'Y^LH«¥IMH¥EIESIir¥«' jyiiaiKAiBy

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

^CLi-attM* <°A,

THE EPISTLES OF ST PAUL.
n.
THE THIRD APOSTOLIC JOURNEY.
3-
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

(ffamftrfltge :
PRINTED BY 0. J. CLAY, M.A.
AT THE UNIVEBSITT PBESS.

ST PAUL'S
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

A REVISED TEXT

INTRODUCTION, NOTES, AND DISSERTATIONS.

J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D.
HITLSEAN PEOEESSOB OE DIVINITY,
AND FELLOW OE TBINIIY COLLEQE, CAMBRIDGE.

THIRD EDITION.

%ontion atrtf <£ambrt&ge.
MACMILLAN AND CO
1869.
\AU Bights reserved.']

FN 72

MIMHTAl' MOY f I N G C 9 G K&GWC K4TW )( p I C T 0 ?.

Hai\os yevopevos peyicrTOS viroypappos. Clement.

Ov% cos UaSXos biaracro-opai vplv iiceivos diroo-roKos,
iya> KaraKpiTos' iieeivos ikeidcpos, iyco be p^XP1 v^v bovKos.
Ignatius.

Ovre iya ovre aXXor opoios ipoi bvuarai KaranoXovdrjcrat
ttj crocpla tov paKapiov Kal evbu£ov Havkov. POLYCARP.

Preface to the First Edition.

fPHE present work is intended to form part of a complete
-*- edition of St Paul's Epistles which, if my plan is ever car
ried 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 accord
ance with the view maintained in the introduction. Meanwhile,
should this design be delayed or abandoned, the present com
mentary 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 un-
' pardonable 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 in
dependent 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
JC craft, bringing to their task extensive knowledge and keen
P insight. But Bentley's text1 was constructed out of very imperfect
> 1 His text of this Epistle is given in Bentleii Critica Sacra, p. 94 sq. , edited
'' by the Bev. A. A. Ellis.
/-* b

viii Preface to the First Edition.
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 Paul1. 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 workman, 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 recen
sion 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 my
self to these, I wished to secure more space for matters of greater
importance. For the same reason, in cases of disputed inter
pretations the authorities ranged on either side are not given,
except where, as in the case of the fathers, some interest attaches
to individual opinions. Nor again have I generally quoted the
1 The part containing the Epistle to the Galatians has recently appeared (1869).

Preface to the First Edition. ix
authorities for the views adopted or for the illustrations 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 acknowledg
ments in the notes, I am anxious to state generally my obliga
tions 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, mj 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 obligations
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 scholarship of Meyer and to
the conscientious labours of Wieseler. Ewald is always instruc
tive ; but my acknowledgments are due more to the History of
this truly great biblical scholar than to his edition of St Paul's
Epistles. Roman Catholic theology is well represented in the

x Preface to the First Edition.
devout and intelligent commentary of Windischmann : and the
Tubingen school has furnished an able and learned expositor in
Hilgenfeld. I have found both those 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 in
debted. 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 acknowledgments by
doing so.
Besides commentaries, great use has been made of the common
aids to the study of the language of the Greek Testament. The
works to which I am most indebted in matters of grammar will
appear from the frequent references in the notes. The third
English edition of Winer (Edinburgh, 1861) has been used. I
have also availed myself constantly of the well known collections
of illustrative parallels by Wetstein, Schottgen, Grinfield, and
others ; of indices to the later classical writers and earlier fathers ;
of the Concordances to the Septuagint and New Testament ; and
of the more important Greek Lexicons, especially Hase and Din-
dorf'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.
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 corrections

Preface to the First Edition. xi
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 gene
rally complete, I have paid special attention to everything relating
to St Paul's personal history and his intercourse with the Apo
stles and Church of the Circumcision. It is this feature in the
Epistle to the Galatians which has given it an overwhelming
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 Christianity. 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, pro
gressive 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 histo
rical views of the Tubingen school are too extravagant to obtain
any wide or lasting hold over the minds of men. But even in
extreme cases mere denunciation may be unjust and is certainly
unavailing. Moreover, for our own sakes we should try and dis
cover 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 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.

xii Preface to the First Edition,
Any one, who has attempted to comment on St Paul's Epi
stles, must feel on laying down his task how far he has fallen
short even of his own poor ideal. Luther himself expresses 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 College,
February 18, 1865.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION. page
I. The Galatian People  i — 17
II. The Churches of Oalatia  18—35
III. The Date of the Epistle  36—56
IV. Genuineness of the Epistle  57 — 62
V. Character and Contents of the Epistle  63 — 68
TEXT AND NOTES.
i. 1 — i. 24  71 — 86
St Paul's sojourn in Arabia  87 — 90
St Paul's first visit to Jerusalem  91,92
The name and office of an Apostle  92 — 101
ii. 1 — ii. 21  102 — 119
Various readings in ii. 5  120 — 122
The later visit of St Paul to Jerusalem  122 — 127
Patristic accounts of the collision at Antioch  127 — 131
iii. 1 — iii. 29  132 — 149
The interpretation of Deut. xxi. 23  150 — 152
The words denoting 'Faith'  152 — 156
The faith of Abraham  156—162

xiv Contents. PAGE
iv. i— v. i  163—182
St Paul's infirmity in the flesh  J83 — 188
The various readings in iv. 25  189, 190
The meaning of Hagar in iv. 25  190—195
Philo's Allegory of Hagar and Sarah  195 — J97
The various readings in v. 1  l97 — 199
v. 2 — vi. 18  200 — 222
Patristic Commentaries on this Epistle  223 — 232
DISSER TA TIONS.
I. Were the Galatian s Celts or Teutons?  235 — 246
II. The Brethren of the Lord  247 — 282
III. St Paul and the Three  283—355
INDEX  ,  357-367

THE GALATIAN PEOPLE.

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

2 THE GALATIAN PEOPLE.
of some questions of interest, which start up in connexion with
this epistle.
The names The great subdivision of the human family which at the
£t?'anda' dawn of European history occupied a large portion of the
GaUi' continent west of the Rhine with the outlying islands, and
which modem philologers have agreed to call Celtic, was known
to the classical writers of antiquity by three, several names,
Geltce, Galatce, and Galli1. Of these, Celtae which is the most
ancient, being found in the earliest Greek historians Hecatseus
and Herodotus", was probably introduced into the Greek
language by the colonists of Marseilles8, who were first brought
in contact with this race. The term Galatse is of late intro
duction, occurring first in Timseus, a writer of the third cen
tury B. c.4 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 pro
bable, 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 con
tact6. On the other hand, the Romans generally designated
1 On these terras see Diefenbach ference from the confused notices in
Celtica n. p. 6 sq., TJkert Geogr. der ancient writers. The most important
Griech. u. Mm. Th. II. Abth. 2. p. 183 passage is Diod. v. 32, rois yap inrep
sq., Zeuss die Deutschen u. die Nach- MaffffaXfrw KaroiKovvras ev rtp pecroyettp
barstamme p. 6 sq., Thierry Histoire des xal rois irapd ras "AXireis Iti Si rois tvl
Gauloisl. p. 28. rdSe tuv Hvpvjvaltov 6p(ov KeXro^s 0V0-
* Hecat. Fragm. 19, 21, 22. ed. Mtil- pd^ovcrf Tois S' trip toiJtijs rijs KeX-
ler; Herod, ii. 33, iv. 49. Both forms Ti/rijs els ra irpds votov veiovra putpi],
KeXrol and KeXrai occur. wapa re rov WKeavov Kal ro'Epuvviov Spos
3 Diod. v. 32, quoted in note 5. naSiSpvpevovs Kal iravras roiis Qrjs pe%pl
4 Timasus Fragm. 37. ed. Miiller. ttjs 2ku0(os, roXoVos irpoirayopeiova-i
Pausanias says (1. 3, 5) 6\f/e Si irore ai- k. t.X. See also Strabo iv. p. 1 89 and
rods KaKeiaBat. TaXdras e^evliaiar Ke\- other passages cited in TJkert II, 1
rol yap Kara, re <r<pas t& apxaiov Kal p. 197 sq., Diefenbach Celt. 11. p. IO
trapa rots ctXXois ibvopafavro. See also sq. At all events it seems certain that
the passages in Diefenbach Celt. 11. p. 8. the Gauls in the neighbourhood of Mar-
6 This seems the most probable in- seilles called themselves Celtce.

THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 3
this people Galli. Whether this word exhibits the same root
as Celtee and Galatse, omitting however the Celtic suffix1, or
whether some other account of its origin is more probable, it
is needless to enquire. The term Galli is sometimes adopted Usage of
\jttghk. tin '.I
by later Greek writers, but, as a general rule, until some time Roman
after the Christian era they prefer Galatae, whether speaking
of the people of Gaul properly so called or of the Asiatic
colony2. The Romans in turn sometimes borrow Galatse from

1 See Zeuss Oramm. 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 (Galatse) is
almost universally used by Greek writers
to the exclusion of Gallia (Galli), when
they do not employ Celtice (Celtse). It
occurs on the Monumentum Ancyranum
(Boeckh Corp. Inscr. in. pp. 89, 90)
erected by Augustus in the capital of
Asiatic Gaul, where to avoid confusion
the other form would naturally have
been preferred, if it had been in use. It
is current in Polybius, Diodorus, Strabo,
Josephus, Plutarch, Appian, Pausanias,
and Dion Cassius. It appears also in
Athen. p. 333 D, Clem. Alex. Strom. I.
P- 359 (Potter), and Origen c. Cels. p.
335 B. Even jElian (Nat. An. xvii. 19,
referring however to an earlier writer)
when speaking- of the Asiatic people is
obliged to distinguish them as YdXdras
rois ewovs. On the other hand St Basil
,{0p. I. p. 28, Gamier) describes the
European Gauls as toi>s ea-ireplovs ToXa-
ras Kal KeXrous. (2) The first instance
of Gallia (Galli) which I have found in
any Greek author is in Epictetus (or
-rather Arrian), Dissert, ii. 20. 17, &airep
rois TaXKais ij pavla Kal 0 olcos (proba
bly not before A. D. 100). It occurs
indeed in the present text of Dioscorides
(1. 92, dvo TaWtas KaX Tvpprirfas) per

haps an earlier writer, but the reading
is suspicious, since immediately after
wards he has airo Tdkarlas rijs irpos
reus "Wirecnv. Later transcribers were
sorely tempted to substitute the form
with which they were most familiar, as
is done in 2 Tim. iv. 10 in several MSB.
See below p. 31, note I. The substitu
tion is so natural that it is sometimes
erroneously made where the eastern
country is plainly meant : e. g. Pseudo-
Doroth. Chron. Pasch. 11. p. 136, ed.
Dind. The form TaWta occurs again in
the Ep. of the Churches of Vienne and
Lyons (Euseb. V. 1) A.D. 177, and in
Theophil. ad Aviol. ii. 31 ras KaXovpivas
TaXKlas. It is also common in Herodian.
(3) In the 4th and 5th centuries the
form ' Gallia ' had to a very great extent
displaced Galatia. See Agathem. ii. 4,
p. 37, tuv TaXKL&v as vparepov TaXarlas
£Xe7<»', aridTheod. Mops, on 1 Tim. iv.
10, ras vvv KaXovpivas TaXXias" oiVws
yap (i.e. Ya\arlav) auras jraires AcaAow
oi iraKaiol. Accordingly Athanasius
(Apol. c. Arian. § 1, pp. 97, 98) in the
same passage uses TaXarla of Asiatic
Gaul, TaXXial of the European pro
vinces. At a much earlier date than this
Galen says (xiv. p. 80, Kuhn), xaXo&n
70OV avrobs htoi piv raXaras tvuu Si
TaXXoiis, crvvriSitrrepov Si to t&v Ke\T&v
Svopa, but he must be referring in the
first two classes to the usage of the
Greek and Roman writers respectively.
See similar notices in Strabo iv. p. 195,
Appian Bell. Hisp. § r. The form Ta-
I — 2

4 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 modem
sense of the term. The word Celtse still remains in common
use side by side with the Galatas 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 race1.
Celtic mi- The rare and fitful glimpses which we obtain of the Celtic
grations. pe0pieg jn t^e ear]y twilight of history reveal the same restless,
fickle temperament, so familiar to us in St Paul's Epistle. They
appear in a ferment of busy turmoil and ceaseless migration2.
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 com
mon home of the Aryan races in central Asia : but more pro
bable 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,
\arta of European Gaul still continued the confused and irreconcileable state-
to be used occasionally, when FaWia ments of ancient authorities. The ac-
had usurped its place. It is found for count in the text however will, I believe,
instance in Julian Epist. lxxiii, and in be found generally true.
Libanius frequently : comp. Cureton 2 For t]le migrat;ons 0f the Celts see
Corp. Ign. p. 35 1. Ammianus (xv. 9) can the well-known work of Thierry Histmre
still say, ' Galatas dictos, ita enim Gal- des GavMs (4th ed. 1857), or Contzen
los sermo Grsecus appellat.' Even later Wanderungen der Kellen (Leipz. 1861).
writers, who use TaXKlai of the Roman They are considered more in their philo-
provinces of Gaul, nevertheless seem to logical aspect in Diefenbach's Celtica
prefer YaKarta when speaking of the and in Prichard's Celtic Nations edited
western country as a whole, e. g. Joann. by Latham. The article ' Galli ' by
Lydus Ostent. pp. 52, 54 (Wachsmuth), Baumstark in Pauly's ReolEncyclopa-
Hierocl. Symcd. app. p. 313 (Parthey). die is a careful abstract of all that re-
1 e.g. in Caesar Bell. Gall. 1. 1. The lates to the subject. See also Le Bas
whole subject is very obscure owing to Ask Mineure (Paris, 1863).

THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. c
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 a lateral wave sweeps over the Italian bTIqo.
peninsula, deluging Rome herself and obliterating the land
marks of her earlier history. Three or four generations later
another wave of the advancing tide, again diverted southward,
pours into Macedonia and Thessaly, for a time carrying every
thing before it. The fatal repulse from Delphi, invested Attack on
by Greek patriotism with a halo of legendary glory, termi- B.o.^'g.
nated the Celtic invasion of Greece.
The Gaulish settlement in Asia Minor is directly connected
with this invasion1. A considerable force had detached them- The Gauls
selves from the main body, refusing to take part in the ex- MhtoT
pedition. 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
1 The chief authorities for the history monuments of Galatia are described by
of the Asiatic Gauls are Polybius v. 77, Texier, Asie Mineure (1839 — '849), I.
78, in, xxii. 16 — 24, Livy xxxviii. 12 p. 163 sqq. An article in the Revue des
sq., Strabo xii. p. 566 sq., Memnon Devx Mondes (1841), IV. p. 574, by the
(Geogr. Min. ed. Miiller, III. p. 535 sqq.), same writer, contains an account of the
Justin xxv. 2 sq., Arrian Syr. 42, Pau- actual condition of this country with a
sanias I. 4. 5. See other references in summary of its history ancient and
Diefenbach Celt. 11. p. 250. It formed modern. See also his smaller book, Asie
the main subject of several works no Mineure (1862) p. 453 sqq. The import-
longer extant, the most important of ant work, Exploration ArckSologique de
which was the TaXaTtKa of Eratosthenes la Qalatie etdela Biihynie etc. by Perrot
in forty books. The monograph of and Guillaume is now nearly finished
Wernsdorff, De Republica Galatarwm (1869). The account of the Monwmen-
(Kuremb. 1743), to which all later turn Ancyranum in this work is very
writers are largely indebted, is a store- complete and illustrated by numerous
house of facts relating to early Galatian plates. The ancient history of Galatia
history. See also Robiou Histoire des is also given at length.
Gaulois d' Orient (1866). The existing

6 THE GALATIAN PEOPLE.
Syrian kings, it is said, were forced to submit to these humi
liating terms1. 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, cul-
b.o. 230. minating in a total defeat inflicted by the Pergamene prince
Attalus the First, effectually curbed their power and insolence2.
Limits of By these successive checks they were compressed within
comparatively narrow limits in the interior of Asia Minor.
The country to which they were thus confined, the Galatia of
history, is a broad strip of land over two hundred miles in
length, stretching from north-east to south-west. It was par
celled 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 Tolistobogii,
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 Galatia3.
Galatia But though their power was greatly crippled by these
conquered .. , . x x ^
by the disasters, the Gauls still continued to play an important part
omans, -n tke feU(js 0f ^e Asiatic princes. It was while engaged in
these mercenary services that they first came into collision
with the terrible might of Rome. A body of Galatian troops
fighting on the side of Antiochus at the battle of Magnesia
attracted the notice of the Romans, and from that moment
their doom was sealed. A single campaign of the Consul
b.o. 189. Manlius sufficed for the entire subjugation of Galatia.
1 Livy xxxviii. 16. inscriptions, Boeckh ill. nos. 4010;
2 The chronology is somewhat uncer- 401 1, 4085. Memnon is therefore in
tain. See Niebuhr Kl. Schrift. p. 286. error (c. 19), when he assigns the chief
The date given is an approximation. towns differently. The names of the
3 So Strabo xii. p. 567, Pliny H. N. three tribes are variously written (see
v. 42, in accordance with ancient au- Contzen, p. 221), but the orthography
thorities generally and confirmed by the adopted in the text is the best supported .

THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. ™
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 con
tinued to be governed by their own princes. The conquerors
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 neigh
bours, thus preserving the balance of power or rather of weak
ness among the peoples of Asia Minor. At length, after more becomes a
than a century and a half of native rule, on the death of b™.™?'
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, Extent of
though some districts of the latter were assigned to a dif- preovin^?n
ferent 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 Pisidia1. Lycaonia is especially mentioned as belonging to
it, and there is evidence that the cities of Derbe and Lystra
in particular2 were included within its boundaries. When the
1 The extent of the kingdom of This sweeping statement however must
Amyntas may be gathered from the be qualified. See Dion Cass. liii. 26,
following passages : Strabo xii. p. 568, tou S' 'Apivrov TeXevrfaavTos ov rois
Dion Cass. xlix. 32 (Lycaonia), Strabo iraiulv airov rrjv dpxv" iiriTpe\pev, dX\'
xii. p. 569 (Isauria), p. 571 (Pisidia), els Tip/ \mr\KOov ieriyaye- Kal ovtu Kal
P- S77 (part of Phrygia), xiv. p. 671 i] FaXarla perd rrjs AvKaovlas 'Vapatov
(Cilicia Tracheia), Dion Cass. xlix. 32 dpxovra tcrxe' T& & xaP^a Tc' ^K TVS
.(part of Pamphylia). See Becker Rom. YiaptpvXlas vporepov t<$ 'Xpiirrq, irpoave-
Alterth. III. 1. p. 155, Cellarius Not. prfiivrarip IStip voptp aireSoBri. Cilicia
Orb. Ant. 11. p. 182. Of the formation Tracheia was also separated and assigned
of the Roman province Strabo says, to Archelaus, Strabo xiv. p. 671.
xii. p. 567, vvv S' Sx0"0''- ''Pu/uum Kal 2 The Lystreni are included by Pliny
TavTijv \rrp> FaXaHav] Kal rty inro r<p among the Galatian peoples, H.N. v.
'A/twra yevopivrp> iraaav eh plav avva- 42. That Derbe also belonged to Ga-
7a7<M>Tes ivapxlav, and similarly p. 569. latia may be inferred from Strabo xii.

THE GALATIAN PEOPLE.

Ambiguity of the

Other ele
ments of
the Gala
tian popu
lation.

province was formed, the three chief towns of Galatia proper,
Ancyra, Pessinus, and Tavium, took the name of Sebaste or
Augusta, being distinguished from each other by the surnames
of the respective tribes to which they belonged *.
Thus when the writers of the Roman period, St Paul and
St Luke for instance, speak of Galatia, the question arises
whether they refer to the comparatively limited area of Ga
latia 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 in-
Pbrygians. vaded 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 com
posed 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
it2. To the country thus peopled the Romans, ignoring the old
Phrygian population, gave the name of Gallogrsecia. 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

Greeks.

p. 569. See Bbttger Beitrage, Suppl.
p. 16.
1 Se/3airT-ii leKToadyav, S. ToX<oto-
fiaylviv, 2. TpoKpwv. See Becker Rom.
Alterih. ni. 1. p. 156.

3 It might be inferred from the in
scription, Boeckh in. p. 82, 'lovXlov
Xeowjpov rod wptlirov tux ' EXX^uy, that
the Greeks in Galatia were recognised as
a distinct class even under the Romans.

THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 9
master of the country1. The great work of the Roman conquest
was the fusion of the dominant with the conquered race — the Fusion of
. ii., Gauls and
result chiefly, it would appear, of that natural process by which Phrygians.
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 subjects2.
The- Galatia of Manlius then was peopled by a mixed race
of PhrygjanvGauls, 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
monuments3 we might even infer that the whole nation had been
romanized. Such an impression however would certainly be in
correct. 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 interval4. Antiochus
1 Polyb. xxii. 20, Livy xxxviii. 18. allusion to an engagement with them in
2 A Brogitarus is mentioned as priest Babylonia. In 1 Mace. viii. 2 it is said
of the mother of the gods at Pessinus ; that Judas Maccabseus ' heard of the
Cicero de Arusp. Resp. 28, pro Sext. 26. wars of the Romans and the brave deeds
A Dyteutus son of Adiatorix held the which they did among the Galatians (or
same office in the temple of the goddess Gauls) and how they subdued them and
worshipped at Comana, Strabo xii. p. laid them under tribute:' but whether
558. Other iustances are given in we suppose the enumeration of the Ro-
Thierry I. p. 411, Perrot p. 185. man triumphs to proceed in geographical
3 Boeckh Corp. Inscr. in. pp. 73 — or chronological order, the reference is
115. probably to the Western Gauls, either
4 The direct connexion of the Gala- chiefly or solely, since the successes of
tians with Jewish history is very slight. . the Romans in Spain are mentioned in
In 2 Mace. viii. 20 there is an obscure the following verse, their victories over

10

Their com
mercial in
stincts,

attracted by the na
tural ad
vantages of
Galatia.

THE GALATIAN PEOPLE.
the Great had settled two thousand Jewish families in Lydia
and Phrygia1; 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 Phoenician 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 created2. It was moreover conveni
ently situated for mercantile transactions, being traversed by a
great high road between the East and the shores of the iEgean,
along which caravans were constantly passing, and among its
towns it numbered not a few which are mentioned as great centres
of commerce3. We read especially of a considerable traffic in cloth
goods ; but whether these were of home or foreign manufacture

Philip and Perseus in the 5 th, and the
defeat of Antiochus not till the 6th verse.
The same uncertainty hangs over the
incident in Joseph. Ant. xv. 7. 3, Bell.
Jud. i. 20. 3, where we read that Au
gustus gave to Herod as his body-guard
400 Galatians (or Gauls) who had be
longed to Cleopatra.
1 Joseph. Ant. xii. 3, 4.
2 An anonymous geographer (Geogr.
Min. Miiller, 11. p. 52 1) describes Galatia
as 'provincia optima, sibi sufficiens.'
Other ancient writers also speak of
the natural advantages of this country,
see Wernsdorff p. 199 sq. A modern
traveller writes as follows : 'Malgre' tant
de ravages et de guerres desastreuses,
la Galatie, par la fertility de son sol et

la richesse de ses produits agricoles, est
encore une des provinces les plus heu-
reuses de l'Asie Mineure.' And again :
' Malgre1 tous ses malheurs, la ville mo-
derne d'Angora est une des plus peu-
plees de l'Asie Mineure. Elle doit la
prosperity relative dont elle n'a cesse' de
jouir k son heureuse situation, a un cli-
mat admirablement sain, a un sol fer
tile, et surtout a ses innombrables troup-
eaux de chevres, etc' Texier, Revue
des Deux Mondes, 1. c. pp. 597, 602.
3 Strabo, xii. p. 567, especially men
tions Tavium and Pessinus, describing
the latter as ipiropetov tQui rairrj) piyi-
<ttok. Livy, xxxviii. 18, calls Gordium
'celebre et frequens emporium.'

