. 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.

οὐκ ἐξουθενήσατε οὐδὲ ἐξεπτύσατεΪ
‘ye did not treat with contemptuous
indifference or with active loathing,’
As ἀποπτύειν is more usual than ἐκ-
πτύειν in this metaphorical sense, the
latter seems to be preferred here for
the sake of the alliteration.

15. ποῦ οὖν ὁ μακαρισμὸς ὑμῶν ;]
The reading of the received text differs
from this in two points: (1) It inserts
ἦν after οὖν. 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 ποῦ. On this point there is more
difficulty. The weight of direct evi-
dence is certainly in favour of ποῦ,
but on the other hand it is more pro-
bable that ποῦ 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 ποῦ.

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’ (un-
derstanding ἦν); (2) ‘What has be-

176

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[IV. 16, 17

\ ΄σ ~ \ a εἶ 3 7 \
μὸς ὑμῶν; μαρτυρῶ yap ὑμῖν OTL, εἰ δυνατόν, τοὺς

ὀφθαλμοὺς ὑμῶν ἐξορύξαντες ἐδώκατέ μοι.

16 ,.»} 2
WOTE EX-

ε a / ~ ~ ΄
θρὸς ὑμῶν γέγονα ἀληθεύων ὑμῖν ; "Ζηλοῦσιν ὑμᾶς οὐ

come of your rejoicing ? where has it
vanished ?’ (understanding ἐστίν). In
the latter sense it would coincide in
meaning with ποῦ οὖν ὁ paxapiopos,
which can only be taken in one way.
This interpretation seems more natu-
ral than the former.

ὁ paxapiopos ὑμῶν] ‘your felicita-
tion of yourselves, ‘your happiness in
my teaching,’ as the sense seems to re-
quire. ὑμῶν is probably the subjective
genitive, though the Galatians were at
the same time also the object of the
paxapiopos. 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 μακαρισμὸς 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 μακα-
ρισμός, ‘beatitudo, see Rom. iv. 6,
9, and Clem. Rom. § 50.

μαρτυρῶ] ‘I bear witness, see the
note on 1 Thess. ii. 12.

εἰ δυνατόν κιτ.λ.] ‘if τὲ 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 καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς 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.

ἐδώκατε] ‘ye had given” The sup-
pression of the condition expresses
more vividly their readiness ; see Wi-
ner ὃ xlii. p. 321. The insertion of avin
the received text enfeebles the sense.

16. ὥστε] ‘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 ?”

ἐχθρὸς ὑμῶν] ‘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. ὃ 2 rod ἐχθροῦ ἀνθρώπου
ἄνομόν τινα καὶ φλυαρώδη προσηκά-
μενοι διδασκαλίαν, Clem. Recogn. i. 70 :
see p. 61. This quotation suggests
that ἄνομος was another of these hos-
tile names which he is parrying in 1
Cor. ix. 21 μὴ ὧν ἄνομος Θεοῦ.

ἀληθεύων] probably referring to
some warnings given during his se-
cond visit. See the introduction
p. 25. Compare the proverb, Ter.
Andr. i. τ. 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.’

Ζηλοῦσιν) ‘they pay court to? As
(nrodv 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 ζῆλος, if cor-
rectly derived from ζέω. See 2 Cor.
xi. 2, ζηλῶ yap ὑμᾶς Θεοῦ ζήλῳ: 80
also Plut. Mor. p. 448 E ὑπὸ χρείας τὸ
πρῶτον ἕπονται καὶ ζηλοῦσιν, ὕστερον δὲ

IV. 18, 19]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

177

a \ > ΄ ~ / [4
καλῶς, ἀλλὰ ἐκκλεῖσαι ὑμᾶς θέλουσιν, ἵνα αὐτοὺς ζη-

λοῦτε.

A \ ΄ > ~ 7
δ καλὸν δὲ ζηλοῦσθαι ἐν καλῷ πάντοτε, καὶ

\ , ~ - / \ ε ΄“- ’ a
μὴ μόνον ἐν τῷ Tapelval με προς ὑμᾶς, * τεκνία μου, οὕς

19. τέκνα μου.

καὶ φιλοῦσιν: 1 Cor. xii. 31, xiv. I, 39,
Ezek, xxxix. 25,

ἀλλά] is connected not with ζηλοῦ-
σιν, but with οὐ καλῶς : comp. Aisch.
Eum. 458 ἔφθιθ᾽ οὗτος οὐ καλῶς, po-
λὼν ἐς οἶκον, ἀλλά νιν κελαινόφρων ἐμὴ
μήτηρ κατέκτα.

ἐκκλεῖσαι ὑμᾶς] ‘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
Υ͂. 4 κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, τῆς
χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε. The reading ἡμᾶς,
though it gives a good sense, is almost
destitute of authority.

ἵνα αὐτοὺς ζηλοῦτε] ‘that, having no
refuge elsewhere, you may pay court
to them. For the present indicative
after ἵνα comp. I Cor. iv. 6 fa μὴ
φυσιοῦσθε: a usage quite unclassical,
but often found in later writers; see
Winer ὃ xli. p. 362. The future in-
dicative with iva is comparatively com-
mon, as eg. ii. 4. The attempt to
give ἵνα 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 jinal
wa. The jinal sense is derived from
the local, the relation of cause and
effect in all languages being expressed
by words originally denoting relations
in space. Thus the difference of mean-
ing between ἵνα ποιεῖτε and iva ποιῆτε
is not in the adverb, which is of con-
stant value, but in the moods.

(nrovre δὲ τὰ κρείττω χαρίσματα is
interpolated here in many copies from
1 Cor. xii. 31; comp. iii. 1, note.

GAL.

18. καλὸν δὲ ζηλοῦσθαι κιτ.λ.] The
number of possible explanations is
limited by two considerations: (1)
That ζηλοῦν 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 ¢y-
λοῦσθαι must be passive and not mid-
dle; a transitive sense of ζηλοῦσθαι,
even if it were supported by usage
elsewhere, being inexplicable here in
the immediate neighbourhood of the
active ζηλοῦν.

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 μὴ μόνον ἐν τῷ
παρεῖναί με. 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 ζηλοῦσθε, found in the
two best mss, is in itself but another

12

178

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

(IV. 20

πάλιν ὠδίνω μέχρις οὗ μορφωθῆ Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν. "“ἤθε-
\ ~ \ ς ~ ν᾽ Ἶ Α 9 , \ /
λον δὲ παρεῖναι προς ὑμᾶς ἄρτι και ἄλλαξαι τὴν φωνήν

« > ~ ~
μου, OTL ἀποροῦμαι ἐν ὑμῖν.

way of writing the infinitive ζηλοῦσθαι,
the sounds ε 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 δέ, ver. 20, if rexvia μου be made
the beginning of a newsentence. 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.’
Gomp. 1 Cor. iv. 14, ‘Though ye have
‘ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have
ye not many fathers.’

τεκνία μου] ‘my litile 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 τέκνα, τέκνον, 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 τέκνα however
is very highly supported and may per-
haps be correct.

πάλιν ddivo] “1 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 (παλιγγενε-
σία) as opposed to the old birth in
the flesh.

μορφωθῇ ἐν ὑμῖν) 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 μορφωθῇ ἐν
ὑμῖν 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,
Huseb. v. 1 §§ 40, 41, especially the
words οἱ πλείους ἀνεμητροῦντο καὶ
ἀνεκυΐσκοντο K.T.A.

20. ἤθελον δέ k.r.d.] ‘but, speaking
of my presence, J would I had been
present with you now. The dé catches
up the passing thought of παρεῖναι
(v. 18), before it escapes; comp. 1
Cor. i. 16 ἐβάπτισα δὲ καὶ τὸν Srehava
οἶκον. The connexion of this clause
with the previous παρεῖναι requires
that the sentence should be continu-
ous, and that there should be no full
stop after πρὸς ὑμᾶς (ver. 18); see the
note on ver. 19. ΑἸ] other explana-
tions seem harsh. δὲ 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 τεκνία pov, ἤθελον δέ.

ἤθελον as ηὐχόμην Rom. ix. 3, ἐβου-
λόμην Acts xxv. 22. The thing is

IV. 21, 22]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

179

\ / / > \ ,

ἃ Λέγετέ μοι, οἱ UO νόμον θέλοντες εἶναι;. τὸν νό-

? 3 ’ Ah ee 4 \ e/ Ἀ ᾿ δύ

μον οὐκ ἀκούετε; “᾿έγραπται yap ὅτι Ἀβραὰμ δύο
ς ε ἢ - f \ > “-

υἱοὺς ἔσχεν, ἕνα ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης καὶ ἕνα ἐκ τῆς ἐλευ-

spoken of in itself, prior to and inde-
pendently of any conditions which
might affect its possibility; see Winer
ὃ xli. Ὁ. 352, and the note Philem. 13.

ἄρτι] See the note i. 9.

ἀλλάξαι τὴν φωνήν μου] 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.

ἀποροῦμαι ἐν ὑμῖν] ‘I am perplexed
about you, I am at a loss how to deal
with you’: comp. 2 Cor. vii. 16 θαρρῶ
ev ὑμῖν. The idea of inward question-
ing is expressed more strongly by dzo-
ρεῖσθαι than by ἀπορεῖν. It is proba-
bly a middle rather than a passive;
though ἀπορεῖν is found as a transitive
verb in Clem. Hom. i. 11 ἀπορεῖν αὐτὸν
πειρώμενοι ὡς βάρβαρόν τινα δαιμονῶν-
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 ὑπὸ νόμον x.t.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 νόμος and ὁ νόμος,

_ and see the notes on ii. 19, iv. 4, 5.

τὸν νόμον] ‘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).

οὐκ ἀκούετε] ‘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 ἀναγινώσκετε, Which has
respectable authority, is evidently a
gloss on this latter sense assigned to
the word. .

22. γέγραπται) ‘it ts stated in the
scriptures, introducing a general re-
ference, and not a direct quotation; as
in 1 Cor.xv. 45. See Genesis xvi, xxi.

τῆς παιδίσκης) ‘the bondmaid’ ;
comp. Gen. xvi. 1 ἦν δὲ αὐτῇ παιδίσκη
Αἰγυπτία, 7 ὄνομα “Ayap. The word
seems to have exclusively the sense of
a servant in the New Testament and
later Greek; not so in classical wri-
ters. See Lobeck Phryn. p. 239 παι-
δίσκη" τοῦτο ἐπὶ τῆς θεραπαίνης οἱ νῦν
τιθέασιν, οἱ δ᾽ ἀρχαῖοι ἐπὶ τῆς νεάνιδος.

12-2

180

θέρας.

/
γεγέννηται,

J , /
“aTwa ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα.

23. ἀλλ᾽] ‘but, ie. although sons
of the same father. The opposition
implied in ἀλλὰ is illustrated by Rom.
ix. 7 οὐδ᾽ ὅτι εἰσὶν σπέρμα ᾿Αβραάμ,
πάντες τέκνα, and ix, 10 ἐξ ἑνὸς κοίτην
ἔχουσα.

κατὰ σάρκα] 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.

γεγέννηται] the perfect, ‘is recorded
as born,’ ‘is born, as we read’: comp.
1 Tim. 11, 14 ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἐξαπατηθεῖσα
ἐν παραβάσει γέγονεν.

24. ἅτινα] ‘now all these things’;
not simply ἅ ‘which particular things,
but ἅτινα ‘which class of things’:
comp. Col. ii. 23 ἅτινά ἐστιν λόγον
μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας, ie. precepts of this
sort (with the note).

dAAnyopotpeva| The word has two
senses: (1) ‘To speak in an allegory,’
e.g. Joseph. Ant. procm. 4 τὰ μὲν
αἰνιττομένου Tov νομοθέτου δεξιῶς τὰ δὲ
ἀλληγοροῦντος κιτιλ.; (2) “Τὸ treat or
interpret as an allegory,’ e.g. Philo
de Vit. Cont. § 3, 11 Ὁ. 475 M ἐντυγχά-
vovres yap τοῖς ἱεροῖς γράμμασι φιλοσο-
φοῦσι τὴν πάτριον φιλοσοφίαν ἀλληγο-
ροῦντες, ἐπειδὴ σύμβολα τὰ τῆς ῥητῆς
ἑρμηνείας νομίζουσι φύσεως ἀποκεκρυμ-
μένης ἐν ὑπονοίαις δηλουμένης, Clem.
Hom. vi. 18, 20, and frequently : comp.
Plut. Op. M or. p. 363 D ὥσπερ Ἕλληνες
Κρόνον ἀλληγοροῦσι τὸν Χρόνον k.r.r.
It is possible that St Paul uses the
word in this latter sense, referring to

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[IV. 23, 24

> > e A > ~~
3 ἀλλ᾽ ὁ [μὲν] ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης κατὰ σάρκα
ε \ > ~ 3 ~ 3
ὁ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας διὰ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας.

μὰ 3 ,
αὗται yap εἰσιν δύο

some recognised mode of interpreta-
tion. Comp. the note on συνστοιχεῖ
ver. 25, and see the remarks p. 198.

St Paul uses ἀλληγορία here much
in the same sense as he uses τύπος
1 Cor. x. 11 ταῦτα δὲ τυπικῶς συνέ-
βαινεν, not denying the historical
truth of the narrative, but super-
posing a secondary meaning. By a
stricter definition ἀλληγορία and τύ-
mos were distinguished as denoting
the former a fictitious, the latter a
true narrative. See the definition of
ἀλληγορία, Heracl. Alleg. Hom. 5 ὁ
ἄλλα μὲν ἀγορεύων τρόπος ἕτερα δὲ ὧν
λέγει σημαίνων. Hence the jealousy of
the Antiochene fathers (Chrysostom,
Severianus, Theod. Mops.) in ex-
plaining that St Paul uses the word
καταχρηστικῶς 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.

αὗται γάρ «.7.d.| ‘for these women
are (represent) tao covenants’ Eicw
‘are’ not actually, but mystically or
typically; Matt. xiii. 39, xxvi. 26—
28,1 Cor.x.4. The article before δύο
must be omitted.

pia μέν] ‘one of them, which was
given from Mount Sinai, bearing
children unto bondage’ The true
antithesis would have been ἑτέρα δέ,
but it melts away in the general fu-
sion of the sentence, vv. 25, 26. For
γεννῶσα 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.

ἥτις] ‘inasmuch as she? 7 would
simply declare the fact, ἥτις places it
in dependence on the context.

25. τὸ yap Σινᾶ κιτ.λ.] ‘for Sinat
is a mountain in Arabia, i.e. in the
land of bondsmen, themselves de-

IV. 25]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS,

181

΄- , \ 3 ν of “ > 7 ~
διαθῆκαι, μία μὲν ἀπο ὄρους Σινᾶ, εἰς δουλείαν γεννῶσα,
ef 3 \ "Δ . 25 \ \ > =~ of 2 ‘ ᾽ ~ 9
ἥτις ἐστὶν ᾿Αγαρ' “ὅτὸ yap Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ev TH Ἀ-

, ~ \ “~ ἴω ς ’ Ἶ \
ραβίᾳ: συνστοιχεῖ δὲ TH νῦν Ἱερουσαλήμ, δουλεύει yap

scended from Hagar. The stress lies
on ἐν τῇ ᾿Αραβίᾳ, not on ὄρος, which
is unemphatic; or perhaps we should
render the words, ‘Mount Sinai is in
Arabia’ (comp. Athan. de Decr. 7,
1. p. 168, for τὸ Σινᾶ ὄρος), as this gives
a better sense. The Arabians are
called ‘sons of Hagar,’ Baruch iii. 23:
see Ewald Gesch. des V. Isr. 1. Ὁ. 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
dHerbelot Bibl. Or. s. v. Hagiar.
The word is preserved also in the
name of several Arab tribes, eg.
the Hagarenes or Hagarites of the
Old Testament (Ps. Ixxxiii. 6, 0°33,
᾿Αγαρηνοί; and 1 Chron. vy. 19, D°8733,
᾿Αγαραῖοι, comp. ver. 10), and the
᾿Αγραῖοι 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 τὸ yap Σινᾶ x.r.d. is par-
enthetical, and the nominative to συν-
στοιχεῖ is pia διαθήκη.

For the various readings in this
passage and for different interpreta-
tions of the word ‘ Hagar,’ see the de-
tached notes p. 192 sq.

συνστοιχεῖ] ‘answers to’; literally,
‘belongs to the same row or column
with.’ In military language συστοιχία
denotes a file, as cu¢vyia does a rank
of soldiers; comp. Polyb. x. 21.7. The
use of this word here is best illus-
trated by the Pythagorean συστοιχίαι
of opposing principles (Arist. Hth. NV.
1. 6, Metaph.i. 5), which stood thus;

Good, Bad,

Finite, Infinite,

One, Many,

Permanent, Changing,
etc. etc,

Similar also were the συστοιχίαι 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 συστοιχίαι thus;

Hagar, the bond-
woman,
Ishmael, the child
after the flesh,
The old covenant.
The earthly Jeru-
salem.
etc.

Sarah, the free-
woman.

Isaac, the child of
promise.

The new covenant.

The heavenly Je-
rusalem.
etc.

Theoldcovenant is thus σύστοιχος with
the earthly Jerusalem, but ἀντίστοιχος
to the heavenly. Itis 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
συνστοιχεῖ ‘borders upon,’ ‘is con-
tiguous to,” which is scarcely true
even in the most forced sense of con-
tiguity.

τῇ νῦν Ἱερουσαλήμ] The metropolis
of the Jews is taken to represent the
whole race.

δουλεύει yap x.7.A.] ‘is in spiritual
bondage with her children, just as
Hagar was in social bondage with her
child Ishmael. For τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς
see Matt. xxiii. 37.

26. ἡ ἄνω Ἱερουσαλήμ] St Paul here
uses an expression familiar to rab-
binical teachers, but detaches it from

182

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[IV. 26, 27

A ΄. , 3 lant ᾽ \ >
ετὰ τῶν πέκνων αὐτῆς" “δὴ δὲ ἄνω Ἱερουσαλήμ ἐλευ-
ρ

θέρα ἐστίν, ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ ἡμῶν.

γέγραπται γάρ,

εὐφράνθητι οτεῖρὰ ἢ οὐ TIKTOYCA, PHZON Kal BOHCON

those sensuous and material concep-
tions with which they invested it. See
the treatise de Hieros. Coelest. in
Schittgen’s Hor. Hebr. 1. Ὁ. 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 Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐπουράνιος, Rev. iil.
12 καινὴ Ἱερουσαλήμ, XXi. 2 ἁγία Ἵερου-
σαλήμ : comp. Tesi. xii. 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 Ἱερουσαλὴμ here
for the typical city, as elsewhere in
this epistle (i. 17, 18, ii. 1) he employs
the Graecised form Ἱεροσόλυμα for the
actual city. “Ἱερουσαλὴμ est appellatio
Hebraica, originaria et sanctior: ‘Ie-
ροσόλυμα, deinceps obvia, Graeca, ma-
gis politica,’ says Bengel on Rev. xxi. 2,
accounting for the usage of St John
(‘in evangelio Ἱεροσόλυμα, in apoca-
lypsi ‘Iepovoadjpy’), and referring to
this passage in illustration. In his
other epistles St Paul has always

_ Israel from a foreign yoke.

Ἱερουσαλήμ; Rom. xv. 19, 25, 26, 31,
1 Cor. xvi. 3.

μήτηρ ἡμῶν] ‘the mother of us
Christians.’ St Paul’s expression was
borrowed and adapted by Polycarp
§ 3 τὴν δοθεῖσαν ὑμῖν πίστιν ἥτις ἐστὶ
μήτηρ πάντων ἡμῶν. From ἃ confusion
of this loose quotation with the original
text, the word πάντων was early inter-
polated in St Paul; e.g. in Iren. (in-
terp.) v. 35.2. This atall events is not
an improbable account of the origin of
the received reading πάντων ἡμῶν ; or
perhaps πάντων crept in from Rom. iv.
16 ὅς ἐστιν πατὴρ πάντων ἡμῶν.

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
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,” Zr Gibborim
fol. 49. 2, quoted in Schéttgen. Here
then Sarah =the chosen people =the
Church of Christ.

γέγραπται γάρ] from the txx where
some few texts add καὶ τέρπου after
βόησον with the Hebrew. It is quoted
as St Paul quotes it in Pseudo-Clem.

IV. 28, 29]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

183

ἡ οὐκ @AINOYCA, ὅτι πολλὰ TA TEKNA τῆς ἐρήμου

μᾶλλον ἢ τῆς ἐχούήοης τὸν ἂν ρδ.
A \ ? / /
oi, κατὰ Ἰσαὰκ ἐπαγγελίας τέκνα ἐστέ.

δ ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀδελ-
9 ἀλλ᾽

28. ἡμεῖς δέ--τέκνα ἐσμέν.

Lpist. ii. 8.2, and Justin, Apol. i. ὁ. 53,
p. 88 σ, 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.c.). Tap links the quo-
tation with μήτηρ ἡμῶν.

στεῖρα] 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 ἀγριέλαιος, Rom. xi. 17.

πολλὰ τὰ τέκνα μᾶλλον ἢ] for the
usual Greek πλείονα ἤ, the Hebrew
idiom (} o°25), which has no com-
parative, being followed.

τῆς ἐχούσης τὸν ἄνδρα] 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. ὑμεῖς δέ] resuming the main
subject, ver. 27 being in a manner
parenthetical.

κατὰ Ἰσαάκ] 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 σάρκα, but, like Isaac,
ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας.

The reading ἡμεῖς... ἐσμέν, for ὑμεῖς
...€oTé, is very highly supported, but
perhaps was a transcriber’s correction
to conform to ver. 26, 31. The direct
appeal of ὑμεῖς is more forcible, and
the change of persons is characteristic
of St Paul; see the note ver. 7.

29. ἐδίωκεν τὸν κιιλ]ῇ The He-
brew text, Gen. xxi. 9, has simply
‘laughing’ (pny). This single word
the Lxx expands into παίζοντα μετὰ
Ἰσαὰκ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτῆς. From this it
may be conjectured that the verse
originally ended [pny'a m23] pnso
(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, pnd. On the other
hand the Book of Jubilees paraphrases
the passage, ‘When Sarah saw that
Ishmael was merry and danced and
that Abraham also rejoiced greatly
thereat, she was jealous etc.’ (Ewald’s

184

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

ΠΥ. 30

/ ld \ , > \
ὥσπερ τότε ὁ κατὰ σάρκα γεννηθεὶς ἐδίωκεν TOV κατὰ

~ e/
πνεῦμα, οὕτως καὶ νῦν.

βοάλλαὰ τί λέγει ἡ γραφή;

ἔκβαλε τὴν πδιδίοκην KAl τὸν YION AYTHC'

oY γὰρ

μὴ κληρονομήσει ὁ yidc τῆς πδιδίοκης μετὰ τοῦ

Jahrb. ττι.Ὁ. 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 Apostle’s allu-
sion, without his endorsing these tra-
ditions himself. For the rabbinical
accounts of Ishmael’s insolence to his
brother see Beer Leben Abraham’s,
pp. 49, 170. (2) The relations be-
tween the two brothers were repro-
duced in their descendants, The age
gressions of the Arab tribes (of the
Hagarenes especially, see Ps, lxxxiii.
6, 1 Chron. v. 10, 19) on the Israelites
were the antitype to Ishmael’s mock-
ery of Isaac. Thus in Ishmael the
Apostle may have indirectly contem-
plated Ishmael’s progeny; and he
would therefore be appealing to the
national history of the Jews in saying
‘he that was 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.
οὕτως καὶ νῦν] ‘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. ἡ γραφή) Gen. xxi. 10, taken
from the uxx which again is a close
translation of the Hebrew. At the
end of the quotation however St Paul
has substituted τῆς παιδίσκης μετὰ τοῦ
υἱοῦ τῆς ἐλευθέρας for the LXx τῆς παι-
δίσκης ταύτης μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ pov Ἰσαάκ,

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 μὴ κληρονομήσει] ‘shall in no
wise inherit’; comp. Joh. viii. 35 6
δοῦλος ov μένει ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα
καλ. 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.
κληρονομήσει Should probablyberead,
not κληρονομήσῃ, as being better sup-
ported here and in the Lxx; comp. Wi-
ner § lvi.p.635,and A. Buttmann p. 183.
31. διό] ‘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 διὸ is
probably correct. Some copies lave

IN; 3h) Ved

Υἱοῦ τῆς ἐλεγθέρδο.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

3* διό,

185

3 ‘
οὐκ ἐσμεν

ἀδελφοί,

3 A ~ / ~~
παιδίσκης τέκνα, ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐλευθέρας | V] "τῆ ἐλευθε-
pia ἡ ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσεν. στήκετε οὖν καὶ μὴ

ν ad Hoe
πάλιν ζυγῷ δουλείας ἐνέχεσθε.
é

IM. 395) ΝΟΣ.

ἡμεῖς δέ, others ἡμεῖς οὖν, others ἄρα or
ἄρα οὖν, and one at least entirely omits
the connecting particle. The difficulty
in διὸ was evidently felt, but sufficient
allowance was not made for St Paul’s
freedom in the employment of con-
necting particles.

ov παιδίσκης ἀλλά κιτ.λ.] Observe
the omission of the article before
παιδίσκης ; ‘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 ἀνθρώ-
πους πείθω TOV Θεόν ;

V. 1. τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἧ κιτ.λ.] If this
reading be adepted (see the detached
note, p. 200), the words are best taken
with the preceding sentence. They
may then be connected either (1) with
τέκνα ἐσμὲν τῆς ἐλευθέρας, ‘We are sons
of the free by virtue of the freedom
which Christ has given us’; or (2) with
τῆς ἐλευθέρας alone, ‘ of her who is free
with that freedom which Christ etc.
The latter is perhaps the simpler con-
struction. In either case τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ
κιτιλ. Serves the purpose of an explan-
atory note.

If on the other hand we read τῇ

τῆς ἐλευθέρας.

τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἡμᾶς κ-.τ.λ.

ἐλευθερίᾳ ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσεν, 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 ἐπ᾽
ἐλευθερίᾳ ἐκλήθητε, and especially John
Vili. 36 ἐὰν οὖν ὁ vids ὑμᾶς ἐλευθερώσῃ,
ὄντως ἐλεύθεροι ἔσεσθε. The abrupt-
ness of the sentence, introduced with-
out a connecting particle, has a fair
parallel in Ephes. ii. § χάριτί ἐστε σε-
σωσμένοι: but the dative, ‘with’ or
‘in’ or ‘for freedom, is awkward, in
whatever way it is taken ; see A. Butt-
mann p. I55.

στήκετε] ‘stand firm, stand up-
right, do not bow your necks to the
yoke of slavery’; comp. 2 Thess. ii. 15
dpa οὖν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε x.t.A. The
form στήκω appears not to occur ear-
lier than the New Testament, where
with two exceptions (Mark iii. 31, xi.
25) it is found only in St Paul.

πάλιν] ‘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 πῶς ἐπιστρέφετε πάλιν, πά-
λιν ἄνωθεν δουλεύειν θέλετε. 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 confirmed 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, τὸν πειρασ-
μόν μου τὸν ἐν, τὸν πειρασμὸν τὸν ἐν
(omitting μου), and τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν
ἐν (omitting τόν), 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 τὸν πειρασμόν μου, as I have as-
certained (see Scrivener’s Introduc-
tion, p. 351, ed, 2). Eusebius of
Emesa here (Cramer’s Catena, p. 65)

and Origen on Ephes, iii. 14 (Cramer’s
Catena, p. 158) have a mixed reading τὸν
πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν τὸν ἐν κιτιλ. Eusebius
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. 1.c.). Others seem to have followed a different tradition as to

the complaint in question!; but in some form or other dliness 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 “awe P
been any physical malady. God would not have delivered over the body of see re
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. 6.) 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. Gewm., 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.
Eccles. 1. p. 252) says τριχῶν ἐποιησά-
μεθα τὴν ἀφαίρεσιν" συναφέλωμεν αὐταῖς
καὶ τοὺς ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ σκόλοπας" κομά-
σαντες γὰρ οὗτοι ἐπιπλέον ἡμᾶς ὀδυνώσι"
τὸ μὲν γὰρ τρίχωμα ἡμῶν ἣν ὁ κατὰ τὸν
βίον κόσμος, τιμαί, δόξαι, χρημάτων κτή-
σεις, Κ-τ. Δ.) O1 Which the editor (p. 756)
absurdly enough remarks, ‘ex toto
contextu suspicari datur a nostro per
σκόλοπα animalcula quae caput pungunt
intellecta esse.’ The context, if I mis-
take not, fails to bear out this remark,
but Cotelier’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

by understanding of St Paul the mala-
dies which Nicetas (see below, note 3)
attributestoGregory Nazianzen. Aqui-
nas mentions the opinion, ‘ quod fuit ve-
hementer afflictus dolore iliaco’ (colic),
but I have not noticed it in any earlier
writer, On the whole the tradition of
the headache (κεφαλαλγία) is fairly con-
stant.

2 Iren. 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. (τι. p.
400, Garnier).

188

iii. Carnal

thoughts
(Ascetics).

iv. Spir i-

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
σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκὶ by ‘ stimulus carnis,’

This account again of St Paul’s thorn in the fiesh 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.’

2 Jerome Epist. xxii (ad Eustoch.)
§ 5, says: ‘Si apostolus vas electionis
et 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, (tv. pp. 572, 3), is vague, and
need not necessarily refer to this kind
of temptation, Pelagius gives, as one

interpretation, ‘naturalem infirmita-
tem’; Primasius more 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 raptus 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.

8 Corn. a Lapide on 2 Cor, xii. 7 al-
most exalis this interpretation into an
article of faith: ‘ Videtur communis
fidelium sensus, qui hince 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 (Reform-
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. critics.
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 of ΔῊ an
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.

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
persecution and speaksof spiritual trials
only, xxiv. § 7 (vol. xx1I. Ὁ. 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. VIII. p. 959, ΣΙ.
Ῥ. 1437, XII. p. 561.

2 This seems to be the meaning of

(5) In the meanness of his personal presence, of which he was

σκόλοψ : see the notes of Meyer and
Stanley on 2 Cor. xii. 7. Robertson,
Lectures on theCorinthianslix,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
hard struggleagainst ‘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

Parallel
of King
Alfred.

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 it in connexion with his visions and revelations fourteen years before the
Second Epistle to the Corinthians was written. If the two were nearly
coincident, as his language seems to imply, he must have had an attack
about the year 44, and this, as it would appear, for the first time. Again
we hear of it about the year 51 or 52, when he first preached in Galatia.
On this occasion at least it would seem to have hung about him for some
time. For from Greece he writes to the Thessalonians, that he had
desired to visit them more than once, but ‘Satan had hindered him’
(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’ (i Cor. ii. 3). Lastly, from the twin
references to his malady, in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians and in
the Epistle to the Galatians, it may be inferred that he had a fresh attack
about the years 57, 58, when these letters were written, and to this he may
allude in part when he speaks in the former of these epistles of having
‘despaired even of life,’ of having ‘had the sentence of death in himself’
(2 Cor. i. 8, 9).

The life of the greatest and best of English kings presents so close a
parallel to the Apostle’s thorn in the flesh, that I cannot forbear quoting
the 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-
verance 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-
Ῥ. 368 (2nd ed.). The value of the il- cion attaching to the so-called Asser.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. ΙΟΙ
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 Conclu-
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 τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὑμῶν, where ὑμῶν is
as unemphatic as possible, so that the
meaning is not ‘ your eyes,’ but ‘your

eyes.’ (2) The expression πηλίκα ypdp-
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) τὸ yap Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστίν.

So it is read in SCFG, 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 a// the Latin fathers. This is also the
reading of the Gothic Version, except that it omits ydp. The
Thebaic Version reads similarly, ‘quae vero mons Sina est.’ The
Ms δὲ after ἐστὶν adds ὄν, in which respect it stands alone (except
apparently the Memphitic Version); and Epiphanius transposes Σινᾶ
and ὅρος.

(ii) τὸ “Ayap Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστίν. So the Memphitic Version as read by

Boetticher ; but Wilkins inserts a δέ.

(iii) τὸ δὲ "Ayap Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστίν. Such is the reading of ABDEH, 37, 73,

80, lectionary 40.

(iv) τὸ yap*Ayap Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστίν. So KLP with the vast majority

of cursive manuscripts, with both Syriac Versions, and with the
Greek commentators generally, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia,
‘Bheodoret, Theophylact, and the Gcumenian Catena. This also is

apparently the reading of Ephraem Syrus.
(v) τὸ yap”Ayap ὄρος ἐστίν found only in the Latin of Ὁ and E+,
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 ἀτενίζειν, ‘to look stead-
fastly,’ twice used of St Paul (Acts
xiii. 9, 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 may be
connected with the tradition or fiction,
dating at least from the second century,
that St Paul was σύνοφρυς (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. (111. p. 52, ed. Delarue),
extant only in a Latin translation.

2 Haeres. p. 695.

8 Glaphyr. τ Ὁ. 75 (ed. Auberti).
Cyril is said in other passages to read
τὸ δὲ Αγαρ and τὸ yap”Ayap, but I am
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 τὸ "Ayap might easily be substituted for τὸ γάρ, the
word Ἄγαρ occurring in the immediate context4, As a next step a con-
necting particle must be supplied ; and δὲ or yap was inserted according to
the caprice or judgment of the transcriber, thus producing the second and
third readings, Lastly, the word Σινᾶ, 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 τὸ δὲ Ἄγαρ συστοιχεῖ τῇ viv “Ἱερουσαλήμ, but it seems sim-
pler, if any such solution be adopted, to erase the whole clause τὸ yap......
ἐν τῇ ’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 ΤΣ of
too seems to be the most probable account of his meaning, even if with the Wis
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®.

ticle, to have been transferred from the
margin to the text.

1 The commentary of Theodore
Mops. on this passage shows how easily

*Avyap might be foisted in. The Greek
text of this writer (in Cramer’s Catena)
has ἀλλ᾽ "Ἄγαρ ἥ Te ἔρημος πᾶσα κ.τ.λ.,
which makes no sense. The Latin
translation runs ‘ sed et solitudo omnis,’
which doubtless represents the original
reading, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἥ Te ἔρημος πᾶσα.
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,
ἄ. γάρ (i.e. ἄλλοι" γάρ), marking a
various reading in the connecting par-

GAL.

2 In his text of the epistle as given
in Bentleit 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,

8 τὸ 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 ὃ xviii.
p. 135, A. Buttmann Ὁ. 84. It need
not necessarily mean ‘the word Hagar’;
compare for instance Ephes. iv, g τὸ δὲ

13

194

Hagar
taken for
a name of
Sinai.

Ob‘ections
to this.

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 τῆς “Ayap ἐσκήνωται γένος)
‘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.

ἀνέβη τί éorw; where τὸ is the state- rather‘ Chajar’). The Arabic alphabet
ment, for the preceding word was not bias dues hans die ft
ἀνέβη, but ἀναβάς. The Ambrosian Hi- bohate redeinannc dh. p> Wise? iseieane

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 (ἄλλος πάλιν φησίν), but in the
immediate neighbourhood there is a
note assigned to Severianus.

2 Sinai and Palestine p. 50; see
above, p. 89.

' ,Ξυ- pronounced ‘Chagar’ (or

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 ~, corre-
sponding to the Hebrew ἃ, 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, rl by G, both in
Italics.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 195
1. 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. °idence-
(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 (τὸ
δὲ Σινᾶ ὄρος οὕτω μεθερμηνεύεται τῇ ἐπιχωρίῳ αὐτῶν γλώττῃ) ;’ and afterwards
he speaks of the mountain as ‘bearing the same name with the bondmaid
(ὁμώνυμον τῇ δούλῃ) To the same effect writes Theophylact, who is often a
mere echo of Chrysostom, as do one or two anonymous commentators in
the Gcumenian Catena, without doubt deriving their information from
the same source}. |
(ii) The Bohemian traveller Harant, who visited Sinai in the year Harant.
1598, says: ‘The Arabian and Mauritanian heathen call Mount Sinai Agar
or 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
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- sis ds
mately became a protestant. Ifso, he did not necessarily derive his inform- f5,.
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. If there be any, it will from the nature of the case
require careful sifting. 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,

p. 417: [Gad oon μ5. a
pb Ὠρυ]ο : b>

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 Bii-
sching’s Erdbeschr. 1. τ, 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 nel’
sunum. deV Ind. Orient. bezeuget.’ The

This

work was written in Bohemian, but
translated into German by his brother
and published by his nephew (see Bal-
binus Bohem. Doct. τι. p. 104). [A
friend, who has consulted the Bohemian
original,informs me that Weissenberg is
a miswriting of the name of a traveller
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 etc. 1. p. 1331, 5.0. ‘Hadschar,’
‘ Hadjar,’ etc., names several ‘ stones’
on and about Sinai; ‘ Hadschar Elma,’
‘Hadsjar rikkabe,’ ‘Hadj Musa,’ etc.

13—2

196 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 Petreea 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) False 2. But supposing it were proved that Sinai were so called by the
eo Arabs, this word ‘ Chagar’ is not written or pronounced in the same way as
ogy.

the proper name ‘ Hagar,’ and etymologically the two are entirely distinct.
The proper name ‘ Hagar,’ with the simple aspirate (135, in Arabic »υ,
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. τ. p. 504), assert that Petra itself
bears the name Hagar (Chagar) in
Arabic writers, just as in Greek it is

called Πέτρα, and in Hebrew yb,
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 84, Robinson’s Palestine
etc. τι. p. 522. There is no evidence
that Petra itself was so called.

There is a place NUN, ‘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 μεθερμηνεύεται. Ac-
cording to Fiirst Concord. and Hebr.
Handb. s,v., 13D 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
Δ) 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
2 and 43!) Thus it has nothing in common with ‘Chagar, ‘a stone’

( ya) which if it occurred in Hebrew would be written 33m. 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 73m ‘rock,’ but "3m ‘wanderer.’ This latter
name was at least not uncommon among the Arab tribes ; and it is far from
unlikely, though direct evidence is wanting, that a settlement of these
‘wanderers, these children of ‘ Hagar,’ occupied the country about Sinai
in St Paul’s day and gave it their name for the time.

3. But lastly, is it probable, supposing this to have been St Paul’s (3) St
meaning, that he would have expressed himself as he has done? If in Paul’s
writing to a half-Greek, half-Celtic people he ventured to argue from an (8:18 89.
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
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. i> and “ΠΏ,
“Wi¥ and ἽΝ ; (2) By their interchange
in different languages of the Semitic
family, e.g. Heb. Nt and Syr. yoyo

(Hoffmann, Gramm. Syr. p. 123), or in
different dialects of the same language,
e.g. in the Aramaic dialects the Syriac
a compared with the Chaldee ἡ}

{see Gesen, Thes. p. 359, Fiirst Aram.
Idiome § 45); (3) By the confusion of
sound in the same language or dialect,
e.g. a Judwan in the story professes
himself unable to distinguish between
ἽΝ, ‘a lamb,’ "2Y, ‘wool,’ WM, ‘ wine,’
and “iM, ‘an ass,’ as pronounced by a

Galilean, when the latter wants to make
a purchase ; see Fiirst, ἐδ. § 15. There
was the same confusion also in the Sa-
maritan pronunciation of the gutturals;
{sesen. Lehrgeb. § 32.1. On the rela-

tion of the gutturals to each other, see
Ewald, Ausf. Lehrb. ἃ. Heb. Spr. § 39
sq.

Assemani indeed (Bibl. Or. 111. 2,
Ῥ. 753) gives an instance of the inter-
change of the gutturals He and Cheth
in this very word Hagar: ‘Hagar

hes , Arabibus Hagiar, hoc est,
Petra; Ptolemaeo Agra, unde Agraei
populi Arabiae juxta sinum Persicum,
etc.’ But is there not a misprint or an
error here? Was this place ever written
in Arabic otherwise than with a simple
aspirate as in Syriac? At all events
Winer (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 παροίκησις, Leg. Alleg. τ. p. 135 M,
Sacr, Ab. et Ca. τ. p. 170 (παροικεῖ σοφίᾳ,
οὐ κατοικεῖ. Another derivation of
Hagar, or rather a play upon the word,
was JUN Ni, ‘here is thy wages’; see
Beer Leben Abraham’s p. 148.

198

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 ἐν τῇ ᾿Αραβίᾳ at all a likely expression to be used by
any writer for ἐν τῇ ᾿Αραβικῇ γλώσσῃ or ’ApaSiori, unless it were made
intelligible by the context? Yet this is the meaning generally assigned to
ἐν τῇ “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 Ὁ
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 word4—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’ (παροίκησις), 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. Erud,
Gr. I. P. 519 8q, ESP. PP. 521, 522, 530,
592, and Quaest, in Gen. Ὁ. 189 sq,
233 86 (Aucher). Compare also Leg.
Alleg. τ. p. 135, de Cherub. τ. p. 139 54;
de Prof. τ. p. 546, de Abr. τι, p. 52,
de Somn. τ. p. 656.

2 See the notes on συνστοιχεῖ and
ἀλληγορούμενα.

3 de Abr. τι. p. 15 ἐναντιώτατοι δὲ
ἀλλήλοις εἰσὶν οἱ λεχθέντες γάμοι.

4 In some passages Philo still further
refines on the change in her name (Gen.
xvii. 15): e.g. de Mut. Nom. 1. p. 590,
Quaest. in Gen. p. 229 (Aucher), de
Cherub. τ. p. 139. Her firstname Σάρα
("W) is ἀρχή μου, her after-name Σάρρα
(7) is ἄρχουσα (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 phrase. 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. Ata 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 ὅ,

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 ἡ Ἐπὶ δ᾽
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 ἣ μέση καὶ ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία is
Philo’s favourite phrase, e.g. de Cherub.
I. p. 130.

2 de Congr. Quaer. Erud. Gr. τ. p. 519
ταύτην Μωῦσῆς, τὸ παραδοξότατον, καὶ
στείραν ἀποφαίνει καὶ πολυγονωτάτην :
comp. de Mut. Nom. τ. pp. 599, 600,
where he adds κατὰ τὸ ἀδόμενον ἄσμα
ὑπὸ τῆς χάριτος “Avyns ἢ φησιν, Στεῖρα
ἔτεκεν ἑπτὰ ἡ δὲ πολλὴ ἐν τέκνοις ἠσθέ-
νησε (x Sam, ii. 5).

8 de Emecr. τι. p. 434 ἡ γὰρ ἔρημος,
ἡ φησὶν ὁ προφήτης, εὕτεκνός τε καὶ πο-
λύπαις, ὅπερ λόγιον καὶ ἐπὶ ψυχῆς ἀλλη-
γορεῖται (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.t. p. 394 σοφίαν μὲν Ἰσαάκ,
σοφιστείαν δὲ Ἰσμαὴλ κεκλήρωται : comp.
de Cherub. τ. 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 (28 AN W'S, ‘vir videns deum’;
comp. Hieron. in Gen. 111. p. 357).
Thus they are opposed to each other,
as ἀκοὴ to ὅρασις, as the fallacious to
the infallible, as the σοφιστὴς to the
σοφός, de Prof. τ. p. 577, de Mut, Nom.
I. p. 609.

5 de Cherub. τ. p. 140.

Bearing

on Inspi-

ration.

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 m 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 οὖν.

(i) It stands after στήκετε in NABOFGP 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 γὰρ with τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ.

1 I 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 (11. p. 139), in Jud.
H. 9 (1. p. 477), both extant only in
Latin.

4 Mor. 14 (i. p. 247, Garnier), ac-
cording to some of the best mss. In
the printed editions however it stands
after ἐλευθερίᾳ. In the de Bapt. (τι.
p. 641, Garnier), a treatise ascribed to
Basil but of doubtful authorship, its
place is after στήκετε.

5 Glaphyr. τ. p. 75.

EPISTLE ΤῸ THE GALATIANS. 201

(ii) Its position is after ἐλευθερίᾳ in C (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 τῇ yap ἐλευθερίᾳ κιτιλ.

In Asterius? οὖν is absent after ἐλευθερίᾳ, but, as the context is
wanting, it is impossible to say whether it occurred after στήκετε or
not.

Thus it will be seen that the balance of authority is decidedly in favour
of placing οὖν after στήκετε; 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 τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ.

2. The position of ἡμᾶς. It is found, (2) Posi-

(i) Before Χριστὸς in SABDEFGP and some cursive mss, in Origen tion of
(Latin translation), Theodore of Mopsuestia (Latin translation), and 24s-
Cyril,

(ii) After Χριστὸς in CKL and many cursive Mss, and in Chrysostom,

Theodoret, Asterius, Marcus Monachus, and Damascene.

(iii) After ἠλευθέρωσεν in Theophylact.

The versions and the Latin fathers vary, the majority placing it after
Χριστός ; 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 (Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς being perhaps the more natural order),
so that one authority in favour of ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς is of more weight than a
number against it. The order ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς may therefore be retained with
confidence,

3. Besides these, there still remains a third and more importantvariation. (3) The

(i) Τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἣ is read in D (by the correction of later hands‘) lative.
EKL and the great majority of cursives, in both Syriac versions, in
Basil, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia (Latin), Theodoret (twice),
Oyril, Asterius, Marcus Monachus, Theophylact, and Gicumenius, The
ZEthiopic has ‘ quia Christus nos liberavit; et state igitur,’

(ii) τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ alone is found in SABCDP and a few cursive mss, in
the Thebaic and Memphitic versions, and in Damascene and others.

(iii) ἡ ἐλευθερίᾳ 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 σι. p. 47. tereaque D** addidit signa quibus y Xs
2 In Ps. vy. Hom. 5, Cotel. Mon. ante ἡμὰς ponendum esse significaret,
Eccl. τι. p. 46. sed videntur ea signa rursus deleta
8 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. ἢ (a. p. 78), in Cant.
transpose ‘ nos.’ i. 6 (111. Ὁ. 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 τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ without 7 is so difficult as to be almost
unintelligible. Ata 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 τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ 7 to have been the original reading,
the omission of 7 in some texts admits of a very simple explanation.
Standing immediately before nuas (which in its proper position, as we have
seen, precedes Χριστός) it would easily drop out through the carelessness of
transcribers. In this case too the transposition Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς for ἡμᾶς
Χριστὸς was probably made for the sake of euphony to avoid the juxta-
position of 7 ἡμᾶς which came together in the original text.

At the same time the testimony in favour of τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ 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 ἐλευθερίᾳ, found chiefly in the Latin copies, is not
very easily accounted for, but was perhaps substituted for τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ 7
as a more elegant expression or as a viahaie wn 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, τῆς
ἐλευθέρας τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ 7) ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσεν. Στήκετε οὖν KT.A,

Ὗ. 2. 3]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

203

᾽ “- ΄ / a \ ,
"Ἴδε ἐγὼ Παῦλος λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅτι, ἐὰν περιτέμνησθε,
lo 2O\ 9 ͵ ΄ A /
Χριστὸς ὑμᾶς οὐδὲν ὠφελήσει: ὅὁμαρτύρομαι δὲ πάλιν
/ </ Ul ‘
παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ περιτεμνομένῳ, OTL ὀφειλέτης ἐστίν

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
and 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 sevyerer 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.

Ἴδε] so to be accented rather than
ἰδέ. According to the ancient gram-
marians, the pronunciation of common
dialect was ἴδε, λάβε, of the Attic ἰδέ,
λαβέ. See Winer ὃ vi. p. 55 sq.

ἐγὼ Ἰπαῦλος] Whatis the exact force
of this? Is it (1) An assertion of
authority? “1 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 αὐτὸς δὲ
ἐγὼ IladXos are used in combating the
contemptuous criticism of his enemies ;
and compare his tone ini. Io 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. 1.
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 Aimself so strongly.

περιτέμνησθε] ‘suffer yourselves to
be circumcised’ ; see the note on περι-
τεμνομένῳ Ver. 3.

3. Theargument 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.’

μαρτύρομαι δὲ πάλιν] “ Christ benefit
you? nay, I protest again’? The
adversative sense of δὲ is to be ex-
plained by the idea of ὠφελήσει.
Πάλιν refers to the preceding λέγω ;
‘I have said it, and I repeat it with
protestation,’

μαρτύρομαι] ‘I protest, ie. I assert
as in the presence of witnesses. The
word signifies properly ‘to call to wit-
ness’; and is never, except perhaps in
very late Greek, equivalent to pap-
rupo, ‘I bear witness.’ See the notes
on 1 Thess, ii. 12. For the dative
ἀνθρώπῳ compare Acts xx. 26. This
use of the dative is a remnant of the
fuller construction papripecdai τινί τι
(Judith vii. 28 μαρτυρόμεθα ὑμῖν τὸν
οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν), the accusative
being suppressed and the verb used
absolutely without reference to the
person of the witness.

περιτεμνομένῳ] ‘who undergoes cir-
cumcision, as περιτέμνησθε ver. 2,
and οἱ περιτεμνόμενοι Vi. 13 (the better
reading). In all these cases the pre-
sent tense is more appropriate than

204

« \ , nw
ὅλον TOV νόμον ποιῆσαι.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[V. 4—6

4katnpynOnte ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ,

« ap “~ /
οἵτινες ἐν νόμῳ δικαιοῦσθε, τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε.
~~ > > /
Sipuets yap πνεύματι ἐκ πίστεως ἐλπίδα δικαιοσύνης
᾽ 3 ea ἐἰ ἀρὰ ᾽ ’
ἀπεκδεχόμεθα: “ἐν γὰρ Χριστῷ [Ἰησοῦ] οὔτε περιτομή

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 a/low-
ing themselves to be circumcised, be-
ing free agenis.

4. κατηργήθητε, ἐξεπέσατε] 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 ἐὰν μή τις
μείνῃ ἐν ἐμοί, ἐβλήθη ἔξω ὡς τὸ κλῆμα,
Rev. x. 7: comp. Winer ὃ xl. p. 345.

κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ} a pregnant
expression for κατηργήθητε καὶ ἐχωρίσ-
θητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ, ‘Ye are nothing as
regards Christ, ye are entirely sepa-
rate from Him’; as Rom. vii. 2, 6;
comp. 2 Cor. xi. 3 φθαρῇ τὰ νοήματα
ὑμῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἁπλότητος, Col. ii. 20.

οἵτινες δικαιοῦσθε] ‘all ye who seek
your justification. See on περιτεμνο-
μένῳ, Ver. 3.

ἐξεπέσατε) ‘are driven forth, are
banished with Hagar your mother’:
see iv. 30 ἔκβαλε τὴν παιδίσκην. The
words ἐκπίπτειν and ἐκβάλλειν are cor-
relatives in this sense; e.g. Thucyd.
Vi. 4 ὑπὸ Σαμίων καὶ ἄλλων ᾿Ιώνων éx-
πίπτουσιν... τοὺς δὲ Σαμίους ᾿Αναξίλας
Ῥηγίνων τύραννος οὐ πολλῷ ὕστερον
ἐκβαλὼν κιτλ. For the form ἐξε-
πέσατε see Lobeck Phiryn. p. 724,
Winer § xiii. p. 86.

5. ἡμεῖς γάρ] ‘for we, who are in
union with Christ, we who cling to the
covenant of grace.’ γὰρ introduces an
argument from the opposite, as in
iii. 10.

πνεύματι] ‘spiritually? or ‘by the
Spirit. It is almost always difficult
and sometimes, as here, impossible to
say when πνεῦμα 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.

ἐλπίδα] here used in a concrete
sense, ‘the thing hoped for’; comp.
Coli. 5 τὴν ἐλπίδα τὴν ἀποκειμένην ὑμῖν,
Tit. ii. 13 προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν
ἐλπίδα, Heb. vi. 18; and see the note
Ο ἐπαγγελία, iil. 14.

ἀπεκδεχόμεθα] ‘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 ἀπὸ in ἀπο-
καραδοκία, and see a paper by ©. F. A.
Fritzsche in Fritzsch. Opuse. p. 156.

6. γάρ] explaining the emphatic
πνεύματι ἐκ πίστεως Which has gone
before: ‘By the Spirit, for the dispo-
sitions of the flesh, such as circumci-
sion or uncircumcision, are indifferent:
Srom 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.

πίστις κιτιλ] ‘In his stat totus
Chr istianismus, says Bengel.

évepyoupern | ‘ working’ ; the middle
voice according to the general usage
of St Paul. The Spirit of God or the
Spirit of Evil ἐνεργεῖ; the human agent
or the human mind ἐνεργεῖται: see the
note on 1 Thess. ii, 13. On the other
hand ἐνεργεῖσθαι 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

3 ᾿ af > , 3 A , 9 3 ,
TL ἰσχυει οὔτε ἀκροβυστία;, ἀλλα πίστις δι αγαπῆς

ἐνεργουμένη.

9? ᾽ὔ eng ; e ~ 9ς9 é 9 , 4
Ετρεχετε καλῶς τίς ὑμᾶς ἐνέκοψεν ἀληθείᾳ μὴ

« 3 > ~ - e -

πείθεσθαι; δὴ πεισμονὴ οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντος ὑμᾶς.

cendo per dilectionem perfici’), and
therefore this passage does not ex-
press the doctrine of ‘fides caritate
formata.’

These words 8? ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη
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 innumber? Yes, but the
contagion will spread: for what says
the proverb? A little leaven leaveneth
the whole lump. 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-
cumcision forsooth? If so, why do
they still persecute me? It is some
mistake surely! Nay, we shall work
together henceforth! there is no dif-
ference between us now! I have
ceased to preach the Cross of Christ!
The stumblingblock in the way of the
Gospel is removed!’

7. τρέχετε καλῶς" 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.

évéxovrev| 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 προκόπτειν, ‘to clear a way,’
‘to act as pioneer’; comp. Greg. Naz.
Or. xiv. 31 (I. p. 279 ed. Ben.) ἢ κακίας
ἐγκοπτομένης δυσπαθείᾳ τῶν πονηρῶν

ἀρετῆς ὁδοποιουμένης εὐπαθείᾳ τῶν
βελτιόνων. 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 xxiy.
4, 1 Thess, ii. 18. Compare the pas-
sive, Rom. xv. 22, 1 Pet. iii. 7. See
the note on φθονοῦντες, ver. 26.

The testimony in favour of ἐνέκοψεν
is overwhelming. Otherwise the re-
ceived reading ἀνέκοψεν suits the
metaphor of the stadium better; for
ἀνακόπτειν ‘to beat back’ would apply
to the ῥαβδοῦχοι (Thuc. vy. 50) who
kept the course: comp. Lucian JVigr.
§ 35 (1, p. 77) ἐξέπιπτόν τε καὶ dvexo-
πτόμην, Polyc. ὃ 5 ἀνακόπτεσθαι ἀπὸ
τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν. The word ἐγκόπτειν
seems to have given offence to tran-
scribers: in 1 Thess. ii, 18, as here,
ἀνακόπτειν stands as ἃ various reading ;
in Acts xxiv. 4, I Pet. iii. 7, ἐκκόπτειν.

8. πεισμονή] with a faint reference
to the preceding πείθεσθαι; ‘ You have
refused to obey the truth, you have
rendered another obedience which is
not of God. πεισμονή (Ignat. Rom. 3,
Justin Apol. I. c. 53, Ὁ. 17 B; comp.
πλησμονή, Col. ii. 23), like the English
‘persuasion,’ may be either active or

206

ϑμικρὰ ζύμη ὅλον τὸ φύραμα ζυμοῖ.

EPISTLE ΤῸ THE GALATIANS.

[V. 9—11

\ /
ey πέποιθα

~ ε > \
εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐν Κυρίῳ, ὅτι οὐδὲν ἄλλο φρονήσετε" ὁ δὲ

΄σ ΄ \ / εἶ > \ ἫΡ
ταράσσων ὑμᾶς βαστασει TO κρίμα, ὅστις ἐαν ἡ.

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.

τοῦ καλοῦντος] 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
ὃ xlv. p. 444.

9. 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 Schétt-
gen on I Cor. v.6. Heathen nations
also regarded leaven as unholy. Plu-
tarch, Quaest. Ztom. 109 (p. 289 8), in
answer to the question why the Fia-
men Dialis was not allowed to touch
leaven, explains it, ἡ ζύμη καὶ γέγονεν
ἐκ φθορᾶς αὐτὴ καὶ φθείρει τὸ φύραμα
μιγνυμένη. See Trench On the Para-
bles, Ὁ. 111.

For the expression ζὡμοῦν τὸ φύρα-
μα see Exod. xii. 34.

τ ἐγὼ

10. ἐγώ] emphatic, ‘Z, who know
you so well, who remember your for-
mer zeal’: iv. 14, 15.

πέποιθα] still dwelling on the same
word, πείθεσθαι πεισμονή ; see Winer
§ lxviii. p. 793 8q.

eis ὑμᾶς] ‘in regard to you’; see
Winer § xlix. p. 496: comp. 2 Cor.
Vili. 22 πεποιθήσει πολλῇ τῇ εἰς ὑμᾶς,
2 Cor. ii. 3 πεποιθὼς ἐπὶ πάντας ὑμᾶς
ὅτι κιτιλ., 2 Thess. iii. 4 πεποίθαμεν ἐν
Κυρίῳ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ὅτι κιτλ, ΑΒ in the
passage last cited, ἐν Κυρίῳ here de-
notes not the object of the writer’s
confidence, but the sphere in which it
is exercised.

οὐδὲν ἄλλο φρονήσετε] ‘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
ἐτρέχετε καλῶς, Ver. 7.

ταράσσων] ‘raises seditions, excites
tumults among you,’ the metaphor
being continued in ἀναστατοῦντες ver.
12. See the note oni. 7.

βαστάσει] ‘shall bear as a burden;
it shall press grievously on him’: see
Vi. 2, 5.

κρίμα] On the accent of this word,
which is κρῖμα in classical writers, see
Lobeck Paral. p. 418, Fritzsche Rom.
1. p. 96, Lipsius Gram. Unters. Ὁ. 40.
Compare the note on στύλοι, ii. 9.

ὅστις ἐὰν 7] ie. ‘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 Z, who have incurred the
deadly hatred of the Judaizers, who

V. 12]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

207

ιν κα ,ὔ ᾽ Aig / , ν» /
δέ, ἀδελφοί, εἰ περιτομὴν ETL κηρύσσω, τί ETL διώκομαι ;

3 \ i ~ ~
ἄρα κατήργηται τὸ σκάνδαλον τοῦ σταυροὺ"

™ ὄφελον

/ e ~ c ~
καὶ ἀποκόψονται οἱ ἀναστατοῦντες ὑμᾶς.

am exposed to continual persecution
from them, do J preach circumcision ?’

ἔτι κηρύσσω] For an explanation
of this ἔτι, see the notei.1o, Perhaps
however it should be explained rather
by the form which the slander of his
enemies would take; ‘You sti// preach
circumcision, though you have become
a Christian: why should not we con-
tinue to do the same?’

τί ἔτι] The second ἔτε is probably
argumentative, ‘this being the case,
as in Rom. iii. 7, ix. 19.

dpa] ‘so it appears!’ dpa introduces
a false statement or inference also
in I Cor. v. 10, xv. 14, 15, 18, 2 Cor. i.
17. It is here ironical; ‘So I have
adopted their mode of justification ;
I am silent about the Cross of Christ!
no one takes offence at my preaching
now; all goes on pleasantly enough!’
The σταυρὸς 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.

σκάνδαλον] almost confined, it would
appear, to biblical and ecclesiastical
Greek. σκανδάληθρον 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-
eumcision?’ 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.
iii. 2, 3 βλέπετε τὴν κατατομήν᾽ ἡμεῖς γάρ
ἐσμεν ἡ περιτομή, Where the same idea
appears, clothed in similar language.
ὄφελον] 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 ὄφελον
is lost sight of, and it is treated as a
mere particle; see Winer § xli. p. 377,
A. Buttmann § 139, Io, p. 185.
ἀποκόψονται 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 ἀποκόψονται 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 ἀποκεκομμένος, Deut.
Xxiii. 1, and indeed ἀποκόπτεσθαι 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 περιτέμνειν and ἀποκόπτειν see Dion
Cassius Ixxix. 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 ἀποκόπτονταί τινες καὶ
εἰς μητέρα θεῶν τὰ μυστήρια ἀναφέρουσι.
See also [Bardesanes] de Fato ὃ 20, in
Cureton’s Spic. Syr. p. 32. Thus by
‘glorying in the flesh’ the Galatians
were returning in a very marked way

_ 208

το

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[V. 13, 14

3'Yueis γὰρ ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἐκλήθητε, ἀδελφοί" μό-
νον μὴ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν εἰς ἀφορμὴν TH σαρκί, ἀλλὰ διὰ

τῆς ἀγάπης δουλεύετε ἀλλήλοις.

14 e A ~ /
ὁ yap πᾶς νόμος

? eA / , 2 .-» 3 " ‘
εν evt λόγῳ πεπλήρωται, ἐν τῷ δΔγὰπήοσεις TON

to the bondage of their former hea-
thenism. See iv. 9, v. I.

ἀναστατοῦντες stronger than ταράσ-
govres; ‘They not only incite you to
sedition, but they overthrow the whole
framework of your heavenly polity.’
For ἀναστατοῦν, a word unknown to
classical writers, who would use ἀνα-
στάτους ποιεῖν instead, see Acts xvii. 6,
xxi. 38. ‘Well does he say ἀναστατοῦν-
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,’

ἐπ᾿ édevSepia] For καλεῖν ἐπὶ see
1 Thess. iv. 7: comp. Ephes. ii. 10, and
Winer § xlviii. p. 492.

μόνον μή] 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).

μόνον μή K.7.d.] ‘only turn not your
liberty.” Some mss supply δῶτε, 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 μὴ is common in animated
passages in classical writers: e.g. Arist.
Ach. 345 ἀλλὰ μή μοι πρόφασιν. See
the instances in Jelf’s Gramm. ὃ 897.
Comp. Matt. xxvi. 5 μὴ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ.
ἀφορμήν] The word is peculiar to
St Paul among the New Testament
writers, occurring Rom. vii. 8, 11,
2 Cor. v. 12, xi. 12 (twice), 1 Tim. v. 14.
διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης Sovdevere] Both ἀγά-
ans and δουλεύετε 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 false servitude ap-
pears in 1 Pet. ii. 16 ws ἐλεύθεροι καὶ
μὴ ὡς ἐπικάλυμμα ἔχοντες τῆς κακίας
τὴν ἐλευθερίαν, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς Θεοῦ δοῦλοι.

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.’

ὁ πᾶς νόμος] ‘the entire law.’ The
idea of totality is expressed more
strongly by the exceptional position of
the article instead of the more usual.
order πᾶς ὁ νόμος; comp. I Tim. i. 16
τὴν ἅπασαν μακροθυμίαν, Plat. Gorg. Ὁ.
470 Ε ἐν τούτῳ ἡ πᾶσα εὐδαιμονία ἐστίν,
Ignat. Magn. 1 τὴν πᾶσαν ἐπήρειαν.

πεπλήρωται) ‘is summarily ful-
filled’ For the force of the perfect
see Winer § xl. p. 341, A. Buttmann
Ῥ. 172. Tertullian (adv. Mare. p. 4)

Ve s—1 7]

MAHCION COY ὧς CEAYTON.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

209

δεῖ δὲ ἀλλήλους δάκνετε

\ 9 / ΕἸ ΄σ
καὶ κατεσθίετε, βλέπετε μὴ UT’ ἀλλήλων ἀναλωθῆτε.
Ἰόλέγω δέ, πνεύματι περιπατεῖτε, καὶ ἐπιθυμίαν

4 3 \ /
σαρκὸς οὐ py TEAETNTE.