THE GALATIAN PEOPLE.

II

we are not expressly told1. 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
metropolis2, doubtless because this was a principal seat of the
dispersion in these parts of Asia Minor. Other testimony to Their in-
fl U.6DCG
the same effect is afforded by the inscriptions found in Galatia,
which present here and there Jewish names and symbols3
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 Testa
ment a welcome which would have been denied to its lofty
theology and pure code of morals4.

1 Miiller's Geogr. Min. 1. c. ¦ negotia
te plurimam vestem.' It is interest
ing to find that at the present day a
very large trade is carried on at An
gora, the ancient Ancyra, in the fabric
manufactured from the fine hair of the
peculiar breed of goats reared in the
neighbourhood. See Hamilton Asia
Minor I. p. 418, Texier 1. c. p. 602
sq., and especially Ritter's Erdhunde
XVIII. p. 505. It is to this probably
that the ancient geographer refers.
2 Joseph. Antiq. xvi. 6. t. The in
fluence of Judaism on St Paul's con
verts here does not derive the same il
lustration from the statistics of the ex
isting 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 I. p. 419.

s See Boeckh Corp. Inscr. Vol. in.
P. xviii. In no. 4129 the name 'Haavos
occurs with a symbol which Boeckh con
jectures to be the seven-branched candle
stick. We have also Iwdvvov 4045, 2dV-
j3aros4074, MaTaras 4088, 0aScus4O92.
'A/c/Xas or 'AxiiXas a name commonly
borne by Jews in these parts occurs
several times. It is possible how
ever that some of these may be Chris
tian ; nor is it always easy to pronounce
on the Hebrew origin of a name in the
confusion of nations which these in
scriptions exhibit.
1 Pausanias (vii. 17. 5) mentions that
the people of Pessinus abstained from
swine's flesh (iuv ovx dirrbpevoC), 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
in Milman's Hist, of the Jews I. p. 177
(3rd ed.)

I2 THE GALATIAN PEOPLE.
The Celtic Still with all this foreign admixture, it was the Celtic blood
dominates, 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 Colossae, 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
adverse1.
The Gala- A very striking instance of the permanence of Celtic insti-
talntheir tutions is the retention of their language by these Gauls of Asia
language ]y[[nor_ More than six centuries after their original settlement
in this distant land, a language might be heard on the banks of
the Sangarius and the Halys, which though slightly corrupted
was the same in all essential respects with that spoken in the
district watered by the Moselle and the Rhine. St Jerome,
who had himself visited both the Gaul of the West and the
Gaul of Asia Minor, illustrates the relation of the two forms of
speech by the connexion existing between the language of the
Phoenicians and their African colonies, or between the different
dialects of Latin2.
1 Modern travellers have seen, or 2 Hieron. in Epiat. ad Gal. lib. II.
imagined they saw, in the physical fea- prsef. ' Galatas excepto sermone Graseo,
tures of the modern inhabitants of Gala- quo omnis Oriens loquitur, propriam lin-
tia traces of their Celtic origin. So Tex- guam eandem pene habere quam Treve-
ier, 1. u. p. 598, ' Sans chercher h, se f aire ros, nee referre si aliqua exinde corru-
illusion, on reconnait quelquefois, sur- perint, quum et Afri Phcenicum linguam
tout parmi les pasteurs, des types qui nonnulla ex parte mutaverint, et ipsa
se rapportent merveilleusement a cer- Latinitas et regionibus quotidie mutetur
taines races de nos provinces de France. et tempore '(vn. P. i.p. 430, ed. Vallarsi)
On voit plus de cheveux blonds en By ' excepto sermone Graeco ' he means
Galatie qu'en aucun autre royaume de that they spoke Greek in common with
l'Asie Mineure ; les tStes carrees et les the rest of the East, as vxll as Celtic
yeux bleux rappellent le caractere des Thierry (1. p. 415) strangely mistakes
populations de l'ouest de la France.' the meaning/lesGalatese'taientlesseuls

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 essentially
Galatians of St Paul's Epistle, for in general the character of unchaDged-
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 di
luted. Like the Celts of Western Europe, they had gradually
deteriorated under the enervating influence of a premature or
forced civilization1. 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
Caesar, 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-
lnciucncss
which perhaps we may be tempted to press unduly. His denun- in st Paul's
ciation of 'drunkenness and revellings2,' falling in with the plste-
taunts of ancient writers, will appear to point to a darling sin
of the Celtic people3. His condemnation of the niggardly

entre tous les peuples Asiatiques, qui ne wrote and when St Paul preached. On
se servissent point de la langue grecque.' the degeneracy of the Western Gauls,
It is probable that they understood St see Cassar Bell. Gall. vi. 24, Tac. Ann.
Paul's Epistle as well as if it had been xi. 18, Agric. 11, Germ. 28.
written in their original tongue. None 2 Gal. v. 21.
of the Galatian inscriptions are in the 3 Diod. Sic. v. 26 Kdraaioi Si ovres
Celtic language. The people of Ancyra Ka6' virepfioXliv tov elaayipevov viro tuv
were perhaps 'trilingues' like the Celts epvopoiv olvov aKparov ep<popovvTat. Kal
of Marseilles. *«* -rtp> enBvplav Xdfipy xt>&l"*ot. Tip
1 Livy, xxxviii. 17, represents Man- ttotQ koI peBvaBivres els virvov y pavtii-
lius as saying ' Et illis majoribus nostris Seis SiaBiaeis Tpiirovrai k.t.X. ; Epictet.
cum baud dubiis Gallis in terra sua ge- Dissert, ii. 20. 17, referred to in the note
nitis res erat. Hi jam degeneres sunt, p. 3- Compare also the jest, ' Gallos
mixti et Gallograsci vere, quod appel- post base dilutius esse poturos,' quoted
lantur.' This language is probably an from Cicero by Ammian. Marc. xv. 12,
anachronism in the mouth of Manlius, and the account Ammianus himself gives
but it was doubtless true when Livy of the intemperance of the Gauls.

14

Broader
features of resem
blance.

I. Gene
ral tem
peramentof the
Gauls.

THE GALATIAN PEOPLE.
spirit with which they had doled out their alms, as a ' mockery
of God1,' will remind us that the race is constantly reproached
with its greed of wealth, so that Gaulish avarice passed almost
into a proverb2. His reiterated warning against strife and vain
glory3 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-assertion4. His very expression, ' if ye bite and devour
one another,' will recall the angry gesticulations and menacing
tones of this excitable people5. 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 civilization in the east. The great Roman captain relates
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 news6. A late Greek rhetorician com-

1 Gal. vi. 6, 7.
2 Diod. Sic. V. 27 &i>twv rQv KeX-
TiSv (piXapytipwv KaB' virep^oXriv. Livy,
xxxviii. 27, calls the Galatians 'avidis-
sima rapiendi gens.'
B Gal. v. 15, 26 ; comp. v. 20, 21, vi. 3,
4 Ammian. 1. c. * avidi jurgiorum et

sublatius insolescentes,' Diod. Sic. v. 28.
5 Diod. Sic. v. 31 direiXr)Tal Si Kal
dvarariKol ko! TerpayipSripivoi virdpxov-
at, Ammian. I.e. 'Metuendse voces
complurium et minaces, placatorum jux-
ta et irascentium.'
6 Caesar Bell. Gall. iv. 5.

THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 15
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 magnet1. 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
ment2. This instability of character was the great difficulty
against which Caesar had to contend in his dealings with the
Gaul3. He complains that they all with scarcely an exception
are impelled by the desire of change". Nor did they show Theirfickleness
more constancy m the discharge of their religious, than of
their social obligations. The hearty zeal with which they em
braced the Apostle's teaching followed by their rapid apostasy
is only an instance out of many of the reckless facility with
which they adopted and discarded one religious system after
another. To St Paul, who had had much bitter experience of
hollow professions and fickle purposes, this extraordinary levity
was yet a matter of unfeigned surprise. 'I marvel,' he says,
' that ye are changing so quickly5.' He looked upon it as some
strange fascination. ' Ye senseless Gauls, who did bewitch you6?'
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 fray7, well describes the short-lived
prowess of these converts in the warfare of the Christian
Church. 2. Equally important, in its relation to St Paul's Epistle,
1 Themistius Or. xxiii. p. 299 A 4 lb. iii. 10 'Quum intelligeret om-
(referred to by Wetstein on Gal. i. 6) nes fere Gallos novis rebus studere.'
oJ Si dVSpes tare 8n 6£eis Kal dyxtvoi 5 Gal. i. 6.
Kal eipaBiarepoi twv dyav'EXX^pap- xal 6 Gal. iii. I *£) dvovroi TaXdrai, tIs
rptfiuvLov irapa<pavfvros eKKpipavrai ei- vpds efSdo-Kavev ;
6i>s Sxnrep tt\s XlBov rd criSijpm. 7 Livy x. 28 'Gallorum quidem
2 Bell. Gall. ii. 1 'Mobilitate et le- etiam corpora intolerantissima laboris
vitate animi;' comp. Tac. Germ. 29. atque sestus fluere ; primaque eorum prae-
3 Bell. Gall. iv. 5 ' Infirmitatem Gal- lia plusquam virdrum, postrema minus
lorum veritus quod sunt in consiliis ca- quam feminarum esse.' Comp. Florus ii.
piendis mobiles et novis plerumque re- 4. To the same effect Caesar B. G. iii.
bus student, nihil his committendum 19, and Polyb. ii. 35.
existimavit.'

t6 THE GALATIAN PEOPLE.
2. Their is the type of religious worship which seems to have pervaded
tendencies the Celtic nations. The Gauls are described as a superstitious
people given over to ritual observances1. 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 race2.
The colours in which contemporary writers have painted
passionate the religion of the primitive Gauls are dark and terrible enough.
lVtic" "a 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 creed3. The Druids
were an exclusive caste with an esoteric doctrine, and it is with
the popular worship that we are concerned. The point to be
observed is that an outward material passionate religion had
shown in grown up among the Gauls, as their own creation, answering to
then wor- some peculiar features of their character. Settled among the
8 ip" 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
faction in the latter. And though we may suppose that the
mystic element in the Phrygian worship, which appealed so •
powerfully to the Graeco-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
1 Cassar's words are, 'Natio est om- 3 The nobler aspect of the Druidical
nis Gallorum admodum dedita religioni- system has been exaggerated. See the
bus,' Bell. Gall. vi. 16 ; comp. Diod. Sic. remarks of M. de Pressense", Trois Pre-
v- 27- miers Sikles, 2me sene, I. p. 52.
2 Cicero de Dim. i. 15, ii. 36, 37.

THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 17
offered to them and the energy of the Apostle's preaching took ?n& infect-
their hearts by storm. But the old leaven still remained. The Christian-
pure and spiritual teaching of Christianity soon ceased to l 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 flesh1.' 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 eeaseless innovation, still looking for some
' other gospel' which might better satisfy their cravings after
a more passionate worship. 1 Gal. iii. 3.

GAL.

II.
THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA.

What is TN what sense do the sacred writers use the word Galatia?
GaMa ?y ¦*- 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.
Considera- Important consequences flow from the assumption that the
favour of term covers the wider Wea1. In that case it will comprise not
province*11 0Bx^ ^e towns of Derbe and Lystra2, but also, it would seem,
Iconium and the Pisidian Antioch ; and we shall then have in
the narrative of St Luke3 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 Galatian4; 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 God5, 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 advocate of this view 2 See above, p. 7, note 2.
is Bottger, Beitrage 1. p. 28 sq., in. 3 Acts xili. 14 — xiv. 24.
p. I sq., who maintains that by the 4 Acts xvi. 1.
Galatian Churches are meant those of 5 Gal. iv. 14.
Pisidia and Lycaonia alone.

THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. I9
ness of men1.' His references to 'the temptations in the flesh,'
and 'the marks of the Lord Jesus' branded on his body2, are
then illustrated, or thought to be illustrated, by the perse
cutions and sufferings that 'came unto him at Antioch, at
Iconium, at Lystra3.' 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 Pisidia4.
Without stopping however to sift these supposed coinci- Objections
dences, or insisting on the chronological and historical difficul- *? tbls
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
Gauls8. 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 term6. /Mysia,
Phrygia, Pisidia, are all 'geographical expressions' destitute of
any political significance ; and as they occur in the same parts
of the narrative with Galatia7, 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
'Acts xiv. n. the district.
2 Gal. iv. 14, vi. 17. 6 The case of 'Asia' however is an
3 2 Tim. iii. 11. exception. The foundation of this pro-
4 Acts xiii. 14, 43, 45, xiv. I, xvi. 3. vince dating very far back, its official
5 On the other hand in 1 Peter i. 1, name had to a great extent superseded
where the enumeration seems to proceed the local designations of the districts
by provinces, Galatia is probably used which it comprised. Hence Asia in the
in its political sense. This is not nn- New Testament is always Proconsular
natural in one who was writing from a Asia.
distance, and perhaps had never visited 7 Acts xiv. 24, xvi. 6—8, xviii. 23.
2 — 2

20 THE CHURCHES OP GALATIA.
Lycaonia1,' while he no less distinctly assigns Antioch to Pisidia2;
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 country3,' shows that the district intended was not
Lycaonia and Pisidia, but some region which might be said
to belong either to Phrygia or Galatia, or the parts of each
contiguous to the other.
Probable It is most probable therefore that we should search for the
of Gratia. Churches of Galatia within narrower limits. In the absence of
v./ 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 documents4; 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
trict5 ; at Tavium, at once a strong fortress and a great empo
rium, situated at the point of convergence of several important
roads6; 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 mart7 ; 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. Galatia.
3 Acts xiii. 14. 1 Pliny v. 42 'Caputque quondam
3 Acts xvi. 6. Seebelow,note3, p. 22. ejus (i.e. Phrygise) Gordium.' Comp.
'Boeckh Corp. Inscr. no. 4015 ij Livy xxxviii. 18 'Haud magnum quidem
flovXli Kal 6 S^/ios ttjs XapirpordTris pi\- oppidum est, sed plusquam mediter-
TpowoXeas 'AyKipas. It is frequently raneum, celebre et frequens emporium ;
styled the 'metropolis' in inscriptions tria maria pari ferme distantia inter-
and on coins. vallo habet.' See Ritter Erdhinde
s Strabo xii. p. 567. XVIII. p. 561. The identity of Gordium
e Strabo 1. c. See Hamilton's Asia and Juliopolis however, though as-
Minor p. 395. Perhaps however Ta- sumed by Ritter, Forbiger, Kiepert,
vium lay too much to the eastward of and others, is perhaps a mistake : see
St Paul's route, which would take him Mordtmann in Sitzungsber. der KSnigl.
more directly to the western parts of bayer, Alcad. i860, p. 169 sq.

THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 21
observe that these are among the earliest episcopal sees on
record in this country1.
In Galatia the Gospel would find itself in conflict with two
distinct types of worship, which then divided the allegiance
of civilized 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 Silence of
respect of its subject peoples. We should gladly have learnt st Luke."
how the great Apostle advocated the cause of the truth against
either form of error. Our curiosity however is here disappointed.
It is strange that while we have more or less acquaintance with
all the other important Churches of St Paul's founding, with
Corinth and Ephesus, with Philippi and Thessalonica, not a
single name of a person or place, scarcely a single incident of
any kind, connected with the Apostle's preaching in Galatia,
should be preserved in either the history or the Epistle. The
reticence of the Apostle himself indeed may be partly accounted
for by the circumstances of the Galatian Church. The same
delicacy, which has concealed from us the name of the Corin
thian offender, may have led him to avoid all special allusions in
addressing a community to which he wrote in a strain of the
severest censure. Yet even the slight knowledge we do possess
of the early Galatian Church is gathered from the Epistle, with
scarcely any aid from! the history. Can it be that the historian
gladly drew a veil over the infancy of a Church which swerved
so soon and so widely from the purity of the Gospel ?
St Luke mentions two visits to Galatia, but beyond the bare Two visits
fact he adds nothing to our knowledge. The first occasion was
during the Apostle's second missionary journey, probably in the
year 51 or S22. The second visit took place a few years later,
perhaps in the year 54, in the course of his third missionary
1 Le Quien Qriens Christ. 1. p. 456 sq. ! Acts xvi. 6.

22 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.
First visit, 1. After the Apostolic congress St Paul starting from
ad. 5 1 or 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 journey2. Hitherto
the Apostle had been travelling over old ground. He now
entered upon a new mission-field, ' the region of Phrygia and
Galatia3.' 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 expression4.
St Paul does not appear to have had any intention of
preaching the Gospel here8: He was perhaps anxious at once
to bear his message to the more important and promising dis
trict of Proconsular Asia6. But he was detained by a return
1 Acts xviii. 23. fore Phrygia, but it is quite consistent
2 Acts xv. 40— xvi. 5. with the expression in the first, where
3 Acts xvi. 6 SieXBdvres Si ttjv *pu- the two districts are not separated. If
ylav Kal [tJ)k] YaXaTiKTjv x^pav. The we retain the received reading, we must
second tV of the received reading ought suppose that St Paul went from west
to be omitted with the best MSS, in to east on the first occasion, and from
which case Qpvylav becomes an adjec- east to west on the second.
tive. This variety of reading has escaped * Colossaj would thus lie beyond the
the notice of commentators, though it scene of the Apostle's labours, and the
solves more than one difficulty. On the passage correctly read does not present
occasion of the second visit the words even a seeming contradiction to Col.i. 4)
are (xviii. 23), Siepxbptvos KaBetfs Tr,v 6, 7, ii. 1, where it is implied that St
raXan/cV x^pa" Kal $pvylav. The Paul had never visited that place.
general direction of St Paul's route on 6 I see u0 reasonfor departing from
both occasions was rather westward than the strictly grammatical interpretation
eastward, and this is expressed in the of Gal. iv. 13, Si' daBiveiav rrjs aapKbs.
second passage by naming Galatia he- " Acts xvi. 6.

THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA.

23

of his old malady, ' the thorn in the flesh, the messenger of st Paul's
Satan sent to buffet him1,' some sharp arid violent attack, it nearty re-
would appear, which humiliated him and prostrated his physical ffi1?" w
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 di
vine 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 him2.' 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
pathy which attracted them so powerfully, though so transi
ently, to the Gospel. They may indeed have held, the doctrine Attitude of
of the immortality of the soul, which is said to have formed ti°na *0_"
part of the Druidical teaching in European Gaul3. It is pos- q^*1"6
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 redeemed4. 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 cori xii. yp * Bell. Gall. vi. 16 'Pro vita homi-
a Qgj jv- , , r» nis nisi hominis vita reddatur, non
3 They believed also in its transmi- posse aliter deorum immortalium numen
gration. See Csesar Bell. Gall. vi. 14, placari arbitrantur.'
Diod. Sic. v. 28.

24 THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA.
Earnest- vividly before us the energy and force with which he delivered
Apostle's his message. He placarded Christ crucified before their eyes1,
preaohmg. arresting the gaze of the spiritual loiterer, and riveting it on
this proclamation of his Sovereign. If we picture to ourselves
the Apostle as he appeared before the Galatians, a friendless
outcast, writhing under the tortures of a painful malady, yet
•instant in season and out of season, by turns denouncing and
entreating, appealing to the agonies of a crucified Saviour,
perhaps also, as at Lystra, enforcing this appeal by some
striking miracle, we shall be at no loss to conceive how the
fervid temperament of the Gaul might have been aroused,
while yet only the surface of his spiritual consciousness was
ruffled. For the time indeed all seemed to be going on well.
'Ye were running bravely,' says the Apostle2, 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.
His de- / 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.
Second 2. An interval of nearly three years must have elapsed
Id. 54. before his second visit. He was now on his third missionary
journey; and according to his wont, before entering upon a new
field of labour, his first care was to revisit and 'confirm' the
churches he had already founded. This brought him to ' the
Galatian country and Phrygia.' From the language used in
1 Gal. iii. i, Tpoeypd^rj. See the note. s Gal. v_ -

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 disciples1.'
Of the second visit to Galatia even less is known than of the Dangerous
former. It would seem however that some unhealthy symp- symp °m8'
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 warning2. He charged them
to hold accursed any one who perverted the Gospel as he had
taught it3. 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 truth4 ?'
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 mumCa?m"
doubtless kept up his intercourse with the Galatian Churches tlons-
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 appealed5 to the Churches of Galatia,
as he did also to those of Macedonia and Achaia, to contribute
towards the relief of their poorer brethren in Palestine, who
were suffering from a severe famine. By communication thus
maintained St Paul was made acquainted with the growing
corruption of the Galatian Churches from the spread of Juda-
izing errors.
The avidity with which these errors were caught up im- Jewish jn-
._.... - fluence in
plies some previous acquaintance with Jewish history and some Galatia.
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. s 1 Cor- xvi- 1— 6-
» Gal. i. 9.

26

The Ga
latian
Churchescontaineda nucleus
of Jewish
converts.

but were
composed
chiefly of
Gentiles.

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 traced1.
The Apostle had probably selected as centres of his mission
those places especially where he would find a sufficient body of
Jewish residents to form the nucleus of a Christian Church.
It was almost as much a matter of missionary convenience, as
of religious obligation, to offer the Gospel ' to the Jew first and
then to the Gentile2.' They were the keepers of the sacred
archives, and the natural referees in all that related to the
history and traditions of the race. To them therefore he must
of necessity appeal. In almost every instance where a detailed
account is given in the Apostolic history of the foundation of a
Church, we find St Paul introducing himself to his fellow-
countrymen first, the time the sabbath-day, the place the
synagogue, or, where there was no synagogue, the humbler
proseucha. Thus in the very act of planting a Christian
Church, the Apostle himself planted the germs of bigotry and
disaffection. Not however that the Gospel seems to have spread widely
among the Jews in Galatia, for St Paul's own language shows
that the great mass at least of his converts were Gentiles3, 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. 16, ii. 9, 10.
3 Gal. iv. 8 'Then not knowing
God, ye did service to them which by
nature are no gods.' See also Gal. iii. 29,
v. 2, vi. 12, and the notes on i. 14 iv
rip yivec pov, ii. 5 wpos iVSs. It has
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 a large number of converts from
Judaism in the Churches of Galatia.
His own language however shows that
he is writing chiefly to Gentiles (1 Pet. ii.
9, 10) and that therefore the Siacriropd
of the opening salutation is the spiri
tual dispersion. Comp. 1 Pet. ii. 11,

THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA.