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 πληροῦται in the received text
enfeebles the sense. The meaning of
πληροῦν here is not to ‘sum up, com-
prehend,’ but ‘to perform, complete,’
as appears from the parallel passage,
Rom. xiii. 8 ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἕτερον, νόμον
πεπλήρωκεν ; 80 that ἐν ἑνὶ λόγῳ, ‘in
one maxim or precept,’ means ‘in the
observance of one maxim or precept.’

ἐν τῷ] probably neuter, in apposi-
tion to the sentence ; comp. Rom. xiii.
9, 10. See above on iv. 25.

τὸν πλησίον] 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, ν. 43.

σεαυτόν] 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 ἑαυτοῦ 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 ἑαυτῶν etc., never ἡμῶν αὐτῶν,
ὑμῶν αὐτῶν etc., as mere reflexives,
yet (2) in the singular there is not one
decisive instance of ἑαυτοῦ in the first

GAL.

14 γὰρ σὰρξ ἐπιθυμεῖ κατὰ

or second person; the authority of
the best mss being mostly against it.
See A. Buttmann p. 99; and for the
testimony of the mss in this text (Lev.
xix. 18) as quoted in the N. T., Tischen-
dorf on Rom. xiii. 9.

15. βλέπετε κιτ.λ.] 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. Ifyou
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 daw. 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. πνεύματι] 6 dative of the rule
or direction: see the notes v. 25, vi. 16.

οὐ μὴ τελέσητε] ‘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 πνεύματος, TO δὲ πνεῦμα κατὰ τῆς σαρκὸς" ταῦτα

\ 9 , > / e/ / A > θέ ~
yap ἀλλήλοις ἀντίκειται, iva py, a ἐαν θελητε, TavTa

ποιῆτε.

17. τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα] ‘but the Spirit
strives, fights against the flesh” As
ἐπιθυμεῖν cannot apply to the Spirit,
some other verb must be supplied in
the second clause. Throughout this
passage the πνεῦμα 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 τ. p. 354 8q.

ταῦτα yap κιτιλ.] 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 ??

ἵνα] 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 1 Thess. v. 4.

ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε] The parallel passage,
Rom. vii. 15, 16, determines the mean-
ing of θέλειν here. It denotes the
promptings of the conscience; ‘video
meliora proboque.’

18. πνεύματι ἄγεσθε] Comp. Rom.
Vili, 14 ὅσοι γὰρ πνεύματι Θεοῦ ἄγονται.

οὐκ ἐστὲ ὑπὸ νόμον᾽ Ὑ ou 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,
οὐ νόμῳ τῷ ἀπειλοῦντι δούλοις, πνεύματι
δὲ τῷ ἄγοντι τέκνα Θεοῦ. For νόμος
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.’

ἅτινα] ‘such as are, not d, ‘which
are’; the list not being exhaustive, but
giving instances only. See on iv. 24.

Though no systematic classification

τῷ .? \ / s/ 6 > > » eee | \ ,
εἰ δὲ πνεύματι ἄγεσθε, οὐκ ἐστε ὑπὸ νόμον.

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 their religious
dissensions, inflaming the excitable
temperament of a Celtic people. The
fourth seems to be thrown in to give a
sort of completeness to the list, though
not unfitly addressed to a nation whose
Gallic descent perhaps disposed them
too easily to these excesses; see the
introduction p. 13.

πορνεία x.t-A.] The same three words
occur together in a different order
2 Cor. xii. 21. The order here is per-
haps the more natural; πορνεία a spe-
cial form of impurity, ἀκαθαρσία un-
cleanness in whatever guise, ἀσέλγεια
an open and reckless contempt of pro-
priety.

ἀκαθαρσία] 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.

ἀσέλγεια] ‘wantonness.’ A man may
be ἀκάθαρτος and hide his sin; he does
not become ἀσελγὴς until he shocks
public decency. In classical Greek the
word ἀσέλγεια generally signifies in-
solence or violence towards another, as
it is defined in Bekker’s Anecd. p. 451,
ἡ μετ᾽ ἐπηρεασμοῦ καὶ θρασύτητος Bia.
In the later language, in the New Tes-
tament for instance, the prominent

V. 19, 20]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS,

211

xO) A δέ > \ ~ , ε , r
avepa δέ ἐστιν τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός, &TWa ἐστιν
> /
πορνεία, ἀκαθαρσία, ἀσέλγεια, ""εἰδωλολατρεία, φαρ-
᾽ of > ~
μακεία, ἔχθραι, Epis, ζῆλος, θυμοί, ἐριθεῖαι, διχοστασίαι,

20. ἔχθραι, ἔρει5.

idea is sensuality, ‘according to the
loose definition in Etym. Magn. ἕτοι-
porns πρὸς πᾶσαν ἡδονήν : comp. Polyb.
XXXVii, 2 πολλὴ δέ τις ἀσέλγεια καὶ περὶ
τὰς σωματικὰς ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῷ συνεξηκο-
λούθει. Thus it has much the same
range of meaning as ὕβρις.

20. In spiritual things two sins are
named ; εἰδωλολατρεία the open recog-
nition of false gods, and φαρμακεία the
secret tampering with the powers of
evil,

φαρμακεία] not ‘poisoning’ here, but
‘sorcery, witchcraft, as its association
with ‘idolatry’ shows: comp. Rev. xxi.
8 φαρμακοῖς καὶ εἰδωλολάτραις. On the
different kinds of φαρμακεία see espe-
cially Plato Legg. xi. pp. 932, 933:
comp. Philo de Migr. Abr. p. 449 M
ἢ οὐχ ὁρᾷς τοὺς ἐπαοιδοὺς καὶ φαρμα-
κευτὰς ἀντισοφιστεύοντας τῷ θείῳ λόγῳ,
Quod Det. Pot. p.198 Mrovs ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ
τῷ σώματι σοφιστὰς ovs φαρμακέας dvo-
pater, Plato Symp. p. 203 D δεινὸς γόης
καὶ φαρμακεὺς καὶ σοφιστής. This isa
common sense Οὗ φαρμακεύς, φαρμακεία,
in the Lxx. It isa striking coincidence,
if nothing more, that φαρμακεῖαι 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. τ. p. 209. For the
prevalence of γοητεία in Asia Minor
see Greg. Naz. Orat. iv. 31 (1. p. 91);
comp. 2 Tim. iii. 13.

20, 21. ἔχθραι xrA.] A principle
of order may be observed in the enu-
meration which follows ; (1) ἔχθραι, a
general expression opposed to ἀγάπη,
breaches of charity in feeling or in act:
from this point onward the terms are
in an ascending scale: (2), (3) ἔρις
‘strife’ not necessarily implying self-
interest ; ζῆλος ‘rivalry,’ in which the
idea of self-assertion is prominent:

(4), (5) θυμοὶ ‘wraths,’ a more passion-
ate form of ἔρις ; ἐριθεῖαι ‘factious ca-
bals,’ a stronger development of ζῆλος:
(6), (7) hostility has reached the point
where the contending parties separate;
such separation is either temporary
(διχοστασίαι ‘ divisions’), or permanent
(αἱρέσεις ‘sects, heresies’): (8) φθόνοι,
a grosser breach of charity than any
hitherto mentioned, the wish to de-
prive another of what he has; (9)
φόνοι, the extreme form which hatred
can take, the deprivation of life.

The first four words ἔρις ζῆλος θυμοὶ
ἐριθεῖαι occur in the same order 2 Cor,
xii. 20: comp. Rom. xiii. 13.

(pros | ‘emulation, rivalry, not ne-
cessarily, like φθόνος, 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, ζῆλος falls in
the scale of Christian ethics (see Clem.
Rom. §§ 4—6), while ταπεινότης for in-
stance rises.

θυμοῇ ‘outbursts of wrath? On
θυμὸς in its relation to épy7, as the
outward manifestation to the inward
feeling,see Trench, VV. 7. Syn. ὃ xxxvii.
p. 123. The plural is frequent even
in classical writers: see Lobeck on
Soph. Aj. 716.

ἐριθεῖαι] ‘caballings? Derived from
ἔριθος, the word signifies properly
‘working for hire’; hence it gets to
mean ‘the canvassing of hired parti-
zans’ (Suidas, ἐριθεύεσθαι ὅμοιόν ἐστι
τῷ δεκάζεσθαι, καὶ γὰρ ἡ ἐριθεία εἴρηται
ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ μισθοῦ δόσεως) and hence
more generally ‘factiousness’; comp.
Arist. Polit. ν. [viii.] 3, μεταβάλλουσι
δ᾽ ai πολιτεῖαι καὶ ἄνευ στάσεως διά τε
τὰς ἐριθείας ὥσπερ ἐν Ἡραίᾳ" ἐξ αἱρετῶν
γὰρ διὰ τοῦτο ἐποίησαν κληρωτάς, ὅτι

14---2}

212

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[V. 21, 22

7 , / , ~ \ /
αἱρέσεις, “φθόνοι, [φόνοι], μέθαι, κώμοι, καὶ τὰ ὅμοια
ὔ τὰ , ~ \ ~ /
τούτοις" ἃ προλέγω ὑμῖν καθὼς [Kal] προεῖπον, ὅτι οἱ
A ΄σ / , ΄σ “
τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες βασιλείαν Θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομή-

σουσιν.

ἡροῦντο τοὺς ἐριθευομένους. Thusit has
no connexion with ἔρις, unless indeed
both are to be referred ultimately to
the same root ἔρω ἔρδω, as is maintain-
ed by Lobeck Pathol. p. 365. Comp.
Fritzsche Rom. 1. Ὁ. 143. For ἐριθεία
following upon ζῆλος see James iii. 14,
εἰ δὲ ὥλον πικρὸν ἔχετε καὶ ἐριθείαν, and
ib. ver. 16.

αἱρέσεις] A more syuravaiel form
οδιχοστασίαι, when the divisions have
developed into distinct and organized
parties: comp. I Cor. xi. 18 ἀκούω σχίσ-
ματα ἐν ὑμῖν ὑπάρχειν καὶ μέρος τι
πιστεύω, δεῖ γὰρ καὶ αἱρέσεις ἐν ὑμῖν
εἶναι, and the remarks of Tertullian de
Praescr. Haer. § 5, thereon.

21. φθόνοι] On the distinction of
ὥλος the desire to be as well off as
another, and φθόνος the desire to de-
prive another of what he has, see
Aristotle Rhet. ii. 9, 10, 11, who says,
διὸ καὶ ἐπιεικές ἐστιν ὁ ζῆλος καὶ ἐπι-
εικῶν, τὸ δὲ φθονεῖν φαῦλον καὶ φαύ-
λων. Compare Trench NV. 7. Syn,
§ xxvi. p. 82, and to the references
there given add Asch. Agam. 939 ὁ
δ᾽ ἀφθόνητός γ᾽ οὐκ ἐπίζηλος πέλει, and
Thucyd. ii. 64.

φόνοι] is omitted by some editors
with a few of the most ancient texts,
as an interpolation from Rom. i. 29,
where φθόνου φόνου 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. Zroad. 763 φθόνου
φόνου re. For the paronomasia see
Winer ὃ lxviii. p..658.

μέθαι, κῶμοι) aS Rom. xiii. 13; comp.

22% δὲ \ - 7 ’ - , ’
[9] € Kap7rOs TOU πνευματος εστιν αὙαΤΉ,

Dion Cass. Ixv. 3 μέθαι τε καὶ κῶμοι.

ἃ προλέγω κιτ.λ.} For the construc-
tion comp. Joh. viii. 54 ὃν ὑμεῖς λέγετε
ὅτι Θεὸς ὑμῶν ἐστίν.

προεῖπον] probably on the occasion
of his second visit. Seei.9, iv. 13, 16,
and the introduction p. 25.

βασιλείαν κιτ.λ.] Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 9,
10, XV. 50.

22. ὁ δὲ καρπός] The Apostle had
before mentioned the zcorks 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
general aspect, ‘love, joy, peace’ ; the
second gives special qualities affecting
a man’s intercourse with his neigh-
bour, ‘long-suffering, kindness, benefi-
cence’; while the third, again general
in character like the first, exhibits the
principles which guide a Christian’s
conduct, ‘honesty, gentleness, temper-
ance.’

ἀγάπη x.t.A.| The fabric is built up,
story upon story. Love is the foun-
dation, joy the superstructure, peace
the crown of all.

μακροθυμία «.r.A.] This triad is again
arranged in an ascending scale ; paxpo-
θυμία is passive, ‘patient endurance
under injuries inflicted by others’;

V. 23, 24]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

213

χαρά, εἰρήνη, μακροθυμία, χρηστότης, ἀγαθωσύνη, πίσ-

oh > ’
τις, “᾿πραὕτης, ἐγκρατεια.

\ ~~
κατὰ τῶν TOLOUTWY οὐκ

᾽᾽ ’ 24 ε δὲ ΄ m~ 9 ~ A /
ἔστιν νόμος. ot δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τὴν σάρκα
> ‘ ~ ’ ΄:
ἐσταύρωσαν σὺν τοῖς παθήμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις.

χρηστότης, neutral, ‘a kindly disposi-
tion towards one’s neighbours’ not ne-
cessarily taking a practical form ; ἀγα-
θωσύνη, active, ‘goodness, beneficence’
as an energetic principle. For the
first two words compare 1 Cor. xiii. 4
ἡ ἀγάπη μακροθυμεῖ χρηστεύεται. The
second is distinguished from the third
as the ἦθος from the ἐνέργεια ; χρηστό-
της is potential ἀγαθωσύνη, ἀγαθωσύνη
is energizing χρηστότης. 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.
§ lsiii. p. 218 sq.

πίστις] 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. il. 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 ἡ dyarn...mwavra πιστεύει.

23. mpairns| ‘meekness’ is joined
with πίστις (used apparently in the
same sense as here) in Ecclus. xlvy. 4
ἐν πίστει καὶ MpavTnre αὐτοῦ ἡγίασεν (sc.
Μωῦσῆν). On the meaning of πραὔτης
see Trench NV. 7. Syn. §§ xlii, xliii.
p. 140 sq; and on the varying forms
πρᾶος (-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.

κατὰ τῶν τοιούτων 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. I Tim. i. 9 εἰδὼς τοῦτο, ὅτι δικαίῳ

νόμος οὐ κεῖται, ἀνόμοις δὲ Kal ἀνυποτάκ-
τοις κατλ. Thus then the Apostle sub-
stantiates the proposition stated in
ver. 18, ‘If ye are led by the Spirit,
ye are not under law,’

24. οἱ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ] ‘now
they that are of Christ Jesus” Seve-
ral of the Greek fathers strangely con-
nected rod Χριστοῦ with τὴν σάρκα,
‘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 δὲ in his text,
and therefore made οὗ a relative agree-
ing with τῶν τοιούτων, which he took as
masculine. See Jerome’s note here.

Ἰησοῦ] 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 ὁ Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς. This order
occurs also in Ephes. iii. 1, 11, Col. ii. 6,
but in both passages with some varia-
tion of reading.

ἐσταύρωσαν] ‘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 ὁ παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος συνε-
σταυρώθη; 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-
γήθητε.

τοῖς παθήμασιν x.t.r.] ‘the affections
and the lusts’; comp. Col. iii. 5, 1 Thess.
iv. 5,andsee Trench J. 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. [1] Mace. §3. At
the same time παθήματα perhaps re-
tains something of the meaning which

214

Set ζῶμεν πνεύματι, πνεύματι καὶ στοιχῶμεν.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[V. 25, 26

26

μὴ

γινώμεθα κενόδοξοι, ἀλλήλους προκαλούμενοι, ἀλλήλους

φθονοῦντες.

26. ἀλλήλοις φϑονοῦντες.

it has in Greek philosophy ; and, if so,
it is more comprehensive than ἐπιθυ-
pia; see for instance Arist. Zth. Nic.
li. 4 λέγω" δὲ πάθη μὲν ἐπιθυμίαν
ὀργὴν φόβον θράσος x.7.A.

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.

εἰ ζῶμεν πνεύματι] Sif we live to the
Spirit, The dative here is safest in-
terpreted by the corresponding datives
in the parallel passage, Rom. vi. 2, 10,
τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ἀποθανεῖν, ver. 11 νεκροὺς μὲν
τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ζῶντας δὲ τῷ Θεῷ : Comp.
also Rom. xiv. 8, Κυρίῳ ζῶμεν, Κυρίῳ
ἀποθνήσκομεν, 2 Cor. Vv. 15.

πνεύματι Kat στοιχῶμεν] ‘let us also
walk by the Spirit’ The dative with
στοιχεῖν, περιπατεῖν, etc., marks the
line or direction; as Polyb. xxviii.
5, 6 βουλόμενοι στοιχεῖν τῇ τῆς συγκλή-
του προθέσει.
Ill. p. 142, and A. Buttmann p. 1τ6ο.
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

Comp. Fritzsche Rom. '

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.

γινώμεθα] not ὦμεν. This vain-
glorying was a departure from their
spiritual standard.

κενόδοξοι) ‘vainglorious. So kevo-
dogia, Phil. ii. 3, and occasionally in
Polybius and later writers. In Wisd.
xiv. 14 κενοδοξία seems to mean rather
‘vain opinion,’ ‘folly.’

προκαλούμενοι] ‘ provoking, challeng-
ing to combat’ Both this word and
φθονεῖν are ἅπαξ λεγόμενα in the New
Testament. In the Lxx φθονεῖν oc-
curs once only, Tob. iv. 16; προκαλεῖ-
σθαι never.

ἀλλήλους φθονοῦντες] 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 φθονεῖν 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 ἐγκόπτειν ver. 7. Comp. also
Heb. viii. 8 μεμφόμενος αὐτούς (the cor-
rect reading). So too πολεμεῖν 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

VI. 17
VI.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

215

᾿Αδελφοί, ἐὰν καὶ προλημφθῇ ἀνθρωπος ἔν τινι

- \ 4S.
παραπτώματι, ὑμεῖς οἱ πνευματικοὶ καταρτίζετε TOV
΄ oh, ΄σ A \
τοιοῦτον ἐν πνεύματι TPAVTNTOS, σκοπῶν σεαυτὸν μὴ

some day, and may stand in need of
like forgiveness. Have sympathy one
with another. Lend a ready hand in
bearing your neighbours’ burdens. So
doing you will fulfil the most perfect of
all laws—the law of Christ. But if
any one asserts his superiority, if any
one exalts himself above others, he is
nothing worth, he is a vain self-de-
ceiver. Nay rather let each man test
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. Each of us must carry
his own load.’

I. 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 been promptly and zealously
responded to. He had even to pro-
test against undue severity, to inter-
pose for the pardon of the guilty one.
The remembrance of this incident still
fresh on his mind may be supposed to
have dictated the injunction in the
text. The striking resemblance in his
tone here to 2 Cor. ii. 6—8, where he
is speaking of the Corinthian offender,
bears out this conjecture. See the
introduction, p. 54.

ἐὰν καί] See the note on i. 8.

προλημφθῇ) ‘be surprised, detected
in the act of committing any sin,’ so
that his guilt is placed beyond a doubt.
For this sense of προλαμβάνειν, ‘to
take by surprise, to overpower before

one can escape, see Wisd. xvii. 16
προλημφθεὶς τὴν δυσάλυκτον ἔμενεν
ἀνάγκην : Comp. κατείληπται, J Oh. viii. 4.
The word cannot here meay ‘be be-
trayed into sin, for neither will the
preposition ἐν admit this meaning, nor
is it well suited to the context.

ὑμεῖς of πνευματικοί] 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 ἡμεῖς of δυνατοί. In this
case there would be a slight shade of
irony in πνευματικοί. 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 οἱ πνευ-
ματικοί, see I Cor. ii. 13, 15, iii. I.

καταρτίζετε] ‘correct, restore. The
idea of punishment is quite subordi-
nate to that of amendment in καταρτί-
(ere, which on this account is preferred
here to κολάζετε or even νουθετεῖτε,
though the latter occurs in a similar
passage, 2 Thess. ili. 15 μὴ ὡς ἐχθρὸν
ἡγεῖσθε ἀλλὰ νουθετεῖτε ὡς ἀδελφόν. On
καταρτίζειν see the note 1 Thess. iii. ro.
It is used especially as a surgical term,
of setting a bone or joint; see the
passages in Wetstein on Matt. iv. 21.

ἐν πνεύματι πραὔτητος] Comp. 1 Cor.
iv. 21 ἐν ἀγάπῃ πνεύματί re πραὕὔτητος.

216

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[VI. 2—4

Ἂ : \
Kal ov πειρασθῆς. "ἀλλήλων τὰ βάρη βαστάζετε, Kat

e/ / A / ΄σ ~
οὕτως ἀναπληρώσετε TOV νόμον TOU Χριστοῦ.

ϑεἰ γὰρ

ΕΝ > s δὲ ᾽ ~ e , ἮΝ 4 \ δὲ
δοκεῖ τις εἶναί τι μηδὲν ὧν, φρεναπατᾷ ἑαυτον" ὅτοὸ δὲ

2. οὕτως ἀναπληρώσατε.

Gentleness is a characteristic of true
spirituality. By their conduct towards
wrong-doers their claim to the title of
πνευματικοὶ would be tested.

σκοπῶν] The transition from the
plural to the singular gives the charge
a direct personal application; ‘each
one of you individually.’ Compare the
καὶ 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 law, let it be the
law of Christ.’ The Apostle seems to
have used both βάρη and νόμον (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 φορτί-
(ere τοὺς ἀνθρώπους φορτία δυσβάσ-
τακτα, Acts xv. 10 ἐπιθεῖναι ζυγὸν ὃν
οὔτε οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν οὔτε ἡμεῖς ἰσχύ-
σαμεν βαστάσαι, ver. 28 μηδὲν πλέον
ἐπιτίθεσθαι ὑμῖν βάρος. For the ‘law
of Christ,’ always in contrast to the
law of Moses, see 1 Cor. ix. 21 ἔννομος
Χριστοῦ, Rom. iii. 27 διὰ ποίου νόμου;
τῶν ἔργων; οὐχί, ἀλλὰ διὰ νόμου πίσ-
τεως, Vill. 2 ὁ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς
ζωῆς κιτὰλ.; comp. James i. 25, ii. 12.

ἀλλήλων τὰ βάρη κιτ.λ.] Comp. Matt.
viii. 17, Rom. xv. I τὰ ἀσθενήματα τῶν
ἀδυνάτων βαστάζειν, Ignat. Polye. 1.
πάντας βάσταζε ὡς καί σε ὃ Κύριος,
and again πάντων τὰς νόσους βάσταζε,
Epist. ad Diogn. ὃ 10 ὅστις τὸ τοῦ
πλησίου ἀναδέχεται βάρος. Here the po-
sition οὗ ἀλλήλων 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,’

dvanAnpacere] ‘ye will rigorously
JSuljil, the idea of completeness being

contained in the preposition. It is
difficult to decide here between the
readings ἀναπληρώσετε and ἀναπληρώ-
gare, the external authority for either
being nearly balanced. On the whole
the preference may perhaps be given
to ἀναπληρώσετε 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 ἀνα-
πληρώσατε 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.

τοῦ Χριστοῦ) is added in a manner
mapa προσδοκίαν; ‘ 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.

εἰ yap δοκεῖ τις κιτ.λ.] Comp. Plat.
Apol, p. 41 & ἐὰν δοκῶσί τι εἶναι μηδὲν
ὄντες, Arrian Epict. ii. 24. δοκῶν μέν
τις εἶναι ὧν δ᾽ οὐδείς : and for οὐδὲν
εἶναι, see I Cor, xiii. 2, 2 Cor. xii. 11.

μηδὲν ὧν] ‘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 ματαιολόγοι καὶ ppeva-
marat. More is implied by this word

VI. 5]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 217

~ , / , >
ἔργον ἑαυτοῦ δοκιμαζέτω ἕκαστος, καὶ τότε εἰς ἑαυτὸν
«“ \ > 3 \ 4 /
μόνον TO καύχημα ἕξει, Kal οὐκ εἰς τὸν ἕτερον" SéKa-
2 / /
στος yap τὸ ἴδιον φορτίον βαστάσει.

than by dzaray, for it brings out the
idea of subjective fancies and thus en-
forces the previous δοκεῖ. 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. τὸ δὲ ἔργον ἑαυτοῦ] ‘his own
work’ ; ἔργον, emphatic by its position,
stands in contrast to δοκεῖ and dpeva-
mara; and this contrast is enhanced
by the addition of ἑαυτοῦ.

δοκιμαζέτω] ‘let him test, examine’ ;
see the notes on 1 Thess. ii. 4, v. 21.

eis ἑαυτὸν κιτ.λ. ‘in himself and not
by comparison with others’ ‘Probi-
tas in re, non in collatione,’ says Cas-
talio. For the preposition compare
Ephes. iii. 16 κραταιωθῆναι εἰς τὸν ἔσω
ἄνθρωπον, Rom. iv. 20, xv. 2, xvi. 6,
etc.: Winer ὃ xlix. p. 496.

τὸ καύχημα] ‘his ground for boast-
ing’; καύχημα is the matter of καύχη-
ois; compare Rom. iii, 27 with iv. 2,
and 2 Cor. i. 12 ἡ γὰρ καύχησις ἡμῶν
αὕτη ἐστὶν κιτιὰλ. With i. 14 ὅτι καύχημα
ὑμῶν ἐσμέν.

τὸν ἕτερον] ‘his neighbour” For the
article compare Rom. ii. 1, xiii. 8,
1 Cor. vi. I, x. 24, 29.

5. Having started from the pre-
cept ‘bear one another’s loads,’ the
Apostle has worked round to an appa-
rently contradictory statement ‘each
man must bear his own burden.’ This
expression of complementary truths
under antagonistic forms is character-
istic of St Paul. For instances of
similar paradoxes of expression see
Phil. ii. 12, 13 ‘work out your own
salvation, for it is God that worketh
in you, or 2 Cor. xii. 10 ‘when I am
weak, then I am strong’ Compare
also his language in speaking of the
law, Romans vi, vii.

τὸ ἴδιον φορτίον] It is difficult to

establish any precise distinction be-
tween φορτίον here and βάρη, 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
βάρη points to a load of which a man
may fairly rid himself when occasion
serves, φορτίον to a load which he is
expected to bear. Thus φορτίον 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 (φορ-
riov), as each is supplied with his own
provisions (ἐφόδια, Clem. Rom. 2), and
each receives his proper pay (ὀψώνια
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, βαστάζειν τὸ ἴδιον φορτίον refers
rather to the discharge of the obliga-
tions themselves than to the punish-
ment undergone for their neglect.

βαστάσει) ‘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 ajpli-
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 ἢ Ve , \ ΄ “-
Κοινωνείτω δὲ ὁ κατηχούμενος τὸν λόγον τῷ κατη-
7” > ~ > a A ~ \ Res
χοῦντι ἐν πᾶσιν ἀγαθοῖς. "un πλανᾶσθε, Θεος ov μυκτη-
7 “Δ \ 2 \ " “
ρίζεται" ὃ γὰρ ἐὰν σπείρη ἄνθρωπος, τοῦτο καὶ θερίσει"

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 δέ.

6. κοινωνείτω] ‘let him impart to’;
literally ‘let him go shares with.’ The
word is properly intransitive and
equivalent to κοινωνὸς εἶναι ‘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 κεκοινώνηκεν αἵματος καὶ σαρ-
kos; comp. Proy. 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 Asch.
c. Cles. p. 63 of ἀποδόμενοι καὶ κατα-
κοινωνήσαντες τὰ τῆς πόλεως ἰσχυρά,
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
κοινωνός, and expresses the person or
thing with which the other makes
common cause. He who κοινωνεῖ in
this case may be either the receiver, as
Rom. xv. 27 τοῖς πνευματικοῖς αὐτῶν ἐκοι-
νώνησαν τὰ ἔθνη, or the giver, as Rom.
ΧΙ, 13 ταῖς χρείαις τῶν ἁγίων κοινωνοῦν»
res. Here the latter is intended.

catnxovpevos | instructed. Theword
in this sense is not peculiar to biblical
Greek. κατήχησις ‘oral instruction’
occurs as early as Hippocrates p. 28.
25 κατηχήσιος ἰδιωτέων, and probably
κατηχεῖν ‘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 ἀπόστολος, p. 92
note 3.

ἐν πᾶσιν ayabois|‘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. ii. 6,
9, 2 Cor. xi. 7 sq, Phil. iv. 10 sq,
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 ἀγαθοῖς, ‘temporal blessings,’ see
Luke i. 53, xii. 18, 19, xvi. 25. Com-
pare Barnabas ὃ 19 κοινωνήσεις ἐν
πᾶσι τῷ πλησίον cov.

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. οὐ μυκτηρίζεται] ‘is not mocked,’
Μυκτηρίζειν, 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]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

219

ε , - ᾽ ~ ᾿
ὅτι ὁ σπείρων εἰς τὴν σάρκα ἑαυτοῦ ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς

, / e \ / > \ - 9 τ
θερίσει φθοράν, ὁ δὲ σπείρων εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα ἐκ τοῦ

, / \ re
πνεύματος θερίσει ζωὴν αἰωνιον.

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
μυκτὴρ is frequently connected with
εἰρωνεία, a8 in Lucian Prom. ¢ 1;
compare Pollux ii. 78 καὶ τὸν εἴρωνά
τινες μυκτῆρα καλοῦσι. In writers on
rhetoric μυκτηρισμὸς is ordinarily
treated as a species of εἰρωνεία; see
for instance four different treatises on
‘tropes’ in the Rhet, Graec. II. 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
μυκτηρίζεται in this passage: ‘you
cannot with impunity turn your pro-
fessions to contempt, you cannot with
God indulge in a postica sanna.’

ὃ yap ἐὰν x.r.A.] A common proverb
not only in the Bible (Job iv. 8), but
elsewhere; e.g. Cic. de Orat. ii. 65
‘ut sementem feceris, ita metes,’ and
Gorgias in Arist. Rhet. iii. 3 σὺ δὲ ταῦτα
αἰσχρῶς μὲν ἔσπειρας κακῶς δὲ ἐθέρισας
(see Plato Phaedr. 260 ο, 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 (see p. 14);
that they had not heartily responded
to the call; and that St Paul takes
this opportunity of rebuking their
backwardness, in passing from the ob-
ligation of supporting their ministers
to a general censure of illiberality.
See p. 55.

8. The former verse speaks of the
kind of seed sown (ὃ ἐὰν σπείρῃ). In
the present the metaphor is otherwise
applied, and the harvest is made to
depend on the nature of the ground

\ A A
%7rq δὲ καλὸν ποι-

in which it is cast (εἰς), as in the para-
bleof the sower. In moral husbandry
sowers choose different soils, as they
choose different seeds. The harvest
depends on both the one and the
other. For St Paul’s diversified ap-
plication of metaphors, see the notes
on ii. 20, iv. 19.

ἑαυτοῦ] which disturbs the equi-
librium of the clauses, is added to
bring out the idea of sedyishness.

φθοράν] ‘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 σπείρεται
ἐν φθορᾷ, Col. ii. 22 ἅ ἐστιν πάντα eis
φθορὰν τῇ ἀποχρήσει. The metaphor
suggests that φθορὰν 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 ξωὴ αἰώνιος
the metaphor is finally abandoned.

9. 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 μὴ ἐγκακήσητε
καλοποιοῦντες. The word καλοποιεῖν
includes ἀγαθοποιεῖν and more, for
while ra ἀγαθὰ are beneficent actions,
kind services, etc., things good in their
results, ra καλὰ are right actions, such
as are beautiful in themselves, things
absolutely good. In this passage, as
in 2 Thess. /.c., the antithesis of καλὸν
and κακὸν seems to be intended, though
it can scarcely be translated into Eng-
lish ; ‘in eeld doing let us not show an
ali heart,’

220

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[VI. τὸ

οὔντες μὴ ἐγκακώμεν" καιρῷ γὰρ ἰδίῳ θερίσομεν μὴ

’
EKAVOMEVOL,

ἐγκακῶμεν] ‘turn cowards, lose
heart’; éyxaxeiv or ἐνκακεῖν is the cor-
rect word in the New Testament, not
ἐκκακεῖν. It is read persistently in a
few of the best mss, though in all
six passages where it occurs ἐκκακεῖν
is found as a various reading ; see the
note on 2 Thess. iii. 13.

καιρῷ ἰδίῳ] ‘at its proper season,
i.e. the regular time for harvest; comp.
1 Tim. ii. 6, vi. 15, Tit. i. 3.

μὴ ἐκλυόμενοι] if we faint not, as
husbandmen overcome with heat and
fatigue. Comp. James y.7. For ἐκ-
λύεσθαι compare I Mace. 111, 17, Matt.
xv. 32, Mark viii. 3. On the synonymes
here used Bengel remarks: ‘ ἐκκακεῖν
[rather ἐγκακεῖν] est in velle, ἐκλύεσθαι
est in posse.’ To this it may be added
that ἐκλύεσθαι is a consequence of ἐγ-
κακεῖν ; the prostration of the powers
following on the submission of the will.

10. ws καιρὸν ἔχομεν] ‘as we find
a seasonable time, as opportunity pre-
sents,’ The καιρὸς here answers to the
καιρὸς 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 ‘hile we
have time’; comp. Joh. xii. 35 ὡς τὸ
φώς ἔχετε (as it is read in the best
Mss), Ignat. Smyrn. 9 ὡς ἔτι καιρὸν
ἔχομεν, (Clem. Rom.] ii. 8 ὡς οὖν ἐσμὲν
ἐπὶ γῆς, ib. § 9 ὡς ἔχομεν καιρόν. The
distinction is introduced by transla-
tion; the original ws covers both
meanings.

τοὺς αἰκείους x.7.A.] ‘the members of
the household of the faith’: compare
Ephes. ii. 19 συνπολῖται τῶν ἁγίων Kat
οἰκεῖοι τοῦ Θεοῦ. Similarly the Church
is elsewhere spoken of as the house of
God, 1 Tim. iii. 15, 1 Pet. iv. 17; comp.
I Pet. ii. 5, Heb. iii. 6. We need not
therefore hesitate to assign this mean-
ing to οἰκεῖοι here. Comp. Clem. Ree.

10 " ἫΝ ε \ ᾽ 3 ,
apa οὖν ws καιρὸν ἔχομεν, ἐργαζώμεθα

Ῥ. 45, L 31 (Syr.). In this case τῆς
πίστεως Will probably be nearly equi-
valent to τοῦ εὐαγγελίου; see above,
Ῥ. 157. On the other hand, οἰκεῖός
tivosis not an uncommon phrase in pro-
fane writers for ‘acquainted with,’ e.g.
φιλοσοφίας, γεωγραφίας, ὀλιγαρχίας,
τυραννίδος, τρυφῆς; see the passages
in Wetstein: but this sense would be
insipid here.

11. At this point the Apostle takes
the pen from his amanuensis, and the
concluding paragraph is written with
his own hand. From the time when
letters began to be forged in his name
(2 Thess, ii. 2, iii. 17), it seems to have
been his practice to close with a few
words in his own handwriting as a
precaution against such forgeries, Fre-
quently he confined himself to adding
the final benediction (2 Thess. iii.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.

Ἴδετε κιτιλῇ ‘Look you in what
large letters I write with mine own
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 γράμ-
ματα sometimes signifies ‘a letter’
(Acts xxviii. 21, 1 Mace. v. 10, comp.
Ignat. Polyc. 7, Clem. Hom. xii. 10),
and therefore πηλίκα γράμματα might
mean ‘how long a letter’; but on the
other hand, it seems equally clear that

VI. 11]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

221

\ ᾽ A \ ’ ΄ \ A \ 93 /
τὸ ἀγαθὸν πρὸς πάντας, μάλιστα δὲ πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους

τῆς πίστεως.

Ἴδετε πηλίκοις ὑμῖν γράμμασιν ἔγραψα TH ἐμῇ

γράμμασιν γράφειν ‘to write with let-
ters’ cannot be used for γράμματα
γράφειν ‘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 πηλίκοις 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 ἄγαν μείζοσιν ἐχρήσατο
γράμμασιν ἐμφαίνων ὅτι οὔτε αὐτὸς ἐρυ-
θριᾷ οὔτε ἀρνεῖται τὰ λεγόμενα. The
boldness of the handwriting answers
to the force of the Apostle’s convic-
tions. The size of the characters will
arrest the attention of his readers in
spite of themselves.

ὑμῖν] Its right place is after πηλί-
κοις, though a few mss have transposed
the words, Standing therefore in this
position, it cannot well be taken with
ἔγραψα, ‘I write’ or ‘I wrote io you’ ;
but is connected rather with πηλίκοις,

which it emphasizes, ‘how large, mark
you’; see eg. Plat. Theaet. p. 143 2
ἀκοῦσαι πάνυ ἄξιον οἵῳ ὑμῖν τῶν πολι-
τῶν μειρακίῳ ἐντετύχηκα.

ἔγραψα) ‘I 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 ἔγραψα see Philem. 19, 21,
I Pet. v. 12, 1 Joh. ii. 14, 21, 26, v. 13;
comp. ἐπέστειλα, Heb. xiii. 22. The
objection, that the aorist cannot be
so used except at the close of a letter
and in reference to what goes before,
seems to be groundless; for (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. ὃ τ ἐγράψαμεν
ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὰ κατὰ τοὺς μαρτυρήσαν-
τας, these words occurring immedi-
ately after the opening salutation;
comp. ἔπεμψα, Acts xxiii. 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. ὃ 345. Thus ἔγραψα
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, who would.
force circumcision upon you. They
have no sincere belief in its value.
Their motive is far different. They
hope thereby to save themselves from
persecution for professing the cross of
Christ. For only look at their incon-

222

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[VI. 12, 13

,ὔ 12 °/ / > ~ > / =
χειρί. “ὅσοι θέλουσιν εὐπροσωπῆσαι ἐν σαρκί, οὗτοι
> / ε ~ / / ε΄ ΄- ~
ἀναγκάζουσιν ὑμᾶς περιτέμνεσθαι, μόνον iva τῷ σταυρῷ

΄“- ~ \ /
τοῦ Χριστοῦ py διώκωνται.

136 p>) \ \ e /
VOE Yap οἱ TEPLTEMVO-

\ ’ , 5 A ’ ~~
μενοι. αὐτοὶ νόμον φυλάσσουσιν, ἀλλα θέλουσιν ὑμᾶς

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. εὐπροσωπῆσαι x.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 εὐπροσωπῆσαι
as on ἐν σαρκί, 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, οἵτινες ἔξωθεν φαίνονται
ὡραῖοι (Matt. xxiii. 27). The adjec-
tive εὐπρόσωπος is not uncommon in
classical Greek, and generally has this
sense, ‘specious, plausible,” eg. De-
mosth. p. 277 λόγους εὐπροσώπους Kal
μύθους συνθεὶς καὶ διεξελθών. The verb
εὐπροσωπίζειν ([) occursin Symmachus,
Ps, cxli. 6.

ἐν σαρκί ‘in the flesh,’ i.e. in ex-
ternal rites. It has been taken by
some as equivalent to σαρκικοὶ ὄντες,

but, besides that this interpretation
is harsh in itself, ἐν capxi here cannot
well be separated from ἐν τῇ ὑμετέρᾳ
σαρκὶ of the following verse.

μόνον iva] seemingly elliptical; ‘only
(their object in doing so is) that they
may not etc.’ See the note on ii. 10.

τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ Χριστοῦ] 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.

διώκωνται)] The reading διώκονται,
however well supported, can only be
regarded as a careless way of writing
διώκωνται. In the same way in ver. 10
many texts read ἐργαζόμεθα for épya-
ζώμεθα ; compare Rom. γ. 1, ἔχομεν
and ἔχωμεν.

13. οὐδὲ γὰρ κιτ.λ.] ‘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 περιτεμνόμενοι] ‘the circumcision
party, the advocates of circumcision.’
See the apt quotation from the apo-
cryphal book Act. Petr. et Paul. ὃ 63
(p. 28, ed. Tisch.), where Simon says
of the two Apostles, οὗτοι of περι-
τεμνόμενοι πανοῦργοί εἰσιν, to Which
St Paul replies, πρὸ τοῦ ἡμᾶς ἐπιγνῶναι

VI. 14, 15]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

223

, 4 =~ s 4 ,
περιτέμνεσθαι, ἵνα ἐν TH ὑμετέρᾳ σαρκὲ καυχήσωνται.
> \ A / ~ ? 3 ~ ~
“ἐμοὶ δὲ μὴ γένοιτο καυχᾶσθαι, εἰ μὴ ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ot οὗ ἐμοὶ κόσμος ἐ-
/ 3 \ / af \ / 9
σταύρωται κἀγὼ κόσμῳ. “ouTE γὰρ περιτομή TL ἐστὶν

τὴν ἀλήθειαν σαρκὸς ἔσχομεν περιτομήν᾽
ὅτε δὲ ἐφάνη ἡ ἀλήθεια, ἐν τῇ καρδίας
περιτομῇ καὶ περιτεμνόμεθα καὶ πε-
ριτέμνομεν : and compare the some-
what similar classical usage in the ex-
pression oi péovres Plat. Theaet. Ὁ. 181 A.
See the note i. 23. If this interpre-
tation be correct, the present tense
leaves the question open whether the
agitators were converted Jews or con-
verted proselytes. The former is more
probable ; for proselytes would not be
so dependent on the good opinion of
the unconverted Jews. The balance
of authority is perhaps in favour of
reading περιτεμνόμενοι rather than
περιτετμημένοι, a8 the versions which
have a present tense may safely be
urged in favour of the former, while
those which have apast cannot with the
same confidence be alleged to support
the latter; but independently of ex-
ternal authority, a preference must be
given to περιτεμνόμενοι, as probably
the original reading, of which περιτε-
τμημένοι is so obvious a correction.

νόμον] ‘They are no rigorous ob-
servers of daw, regarded as a prin-
ciple. On the absence of the article,
see the references in the note on
v. 18.

ὑμᾶς, ὑμετέρᾳ] opposed to αὐτοί;
‘Indifferent themselves, they make
capital out of you.’

ἐν τῇ ὑμετέρᾳ x.t.A.] 1.6. that they
may vaunt your submission to this
carnal rite and so gain credit with the
Jews for proselytizing. Comp. Phil.
iii. 3 καυχώμενοι ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ
οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθότες.

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.’

μὴ γένοιτο] 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, xiii. 5.

ἐν τῷ 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.

δ ot] probably refers to σταυρῷ ;
‘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 Χριστοῦ, we
should have expected rather ἐν 6 or
σὺν o. For the same image as here
compare Col. ii. 14 αὐτὸ ἤρκεν ἐκ τοῦ
μέσου προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ (1.9,
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 κόσμος, the material
universe, is the sphere of external or-
dinances.

Some texts insert the article before
κόσμος and kdopz@—before either or
both. It should be expunged in both
places with the best mss. The sen-
tence thus gains in terseness.

15. This verse has been variously
lengthened out and interpolated from
the parallel passage, v. 6. Some of
these interpolations have very consi-
derable ms authority. The reading

224

\ \ /
οὔτε ἀκροβυστία, ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS,

[VI. 16

16 A ek ἴω
Kat οσοι τῳ

/ / \ \
κανόνι τούτῳ στοιχήσουσιν, εἰρήνη ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς Kal ἔλεος,

adopted is the shortest form, and
doubtless represents the genuine text.
οὔτε yap «.r.A.] In this annibilation
of the world all external distinctions
have ceased to be. This sentence oc-
curs again, v.6 and 1 Oor. 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 Offend. d. Johann.
I. p. 232. Cedrenus (Hist. Comp. p. 4)
states that the Revelation of Moses
was identified by some persons (φασί
τινες) With the ‘Little Genesis,’ This
latter title is another name for the
Book of Jubilees, which of late years
has been discovered in an Athiopic
translation. In the Book of Jubilees
however the words in question do not
occur; see Ewald’s Jarhb. m1. p. 74.
καινὴ κτίσις} ‘anew creature’ Com-
yare the parallel passage, 2 Cor. v. 17
εἴ τις ἐν Χριστῷ καινὴ κτίσις. This
phrase καινὴ κτίσις, ΠῚ 772, is ἃ
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 παλιγγενεσία ‘re-
generation’; see also Ephes. iv..24
καινὸν ἄνθρωπον κτισθέντα; comp.
Ephes. ii. 10, 15, Col. iii. 10; and 2
Cor. iv. 16, ἀνακαινοῦσθαι.
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.’

ὅσοι] ‘as many as; no matter
whether they are of the circumcision
or of the uncircumcision’

στοιχήσουσιν] ‘shall walk? This
reading is to be preferred to στοι-
χοῦσιν, 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 ὃ xl. p. 350.

τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ] ‘by this line, cor-
responding to the meaning of στοιχεῖν.
Κανὼν 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 τῷ αὐτῷ στοιχεῖν,
where κανόνι is interpolated in some
texts from this passage.

καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ x.t.d.] ‘ 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 WV. 7.
Syn. § xxxix. p. 129 sq, and compare
Ephes. ii. 12 ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς πολι-
τείας τοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ, Rom. ix. 4 οἵτινές
εἰσιν ᾿Ισραηλῖται, ὧν ἡ υἱοθεσία KT.
(comp. 2 Cor. xi. 22, Phil. iii. 5), John
i. 48 ἴδε ἀληθῶς ᾿Ισραηλίτης, compared
with ver. 50 σὺ βααιλεὺς εἶ rod Ἰσραήλ.
St Paul is perhaps referring here to
the benediction εἰρήνη ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραήλ,
which closes Psalms ΟΧχν, exxviii, and
must have been a familiar sound in
the ears of all devout Israelites.

The ‘Israel of God’ is in implied

VI. 17]

Kal ἐπὶ TOV Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ Θεοῦ.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

225

os ~~ /
17 τοῦ λοιποῦ κόπους

μοι μηδεὶς παρεχέτω" ἐγὼ γὰρ τὰ στίγματα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ

ἐν τῷ σώματί μου βαστάζω
ν τῷ σωματίμ ;

contrast to the ‘Israel after the flesh’
(1 Cor. x. 18); comp. Rom. ix. 6 ov
yap πάντες of ἐξ ᾿Ισραὴλ οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ,
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 καὶ is epexegetic, 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 mybody. I bear this badge
of an honourable servitude.’

τοῦ λοιποῦ] ‘henceforth’ differs from
τὸ λοιπόν, as ‘in the time to come’
from ‘throughout the time to come.’
Compare νυκτὸς and νύκτα. In the
New Testament it occurs only here
and Ephes. vi. 10, where however the
received reading is τὸ λοιπόν.

τὰ στίγματα] ‘the brands,’ ie. the
marks of ownership branded on his
body. These στίγματα 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 orvy-
ματίαι, ‘literati’ (see the ample collec-
tion of passages in Wetstein), and such
brands were held a badge of disgrace ;
Pseudo-Phocyl. 212 στίγματα μὴ ypa-
Wns ἐπονειδίζων θεράποντα, Senec. de
Benef. iv. 37, 38. (2) Slaves attached
to some temple (ἱερόδουλοι) or persons
devoted to the service of some deity
were so branded: Herod. ii. 113 ὅτεῳ
ἀνθρώπων ἐπιβάληται στίγματα ipa,

GAL.

ἑωυτὸν διδοὺς τῷ θεῷ, οὐκ ἔξεστι rov-
του ἅψασθαι, Lucian de Dea Syr. ὃ 59
στίζονται δὲ πάντες οἱ μὲν ἐς καρποὺς
οἱ δὲ ἐς αὐχένας ; Philo de Mon. τι. p.
221 M.: comp. 3 Mace. 11,29. The pas-
sage of Lucian isa good illustration of
Rey. 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 M1 Ὁ.
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 iepds δοῦλος
is mentioned in a Galatian inscription,
Texier Asie Mineure τ. 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 τὴν νέκρωσιν τοῦ
Ἰησοῦ ἐν τῷ σώματι περιφέροντες, Xi. 2 3,
See the introduction, p. 51 sq.

Whether the stigmata of St Francis
of Assisi can be connected by any
histori¢al link with a mistaken inter-
pretation of the passage, I do not
know. Bonaventura in his life of this
saint (§ 13. 4) apostrophizes him in
the language of St Paul, ‘Jam enim
propter stigmata Domini Jesu quae in
corpore tuo portas, nemo debet tibi
esse molestus’; and the very use of
the word ‘stigmata’ (which is retained
untranslated in the Latin Versions)
points to such a connexion. On the
other hand, I am not aware that this
interpretation of the passage was cur-
rent in the age of St Francis. A little
later Aquinas paraphrases the words,
‘portabat insignia passionis Christi,’
but explains this expression away in
the next sentence.

15

226

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[VI. 18

18 Ἡ χάρις τοῦ Kupiov ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ

τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοί.

Ἰησοῦ) So it is read in the majority
of the older mss. All other variations,
including the received reading τοῦ κυ-
ρίου Ἰησοῦ, are inferior, for the personal
name of the owner alone is wanted.

βαστάζω] St Chrysostom has pro-
bably caught the right idea, οὐκ εἶπεν
ἔχω ἀλλὰ βαστάζω, ὥσπερ τις ἐπὶ τρο-
παίοις μέγα φρονῶν. Compare the use
of περιφέροντες in 2 Cor. iv. 10 already
quoted. For βαστάζω see Acts ix. 15.

18, pera τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν] ‘ with

ἀμήν.

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.

ἀδελφοί] ‘brothers, in an unusual
and emphatic position ; comp. Philem.
7. St Paul’s parting word is an ex-
pression of tenderness ; ‘ Ita mollitur,’
says Bengel, ‘totius epistolae severi-
tas.’ See the note on vi. 1.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

The Patristic Commentaries on this Epistle.

Tux 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 Kirchengeschichle.
Special works relating to the subject, to which reference is also made, are
Simon’s Histoire Critique des Principaux Commentateurs du N. T.
(1693), Rosenmiiller’s Historia Interpretationis Librorum Sacrorum
(1795 —1814), and a treatise by J. F. 5, Augustin in Ndésselt’s Opusc. ΤΙ.
Ῥ. 321 Βα.

1. EARLIER COMMENTARIES.

(a) Greek and Syrian Fathers.

(i) *Onreunus (+ 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 Zettschr.
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. Iv. 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) Kparanm Syrus (t+ 378), the deacon of Edessa, An Armenian
‘version of a commentary on the Scriptures, including St Paul’s Epistles,

{5-2

227

Books of
reference.

1. EARLIER
Comm=En-
TARIES.

(a) Greek
and Sy-

Origen.

Ephraem
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 1. p. 235, Fabricius vim.
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. τι. p. 498, 1. p. 497 sq
(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) *Husesius EMisENvs (+ about 360), so called from the name of his
see Emesa or Emisa (Hums), a native of Edessa. A few fragments of his
work are preserved in Cramer’s Catena, pp. 6, 8, 12, 20, 28, 32, 40, 44, 57,
62, 64, 65, 67, 91. It is described by Jerome, as ‘ad Galatas libri 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 Emesent Opusc. Greece. etc. 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 materials for an account of this writer.

(iv) Joannes Curysostomus (t+ 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 toits value. At the same time

School of
Antioch.

Eusebius
of Emisa.

Chryso-

stom.

1 Zenker Bibl. Orient. also men-
tions as published at Venice in 1833 a
book by Aucher, bearing the title S. P.
Ephraemi Syri Comment. in Epist. 5.
Pauli etc. ex antiquissima Armenica
versione nunc primum latinitate dona-

‘tum. But it is not included in a re-

cent catalogue of the works printed
at the Armenian press at Venice, and

though advertised, seems never to have
appeared.

2 Through the kindness of Dr Rieu
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.

it would seem from its character to have been intended for oral delivery.
It is an eloquent popular exposition, based on fine scholarship. The date is
uncertain, except that it was written at Antioch, i.e. before a.D. 398, when
St 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. Zpist.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) *SxzveRranvs (about 400), bishop of Gabala in Syria, first the friend
and afterwards the opponent of Chrysostom; see Schréckh x. p. 458 sq.
He wrote an Expositio in Epistolam ad Galatas (Gennad. de Vir. Illustr.
6. 21, Hier. Op. τι. p. 981). Gennadius speaks of him as ‘in divinis scrip-
turis eruditus” Several fragments of this work are preserved in Cramer’s
Catena, pp. τό, 18, 23, 29, 39, 40, 55, 58, 59, 64, 66, 70, 82, 93, and one at
least in the (icumenian commentary (Gal. i. 13). Like most writers of the
Grzeco-Syrian School he maintained the literal meaning of Scripture against
the allegorists. See Cave 1, p. 375, Fabricius x. Ὁ. 507.

(vi) THroporus MopsvsEstTEeNus (+ 429), a native of Tarsus, so called
from the see of Mopsuestia which he held. He wrote commentaries on ali
St Paul’s Epistles; see Ebed Jesu’s Catalogue in Assemann. Bibl. Orient.
II. 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. uxv1. 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. τ. 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 Corinthians, and the two together were entitled Expositio
Sancti 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- 816 none of his, but belong to Theo-
dore in Mai Nov. Patr. Bibl. vit. 1.p.408 doret.

229

Severia-
nus.

Thecdore
of Mopsu-
estia.

230

‘Theo-
doret.

EZuthalius.

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. τι. 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 ΠῚ. p. 250 sq, Schréckh xv. p. 197 sq.

(vii) THEODORETUS (+ 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 xvi. 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 scareely 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
τὸν δεῖνα καὶ τὸν δεῖνα) who are ‘luminaries of the world’: and he professes
nothing more than to gather his stores ‘from the blessed fathers.’ In these
expressions he alludes doubtless to Chrysostom and Theodore.

(viii) Eurnauius, 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 Votitia printed in Hierocl. Synecd. p. 79, ed.
Parthey), wrote his work while a young man in the year 458. On his date
see Zacagni Collect. Mon, Vet. τ. pp. 402, 536, Fabricius ΙΧ. p.287. Hutha-
lius edited the Epistles of St Paul, dividing them into chapters (κεφάλαια) and
verses (στίχοι), writing a general preface and arguments to the several epi-

1 Whilst the first edition of this
work was going through the press, my
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

a matter of conjecture.

2 Thus for instance he makes Theo-
dore fall into the common error of
interpreting συνστοιχεῖ, Gal. iv. 25, ‘is
contiguous to’ (‘affinis,’ ‘confinis’);
but the context, as well as the Greek
fragment which has ἰσοδυναμεῖ, shows
that the blunder is the translator’s own.

8 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, 231

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. lxxxvi, lxxxvii. Reasons however have been as-
signed for thinking that Huthalius 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, ].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. τ. p. 402 sq, and may be found in
Gallandi x. p. 197 sq.

(ix) *Gmnnapivs (+ 471), patriarch of Constantinople. A few extracts Genna-
in the printed editions of the @cumenian Catena bear the name of Gen- dius.
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. Lxxxv.
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) *Puortrus (+ about 891), patriarch of Constantinople. For the fullest Photius.
information on the writings of this great man, see Fabricius x. p. 670 sq.
Large fragments bearing the name of Photius are preserved in the (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, x1. 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 accu-
rately described in the new Catalogue. These fragments cf 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. (b) Latin,
(i) ©. Marius Victorinvs (about 360), an African, surnamed the Phi- Victori-
losopher, converted to Christianity in old age, taught rhetoric at Rome 245.
when Jerome was a boy. He wrote commentaries apparently on all St
Paul’s Epistles (Hieron. de Vir. Iilustr. 101, pref. ad Gal.), of which the
expositions of the Galatians, Philippians, and Ephesians alone are extant.
They were first published by Mai Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. 111. 2, p. 1 (1828),
and may be found in Migne Patr. Lat. vu. 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,

232

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, m. 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 vi. p. 210, x1v. 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 Ὁ. 133 sq: see also Rosenmiller m1.
p. 589 sq. I have generally quoted this commentator as the Ambrosian
Hilary, or as Hilary simply.

(iii) Evsssrus SopHronrus Himronymus. His ‘Commentarii in Epi-
stolam ad Galatas’ (vi1. p. 367 ed. Vallarsi) were written about the year
387 (Hieron. Vit. x1. Ὁ. 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 vit. 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) AvRELIus Aucustinus; ‘Zxpositio 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 ‘Interpreter of Scripture’ are sufficiently vindicated by

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 233
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 continuous
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) Pzuacrus, the great heresiarch, wrote his commentaries on the Pelagius.
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
fathered upon Jerome, and are generally printed in the editions of his works
(Σι. 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.
Good accounts of this commentary will be found in Simon p. 236 sq,
Schréckh xiv. p. 338 sq, and Rosenmiiller m1. p. 503 sq.
(vi) Magnus AurELIus Cassioporus (+ after 562). ‘ Complexiones in Cassiodo-
Epistolas Apostolorum, in Acta, et in Apocalypsin, first brought to light ™S
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. See Schréckh xvi. p. 153, Rosenmiiller v. Ὁ. 412 sq.
2. SEcoNDARY COMMENTARIES, excerpts, compilations, and collections of 2. Laren
variorum notes, mostly of a later date. CoMMEN-
(a) Greek Writers. (a) Gre ὰ
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.’

234

Damas-
cene.

Cramer’s
Catena.

(@£cume-
nius.

Theophy-
lact.

(Ὁ) Latin.

Primasius.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

(i) Joannus DAMASCENUS (about 750). A commentary on St Paul's
Epistles, being an epitome of Chrysostom (see Fabricius Ix. p. 281,
Schréckh xx. p. 207), printed in Jo. Damase. Op. τι. p. 1 sq (ed. Le Quien).

(ii) Anonymous 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
Hmisa 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) Coumentus (10th 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 vi. 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 Gicumenius 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. Pair. Grac. p. 366. There are
considerable variations in the different mss of this work; see Fabricius
l. c. p. 696, and Oramer’s Catena Ὁ. 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 @icumenius. The mss in
some instances supply names to extracts which in the printed editions
are anonymous. The few extracts from Cyril do not appear to be taken
from a commentary on this epistle.

(iv) TuxopHyLaotus (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
Ῥ. 346, comp. Fabricius vil. p. 591.

To these should be added the commentary of Euraymius 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 ena
siaster), Jerome, Augustine, and Pelagius, directly or indirectly.

(i) Prrtasrus (about 550), bishop of Adrumetum in Africa, wrote a
commentary on all St Paul’s Epistles, including the Epistle to the Hebrews
and the Apocalypse. It is a brief and fairly executed compilation from
the Latin fathers already noticed, the most successful of these secondary
commentaries. The editio princeps is by Gagnée (Lyons, 1537). This work

EPISTLE ΤῸ THE GALATIANS. 235

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 seen 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 learning.
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 éxpositors 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 some cases, and here and there a passage culled
from the writings of Gregory the Great. Yet among these commentators,
who were thus content to compile from the labours of their predecessors,
are found the names of some of the ablest and most famous churchmen
of their day.

(ii) Sxpuntus (Scotus? 8th or oth century ἢ). ‘Zn 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 11. p. 15, Simon p. 379. This
commentary is printed in Magn. Bibi. Vet. Patr. v. 1, p. 438, and in
Migne’s Patrol. Lat. ott. p. 181.

(iii) Cnauprus TAURINENSIS (+ about 840), less correctly called ‘ Altis- Claudius,
siodorensis’ or ‘ Autissiodorensis’ (of Auxerre), ἃ 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. otv. 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 ΧΧΙΠ.

p. 281, Cave 11 p. 16.

(iv) Fiorus LuepuNnensis, 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.

Aito,
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 (vi. 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. oxtx. Ὁ. 363.

(v) Rasanus Mavrus (+ 856), archbishop of Mentz. Znarrationum
in Epistolas B. Pauli libri triginta, a catena from the fathers, the names
being given. The commentary on the Galatians in this collection is made
up of large extracts from Jerome, Augustine, and the pseudo-Ambrose
(see above p. 229), with one or two passages from extraneous writers,
e.g. Gregory the Great. In Migne’s Patrol, Lat. oxi, oxi.

(vi) Watarrebus Strazo 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. Ὁ. 135, and especially Simon p. 377.
Printed in Migne’s Patrol. Lat. oxtv. p. 570.

(vii) Haymo, bishop of Halberstadt (+ 853), wrote a commentary on
St Paul’s Hpistles, which has been attributed also to his contemporary
Remicivus (of Lyons?). See Cave 11. pp. 28, 42, Schréckh xxmIL p. 283,
Simon p. 365. Printed in Migne’s Patrol. Lat. oxvu. p. 669.

Later commentaries still, differing’ little in character from those just
enumerated and for the most part equally unoriginal, are those of ΑὙΤῸ
VERCELLENSIS (+ about 960), Migne’s Patrol. Lat. OxxxIv. p. 491; see
Schréckh xxi p. 302: of Lanrrano (+ 1089), an interlinear gloss and
commentary, Migne on. p. 259; see Simon Ὁ. 385, Schréckh xxiv. p. 334;
the authorship however has been questioned: of Bruno CARTHUSIANUS
(+ 1101), the founder of the order, Migne 111. p. 281; see Simon p. 387:
and of Hmrvevus Dotensis (about 1130), Migne oLxxxI. p. 1129; see Cave
ll. 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.

AR ἈΚ

and
Oni
tec
τὶν
}

rt

AR
af) a

Sade
ἀραὶ
ΡΟΣ .΄

ies
is

I,

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
‘ : ᾿ theory.
ever has been claimed for them by several writers, more especially
commentators on this epistle; and this claim it will be necessary
now to consider.

How or when this theory arose I do not know: but it seems, in
some form or another, to have been held as early as the beginning
of the sixteenth century; for Luther takes occasion by it to read Luther’s
his countrymen a wholesome lesson. ‘Some think,’ he says, ‘that 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 Luther’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
Mondes, 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 τι. Theyare very cient authors is Dion Cassius, who

WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 241

Cvesar 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. bandh
On this point there is little or no wavering, I believe, from first
to last.

afiinities 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 wnd 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), 15 of opinion that
Germany as well as Gaul was of old
occupied by races which we should call
Celtic.

16

242 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 peor
many striking features which betokened identity of race.

Jerome’s The testimony of one of these witnesses is especially valuable.

nijayy thy Jerome, who writes at the close of the fourth century, had spent

mene 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 (γάλα),

testimony of the Christian Lactantius.

described by Virgil (din. 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
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,

was called Gallo-Grecia and afterwards Galatia.

himself a Gaul and a native of Poitiers, calls the Gauls stupid (indo-
ciles). It is true that Gaul produces orators, but then Aquitania
boasts a Greek origin, and the Galatians are not descended from
these but from the fiercer Gaulish tribes (de ferocioribus Gallis sint

profecti).’

1 Jerome mentions his visit to Ga-
latia (totius Galatiae iter), and his
sojourn in Gaul (Rheni semibarbarae
ripae) in the same letter (Epist. iii, 1
pp. 10,12). While in Gaul, he appears
to have stayed some time ‘apud Tre-
veros’ (Epist. Ὑ, 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, τι. p. 335).
Lastly, in his commentary on this
epistle (viz. p. 430), he mentions having

Though betraying the weakness common to all ancient

seen Ancyra the capital of Galatia,

2 II. p. 425.

3 ΤΆ 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- ΠΟ
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 tks the
concludes the passage above quoted; ‘ Besides the Greek,’ he says, Seni etal
‘which is spoken throughout the East, the Galatians use as their voi ai
native tongue a language almost identical with that of the Treveri ;
for any corruption they may have introduced need not be taken into
account”,’ The Treveri, it is affirmed, were Germans and spoke a

German tongue’*.