27

not less rife in th.e provinces than in the metropolis. Many a
man, who had not cast off his heathen religion, and perhaps
had no intention of casting it off, was yet directly or indirectly
acquainted with the customs and creed of the Jews, and pos
sibly had some knowledge of the writings of the lawgiver and
the prophets. Still there were doubtless some Jewish converts
in the Galatian Church1. 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. 0f Galatian
The infection was both sudden and virulent. They were checked Judalsm-
all at once in the gallant race for the prize2. Their gaze was
averted by some strange fascination from the proclamation of
Christ crucified3. 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 upon4. Great stress was laid on the observ- JhTuw." °
ance of ' days and months and seasons and years5.' In short,
nothing less than submission to the whole ceremonial law
seems to have been contemplated by the innovators6. At all
events, this was the logical consequence of the adoption of the
initiatory rite7.
This position could only be maintained by impugning the St Paul's
credit of St Paul. By some means or other his authority must ;mpUgned.
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 ?ee the note on vi. 13, where the 3 Gal. iii. 1.
various readings ol irepireTpfipivoi and 4 Gal. v. 2, 11, vi. 12, 13.
ol wepiTepvaperoi have some bearing on 5 Gal. iv. 10.
this point. 6 Gal- ii;- ,J> iv- tl> v- 4* 18.
2 Gal. v. 7. 7 G»l- v- 3-

28 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 friends1. This dis
paraging criticism of his opponents St Paul has in view from
first to last in the Epistle to the Galatians. He commences
His de- by asserting in the strongest terms his immediate divine corn-
fence, mission as an Apostle 'not of men neither by man2,' and this
assertion he emphatically reiterates3. 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 them4. 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 Jesus5.' 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.
He is But the attacks of his enemies did not stop here. They
withmcon- charged him with inconsistency in his own conduct. He too,
sistency. ^ was represented, had been known to preach that circumcision
which he so str'enuously opposed6. It was convenient to him,
they insinuated, to repudiate his convictions now, in order to
ingratiate himself with the Gentiles7. 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 -ras Sokovciv (ii. 2), 4 Gal. i. 15 — ii. 21.
tuv Soko&ptoiv elval Tt, 0! SoKoSvres (ii. *¦ Gal. vi. 17.
6), ol SoKoCvTes ariXoi elvai (ii. 9), ought «" Gal. v. 11. See Lechler Apost. u.
probably to be translated as presents, Nachapost. Zeitalter (ed. 2), p. 384. The
referring to the exclusive importance case of Titus (Gal. ii. 3), however we
which the Judaizers in Galatia attached explain it, seems to be introduced in
to the Apostles of the Circumcision. See order to meet this charge.
the notes. 7 gee the notes on Gal_ ; IQ^ i;Do j-
2 Gal. i. 1. now persuade men?' 'Do I seek to
3 Gal. i. 11, 12. please men?' and on ii. 3, v. 2, u.

THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 29
a Jew to the Jews1, to which bigoted or unscrupulous adver
saries might give this colour. Such for instance was the
circumcision of Timothy2; 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 vows3. 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 rebelHon against St Paul's autho- These er-
rity and teaching seem not to have been Galatian residents. fr0m with-
His leading antagonists were most probably emissaries from out-
.the mother Church of Jerusalem, either abusing a commission
actually received from the Apostles of the Circumcision, or as
suming an authority which had never been conferred upon
them. The parallel ease of the Corinthian Church, where com
munications between the Judaic party and the Christians of Pa
lestine 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 James4,' 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 1 Cor. ix. 20, 23. 3 Acts xxi. ao— 26".
3 Acts xvi. 3. 4 Gal. ii. 12.

30 THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA.
whole lump1.' ' There be some that trouble you2.' 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 be3.'
The Gala- But howsoever they were disseminated, these errors found
congenial in Galatia a congenial soil. The corruption took the direction
growth 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 tem
per 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 Christ4. They had escaped from one
ritualistic system only to bow before another. The innate fail
ings of a race 'excessive in its devotion to external observ
ances5' was here reasserting itself.
To check these errors, which were already spreading fast,
the Apostle wrote his Epistle to the Galatians. What effect
his remonstrance had upon them can only be conjectured, for
from this time forward the Galatian Church may be said to
disappear from the Apostolic history. If we could be sure that
the mission of Crescens, mentioned in the latest of St Paul's

'Gal. v. 9. wdXiv dvwBev SovXeieiv BiXere and
3 Gal. i. 7. See also iv. 17, vi. 12. v. 1 pA, irdXiv ?vy$ SovXelas evix^Be.
I GaL v- I0- 6 Cffisar Bell. Gall. vi. 16. quoted
4 Gal. iv. 9 7rus ilrwTpl<pere irdXiv p. x6t note 1.

iirl rd daBevy Kal nraxd aTotxeta 01s

THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 3I
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 hfe ; Effect of
but it is at least as likely that the mother country of the uncertain.8
Gauls is there meant1. Neither from the epistles of St Peter
can any facts be elicited ; for as they are addressed to all the
great Churches of Asia Minor alike, no inference can be drawn
as to the condition of the Galatian Church in particular. In
the absence of all information, we would gladly believe that
here, as at Corinth, the Apostle's rebuke was successful, that
his authority was restored, the offenders were denounced, and
the whole Church, overwhelmed with shame, returned to its
allegiance. The cases however are not parallel. The severity
of tone is more sustained in this instance, the personal appeals
are fewer, the remonstrances more indignant and less affec
tionate. One ray of hope indeed seems to break through the
dark cloud, but we must not build too much on a single ex-
¦ pression of confidence2, dictated it may be by a generous and
politic charity which ' believeth all things.'
It is not idle, as it might seem at first sight, to follow the
1 2 Tim. iv. to. ' Galatia1 in this 3888 Kpr/aKevra irtrpoTOv AovySoivov
passage was traditionally interpreted of TaXXlas. I attribute some weight to the
¦European Gaul. It is explained thus tradition in favour of Western Gaul,
by Euseb. H. E. iii. 4, Epiphan. adv. because it is not the prima facie view.
Hares. Ii. 11, p. 433, Jerome (?) Op. Supposing St Paul to have meant this,
11. p. 960 (ed. Vallarsi), and by Theo- he would almost certainly have used
dore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret com- TaXartav and not TaXXtav; see the
menting on the passage. It is so taken note, p. 3 ; and to the authorities there
also by those mss which read FaXXiav quoted add Theodoret on 2 Tim. iv. 10,
for TaXarlay, for the former reading ras TaXXlas outus iKdXew ovtu ty&p
may be regarded as a gloss. The iKaXowro wdXaf oirru) Si Kal vvv av-
Churches of Vienne and Mayence both rds dvopd^ovcnv ol rj)s i%u TatSelas per-
claimed Crescens as their founder. The eiXrixores. A passage in the Monumen-
passage in the Apost. Const, vii. 46 turn Ancyrawum (Boeckh Inscr. no.
K/)7J<no;s riiit Kara TaXariav eKKXnimwv 4040) presents a coincidence with 2
perhaps points to Asiatic Gaul, but is Tim. iv. 10, in the juxta-position of
ambiguous. Later writers made Cres- Galatia (i. e. European Gaul) and Dal-
cens visit both the European and the matia, il- 'Tairavlas Kal TaXarlas Kal
Asiatic country. A curious coincidence wapd AaXpaTtov.
of names occurs in Boeckh Inscr. no. 2 Gal. v. 10.

32

THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA.

Church.

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
Later here- gt Paul's day. To Catholic writers of a later date indeed the
sies of the J , .
Galatian failings of its infancy seemed to be so faithfully reproduced in
its mature age, that they invested the Apostle's rebuke with a
prophetic import1. Asia Minor was the nursery of heresy, and
of all the Asiatic Churches it was no where so rife as in Galatia.
The Galatian capital was the stronghold of the Montanist re
vival2, which lingered on for more than two centuries, splitting
into diverse sects, each distinguished by some fantastic gesture
or minute ritual observance3. Here too were to be found

1 Euseb. c. Marcell. I. p. 7 A wawep
ydp 8eairi£u>v to piXXov avroTs TaXdrais
Tty tov 2wT7}pos e!;TjKpl(3ov 8eoXoylavt
k.t.X., Hieron. ad Gal. ii. prwf. (vn.
p. 427. ed. Vallarsi) '...quomodo apo
stolus unamquamque provinciam suis
proprietatibus denotarit ? Usque hodie
eadem vel virtutum vestigia permanent
vel errorum.'
2 An anonymous writer quoted by
Euseb. H. E. v. 16. 3. Comp. Epiphan.
Har. xlviii. 14, p. 416.
* Hieron. 1. c. p. 430 ' Scit mecum
qui vidit Ancyram metropolim Galatia?
civitatem, quot nunc usque schismatibus
dilacerata sit, quot dogmatum varieta-
tibus constuprata. Omitto Cataphry-
gas, Ophitas, Borboritas, et Manichaeos;
nota enim jam haec humanae calami tatis
vocabula sunt. Quis unquam Passa-
lorynchitas et Ascodrobos et Artotyritas
et csetera magis portenta quam nomina
in aliqua parte Romani orbis audivit?'
The Passalorynchites and Artotyrites
were off-shoots of Montanism, the one so
called from their placing the forefinger
on the nose when praying, the other
from their offering bread and cheese at
the Eucharist: Epiph. Hares, xlviii. 14
sq., p. 416 sq., Philastr. Hares, lxxiv,
Ixxvi. In the word Ascodrobi there is

perhaps some corruption. Theodoret,
Haret. Fab. i. 10, speaks of the Asco-
drupi or Ascodrupte, as a Marcosian
(Gnostic) sect. Epiphanius, 1. c, men
tions Tascodrugitae as a barbarous equi
valent to Passalorynchitse. Jerome how
ever seems to have had in view the sect
called Ascodrogitae by Philastrius, Hares.
lxxv. The acoount of Philastrius. well
exhibits the general temper of Galatian
heresy : ' Alii sunt Ascodrogitaa in Ga
latia, qui utrem inflatum ponunt et co-
operiunt in sua ecclesia et circumeunt
eum insanientes potibus et bacchantes,
sicut pagani Libero patri...Et cum suis
caecitatibus properant inservire, alieni
modis omnibus Christianas salutis repe-
riuntur, cum apostolus dejiciat justifi-
cationem illam Judaicam carnalemque
vanitatem.' After all allowance made
for the exaggerations of orthodox writers,
the orgiastic character of the worship of
these sects is very apparent. The apo
stasy of St Paul's converts is still further
illustrated by Philastrius' account of the
Quartodecimani, Ixxxvii; -Alia est
hasresis quae adserit cum Judaeis debere
fieri pascha. Isti in Galatia et Syria et
Phrygia commorantur, et Hierosolymis ;
et cum Judaeos sequantur, simili cum eis
errore depereunt.'

THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 33
Ophites, Manichasans, 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 error1. A
Christian father of this period denounces ' the folly of the Gala
tians, who abound in many impious denominations2.' A harsher
critic, likewise a contemporary, affirms that whole villages in
Galatia were depopulated by the Christians in their intestine
quarrels3. From these painful scenes of discord it is a relief to turn to Pinal
a nobler contest in which the Galatian Christians bore their wyjf|>a-
part gallantly. A sketch of their final struggle with and victory ganism.
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 terror4. The struggle over
1 Marcellus and Basilius ; Le Quien tain neighbouring districts) dpSrjv ava-
Oriens Christianus T. p. 458. Eusebius Tpairrjvai irop8T]8el<ras KtApas, is a painful
wrote two elaborate treatises against comment on St Paul's warning, Gal. v.
Marcellus, which are extant. On the 15, 'If ye bite and devour one another,
other hand, his orthodoxy was defended take heed ye be not consumed one of an-
at one time by several of his Catholic con- other.' Julian however, at no time an
temporaries, but his reputation suffered unprejudiced witness, has here a direct
from the more decided Sabellianism of interest in exaggerating these horrors,
his pupil the haeresiarch Photinus, like- as he is contrasting the mutual in-
wise a Galatian. Basilius presided at tolerance of the Christians with his
the semi-Arian Synod of Ancyra, held own forbearance.
in 358. See Hefele Ccmciliengesch. 1. * Texier, Asie Mineure, 1. pp. 195,
p. 655. 200, describes and figures the Church
2 Greg. Naz. Orat. xxii. (1. p. 422 A of St Clement at Ancyra. He is wrong
ed. Ben.) i; TaXarav dvoia tXovt66v- however in mentioning the Decian per-
tuv ev ttoXXois rijs daepelas Svipain, secution. The legend speaks of that
doubtless alluding to St Paul's dvirrpoi. of Diocletian; Acta Sanct. Jan. xxiii.
TaXdrai. Compare Basil Epist. 237 In a Syrian martyrology recently pub-
(111. pp. 365, 6, ed. Gamier), Hilar, de lished by Dr W. Wright (in the Jour-
Trin. VII. 3 (11. p. 176, ed. Ben.). nal of Sacred Literature, Oct. 1865 and
3 The Emperor Julian's language Jan. 1866) the GaWian^artyrsTireni
(Epist. 52, speaking of Galatia and cer- tioned are nujfterous., - ^-.

GAL.

/

34

Efforts 01
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 disci
pline and pronouncing upon those who had faltered or deserted
in the combat1. 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 stimu
lated the zeal of the heathen worshippers by his own example,
visiting the ancient shrine of Cybele, and offering costly gifts
and sacrifices there2. 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 goddess3. 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 death4. At Pessinus

1 About the year 314 ; Hefele Con-
ciliengesch. I. p. 188. See the note on
Gal. v. 20.
2 Ammian. xxii. 9, Liban. Or. xii,
I. p. 398, xvii, I. p. 513 (Reiske).
3 Julian Epist. 49 'Apaadip dpxiepel
TaXarlas, preserved in Sozom. v. 16.
The 'high priest' is mentioned in the
Galatian inscriptions, Boeckh nos.
4016, 4020, 4026. Julian seems to have

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

THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA.
another zealous Christian, entering the temple, openly insulted
the mother of the gods and tore down the altar. Summoned
before Julian, he appeared in the imperial presence with an air
of triumph, and even derided the remonstrances which the
emperor addressed to him1. 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 purple2,
the Galatian churches had an assurance of the final triumph of
the truth.
1 Gregor. Naz. Oral. v. I. p. 175 A. tortures. One or other of these may be
Gregory at the same time mentions that Busiris, of whom Sozomen (1. c.)
another Christian — apparently in Ga- speaks as a Christian confessor at An-
latia, though this is not stated — whose cyra under Julian.
bold defiance was visited with extreme 2 Ammian. xxv. 10.

35

3—2

III.

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.

Absence TT has been already noticed that the Epistle itself contains
evidence. J- singularly few details of St Paul's intercourse with the
Churches of Galatia, and that the narrative of St Luke is con
fined 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
Diversity naturally been great diversity of opinion. The Epistle to the
of opinion. 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 Victorinus1 and Primasius, suppose

1 Mai Script. Vet. Coll. vol. in.
Victorinus, who wrote about A. D. 360,
mentions this as an opinion entertained
by others, so that it dates farther back.
'Epistola ad Galatas missa dicitur ab
apostolo ab Epheso civitate.' I suspect
it was first started by Oiigen. In the
Canon of Marcion (Tertull. adv. Marc.
v. 2, Epiphan. Hcer. xlii. p. 350) the E-
pistle to the Galatians stood first, but I
cannot think that his order was chrono

logical. At all events, supposing it to
be so, the fact of his placing the Epistles
to the Thessalonians after the Eomans di
minishes the respect which would other
wise be felt for the opinion of » writer
so ancient. Tertullian's language how
ever clearly points to a different prin
ciple of arrangement in Maroion's Ca
non: ' Principalem adversuR Judaismum
epistolam nos quoque confitemur, quae
Galatas docet.' He placed this Epistle

37

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.
it to have been written from Ephesus1. Others, among whom
are Eusebius of Emesa2, Jerome3, Theodoret4, 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 Acts5 that St Paul visited Ephesus
immediately after leaving Galatia, combined with his own men
tion of the suddenness of the Galatian apostasy6; the latter is
founded on some fancied allusions in the epistle to his bonds7.
The former view has been adopted by the vast majority of"v'iewge-
• ¦ in nerally
recent critics, who agree in dating the epistle during the three adopted.
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 period.

in the forefront as the. most decided in
its antagonism to Judaism. At the same
time where no such motive interposed,
and where the connexion was obvious, as
in the Epistles to the Colossians and
Philemon (on the juxtaposition of which
Wieseler lays some stress, as establish
ing the principle of a chronological ar
rangement in Marcion's Canon, Chron.
p. 230), he would naturally follow the
chronological order. Volkmar (Credner,
Neatest. Kanon, p. 399) accepts the in
terpretation of Tertullian which I have
given, but denies the accuracy of his
statement. The author of the Muxa-
torian fragment (c. 170, A.r.) seems
to give as the chronological order, Co
rinthians, Galatians, Romans, which
corresponds with the view I have
adopted ; but his language is very ob
scure, and his statements, at least on
some points, are obviously inaccurate.
1 So Floras Lugdun. and Claudius
Altissiod. who copy the words of Pri-

masius. Chrysostom (Proosm. ad Rom. )
says merely that the Galatians was
written before the Romans, but does
not define the time or place of writing.
Theophylact (Argwm. ad Rom.) repeats
Chrysostom. 2 About 350 a.d. Cramer, Oaten, 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. m Ep. ad Gal.
Lib. I. Praf.). He naturally represents
the tradition of the Syrian Churches.
3 As may be inferred from his com
mentary on Gal. iv. 20, vi. 11, 17 (vn.
pp. 468, 529, 534), Philem. 1 (vn.
P- 747)-
4 Praf. ad Rom.
5 Acts xviii. 23, xix. 6.
8 Gal. i. 6.
1 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 tnere baye been crowne(i ^th no ordinary success.
' The word of God prevailed and grew mightily1.' 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 Jews2.' In his own epi
stles 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
spectacle3. The Apostles, he says, were made as the filth of the
world, as the offscouring of all things4.
It was now the spring of the year fifty-seven, and he con
templated leaving Ephesus after Whitsuntide5. Friends had
arrived from Corinth and drawn a fearful picture of the feuds
and irregularities that prevailed there. He at once despatched
i Corinth- a letter to the Corinthians, reprobating their dissensions and
ten^uS! 57 exhorting them to acquit themselves of guilt by the punishment
(Spring). 0f a flagrarjt offender. But he was not satisfied with merely
writing : he sent also trusty messengers, who might smooth dif
ficulties, by explaining by word of mouth much that was neces
sarily omitted in the letter6. 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. i , Cor. iv. 13.
2 Acts xx. 19. 6 z Cor, xvi 8
3 ' Cor.iv. 9, xv. 32. 6 , Cor xvi Uj 2 Cor x;. ig

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
Ephesus1. 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 evergrowing 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. donia.
Still the agony of suspense, the sense of loneliness remained2.
Time only increased his suffering. Every day brought fresh
troubles ; gloomy tidings poured in from all sides ; church after
church added to his anxiety3. Nor had persecution ceased.
The marks of violence imprinted on his body about this time
remained long after — perhaps never left him4. 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
arrived5. 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, ? Corinth
ians wnt-
expressing his joy at their penitence, and recommending mercy ten a.d. 57
towards the offender. The crisis was now over. He breathed
freely once more. From this time his troubles seem gradually
to have abated. A single verse in the sacred historian conveys
all we know beyond this point of his sojourn in Macedonia.
'He went over those parts,' we are told, 'and exhorted the
people in many words6.' From thence he Tisited Greece, where Visit to
1 Acts xix. 21—41. 4 Gal. vi. 17.
2 2 Cor. ii. 12, 13. 5 2 Cor. vii. 5-16.
3 2 Cor. xii. 28. " Acts xx. 2.

40

Romanswritten
a.d. 58
(early).

Probabledate of
Galatians.

Directhistorical
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 out
burst of triumphant thanksgiving, with the tumultuous conflict
of feeling which appears in the Second Epistle to the Corinth
ians, we can scarcely avoid the inference, that the severity of
his trials had abated in the interval, and that he was at length
enjoying a season of comparative repose.
It will be seen then that according to the generally received
opinion, which dates this epistle from Ephesus, the chrono
logical order of the letters of the period will be Galatians,
1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Romans, the Epistle to the Galatians
preceding the First Epistle to the Corinthians by an interval of
a few months according to some, of nearly three years accord
ing to others. On the other hand I cannot but think that
there are weighty reasons, which more than counterbalance
any arguments alleged in favour of this opinion, for interposing
it between the Second to the Corinthians and the Romans.
In this case it will have been written from Macedonia or Achaia,
in the winter or spring of the years 57, 58 A.D. I shall proceed
to state the successive steps of the argument by which this
result is arrived at.
1. A few scattered historical notices more or less distinct
must be put in evidence first, as fixing the date of the epistle
later than the events to which they refer. These notices are
twofold, referring partly to St Paul's communications with the
Apostles of the circumcision, partly to his intercourse with the
Galatian Church.
(i) In the opening chapters St Paul mentions two distinct
visits to Jerusalem1. 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.

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 4r
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 Jerusalem1. If so, it must have occurred during
St Paul's stay at Antioch, recorded in the fifteenth chapter of
the Acts2. 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, arid.. .ye received me as an angel of God. ..What then...
have I become your enemy by telling you the truth3?' 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 Acts4. The epistle therefore must
be later than the second of these, which took place in 54 AD.
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 ' So soon
St Paul, * that ye are so soon, or so fast, changing from Him that '
called you to another Gospel5.' It is necessary to estimate the
exact value of this expression.
The generally received view, which fixes the writing of the
epistle at Ephesus, is founded on two assumptions with regard
to this expression, both of which seem to me erroneous. First, wrongly
It is supposed that in speaking of the rapidity of the change, expalB"
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.
1 Gal. ii. 11. 4 Acts xvi. 6, xviii. 23.
3 Acts xv. 30—40. 6 Gal. i. 6. See the note on ovtus
8 Gal. iv. 13 — 16. See the notes. Taxiois.

42

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.

' They have so soon deserted their Christian profession, so soon
taken up with another Gospel.'' Here the point of time from
which he reckons is obviously the time of their conversion, not
Its real the time of his second visit. His surprise is not that they have
bearing. gQ y^Hj forgotten his latest instructions, but that they have
so easily tired of their newly obtained liberty in Christ. 'I
marvel,' he says, 'that ye are so soon changing from Him that
called you! Whatever interval therefore is implied by 'so
soon,' it must reckon from their first knowledge of the Gospel,
i.e. from A.D. 51. Secondly, It is insisted that the period
cannot be extended beyond a few months, or at the outside
two or three years. But quickness and slowness are relative
terms. The rapidity of a change is measured by the import
ance of the interests at stake. A period of five or ten years
would be a brief term of existence for a constitution or a
dynasty. A people which threw off its allegiance to either
within so short a time, might well be called fickle. And if so,
I cannot think it strange that the Apostle, speaking of truths
destined to outlive the life of kingdoms and of nations, should
complain that his converts had so soon deserted from the faith,
even though a whole decade of years might have passed since
they were first brought to the knowledge of Christ. So long a
period however is not required on any probable hypothesis as
to the date of the epistle; and therefore this expression, which
has been so strongly insisted Upon, seems to contribute little or
nothing towards the solution of the problem1.
Earned 2. On the other hand the argument from the style and
to the 2nd character of the epistle is one of great importance. It may
logical" now be regarde<i as a generally recognised fact that St Paul's
group. epistles fall chronologically into four groups, separated from
1 The problem of the date of the to find the resultant. I think that the
Galatian Epistle, as it is generally con- former consideration may be eliminated,
ceived, may be stated thus: Given ou as will be seen from the text, while at
the one hand the expression 'so soon,' the same time some further conditions
tending towards an earlier date, and on which have been overlooked must be
the other the resemblance to the Epistle taken into account.
to the Romans tending towards a later,

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 Epi
stles 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 fea
tures in common with the epistles of the preceding or succeed
ing groups, either in style, matter, or general tone and treat
ment, it is most closely allied in all these respects to the epi
stles 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 dur
ing this period. They exhibit an unwonted tension of feeling, Charac-
a fiery energy of expression, which we do not find in anything 0f tbi8
like the same degree in either the earlier or the later epistles. §rouP-
They are marked by a vast profusion of quotations from the
Old Testament, by a frequent use of interrogation, by great
variety and abruptness of expression, by words and images not
found elsewhere, or found very rarely, in St Paul. They have
also their own doctrinal features distinguishing them from the
other groups — due for the most part to the phase which the
antagonism to the Gospel assumed at this time. Justification
by faith, the contrast of law and grace, the relation of Jew and
Gentile, the liberty of the Gospel — these and kindred topics are
dwelt upon at greater length and with intense earnestness.
All these characteristic features the letter to the Galatians
shares in an eminent degree, so much so indeed, that it may be
considered the typical epistle of the group; and by those who
have made St Paul's style their study, the conviction arising
from this resemblance will probably be felt so strongly, that
nothing but the most direct and positive evidence could over
come it.
3. It seems to follow then that some place must be found It closely
. , resembles
for the Galatian Epistle in the group which comprises the 2 Corinth-
Epistles to the Corinthians and Romans. We have next to ^^_
enquire whether there is sufficient evidence for determining its

44

2 Corinth
ians. Resentblance 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 exalt
ation and outward suffering, more of personal entreaty, a
greater readiness to impart himself1." If it were necessary to
add anything to this just and appreciative criticism, the Apo
stle's tone in dealing with his antagonists would supply an in
structive field for comparison. Both epistles exhibit the same
combination of protest and concession in combating the exclu
sive rights claimed for the elder Apostles, the same vehement
condemnation of the false teachers guarded by the same careful
suppression 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 us2,' has a close parallel in
the allied epistle, ' He made Him to be sin for us, who knew no
sin, that we, etc.3' The image, 'Whatsoever a man soweth that

1 Jowett, i. p. 196, 1st ed. It is
interesting to find that the resemblance
between the two Epistles was observed
by a writer as early as Theodore of

Mopsuestia, Spicil. Solesm. 1.
a Gal. iii. 13.
3 2 Cor. v. 21.

p. 50.

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.

45

shall he also reap1, is reproduced in almost the same words,
' He that soweth sparingly shall reap sparingly2.' Again, the
two epistles have in common the peculiar phrases, ' another
gospel,' ' a new creature,' ' zealously affect you,' ' persuade men3.'
And other instances might be brought4. On these special coin
cidences however I do not lay any great stress.
The resemblance to the Epistle to the Romans is much Romans.
more striking and definite. Setting aside the personal matter
and the practical lessons, and excepting here and there a
digressive illustration, almost every thought and argument in Close re-
the Epistle to the Galatians may be matched from the other in thought
epistle. The following table of parallels will show how remark- "^J1* n"
able this coincidence is. In the first instance I have taken an
almost continuous passage, in order better to exhibit the nature
of this resemblance.

Galatians.
(1) iii. 6. Even as Abraham
believed God, and it was account
ed to him for righteousness.
iii. 7. Know ye therefore that
they which are of faith, the same
are the children of Abraham.
iii. 8. And the Scripture fore
seeing... preached before the Gos
pel unto Abraham, saying, ' In
thee shall all nations be blessed.'
iii. 9. So then they which are
of faith, are blessed with faithful
Abraham... iii. to. For as many as are of the
worksofthelawareunderacurse... 1 Gal. vi. 7.
2 2 Cor. ix. 6.
" Gal. i. 6, 2 Cor. xi. 4; Gal. vi. is,
2 Cor. v. 1 7 ; Gal. iv. 1 7, 2 Cor. xi. 2 ;
Gal. i. 10, 2 Cor. v. 11.
4 Compare Gal. i. 9, v. 21, with
2 Cor. xiii. 2, and Gal. iii. 3 with 2 Cor.
viii. 6. Again, the expressions diro-
peiaBat, Kavtbv, Kvpda, Toivavrlov, cj>o$o\>-

RoMAHS.
iv. 3. What saith the Scrip- Parallel
ture? Abraham believed God, Phages.
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.
pat p-rjiras, and the metaphor Kareo-Bleiv,
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 THE EPISTLE.

Galatians.
iii. n. But that no man is
justified by the law in the sight
of God it is evident, for
' The just shall five by faith.'
iii. 12. And the law is not of
faith: but 'The man that doeth
them shall live in them.'
iii. 13, 14. [From this curse
Christ ransomed us.]
iii. 15 — 18. [Neither can the
law interpose] to make the pro
mise of none effect : for if the in
heritance be of the law, it is no
more of promise: but God gave
it (Kexapto-TaL) to Abraham by
promise.

iii. 1 9 — 2 1 . [But the law was
temporary and ineffective : for]
iii. 22. The scripture hath con
cluded all under sin that the pro
mise by faith of Jesus Christ
might be given to them that be
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 distinc
tion of race or caste or sex.]
iii. 29. If ye be Christ's, then
are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs
according to the promise.
iv. 1 — 5. [We have 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

Romans.
iii. 21. But now the right
eousness of God without the law
is manifested, being witnessed by
the law and the prophets.
i. 17. As it is written, ' The
just shall live by faith.'
x. 5. Moses describeth the
righteousness which is of the law :
that ' The man that doeth them
shall live in them.'
[iv. 23, 24. The same thought
expressed in other language.]
iv. 13, 14, 16. For the pro
mise that he should be the heir
of the world was not made to
Abraham... through the law... for
if they which are of the law be
heirs, faith is made void, and the
promise made of none effect...
therefore it is of faith, that it
might be by grace (x<xpis).
[Comp. Rom. viii. 3, 4.]
xi. 32. God hath concluded
them all in unbelief, that he might
have mercy upon all. iii. 9, 10.
They are all under sin, as it is
written. Comp. iii. 25; v. 20, 21.
[The same thought illustrated
differently. Bom. vii. 1 — 3.]
vi. 3. As many of us as have
been baptized into Christ.
xiii. 14. Put ye on the Lord
Jesus Christ.

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

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

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.

47

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. cxliii. 2).'

Romans.
not received the spirit of bond- Parallel
age again to fear, but ye have Passaees-
received the Spirit of adoption,
whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
The Spirit itself beareth witness
with our spirit, that we are the
children of God : and if children,
then heirs, heirs of God, and joint
heirs with Christ.
iii. 20. For ' by the works of
the law shall no flesh be justified
before him.'

In both passages the quotation is oblique : in both the
clause ' by the works of the law ' is inserted by way of explana
tion: in both 'flesh' is substituted for 'living man' (irao-a o-apl~
for 7r<5? £c5i> of the LXX, which agrees also with the Hebrew) :
and in both the application of the text is the same.

Galatians.
(3) ii. 1 9. 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, (ivro}),
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself.

(6) v. 16. Walk in the spirit,
and ye shall not fulfil the lust of
the flesh.
v. 17. For the flesh lusteth

Romans.
vii. 4. Ye also are become
dead to the law... that we should
bear fruit unto God. Comp. vi.
2—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. n. Alive
unto God through Jesus Christ.
ix. 7, 8. ' In Isaac shall thy
seed be called.' That is... the
children of the promise are count
ed for the seed.
xiii. 8, 9, 10. He that loveth
another, hath fulfilled the law;...
it is briefly comprehended in this
saying, namely, (iv to), Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself...
love is the fulfilling of the law.
viii. 4. In us who walk not
after the flesh, but after the
spirit. vii. 23, 25. I see another law

48

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.

Parallel

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

So that ye cannot do the things
that ye would.
v. 1 8. But if ye be led of the
spirit, ye are not under the law.

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

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 weak1.

The resem
blance is
manifold.

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
Galatians the letters to the Colossians and Ephesians. Those letters were
written . .
about the written about the same time and sent by the same messenger ;
Slh6 time and I cannot but think that we should be doing violence to his-

with,

toric probability by separating the Epistles to the Galatians
and Komans 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: paaTdfrw, SovXela, iXev-
Bep&a, tSe, Kard dvBpwrov Xiya (dvBpib-
Tcwav Xiyu), KaTdpa KarapdaBai, K&pot,
paKapi<rfi6s, p^Bri, ol ri TotoCra irpda-
trorres, StpeiXirris, irapa^drris, irap' 0, rl
Iti ; tI Xiyet i] ypdcpn ¦ .

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.

49

But the comparison advances us yet another stage towards
the solution of our problem. There can be ho 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 Koman 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 Ga- but before
latians the Apostle flashes out in indignant remonstrance the
first eager thoughts kindled by his zeal for the Gospel striking
suddenly against a stubborn form of Judaism. To the Romans
he writes at leisure, under no pressure of circumstances, in the
face of no direct antagonism, explaining, completing, extending
the teaching of the earlier letter, by giving it a double edge
directed against Jew and Gentile alike. The matter, which in
the one epistle is personal and fragmentary, elicited by the
special needs of an individual church, is in the other general
ised and arranged so as to form a comprehensive and system
atic treatise.. Very few critics of name have assigned a priority
of date to the Roman Epistle.
Thus connected by striking affinities with these two epistles, A connect-
the letter to the Galatians seems naturally to claim an inter- between
mediate position, as a chronological link between them. Its ? Corintn-
*- ' ° lans and
claim, I think, is well illustrated, if it is not vindicated, by a Romans.
comparison of the lists of sins in the three epistles, with which
I shall close this attempt to trace their common features.

2 COBINTHIANS.
Strife, emulation, wraths,
factions, backbitings, whis
perings, s wellings ,tumults
...uncleanness and forni
cation and lasciviousness.
xii. 20, 21.

Galatians.
Fornication, uncleanness,
lasciviousness,. idolatry,
witchcraft, hatred, strife,
emulation,wraths, factions,
seditions, heresies, envies,
murders, drunkennesses,
revellings, and such like.
v. 19 — 21.

But if on the other hand this sequence is
GAL.

Romans.
Unrighteousness, wicked
ness, covetousness, mali
ciousness, full of envy,
murder, strife, deceit, ma
lignity, whisperers, back
biters, etc., i. 29, 30; in
revellings and drunken
nesses, in chamberings and
wantonnesses, in strife
and emulation, xiii. 13.
altered by interposing 4

50 THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.
The con- the letters to the Corinthians between those to the Galatians
broken in and Romans, the dislocation is felt at once. It then becomes
the receiv- difficult to explain how the same thoughts, argued out in the
ed order. A .
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 oh two
different occasions, must have forced themselves into promi
nence in any letter written meanwhile.
The order 4 Again, if it is found that the order here maintained
ed^ccords" accords best with the history of St Paul's personal sufferings
best with at this period, so far as we can decypher 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) st (i) In the First Epistle to the Corinthians he alludes to his
8onalh]s'r" sun?ermgs TOr tae Gospel more than once. He refers to them
tory. in one passage at some length1, to point a contrast between the
humiliation of the teacher and the exaltation of the taught.
He speaks of himself as suffering every deprivation, 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
miserable2.' 'Why stand we in jeopardy eveiy hour? I pro
test I die daily. If I fought with beasts at Ephesus, what
advantageth it me, if the dead rise not8?' But the mention of
them is only occasional; it does not colour the whole epistle.
In the Second Epistle the case is very different. Here it is the
one topic from beginning to end. His physical sufferings have
increased meanwhile : and to them have been added mental
agonies far more severe. Tribulation and comfort — strength
and weakness — glorying and humiliation — alternate throughout
1 I Cor. iv. 9—13. 2 1 Cor. xv. 19.
3 1 Cor. xv. 30 — 32

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 51
the epistle1. 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
tribulation2.' 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
. , . to his suf-
his own sufferings. He is too absorbed in the momentous ferings in
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 cir
cumcision, why am I then persecuted3 V 'If I were still pleas
ing men, I should not have been a servant of Christ4.' May we
1 2 Cor. i. 3— io, iv. 7— n, iv. 16— 2 n- Cor. vii. 4.
v. 4, vi. 4-10, vii. 4—7, xi. 23-28, 3 Gal. v. 11.
* Gal. i. 10.

xii. 7 — 10, 12.

4—2

52 THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.
not connect these expressions with the words, 'Henceforth let
no man trouble me ; for I bear in my body the marks of the
Lord Jesus1'! 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 hitherto2. It is
at least remarkable, that in the epistle which follows next upon
this, he designates himself 'a slave of Jesus Christ3,' a title
there adopted for the first time.
(ii) The (ii) The same result which is thus obtained from an ex-
pro°Tess of .
the°Judaic animation of St Paul's personal history, seems to follow also
opposi ion. from ^ne pr0gregs 0f his controversy with his Judaizing oppo
nents. In the Epistle to the Corinthians the controversy has not
yet assumed a very definite shape. He scarcely once meets his
opponents on doctrinal ground. He is occupied in maintaining
his personal authority against those who strove to undermine it,
resting their claims, in some cases at least, on a more intimate
connexion with the Lord. Doubtless doctrinal error would be
the next step, and this the Apostle foresaw. But hitherto he
speaks with some reserve on this point, not knowing the exact
position which his antagonists 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. service, that I will always call Him
2 It is related of George Herbert that Jesus my Master,' etc. 'And,' adds his
when he was inducted into the cure of biographer, 'he seems to rejoice in that
Bemerton he said to a friend, ' I be- word Jesus, and say that the adding
seech God that my humble and cha- these words my Master to it, and the
ritable life may so win upon others as often repetition of them, seemed to per-
to bring glory .to my Jesus, whom I fume his mind,' etc. I. Walton's Life of
have this day taken to be my Master and Herbert.
Governor; and I am so proud of His ¦'¦ Rom. i. 1.

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 53
'circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing1,' 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 circumcised2:' 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.3' 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 im
plicitly : ' 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- progreslfin
trines, with which the errors of the Judaizers were in direct the <?ta*e"
' ment ot
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 law4.' 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
Corinth5. 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 (Sikcuoovvtj) of God6.' 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.
i i Cor. vii. 19, Gal. v. 6, vi. 15. 6 r Cor- *• 3°' iv" 4' vL "' * Cor<
2 2 Cor. vii. 18. iii- 9-
* Gal. v. 2. 6 2 Cor. v. 19—21.
4 1 Cor. xv. 56.

54 THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.
It is not the language which St Paul would have used, had the
doctrines been as virtually denied in the Corinthian as they
were in the Galatian Church.
Incidental 5. Lastly, the chronology adopted explains one or two
allusions. ariusi0Ils m 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
of offend- ST>iritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness, consi-
ers. * .
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 matter1; and now
they must forgive and comfort their erring brother, lest he be
swallowed up with overmuch sorrow2. 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
S.t 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. ir. 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 jna2m^s
unto all men1.' The admonition is thrown into a general form, giving-
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 ye2.' He had solicited their alms for the
suffering brethren of Judaea. 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 c.onclu-
Galatian Epistle after the letters to Corinth. They certainly S10u'
do not amount to a demonstration, but every historical question
must be decided by striking a balance between conflicting pro
babilities; and it seems to me that the arguments here ad
vanced, 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 Co
rinthians 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 me3' 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 1 Cor. xvi. 1. 3 Gal. i. 2.

56

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.

St Paul received news of the falling away of liis Galatian con
verts, so that they were prominent in his mind, when he num
bered among his daily anxieties 'the care of all the churches1.'
If so, he would despatch his letter to the Galatians as soon
after as a suitable bearer could be found2.

1 2 Cor. xi. 28.
2 This investigation of the date of the
Galatian Epistle is taken from a paper
in the Journal of Class, and Sacr. Philol.
vol. in. p. 289, altered in parts. The
view here maintained is also advocated
by De Wette (who speaks hesitatingly),
by Conybeare and Howson (11. p. 165,
ed. 2), and by Bleek (Einl. in das N. T.

pp. 418, 419). Grotius says less defi
nitely, that it must have been written
about the same time with the letter to
the Romans. Jowett (1. p. 250, 2nd
ed.) and Stanley (Corinthians, p. 17,
2nd ed.) leave the question undeter
mined. Other recent commentators
date the epistle from Ephesus.

IV.
GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE.

THE Epistle to the Galatians has escaped unchallenged Genuine-
• j 1 1 '. • ,. i. ... -r ness uudis-
amid the sweeping proscriptions of recent criticism. Its puted.
every sentence so completely reflects the life and character of
the Apostle of the Gentiles that its genuineness has not been
seriously questioned1.
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 evi eDOe'
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.

5§

External
evidence.

Apostolic Fathers.

GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE.
direct, they are almost smothered in the expression of the
writer's feelings, there is altogether a want of system in the
narrative wholly unlike the story of a romancer. Nor indeed
would it serve any conceivable purpose which a forger might
be supposed to 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 shows1. The Catholic writer,
forging with a view to 'conciliation,' would be more unlikely
than either to invent such a narrative, anxious as he would
be to avoid any appearance of conflict between the two great
teachers of the Church. The very unevenness of the incidents
is the surest token of their authenticity.
On the other hand, the external evidence, though not very
considerable, is perhaps as great as might be expected from
the paucity of early Christian literature, and the nature of the
few writings still extant.
1. The Apostolic Fathers in whose ears the echoes of the
Apostle's voice still lingered, while blending his thoughts
almost insensibly with their own, were less likely to quote
directly from his written remains. Allusions and indirect cita
tions are not wanting.

Clement's words (§ 2) ' His sufferings were before your eyes'
with the implied rebuke may perhaps be a faint reflection of
Gal. iii. 1.
In the second Epistle ascribed to Clement (§ 2), which though
not genuine is a very early work, Is. liv. 1 is quoted and ap
plied as in Gal. iv. 27.
Ignatius Polyc. § 1, found in the Syriao, ' Bear all men, as the
Lord beareth thee... Bear the ailments of all men,' resembles Gal.
vi. 2. (See however Matth. viii. 17, Bom. xv. 1.)
Bomans, §7, 'My passion is crucified,' also found in the Syriac,
recals Gal. v. 24, vi. 14. 1 See p. 61.

GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 59
The Greek text, which, if not genuine, at all events cannot
date late in the second century, offers besides one or two coin
cidences too striking to be accidental.
Compare Philad. I with Gal. i. i.
Trail. 10 with Gal. ii. 21.
Magnes. 8 with Gal. v. 3, 4.
Polycaep more than once adopts the language of this epistle ;
c. 5 'Knowing then that1 "God is not mocked," we ought, etc'
from Gal. vi. 7.
c. 3 'Builded up unto the faith given you, "which is the
mother of us all," ' from Gal. iv. 26.
c. 6 ' Zealous in what is good,' may be taken from Gal. iv. 18;
comp. Tit. ii. 14, 1 Pet. iii. 13 (v. 1.).
c. 12 'Qui credituri sunt in Dominum nostrum Jesum Chris
tum et in ipsius patrem, qui resuscitavit eum a mortuis,' re
sembles Gal. i. 13 comp. Rom. iv. 24.
2. The Miscellaneous "Writings of the Suhapostolic Ages other writ-
present one or two vague resemblances on which no stress can apost0iic
be laid. aSes-
Baenabas. A passage in the epistle bearing his name, c. 19,
' Thou shalt communicate in all things with thy neighbour,' re
flects Gal. vi. 6.
Heemas (c. 140 A.D.?) Sim. ix. 13 has 'They that have believed
in God through His Son and put on these spirits.' Comp. Gal. iii.
26, 27.
3. The Epistle to the Galatians is found in all the known Canons of
Canons of Scripture proceeding from the Catholic Church in the
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 Mueatorian fragment (probably not later than
170 A.D.).
4. The Apologists, writing for unbelievers, naturally avoided Ap°lo-
direct quotations from the sacred writers, which would carry no
1 The expression 'knowing that' or in any other extant writing, they
(elSbres bri) in Polycarp seems to be a seem in force and point so far above
form of citation. In c. I it introduces the level of Polycarp's own manner,
a passage from Ephes. ii. 8, in c. 4 one that I can scarcely doubt that he is
from 1 Tim. vi. 7. It occurs once again quoting the language of one greater
in c. 6, 'knowing that we all are debtors than himself. They ring almost like a
of sin.' Though these words are not sentence of St Paul.
found either in the Canonical scriptures

60 GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE.
weight of authority with those they addressed. Their testimony
therefore is indirect.
The Epistle to Diognetus, c. 4, has the expression, 'The ob
servance (TrapaTifoT/o-iv) of months and of days,' derived ap
parently from Gal. iy. 10, 'Ye observe (iraparqpeZo-de) days and
months etc' In another passage, c. 8, 9, the writer reproduces
many of the thoughts of the Epistles to the Galatians and Bo-
mans. Justin Martyr seems certainly to have known this epistle1. In
the Dial. c. Tryph. cc 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, 13. Moreover, he introduces the first in language closely
resembling that of St Paul, ' Every race of men will be found
under a curse (viro Ko.Ta.pav) 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 lxx2. Again in the Apol.
1. c. 53, Justin applies Isaiah liv. 1, ' Bejoice, thou barren, etc'
exactly as St Paul applies it in Gal. iv. 27. See the notes on
iii. 10, 13, 28, iv. 27.
Melito in a passage in the ' Oration to Antoninus,' lately dis
covered in a Syriac translation ", uses language closely resembling
Gal. iv. 8, 9.
Athenagoras, Suppl. c. 16, speaks of sinking down 'to the weak
and beggarly elements,' quoting from Gal. iv. 9.
Heretical 5. The evidence of Heretical writers, while it is more direct,
is also more important, as showing how widely the epistle was
1 In c. 5 of the Orat. ad Gracos, often Deut. xxi. 23, 'Em/cara/WTos iras, where
ascribed to Justin and generally as- the LXX, following the Hebrew, has
signed to the second century, there are KeKarvpapivos iirb Oeov irds.
two indirect quotations from this epistle, 3 Cureton's Spicil. Syr. p. 49; see
iv. 12 and v. 20, 21. A recension of also p. 41. Melito's treatise is printed
this treatise however, discovered of late also in the Spicil. Solesm. See II. p.
years in a Syriac translation (Cureton's 1 ; comp. p. xxxix. A close parallel to
Spicil. Syr. p. 61), bears the name of Gal. iv. 8 appears also in 'the doctrine
Ambrose, by whom probably is meant of Addseus' (Cureton's Anc. Syr. Doc.
the friend and pupil of Origen. p. 9) ; but this may be accidental, as
2 In Deut. xxvii. 26, 8s ovk epp. iv there is no other recognition of St Paul
irdatv rots yey pappivois iv t$ /3</3Mv- in the work. In another document of
toO vopov tou ir. avrd, for the lxx the same collection (p. 56) there is seein-
(which is nearer to the Hebrew) iras 6 ingly a reference to Gal. vi. 1 7. Sea
dvBpuiros So-tis ovk ipp. iv irdaiv tois also Clem. Horn. ix. 1.
XSyois tov v. tovtov toO it. avTofc: in

GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 61
received. Most of the references quoted below seem to belong
to the first half of the century.
The Ophites appear to have made great use of this epistle. Se
veral direct quotations from it were found in their writings ;
e. g. Gal. iv. 26, see Hippol. Hceres. v. 7, p. 106 ; Gal. iv. 27,
see Hippol. v. 8, p. 114; Gal. iii. 28, vi. 15, see Hippol. v. 7,
p. 99.
Justin, the Gnostic, alludes to Gal. v. 17 : Hippol. v. 26, p. 155.
The Yalentinians made use of it, Iren. 1. 3, 5. A comment on
Gal. vi. 14 is given by Irenmus from their writings, apparently
from the works of Ptoleniseus1.
Marcion included it in his Canon and attached great import
ance to it. See p. 35, note 1. Comp. also the note on hi. 19.
Tatian recognised it, quoting vi. 8 in support of his ascetic
views : Hieron. Comm. ad Gal. ad loc.s
6. Neither is the testimony of Adversaries of the second Adversa-
century wanting to the authenticity of this Epistle. Paui°f S'
Celsus, writing against the Christians, says contemptuously,
' Men who differ so widely among themselves and inveigh against
each other most shamefully in their quarrels, may all be heard
using the words (XeyovTOjv to) " The world is crucified unto me
and I unto the world." ' (Gal. vi. 14.) ' This is the only sentence,'
adds Origen, ' that Celsus seems to have recollected from Paul '
(Orig. c. Gels. v. 64),
The Ebionite Author of the Clementine Homilies, writing
in a spirit of bitter hostility to St Paul, who is covertly attacked
in the person of Simon Magus, represents St Peter addressing
Simon thus, ' Thou hast confronted and withstood me (evavrios
dvOea-TriKcis poi). If thou hadst not been an adversary, thou
wouldest not have calumniated and reviled my preaching... If
thou callest me condemned (KaTeyvu>o-p.evov), thou aecusest God
who revealed Christ to me :' Horn. xvii. 19. See Gal. ii. 11, to
which the allusion is obvious, and from which even the expres
sions are taken. Again, where Simon is accused of 'allegorizing
the words of the law to suit his own purpose ' (ii. 22), we can
hardly mistake the reference to Gal. iv. 21 sqq. In a third
passage also St Peter maintaining the observance (irapaT^p-no-tv)
complains that ' One who had learnt from the tradition of Moses,
blaming the people for their sins, contemptuously called them
sons of new-moons and sabbaths' (xix. 22): comp. Gal. iv. 10.
1 See the Latin of Iren. 1. 8. 5 ad dotus, Exc. ap. Clem. Alex. u. 53, p.
fin., and comp. Westcott Canon, p. 982 (Potter), where Gal. iii. 19, 20, is
jog, quoted : but the date and authorship of
a To this list should be added Theo- these excerpts are uncertain.