1 «The science of language,’ says
Prof. Max Miiller, ‘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-
cessors, 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 T'reviri: see
Gliick Die bei Caesar 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?

who were

nash This question is not free from difficulty. The fact that German
auls,

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 (Vortrdge
tiber Rom. Gesch. τι. 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
Tpnovtpas δὲ συνεχεῖς Νερουΐοι καὶ τοῦτο
Γερμανικὸν ἔθνος. If καὶ τοῦτο here
refers to Τρηουΐροις, which however is
very questionable (see Ukert m. 2, p.

361, note 65), it would seem that
Strabo did not care to dispute their
claims.

2 Anni. 43, 44, lll. 44, Hist. iv. 71, 73.

3 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. 3, 45, Vi.
2, 7, 8, vil. 63. So too Mela iii. 2
calls them ‘clarissimi Belgarum.’ Dion
Cassius in like manner, xxxix. 47, xl.
31, li. 20, separates them from his
Κελτοί (1.6. Germans). See Diefenb.
Celt. τι. 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 a Sate
change. About the close of the third century a colony of Franks ae ONS
settled in the waste lands of the Nervii and Treveri’. This was séitlers.
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.
v. 3) compared with Vercingetorix (ib.
vii. 4); see Brandes, p. 84. (2) Cesar
relates that the maritime parts of
Britain were peopled by the Belgsx
(v. 12, comp. ii. 4), and the British
on the sea-coasts were certainly Celts.
These facts seem decisive. On the
other hand (3) Ca#sar speaks of a
difference of language between the
three divisions of Gaul, the Belge, the
Aquitani, and the Celte (‘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), ὁμογλώττους δ᾽ οὐ πάντας,
ἀλλ᾽ ἐνίους μικρὸν παραλλάττοντας ταῖς
γλώτταις, 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 1. p. 58 sq,
Thierry 1. p. 153, 4me ed., Brandes
p. 85 sq), and as the tradition seems
to connect the Galatians with the
Belge, 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 Kumen. Paneg. Constantio Ces. c.
21, ‘Tuo, Maximiane Auguste, nutu
Nerviorum et Treverorum arva jacentia
laetus postliminio restitutus et receptus
in leges Francus excoluit,’ Paneg. Vet.
Ῥ. 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. ib. 6. xix.

2 Perrot (De la Disparition de la
Langue Gauloise en Galatie, p. 180 sq
in the Revue Celtique, no. 2, Aotit

246 WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS?

Evidence But the evidence for the Celtic parentage of the Galatians is not
oy ibe ν᾿ confined to the testimony of ancient writers, however well informed.
oun 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) Termi- (1) Several Galatian names of places and persons exhibit Celtic
nations of ere
proper terminations. These are as follows:
suo (OF places :
-BRIGA. Eccobriga (tin. Ant. p. 203, ed. Wess., Tab. Peut.) ;
Ipetobrigen (Jéin. Hieros. p. 574). It signifies ‘a hill’; see Zeuss
Gr. Celt. p. τοι, Gliick p. 126.
-IacuM. Rosologiacum (tin. Ant. p. 143); Acitorihiacum (Zab.
Peut.) ; Teutobodiaci (Plin. v. 42); Timoniacenses (? Plin. v. 42).
On this very common Celtic termination see Zeuss G. C. p. 772.
and per- Of persons :
na -anaTus. Eposognatus (Polyb. xxii. 20): compare Critognatus,

Boduognatus (Cesar), and several Celtic names in inscriptions;

(gnath, ‘ consuetus’; Zeuss G. C’. p. 82, and compare 20. p. 19).
-maRUS. Combolomarus (Liv. xxxviii. 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 onthe 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 Jnser. 4039); a 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
(Cic. Harusp. Resp. 28); Deiotarus (Cic. pro Reg. Devot., comp.
Boeckh Jnser. 4072). See Zeuss G. C. p. 823.
(2) But it is not only in the terminations that the Celtic origin (2) Gala-

ς tian
of the language is seen. It appears unmistakeably also in a large names and

proportion of the Galatian names and words which have been pre- Wiens
served.

Strabo tells us (xii. p. 567) that the great council of the Galatian Saga)
people met at a place called Drynametum (Δρυναίμετον). Now
nemetum (‘nemed’) is a good Celtic word for a temple: we meet
with it for instance in Augustonemetum, ‘the temple of Augustus,’
at Clermont in the Auvergne; in Vernemetum, ‘the great temple,’

in the province of Bordeaux, of which it is said

Nomine Vernemetis voluit vocitare vetustas,

Quod quasi fanum ingens Gallica lingua refert’;

in another Vernemetum also in Britain (Jiin. Ant. Ὁ. 479); and in
several other names: comp. Diefenb. Celt. 1. p. 83, 11. 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, τό, 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, Eeurtae
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 Θ΄, 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?

Pravsvs, ‘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 Crrerurius, ‘the famous, the glorious’ (Pausan.
x. 19. 4; certh, ‘celebrated,’ certhrwyz, ‘glory’; Thierry 1. p. 219,
from Owen’s Welsh Dict.). Bouerus again (Pausan. 7b.), also written |
Belgius (Justin. xxiv. 5), presents the same Celtic root which appears
in ‘Belge’ (comp. Diefenb. 1. p. 200, 11. pp. 61 sq, 267). The
name of AcicHoRIUS too (Pausan. 1. c.) or Cichorius (Diod. xxii.
fragm.), who is associated with Brennus in the command, taken as
a Celtic word, describes his office (cygwiawr, ‘colleague,’ Thierry
I. p. 225).

Among later Galatian names of persons we meet with Gazaro-
piastus (Boeckh Jnscr. 4039), doubtless to be connected with the
‘Gesate’ 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. n. viii. 662,
Diefenb. 1. p. 126); and Brogoris (Boeckh Jnscr. 4118), the root of
which appears in Brogitarus, Allobroges, etc.; Zeuss G. C. p. 106;
Gliick p. 27. Again the name Biruitus, Bitovitus, or Bitctus,
seems to occur both in Asiatic (Appian “ον. 111) and in Euro-
pean Gaul (ib. Celt. 12, Liv. Zpit. lxi); for the reasons given
(Wernsdorff p. 164) for assigning the first of these, who slew Mith-
ridates, to the western nation seem insufficient. Nor is this the
only proper name which links the two countries together. Strabo
(xiii. p. 625) mentions one ADoBoGion, a Galatian; the name
Adbogius appears on an inscription relating to 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
Trcrosac# 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 ToLisToBoctt,
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.
Cass. Hue. 1. p. 133, ed. L. Dind.). The riddle of this legend I
shall not attempt to read; I simply quote it to show the connexion
of the Gallic Tolosa with the Asiatic settlement. Indeed this name
occurs in Galatia itself under the form Tolosocorium (Zab. Peut.),
The second element in the com-
Τὸ is the
name borne by the tribe of the Boii which plays so prominent a

and ToAaora χωρίον (Ptol. v. 4).
position of Tolostobogii or Tolostoboii is no less Celtic.

part in early Gallic history, and is not uncommon as a termination

“οὗ 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 Troomi 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 Other

been recorded. The explanations given of these may be found in Sing ᾿
Diefenbach (see his references 11. p. 251). Among others which are

less patent, one is certainly a good Celtic word μάρκα, mentioned

1 Diefenbach, Celt. 11. p. 248, quotes
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 (ὁ. 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-

sent some variations, there seems to be
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, 11.
Ῥ. 331, Zeuss G. C. p. 25.

250

Result.

Supposed
German
atfinities,

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,
Lurartus and Lronnorivs, are both German ; and that the Galatian
tribe TrEvTOBODIACI 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. iv. 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 (Acta 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 ἀρκώγαξῇ
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 vi
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.

IT.

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 ἀδελφοῖς et rats ἀδελ-
gaits τοῦ Κυρίου (Leyden, 1839); of
Schaf, Das Verhiltniss des Jakobus Bru-
ders des Herrn zu Jakobus Alphii (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. Iam also 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 Zebeddi 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 l Epitrede Jude,
and of Goy (Mont. 1845), referred to in
Bishop Ellicott’s Galatiansi. το, I have
not seen. My objeci 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 τὰ μέσα in literature
and theology, as well as in polities, ὑπ᾽
ἀμφοτέρων ἢ ὅτι οὐ ξυνηγωνίζοντο ἢ
φθόνῳ τοῦ περιεῖναι διεφθείροντο. 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

: _ propound.«
fourth century Jerome struck out a novel hypothesis. One Helvi- ed by

dius, who lived in Rome, had attacked the prevailing view of the whine
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 sufficient importance either from Names
their real merits or from their wide popularity to deserve con- vig ἀκῖνα
sideration, and I shall therefore investigate their several claims, (8188.
As it will be convenient to have some short mode of designation,

2 Adv. Helvidium de Perpetua Virginitate B. Marie, τι. p. 206 (ed. Vall.).
Comp. Comment. ad Gal. i, το.

254 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

Ι shall call them respectively the Zpiphanian, 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
It is assumed for instance, that two persons

Arbitrary

assump-

tions
any wide acceptance.
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

to be set All such assumptions it will be necessary to set aside.

aside.
safer to aim at the most probable deduction from known facts than
to build up a theory on an imaginary foundation. And, where
the question is so intricate in itself, there is little temptation to

1 e.g. Wieseler Ueber die Briider
etc., 1.6., p. 80 sq. According to this
writer the James of Gal. ii. 9 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. 9. 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,
p. Il.

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
greatest claim to a hearing. It will be seen that the hypothesis paolo
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 : sepgivees

The list of the Twelve Apostles contains two of the name of The son of

James, the son of Zebedee and the son of Alpheus. But elsewhere fe obra
we read of a James the Lord’s brother. What account are we to >rother;
give of this last James? Hither 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 aeatend
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 ‘bp

r δ.» (Chalphai), the form Clopas being peculiar to St John,
the more completely grecized Alpheeus 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 κ (or x) 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 Clopze, (or Cleophx, as he writes it): it may be, he suggests,

1 This illustration is taken from Mill, p. 236.

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 257

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*®. Neither have I found any traces of it in any of
his other works, though he refers several times to the subject. In
Augustine again, who adopts Jerome’s hypothesis and his manner of
stating it, it does not anywhere appear, so far as I know. It occurs
first, I believe, in Chrysostom who incidentally speaks of James
the Lord’s brother as ‘son of Clopas,’ and after him in Theodoret
who is more explicit (both on Gal. i. 19)*, To aSyrian Greek, who,
even if he were unable to read the Peshito version, must at all
events have known that Chalphai was the Aramean rendering or
rather the Aramean original of ᾿Αλφαῖος, it might not unnaturally
occur to graft this identification on the original theory of Jerome.

(ii) Zhe identity of Judas the Apostle and Judas the Lord’s Jude the

brother. In St Luke’s catalogues of the Twelve (Luke vi. 16, Acts Hott SPF
i. 13) the name ‘Judas of James’ (Ἰούδας ᾿Ιακώβου) occurs, Now sh
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
the Lord’s brother, like James, is made one of the Twelve. I do not
know when the Hieronymian theory received this fresh accession,
but, though the gain is considerable in apparent strength at least,
it does not appear, so far as I have noticed, to have occurred to
Jerome himself.

And some have gone a step farther. We find not only a James and per-

and a Judas among the Lord’s brethren, but also a Symeon or δορὰς τὶ
1 adv. Helvid. ὃ 15, 11. p. 210. the derivation with a Cheth, which is
2* Alpheus, fugitivus [}2M; the required in order to identify ‘Alpheus’

Greek of Origen was doubtless οἰχόμε- with ‘Clopas.’ Indeed, as he incor-

vos, 866 ἢ. 626], sed melius millesimus rectly wrote Cleopas (or Cleophas) for

[ΡΝ] vel doctus CAD ; II. p. 89: Clopas with the Latin version, this

and again, ‘ Alpheus, millesimus, sive identification was not likely to occur

super os [MD?2?] ab ore non ab osse.’ 0 him.
ib. p.98. Thus he deliberately rejects ® See below, p. 289.

GAL. 17

258 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, Lebbeeus 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.

Jerome But before criticizing the theory itself, let me prepare the way
nner by divesting it of all fictitious advantages and placing it in its true
light. The two points to which attention may be directed, as having
been generally overlooked, are these :
{i) claims (1) Jerome claims no traditional support for his theory. This
peep is a remarkable feature in his treatise against Helvidius. He
vig mia argues the question solely on critical and theological grounds. His
theory, 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. .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, Ireneus, 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.

instance can be produced of a writer holding Jerome's view, before

No decisive

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 ety eas

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.

ὃ 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 ete.’

17—2

260

but wavers
in his view,

and seems or Escha by name’,’

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,
adding ‘although others contend that the mother of James and

1 *Quod autem exceptis duodecim
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 hune de evange-
lio esse apostolum fratrem Johannis;...
hic autem Jacobus episcopus Hierosoly-
morum primus fuit cognomento Justus
etc.’ (vi. 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.

8 ‘Sequentes deliramenta apocry-
phorum et quandam Melcham vel Es-
cham mulierculam confingentes.’Comm.
in Matth. 1. 6. ‘Nemo non videt,’
says Blom, Ὁ. 116, ‘illud nomen NWS
[wife, woman] esse mere fictitium, nec
minus posterius [prius] 132! [queen].’
(Comp. Julius Africanus in Routh’s Rel.
Sacr. τι. p. 233, 339.) If so, the work
must have been the production of some
Jewish Christian. But Escha is nota
very exact representation of ΠΤ (I-
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 (χα
Μελχά) and the father of Iscah (73D")
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 ?

If these positions are correct, the Hieronymian view has no claim
to any traditional sanction—in other words, there is no reason to
believe that time has obliterated any secondary evidence in its
favour—and it must therefore be investigated on its own merits.

And compact and plausible as it may seem at first sight, the Objections
theory exposes, when examined, many vulnerable parts. dha

(1) The instances alleged notwithstanding, the sense thus as- πὶ Geo of
signed to ‘brethren’ seems to be unsupported by biblical usage. In ie aa
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 gah on
of the Twelve. This is hardly reconcileable with the place they hold brethren
in the Evangelical narratives, where they appear sometimes as dis- Twelve,
tinct from, sometimes as antagonistic to the Twelve. Only a short
time before the crucifixion they are disbelievers in the Lord’s divine
mission (John vii. 5). Is it likely that St John would have made
this unqualified statement, if it were true of one only or at most
of two out of the four? Jerome sees the difficulty and meets it
by saying that James was ‘not one of those that disbelieved.’ But
what if Jude and Simon also belong to the Twelve? After the
Lord’s Ascension, it is true, His brethren appear in company with

1 Epist. cxx, 1. p. 826. Comp. Tischendorf’s Evang. Apocr. p. 104.

262 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).

especially And scarcely more consistent is this theory with what we know of

sy and y,mes and Jude in particular. James, as the resident bishop or pre-
siding elder of the mother Church, held a position hardly compatible
with the world-wide duties which devolved on the Twelve. It was
the essential feature of his office that he should be stationary; of
theirs, that they should move about from place to place. If on the
other hand he appears sometimes to be called an Apostle (though
not one of the passages alleged is free from ambiguity), this term is
by no means confined to the Twelve and might therefore be applied
to him in its wider sense, as it is to Barnabas'. Again, Jude on his
part seems to disclaim the title of an Apostle (ver. 17) ; and if so, he
cannot have been one of the Twelve.

(3) Their (3) But again: the Lord’s brethren are mentioned in the

os. Gospels in connexion with Joseph His reputed father and Mary

“+ a 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) James (4) Jerome lays great stress on the epithet minor applied to

conden ames, 85 if it implied two only, and even those who impugn his
theory seem generally to acquiesce in his rendering. But the
Greek gives not ‘James the Less’ but ‘James the little’ (6 μικρός).
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,
2 As in Xen. Mem, 1. 4. 2 ᾿Αριστόφ Symp. 173 8B; and in Arist. Ran. 708
δημον τὸν μικρὸν ἐπικαλούμενον, refer- Ἐαλειγένης ὁ μικρός.

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. In the first place Laer oges
it is necessary to translate ᾿Ιακώβου not ‘the son’ but ‘the brother ed ἮΝ
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 (Ἰακώβου) attached to the name of Judas only 1

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) Thaddeeus ; 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 Ἰού-

das οὐχ ὁ Ἰσκαριώτης reads RAC

wsach, ‘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
ὁ καὶ Θωμᾶς, and Acta Thomae τ "Iovdg
Θωμᾷ τῷ καὶ Διδύμῳ (ed. Tisch. p. 190);
see Assemani Bibl. Orient. τ. pp. 100,
318, Cureton’s Syriac Gospels p. li,
Anc. Syr. Documents p. 33. As
Thomas (Δίδυμος), ‘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 προσέτι
δὲ Θωμᾶς καὶ ᾿Ελιέξερος of δίδυμοι.

The Thebaic version again for οὐχ
ὁ Ἰσκαριώτης substitutes ὁ Kavavirns.
Similarly in Matth. x. 3 for Θαδδαῖος
some of the most important mss of the
Old Latin have ‘Judas Zelotes’; and in
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.

264

(6) Ῥαπο-
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 J udas, 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 Sihne 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.
xxvii. 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 ᾿Ιωάννης for Ἰωσὴφ in the list
of the Lord’s brethren in Matt. xiii.
55- But as we are told that there were
many other women present also (Mark
xv. 41, comp. Luke xxiv. 10),—one of
whom, Joanna, is mentioned by name—

both these identifications must be con-
sidered precarious. It would be strange
that no hint should be given in the
Gospels of the relationship of the sons
of Zebedee to 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) a stop is put after ‘His mo-
ther’s sister,’ thus separating the words
from ‘Mary of Cleophas’ and suggest-
ing by punctuation the same interpre-
tation which the Peshito fixes by
inserting a conjunction,

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-

eae ‘ ‘ laced
phanian and the Helvidian have higher claims to acceptance. They ape ri

both assign to the word brethren its natural meaning; they both reine.
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-

: . d
notice. A very short time before the Lord’s death His brethren none sel
refuse to accept His mission: they are still unbelievers. Immedi- bai

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
eitker

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, ἡ
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. Ῥ. 945,
2 Eusebius however makes ‘Mary of Migne).

Clopas’ a different person from Mary 3 As ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ 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’
side im-

and Symeon, on their fathers’ side. Yet this result again must be saphatte:

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), Evang. 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 Cleophe) 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 ᾿Αλῴφαῖος
in all five places it restores what was
doubtless the original Aramaic form

aces, Chalphai; on the other hand,

it gives the same word Waals

Kledpha (i.e. ΚλεόπαΞ) in Luke xxiv. 18
and in John xix. 25, if the printed texts
may be trusted. The Jerusalem Syriac

too renders Κλωπᾶς by sadaalo

(Kleophas), and ᾿Αλφαῖος by τ. 9»
(Chalphai). (4) The form Κλωπᾶς,
which St John’s text gives, is confirmed
by Hegesippus (Euseb., H. EZ. iii, 11), and
there is every reason to believe that this
was ἃ 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 Χαλφὶ
in fact does occur in r Mace. xi. 70.
(5) It is true that Κλεόπας is strictly a
Greek name contracted from Κλεόπα-
Tpos, like ᾿Αντίπας from’ Ayrlirarpos, etc.
But it was a common practice with the
Jews to adopt the genuine Greek name
which bore the closest resemblance in
sound totheirown Aramaicname, 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

Symeon, 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 .
arncosrnaGcoevs (Inscr. Gudii, p. cclxiii.
5), and possibly this is the Latin sub-
stitute for Chalphai or Chalphi, as ’AA-
φαῖος 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.

1 I am arguing on the supposition
that Joses and Joseph are the same
name, but this is at least doubtful. In
St Matthew, according to the best au-
thorities, the Lord’s brother (xiii. 55) is
᾿Ιωσήφ, the son of Mary (xxvii. 56)
᾿Ἰωσῆς. In St Mark on the other hand
the latter word is found (the geni-
tive being differently written Ἰωσῆτος
or Ἰωσῆ, 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-
ἀδὲ etc. p. 678) that St Matthew’s text
suggests the real difference, and that
the original reading in Mark vi. 3 was
Ἰωσήφ; but if so, the corruption was

very ancient and very general, for Ἴω-
σὴφ is found in δὲ alone of the uncial
manuscripts. 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
Ἰωσῆτος, and Ἰωσὴφ or ᾿Ιώσηπος, which
perhaps (replaced by a genuine Greek
name) became ‘Hyjourros. (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 ᾿Ιωάννης, Zabdai for Ζεβε-
datos. Following this rule, it ought, if
the names were identical, to have re-
stored Amd. (Joseph) for the Greek

Ἰωσῆς, in place of whichithas mC.
(Jési, Jausi, or 788). In Matt, xxvii.
56, Mark xv. 40, the Memphitic Ver-
sion separates Μαρία [ἡ τοῦ] Ἰακώβου
[τοῦ μικροῦ] and ᾿Ιωσῆϊτο:] μήτηρ,
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 1 gual
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-
planation can be given. It would seem then that this Mary and
this James, though not the most famous of their respective names
and therefore not at once distinguishable when mentioned alone,

1 The popularity of this name is Possibly Ἰωσὴχ may be a corruption
probably due to Simon Maccabzus. for Ἰωσὴφ through the confusion of ἢ

2 And perhaps not more than twice δηᾶ ἽἼ, which in their older forms resem-
Ἰωσήφ (vv. 24, 30). In ver. 26’lwehx ble each other closely; but if so, itis a
seems to be the right reading, where corruption not of St Luke’s text, but of
the received text has Ἰωσήφ; and in the Hebrew or Aramaic document from
ver. 29 Ἰησοῦ, where it has Ἰωσῆ, 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.
It 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 ¢an 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 (ws ov)

' Luke ii. 33 ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ have taken offence and substituted
μήτηρ, li. 41, 43 οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ, 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 firstborn son’ (ii. 7). St Matthew’s expression how-
ever, ‘till 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, ‘Zvery 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 τὸν πρωτότοκον ought to be reject- 3 For parallel instances see Mill,

ed from St Matthew’s text, having pp. 304 sq.
been interpolated from Luke ii. 7.

271

272

(3) Our
Lord’s dy-
ing words,

Conclu-
sion.

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

appears in fact to be due quite as much to another sentiment which
the fathers fantastically expressed by ἃ 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.

4. 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. τι. 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 evan-
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: hane
eandem Cleophae quidam dicunt quod
duos viros habuerit. Maria dicitur
iluminatrix 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-
mentabout ‘ 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
medisval namesake of the Bishop of
Hierapolis, Papias the author of the
‘Elementarium,’ who lived in the rrth
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
& 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. Ii 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

274

Hebrew
Gospel,

Gospel of
Peter.

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

1. The GosPeL accoRDING TO THE HEBREWS, one of the earliest
and most respectable of the apocryphal narratives, related that the
Lord after His resurrection ‘went to James and appeared to him;
for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour
in which the Lord had drunk the cup (biberat calicem Dominus),
till he saw Him risen from the dead.’ Jesus therefore ‘took bread
and blessed it and brake it and gave it to James the Just and said to
him, My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of Man has risen from
the dead’ (Hieron. de Vir. Iilustr, 2). I have adopted the reading
‘Dominus,’ as the Greek translation has Κύριος, 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.

2. The GosPEL ACCORDING TO PETER was highly esteemed by the
Docetz of the second century. Towards the close of that century,

I made the discovery while the first
edition of this work waspassing through
the press [1865].

1 There might possibly have been
an ambiguity in the Hebrew original
owing to the absence of case-endings,

as Blom suggests (p. 83): but it is more
probable that a transcriber of Jerome
carelessly wrote down the familiar
phrase ‘the cup of the Lord.’

2 Comp. Mart. Polyc. 14 ἐν τῷ πο-
τηρίῳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου.

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. PROTEVANGELIUM JACOBI, a purely fictitious but very early se ina

narrative, dating probably not later than the middle of the second ® i ea other”
century, represents Joseph as an old man when the Virgin was nH ᾿
espoused to him, having sons of his own (§ 9, ed. Tisch. p. 18) but gospels.
no daughters (§ 17, p. 31), and James the writer of the account ap-
parently as grown up at the time of Herod’s death (§ 25, p. 48).
Following in this track, subsequent apocryphal narratives give a
similar account with various modifications, in some cases naming
Joseph’s daughters or his wife. Such are the Psewdo-Matthar Evang.
(§ 32, ed. Tisch. p. 104), Hvang. de Nativ. Mar. (δ 8, ἐδ. Ὁ. 111), His-
toria Joseph. (§ 2, ib. p. 116), Hvang. Thome (§ τό, p. 147), Hvang.
Infant. Arab. (§ 35, p. 191), besides the apocryphal Gospels mentioned
by Jerome (Comm. in Matth. T. vit. 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, τ. 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 Μαρία Ἰακώβου (Luke xxiv. 10) ‘ Mary the daughter
of James.’ The ῬΈΒΗΙΤΟ 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 THEBaic, in John xix. 25 gives
‘Mary daughter of Clopas,’ and in Luke vi. 16, Acts i. 13 ‘Judas son
of James.’

5. The OLemenTINE HomI.izs, 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’ (ὁ λεχθεὶς
ἀδελφὸς τοῦ Κυρίου, 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 or 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. Hecxsipprus (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 οὗ.
Clopas is next made bishop, who was put forward by all as the second
in succession, being cousin of the Lord’ (μετὰ τὸ μαρτυρῆσαι Ἰάκωβον

1 The word λεχθεὶς is most naturally and thusto favourtheEpiphanian 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

τὸν δίκαιον ws καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἐπὶ τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ, πάλιν ὁ ἐκ τοῦ θείου αὐτοῦ
Συμεὼν 6 τοῦ Κλωπᾶ καθίσταται ἐπίσκοπος, ὃν προέθεντο πάντες ὄντα
ἀνεψιὸν τοῦ Κυρίου δεύτερον᾽, Euseb. H. 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’ (ὁ ἐκ θείου τοῦ Κυρίου ὁ προειρημένος Συμεὼν υἱὸς Κλωπᾶ),
to which Eusebius adds, ‘for Hegesippus relates that Clopas was the
brother of Joseph.’ Thus in Hegesippus Symeon is never once
called the Lord’s brother, while James is always so designated. And
this argument powerful in itself is materially strengthened by the
fact that, where Hegesippus has occasion to mention Jude, he too like
James is styled ‘the Lord’s brother’; ‘There still survived members
of the Lord’s family (οἱ ἀπὸ γένους τοῦ Κυρίου) grandsons of Judas
who was called His brother according to the flesh’ (rod κατὰ σάρκα
λεγομένου αὐτοῦ ἀδελφοῦ); Euseb. H. £. 11. 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, 17. 8. ii. 23) Hegesippus relates that ‘the Church was
committed in conjunction with the Apostles* to the charge of (δια-

δέχεται τὴν ἐκκλησίαν μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων) the Lord’s brother James,
ἔχεται τὴν ἐκκλησίαν μ

1 For δεύτερον comp. Huseb. Η. E.
ili. 14.

2 A different meaning however has
been assigned to the words: πάλιν and
δεύτερον 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 inl.
Ῥ. 575, Neander Pflanz. p. 559 (4te
aufi.). To this rendering the presence
of the definite article alone seems fatal
(ὁ ἐκ τοῦ θείου not ἕτερος τῶν ἐκ τοῦ θείου) ;
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 αὐτοῦ should be referred to
᾿Ιάκωβον or to Κύριος 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.
8 Jerome (de Vir. Ill. § 2) renders it
‘post apostolos,’ as if μετὰ τοὺς ἀποστό-
λους ; Rufinus correctly ‘cum apostolis.’

278 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
μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων 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. Ifany doubt still remains, the
fact that both Eusebius and Epiphanius, who derived their in-
formation mainly from Hegesippus, gave this account of the Lord’s
brethren materially strengthens the position. The testimony of an
early Palestinian writer who made it his business to collect such
traditions is of the utmost importance.

Tertul-

: 8. TERTULLIAN’s authority was appealed to by Helvidius, and
1an.

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). It is generally assumed in consequence
that Tertullian held the Lord’s brethren to be sons of Joseph and
Mary. This assumption, though probable, is not absolutely certain.
The point at issue in this passage is not the particular opinion of
Helvidius respecting the Lord’s brethren, but the virginity of the
Lord’s mother.
the authority of others', whose testimony certainly did not go beyond

Accordingly in reply Jerome alleges on his own side

indeed (Zphes. 19), which is several
times quoted by subsequent writers,

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

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.
of Tertullian relate to the virginity only (de Carn. Christ. c. 23 and

Thus too the more distinct passages in the extant writings
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. Such an admission from one who

was so strenuous an advocate of asceticism is worthy of notice.

9. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (about A.D. 200) in a passage of the Clement
Hypotyposeis preserved in a Latin translation by Cassiodorus (the yeiboiidas
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 sth ast
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?)
5. Johannis prima (-am?) et secunda
(-am?) et Jacobi quaedam 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 Adumbrationes. 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
een 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. £. ii. 1).
Clement says that there were two of the name of

This passage however
proves nothing.

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 ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ τῶν ᾿Ιωσήφ,
which would account for the omission.

1 Credner, Hinl. Ὁ. 585, condemns the
words τῷ δικαίῳ as spurious. Though
it might be inferred from the previous
extract given by Eusebius that the son
of Zebedee is meant here, I believe
nevertheless that they are genuine,
For (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 αὐτοῦ), 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,
ταῦτά ἐστιν ἀπὸ πολλῶν πάνυ λόγων τὰ

κεφάλαια ἅ φησιν παραδεδωκέναι Μαρι-
ἀμνῃτὸν ᾿Ιάκωβον τοῦ Kuplovriv ἀδελφόν,
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 8q, 553, ed. Potter) ;
and as Hippolytus tells us that the
Ophites made use of this Gospel (τὰς δὲ
ἐξαλλαγὰς ταύτας τὰς ποικίλας ἐν τῷ
ἐπιγραφομένῳ κατ᾽ Αἰγυπτίους εὐαγγελίῳ
κειμένας ἔχουσιν, ib. v. 7, Ῥ. 98), it is
probable that the account of Clement
coincided with that of the Ophites. The
words τῷ δικαίῳ are represented in the
Syriac translation of Eusebius of which
the existing ms (Brit. Mus. add. 14,639)
belongs to the 6th century.

I hold τῷ δικαίῳ therefore to be the
genuine words of Clement, but Ido not
feel so sure that the closing explanation
δύο δὲ γεγόνασιν ᾿Ιάκωβοι x.7.d. is not
an addition of Eusebius. This I suppose
to be Bunsen’s opinion, for he ends his
fragment with the preceding words
I. Ῥ. 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 Alphzus, 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’.

το. ORIGEN ({ A.D. 253) declares himself very distinctly in favour
of the Epiphanian view, stating that the brethren were sons of
Elsewhere* indeed he says that St Paul

‘calls this James the Lord’s brother, not so much on account of his

Joseph by a deceased wife’.

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’ (in Matt. xiii. 55, 111. p. 462)", This passage

1 For instance he distinguished Ce-
phas of Gal. ii. 9 from Peter (see
above, p. 129), and represented St Paul
as a married man (Euseb. H. ΕἸ. iii.

o).
. 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.
Ῥ. 75) ἀδελφοὺς μὲν οὐκ εἶχε φύσει,
οὔτε τῆς παρθένου τεκούσης ἕτερον οὐδὲ

αὐτὸς ἐκ τοῦ ᾿Ιωσὴφ τυγχάνων" νόμῳ
τοιγαροῦν ἐχρημάτισαν αὐτοῦ ἀδελφοί,
υἱοὶ Ἰωσὴφ ὄντες ἐκ προτεθνηκυίας γυναι-
κός: Hom. in Luc. 7 (πι. 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. p. 363) οὐ τοσ-
odrov διὰ τὸ πρὸς αἵματος συγγενὲς ἢ τὴν
κοινὴν αὐτῶν ἀναστροφὴν ὅσον διὰ τὸ
ἦθος καὶ τὸν λόγον.

5 Op. 1. p. 462 sq. Mill, pp. 261,
273, has strangely misunderstood the
purport of this passage. He speaks of

282

Aposto-
lical Con-
stitutions.