62

GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE.

Other resemblances, noted in Lagarde's edition p. (31), are less
striking: viii. 4 to Gal. i. 6; xviii. 21 to Gal. 1. 8; vm. 18
(81* dyyiXov vop.o<s wp^On) to Gal. iii. 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.
Apocry- 7. Of Apocryphal Acts relating to St Paul one extant
phal Acts. wrk at leagt geemg tQ date from the secon(i century :
Acts of Paul and Thecla § 40 (apparently the work referred
to by Tertullian, de Baptism. §17). The sentence, 'For he that
wrought with thee unto the Gospel wrought with me also unto
baptism', is moulded on Gal. ii. 8.
8. Owing to the nature of the earliest Christian writings,
the testimony hitherto brought forward has been for the most
part indirect. As soon as a strictly Theological literature
springs up in the Church, we find the epistle at once quoted
distinctly and by name. This is the case with the writers of
the close of the second century, Irenjeus, 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 date1.

Irenaeus,Clement,
and Ter
tullian.

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

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

V.
CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.

TN discussing the relation of this epistle to the contem-
-*- poraneous letters, I have dwelt on those features which it
shares in common with them. It remains to point out some
characteristics which are peculiarly its own.
1. The Epistle to the Galatians is especially distinguished Unity of
among St Paul's letters by its unity of purpose1. The Galatian purpose-
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 onces 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 an- keines ergiesst sich wie dieses in einem
deres sendschreiben ist sosehr wie dieses machtig sturmischen aber unaufhalt-
aus einem gedanken entsprungen, und samen und ununterbrochenen strome.'

64 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.'
Contrast In this respect it contrasts strongly with the two letters
allied6 to Corinth with which it possesses so many features in common. '
Epistles. Like tne Fjrst 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 Corin
thians 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.
Its sus- 2. The sustained severity of this epistle is an equally
severity, 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-^j^'8
press some truth more strongly on his readers. Here the
urgency of the case leads him to do more. In a few eager
rugged sentences he gives an epitome of the contents of the
epistle1. 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. No man can henceforth question or misapprehend
the Apostle's meaning.
A rough analysis of the epistle separates it into three Threefold
..... . . division.
sections ot two chapters each, the first couplet (1, 11) containing
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
threefold division ; and though narrative, argument, and exhor
tation, 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
. of the
1. The salutation and ascription of praise so worded as to in- epistle.
troduce the main subject of the letter (i. 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 irrjXlKois yp&ppaatv gypa\pa.
GAL. 5

66 CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
Analysis 3. This Gospel came directly from God.
°f.*h° (i) He received it by special revelation (i. n, 12).
(ii) His previous education indeed could not have led up to
it, for he was brought up in principles directly opposed
to the liberty of the Gospel (i. 13, 14)-
(iii) Nor could he have learnt it from the Apostles of the
Circumcision, for he kept aloof from them for some time
after his conversion (i. 15 — 17).
(iv) And when at last he visited Jerusalem, his intercourse
with them- was neither close nor protracted, and he re
turned without being known even by sight to the mass
of the believers (i. 18 — 24).
(v) He visited Jerusalem again, it is true, after a lapse of
years, but he carefully maintained his independence. He
associated with the Apostles on terms of friendly equality.
He owed nothing to them (ii. 1 — 10).
(vi) Nay more: at Antioch he rebuked Peter for his incon
sistency. By yielding to pressure from the ritualists,
Peter was substituting law for grace, and so denying the
fundamental principle of the Gospel (ii. 11 — 21).
[This incident at Antioch forms the link of connexion be
tween the first and second portions of the epistle. The error
of the Galatians was the same with that of the formalists whom
St Peter had countenanced. Thus St Paul passes insensibly
from the narrative to the doctrinal statement.]
II. Doctrinal, mostly argumentative.
1. The Galatians are stultifying themselves. They are sub
stituting the flesh for the Spirit, the works of the law for
the obedience of faith, forgetting, the experience of the past
and violating the order of progress (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 (iii
15—18).
5. If so, what was the purpose of the law 1 (iii. 19).
(i) It was an inferior dispensation, given as a witness againslv
sin, a badge of a state of bondage, not as contraiy to, but^
as preparing for, the Gospel (iii. 19 — 23).
(ii) And so through the law we are educated for the freedom
of the Gospel (iii. 24 — 29).

CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 67
(iii) Thus under the law we were in our nonage, but now Analysis
we are our own masters (iv. 1 — 7). of the
» enistle.
(iv) Yet to this state of tutelage the Galatians are bent on
returning (iv. 8 — 11).
At this point the argument is broken off, while the
Apostle reverts to his personal relations with his con
verts, and reprobates the conduct of the false teachers
(iv. 12 — 20).
6. The law indeed bears witness against itself. The relation
of the two covenants of law and of grace, with the triumph
of the latter, are typified by the history of Hagar and Sarah.
The son of the bondwoman must give place to the son of
the free (iv. 21 — 31).
' We are the children of the free.' This word 'free' is the
link of connexion with the third part of the epistle.
III. HORTATORY. Practical applications.
1. Hold fast by this freedom, which your false teachers are
endangering (v. 1 — 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 — 5).
(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 ^JP'^
weapons to the combatants in the two greatest controversies controver-
which in modern times have agitated the Christian Church ; "?¦
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. S— 2

ism

68 CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
The refor- When Luther commenced his attack on the corruptions of
matmn. ^ ^^.£^1 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
works1. 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.
Rational- 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 later 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 prevailed,
and Christianity — our Christianity — was the result.' The Epi
stle 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.
i 'The Epistle to the Galatians,' See Seckendorf df Lutheran. L. I.
said Luther, 'is my epistle; I have § lxxxv. p. 139.
betrothed myself to it; it is my wife.'

5YXYYYJ KOdJl

WHY SEEK YE THE LIVING AMONG THE DEAD ?

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

nPOS TAAATAS.

!• 1ITAYA02 ct7ro(rTo\o's ovk dir dvdpw7ra)v oi/Se
ot' dvdpwTrov, aXkd Bid 'Irjcroil Xpia-Tov Kal Qeov TraTpoi
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
Balutation. 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.
I. ovk cm dvdpcijrcov ovbe bi dvBpti-
jrou] ' 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. Aid, as distinguished from
mrd, 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
sir Kupios 'ivo-ovs Xpio-Tos bi oi Ta
¦navra, or (2) the human agency em
ployed in carrying out the divine pur
pose, eg. 1 Cor. iii. 5 biaicovoi 6V mv
enio-reio-are. The change of preposi
tion ('of,' 'by') in this passage carries
with it the change of number also

('men,' 'man'). Titles and
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 bio. 'Inoyy XpioroC,
which was to follow.
dXXa btd 'Ir]o-ov Xpiarov] To what
event does the Apostle here refer ?
When did he receive his commission
from QhiistMmself i 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 toDamas-
cus, Acts ix. 3 sq. From this point
of time therefore his commission dated.
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.
kcu Oeov Trarpor] It might be ex
pected that the first preposition (dirb)
would have been resumed here, as
more appropriate. It is incorrect
however to say that bid 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

72

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[I-

tov eyelpavTOs avTov €K veKpwv, aKal ol crvu efxoi irav-
res d$e\(poi, TaTs eKKXriclais t»js TaXaTias. 3%apis
vfxiu Kal e'ipr\vy\ dwo Qeov TraTpos Kal Kvp'tou rjjjioov 'Ijjcroy

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 (bid) coin
cides with its source (dno). The point
of the sentence would have been
blunted by inserting dwo. Nor indeed
is the extension of bid 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. 'An-o
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 (Ǥ avrov Kal
5V avrov Kal els avrov, Rom. xi. 36),
and may therefore be regarded as the
instrument, no less than the source,
in the fulfilment of His own purposes.
This mode of expression will be a-
dopted especially, where the writer is
speaking of God's manifestation of
Himself in some special act, as here
in the raising of Jesus from the dead.
Comp. iv. 7, 1 Cor. i. 9, and see Winer,
Gramm. § xlvii. p. 397. Marcion (Hie
ron. ad I.) cut the knot by omitting Kal
Beov narpos, and apparently reading
eavrov for avrov.
Here the Apostle's words are ' By
Jesus Christ and Gcd the Father:'
immediately after he writes 'From
God the Father, and our Lord Jesus
Christ.' The one expression supple
ments the other ; ' Thou Father in
Me, and I in Thee (John xvii. 21).'
tov eyeipavTos avrov eK veKpav] 'who
raised Him from the dead.' This
expression occurs elsewhere with a
more general reference to Christian

faith or Christian life : Rom. iv. 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 re
surrection, and a signal instance of
His power.'
2. 01 crvv epol Trdvres dbe\(f>oi] 'all
the brethren who are with me' Pro
bably the small band of his fellow-
travellers is meant. See Phil. iv. 20,
where he distinguishes ' the brethren
who are with him ' from ' all the
saints,' i.e. from the resident members
of the Church of Rome from which
he is writing. For the bearing of this
phrase on the date of the epistle, see
p. 55. This company perhaps included
Timothy (2 Cor. i. 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
for instance (Acts xx. 4, 5), if indeed
they are not to be identified with the
two brethren already mentioned.
The patristic writers, followed by
several modern commentators, see in
this expression a desire on the part of
the Apostle to fortify his teaching by
the sanction of others : ' Faciens eis
pudorem, quod contra omnes sentiunt,'
says Victorinus. Such a motive seems
alien to the whole spirit of this epistle
in which all human authority is set
aside. The Apostle in fact dismisses
the mention of his companions as ra
pidly as possible in one general ex
pression. He then returns to the
singular, '/marvel,' which he retains
throughout the epistle. Paul's autho
rity has been challenged, and Paul

1-4]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

n

Xpia-rov, atov o\Wos eavTov Trepl tuv dfxapnwv ri/muJv,
07rws i^e\r]Tai >J/xas e'/c tov atwi/os tov evecrTWTOs wovrj-

4. iirip r&v dpapri&v.

alone answers the challenge.
rais eKKkqo-'iais t9)s TaXarias] ' 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. x^Pls vf*" K<" elpvv1> t. t. X.] On
this form of salutation see the notes
1 Thess. i. 1.
4- tov bovros eavrov k. t. X.] ' 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.
¦irepX r&v apapnav] The mss here, as
in several other passages, are divided
between irepi and virep, though here
the balance of authority is perhaps in
favour of irepi Generally it may be
said that 7rcpl is used of things, virep
of persons, as 1 Pet. iii. 18 oti ko.1
Xpioros anal- Trepl apapnav direaavev
bUaios virep dbUav, but exceptions
are very numerous, and in Heb. v. 3
we have irepi eavrov irpoo-cpepeiv irepi
apapnav (not i57rep apapnav, as some
read), though just before (ver. 1) the
expression used is irpoo-cpepv virep apap
nav. Where irepi is used of persons,
it is frequently explained by some
clause added, e.g. Matt. xxvi. 28 to
irepi iroXXav eKXVvvopevov els a(peo-iv
apapnav. With this compare the par
allel passages Luke xxii. 19, 20 (virep

vpav), Mark xiv. 24 (virep iroWav, the
correct reading), where there is no
explanatory clause. All this follows
from the meaning of the prepositions,
virep having a sense of 'interest in,'
which is wanting to irepi. The dis
tinction is marked in Athenag. Resurr.
I, Xoyav btrrav rav pev virep rrjs aXrj-
deias rav be irepi rr)s akrjBelas k.t.X.
(comp. § 11). Neither conveys the
idea of a vicarious act (dvrl), though
such will frequently appear in the
context. . On virep and irepi see Winer
§ xlvii. p. 401, and especially Wieseler's
note here.
egeXnrai] 'deliver' strikes the key
note of the epistle. The Gospel is a
rescue, an emancipation from a state
of bondage. See esp. iv. 9, 31, v. 1, 13.
roS alavos rov eveararos irovrjpov] the
correct reading, in which the detached
position of irovqpov is emphatic; 'with
all its evils.' Comp. Arist. Eth. Nic.
i. 13 Kal yap rdyaBbv dvBpdirivov
iljjrovpev Kal tt)v evbaipoviav dvBpa-
irivrjv, Polit. ii. 9 ™" y ahiKrjpdrav
eKOVciav rd irXela'Ta o~vp{3atvei k. t. X.
The reading of the received text, tov
eveararos alavos irovrjpov, 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. Jac.
i eirl rov eveararos irovrjpov rov eo~o-
pevov dyadbv oX<a rm Koapa pr/vvaas
fiao-iXea (where alavos found in some
texts after irovrjpov is evidently an in
terpolation). If so, he appears to have
interpreted the words ' from the seon,
the dominion, of the present evil one :'
comp. 1 John v. 19 6 Koo-pos oXos iv
to> irovrjpa Keirai, Barnab. § 2. At all
events a possible interpretation is thus
suggested. Comp. Polyb. xviii. 38. 5
rov evecrrara fiao-iXea.
tov alavos tov eveo-raros] The pre-

74

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

pov KaTa to deXrifxa tov Qeov Kal 7rarp0s nixwv,
Bopa ek tovs aiwj/as twv alwvwv dpxrjv.

[1-5

]w n

sent transitory world, elsewhere d ySv
alav, e.g. I Tim. vi. 17 6 alav rov koo--
pov tovtov, Ephes. ii. 2, and most fre
quently 6 alav ovros, e.g. Rom. xii. 2, as
opposed to the other world, the world
of eternity, 6 alav eKeivos Luke xx. 35,
6 alav 6 epx&pevos Luke xviii. 20, alav
peXXav Hebr. vi. 5, and often in the
plural, oi aiaves ol eirepxopevoi Ephes.
ii. 7, ol aiaves t<Sv aldvav, and ol aiaves
simply. This age, this world, is under
a 'god' (2 Cor. iv. 4), or 'rulers' (1
Cor. ii. 6) of its own, who are opposed
to the Eternal God, the King of the
ages, 6 ftao-iXevs rav aldvav, I Tim. i.
17. See especially Ephes. ii. 2 — 7, and
comp. Pseudo-Clem. 2 Cor. § 6 eo-riv
be ovros 6 alav Kal 6 peXXav biio ex^pol.
The Apostles speak of themselves and
their generation as living on the fron
tier of two aeons, the Gospel trans
ferring them as it were across the bor
der. The distinction of time between
the two, which is the primary distinc
tion, becomes lost in the moral and
spiritual conception.
It has been proposed to take ive-
o-ras here in the sense of 'impending,'
as referring to the final apostasy. In
other passages however eveo-rara is
plainly 'present' as opposed to peX-
Xovra' future,' Rom. viii. 38, 1 Cor.iii. 22
(comp. Heb. ix. 9), in accordance with
the sense it bears in the language of
grammar, where 6 xp°vos 6 iveo-rds is
' the present tense.' Comp. Philo de
Plant. Noe ii. § 27, p. 346 m rpi-
pepoiis xP°vov, bs els tov irapeXrjXvdoTa
Kal evearara Kal peXXovra repveo-Qai
irecpvKev. Even in passages where it
seems at first sight to have the sense
'impending, soon to come,' as in 1 Cor.
vii. 26 bid rrjv evearaaav dvdyKrjv,
2 Thess. ii. 2 eveo-rnKev rj rjpepa, its
proper meaning is more appropriate.
Kara to deknpai] 'by the will of God'
and not by our own merits. St Paul
is still insisting on the dispensation of
grace impugned by the false teachers.

Compare rov KaXeaavros, ver. 6.
rov ©eoO Kal irarpbs r]pdvi] Comp.
Phil. iv. 20. Does 17/iwc refer to Qeov
as well as irarpos, ' Our God and Fa
ther' 1 On the whole this seems pro
bable ; for the article, not being neces
sary before 6eoB, seems to be added
to bind the two clauses together and
connect both with r}pav. The same
construction is justified in the case of
the similar expression, d Qebs Kal irart)p
'Irjo-ov Xpio-Tov (2 Cor. i. 3, Ephes. i. 3),
by John xx. 17, ' I ascend to my Fa
ther and your Father, and to my God
and your God.' See Fritzsche on Rom.
in. 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.
17 bo£a] 'the glory, which is pre-emi
nently such, the glory which belongs
to Him :' comp. Joh. xvii. 5. The
article is almost universally found
with 8d£a in these doxologies. Con
trast with this the absence of the arti
cle in Rom. ii. 10, 1 Cor. xi. 15. It is
probable therefore that we should
supply eo-rlv in such cases rather than
eara. It is an affirmation rather than
a wish. Glory is the essential attri
bute of God. See 1 Pet. iv. 11 <p
eo-rlv r) bo%a koi rb Kpdros, and the
doxology added to the Lord's prayer,
Matt. vi. 13.
eis roiis alavas rav aldvav] '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, 7. An indignant expression of

1.6]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

75

6Qav/j.afa oti oyrws Tcr^eoK /uieTaTidearde diro tov
Ka\eo~avTOs i//xa? iu j^apiTi Xpio~TOv eis eTepov evay-

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.
1 1 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.'
6. ovras raxeas] '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 raxeas here
may signify ' readily, rashly,' i. e. quick
ly after the opportunity is offered, a
sense which the present tense (perari-
Beo-Be) would facilitate. See 1 Tim.
V. 22 xeiPas raxeas pnbevl eiririBei,
2 Thess. ii. 2 els rb pr) raxeas o-aXev-
dijvai. In this case there will be no
reference to any independent point of
time. peTariOeo-de] 'are turning rene
gades'; the middle voice, as may be
seen from the passages quoted below.
MerarWeo-Oai is used (1) of desertion
or revolt, i.e. of military or political
defection, as in Polyb. xxvi. 2. 6 ra
xeas Kal rovs iroXirevopevovs pera-
BeaBai irpbs Ttjv'Papaiav aZpeaiv, and
frequently (2) of a change in religion,
philosophy, or morals, 1 Kings xxi.
25 ds pereBrjKev avrov 'le&fieX 1) yvvr)
avrov, Iambi. Protrept. c. 17 pera-
BeorBai airb roil dirXr/o-ras Kal aKoXacr-
ras exovros /3iou eVi tov Koo-pias. DlO-
nysius of Heraclea, who from being a
Stoic became an Epicurean, was called

peraBepevos, ' turncoat ' (8.vriKpvs diro-
bvs rov rrjs dperrjs xtTdva avBiva perrjp-
4>idaaro Athen. vii. p. 281 d). The
word is frequently used however of
' conversion' in a good sense, as in
Justin Apol. 1. pp. 83 b, 91 d, etc.
roO KaXeo~avros vpas ev xapiri] ' 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 6coS, see the note on i. 15.
Xpio-rov] is generally omitted in the
Latin authorities, while some others
read 'Irjcrov Xpio-rov, Xpiaroii 'Itjo'oO,
and even 6eoC. All these may possi
bly have been glosses to explain tov
KaXea-avros. Certainly the passage
seems to gain in force by the omission.
The implied antithesis between the
true gospel of grace and the false go
spel of works thus stands out in bolder
relief: comp. Ephes. ii. 8 177 xapiri io-re
o-eo-ao-pevoi. It is found however in
the best mss, and is supported by such
passages as Acts xv. 1 1, bia rrjs xapi-
ros rov Kvpiov 'Irjaoii morevopev aa-
Bfjvai. If retained, it must be taken
after xapm, and not with tov KaXeo-av-
ros as in the Peshito, for d KaXeo-as in
St Paul's language is always the Fa
ther. 6, 7. els erepov evayy. k.t.X.J ' to a
second, a different gospel, which is
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 go
spel at all.' The relative o cannot

76

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[I. 7, 8

yeXiov, 7o ovk ecttiv aXXo, el fxr\ Tive<s elo-iv ol Tapatr-
(roj/res v/xas Kal deXoi/Tes fxeTaa-Tpe^ai to evayyeXiov
tov Xpio-Tov. 8dXXa Kal eav rjfxel's i] ayyeXos e£ ov-

without harshness be referred to any
thing else but erepov evayyeXiov.
erepov] implies a difference of kind,
which is not involved in aXXo. The
primary distinction between the words
appears to be, that aXXos is another
as 'one besides,' erepos another as
' one of two.' The fundamental sense
of erepos is most clearly marked in
its compounds, as irepocpBaXpos, ' one-
eyed.' Thus aXXos adds, while erepos
distinguishes. Now when our atten
tion is confined to two objects, we
naturally compare and contrast them ;
hence erepos gets to signify 'unlike,
opposite,' as Xen. Cyrop. viii. 3. 8
r)v pov Karr]yopr]crrjS  eiomi0ir orav
biaKova, erepa poi XPWfl biaKova, i. e.
'changed,' where aXXm could not stand.
In Exod. i. 8 avian) be fiaaiXeis erepos
eir Aiyvirrov, it is a translation of
EHn 'novus;' and the idea of differ
ence is frequently prominent in the
word as used in the lxx. Thus while
aXXor is generally confined to a nega
tion of identity, erepos sometimes im
plies the negation of resemblance. See
2 Cor. xi. 4, where the two words are
used appropriately, as they are here.
In many cases however they will be
interchangeable: comp. Matt. xi. 3
with Luke vii. 20. Hesychius explains
erepov' aXXow" r) aXXoiov' 17 ev roiv bvoiv'
rj apiarepov, veov, bevrepov.
7. el prj nves k.t.X.] ' Only in this
sense is it another gospel, in that it
is an attempt to pervert the one true
Gospel.' Ei pr) 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 aXXa ; see the
note on i. 19. Here the following 8i-
Xovres, which is slightly emphatic (' at
tempting to, though without success'),
justifies the exception taken by el prj.
rives elaiv ol rapdaaovres] a some

what unusual construction for oi ra-
pao-o-ovo-iv. It occurs however even in
classical writers, e. g. Soph. QZd. Col.
1023 aXXoi yap 01 airevbovres, Lysias
pro Arist. bon. § 57 eio-i fie' rives ol
wpoavaXto-Kovres (the latter passage is
quoted with others by Winer, § xviii.
p. 122), and more commonly in the
New Testament, e.g. Col. ii. 8 /3Xe'-
Trere prj ns earai 6 avXayayav, Luke
xviii. 9. See the note on iii. 21. For
nves 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.
Taptio-o-ovrer] not 'troubling your
minds,' but 'raising seditions among
you, shaking your allegiance,' a con
tinuation of the metaphor of perari-
BeaBe. The phrase rapdrrew rr)v iroXiv
is commonly used of factions, e.g. Ari-
stoph. Eq. 863. See the note on v. 10.
perao-Tpeyjfai] properly, 'to reverse,
to change to the opposite,' and so
stronger than biaarptyai, which is sim
ply ' to distort,' ' wrench' : comp. Arist.
Rhet. i. 1 5 Kal rb tov &evorf)dvovs pera-
o-Tpexjfavra (pareov k.t.X. What was
the idea prominent in the Apostle's
mind wheu he called this heresy a
'reversal' of the Gospel, may be ga
thered from iii. 3.
rov Xpio-roC] 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
(evayyeXifrrai) : in the latter, a fact
which had actually occurred, and was
occurring (evayyeXiCerai).
ko.1 eav] preserves its proper sense
of 'etiamsi,' as distinguished from edv
Kal 'etsi.' See Hermann Viger p.
832, Jelf Gramm. § 861. In other

1-9]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

77

pavov evayyeXlfyiTai [ly/zZV] Trap' o evnyyeXicrdiieQa

VjXlV,

ava

tdefia

ea-TO).

3a5s 7rpoeipriKafxev Kal apTi irdXiv

words, it introduces a highly impro
bable supposition. With this passage
contrast the meaning of idv Kal as it
occurs in vi. I, iav Kal irpoXrjp<p8jj.
rjpeis] ' 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.
vpiv] is doubtful, being found both
before and after evayyeXi£qrai in dif
ferent texts, and in some omitted en
tirely. ¦trap' 5] On the interpretation of
these words a controversy ou ' tradi
tion' has been made to hinge, Pro
testant writers advocating the sense
of ' besides' for irapd, Roman Catho
lics that of ' contrary to.' The context
is the bp st 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 indepen
dently of the context the preposition
might well have this meaning.
dvdBepa] is the common (Hellen
istic), dvdBrjpa the classical (Attic)
form. See Lobeck Phryn. pp. 249,
445, Paralip. p. 417. But though
originally the same, the two forms
gradually diverged in meaning, dvd-
Brjpa getting to signify ' devoted' in
a good, and dvdBepa in a bad sense.
See Trench, NT. Synon. 1st ser. § 5 ;
Fritzsche on Rom. ix. 3. This is a
common phenomenon in all languages,
e.g. in English, 'cant,' 'chant,' 'hu
man,' ' humane,' with other examples

given in Trench Study of Words,
p. 156; see also M. Miiller's Science
of Language, 2nd ser. p. 262 sqq.
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
through classical authors. The dis
tinction of meaning however is only
general, not universal. Pseudo-Justin,
Qucest. et resp. 121 (p. 190, Otto),
assigns both meanings to dvdBepa,
as Theodoret (on Rom. ix, 3) does to
dvdBripa. 'AvdBrjpa 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 dvdBepa here
means ' excommunicated' or 'accurs
ed'; i.e. whether it refers to eccle
siastical censure or spiritual condi
tion. The latter alone seems tenable;
for ( 1 ) It is the lxx translation of the
Hebrew Din, e. g. 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 dvd
Bepa, dvaBeparlCeiv, where they occur
in the New Testament, and in some,
as Rom. ix. 3 1 Cor. xii. 3, it is ob
viously excluded. Here for instance,
it is inconsistent with the ayyeXor e'£
ovpavov. In course of time dvdBepa,

78

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[I. 10

Xeyw, e'i tis vfxds evayyeXi^eTai Trap' o irapeXafieTe,
dvd6ejj.a eo~Tw. 10apTi yap dv6pco7rovs 7reiuw r\ tov
Qeov; fj fy]Tw dvdpw7rois dpeo~Keiv; el eTt dv6pa)7rois r\pe-
ctkov, XpicrTOv BovXos ovk dv r\fxr\v .

like the corresponding Qirt under
went a change of meaning, getting to
signify ' excommunicated,' and this is
the common patristic sense of the
word. It was not unnatural there
fore, that the fathers should attempt
to force upon St Paul the ecclesiasti
cal sense with which they were most
familiar, as Theodoret does for in
stance, on i Cor. xvi. 22, explaining
dvdBepa eara by dXXorpios eara rov
koivov adparos rrjs iKKXrjaias.
9. ds irpoeipr/Kapev] ' as 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 (Xiya) where St Paul is writing
in his own person, and the plural
(irpoeipr/Kapev) where he is speaking
of the joint labours of himself and his
colleagues, is to be observed. See the
note on rjpels ver. 8.
Kal apn irdXiv] 'so now again,'
apn here denotes strictly present, as
opposed to past time — a late use of the
word. See Lobeck Phryn. p. 18 sqq.
irdXiv] ' 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 irpoelp-qKa (which indeed is
found in some texts), as throughout
the epistle he writes in his own per
son alone; and (2) The words ko.1 apn
mark some greater distinction of time
than this interpretation would allow.
vpas evayyeXi^erai] In classical wri
ters this verb takes only a dative
of the person, in later Greek it has
indifferently a dative or an accusative.
See Lobeck Phryn. p. 266 sq. and

Ellicott on 1 Thess. iii. 6.
10. 'Let him be accursed, I say.
What, does my boldness startle you ?
Is this, I ask, the language of a time-
server 1 Will any say now that, care
less of winning the favour of God, I
seek to conciliate men, to ingratiate
myself with men ? If I had been con
tent thus to compromise, I should
have been spared all the sufferings,
as I should have been denied all the
privileges, of a servant of Christ.'
apn ydp] What is the opposition
implied in this now? It can scarcely
be referred, as some refer it, to the
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 cerjtain 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 apn has therefore no connexion
with the apn of ver. 9. The sup
pressed allusion to the Judaizers also
explains the particle ydp: 'I speak
thus strongly, for my language shall
not be misconstrued, shall wear no
semblance of compromise.'
dvBpdirovs ireiBa r) tov Beov] ' do I
conciliate, make friends of men or of
God ?' Though the idea of persuasion

I. II, 12]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

79

"Tvaypl^w Se vp.lv, d$eX<pol, to evayyeXiov to ev-
ayyeXicrdev vir efxov, oti ovk ecrTiv /caret avdpwwov.
™ov$e ydp eyca irapd dvdpanrov TrapeXafiov uvto oi/Ve

11. yvapl^a ydp.
is not strictly applicable in the case
of God (comp. 2 Cor. v. 11, dvBpdirovs
irelBopev, Qew be irecjjavepdpeBa), yet
im'o'iB 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. Ou the article
Bengel pointedly remarks : ' dvBpd
irovs, homines; hoc sine articulo: at
mox rbv &eov, Deum cum articulo.
Dei solius habenda est ratio.' See
also the note on iv. 31.
avBpdirois dpeaKeiv] So 1 Thess. ii. 4 :
COmp. dvBpairdpeaKoi, Ephes. vi. 6, Col.
iii.- 22.
en] 'still.' After what? 'After all
that has befallen me: after all the
experiences I have had.' Compare the
en of v. 11. Both passages find an
explanation in vi. 17;' Henceforth let
no man trouble me.' See the intro
duction, p. 51. The en does not im
ply that St Paul ever had been a
time-server. It is equivalent to, 'at
this stage, at this late date.' The in
sertion of yap after el in the received
text is one of the many attempts of
transcribers to smooth down the rug-
gedness of St Paul's style.
Xpiarov bovXos ovk av rjprjv] ' /
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 (rd ariy-
para tov 'Ir/aov, 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 1 '
11, 12. 'I assure you, brethren,
the Gospel you were taught by me
is not of human devising. I did net
myself receive it from man, but from

12. oiioh idiSdxSrjv.
Jesus Christ. I did not learn it, as
one learns a lesson, by painful study.
It flashed upon me, as a revelation
from heaven.'
11. Tvapifa i5/iii/] ' I declare to
you' introduces some statement on
which the Apostle lays special em
phasis, 1 Cor. xii. 3, xv. 1, 2 Cor. viii.
1. (Compare the similar phrase, ' I
would not have you ignorant'). Both
this phrase and the following, Kara
avBpairov, are confined to the epistles
of this chronological group.
The best authorities are nearly
equally divided between be and ydp.
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 Se may possibly have been sub
stituted for yap here, because it is
found with yvaplfa (-£opev) in 1 Cor.
xv. 1, 2 Cor. viii. 1.
eanv] is here only the copula. The
present tense is used instead of the im
perfect to show the permanence and un-
changeableness of his Gospel. See ii. 2.
Kara avBpairov] 'after any human
fashion or standard.' See on iii. 15.
12. ovbe yap iyd] 'For to go a
step farther back, neither did I my
self receive it from man.' The force
of the particle ovbe is best sought for
iu the context. Ovbe e'y<» irapeXapov
answers to to evayyeXiaBev vir ipov
ovk eanv, as 7rapd dvBpdirov answers
to Kara avBpairov. Others explain it
'/ as little as the Twelve,' '/ in
whom perhaps it might have been ex
pected:' but such interpretations are
not reflected in the context.
irapd dvBpdirov irapeXaj3ov] The idea
in the preposition is sufficiently wide

8o

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[I- 13

eli%dx6nv, dXXd di diroKaXv>lsew<s 'In<rov XpurTOv.
xlr\Kova-aTe ydp ty\v i/mriv dva<TTpo(pnv ttotc ev TtS 'lov-
la'io-fxw, oti /cat? v7rep(3oXrjv eSlcoKOV Trjv eKKXf]o-iav tov

to include both the dirb and bid of
ver. 1. I do not think the distinction
given by Winer § xlvii. p. 388, and
others, between XapfUdveiv irapa Kvplov
and Xapfidveiv dirb 'Kvplov (i Cor. xi.
23), as denoting respectively direct
and indirect communication, can be
insisted upon. It is true, that while
dirb contemplates only the giver, irapa
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 irapd will be used in prefer
ence to diro, be the communication
direct or indirect; so Phil. iv. 18 be-
^dpevos irapa 'Eiracppoblrov to. irap'
vpdv : comp. Plat. Symp. 202 e. The
verb irapaXapPdveiv may be used either
of the ultimate receiver or of any in
termediate agent, provided that the
idea of transmission be retained ; i. e.
it may be either (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. I,
3, and compare irapayyeX'ia.
ovre ibibdxBrjv] The authorities being
nearly equally divided between owe
and 01! Se, I have with some hesitation
retained the former in the text, as
being the less regular collocation (ou-
fie. . .oiVe), and therefore more likely to
be altered. In this case another oJ're
is to be understood before irapeXa@ov,
the be of ovbe having reference to the
former sentence. See Winer § Iv. 6,
p. 514, and esp. A. Buttmann p. 315.
ibibaxB-qv is added to explain and
enforce Trap' avBpairov irapeXafiov, and
thus to bring out the contrast with

bi diroKaXvyjfeas : ' I received it not by
instruction from man but by revela
tion from Christ.' For a somewhat
similar contrast see Cic. pro Mil. c.
4, 'Est enim, heec judices, non scripta
sed nata lex; quam non didicimus
accepimus, legimus, verum ex na-
tura ipsa arripuiraus, hausimus, ex-
pressimus.' 13, 14. 'My early education is a
proof that I did not receive the Go
spel 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. rJKoiaare] 'ye heard,' 'I told
you, when I was with you.' The his
tory of his past career as a persecutor
formed part of his preaching: see
Acts xxii. 2 — 21, xxvi. 4 — 23, 1 Cor.
xv. 8 — 10: comp. Phil. iii. 6, 1 Tim. i.
13. The A. V., ' ye have heard,' gives
a wrong meaning.
avaaTpo(pTjv irore] for the more usual
irore dvaarporprjv, as ver. 23 d biaKWV
r)pas wore. Similar displacements of
words, which would ordinarily come
between the article and substantive,
are frequent in the New Testament.
See on 1 Thess. i. 1 ; and Winer § xx.
p.147 sqq.
'IouSo'iV/iai] 'observance of Jewish
rites.' The word does not in itself
imply any disparagement. Comp. 2
Mace. ii. 21 roir virep tov 'lovba'ia-
pov (piXorlpas dvbpayaBrjaaaiv, xiv. 38
aapa Kal ijrvxrjv virep rov 'lovba'iapov
irapafiefiXripivos, and 'lovbai£eiv Gal. ii.
14. Though perhaps originally coin-

I. i4]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

8l

Qeov Kai eiropdovv avTr\v, I4/cat irpoeKOTTTOV iv tw 'lov-
oa'ta'fMw virep iroXXovs o~vvr]XiKiu>Tas iv too yevei fiov,
Trepio-o-OTepcos £Vj\«t?)s V7rdp^wv twv TraTpiKwv fxov

ed by the heathen and, as used by
them, conveying some shadow of con
tempt, it would, when naturalized
among the Jews themselves, lose this
idea and even become a title of hon
our. The case of Xpianavos, likewise
a term of reproach in the first in
stance, is a parallel.
eiropBow k.t.X.] 'I devastated the
Church,' as Acts ix. 21 ovx ovros
eanv o iropBrjaas iv 'lepovaaXr)p rois
iiriKaXovpevovs k.t.X. Compare eXv-
palvero rrjv eKKXijaiav, Acts viii. 3.
14. awrjXiKidras] 'of my own age,'
who embraced the religion of their
fathers with all the ardour of youthful
patriotism. The Attics use the simple
form TjXiKidrrjs, while the compound
belongs to the later dialect. Com
pare the similar instances of iroXirns
(avpiroXirris, Ephes. ii. 19), d^vXerrjs
(avpxpvXirrjs, 1 Thess. ii. 14), etc. In
this class of words the later language
aims at greater definiteness. The rule
however is not absolute, but only ex
presses a general tendency. See Lo
beck Phryn. pp. 172, 471.
iv ra yeWi pov] ' 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'
(avyyeveis). Comp. also Rom. ix. 3
virep nSv dbeX(f>av pov rav avyyevav
pov Kara. adpKa.
irepiaaorepas £r)XaTr)s virdpxav]- The
adverb irepiaaorepas, which is fre
quent in St Paul, seems always to re
tain its comparative force. Here it
is explained by virep iroXXovs. For
fyXarrjs virdpxav , comp. Acts xxi. 20
irdvres £rp\ara.l tov vopov virdpxovaiv.
St Paul seems to have belonged to
the extreme party of the Pharisees
(Acts xxii. 3, xxiii. 7, xxvi. 5, Phil. iii.
GAL.

S, 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, faXaTrjs
or Kavavaios, i.e. }N3p. A portion of
these extreme partizans, forming into
a separate sect under Judas of Gali
lee, took the name of 'zealots' par
excellence, and distinguished them
selves by their furious opposition to
the Romans : Joseph. Antiq. xviii.
1. 1, 6. See Ewald Gesch. des Volkes
Isr. v. p. 25 sqq., p. 322, vi. p. 340.
rav irarpiK&v pov irapadoaeav] ' of
the traditions handed down from
my fathers.' It is doubtful whether
the law of Moses is included in this
expression. In Josephus ra eV irapa-
boaeas rav irarepav (Antiq. xiii. 10. 6 )
r) irarpda irapdboais (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 irapdboais, 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, 16. ' Then came my conversion.
It was the work of God's grace. It
was foreordained, before I had any
separate existence. It was not there
fore due to any merits of my own, it
did not spring from any principles of
my own. The revelation of His Son
in me, the call to preach to the Gen
tiles, were acts of His good pleasure.
Thus converted, I took no counsel of
human advisers. I did not betake
myself to the elder Apostles, as I
might naturally have done. I se-
6

82

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[I. i5, 16

7rapa$6o-ewv. ^oTe le evloKnvev 6 d(popt<ra<; fie e'/c koi-
Atas jujjtjOOS /nov Kal /caAeVas Sid t»?s ^a'pros avTOv
l6d7TOKaXv^ai tov vlov avTov iv ifwi 'iva evayyeXl-
^wfxai avTov iv tois edve<riv, evdews ov -rrpoa-aveQe^v

eluded myself in Arabia, and, when I
emerged from my retirement, instead
of going to Jerusalem, I returned to
Damascus.' 15. d d<popio-as] 'who set me a-
part, devoted me to a special pur
pose:' Rom. i. I d<papiapevos els ev
ayyeXiov Oeov. See also Acts xiii. 2
d<popiaare brj fioi k.t.X. The words d
Oebs of the received text are to be
struck out as a gloss, though a correct
one. Similar omissions are frequent
in St Paul ; see i. 6, ii. 8, iii. 5, v. 8,
Rom. viii. 11, Phil. i. 6, 1 Thess. v. 24.
Observe how words are accumu
lated to tell upon the one point on
which he is insisting — the sole agency
of God as distinct from his own efforts :
evboKrjaev, d(poplaas, e'x KoiXias prjrpos
pov, KaXeaas, xapiros avroii.
i< KoiXias prjrpos pov\ 'from before
my birth, before I had any impulses,
any principles of my own.' For the
expression see Judges xvi. 17 dyior
Qeov iyd elpi dirb KoiXias prjrpos pov,
Is. xliv. 2, 24, xlix. I, 5 d TrXdo-as fie
ex KoiXias boiXov eavra, Psalm lxx. 6
e'/c KoiXias prjrpos pov av pov el aKeira-
arr]s, and frequently in the lxx. The
preposition seems to be merely tem
poral. The A. V., 'who separated
me from my mother's womb,' ob
scures, if it does not misinterpret, the
sense. KaXeaas bid rrjs xapiros avrov] 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 (d dcpoplaas pe k.t.X.) ;
Secondly, the conversion and call to
the Apostleship, which took place on
the way to Damascus, Acts ix. 3 sqq.

(KaXeaas bid rrjs xapiros avrov); and
Thirdly, the entering upon his min
istry in fulfilment of this call, Acts ix.
20 sq., xiii. 2, 3 (diroKaXvifrai iv ipol
Iva evayyeXi£apai).
The distinction of these three stages
seems well marked ; and if so, this de
termines the meaning of iv ipol. It
does not speak of a revelation made
inwardly to himself, but of a revela
tion made through him to others-
The preposition iv is used in prefer
ence to Sid, 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 e'Sd-
|afoi> iv ipol rov Bebv, I Tim. i. 16
Sid roOro rJXerjBrjv Iva iv ipol irpdra
evbeit-rjrai Xpiarbs 'irjaois rr)v airaaav
paKpoBvplav irpbs vrrorviraaiv rdv peX-
Xovrav iriareiietv k.t.X., 2 Cor. xiii. 3
roii iv ipol XaXoiivroff Xpicrroii, Phil.
i. 30. The rendering of iv ipol
' within me,' i. e. ' in my heart,' seems
neither to suit the context so well,
nor to be so natural in itself.
evBeas ov irpoaaveBeprjv K.r.X.] 'forth
with, instead of conferring with flesh
and blood etc., I departed to Arabia.'
On dvarlBeaBai see the note ii. 2. In
the double compound irpoaavariBeaBai
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. veorros) irpoaavaBeaBai
oveipoKplrr), Diod. Sic. xvii. 116 rois
pavreai irpoaavaBepevos irepi row arj-
pelov. Comp. Lucian Jup. Trag. § 1
(II. p. 642) e'fioi 7Tpoo-ai/d#ou, Xd(3e pe
aipfiovXov irbvav. See the note ii. 6.

1. 17, 18]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

83

trapKi Kal a'lfxaTi, *? ovhe dvrjXOov els 'lepoa-oXv/na
7rpos tovs wpo i/uiov dirocTToXovs, dXXd. d7rfjX0ov els
'Apafilav, Kal waXiv vireo-Tpe^a els Aa/uao-KOV. l8e7r-
eiTa jueTa eTt] Tpla dvrjXdov els 'lepoo-oXv/ma ictto-

17. ovSi airijXBov els 'Jep.
For o-apKi /cai alpan compare our
Lord's words to St Peter, Matt. xvi.
17 'Flesh and blood did not reveal it
unto thee.'
17. dvrjXBov] ' I came up.' This
verb and dvafiaiveiv are used especially
of visiting Jerusalem, situated in the
high lands of Palestine, as Karepxe-
aBai, Karafialveiv, are of leaving it. See
Luke x. 30, Acts xi. 27, xii. 19, xv. 1,
2, xxi. 15, xxv. 1, 6, 7, and especially
Acts xviii. 22, xxiv. 1. In the two
last passages dvafiatveiv and Kara/3ai-
veiv are used absolutely without any
mention of Jerusalem, this being im
plied in the expressions 'going up,'
' going down.' Here the various read
ing dirfjXBov 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 dirfjXBov twice
consecutively, as the repetition makes
the sentence run awkwardly ; though
in Rom. viii. 15, 1 Cor. ii.. 13, Heb. xii.
18, 22, something of the kind occurs.
tovs irpb ipov d7roo"rdXovyJ ' 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, oinves elaiv
iirlarjpoi iv rois a7roo"rdXois 01 *cai 7rpo
ipov yeyovav iv Xpiara, where how
ever the construction is doubtful.
els AapaaKov] 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. perd rpla eVij.
18. eireira perd errj rpia] 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.'
'lepoaoXvpa] is generally a neuter
plural. In Matt. ii. 3 however we
have 7rao-a 'lepoaoXvpa. See A. Butt-
mann Gramm. p. 16. On the forms
'lepoaoXvpa and 'iepoucraX?;/^ see the
note iv. 25.
laroprjaai Krj(pdv] ' to visit Cephas.'
laroprjaai 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 dvrjp
dv iyd Kar eKeivov laroprjaa rov iroXe-
pov, and Clem. Horn. viii. 1, etc. St
Peter is mentioned by St Paul only in
this epistle and 1 Corinthians. K77-
<pdv is the right reading here, though
there is respectable authority for Ile'-
rpov. If the existing authorities are
to be trusted, St Paul seems to have
used the Aramaic and Greek names
indifferently. Allowance ought to be
made however for the tendency to sub
stitute the more usual TLerpos for the
less common Krjtpds, e. g. here and ii.
9, 11, 14. In the Peshito Version
Cephas, as the Aramaic name, is not
unnaturally adopted throughout this
epistle. beKairevre] A later form for the
more classical irevreKaibeKa. This and
the analogous forms of numerals occur
frequently in the mss of Greek au
thors of the post-classical age, but in
6—2

84

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[I. 19—21

pfja-ai Kricpav, Kal iire\xeiva irpbs avTov ypepas SeKa-
TrevTe' IgeTepov Se twv diroaToXwv ovk elBov, ei firj
'laKcofiov tov d$eX(}>dv tov Kvplov. aoa 3e ypdcput vfxlv,
l$ov ivwTriov tov Qeov oti ov yp-evBo/mai. "eVen-a fiXdov

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 Tabula} Heracleenses is a decisive
testimony to their use, at least in some
dialects, much before the Christian
era. They are found often in the
LXX. St Paul's visit on this occasion was
abruptly terminated. He left on ac
count of a plot against his life (Acts
ix. 29) and in pursuance of a vision
(Acts xxii. 17 — 21).
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
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 brotherhood in Judaea. 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.'
19. el pr) 'ld(t(oj3ov] 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 el pr) 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. in.
p. 195. But on the other hand the
sense of erepov naturally links it with
el pr/, from which it cannot be sepa
rated without harshness, and erepov
carries rav diroaroXav with it. It seems
then that St James is here called an
Apostle, though it does not therefore
follow that he was one of the Twelve :
(see the detached note, p. 95). The
plural in the corresponding account
Acts ix. 27, ' He brought (Paul) to the
Apostles,' is also in favour of this
sense, but this argument must not be
pressed. 20. ibov ivamov rov Qeov] A form
of asseveration equivalent to ' I call
you to witness,' and so followed by
or 1. See 2 Tim. ii. 14, iv. 1 biapaprv-
peaBai ivdiriov rov 6eo0. For Ibov 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 on here. Perhaps however
the occurrence of iSe on in the lxx,
Ps. cxix. 159, Lam. i. 20, may justify
such a construction here. The strength
of St Paul's language is to be explained
by the unscrupulous calumnies cast
upon him by his enemies. See the
note 1 Thess. v. 27.
21. In the corresponding narrative
of St Luke it is related that the bre
thren at Jerusalem, discovering the
plot against St Paul's life, 'took him
down to Caesarea 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

I. 22, 23]

EPISTLE TO THE. GALATIANS.