Victor-
inus of
Pettaw.

Eusebius
of Caosa-
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 ApostoticaL 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, 143; compare ii. 55, vii. 46, Vill. 4).

Vicrorinus PetavioneEnsis (about 300) was claimed by Hel-
Jerome denied this and put

ΤᾺ
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. Helwid. 17).

13. Evusspius or CzsarzEa (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.
i. p. 422; Hist. Lecl. i, 12; comp. vii. 19). Accordingly in another

Origen here as ‘teaching the opinion of
his (James the Just) being the son of
Joseph, both as the sentiment of a
minority among right-minded Chris-
tians and as founded on apocryphal
traditions’; and so considers the note
on John ii, 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, καὶ ofua: λόγον
ἔχειν x.7.., 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, κηρύσ-
σων ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ ὑπὸ ᾿Ιουδαίων xara-
λευσθεὶς ἀναιρεῖται καὶ θάπτεται ἐκεῖ παρὰ

τῷ ναῷ. He is thus confused or iden-
tified with James the Lord’s brother.
But this blundering treatise was certain-
ly not written by the bishop of Portus:
see Le Moyne in Fabricius 1. Ὁ. 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 Ἰάκωβος ὁ
ἀδελφόθεος ἐπίσκοπος ἱΙεροσολύμων, who
is thus distinguished from the Twelve.
This treatise also is manifestly spuri-
ous. Again Nicephorus Callistus, H. Ε.
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 (I. 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. Hcl. ii. τ)".

14. OYRIL oF JERUSALEM (+ 386) comments on the successive i of th
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 onit. In another passage also
(Catech. iv. 28, p. 65, καὶ τοῖς ἀποστόλοις καὶ Ἰακώβῳ τῷ ταύτης τῆς
ἐκκλησίας ἐπισκόπῳ) Cyril seems to make the same distinction, but
here again the inference is doubtful.

15. Hrzary or ῬΟΙΤΊΒΕΒ (Τ 368) denounces those who ‘claim Hilary of
authority for their opinion (against the virginity of the Lord’s SUI
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 ΙΙάκωβον τὸν τοῦ Kuplov λεγόμενον
ἀδελφόν, ὅτι δὴ καὶ οὗτος τοῦ Ιωσὴφ
ὠνόμαστο παῖς, τοῦ δὲ Χριστοῦ πατὴρ
ὁ Ἰωσήφ, ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα ἡ παρθένος
κιτιλ. On the whole this passage seems
to be best explained by referring οὗτος
to Κύριος. But this is not necessary ;
for ὀνομάζεσθαι (or καλεῖσθαι) παῖς τινὸς
is a good Greek phrase to denote real
as well as reputed sonship: as A’sch.
Fragm. 285 αἵδ᾽ ἕπτ᾽ ΓΑτλαντος παῖδες
ὠνομασμέναι, Soph. Trach. 1105 ὁ τῆς
ἀρίστης μητρὸς ὠνομασμένος, Kur, Hlect.
935: comp. Ephes. iii. 15 τὸν πατέρα
ἐξ οὗ πᾶσα πατριὰ ὀνομάζεται. The word
ὠνόμαστο cannot at all events, as Mill
(p. 272) seems disposed to think, imply
any doubt on the partof Eusebius about
the parentage of James, for the whole
drift of the passage is plainly against
this. The other reading, ὅτι δὴ καὶ οὗτος

τοῦ ᾿Ιωσὴφ Tod νομιζομένου οἱονεὶ πατρὸς
τοῦ Χριστοῦ, found in some mss and in
the Syriac version, and preferred by
Blom. p. 98, and Credner Kinl. Ὁ. 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 εἷς
δὲ καὶ οὗτος τῶν φερομέν wy ἀδελφῶν ἦν,
and iii. 7 τοῦ Κυρίου χρηματίξων ἀδελ-
gos, He was ἃ reputed brother of the
Lord, because Joseph was His reputed
father. See also Husebius 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 εἰ μὴ in
Gal. i 19 as expressing not exception but opposition, and distinctly
states that James was not an Apostle: ‘Cum autem fratrem dixit,
apostolum negavit.’

17. The ΑΜΒΒΟΒΊΑΝ Hinary (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. Basiu 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. in Sanct. Christ. Gen. τι. 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 Gregory NysseEn (7 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

1 This very moderate expression of signed to an appendix as of doubtful au-
opinion is marked by the editors witha thenticity. The main argument urged

caute legendum in the margin; andin against it is the passage here referred
Garnier’s edition the treatise is con- to. (See Garnier, 1. 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

(im Christ. Resurr. ii. Opp. 111. 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 ites,
bore children to her husband Joseph. These opinions seem to have

20.

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. Ixxviii, lxxix’).

21, EpripHaNtus a native of Palestine became bishop of Con- Epipha-
stantia in Cyprus in the year 367. Not very long before Jerome ἭΝ
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,
Ῥ. 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 ete.), 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 (Matth. p. 822, Mare. ©

p- 697).

2 The names are plainly terms of
ridicule invented by their enemies. Au-
gustine supposes the ‘ Antidicoma-
rianite#’ of Epiphanius (he writes the
word ‘Antidicomarits’) to be the same
as the Helvidians of Jerome (adv.
Haer. 84, vim. 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 Hetviprus, 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 JovinraNus 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.p. 390; see Hefele Conciliengesch. τι. PP. 47,
48)’.

1 The work ascribed to Dorotheus Hist. Γαΐ. τὶ Ὁ. 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

was the badge of a party, seems to have been held in conjunction katoi
with Ebionite views respecting the conception and person of Christ’.
For, though not necessarily affecting the belief in the miraculous
Incarnation, it was yet a natural accompaniment of the denial
thereof. The motive of these latter impugners of the perpetual
virginity was very different. They endeavoured to stem the current
which had set strongly in the direction of celibacy ; and, if their
theory was faulty, they still deserve the sympathy due to men who
in defiance of public opinion refused to bow their necks to an
extragavant and tyrannous superstition.

We have thus arrived at the point of time when Jerome’s answer Evidence
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. /urst: there is not the slightest indi-
cation that the Hieronymian solution ever occurred to any individual
Tf
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. Zhirdly: this solution seems especially to represent the
Palestinian view.

In the year 382 (or 383) Jerome published his treatise ; and the Jerome’s
OR ῸΣ treatise.
effeet of it is visible at once.

Ampros in the year 392 wrote a work De Institutione Virginis, Ambrose.

list. The writer distinguishes James stantiate the assertions in the following

the Lord’s brother and James the son of
Alpheus, and makes them successive
bishops of Jerusalem. See Combefis
in Fabricius’ Hippol. 1, app. p. 36.

1 [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-

note of Gibbon, Decline and Fall c. xvi,.

‘This appellation (‘brethren’) 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 J will declare thy
name to my brethren (Ps. xxii. 22). St Paul too says: J cowld wish
to be accursed for my brethren (Rom. ix. 3). Doubtless they might be
called brothers as sons of Joseph, not of Mary. Andif 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 (ie. 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 Str Avausting. In his commentary on the Galatians
indeed (i. 19), written about 394 while he was still a presbyter, he
offers 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
quogue 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’
(11. 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 (Jn Joh. Evang. x, 11.

2. p. 368, ἐδ. xxviii, 111. 2. p. 508; Hnarr. in Ps, cxxvii, Iv. 2. p.
1443; Contr. Faust. xxii. 35, VII. p. 383; comp. Quaest. XVII in

Matth., 111. 2. p. 285).

Thus supported, it won its way to general acceptance in the Latin Western

Church; and the WESTERN SERVICES recognise only one James besides
the son of Zebedee, thus identifying the Lord’s brother with the son

of Alpheus.

In the East also it met with a certain amount of success, but this Chryso-

was only temporary. CHRysostom wrote both before and after Je-
rome’s treatise had become generally known, and his expositions of

the New Testament mark a period of transition. In his Homilies on

the earlier books he takes the Epiphanian view: St James, he says,

was at one time an unbeliever with the rest of the Lord’s brethren
(on Matth. 1. 25, vil. p. 77; John vii. 5, ὙΠ. p. 284; see also on
1 Cor. ix. 4, x. p. 181 £); 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. c.)4.

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 ; ᾿Αδελφοὺς τοῦ Ku-
plov λέγει τοὺς νομισθέντας εἶναι αὐτοῦ
ἀδελφούς" ἐπειδὴ yap οὗτος ὁ χρηματίζων
καὶ αὐτὸς κατὰ τὴν κοινὴν δόξαν εἶπεν
αὐτούς" τοὺς δὲ υἱοὺς ᾿Ιωσὴφ λέγει, of
ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ Κυρίου ἐχρημάτισαν διὰ τὴν
πρὸς τὴν θεοτόκον μνηστείαν τοῦ ᾿Ιωσήφ.
λέγει δὲ Ἰάκωβον ἐπίσκοπον Ἱεροσολύμων
καὶ Ἰωσὴφ ὁμώνυμον τῷ πατέρι καὶ Σί-
μωνα καὶ Ἰούδα. I give the passage
without attempting to correct the text.
This note reappears almost word for
word in the Gicumenian 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. τι. 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 Ὁ), 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 (VII. p. 827 A), where, like
Gregory Nyssen, he identifies Μαρία
᾿Ιακώβου with the Lord’s mother. The
accounts of Chrysostom’s opinion on
this subject given by Blom p. rrr sq,
and Mill p. 284 note, are unsatis-
factory.

The Homilies on the Acts also take
the same view (rx. 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., σι. p.
clxxiv π, 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-
Ἰδοῦ.

Eastern
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 THroporeEt, 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. in Gen. lib. vii. 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 Greex, 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 τὸν τοῦ Κλωπᾶ, ὅπερ καὶ ὁ evayye- exposition however is somewhat con-
Norns ἔλεγεν. 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.

(A. Sons of
Joseph and
Mary.

B. Sons of
« Joseph by a
JSormer wife.

\ Virgin's sister.

Uncertain.

Levirate.

©. Sons of the ;

(TERTULLIAN, :
HELVIDIUS,

Bonosvs,

JOVINIANUS (2),

\ANTIDICOMARIANITES, /

(GOSPEL OF PETER,
PROTEVANGELIUM etc.,
CLEMENT OF ALEX.,
ORIGEN,

EUSEBIUS,

HILARY OF POITIERS,
AMBROSIASTER,
GREGORY OF NYSSA,

ἡ EPIPHANIUS,

AMBROSE,
(CurysosTom |,
CYRIL OF ALEX.,
EASTERN SERVICES
(Greek, Syrian, and
Coptic),
LATER GREEK

(JEROME,

PELAGIUS,
AUGUSTINE,
{CuRysosTom],
THEODORET,
WESTERN SERVICES,
LATER LATIN

\ WRITERS. )

‘

| WRITERS.

A. or Β, ‘ Brethren’
in ὦ strict sense.

' James the Just not
one of the Twelve.

<

virginity of Mary.

291

(Barty VERSIONS,

CLEMENTINE Ho-
MILIES (4),
ASCENTS OF
JAMES,
HEGESIPPUS,
APOST. CONSTIT.,
CYRIL OF JERU-
SALEM (1),
VICTORINUS THE

\ PHILOSOPHER.

BASIL,
B or C. Perpetual |Carnorio wri-

TERS GENE-
RALLY,

HEBREW GOSPEL, VICTORINUS PETAVIONENSIS.

THEOPHYLACT.

19—2

ΠῚ
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?

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 by tie i
conference: What degree of coincidence or antagonism between ™¢t#28-
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 jhe ci
Epistle to the Galatians is the true key to the position. In the first Eeietle
place, it is one of the very few documents of the Apostolic ages,
whose genuineness has not been seriously challenged by the oppo-
nents of revelation. Moreover, as the immediate utterance of one
who himself took the chief part in the incidents recorded, it cannot
be discredited as having passed through a coloured medium or
gathered accretions by lapse of time. And lastly, the very form in
which the information is conveyed—by partial and broken allusions
rather than by direct and continuous statement—raises it beyond
the reach of suspicion, even where suspicion is most active. Here
at least both combatants can take their stand on common ground,

294

Apology
for this
essay.

Proposed
sketch of
the rela-
tions of
Jewish
and
Gentile
Christ-
18 8.

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 Epistle 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. 205

tiles; (2) The Recognition of Gentile Liberty ; (3) The Emancipa- of bin
supdject,
tion of the Jewish Churches’.

1. Lhe Extension of the Church to the Gentiles.

it appears from the Apostolic history that the believers in the The early
᾿ ; F ‘ , in Church of
earliest days conformed strictly to Jewish customs in their religious Jerysa-

life, retaining the fixed hours of prayer, attending the temple wor- jay
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

Apostles had to work out. The Master Himself had left no express OurLord’s
instructions. He had charged them, it is true, to preach the Gospel ἝΝ
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—
2s wide in its application as the law itselfi—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 Important works treating of the re-
lation between the Jewish and Gentile
Christians are Lechler’s Apostolisches
and Nachapostolisches Zeitalter (ate
aufl.1857),and Ritschl’s Entstehung der
Altkatiolischen Kirche (ate aufl. 1857).
I am indebted to both these works, but
io 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.

206 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
Jews of
the Dis-
persion.

And soon enough the pressure of events began to be felt. The
dispersion was the link which connected the Hebrews of Palestine
with the outer world. Led captive by the power of Greek philosophy
at Athens and Tarsus and Alexandria, attracted by the fascinations
of Oriental mysticism in Asia, swept along with the busy whirl of
social life in the city and court of the Cesars, these outlying mem-
bers of the chosen race had inhaled a freer spirit and contracted
wider interests than their fellow-countrymen at home. By a series of
insensible gradations—proselytes of the covenant—proselytes of the
gate'—superstitious devotees who observed the rites without ac-
cepting the faith of the Mosaic dispensation—curious lookers-on
who interested themselves in the Jewish ritual as they would in
the worship of Isis or of Astarte—the most stubborn zealot of the
law was linked to the idolatrous heathen whom he abhorred and who
despised him in turn. Thus the train was unconsciously laid, when
the spark fell from heaven and fired it.

First day
of Pente-
cost.

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 προσήλυτοι
in the New Testament; the latter, who

hardly form a distinct class, are οἱ ce-
βόμενοι τὸν Θεόν, of εὐσεβεῖς etc. In
speaking therefore of ‘ proselytes of the
gate’ I am using a convenient anachro-
nism.

2 «Trust not a proselyte,’ said one
of the rabbis, ‘ till twenty-four genera-
tions; for he holds his leaven.’ Yalkut
(Shimoni) on Ruthi. 11, 12, § 601. See
also the passages given by Danz in
Meuschen Test. Illustr. Ὁ. 651.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 207

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 ta lobe dh
of Judea, ‘Hebrews of the Hebrews,’ had ever regarded their Hel- ing
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 appointrient of seven

Hence ‘arose a murmuring of the Hellenists against the

persons specially charged with providing for the wants of these neg-
lected poor. If the selection was made, as St Luke’s language
seems to imply, not by the Hellenists themselves but by the Church
at large (vi. 2), the concession when granted was carried out in a
liberal spirit. All the names of the seven are Greek, pointing to
a Hellenist rather than a Hebrew extraction, and one is especially
described as a proselyte, being doubtless chosen to represent a hitherto
small but growing section of the community.

By this appointment the Hellenist members obtained a status in Effects
of this

the Church; and the effects of this measure soon became visible. measure.

Two out of the seven stand prominently forward as the champions
of emancipation, Stephen the preacher and martyr of liberty, and
Philip the practical worker’.

1 In Nicolas, the only one of the
remaining five whose name reappears in

that an account so discreditable to one
who in the New Testamentis named only

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

inconnexion with his appointmentto an
honourable office 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, Iren-
sus (i. 26, 3) and Hippolytus (Haer.

298

Stephen’s
testimony.

Indirect
conse-
quences.

Philip
converts

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

STEPHEN 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. The accused attempts no denial, but pleads
To seal this testimony the first blood of the noble

army of martyrs is shed.

justification.

The indirect consequences of his martyrdom extend far beyond
the immediate effect of his dying words. A persecution ‘arose about
Stephen.’ The disciples of the mother Church ‘were scattered
abroad throughout the regions of Juda and Samaria (viii. 1). 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 Puitip. The sacred narrative mentions
two incidents in his career, each marking an onward stride in the

free development of the Church. It is therefore not without signi-

Vii. 36) believe him to have been the
founder of the sect; while Clement of
Alexandria (Strom. ii. p. 411, iii. p. 522,
Potter) attributes to him an ambiguous
saying that ‘the flesh must be abused
(δεῖν παραχρῆσθαι τῇ 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 fragment 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 Mammaa, this writer again

represents Nicolas as the founder of the
sect, speaking of him as ‘stirred bya
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 Νικόλαος does not al-
together correspond with any possible
derivation of Balaam, least of all with
oy yor ‘the destroyer of the people,’
generally adopted by those who so ex-
plain Νικόλαος. See below, p. 309,
with the notes.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 299

ficance that years afterwards we find him styled ‘the Evangelist’
(xxi. 8), as if he had earned this honourable title by some signal
service rendered to the Gospel.

1. The Samaritan occupied the border land between the Jew ( 1) The
and the Gentile. Theologically, as geographically, he was the con- gage
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. 143—17). ‘He who eats the bread of a
Samaritan,’ said the Jewish doctor, ‘is as one who eats swine’s
fiesh’,’
have no share in the resurrection of the dead*,’

‘No Samaritan shall ever be made a proselyte. They
In opening her
treasures to this hated race, the Church had surmounted the first
barrier of prejudice behind which the exclusiveness of the nation

1 Mishnah Shebiith viii. το.

2 Pirke Rabbi Elieser 38. The pas-
sage so well illustrates the statement in
the text, that I give it 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 priesis
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-
gwans (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 Cuth#an for ever. Hence
they (the elders) said: Whosoever eats
the bread of a Cuthwan is as if he ate

swine’s flesh ; andno Cuthean shall ever
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.
ii. 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), And the God that has
caused His name to dwell there ete.’
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
thiopian
eunuch.

Conver-
sion of
Cornelius.

Signifi-
eance 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
o Gen-
iles at
Antioch.

elsewhere, if not with the same sanction of authority, at all events :
with a larger measure of success. With the dying words of Stephen,
the martyr of Christian liberty, still ringing in their ears, the perse-
cuted brethren had fled from Jerusalem and carried the tidings of
the Gospel to distant lands. At first they ‘preached the word to
none but to the Jews only’ (xi. 19). At length others bolder than
the rest, ‘when they were come to 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 Soeluag
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"EA\nvas _ requires it; but external authority pre-
is correct, as the preceding “Iovéatovs ponderates in favour of ᾿Ἑλληνιστάς.

302

The first
step gain-
ed.

Questions
yet unset-
tled,

Saul 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 J ewish 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, Saut 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. goes to
Doubtless he seemed to all to be the fittest instrument for carrying ee
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 τἰτααυτωδ

the
mother
asserting itself. Two circumstances especially were instrumenta] 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 disci
the son of Zebedee is scarcely less important in its influence on her *#es-
progressive career. The former persecution had sown the disciples
broad-cast over heathen lands; the latter seems to have been the
signal for the withdrawal of the Apostles themselves from Jerusalem.
The twelve years, which according to an old tradition our Lord had
assigned as the limit of their fixed residence there, had drawn to
a close’. So, consigning the direction of the mother Church to James
the Lord’s brother and the presbytery, they depart thence to enter
upon a wider field of action. Their withdrawal must have deprived
the Church of Jerusalem of half her prestige and more than half her
influence. Henceforth she remained indeed the mother Church of
the nation, but she was no longer the mother Church of the world.

? See above, p. 127, n. 1.

304 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

Ch ered be 2. About the same time another incident also contributed to

Gentile © lessen her influence. A severe famine devastated Palestine and re-

roe 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 Judea laid themselves under fresh
obligations to the heathen converts.

New stage Events being thus ripe, Saul still residing at Antioch is set apart

relent 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

St Paul’s visited, its character is signally manifested in the conversion of
as the Roman proconsul, Sergius Paulus. And soon it becomes evident
journey. 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 everlasiing life, lo we turn to the
Gentiles’ (xiii. 46). The incidents at Pisidian Antioch foreshadow
the destiny which awaits the Gospel throughout the world. Every-
where the Apostles deliver their message to the Jews first, and every-
where the offer rejected by them is welcomed by the heathen. The

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 The ques.

: ; tion of cir.
of Jewish and Gentile converts. All such questions, it would seem, cameision
had been tacitly passed over, neither side perhaps being desirous of ries

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 licen
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 ΠΝ
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 they τον
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, 1:---το.
GAL, 20

206

Emanci-
pating
clause.

Restrict-
ive
clauses.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

The first of these decisions was a question of principle. If the
initiatory rite of the old dispensation were imposed on all members of
the Christian Church, this would be in effect to deny that the Gospel
was a new covenant; in other words to deny its essential character’.
It was thus the vital point on which the whole controversy turned.
And the liberal decision of the council was not only the charter of
Gentile freedom but the assertion of the supremacy of the Gospel.

On the other hand it is not so easy to understand the bearing
of the restrictions imposed on the Gentile converts, Their signifi-
cance in fact seems to be relative rather than absolute. There were
certain practices into which, though most abhorrent to the feelings
of their Jewish brethren, the Gentile Christians from early habit and
constant association would easily be betrayed. These were of different
kinds : some were grave moral offences, others only violations of time-
honoured observances, inwrought in the conscience of the Israelite.
After the large concession of principle made to the Gentiles in the
matter of circumcision, it was not unreasonable that they should be
required in turn to abstain from practices which gave so much
offence to the Jews. Hence the prohibitions in question. It is

strange indeed that offences so heterogeneous should be thrown

_ together and brought under one prohibition; but this is perhaps

The decree
disregard-
ed by some.

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 enforc-

_ing the conditions under which prose-

lytes of the gate were received by the
Jews. In this latter case πορνεία 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. 307

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 Circumei-
had been pronounced, was revived again and again. Long after, the ee
Judaizing antagonists of St Paul in Galatia attempted to force this °™
rite on his Gentile converts. Perhaps however they rather evaded
than defied the decree. They may for instance have no longer in-
sisted upon it as a condition of salvation, but urged it as a title to
preference. But however this may be, there is nothing startling
in the fact itself.

But while the emancipating clause of the decree, though express The re-

; Ν ὺ ἜΝ strictive
and definite, was thus parried or resisted, the restrictive clauses were clauses
with much greater reason interpreted with latitude. The miscella- abd

neous character of these prohibitions showed that, taken.as a whole, e2forced.
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
of Syria and Cilicia, to which alone the Apostolic letter was addressed orl
and on which alone therefore the enactments were directly bind- φϑωζο

churches.
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. r—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.
14). 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 any such restrictions®. But at Corinth this temper

1 Yet the expression οὐ βάλλω ἐφ᾽
ὑμᾶς ἄλλο βάρος (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-
mitted, and fell in one day three and
twenty thousand.’ (2) If St John
speaks of ‘casting a stumblingblock
(σκάνδαλον) before the children of Is-
rael,’ the whole purport of St Paul’s
warning is ‘to give no offence’ (μὴ
σκανδαλίζειν, Vill. 13, ἀπρόσκοποι γίνεσ-
θαι, 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. Apoe. ii. 24 ὅσοι οὐκ ἔχουσιν
τὴν διδαχὴν ταύτην, οἵτινες οὐκ ἔγνω-
σαν τὰ βαθέα τοῦ Σατανᾶ, ὡς λέ-
γουσιν. 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; ἐπεκάλεσαν ἑαυτοὺς γνω-
στικούς, φάσκοντες μόνοι τὰ βάθη γινώ-
σκειν: 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 all the privileges of sons of Israel: or was the
Church hereafter to be composed of two separate nationalities, as it
were, equal and independent; or lastly, were the heathen converts
to be recognised indeed, but only as holding a subordinate position
like proselytes under the old covenant? The first interpretation is
alone consistent with the spirit of the Gospel: but either of the
others might honestly be maintained without any direct violation of
the letter of the decree. The Church of Antioch, influenced doubt-
less by St Paul, took the larger and truer view ; Jewish and Gentile
converts lived freely together as members of one brotherhood. A
portion at least of the Church of Jerusalem, ‘certain who came from
James,’ adopted a narrower interpretation and still clung to the old
distinctions, regarding their Gentile brethren as unclean and refusing
to eat with them. This was not the Truth of the Gospel, it was not
the Spirit of Christ ; but neither was it a direct breach of compact.
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 εἰδωλόθυτα 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. Ε. iv. 7) writing

against Basilides, and in Justin (Dial.
35, P- 253 Ὁ) 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- Ἢ ope
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
in the Jewish converts to Christianity as a body. On the contrary =e

the danger which threatened it from a quarter so unexpected seems
i 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 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, inculcating the truth that ‘in Christ was
neither Jew nor Greek.’

Reasons But the mother Church of Jerusalem, being composed entirely of
for its ob-
servance

ood Moreover the law had claims on a Hebrew of Palestine wholly inde-

Church. pendent of his religious obligations. To him it was a national insti-

Jewish converts, lacked these valuable lessons of daily experience.

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.
shh Srp Je- | And soon the catastrophe came which solved the difficult problem,
' The storm which had long been gathering burst over the devoted
A.D. 70. 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.
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-

Before the crisis came, they

strophe ; and some thought that the horrors of the Flavian war were
the just vengeance of an offended God for the murder of so holy a

man’®,

He was succeeded by his cousin Symeon, the son of Clopas
and nephew of Joseph.

Under these circumstances the Church was reformed at Pella. gt :
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

1 Euseb. Η. ΕἸ. iii. 5 κατά τινα
χρησμὸν τοῖς αὐτόθι δοκίμοις δι᾿ ἀποκα-
λύψεως ἐκδοθέντα κ.τ.λ.

3 Hegesippus in Euseb. H. Εἰ. ii. 23
καὶ εὐθὺς Οὐεσπασιανὸς πολιορκεῖ αὐτούς,
and the pseudo-Josephus also quoted
there, ταῦτα δὲ συμβέβηκεν ᾿Ιουδαίοις
κατ᾽ ἐκδίκησιν ᾿Ιακώβου τοῦ δικαίου κ.τ.λ.

8 The Church of Pella however con-
tributed one author at least to the
ranks of early Christian literature in
Ariston, the writer of an apology in
the form of a dialogue between Jason
a Hebrew Christian and Papiscus an
Alexandrian Jéw: see Routh 1. p. 93.
One of his works however was written
after the Bar-cochba rebellion, to which
it alludes (Euseb. H. ΕἸ. 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 Apologists; see
e.g. Justin Martyr Apol. i. 47. On
the other hand it cannot have been
written long after, for it was quoted

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
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. τι. 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.

(1) The
law loses
its power.

(2) Jews
an
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.

(x) 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 tv. p. 112 8q. 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 rH NCBA

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 poh’
at a very advanced age in the ninth year of Trajan. His death, Δ Ὁ" 196:
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. ΕἸ. iv.22. dpa μέχρι τῶν τότε χρόνων παρθένος κα-
This writer also mentions grandsons θαρὰ καὶ ἀδιάφθορος ἔμεινεν ἡ ἐκκλησία,
of Jude the Lord’s brother as ruling ἐν ἀδήλῳ mou σκότει φωλευόντων εἰσέτι
over the Churches and surviving till’ τότε τῶν, εἰ καί τινες ὑπῆρχον, παραφθεί-
the time of Trajan; H. E. iii. 32. pew ἐπιχειρούντων K.T.A.: Comp, iv. 22.

2 Euseb. H. E. iii. 32 ἐπιλέγει ws 3 See below, p. 325, note 5.

216 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 flame thus kindled in the dependencies spread
later to the mother country. In Palestine a leader started up,

Rebellion
of Bar-
cochba.
A.D. 132—

135-

the dispersion.

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.’
scenes of bloodshed were still fresh in men’s memories, that the

We have the testimony of one who wrote while these
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
On the other hand the Chris-
tians, as the avowed enemies of the rebel chief, seem to have been

visited with the severest penalties.

lia Ca-

favourably received. On the ruins of Jerusalem Hadrian had built
pitolina,

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 The account of Eusebius seems to imply that long before this

church

i Justin Apol. i. 31, p. 72 E, ἐν τῷ
νῦν γεγενημένῳ ᾿Ιουδαϊκῷ πολέμῳ Bapxw-
χέβας ὁ τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίων ἀποστάσεως ἀρ-
χηγέτης Χριστιανοὺς μόνους εἰς τιμωρίας
δεινάς, εἰ μὴ ἀρνοῖντο Τησοῦν τὸν Χριστὸν
καὶ βλασφημοῖεν, ἐκέλευεν ἀπάγεσθαι.

3 Justin dpol, i, 47, p. 84 8, Dial.
110, p. 337 Ὁ; Ariston of Pella in
Kuseb. H. ΕἸ. iv. 6; Celsus in Orig. 6.

Cels. viii. 69.

3 Sulpicius Severus (H. S. ii. 31)
speaking of Hadrian’s decree says,
‘Quod quidem Christianae fidei pro-
ficiebat, quia tum pene omnes Chris-
tum Deum sub legis observatione cre-
debant; nimirum id Domino ordinante
dispositum, ut legis servitus a libertate
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 ie
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 Atlia 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 ee
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. Eusebius
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 τῆς αὐτόθι éx-
κλησίας ἐξ ἐθνῶν σνυγκροτηθείσης.

8. 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. 553 584). 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 (1, 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 heretics: 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 ([Ἐβιωναῖοι ἀμφότεροι) 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

Naza-
renes,

Their
tenets.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

1. The ΝΑΖΑΒΕΝΕΒ appear at the close of the fourth century as
a small and insignificant sect dwelling beyond the Jordan in Pella
and the neighbouring places’. Indications of their existence how-
ever occur in Justin two centuries and a half earlier ; and both their
locality and their name carry us back to the primitive ages of Jewish
Christianity. Can we doubt that they were the remnant of the
fugitive Church, which refused to return from their exile with the
majority to the now Gentile city, some because they were too indo-
lent or too satisfied to move, others because the abandonment of the
law seemed too heavy a price to pay for Roman forbearance ?

The account of their tenets is at all events favourable to this
They held themselves bound to the Mosaic ordinances,
rejecting however all Pharisaic interpretations and additions. Ne-

inference”,

vertheless they did not consider the Gentile Christians under the
same obligations or refuse to hold communion with them; and in
the like spirit, in this distinguished from all other Judaizing sec-
tarians, they fully recognised the work and mission of St Paul*, It
is stated moreover that they mourned over the unbelief of their

fellow-countrymen, praying for and looking forward to the time

possible that he entirely overlooks the
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 I shall have to speak later. Euse-
bius, who also describes two classes of
Ebionites (H. ΕἸ. iii. 27), seems to have
taken his account wholly from Ireneus
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 (Stiudlin ἃ. Tzschirner Archiv fiir
Kirchengesch. iv. p. 279 8q, 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 (Ρ. 152 sq) relating to these sects
should be consulted.

1 Epiphan. Haer. xxix. 7; comp.
Hieron, de Vir. Ill. § 3.

2 See the account in Schliemann,
P. 445 Sq, with the authorities there
given and compare Ritschl p. 152 sq.

8 Hieron. in Is. ix. τ (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. 319

when they too should be brought to confess Christ. Their doc-
trine of the person of Christ has been variously represented ; but this
seems at all events clear that, if it fell short of the Catholic standard,
it rose above the level of other Judaic sects. The fierce and in-
discriminate verdict of Epiphanius indeed pronounces these Naza-

renes ‘Jews and nothing else’’: but his contemporary Jerome, himself

no lenient judge of heresy, whose opinion was founded on personal
intercourse, regards them more favourably. In his eyes they seem

to be separated from the creeds and usages of Catholic Christendom

chiefly by their retention of the Mosaic law.