85

els to. KXtfAUTa t^s Zvplas Kal Tfjs KiXiKias. Mr\mv le
dyvoov/uevos ™ 7rpocrw7ra) TaTs iKKXr]o-'iais Ttjs 'lovtiaias
toTis iv Xpia-Tw, 33povov U ukovovtss r\o~av oti 'O Siwkwv

the more probable route for him to
take, but St Luke's language requires
it; for (l) The words Karrjyayov, igair-
eareiXav, imply a seaport and an em
barkation : and (2) Caesarea, 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 Caesarea
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, r. p. 130. The less important
country is here named after the more
important. ' Cilicia,' says E wald, ' was
constantly little better than an appen
dage of Syria,' Gesch. des V. Isr. vi.
p. 406. At this time however it was
under a separate administration. The
words rd KXlpara seem to show that
'Syria and Cilicia' are here men
tioned under one general expression,
and not as two distinct districts.
ra KXlpara] Rom. xv. 23, 2 Cor.
xi. 10. A comparatively late word,
see Lobeck Parol, p. 4 1 8. It is found
in Pseudo- Aristot. de Mundo c. x, and
several times in Polybius.
22. Tjprjv dyvoovpevos K.r.X.] ' I re
mained personally unknown.' A
strong form of the imperfect, as olkov-

ovres r]aav ' they kept hearing' (ver.
23): see Winer, § xiv. 5, p. 365.
rais iKKXrjaiais K.r.X.] 'unknown to
the churches of Judma' 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 Caesarea, and there em
barking he left the shores of Pales
tine. The other churches of Judaea
therefore had no opportunity of know
ing him. Judaea is here distinguished
from Jerusalem, as Italy is frequently
distinguished from Rome, e.g. pro
bably Hebr. xiii. 24. The addition
rais iv Xpiara was necessary when
speaking of the Christian brother
hoods of Judaea ; for the unconverted
Jewish communities might still be
called 'the Churches of Judaea.' See the
note on 1 Thess. ii. 14, raw eKKXrjatdv
tov Qeov rav ovaav iv rjj 'lovbala. iv
Xpiara 'Irjaov.
23. on] 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. 10.
'O biaKav rjpas irore] 'Our per
secutor of former times' ; 6 biaKav
being used as a substantive, i.e. with
out reference to time, as Matth. xxvii.
40 d KaraXiiav tov vabv: see Winer,
§ xiv. 7, p. 370. On the position of
7rore', see the note on ver. 13.
rrjv irlanv] 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-
onyme for the Gospel. See Acts vi. 7.
Here its meaning seems to hover be
tween the Gospel and the Church.

86

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[I.24

jjyua? 7TOT6 vvv evayyeX'i^eTai Tt]V ttio~tiv r\v iroTe iirop-
6ei, a4Kal iBo^a^ov iv ifxol tov Qeov.

For the various senses of irians, see
the notes on iii. 23, vi. 10, and the
detached note on the term ' faith.'
24. iv ipol] See the note ver. 16,
and comp. Is. xlix. 3 fioOXds pov et
aii 'laparjX Kal iv aol bo^aaBrjaopai.

' 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 °f ihe ;&-
engaged him while there, of all the circumstances of a crisis which must cldent'
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 ever 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. Coniec-
Arabia is a vague term, and affords scope for much conjecture. tures as to
i. The Arabic translator1, whose language gives him a fictitious claim tne p'ace.
to a hearing on such a point, renders the passage ' Immediately I went t1' "
to El Belka.' In like manner in Gal. iv. 25 he translates, ' This Hagar is
Mount Sinai in El Belka, and is contiguous to Jerusalem.' Now the only
district, so far as I can discover, which bears or has borne the name of
El Belka, is the region lying to the east and north-east of the Dead Sea2.
If so, how are we to account for this translation of 'Apafila 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 awaroixei
in the second passage, which he renders 'is contiguous to3,' 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 date4.
1 The Arabic version of the Poly- sq., Stanley's Sinai and Palestine pp.
glotts, which was made directly from the 95, 319.
Greek. The translator not unfrequently 3 For this rendering however he
gives geographical comments. See Hug might plead the authority of several

cix. I. p. 431. The <i'oner ancient commentators. See the notes
Arabic version, the Erpenian, translated on iv. 25.
from the Syriac, retains 'Arabia.' 4 Hug 1. u. states that the trans-
2 See Burckhardt Trav. in Syria lator has unexpectedly revealed his
App. m., Ritter Erdhunde xn. p. 426 country by his rendering of Acts ii. 10,

88

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

(i) The
countrynear Da-

(3) Mount
Sinai.

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 Syrophoenicia1.' 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 experiences2.
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
region3. Standing on the threshold of the new covenant, he was anxious
to look upon the birthplace of the old: that dwelling for awhile in
seclusion in the presence of ' the mount that burned with fire ' he mi<dit
ponder over the transient glories of the 'ministration of death,' and
apprehend its real purpose in relation to the more glorious covenant which

rd piprj rrjs Aij36rjs ttjs Kara "KvprjvTjv,
'and the territories of Africa which
is our country.' There can scarcely be
a doubt however that here Lu <«S 'our
country ' is a corrupt reading of Liu i«S
'Cyrene,' the change involving only a
Blight alteration in one letter. See De
Lagarde de N. T. ad vers. Orient, fldem
edendo, Berl. 1857, p. 3 referred to in
Bleek's Einl. p. 737. Such geographi
cal notices as that of El Belka point to
a more eastern origin.
1 Dial. v. Tryph. p. 305 A. See also
other authorities in Conybeare and
Howson, I. p. 117, 118. Tertullian (adv.
Jud. c. 9 and adr. Marc. iii. 13) ob
viously copies Justin and must not be
considered an independent authority.
The words of Justin el Kal vvv irpouvevi-

pnrai r% ZvpotfioivlKii Xeyopivy seem to
refer to the arrangement of these pro
vinces by Hadrian. See Becker and
Marquardt Mm. Alterth. m. 1, p. 195
sqq. and comp. Bardesanes de Fato,
in Cureton's Spicil. Syr. p. 30.
8 See the instructive passage in
Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Isr. vi. p. 398.
Ewald however, though he takes St
Paul into this region, guards against the
objections which I have alleged in the
text, by supposing him to travel as far
as Sinai also (p. 400).
3 1 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'
(ver. ij).

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 89
was now to supplant it. Here, surrounded by the children of the desert,
the descendants of Hagar the boudwoman, he read the true meaning
and power of the law1. 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- ^?ce
tended to create in the soul of man. In the midst of such scenes and journ.
associations, his spirit was attuned to harmony with his divine mission,
and fitted to>eceive 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 Gentiles2.
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 statement3. 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 tainly the idea connected with Ixavos
reference to Hagar, the supposed Ara- in his language is that of largeness ra-
bic name of Sinai (Gal. iv. 25), which ther than smallness ; comp. Luke vii.
he was not likely to have heard any- 12, Acts xx. 37 (Uavbs KXavOpbs). In
where but on the spot : comp. Stanley the LXX it is frequently employed to
Sinai and Palestine p. 50. But the translate HS5> 'mighty,' e.g. Ruth i. 20,
reading and the interpretation alike are 21. Again the wide use of the He-
highly doubtful. See the notes there. brew D'D', which St Luke is copying,
2 The significance of Sinai, as the allows of almost any extension of time.
holy place of inspiration, will be felt by Hence iroXXal rjpipai in the LXX denotes
readers of Tancred. any indefinite period however long ; Gen.
3 The notices of time in the narra- xxxvii. 34, 2 Sam. xiv. 1, 1 Kings iii.
tive of the Acts are these : He remain- 11 ('a long life'). Even Demosthenes,
ed with the disciples in Damascus some de Cor. p. 258, can speak of the inter-
dap (ijpipas nvas) and straightioay (ei- val between the battles of Haliartus and
flews) he began to preach (iKijpvo-aev)... Corinth as 06 iroXXal ijpipai, though they
and Saul was the more strengthened... were fought in different years and many
and when many days (vpipai Uaval) important occurrences happened m the
were accomplishing (iirXypoCvTo) the meantime. The difference between the
Jews took counsel to slay him, in con- vague 'many days' of the Acts and the
sequence of which he left and went to definite 'three years' of the Epistle is
Jerusalem (ix. 20—26). 'Spipai Uaval such as might be expected from the cir-
is an indefinite period in St Luke, which cumstances of the two writers.
may vary according to circumstances; .

90 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
commenced his active labours1. 'Immediately,' he says, 'instead of con
ferring with flesh and blood, I went into Arabia.' The silence of the
historian is best accounted for on the supposition that the sojourn there
was short ; but as St Luke's companionship with the Apostle commenced
at a much later date, no great stress must be laid on the omission. Yet
on the other hand there is no reason for supposing it of long duration.
It was probably brief— brief enough not to occupy any considerable space
in the Apostle's history, and yet not too brief to serve the purpose it was
intended to serve.
Its pur- For can we doubt that by this journey he sought seclusion from the
pose. outer world, that his desire was to commune with God and his own soul
amid these hallowed scenes, and thus to gather strength in solitude for his
active labours ? His own language implies this ; ' I conferred not with
flesh and blood, but departed into Arabia.' The fathers for the most part
take a different view of this incident. They imagine the Apostle hurry
ing 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 forthwith attacked a barbarous and savage people, choosing a life of
conflict and much toil2.' This comment strikes a false note. Far different
at such a crisis must have been the spirit of him, whose life henceforth was
at least as conspicuous for patient wisdom and large sympathies, as for
intense self-devotion. He retired for a while, we may suppose, that
'Separate from the world, his breast
'Might duly take and strongly keep
'The print of Heaven3.'
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 trace4.
1 It must in this case be placed be- adcircumcisionem, id est ad Judaismum.'
fore the notice of his active preaching, Jerome supposes that St Paul preached
ix. 20 Kal eidias k.t.X. Some have in Arabia, but that his preaching was
put it later and seen an indirect allusion unsuccessful. His comment is curious.
to it in the expression pdXXov evedv- Why, he asks, is this visit to Arabia,
vapovro, ver. 22 ; but there is no trace of which we know nothing, which seems
of a chronological notice in these words, to have ended in nothing, recorded at
and such an allusion is scarcely natural. all 1 It is an allegory from which we
2 Similarly also Victorinus, Hilary, must extract a deep meaning. Arabia
Theodore Mops., Theodoret, Primasiu3, is the Old Testament. In the law and
and the CEcumenian commentator. the prophets St Paul sought Christ, and
Some of the Latin fathers might have having found Him there, he returned to
been helped to this view by a curious Damascus, ' hoc est ad sanguinem et
blunder arising out of the Latin trans- passionem Christi. ' So fortified, he went
lation 'non acquievi carni et sanguini,' to Jerusalem, 'locum visionis et pacis.'
'I did not rest in flesh and blood.'which This interpretation is doubtless borrowed
Victorinus explains, 'Omnino laboravi from Origen.
carnaliter,' adding 'Caro enim et san- 3 Christian Year, i$th Sunday after
guis homo exterior totus est.' Tertullian Trinity, said of Moses.
however, de Beswrr. Corn. c. 50, quotes 4 Christian Year, gth Sunday after
the passage, 'Statim non retulerit ad car- Trinity, said of Elijah.
nem et sanguinem,' explaining it, 'id est

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 9 1

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 Acts1. Whatever difficulties seem to stand in the way of our iden- p^ul and^
tifying them, the fact that in each narrative this is stated to have been St Luke
St Paul's first appearance in Jerusalem since his conversion and to have
followed after a sojourn in Damascus, must be considered conclusive. Nor
indeed is there any inconsistency in the two narratives. Though they con-
taiu 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 l^^t
St Paul and St Luke, this divergence is due to two causes : '
First. The different position of the two writers, the one deriving his in- (r) Their
formation at second-hand, the other an eyewitness and an actor in the scenes respective
which he describes. In such cases the one narrator will present rather P0Sltl0n3-
the external view of events, while the other dwells on their inner history,
on those relations especially [Which have influenced his own character 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- alm*
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 change 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 Paul's intercourse with the Apostles. The narrative of the Acts st Paul's
relates that when St Paul visited Jerusalem he was regarded with suspicion relations
by the disciples; that Barnabas introduced him to 'the Apostles,' relating U) with the
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 iu hand', his obligations to
1 ix. 26 — 30. Compare St Paul's later reference, to this residence at Jeru
salem, Acta xxii. 17 — 21..

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 ' Judaea and Galilee and Samaria'
(ix. 31), which needed supervision.
(2) With 2. St Paul's intercourse with the Jewish Church at large. At first
the Jewish sjgnt there appears to be a wide difference between the two accounts. St
Christians, j^g ^ejjg 0f njs 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 Judaea.' 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 Hellenists1. He relates moreover,
that St Paul's visit terminated abruptly2, owing to a plot against his life,
and that he was hurried off to Caesarea, whence he forthwith embarked.
To a majority therefore of the Christians at Jerusalem he might, and to
the Churches of Judaea at large he must, have been personally unknown.
But though the two accounts are not contradictory, the impression left by
St Luke's narrative needs correcting by the more precise and authentic
statement of St Paul.

The name and office of an Apostle.
Meaning The word dn-do-roXos in the first instance is an adjective signifying
i°n okaS ' desPatched ' or ' sent fortb.' Applied to a person, it denotes more than
writers. oyyeXos. 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 him3. Beyond this, the classical usage of the term gives no
1 ix. 28. The restrictions ex [or els] 3 It occurs of a person in Herod. I.
'lepovaaXipi and irpis rois 'EXXrjviaTas 21, V. 38. With this exception, no in-
are the more noticeable, in that they in- stances are given in the Lexicons of its
terfere with the leading feature of St use by classical authors even of a late
Luke's narrative, the publicity of Saul's date with any other but the Attic mean-
conversion, ing ; nor have I succeeded in finding any
2 ix. 29. Compare Acts xxii. 18, myself, though Hesychius explains airb-
'Make haste and get thee quickly out oroXos- o-Tparrjybs Kara irXovv irepirb-
of Jerusalem.' pevos. This is 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 I*3 use
the use of the term among the Jews. It occurs but once in the lxx in *monS tn9
i Kings xiv. 6, as a translation of mbtJ', where it has the general sense of
a messenger, though with reference to a commission from God1. 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 mission2, especially such as were charged with collecting the tribute
paid to the temple service3. 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 abroad4. Thus in

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 kotij-
Xeiv, vi. 6 ; irripeaffai, Phil. i. 28 ; 707-
yvajibs, Phil. ii. 14.
1 It was also used by Symmachus to
translate "Y¥ in Is. xviii. 2 : see below.
The word aTotrroXr) occurs in a few pas
sages in the LXX, and dirpariXXu is
the common translation of TV&. Justin
therefore (Dial. c. Tryph. c. 75, p. 300 r>)
is so far justified in saying that the pro
phets are called apostles, Kal dyyeXoi koI
d7r6(rroXoi roO GeoO Xiyovrai ol dyyiX-
Xeiv ra irap avrov diroareXXbpevoi irpo-
<pr)rai...Xiyei ydp exet 6 ''B.aa'Cas diro-
aTeXXbv pe. The Syriac renders d7rd-
aroXos by the word corresponding to
the Hebrew.
a Such for instance as the bearers of
the instructions contemplated in Acts
xxviii. 21, oflre ypdppara irepi aov
idegdpeOa dirb rrjs 'lovdalas otfre irapa-
yevbpevbs ris rav dSeXipav airijyyeiXev.
Eusebius (Montf. Coll. Nov. 11. 425),
evidently thinking of this passage,
says : diroaroXovs Si elain vvv iBos
iariv 'lovdalois Svopdfav robs eyKUKXia
ypdppara irapd rav dpxbvrav abrav
iiriKopifype'vovs. The passage in Isaiah
xviii. 1, 2, which is read in the lxx,

Oval...b diroariXXav iv BaXdanv oprjpa
Kal iTiaroXds {3i(3Xlvas iirdvoj rov vSaros,
and in which for bpnpa Symmachus
had diroarbXovs, 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, iropeticovrai ydp
dyyeXoi Kovipoi irpbs £9vos k.t.X., the
true Apostles were referred to in con
trast with the false. See Procopius in
Esaiam, 1. c. and Eusebius, 1. c. The
LXX version is entirely wrong and the
comment 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 Judae-
orum apostolos mitti etc'
3 See Cod. Theodos. XVI. Tit. viii. 14,
' Superstitionis indignse est, ut archi-
synagogi sive presbyteri Judseorum vel
quos ipsi apostolos vocant, 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 dToaroXi), Julian Epist. 25
rrjv Xeyoptvrjv irap' bpiv dirotTToXr)v koj-
XvBrjvai. 4 See the important passage in Epi-
phanius, Hozres. XXX. p. 128, rav irap'
abrdis d^iapanKav dvdpuv ivaplBpios rjv.
elal Si ovroi perd rov Tarpidpxw dirb-

94 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
designating His immediate and most favoured disciples 'Apostles,' our
Lord was not introducing a new term1, but adopting one which from its
current usage would suggest to His hearers the idea of a highly responsible
mission2.
Mistake of At the first institution of the office the Apostles were twelve in number,
tiw'tf'T -A-ccorcbng to the prevailing view this limit was strictly observed, an excep-
theTwelve. *'on 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 place3. 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.
Its use in In the Gospels the word ' Apostle ' is of comparatively rare occurrence.
the Gospels Those, whom it is customary with us to designate especially 'the Apostles,'
favourthis are mos* 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 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,
ol diroaroXoi, compare dn-oo-re'XXeii', 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 Twelve4, 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 also5.
o-roXoi KaXobpevoi, irpoaeSpeiovai Si rip of our profession;' the best comment
irarpidpxv k.t.X.; and p. 134, avppi- on which expression is Joh. xvii. 18;
f3rjKe...yipas rip 'Iwot)tt<j> rijs diro<rroXrjs 'As thou hast sent (aVeo-reiXas) me into
Sovvai tt)v iirmapirlav Kal per' imaro- the world, even so have I also sent (dw-
Xav oSros d-TrooreXXeTai els t-Jj;/ KiXikiSv ia-reiXa) them into the world.' Comp.
yijv, k.t.X. Justin Apol. 1. c. 63, pp. 95 d, 96 a
1 There is no direct evidence indeed 3 See Schaff History of the Apo-
that the term was in use among the stolic Church, 11. p. 194.
Jews before the destruction of Jeru- 4 Luke vi. 13 eKXe&pevos air ab-
salem : but it is highly improbable that rav SwSera ovs koX diroaroXovs dvopja-
they should have adopted it from the <rev.
Christians, if it had not been current 5 Acts xiv. 4, 14. The word dvo-
among them before ; and moreover Chris- oroXos occurs 79 times in the New Tes-
tian writers speak of this Jewish apo- tament, and of these 68 instances are
stolate, as an old institution which still in St Luke and St Paul. airocrroXi;
lingered on. occurs four times only, thrice in St
8 Our Lord Himself is so styled Paul and once in St Luke.
Hebr. iii. 1, ' The apostle and high priest

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 diaeonate typical
was not intended to be final as regards numbers, neither is there any number-
reason to assume this of the first creation of the apostolate. The quali
fication 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
tribes1. 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 remains2. 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 Paul3. St Paul himself seems in Apostles
one passage to distinguish between ' the Twelve' and ' all the Apostles', as besudes the
if the latter were the more comprehensive term (i Cor. xv. 5, 7). It ap
pears both there and in other places4 that James the Lord's brother
1 Matth. xix. 28, Luke xxii. 30 : generally supposed.
comp. Barnab. § 8 ovnv SemSvo els pap- 4 In 1 Cor. xv. 7, 'After that he
rvpiov r& ipvXwv on SemSvo al t/>vXal was seen of James, then of all the Apo-
rov'lcparjX. See Justin Dial. c. Tryph. sties,' St Paul certainly appears to in-
42, p. 260 c. An Ophite writing re- elude James among the Apostles. See
presented the Twelve as actually taken also the note on Gal. i. 19, where he is
from the twelve tribes: Hippol. Hair. apparently so entitled. In 1 Cor. ix. 5,
V. 8, p. IOQ. ds koX ol Xoiirol diroaroXoi Kal ol dSeX(pol
2 Rev. xxi. 14 'And the walls of tov Kvpiov Kal KijQds, it seems probable
the city had twelve foundations, and that St Paul is singling out certain
in them the names of the twelve apo- Apostles in 'the brethren of the Lord'
sties of the Lamb.' as well as in 'Cephas,' whether we
3 Those instances are here disre- suppose Xoirol to be used in distinction
garded, where the term is used in the to the persons thus specified, or to
sense of an apostle or delegate of a Paul and Barnabas who are men-
church, e. g. the brethren (2 Cor. viii. tioned just after. Still it is a question
23 dirotrroXoi eKKXijaiav) and Epaphro- which of the 'brethren of the Lord ' are
ditus (Phil. ii. 25 vpav Si ottoVtoXos) . meant. Jude is said to have been mar-
Such persons are not spoken of as apo- ried (Euseb. H.E. iii. 20), but he seems
sties of Christ. Yet this free use of the to disclaim for himself the title of an
term seems to show that it had not such Apostle (Jude 17, 18). Whether Hege-
a rigid and precise application as is sippus (Euseb. H.E. ii. 23) considered

96

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
term1. In I Thess. ii. 6 again, where in reference to his visit to Thes-
salonica he speaks of the disinterested labours of himself and his col
leagues, adding ' though we might have been burdensome to you, being
Apostles of Christ,' it is probable that under this term he includes Sil-
vanus, who had laboured with him in TheSsalonica and whose name appears
in the superscription of the letter2.
Barnabas. 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, AiaSixerai
Si T7jv eKKXijalav perd rav diroaroXav
b dSeXtpos rov Kvplov 'laKufios (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 Bom. xvi. 7 ' Affirdaaade 'AvSpb-
vlkov Kal 'lovvlav rods avyyeveis piov Kal
cvvaixp.aXaTovs pov, olnvis elcriv eirl-
ctjpoi ev rois diroaToXois, ot Kal irpb ipov
yiyovav iv Xpicrtp. Except to escape
the difficulty involved in such an ex
tension of the apostolate, I do not
think the words oirivis elnv eirlarjpjsi
ev rois diroGTokois would have been ge
nerally rendered, ' who are highly es
teemed by the Apostles.' The Greek
fathers took the more natural interpre
tation. Origen says, 'Possibile est et
illud intelligi quod fortassis ex illis sep-
tuaginta duobus qui et ipsi apostoli
nominati sunt, fuerint : ' Chrysostom
still more decisively, rb diroaroXovs elvai
piya' rb Si ev tovtois eiriarjpovs elvai,
ivvbijaov ijXIkov eyKdjuov, and similarly
Theodoret. In this case 'lovvlav (or
'lovvidv) is probably a man's name,
Junias contracted from Junianus, as it is
taken by Origen (on Rom. xvi. 21, T. rv.
p. 682 D, and especially on xvi. 39, ib.
p. 686 e) and by several modern critics.
Chrysostom however, in spite of his
interpretation, considers that it is a
woman's name : /3aj3al, irbav rijs yvvai-

kos Tavrrjs r) 0iXo<ro0£<z, as Kal rrjs rav
diroaroXav d£ia8ijvai trpoaijyoplas.
2 Not Timothy, though Timothy
also had been with him at Thessalonicn,
and his name, like that of Silvauus,
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 Paul links Timothy's
name with his own, he drops the title
of Apostle, e.g. Phil. i. 1 'Paul and
Timotheus, servants of Jesus Christ.'
In 1 Cor. iv. 9, 'I think that God
hath set forth us the Apostles last etc.,'
he might seem to include Apollos who
is mentioned just before ver. 6. But
Apollos is distinctly excluded from the
apostolate by one who was a contem
porary and probably knew him. Cle
ment of Borne, § 47, speaking of the
dissensions of the Corinthians in St
Paul's time, says, irpoaeKXldrtre diro-
arbXois pepaprvprjpivois (i. e. St Peter
and St Paul) Kal dvSpl SeSoKipaffpivtp
Tap' avrots (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 be again
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 Apcstles, 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 uot 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 Christ1.
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. 1 3,
Rev. ii. 2). Had the number been definitely restricted, the claims of these
interlopers would have been self-condemned.
But if the term is so extended, can we determine the limit to its ex
tension 1 This will depend on the answer given to such questions as these :
What was the nature of the call ? What were the necessary qualifications
for the office ? What position did it confer ? What were the duties at
tached to it ?
The facts gathered from the New Testament are insufficient to supply
a decisive answer to these questions ; but they enable us to draw roughly
the line, by which the apostolate was bounded.
(i) The Apostles comprised the first order in the Church (1 Cor. xii. Bank of an
28 29, Ephes. iv. 11). They are sometimes mentioned in connexion with Apostle.
the prophets of the Old dispensation2, sometimes with the prophets of the
New3. 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 shlP'
work in the Lord 1 ' 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. Sec. 2 Luke xi. 49, 2 Pet. iii. 2, and so
i. 60 Barnabas is identified with Mat- perh. Bev. xviii. 20: comp. Polyc. § 6.
thias, and thus made an Apostle, with- 3 Ephes. ii 20, iii. 5. That the 'pro-
out extending the number beyond twelve; phets' in these passages are to be so
'Post quern Barnabas qui et Matthias understood, appears (i)from the order,
qui in locum Judas subrogatus est apo- the Apostles being named before the
stolus.' But the correct reading is prophets; (2) from the expression in
doubtless 'Barsabas,' which is found in Ephes. iii. 5, ^ "c" drreKaXfyBr, tois
the MS in Trinity College Library at aylois diroarbXois avrov Kal rrpotprfrais.
Cambridge, as well as in several men- It is in this same epistle also (iv. n)
tionedbyCotelier. Thus the account is a that the prophets are d.rectly men-
confused version of the incident in the tioned as the next order to the Apostles
Acts. The Syriac translation strangely iu the Christian Church.
enough has 'Barabbas' in two places.
GAL. 7