Thus they were distinguished from other Judaizing sects by a Their rela-

loftier conception of the person of Christ and by a frank recognition nl api
of the liberty of the Gentile Churches and the commission of the
Gentile Apostle. These distinguishing features may be traced to the
lingering influence of the teaching of the Apostles of the Circumcision.
To the example of these same Apostles also they might have appealed
in defending their rigid observance of the Mosaic law. But herein,
while copying the letter, they did not copy the spirit of their model ;
for they took no account of altered circumstances,

Of this type of belief, if not of this very Nazarene sect, an early Testa-

document still extant furnishes an example. The book called the aes μι
‘Testaments of the twelve Patriarchs’’ was certainly written after ΤΕΣ

1 Haer. xxx. 9. ed against Kayser. The whole tone

2 It is printed in Grabe’s Spicil. SS.
Patr, 1. p. 145 sq (ed. 2, 1700), and in
Fabricius Cod. Pseudepigr. Vet. Το. τ.
Ῥ. 519 8q (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 84). Meanwhile Ritschl’s
first view had been adopted in a mo-
nograph by Vorstman Disquis. de Test.
xii. Patr. (Roterod. 1857), and defend-

and colouring of the book however
seem to show very plainly that the
writer was a Jewish Christian, and tle
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
folly to assert that Benj. ὁ. 11 (the
prophecy about St Paul) was a later

320

Hebrew

sympa-
thies

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
unites the fullest recognition of the Gentile Churches. Our Lord is
represented as the renovator of the law’: the imagery and illustra-
tions are all Hebrew: certain virtues are strongly commended and
certain vices strongly denounced by a Hebrew standard: many
incidents in the lives of the patriarchs are derived from some un-
known legendary Hebrew source*. Nay more; the sympathies of
the writer are not only Judaic but Levitiegl. 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. Ῥ. 333). |

1 The following dates have been
assigned to it by recent critics; a.p.
100-135 (Dorner), 100-120 (Wieseler),
133-163 (Kayser), roo-153 (Nitzsch,
Liicke), 117-193 (Gieseler), 100-200
(Hase), about 150 (Reuss), go-110 (E-
wald). These dates except the last are
taken from Vorstman p. 19 sq, who
himself places it soon after the fall of
Jerusalem (a4.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 (c.
Mare. v. 1, Scorpiace 13), and (as I be-
lieve) even earlier to Irenewus (Fragm.
17, P- 836 sq Stieren).

2 Levi το ἀνακαινοποιοῦντα τὸν νόμον
ἐν δυνάμει ὑψίστου. ‘The law of God,
the law of the Lord,’ are constant
phrases with this writer; Levi 13, 19,
Judas 18, 26, Issach. 5, Zabul. 10, Dan
6, Gad 3, Aser 2, 6, 7, Joseph 11, Benj.
10: see also Nepht. 8. His language in
this respect is formed on the model of
the Epistle of St James, as Ewald re-
marks (p. 329). Thus the Law of God
with him ‘is one with the revealed will
of God, and he never therefore under-
stands it in the narrow sense of a Jew
or even of an Ebionite.’

3 See Ewald Gesch. τ. 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. ἔ

5 Reuben 6 πρὸς τὸν Aevt ἐγγίσατε...
αὐτὸς γὰρ εὐλογήσει τὸν Ἰσραὴλ καὶ τὸν
Ἰούδαν, Judas 21 καὶ νῦν τέκνα μου ἀγα-
πήσατε τὸν Λευΐϊ... ἐμοὶ γὰρ ἔδωκε Κύριος
τὴν βασιλείαν κἀκείνῳ τὴν ἱερατείαν καὶ
ὑπέταξε τὴν βασιλείαν τῇ ἱερωσύνῃ" ἐμοὶ

ἔδωκε τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς κἀκείνῳ τὰ ν΄

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

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
Yet notwithstanding all this,

the admission of the Gentiles into the privileges of the covenant united

Testament narrative attaches to it’.

is a constant theme of thanksgiving with the writer, who mourns dana
over the falling away of the Jews but looks forward to their fina] P™™¢iples.
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 Bbionites.
sects, narrow and uncompromising, to whose principles or prejudices
language such as I have just quoted would be most abhorrent.

The ExpionitEs were a much larger and more important body Their

tenets.
than the Nazarenes.

They were not confined to the neighbourhood
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

οὐρανοῖς, ib. 25 Λευΐ πρῶτος, δεύτερος
ἐγώ, Nepht. 5 Λευὶ ἐκράτησε τὸν ἥλιον
καὶ ᾿Ιούδας φθάσας ἐπίασε τὴν σελήνην.

1 Levi 6, 7.

2 Benj. 11. Besides this prophecy
the work presents several coincidences
of language with St Paul (see Vorst-
man Ὁ. 115 sq), and at least one quo-

GAL,

tation, Levi 6 ἔφθασε δὲ ἡ ὀργὴ Κυρίου
ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς εἰς τέλος, from τ Thess. ii. 16.
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.
8 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.

This foreign element was probably due to Essene influences, The
doctrines of the Christian school bear so close a resemblance to the

1 For the opinions of these Ebion-
ites see the references in Schliemann
p. 481 sq, and add Hippol. Haer. vii.
3 εἰ γὰρ καὶ ἕτερός τις πεποιήκει τὰ ἐν
νόμῳ προστεταγμένα, ἦν ἂν ἐκεῖνος ὃ
Χριστός" δύνασθαι δὲ καὶ ἑαυτοὺς ὁμοίως
ποιήσαντας Χριστοὺς γενέσθαι" καὶ γὰρ
καὶ αὐτὸν ὁμοίως ἄνθρωπον εἶναι πᾶσιν
λέγουσιν.

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

rejection and hatred of St Paul. Their
differences consisted in (1) Their view
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, etc.

The Ebionites of earlier writers, as
Ireneus and Hippolytus, belong to ‘the
Pharisaic type; while those of Epipha-
nius are strongly Essene.

= es

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 323

characteristic features of the Jewish sect as to place their parentage
almost beyond a doubt’:
heretics—the countries bordering on the Dead Sea—coincide roughly

and moreover the head-quarters of these
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, Pharisaic Hbion-
asm or Ebionism proper.

If Pharisaic Ebionism was a disease inherent in the Church of
the Circumcision from the first, Essene Ebionism seems to have been Its later

a later infection caught by external contact. in the Palestinian + bi
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-
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

on the fulfilment of these prophecies:
comp. also Clem. Recogn. i. 37 (especi-
ally in the Syriac).

3 Clem. Hom. ii. 17 μετὰ καθαίρεσιν
τοῦ ἁγίου τόπου εὐαγγέλιον ἀληθὲς κρύφα
διαπεμφθῆναι εἰς ἐπανόρθωσιν τῶν ἐσο-
μένων αἱρέσεων : comp. Clem. Recogn.
i. 37, 64, ili. 61 (in the Syriac, as be-
low, p. 330, note 1). See also Epiphan.
Haer. xxx. 2.

2}... 2

324

but
greater
literary
activity,

and zeal-
ous prose-
lytism.

Book of
Elchasai.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

This prominence is probably due in some measure to their greater
literary capacity, a remarkable feature doubtless derived from the
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 with greater literary activity they seem also to have united
greater missionary zeal. To this spirit of prosclytism 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
This book fell into the hands
of Hippolytus the writer on heresies*, from whom our knowledge of
it is chiefly derived. It professed to have been obtained from the

also the sect were called Elchasaites.

Seres, a Parthian tribe, and to contain a revelation which had been
first made in the third year of Trajan (a.p, 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

3 Paedag. ii. τ (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.

4 Haer. ix. 13. See a valuable
paper on the Elchasaites by Ritschl in
Niedner’s Zeitschrift 1v. p. 573 8q
(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. 11. Ὁ. 153 84
(1866). The use made of it by Epi-
phanius is investigated by Lipsius,
Quellenkritik des Epiphan, p. 143 8q.

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. Whether this was the sacred book of the whole sect or of a
part only, whether the name Elchasaism is coextensive with Essene
The Its pre-
Whether roy
the book itself was really as early as the reign of Trajan or whether

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.
II. p. 514, ed. Miiller), the name dis-
appears when the text is correctly read
(‘se regentes,’ and not ‘Serae gentes’).

1 25 bon. Epiphanius correctly ex-
plains it δύναμις κεκαλυμμένη, Haer.
xix. 2. See Ritschl 1. ὁ. p. 581, and
Altkath. Kirche Ὁ. 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. xv. Ὁ. 824 (1864), do not
recommend themselves. The name is
differently written in Greek, Ηλχασαι,
Ἑλκεσαι and HAga. The first, which
is most correct, is found in Hippolytus
who had seen the book.

2 From yaw. 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 Ritschll.c. p. 589. Ewald however
(Gesch. vil. p. 159) derives Sobiai from

wh 2 ie. βαπτισταί. See also

Chwolson die Ssabier etc. 1. p. 111.

3 Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 7.

4 Hilgenfeld (p. xxi) maintains the
early date very positively againsi
Ritschl. Lipsius (1. o.) 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 (φωλευόντων)᾽ 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 observ-
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®.

If the Pharisaic Ebionites are the direct lineal descendants of
the ‘false brethren’ who seduced St Paul’s Galatian converts from

and allied
to the
Colossian

heretics. their allegiance, the Essene Ebionites 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 Es-
sene Ebionites are Epiphanius (Haer.

xix, xxx); Hippolytus (Haer. ix. 13—
17) and Origen (Euseb. H. Z. 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. 1. ὁ. τὸν ἀπόστολον τέλεον
ἀθετει; besides the passages in the
Clementine writings quoted in the text.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 327

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 na τη,

These are pre- Clemen-

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 Attack on

St Paul in
Among the Homi-
lies,

heresy, and as such is refuted and condemned by St Peter.
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 86.

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
having 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 Homilies
(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.D. 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 1. 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 Recogni-
tionen etc. (Géttingen, 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 8q, 534 864: comp.
Stanley’s Corinthians, p. 366 sq.

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. 111. 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 (εἰ ἐγινώσκετο) he would
not have been believed, but now being not known (dyvoovpevos) 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 ἢ
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 καὶ μετὰ μαρτύρων προσεληλυθότα. carried on from the former clause μὴ
It is needless to insert μὴ with Schlie- πρότερον ἀντιβάλλοντα.
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 ἀνθέστηκάς μοι), the firm rock, the foundation of the Church.
If thou hadst not been an adversary, thou wouldest not have calum-
niated and reviled my preaching, that I might not be believed when
I told what I had heard myself in person from the Lord, as though
forsooth I were condemned (καταγνωσθέντος) and thou wert highly re-
garded’, Nay, if thou callest me condemned (κατεγνωσμένον), thou
accusest God who revealed Christ to me and assailest Him that called
In this same bitter spirit
the writer would rob him of all his missionary triumphs and transfer

me blessed in my revelation? (xvii. 19).’

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 Seer. ”
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 ἐχθροῦ ἀνθρώπου ἄνομόν twa καὶ
φλυαρώδη διδασκαλίαν), 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 Recognitiens, probably a later patch-work‘, the harsher in the

cogni-

features of the Essene-Ebionite doctrine, as it appears in the Homilies, ee

are softened down, and these bitter though indirect attacks on St Paul

1 The existing text has καὶ ἐμοῦ ριος εἶ k.7.X.

εὐδοκιμοῦντος, for which some have pro-
posed to read καὶ μὴ εὐδοκιμοῦντος. It
is better perhaps to substitute σοῦ or
οὐδαμοῦ for ἐμοῦ, though neither is a
neat emendation. Some change how-
ever is absolutely needed.

2 τοῦ ἐπὶ ἀποκαλύψει μακαρίσαντός με.
The allusion is to Matt. xvi. 17, μακά-

3 See also other references to St
Paul noted above, p. 61.

4 Not much earlier than the middle
of the third century; for a portion of
the treatise de Fato, written probably
by a disciple of Bardesanes, is worked
up in the later books; unless indeed this
isitself borrowed from the Recognitions,

330

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 Gamaliel, 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

and in the portion of the Recognitions seems to have been borrowed, was much

Ascents of

James.

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-
postleship, ‘Nonum (par) omnium gen-
tium et illius qui mittetur seminare
verbum inter gentes.’ (On these συζυ-
γίαι of the false and the true see above,
p. 328.) But the corresponding pas-
sage in the Syriac version (p. 115, l. 20,
Lagarde) is wholly different, and trans-
lated back into Greek will run thus: 7
δὲ ἐννάτη (συζυγία) τοῦ σπέρματος τῶν
ζιζανίων καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ πεμπο-
μένου εἰς ἐπιστροφήν, ὅταν ἐκριζωθῇ τὸ
ἅγιον καὶ εἰς τὴν ἐρήμωσιν αὐτοῦ θήσουσι
τὸ βδέλυγμα: see Dan. ix. 27, and com-
pare Clem. Hom. ii. 17 (quoted above,
Ῥ. 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, ὠναβαθμοὶ "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 ach
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- ear 3,
ceeded in cajoling the pope Callistus, but was exposed and defeated by
the zealous bishop of Portus who tells the story (Haer. ix. 13—17).

Not many years after another emissary, if it was not this same and Casa-
Alcibiades, appears to have visited Czesarea, where he was confronted ἘΣ 2472
and denounced by Origen’.

This display of activity might lead to an exaggerated estimate The

ee, ὲ Churct
of the influence of these Judaizing sects. It is not probable that o¢ Pales.

tine not

they left any wide or lasting impression west of Syria. In Palestine 5) +3,

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 Atlia 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
contro-

middle and later half of the second century the bishops of Cesarea versy.

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 the 2 Kuseb. H. ΕἸ. v. 23, 24. See below,

82nd Psalm, which appears to have op. 343, note 2.
been delivered in Cesarea about a.p. 3 Dial. cc. 48, 127.

332

Hegesip-
pus,

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},
If, 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. cc. 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.

8 See the introduction, p. 60, and
the notes on iii. 28, iv. 27.

4 In Euseb. H. Ε. iv. 22. The ex-
tract ends, γενόμενος δὲ ἐν Ῥώμῃ diado-
χὴν ἐποιησάμην μέχρις ᾿Ανικήτου οὗ διά-
κονος ἦν Ἐλεύθερος " καὶ παρὰ ᾿Ανικήτου
διαδέχεται Σωτήρ, μεθ᾽ ὃν ᾿Εἰλεύθερος " ἐν
ἑκάστῃ δὲ διαδοχῇ καὶ ἐν ἑκάστῃ πόλει
οὕτως ἔχει ὡς ὁ νόμος κηρύττει καὶ οἱ
προφῆται καὶ ὁ Κύριος. If the text be
correct, διαδοχὴν ἐποιησάμην 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 διατριβὴν ἐποιησάμην, ‘1
continued to reside,’ may be correct:
but the translation of Rufinus, ‘ per-
mansi inibi (i.e. Romae) donec 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 διαδοχήν, 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 διατριβήν. The early Syriac
translator of Eusebius (see above, p,
280, note) certainly read διαδοχήν.
The dates of the accession of the sue-
cessive bishops as determined by Lip-
sius are, Pius 141 (at the latest),
Anicetus 154—156, Soter 166 or 167,
Eleutherus 174 or 175, Victor 189,
Zephyrinus 198 or 199, Callistus 217,
Urbanus 222; Chron. der Rim. Bisch,
Ῥ. 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? There is no other alternative. We happen to possess in-
formation which leaves no doubt as to the true answer. Eusebius
speaks of Hegesippus as ‘having recorded the unerring tradition of
the apostolic preaching’ (H. Z. iv. 8); and classes him with Dio-
nysius of Corinth, Melito, Irenzus, and others, as one of those in
whose writings ‘the orthodoxy of sound faith derived from the apo-
stolic tradition had been handed down’.’ In this Eusebius could not
have been mistaken, for he himself states that Hegesippus ‘left the
fullest record of his own opinions in five books of memoirs’ which
were in his hands (H. Z. 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
some as early as A.D. 150; see the
lists in Clinton’s Fasti Romani τι. Ῥ.
534 ΡΒ.

1H. E. iv. δι ὧν καὶ els ἡμᾶς τῆς
ἀποστολικῆς παραδόσεως ἣ τῆς ὑγιοῦς
πίστεως ἔγγραφος κατῆλθεν ὀρθοδοξία.

2 Euseb. H. E. ii. 23. See the ac-
count of St James below.

3 See the passage quoted above, p.
332, note 4. For the inferences of the
Tiibingen school see Schwegler Nacha-
post. Zeitulter τ. 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-

ed Boniface, Camb. 1864) the hero is
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 μετὰ τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν

333

not an
Ebionite.

334

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

προφητῶν καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, Hippol.
Haer, viii. 19 πλεῖόν τι δι’ αὐτῶν...με»
μαθηκέναι ἢ ἐκ νόμου καὶ προφητῶν καὶ
εὐαγγελίων.

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 τὰ ἧτοι-
Macpéva τοῖς δικαίοις ἀγαθὰ οὔτε ὀφθαλ-
pas εἶδεν οὔτε οὖς ἤκουσεν οὔτε ἐπὶ καρ-
Slav ἀνθρώπου ἀνέβη, Stephanus pro-
ceeds, ᾿Ηγήσιππος μέντοι, apxaids re
ἀνὴρ καὶ ἀποστολικός, ἐν τῷ πέμπτῳ τῶν
ὑπομνημάτων, οὐκ οἵδ᾽ ὅ τι καὶ παθών,
μάτην μὲν εἰρῆσθαι ταῦτα λέγει καὶ κατα-
ψεύδεσθαι τοὺς ταῦτα φαμένους τῶν τε
:θείων γραφῶν καὶ τοῦ Κυρίου λέγοντος
“Μακάριοι οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ὑμῶν κιτιλ. It 15
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
‘chad there been no direct evidence, it
aight have been gathered from the

argument which follows that he re-
ferred to the esoteric teaching of the
Gnostics; 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 τ. Ὁ. 132 (2nd ed.), and Hilgen-
feld Apost. Véater p. 102, but otherwise
Zettschr. f. Wiss. Theol. 1876, p. 203 54.
Yet Baur (Christenthum p. 77, Paulus
p. 221), and Schwegler (1. Ὁ. 352), forcing
an unnatural meaning on the words,
contend that Hegesippus is directly
denying St Paul’s claim toa 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. E. 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: Irenzeus 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 Steg
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 54)
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, Thisdate 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 Eleutherus, 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, ἢ ®°™
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 oe
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 officers
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. 15—1i8, 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

of Igna-
tius.
A.D. 107?

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 to 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 different 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

Ξ i fH
from the Epistle of Clement; but on the other hand the writer was Ds Ebion.

certainly no Ebionite, as he has been sometimes represented. If he si
dwells almost exclusively on works, he yet states that the ‘elect of ο. 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 (ἀποδιυλισμένοις
ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀλλοτρίου χρώματος). 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. 99, note 3.

8 Vis. iii. 8: comp. Mand. viii.

4 Sim. ix. 12. The whole passage
is striking: Πρῶτον, φημί, πάντων, κύ-

ριε, τοῦτό μοι δήλωσον" ἡ πέτρα καὶ ἡ
πύλη τίς ἐστιν; Ἢ πέτρα, φησίν, αὕτη
καὶ ἡ πύλη ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστί. Πῶς,
φημί, κύριε, ἣ πέτρα παλαιά ἐστιν, ἡ δὲ
πύλη καινή; “Axove, φησί, καὶ σύνιε,
ἀσύνετε. ὁ μὲν υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ πάσης τῆς
κτίσεως αὐτοῦ προγενέστερός ἐστιν, ὥστε
σύμβουλον αὐτὸν γενέσθαι τῷ πατρὶ τῆς
κτίσεως αὐτοῦ" διὰ τοῦτο καὶ παλαιός ἐσ-
τιν. Ἡ δὲ πύλη διὰ τί καινή, φημί, κύριε;
Ὅτι, φησίν, ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν τῆς
συντελείας φανερὸς ἐγένετο, διὰ τοῦτο
καινὴ ἐγένετο ἡ πύλη, ἵνα οἱ μέλλοντες
σώζεσθαι δι᾽ αὐτῆς εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν εἰσ-
έλθωσι τοῦ Θεοῦ.

δ᾽ Sim. ix. 14 τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ
Θεοῦ μέγα ἐστὶ καὶ ἀχώρητον καὶ τὸν
κόσμον ὅλον βαστάζει. On the whole
subject see Dorner Lehre ete. 1. p. 186
sq, Westcott Canon p. 200 8q.

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 medieval writings, and may in fact be said to cha-
racterize more or less distinctly the whole medizval 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 wie ses ᾿
ha Gla. dence by most recent critics of ability to a Roman authorship*. Of

mentines

question. the truth of this view I am very far from convinced. The great
ed.

argument—indeed almost the only argument—in its favour is the
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
2 So for instance Baur, Schliemann, ἰδίου days have critically examined the
Ritschl, Hilgenfeld: and this view is Clementina.’? Uhlhorn is almost alone
adopted by Dean Milman Latin Chris- among recent critics in raising his voice
tianity τ. 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. Αὖ 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
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

time of writing also is open to much question,
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 ; Rebeariy
but they have no right to the place assigned them in the system of #*¢4.

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. li. 4 πέμψει οὖν Κλή-
μῆς εἰς Tas ἔξω πόλεις" ἐκείνῳ yap ἐπι-
τέτραπται.

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 by a 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. But if they emanated from
the East, from Syria for instance, no
explanation of this silence is needed.

342

They can-
not repre-
sent the

doctrine of

the Roman
Church.

Notice in
Hippoly-
tus.

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,
at least in the West. Had they presented a purer form of Judaism,
founded on the Old Testament Scriptures, a more plausible case
might have been made out. But the theology of the Clementines
does not lie in a direct line between the Old Testament and Catholic
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,

There is another reason also for thinking that this Gnostic
Ebionism 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.

The few notices of the Roman Church in the second century No Ebion-

point to other than Ebionite leanings. In their ecclesiastical ordi- ings in the

nances the Romans seem anxious to separate themselves as widely
as possible from Jewish practices. Thus they extended the Friday’s
fast over the Saturday, showing thereby a marked disregard of the
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

controversy their bishop Victor resorted to the extreme measure of chal con-
9 troversy.

renouncing communion with those churches which differed from it
This controversy affords a valuable testimony to the Catholicity of
Christianity at Rome in another way. It is clear that the churches
ranged on different sides on this question of ritual are nevertheless

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
celebrate the eucharist in his stead. It is distinctly stated by Ire-
neus when he remonstrates with Victor for disturbing the peace of
the Church by insisting on non-essentials*. In its creed the Roman
Church was one with the Gallic and Asiatic Churches; and that this
creed was not Ebionite, the names of Polycarp and Ireneus are
guarantees. Nor is it only in the Paschal controversy that the
Catholicity of the Romans may be inferred from their intercourse

1 Tertull. de Jejun. 14; see Neander
Ch. Hist. 1. p. 410(Bohn). _

2 On the Paschal controversy see
Euseb. 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 r20o—
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

index of Judaic or antijudaic leanings:
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. ΕἸ. v. 24 ἡ διαφωνία
τῆς νηστείας τὴν ὁμόνοιαν τῆς πίστεως
συνίστησιν, and the whole extract.

344 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
Other with other Christian communities. The remains of ecclesiastical
ee literature, though sparse and fragmentary, are yet sufficient to reveal
Crete a wide network of intercommunication between the churches of the
churches. 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
sympathy and respect’. On the Catholicity of the African Church
I have already remarked: and the African Church was a daughter
of the Roman, from whom therefore it may be assumed she derived
her doctrine’.
Internal The gleams of light which break in upon the internal history of
yay the Roman Church at the close of the second and beginning of the
reecane 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 Euseb. H. E. iv. 23.

2 Tertull. de Praescr. 36. Cyprian
Epist. 48 (ed. Fell) writing to Cornelius
speaks of Rome as ‘Ecclesiae catholicae
radicem et matricem,’ in reference to
the African Churches.

8 Tertull. adv. Prax, 1. Tertullian,
now a Montanist, writes of Praxeas
who had persuaded thisnameless 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 crucifixit.’ For spe-
culations as to the name of this bishop ©
see Wordsworth’s Hippolytus pp. 131,
132.
* Hippol. Haer, ix. 7 sq.

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
through the great cities of the empire. But their existence was Ebionism
About the middle of the fifth century “°°
they had almost disappeared’. They would gradually be absorbed

not prolonged much later.

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-
thority of both estimated alike in all branches of the Church. St
Paul and the Twelve had by mutual consent occupied distinct spheres
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. It would therefore be no great surprise if we should
find that in individual writers of the second century and in different
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, Haer. Fab, ii. 11, men-
tions the Ebionites and the Elchasaites
among those of whom οὐδὲ βραχὺ διέ-
μεινε λείψανον.

2 Gal. ii. g; see Westcott’s History
of the Canon p. 77 54: 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 84, Colossians Ὁ. 52 56.

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 PVHE foregoing account of the conflict of the Church with Judaism

foregoing bats: : ἱ >

account. 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 Pav. St 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

ἘΜῚΝ the 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.
aa 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
etc., 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
Neither shall I start from the assumption that it
Taking common ground with those whose

an investigation.
has any historical value.
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 ihe ied by
school to be genuine, the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and his own
Galatians’. nee.

purpose. If they contain the severest denunciations of the Judaizers,

It so happens that they are the most important for my

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-

4 ἷ 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. iii. 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 Ti-
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
(862).

348

(3) His
practical
care for
them.

(4) His
conform-
ity to their
usages.

of the
Tosta-
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 (ἀνάθεμα εἶναι αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἀπὸ τοῦ
Χριστοῦ) 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 Juda 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

(5) His iy 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 on i, το, ii. 3, v. 2, 11.

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 yeah -_
otherwise. Written in the heat of the conflict, written to confute πα τοι
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-

350

St Panl’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 off 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 to it. (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 μναῖ

more bearing directly on the relations between St Paul and the Apo- “135
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’ (τῶν ὑπερλίαν ἀποστόλων, 2 Cor.
xi. 5, xii. 11), 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). In 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 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

Noantago- In all this there is nothing inconsistent with the character of
οἰξοηρὴν ὦ St Paui as drawn in the Acts, nothing certainly which represents
he po him as he was represented by extreme partisans in ancient times, by
Apostles. 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. .
Sr Peter 1. The author of the Clementine Homilies makes St PETER
eaanitull 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 (τὸν ἐμὸν νοῦν ἐπαγγελλόμενοι) I know not how,
attempt to interpret the words that they have heard from me more
cleverly (φρονιμώτερον) than myself who spoke them, telling their
pupils that this is my meaning (φρόνημα), though it never once
entered into my mind (6 ἐγὼ οὐδὲ ἐνεθυμήθην). 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 i. also

claimed by other sectarians of opposite opinions. Basilides (about

A.D. 130), the famous Gnostic teacher, announced that he had been
An early
apocryphal writing moreover, which should probably be assigned to

instructed by one Glaucias an ‘interpreter’ of St Peter’.

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 κήρυγμα Πέ-
tpov, see Schwegler Nachap. Zeit. τι.
p- 30 sq. Its opposition to Judaism
appears in an extant fragment preserved
in Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. p. 760, unde
κατὰ ᾿Ιουδαίους σέβεσθε... ὥστε καὶ ὑμεῖς
ὁσίως καὶ δικαίως μανθάνοντες ἃ παραδί-
δομεν ὑμῖν φυλασσεσθε, καινῶς τὸν Θεὸν
διὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ σεβόμενοι" εὕρομεν γὰρ
ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς καθὼς ὁ Κύριος λέγει"
Ἰδοὺ διατίθεμαι ὑμῖν καινὴν διαθήκην
κιτλ. 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). 1 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 Pre-
dicatio Pauli in der Stelle, welche sich
in der Cyprian’s Werken angehiangten
Schrift de rebaptismate erhalten hat
(Cypr. Opp. ed. Baluz. s. 365 f.), Petrum
et Paulum post conlationem evangelii
in Jerusalem et mutuam cogitationem
[? et altercationem 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, II. Ὁ. 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

oppo-
ie 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 (συναπήχθη αὐτῶν τῇ
ὑποκρίσει). 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 (Ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων), 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. (ii. 11—14).’

Now the point of St Paul’s rebuke is plainly this: that in sanc-
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
(ἐθνικῶς ζῇς and not ἐθνικῶς ἔζης), 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. 352) did not so
understand his meaning. Schwegler (1.

p- 129) explains συνυπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ
‘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
54) discards Schwegler’s interpretation
and explains ὑπόκρισις of the self-con-
tradiction, the unconscious inconsist-
ency of Jewish Christian or Ebionite

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 355

How St Peter came to hold these liberal principles, so entirely It accords

: ἢ ἢ with an
opposed to the narrow traditions of his age and country, is explained incident

related in

by an incident narrated in the Acts. He was at one time as rigid Fig a

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 with

is cha-
the Acts, his exceptional departure from them is illustrated by his racter as

character as it appears in the Gospels. The occasional timidity aa
and weakness of St Peter will be judged most harshly by those who P¢ls:
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 (ὁμαλῶς ἀνώμαλον) ; and this is a
much safer criterion of truth. But there is yet another source of The First
information to be considered—his own letters, If the deficiency of ΒΡ edhe
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 ro ab the

uence
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.

23—2

356

but bears
the indi-
vidual
stamp

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

First.
St Paul as the chief preacher of Christianity in countries Hellenic

considerations, 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’.’
that St Peter derived nothing from the influence of the Apostle of
the Gentiles. The one was essentially a character to impress, the

Secondly. It is begging the whole question to assume

other to be impressed. His superior in intellectual culture, in
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 after all the epistle bears the stamp of an individual mind
The substratum of the
thoughts is the writer’s own. Its individuality indeed appears more

quite independent of this foreign element.

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.
Ῥ. 402 sq.

* See 1 Pet. ii. 24 τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν
αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν ἐν τῷ σώματι αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ
τὸ ξύλον, ἵνα ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἀπογενόμενοι
τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ ζήσωμεν. 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
Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι" ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ,
ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστὸς k.7.r.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 357

Altogether the epistle is anything but Ebionite. Not only is the a : mind
‘law’ never once named, but there is no allusion to formal ordinances “ip seed

of any kind. The writer indeed is essentially an Israelite, but he ree
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. 9). 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 ne odoe met
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 ἢ /@™¢*
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 aon
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 Europe. 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 iN

ciated in

Apostles as the greatest teachers of the Gospel, the brightest examples dari θῶ,
of Christian life. At Rome probably, at Antioch certainly, both these dition.

358

Rome.

Antioch.

Corinth,

Misrepre-
sentations

of extreme

parties.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

Apostles were personally known. We have the witness of the one

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
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
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
This church again has not withheld her

voice, though here the later date of her testimony detracts somewhat

to that very hour’.’

two Apostles.
Corinth (1 Cor. ili, 22).

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*®.

But though the essential unity of these two Apostles is thus
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 οὐχ ws Πέ- καὶ γὰρ ἄμφω καὶ els τὴν ἡμετέραν Ke-

τρος καὶ Παῦλος διατάσσομαι ὑμῖν 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
churchatan 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. LH. ii. 25 τὴν ἀπὸ
Πέτρου καὶ Παύλου φυτείαν γενηθεῖσαν
Ῥωμαίων τε καὶ Κορινθίων συνεκεράσατε.

ρινθον φοιτήσαντες ἡμᾶς ὁμοίως ἐδίδαξαν,
ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ εἰς τὴν ᾿Ιταλίαν ὁμόσε
διδάξαντες ἐμαρτύρησαν κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν
καιρόν. All the mss and the Syriac
version here have gurevcavres; but
φοιτήσαντες 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 law to be sin and the commandment neither

holy nor just nor good. It seems to have been a subsidiary aim of Concilia-
St Luke’s narrative, which must have been written not many years ped Seas
after the martyrdom of both Apostles, to show that this growing he
tendency was false, and that in their life, as 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 Jonny
no such liberty seems to have been taken with the name of Sr ie
Joun’. Long settled in an important Gentile city, surrounded by ἜΝ,
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 ἴῃ 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,

His life in
relation to

360

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 APocALYPsE is

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 361

most thoroughly Jewish in its language and imagery. The whole τὴν Apo-
book is saturated with illustrations from the Old Testament. It Hebrew in

its ima-

speaks not the language of Paul, but of Isaiah and Ezekiel and gary,

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. το) 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

strongly the contrast between the pictures themselves. The two Poh ath

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 piel
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.
The word does not occur from beginning to end, nor is there a single
allusion to its ceremonial as an abiding ordinance. The Paschal

ST PAUL AND THE THREE,

Lamb indeed 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

(vil. g).’

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-
ticehere. They are given by Polycrates
who was himself bishop of Ephesus
(Euseb. H. E.v. 24). Writing to pope
Victor, probably in the last decade of
the second century, he mentions that
he ‘numbers (ἔχων) 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

ἐγενήθη ἱερεὺς τὸ πέταλον πεφορεκὼς καὶ"

μάρτυς καὶ διδάσκαλος). The reference

To him however it was only a national custom

in the πέταλον is doubtless to the metal
plate on the high-priest’s mitre (Exod.
XXVill, 36 πέταλον χρυσοῦν καθαρόν,
comp. Protevang. c. 5 τὸ πέταλον τοῦ
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. μεγάλα στοιχεῖα
κεκοίμηται (where στοιχεῖα means ‘lu-
minaries,’ being used of the heavenly
bodies); Μελίτωνα τὸν εὐνοῦχον (proba-
bly a metaphor, as Rufinus translates
it, ‘propter regnum dei eunuchum’; see
Matt. xix.12 and comp. Athenag. Suppl.
33) 34, Clem. Alex. Paed. iii. 4, p. 269,
Strom. iii. 1. Ὁ. 509 54); τὸν μικρόν μου
ἄνθρωπον (‘my insignificance’; comp.
Rom. vi. 6 ὁ παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος,
2 Cor. iv. τό ὁ ἔξω ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος, τ Pet.
iii. 4 ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωποϑβ).
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 politaeminimeque elegantes,’
Orator, 25) and which is described by
another writer as κομπώδης καὶ φρυαγμα-
tlas kal κενοῦ γαυριάματος Kal φιλοτιμίας
ἀνωμάλου μεστός, 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. g).’
up their own watchword ‘knowledge (γνῶσις) and retorting upon
them that they know only ‘the depths of Satan (ii. 24)’,’ on the

other hand he condemns in similar language the bigotry of Jewish

If he denounces the errors of heathen speculation, taking

prejudice, denouncing the blasphemy of those ‘ who say they are Jews
and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan’ (ii. 9 ; comp. iii. 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 δόμῳ

between the Apocalypse and the later writings of St John, due allow- re sp

ance being made for the difference of subject. The language and cai didnog
ca

colouring of the Gospel and Epistles are no longer Hebrew ; but so lypse.
far as a Hebrew mind was capable of the transformation, Greek or

this decoration as an emblem of his θεοῦ, and see Philippians p. 252). The

Christian privileges ; nor ought this view
to cause any offence, as inconsistent
with the spirituality of his character.
Τῇ 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. 6. p. 285; comp. Justin Dial. 116
ἀρχιερατικὸν TO ἀληθινὸν γένος ἐσμὲν τοῦ

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 alate 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 ΦΑΜῈΒ 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 seems 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. 365

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 rai ne
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-

count of

Hegesip-
1 In the account of Hegesippus, re- UH. E. iv. 5), either in memory of their sh

ferred to in the following note, ὁ δίκαιος 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. £. ii,

also bear the name ‘Justus’ (Euseb. 23.

this he added a rigorous asceticism, may fairly be questioned. The

366

not trust-
worthy.

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 flesh. No razor ever touched his head; he did not anoint
himself with oil; he did not use the bath. He alone was allowed to
enter into the holy place (εἰς τὰ aya). For he wore no wool, but
only fine linen. And he would enter into the temple (ναόν) 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
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.lxxviii. 14) makes the same state-
ment of St James which Polycrates
does of St John, πέταλον ἐπὶ τῆς κεφα-
λῆς ἐφόρεσε.

2 Josephus (Antig. xx. 9. 1) relates
that in the interregnum between the
death of Festus and the arrival of Albi-
nus,the high-priest Ananustheyounger,
who belonged to the sect of the Saddu-
cees (notorious for their severity in
judicial matters), considering this a fa-
vourable opportunity καθίζει συνέδριον
κριτῶν, καὶ παραγαγὼν eis αὐτὸ τὸν
ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ,
Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ, καί τινας ἑτέρους,
ὡς παρανομησάντων κατηγορίαν ποιησά-
μενος παρέδωκε λευσθησομένους. 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 at all. 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 Judea. 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. EZ. 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 τι Ὁ. 367, Eng.
Trans.), of Ewald (Geschichte v1. Ὁ. 547),
and of some few writers besides (so
recently Gerlach Rémische Statthalter
etc. p. 81, 1865): but the majority take
the opposite view.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 367

so melodramatic and so full of high improbabilities, that it must
throw discredit on the whole context’.

We are not therefore justified in laying much stress on this He was
tradition. It is interesting as a phenomenon, but not trustworthy as piel

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 (πτερύγιον) of the tem-
ple. Instead of denouncing Jesus how-
ever, he preaches Him. Finding their
mistake, the scribes and Phariseesthrow
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 conjectured to be
taken from the ‘ Ascents of James’ (see
above, p. 330) are striking, and recent
writers have called attention to these as
showing that the narrative of Hegesip-
pus was derived from a similar source
(Uhlhorn 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 to 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
left 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,

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 ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία. In St Peter
only of the Epistles andthe Apocalypse: neither νόμος nor ἀνομία occurs,
in the Gospel the law is necessarily 2 The words εὐαγγέλιον, εὐαγγελίζε-
mentioned by way of narrative. In σθαι, do not occur in St 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—11),
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 ro
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 “™*
persons to whom the epistle is addressed, If it is intended to coun-
teract any modification or perversion of St Paul's tex ching, 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 θρησκεία, ‘cultus exterior,’ see Trench Synon.
and the consequent bearing of the text, ἃ xlviii.
in a well-known passage in Aids to 2 e.g. Rom. vi. 15—23, 1 Cor. vi.

Reflection, Introd. Aphor.23. Forthe 9—20, Gal. v. 13 sq.
signification of θρησκεία both in the

GAL. 24

370

Ebionite
misrepre-
sentations
of St
James
explained.

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,
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. 4 Bleek (Hinl. in das N. 1. p. 550),

2 Rom, Σ. 9. who however considers that St James

2 ii, 19. Comp. Clem. Hom. iii, is writing against perversions of 80
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 Asia Re
the Circumcision : and that in some instances at least, as members of 7°**
the mother Church, they had direct relations with James the Lord’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 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

years and by a special revelation; in this, as in his recognition of
Jesus as the Christ, moving more slowly than the Twelve.

Galatia. 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? There are some faint indications that such was the case ; and,
remembering that there was a Judas among the Twelve, we cannot
set aside this supposition as impossible.

Corinth. 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
“1 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

The two been the men who ‘trusted to themselves that they were of Christ’

Jadain
“ote ie (x. 7), who invaded another’s sphere of labour and boasted of work

1 Several writers representing dif- interpreted. (2) The remonstrance im-
ferent schools have agreed in denying mediately following (μεμέρισται ὁ Xpi-
the existence of a ‘Christ party.’ Pos- rds) shows that the name of Christ,
sibly the word ‘party’ may be too which ought to be common to all, had
strong to describe what was rather a been made the badge of a party. (3)
sentiment than an organization. But In 2 Cor. x. 7 the words εἴ ris πέποιθεν
if admissible at all, I cannot seehow, ἑαυτῷ Χριστοῦ εἶναι and the description
allowing that there were three parties, “ which follows gain force and definite-
the existence of the fourth can be ques- ness on this supposition. There is in
tioned. For (1) the four watchwords fact more evidence for the existence of
are co-ordinated, and there is no indi- a party of Christ than there is of a
cation that ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ is to be party of Peter.
isolated from the others and differently

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. 1sq). 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 Ce et
the Corinthians and of recommendation from them’ (2 Cor. iii. 1)? Τῇ
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 thatthe 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 ce sn

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.

AsranaM, 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. gt
Sq, 123 84 (passim), 305 56, 346 sq,
359

Acts, passages commented on; (ix.
20—26) p. 89; (xv. 29) Ρ. 305 8q3
(xvi. 6) p. 20, 22; (xxviii. 21) p. 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. 331

Alcuin founds a school of biblical in-
terpretation, p. 235

Alexandria, the Church of, p. 335

Alfred’s (king) malady, p. 190 sq

Alphaeus, to be identified with Clopas?
Ῥ. 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),
Ῥ. 60, 100, 345

Ancyra, p. 6, 8, 11, 13, 2084, 32, 34
8q, 242, V. 20

Andronicus and Junia (-as), p. 96, 98

angels administering the law, iii. 19

Anselm, commentary ascribed to, p. 236

Antidicomarianites, p. 283

Antioch, foundation of the Church at,
Ῥ. 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. 3713
biblical school of, p. 228; see Paul
(St)

Antioch in Pisidia, St Paul preaches at,
Ρ. 304

aorist, uses of, v. 4, 24, Vi. 2; episto-
lary, Vi. 11

Apoeryphal Gospels, on the Lord’s bre-
thren, p. 260, 274 8q

Apollos, not an Apostle, p. 96, 98

apologists, references to Galatians in,
Ρ. 59 84

Apostle, meaning of the term, p. 9256 ;
not limited to the twelve, p. 93 sq,
260; qualifications and functions of,
Ῥ. 97 Sq (passim)

apostolic congress and decree, ii. 1 sq.
(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 8q, 194

Arabians, called Hagarenes, iv. 25;
their enmity to the Jews, iv. 29

Arabic version of the New Testament,
p. 87 sq

Ariston of Pella, p. 152 sq

article, the definite, i. 4, 7, 10, 13, 23,
ili, 20, 21, iv. 6, 31, V. 14, Ρ. 193:
see also νόμος

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, ii. 14

Atto Vercellensis, his commentary on
St Paul, p. 236

Augustine (St), his dispute with Je-
rome, p. 131 84; commentary on
Galatians, p. 232; on the Lord’s
brethren, p. 288 sq

ἀββᾶ, iv. 6

ἀγαθά, vi. 6

ἀγαθοποιεῖν, καλοποιεῖν, V1. 9

ἀγαθωσύνη, χρηστότης, Υ. 22

ἀδελφοί, emphatic, iii. 15, vi. 1, 18

ἀθετεῖν, ii. 21

αἵρεσις, V. 20

αἰών, i. 4

ἀκαθαρσία, Υ. το

ἀκοή, ili. 2

ἀλήθεια, ἡ ἀλ. τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, ii. 5

ἀλληγορεῖν (-γορία), iv. 24

ἄλλος, ἕτερος, i. 6

ἁμαρτωλός, li. 14, 15, 17, 18

ἂν omitted, iii. 19, iv. 15

ἀναβαίνειν, 1. 17

ἀνάθεμα, ἀνάθημα, i. 8

ἀνακόπτειν, V. 7

ἀναστατοῦν, V. 12

ἀνατίθεσθαι, ii. 2

ἀνέρχεσθαι, i. 17

ἀπεκδέχεσθαι, V. 5

ἀπό, διά, i. 1

ἀπό, παρά, i. 12

ἀποκόπτεσθαι, V. 12

ἀπολαμβάνειν, iv. 5

ἀπορεῖν (-petr Oat), iv. 20

ἀπόστολος, Ὁ. 92 54

ἄρα, γ. 113 (ἄρα), li. 17

ἄρτι, i. 9

ἀσέλγεια, V. 19

ἀτενίζειν, p. 192

αὐτὸ τοῦτο, ii. Τὸ

ἀφορίζειν, ii, 15

ἀφορμή, 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,
Pp. 284

Basilides, and εἰδωλόθυτα, p. 310

Bede, commentary wrongly ascribed to,
Ῥ. 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

βασκαίνειν, ili. 1

βαστάζειν, 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 8q

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. 228 54 ; 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,
Ρ. 235

Clement of Alexandria, on Cephas at
Antioch, p. 129; on the Lord’s bre-
thren, p. 279 sq; on the Nicolaitans,
Ῥ. 298; his use of the word ‘apostle,’
Ῥ. 100; his commentary on the Ca-
tholic Epistles, p. 279

Clement of Rome, his position in the
Church, p. 100, 338, 341; his Epistle,
Ῥ. 338, 358

Clementine Homilies, their scope and
complexion, p. 3408q; editions and
epitomes of, etc. p. 327; their Ro-
man origin doubtful, p. 340 8q;
their representation of St James,
p- 274, 276, 370 8q; attacks on St
Paul, ii. 11, 13, iv. ro, 16, 24, Pp.
61 84, 129, 327 8q; 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 Rufinus 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 Judma, Ὁ. 25, 55,
304, il. 10, Vi. 7

Collyridians, p. 285

Corinth, the Church of, its catholicity,
Ῥ. 358; parties in, p. 372 sq; Ju-
daizers in, ib.; the offender in, p.
54, Vi. I .

Corinthians, 1st Epistle to the, when
written, p. 38; compared with Gala-
tians, p. 51 84, 64; passages com-

377

mented on, (i. 12) p. 372, (ii. 9) p.
334, (Vili. 1—13, X. 14—22) p. 308
Corinthians, 2nd Epistle 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. 31

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

καθώς, 11. 5

καὶ ἐάν, ἐὰν καί, i. 8

καινὴ κτίσις, Vi. 15

καιροί, ἵν, 10

καλεῖν, 6 καλῶν (καλέσαΞ), i. 6, Vv. 8;
καλεῖν ἐπί, Vv. 13

καλοποιεῖν, Vi. 9

κανών, Vi. 16

κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, i. 11, ili, 15

karaBalvew,i. τῇ

καταρτίζειν, vi. τ

κατασκοπεῖν, li. 4

κατέρχεσθαι, i, 17

κατηχεῖν, Vi. 6

καύχησις, καύχημα, Vi. 4

κενόδοξος (-doéla), v. 26

κλίμα, i, 21

κοιλίας (ἐκ), 1. 15

κοινωνεῖν, Vi. 6

κράζειν, iv. 6

κρίμα (κρῖμα), ν. το

χάριν, iii. 19

χείρ, ἐν χειρί, ili. 19

χρηστότης (ἀγαθωσύνη), 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; (xxxiii. 2) 111. τὸ

Didymus of Alexandria, on St Peter αὖ

378

Antioch, p. 130; his commentary on
St Paul, p. 232

Dionysius of Corinth, p. 344

dispersion, the, p. 296

Dorotheus Tyrius, the pseudo-, p. 286

Drynaemetum, p. 247

dying and being buried with Christ,
ii. 20

δεκαπέντε, i. 18

δεξιὰς δοῦναι, λαμβάνειν, ii. 9

διὰ with gen., i, 13 διὰ (ἐκ) πίστεως, ii.
16; with accus., iv. 13

διαθήκη, iii. 15

δοκεῖν elvat τι (ris), 11, 6, vi. 3: of δοκοῦν-
τες, li. 2

δυνάμεις, 111. 5

δωρεάν, li. 21

Eastern Churches, testimony respecting
the Jameses, p. 290

Ebionites, different classes of, p. 317,
321 84 (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 8q;
see Hippolytus

Elieser (Rabbi), on the Samaritans,
Pp. 299

ellipsis, after ἵνα, ii. g ; with μόνον, ii. 10,
vi. 12; with μή, v. 13; of the name
of God, i. 6, 15, v. 8

Ephesians, ii. 20, iii. 5, commented on,
Ρ. 97

Ephraem Syrus, his commentary on St
Paul, p. 227; on Hagar, p. 194

Epiphanius, on the Lord’s brethren,
Ῥ. 253 84 (passim), 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 Η. Εἰ. ii. 1 commented on,
p. 280; on the Lord’s brethren,
p. 282; his silence misinterpreted,

Ῥ. 345

INDEX.

Eusebius of Emesa, his commentary
on St Paul, p. 37, 228

Euthalius, his edition of St Paul, p. 230

Euthymius Zigabenus, hiscommentary,
Ρ. 234

evil eye, iii. 1

Exodus, xii. 40 commented on, iii. 17

exodus, chronology of the, iii. 17

ἐὰν καί, καὶ ἐάν, 1. 8

ἑαυτοῦ, V. 14

ἐγκακεῖν (ἐκκακεῖν), Vi. 9

ἐγκόπτειν, Υ. 7

εἴ γε, εἴπερ, 111...

εἰ μή (ἐὰν μή), i. 19, 11. τό

εἰδέναι, See γινώσκειν

εἰδωλόθυτα, p. 308 54

εἷς, Υ. 10, Vi. 4

ἐκ, did, with πίστεως, ii. 16; of ἐκ πέ-
orews, ili. 7; ἐκ κοιλίας, i. 15

ἐκκλησία, i. 22

ἐκλύεσθαι, Vi. το

Ἕλλην, il. 3

ἐλπίς, V. 5

ἐν ἐμοί, i. 16

ἐνάρχεσθαι, iii. 3

ἐνδύεσθαι, iii, 27

ἐνεργεῖν, ii, 8, iii. 5, v. 6

ἐνεστώς, i. 4

ἔνι, 111. 28

ἐξαγοράζειν, iii. 13

ἐπαγγελία, ili, 14

ἐπιδιατάσσεσθαι, ili. 15

ἐπιτελεῖσθαι, iii. 3

ἐπίτροπος, iv. 2

ἐπιχορηγεῖν, ili. 5

ἐριθεία, V. 20

ἐρρέθη, iii. τό

ἕτερος, ἄλλος, i. 16; ὁ ἕτερος, Vi. 4

ἔτι, 1. 10, Ve II

εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, i. 9

εὐνοῦχος, p. 362

εὐπροσωπεῖν, Vi. 12

εὑρεθῆναι, ii. 17

ἡμέραι, p. 89

Faith, words denoting, p. 154 54 ; not
in the O.T., p. 155, 1588q; of Abra-
ham, p. 1588q; Philo on, p. 159 58;

INDEX.

163; rabbinical teachers on, p. 1618q,
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 sq, 25 sq; Romans in,
Ῥ. 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. 4 54 (passim); their lan-
guage, p. 12, 246 sq; their three
tribes, p. 7, 248; their national cha-
racter, p. 1286 ; their religion, p. 8,
11, 16 8q, 21, 23, 30; mutilation
among, p.16, v.12; witchcraft among,
v. 20; were they Celts or Teutons?
Pp. 2398q (passim); supposed German
affinities explained, Ὁ. 250sq; 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 84; persecutions of, 111, 4; later
history of, p. 31 sq; heresies of,
Ῥ. 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.
4354; and to Rom., ἢ. 4554; genu-
ineness of, p. 578q; external testi-
mony to, Ὁ. 58sq; analysis of, p. 65
8q ; postscript to, p. 65, vi. 11; com-
mentaries on, p. 227 sq (passim); its

379

importance in modern controversy,
Ῥ. 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. 159 84; (XV. 13) 11]. 17; (xxi. 9,
To) iv. 29, 30

Gennadius, his commentary on St Paul,
Ῥ. 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

γεννᾶν, iv. 24

γινώσκειν, εἰδέναι, iii. 7, iv. 9

γνωρίζω ὑμῖν, 1. 11

γράμματα, Vi. ττ

γραφή, ili. 8, 22

Habakkuk, ii. 4 commented on, p. 156,
ili. 11

Hadrian, his treatment of Jews and
Christians, p. 316 sq

agar, meaning of, p. 87 sq, 193 54;
places bearing the name, p. 196; a
synonyme for Sinai?, p. 89, 196 sq,
iv. 25; doubtful reading, p. 192 sq

Tiagarenes, iv. 25, 29

tarant, der Christliche Ulysses, Ὁ. 195;
on Hagar, ib.

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 84; 325 Βα

Hellenists,theirinfluencein theChurch,
P- 297 84

Helvidius, on the Lord’s brethren, p.

253 84 (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, Ῥ. 242;
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 8d, 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, p. 95, 100, 261 sq
(passim); our Lord’s appearance to
him, p. 265 sq, 274, 364; his po-
sition, ii. 9, p. 364 54 (passim); his
asceticism, Ὁ. 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, Vv. 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 ὁ μικρός, 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. go; on the Galatian language, p.
12, 243; on Galatian heresies, p. 32;
on the origin of the Galatian people,
p- 242 8q; 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. 316 sq; 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,
P- 359 84; on εἰδωλόθυτα, p. 309; tra-
ditions relating to, p. 362 sq; not
claimed by Ebionites, p. 339; Gospel
and Epistles of, p. 363; Apocalypse
of, p. 360 sq

John, Gospel of, xix. 25 commented
on, p. 264, 266

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, οτος; 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 54, 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 88
(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
sq; acgueainted with St Paul’s
Epistles, ili. 10, 13, iv. 27, p. 60:
Orat. ad Graec. wrongly ascribed to,
p- 60; ἃ fragment wrongly ascribed
to, p. 278 sq

Justus, the name, p. 365

ἴδε (ἰδοὺ) ὅτι, 1. 20; ἴδε or ἰδέ, V. 2

Ἱεροσόλυμα, i. 18; (Ἱερουσαλήμ) iv. 26

ἱκανός, p. 89

ἵνα, with indic., ii. 4, iv. 17; ellipsis
with, ii, 9; repeated, 111, 14, iv. 5

᾿Ιουδαΐζειν, ii. 14

᾿Ιουδαϊκῶς with aspirate, ii. 14

᾿ἸΙουδαϊσμός, i. 13

ἱστορεῖν, 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 84, ili. 10 864, 19, 24, iv. 5, 11) 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 vdmos

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 8q

381

λέγειν, λέγει impersonal, iii. 16; λέγω
δέ, iv. 1

λοιπός, difference of τὸ λοιπὸν and τοῦ
λοιποῦ, 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,
iii. 6

Mary, different persons bearing the
name, Ὁ. 255 84, 259 84, 262, 260,
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; Reve-
lation of, vi. 15

Muratorian Canon, order of St Paul’s
Epistles in, p. 37

μακαρισμός, iv. 15

μαρτύρομαι, V. 3

μεσίτης, iii. 19

μεταστρέφειν, i, 7

μετατίθεσθαι, i. 6

μὴ with indic., iv. τα

μὴ γένοιτο, li. 17, Vi. 14

μήπως, construction with, ii. 2

μικρός (δ), Ῥ. 262

μυκτηρίζειν, vi. 7

Nazarenes, Ὁ. 317 8q

neighbour, meaning of, v. 14

Nervii, a Celtic people, p. 244

Nicolas and the Nicolaitans, p. 297 sq

νήπιος, iv. 1

νόμος and ὁ νόμος, ii. 19, iv. 4, 5, 21;
v. 18, Vi. 13

(icumenius, Catena bearing his name,
Ρ. 234

Old Testament, interpretation of types
in, iii. 16

Ophites, their use of Galatians, p. 61;
reference to, in the Apocalypse, p.
309; their use of the Gospel of the
Kgyptians, 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, iii. 19, Vv. 24

o and w confused, vi. 12

οἰκεῖος, Vi. 10

οἰκονόμος, iv. 2

ὅμως, iii, 15

ὀνομάζεσθαι, p. 283

ὀρθοποδεῖν, il. 14

ὅστις, ὅς, distinguished, iv. 24, 26, V. 19

ὅτι with quotations, i. 23

οὐδὲ... οὔτε, i, 12

οὐκέτι logical, iii. 1S

οὐ μὴ with fut. ind., iv. 30

᾿ οὐ πᾶς for οὐδείς, ii. τό

ὄφελον, V. 12

ws, ‘while,’ vi. 10

Palestine, Churches of, 331 sq

Papias distinguishes other disciples
from the Apostles, p. 99; passage
wrongly ascribed to, p. 273

Papias (the medieval), his Elementa-
rium, Pp. 273

Paschal controversy, p. 331, 343

Passalorhynchitae, p. 32

Paul (St), chronology of his early life,
ii, 1, 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 54 ; third
visit to Jerusalem, 11, 1 sq (passim),
123 sq (passim), 305 sq; conflict
with St Peter at Antioch, ii. rr 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 8q; his
personal appearance, p. 191; eye-
sight, vi, 11, p. 191; thorn in the
flesh, p. 23, 186 sq (passim), iv. 13
sq; on the support of the ministry,
vi. 6; on εἰδωλόθυτα, p. 308 sq; re-
lation to the Apostles of the circum-
cision, p. 57, 91 Sq, 126 sq, 292 84

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 Acis, Ὁ.
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, Ὁ.
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 8q; postscripts
to, vi. 11; partial reception of, Ρ. 3453
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 8q, 317: see
Ariston

perfect, uses of, il. 7, iii. 18, iv. 23, Υ. 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. 11 sq,
p. 128 sq, 354 8q, 356; at Rome, p.
337 84, 353; his character, p. 129,
355 sq; how regarded by St Paul,
Ῥ. 351; how represented by the Cle-
mentines, ii. 11, 13, P. 324, 327 56,
352; by Basilides, etc. p. 353; cou-
pled with St Paul in early writers,
Ῥ. 358; writings ascribed to, p. 353

Peter (St), rst Epistle of; to whom writ-
ten, p. 26; its character, ete., p.
356 sq; its resemblance to Si Paul,
P- 355 54

Peter, Gospel of; its docetism, p. 274
sq; account of the Lord’s brethren
in, ib. ἶ

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 54;
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 54;
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, Ῥ. 343, 362 8q
Prausus, p. 248
Primasius, his commentary on St Paul,
Ρ. 234
proselytes, different classes of, p. 296
Protevangelium, on the Lord’s bre-
thren, p. 275, 281
“παθήματα, ἐπιθυμίαι, V. 24
“παιδαγωγός, lil. 24
“παιδίσκη, iv. 22
παρά, ἀπό, 1. 12
“παράδοσις, i. 14
παραλαμβάνειν, 1. 12
“παρατηρεῖν, iv. τὸ
“παρείσακτος, παρεισελθεῖν, ii. 4
πάσχειν, iii, 4
“πείθω, i, 10; πέποιθα εἰς (ἐπί), V. 10
πειρασμός, iV. 4
“πεισμονή, V. 8
περί, ὑπέρ, 1. 4
περισσοτέρως, i, 14
περιτέμνεσθαι, of περιτεμνόμενοι, Vi. 13
περιτομή, οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς, ii. 12
πέταλον, Ὁ. 362, 366
πιστεύειν, constructions with, ii. 16;
πιστεύεσθαί τι, ii. 7
“πίστις, 1. 23, iii, 23, V. 22, p. 152 Sq
(passim)
“πιστός, Ῥ. 156 Sq
πληροῦν, V. 14
εαγλήρωμα, τὸ 3. τοῦ χρόνου, iv. 4
ποτέ, meaning, ii. 6 ; displaced, i. 13, 23
-πραὕτης (rpadrys), V. 23
-προγράφειν, iii. 1
προθεσμία, iv. 2
- προκαλεῖσθαι, ¥. 26
προλαμβάνειν, Vi. I
πρός, il. 14
προσανατίθεσθαι, i. 16, ii. 6
- πρόσωπον λαμβάνειν, 11. 6
πρότερον, τὸ p., iv. 13
~ πρωτότοκος, P. 271

383

φαρμακεία, Υ. 20

φθονεῖν (with accus.), v. 26
φθόνος, ζῆλος, V. 21

φθορά, Vi. 8

φορτίον, βάρος, Vi. 5
φρεναπατᾶν, Vi. 3

Rabanus Maurus, his commentary on
St Paul, p. 236

regeneration, vi. 15

Revelation ii, 24 commented on, Ὁ,
309

Romans, epistle to the ; when written,
p. 40; resemblance to Galatians, ἢ.
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, Ρ. 358

Rufinus, his translation of Eusebius,
p. 332; of the Clementine Recogni-

tions, p. 327, 330

Salome, p. 264

Samaritans, how regarded by the Jews,
p. 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 8q

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, Ὁ. 257 84, 266; ἃ 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,
ἄγ Ὁ 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,
Ῥ. 327, 330; of Ignatius, p. 339; of
Eusebius, see Eusebius

σκάνδαλον, V. 11

σκόλοψ, p. 187 8q

σπέρματα (plural), iii, 16

στήκειν, V. 1

στίγματα, Vi. 17

στοιχεῖα, iv. 3

στύλοι, usage and accent, ii. 9

συγγενεῖς, i. 14

συγκλείειν els (ὑπό), 111, 22

συν- superfluous (συνηλικιώτηΞ), 1. 14

συναπάγεσθαι with dative, ii. 13

συνιστάνειν, ii. 18

συνστοιχεῖν (-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,
Ῥ. 253, 258, 278 8q; on St Paul’s
infirmity, p. 186; on Praxcas, p. 344

Testaments of Twelve Patriarchs, p.
319 84

Teutobodiaci, p. 250 sq

Theodore of Mopsuestia, his commen-
tary on St Paul’s Episiles, 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. 1945 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)

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; circumcision of,
etc, ii. 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 56;
later German settlement among, p.
245

Trocmi, p. 6, 249

ταράσσειν, i. ἢ, Ὑ. 10

ταχέως, Ῥ. 41, 1. 6

τέκνα (υἱοὶ) Θεοῦ, iii. 26

τεκνία, iv. 19

τρέχειν, see stadium

θυμοί (plural), v. 20

Versions, testimony respecting the
Lord’s brethren, Ὁ. 264,275 54; Itala,
p. 122

Victor of Rome, p. 335 8q, 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. 90

Victorinus Petavionensis, on the Lord’s
brethren, p. 258, 282

υἱοθεσία, iv. 5

υἱοὶ Θεοῦ, iil. 26

ὑπάρχειν, li. 14

ὑπέρ, περί, i, 4

ὑποστέλλειν, il. 12

Walafredus Strabo, his commentary,
p- 236 7

Western Services, testimony respecting
the Jameses, p. 289

Zealots, i. 14
ζῆλος, V. 20, 21
ζηλοῦν, iv. 17
ζηλωτής, 1. 14

CAMBRIDGE : PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

pet eet oe aes
-- τ: 4

egal

emesis
ν cyl ὦ
“ahaa theta
re 3
toe

cae

THIS BOOK Is DUE ON THE LAST DATE
STAMPED BELOW |

AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS

WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN |
THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY |
WILL INCREASE TO 50 CENTS ON THE FOURTH
DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY

OVERDUE.
— APR 2O Isa
tO MAR6ORT——_—
APR 21 1948 |

1SarDEAn
DEC 87952) HT

Twi
ἐξι
a

EERO | 7.1955 LU

REED LD

SEP 17 1359
REC'D LD FEB |

LD 21—100m-7,’39 (402s)

ΤΩ

᾿

ὑπ (ἡ
ere?
ie

4
eh
“ἃ
© Peek

-ς-

—

ΟΝ

δε

ΝΣ

eee

ites
τ κεν

:

!
Ἃ
2}
*
:
4
“2
ν
’
͵
ῃ
AM

cS
<
᾿

we 7

Ve.

Seren
oe τὰ

ἡ
ἐν Se
ΝΟΥΣ Test
δον

Ἀν

ὩΣ

“

ws

δ

τὰς
ν᾿
AY

ἵν
a

ἣν
Ν At
ΓΝ ἊΣ

Deak

5

eed
Ma παν

Ax

vs rst
VSS
WN

‘

eet
TMS here

ἘΝ
Sat
cay
euseesaNs what

~ A

actin dernier ie bal

ταν oa

Fike oe IATA Aelia eared aT es Edy. VV δὲν,
αὶ San, ee Bei ahss ale! 7 so 06 ee ae 4
. 5 - at at “Δ. « - . ‘2

δ = 7 7 v
ed ge San Clee Eee Uae oc tee ΡΟ ΚΣ.

Nios acta wiih hae.

ἮΝ

ἔνε α

Ne σον

ν᾿

a

SEA
Mids ΝΣ

ἊΝ
ΣΝ

a)