98 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
fication for apostolic office. It may be urged indeed that St Paul is here taking
the office. the gT(mnd of his Judaizing opponents, who affected to lay great stress
on personal intercourse with the Lord, and argues that even on their own
showing he is not wanting in the qualifications for the Apostleship. This
is true. But independently of St Paul's language here, there is every
reason for assuming that this was an indispensable condition (Luke xxiv.
To be a 48, Acts i. 8). An Apostle must necessarily have been an eye-witness of
witness of the resurrection. He must be able to testify from direct knowledge to
the resur- thig fun(jalnental fact of the faith. The two candidates for the vacant
rec ion. ^^ of Judas were seiected 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. 21 — 23). This knowledge, which was before lacking to St Paul, was
supplied by a miraculous interposition, so as to qualify him for the office.
All the others, who are called or seem to be called Apostles in the New
Testament, may well have satisfied this condition. 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.
Apollos On the other hand, it is not probable that this qualification was pos-
and Timo- segge(i either by Apollos or by Timothy, who were both comparatively late
aualined 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.
The out- But though it was necessary that an Apostle should have been an eye-
ward com- witness of the Lord's resurrection, it does not follow that the actual call to
mission ^ jipogtieghip should come from an outward personal communication with
tlOW ffl"V6H our Lord, in the manner in which the Twelve were called. With Matthias
it certainly was not so. The commission in his case was received through
the medium of the Church. Even St Paul himself seems to have been
invested with this highest office of the Church in the same way. His
conversion indeed may be said in some sense to have been his call to the
Apostleship. But the actual investiture, the completion of his call, as may
be gathered from St Luke's narrative, took place some years later at
Antioch (Acts xiii. 2). It was then at length that he, together with Bar
nabas, was set apart by the Spirit acting through the Church, for the work
to which God had destined him, and for which he had been qualified by the
appearance on the way to Damascus. Hitherto both alike are styled only
' prophets.' From this point onward both alike are ' Apostles.'
But secondly, in the passage already referred to, St Paul lays much
more stress on his possessing the powers of an Apostle, as a token of the

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 99
truthfulness of his claims. ' If I be not an Apostle to others,' he says to (2) Signs
the Corinthians, ' at least I am to you.' Their conversion was the seal of of an
his Apostleship (1 Cor. ix. 2). In another passage he speaks in like manner AP0Btle-
of his having wrought the signs of an Apostle among them (2 Cor. xii. 1 2).
The signs, which he contemplates in these passages, our modern conceptions
would lead us to separate into two classes. The one of these includes
moral and spiritual gifts — patience, self-denial, effective preaching ; the
other comprises such powers as we call supernatural, ' signs, wonders, and
mighty deeds.' St Paul himself however does not so distinguish them, but
with more of reverence regards them rather as different manifestations of
'one and the self-same Spirit.'
But essential as was the possession of these gifts of the Spirit to esta
blish the claims of an Apostle, they seem to have been possessed at least in
some degree by all the higher ministers of the Church, and therefore do
not afford any distinctive test, by which we are enabled to fix the limits of
the Apostleship.
Such then is the evidence yielded by the notices in the New Testament
— evidence which, if somewhat vague in itself, is sufficient to discountenance
the limitation of the Apostolate in the manner generally conceived.
And such for the most part is the tendency of the notices found in Wide use
Christian writers of the ages immediately following. They use the term of the term
indeed vaguely and inconsistently, sometimes in a narrower, sometimes in
a wider sense, than the New Testament writings would seem to warrant ;
but on the whole the impression is left from their language, that no very
rigid limitation of the office was present to their minds.
The allusions in the writings of the Apostolic fathers are for the most in the
part too general to build any inference upon. They all look upon them- Apostolic
selves as distinct from the Apostles1- Several of them include St Paul by fathers>
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 number2. More important however,
as showing the elasticity of the term, is a passage in Hernias, where he
represents the 'Apostles and teachers' under one head as forty in num
ber3, 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. At a very early date we find it applied to the Seventy, without ceeding
however placing them on the same level with the Twelve. This application e '
1 Clem. §42, Ignat. Rom. § 4, Po- 3 Hermas Sim. ix. 15, 16: comp.
lye. § 6, Barnab. §§ 5, 8, Ep. ad Diogn. Vis. iii. 5, Sim. ix. 25. The data with
§11. regard to the age of Hermas are (1) that
2 § 47. See above, note 2, p. 96. Eu- he was a contemporary of Clement ( Vis.
sebius, iii. 39, infers that Papias distin- ii. 4); and (2) that his work was written
guishedAristion and John the Presbyter, while his brother Pius was bishop of
who had been personal disciples of the Rome (circ. 140), Fragm. Murat. in
Lord, from the Apostles. This may be Eouth Rel. Soar. I. p. 396- He cannot
so ; but from his language as quoted it therefore have been the Hermas men-
can only be safely gathered that he dis- tioned by St Paul (Bom. xvi. 14), as
tinguished them from the Twelve. several ancient writers suppose.
7—2

100

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

still recog
nisingTwelve as
typical.

occurs even in Irenaeus and Tertullian1, the earliest extant writers who
dwell on this or kindred subjects. About the same time Clement of Alex
andria not only calls Barnabas an Apostle, but confers the title on Clement
of Rome also2. Philip the Evangelist is so styled by many early writers ;
but in some instances at least he has been confused with Philip, one of the
Twelve3. Origen discusses the term as capable of a very wide application4;
and Eusebius, accounting for St Paul's expression (i Cor. xv. 7), speaks of
'numberless apostles' besides the Twelve5.
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 Apostolate6 : for some of those, who hold
this language most strongly, elsewhere use the term Apostle in a very

1 Iren. n. 21. 1; Tertull. adv. Marc.
IV. 24, 'Adlegit et alios septuaginta
apostolos super duodecim,' referring for
an illustration of the numbers to Exod.
xv. 2 7, ' And they came to Elim, where
were twelve wells of water, and three
score and ten palm-trees.' See also
Origen quoted above, p. 96. In the
Gospel the Seventy are not indeed called
'Apostles,' but the verb diroq riXXeiv is
applied to them, and they are spoken of
as 'seventy others' (Luke x. 1), in re
ference to the mission of the Twelve.
In the Ancient Syriac Documents, edited
by Cureton, this extension is distinctly
and repeatedly given to the term ; e. g.
p. 3, 'Thaddseus the Apostle one of the
Seventy;' p. 34, 'Addaeus the Apostle
one of the seventy-two Apostles.'
2 For Barnabas see Strom. II. p.
445, 447 (ed. Potter) ; for Clement of
Bome, Strom. IV. p. 609. Elsewhere
Clement calls Barnabas d7ro<rroXiK(5s,
adding that he was one of the Seventy,
Strom. 11. p. 489.
3 Even Papias, who had conversed
with his daughters, speaks of him as
Philip the Apostle, if Eusebius (ill. 39)
is quoting his exact words, which how-
' ever is very doubtful. In the Apost.
Const, (vi. 7) he is called QlXiwiros b
o-warrbaToXos rjpwv. Polycrates (Euseb.
III. 31) clearly mistakes and calls him
one of the Twelve. See the note of
Cotelier on the Apost. Const. 1. c.
4 Origen in Joann. Tom. iv. p. 430,
ed. Delarue.
6 H. E. I. 12. EW lbs irapa robrovs,
Kara, plpijaiv rav S&SeKa TXelartov otruv
birap^avrwv airoarbXav, olos Kal avrbs
b fiaGXot rjv, irpoarWijai Xiyuv "Eireira

atpdn rois diroaroXots irdai. 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.
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-
seh. in Is. xvii. 6, and Hieron. in Is.
T. 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 Becognitions
alone seem to restrict the number to
twelve. This restriction served the
purpose of the writers, enabling them
to exclude St Paul. At the same time
the exclusion of St James is compen
sated by assigning to him the title of
' bishop of bishops.'
6 Barnab. § 8, referred to above, p. ¦
95, note 1 : Justin, Dial. p. 260 0 : comp.
Apol. I. p. 78 a, 07rd yap 'lepovaaXrjp
ivSpes SeKaSbo rov dpiBpbv e^fjXBov els rov
Kbcrpov: Iren. iv. 21. 3, 'dodecastylum
firmamentum Ecclesias,' ib. Fragm. p.
843'(Stieren): Tertull. adv. Marc. 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. ap. Clem. Alex. p. 975
(Potter). In Clem. Horn. 11. 23 the
Apostles are compared to the twelve
months of the year: comp. Clem.
Recogn. rv. 35, 36.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. IOI
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.
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.

102

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[II. i, 2

II. 1''E7reiTa Bid BeKaTeo-o~dpwv iTcov 7raXiv dvefiqv
els 'lepoa-oXv/ma yuera Bapvdfia, o-W7rapaXa(3wv Kal 17-
tov 3dve(3r]v Be KaTa a7roKaXv^riv, Kal dve6e[xr]v avTols

II. i, 2. ' An interval of fourteen
years elapsed. During the whole of
this time I had no intercourse with
the Apostles of the Circumcision.
Then I paid another visit to Jerusa
lem. My companion was Barnabas,
who has laboured so zealously among
the 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.1
Sid beKareaadpav irdv] 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: (i) The
stress of the argument lies on the
length of the interval during which he
had held no communication with the
Judaic Apostles ; and (2) Individual
expressions in the passage tend the
same way: the use of Sid S. irdv, in
preference to perd b. errj, 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 irdXiv dvejirjv, 'again
I went up,' refer us back to the former
visit, as the date from which the time
is reckoned. As the later visit (sup
posing it to be the same with that of
Acts xv.) is calculated independently
to have taken place about a.d. 51, the
date of the first visit will according
to this view be thrown back to about
a.d. 38, and that of the conversion
to about a.d. 36, the Jewish mode
of reckoning being adopted. For Sid,
' after the lapse of,' see Acts xxiv. 17,
and Winer, § xlvii. p. 398.
Kal TiW] Titus is included in the
' certain others' of Acts xv. 2, and is
specially named here on account of

the dispute to which he gave rise (ver,
3). He was sent from Antioch with
others whose names are not mention
ed, probably as a representative of
the Gentile Christians; just as on the
return of the mission the Apostles of
the Circumcision sent back Judas and
Silas to represent the Jewish believers,
Acts xv. 27. The incident would pre
sent itself all the more vividly to St
Paul's mind, inasmuch as Titus was
much in his thoughts, if not actually
in his company, at the time when this
epistle was written. See 2 Cor. ii. 13,
vii. 6, 13 — 15, viii. 16,23, xii. 18.
Kurd diroKdXvyjfiv] ' 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. 1 24.
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.'
dveBeprjv] The middle dvariBeaBai
has the sense 'to relate with a view
to consulting,' 'to refer,' as 2 Mace. iii.
9 ; see also Acts xxv. 14, ra /3a<riXei
aveBero rd Kara tov TlavXov, 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 Oil irpoaavariBeaBai, i. 16,
ii. 6.

II. 2]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

103

to evayyeXiov o Kripvo-a-w iv rots edveariv, KaT IBlav
Be toTs Bokovo-iv, \xr\ 7rws els Kevov Tjoe^to fj eBpafxov.

0 Knpvaaa] 'I preach,' not eKrjpva-
aov, ' I preached,' for his Gospel had
not changed. See the note on oi)k eo-ne,
i. 11. xar Ibiav Se rois SokoCo-iv] 'but in
private to those of repute' The fore
going au'rois is best referred to the
Christians of Jerusalem generally, as
implied from 'lepoaoXvpa (ver. 1). If so,
this clause, which follows, is inserted
not to exclude a public conference, but
to emphasize his private consultations.
These private communications pro
bably preceded the general congress,
which occupies the prominent place
in St Luke's narrative (Acts xv. 6 sqq.)
and seem 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.
rois boKovaiv] 'the men of repute, of
position! See Eur. Hec. 294 Xdyos
ydp eK r dbo^ovvrav lav kok rcwi/ boKovv-
rav, with Pflugk's note ; Heracl. 897
evrvxiav ibea&ai rdv irapos ov boKovvrav,
Herodian vi. 1 rrjs o-uyKX7jrov /3ov\fjs
robs boKovvras Kal rjXiKia aepvordrovs
k. t. X. 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 boKovvres, (2) to
the addition of otvXoi elvai, elvai n, 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 disparage
ment is relative, not absolute; a ne
gation 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 rois boKovaiv see the
note on ver. 6.
prjiras els Kevbv rpexa k. r. X.] ' lest I
might be running or had run to no
purpose.' The kindred passage 1 Thess.
1U. 5, prjiras eirelpaaev vpds 6 ireipd^av
Kal els Kevbv yevrjrai 6 kottos rjpdv,seem&
to show that rpexa is here the sub
junctive rather than the indicative, this
being moreover the more likely mood
iu itself. See the note there. The use
of the subjunctive (rpexa) here, rather
than the optative (rpexoipi), is in ac
cordance with the spirit of the later
Greek, which prefers the more direct
mode of speech in all such cases. In
the New Testament the optative seems
never to occur with particles of design
etc.; see Winer § xii. p. 304. In the
second clause the change of mood from
the subjunctive (rpexa) to the indica
tive (ebpapov) is rendered necessary
by the change of tense, since the conse
quences of the past were no longer
contingent but inevitable: comp. iv. 11.
rpexa] is a reference to St Paul's
favourite metaphor of the stadium ; see
v. 7 and the note there. For the ex
pression els Kevbv rpexeiv comp. Phil.
ii. 16, where, as here, it refers to his
missionary career.
But what is the drift of the passage ?
Is it a natural expression of misgiving
on the part of St Paul, who was not
altogether satisfied with the soundness
of his teaching, until he had consulted
with the Apostles of the Circumcision 1
So Tertullian takes it, adv.MarcA. 20,
v. 3, and esp. iv. 2. This is perhaps
the prima facie sense of the passage,
slightly favoured by ovbev irpoaave-
Bevro, ver. 6. But on the other hand
such an admission would be so entirely

104

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[II- 3

3 dXX' ovBe Titos 6 <rvv ifxol "EXXrjv wv Tr]vayKdar6r\

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 (prjiras) 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 1 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,' i.e. the liberty of
the Gentile Christians, which it was
most calculated to compromise. In
order to maintain that view, it is ne
cessary to lay undue stress on the
words rjvayKaaBrj and rfj virorayrj, which
from their position seem quite unem-
phatic : as if the former signified that
the circumcision of Titus was an act of
grace, not of compulsion ; andthelatter,
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 ols ovbe in
ver. 5) most unfavourable to this con
clusion. See p. 121.
St Paul is here indirectly meeting a
charge brought against him. Shortly
before he visited Galatia the first time,
he had caused Timothy to be circum
cised (Acts xvi. 3). This fact, which
can scarcely have been unknown to
the Galatians, for Timothy accompa
nied him on his visit, may have afforded
a handle to the calumnies of his ene
mies. There was a time, they said

II. 4]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

105

TrepiTfxriQrivav *Bid Be tovs Trapeia-aKTOvs ^evBaBeX-

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 associated 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. ovbe Tiros] 'not even Titus'
Why ' not even' 1 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 d avv
ipol 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. "'E.XXrjv av] ' being a Greek; perhaps
giving the reason why the point was

not conceded. There seems to be a
tacit allusion to the case of Timothy.
' You maintain,' St Paul seems to ar
gue, 'that I allowed the validity of
the Mosaic law in circumcisingTimothy
(Acts xvi. 1, 3). But Timothy was half
of Jewish parentage. How did I act
in the case of Titus, a true Gentile?
I did not yield for a moment.'
In"EXX)ji/ all idea of nationality is
lost: comp. Mark vii. 26 'EXX^ids 2u-
poCpoiviKiaaa (or 'S.ipa QoiviKtaaa) r<3
ye'i/ei. Thus the Peshito sacrificing
the letter to the spirit frequently
translates "eXXjjz/ ' an Aramaean,' e. g.
here and iii. 28.
rjvayKaaBrj] ' was compelled,' though
the pressure was extreme. This pres
sure doubtless came from the more
bigoted Judaizers, the converted Pha
risees mentioned Acts xv. 5.
4. What part was taken in the dis
pute by the Apostles of the Circum
cision? This question, which forces
itself upon us at this stage of St
Paul's narrative, is not easily answer
ed On the whole it seems probable
that they recommended St Paul to
yield the point, as a charitable con
cession to the prejudices of the Jew
ish converts : but convinced at length
by his representations, that such a
concession at such a time would be
fatal, they withdrew their counsel
and gave him their support. Such
an account of the transaction seems
to accord alike with the known facts
and with the probabilities of the case.
It is consistent with the timid con
duct of Peter at Antioch shortly after
(Gal. ii. 11), and with the politic ad
vice of James at a later date (Acts
xxi. 20). It was the natural conse
quence of their position, which led
them to regard tenderly the scruples
of the Jewish converts. It supplies
probable antecedents to the events of
the Apostolic congress. And lastly,
it best explains St Paul's language
here. The sensible undercurrent of

io6

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[II. S

<j)ovs, o'lTives 7rapeia-fjX0ov KaTao-K07rijo-ai Tt\v iXevdepiav
tj/ncov, fjv exofxev iv Xpio-Tia 'Iria-ov, 'iva rifxas KaTaBouXu-
o~ovo~iv, sols ovBe 7rpos wpav ei^afxev Trj virOTayr], 'iva

feeling, the broken grammar of the
sentence, the obvious tenour of parti
cular phrases, all convey the impres
sion, that though the final victory
was complete, it was not attained
without a struggle, in which St Paul
maintained at one time almost single-
handed the cause of Gentile freedom.
Sid be tovs irapetaaKrovs K.r.X.] ' But
to satisfy, to disarm, the false bre
thren, the traitorous spies of the Gos
pel ' — At this point the connexion of
the sentence is snapped, and we are
left to conjecture as to the conclusion.
It seems as if St Paul intended to
add, ' the leading Apostles urged me
to yield.' But instead of this a long
parenthesis interposes, in the course
of which the main proposition of the
sentence is lost sight of. It is again
resumed in a different form, 'from
those then who were held in repute,'
ver. 6. Then again it disappears in
another parenthesis. Once more it is
taken up and completed, transformed
by this time into a general statement,
' well, they of reputation added no
thing to me in conference.' The
counsels of the Apostles of the Cir
cumcision are the hidden rock on
which the grammar of the sentence
is wrecked. For Sid robs irap. ijrevb.
compare Acts xvi. 3 irepierepev avrov
bid robs 'lovbalovs.
Of other possible explanations two
deserve to be considered; (1) That
there is an ellipsis of ovk rjvayKaaBrj
irepirprjBrjvai Or ov irepierprjBrj after Sid
robs irapeia. tyevbab. So Fritzsche,
Opusc. p. 181. (2) That the paren
thesis flows back into the main pro
position, so that the regular construc
tion would have been Sid robs irapeia.
ijrevbab. ovbe irpbs dpav ei£apev, the ofs
being redundant. See the note, ver. 6.
So Winer, § lxiii. p. 590, 591. But as

Titus would not have been circum
cised under any circumstances, the
refusal to yield could scarcely be at
tributed to the pressure from the
false brethren. If either of these
explanations were adopted, St Paul's
meaning must be : 'To the scruples
of the weaker brethren I would have
conceded the point, but the teaching
of the false brethren made conces
sion impossible.' So in fact Augus
tine takes it, de mendac. § 8 (vr.
p. 424, ed. Ben.).
irapeiaaKrovs, irapetarjXBov] The me
taphor is that of spies or traitors in
troducing themselves by stealth into
the enemy's camp, as in Jude 4 jrap-
eiaebvaav ydp rives avBpairoi. See
Plut. Popl. 17 iirifiovXevav be rov
Tlopalvav dveXeiv irapeiarjXBev els to
arparoirebov, Polyb. i. 7. 3, ii. 55. 3.
For irapeiadyeiv see 2 Pet. ii. 1. The
adjective occurs in Strabo, xvii. p.
794 irapeiaaKTOs iiriKXrjBels UroXepaios.
The camp thus stealthily entered is
the Christian Church. Pharisees at
heart, these traitors assume the name
and garb of believers.
Karao-K07rijcrai] ' to act as spies on.'
KaraaKoireiv generally signifies ' to ex
amine carefully,' the form KaraaKo-
ireveiv 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.
KaraSoi/XoSo-ouo'ij'] ' reduce to abject
slavery.' The reading of the received
text, KaraSouXwo-oji/rat, is a correction
of some classicist, introduced for two
reasons: (1) To substitute the middle
voice, which is more common in clas
sical writers ; the transcriber not see
ing that the sense here requires the
active; 'enslave not to themselves.
but to an external power, the law of

II. 6]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

107

r\ dXrjdeia tov evayyeXiov Biafxeivrt irpos uyuaV 6a7ro
06 twv Bokovvtcov eivai ti' oiroloi iroTe rj&av, ovBev

Moses.' (2) To restore the usual
classical government of tva 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, § xii.
p. 304. This, though not a classical
usage, is justified by similar construc
tions of oiras, 8<ppa, in classical wri
ters. 5. ofs ovSe' K.r.X.] ' 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 01s
obbe in some texts see the detached
note, p. 120.
rfj virorayfj] ' by the submission which
was required of us,' or possibly ' the
submission with which We are taunted,'
as in 2 Cor. i. 17 prjn apa rfj iXacppia.
ixprjadprjv ;
r) dXrjBeia tov euayyeXi'ou] ' 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.
biapeivrj irpbs vpas] ' 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. ' The elder Apostles, I say, who
are so highly esteemed, whose author
ity 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 esteemed lead

ers taught me nothing new ; they had
no fault to find with me. On the con
trary, they received me as their equal,
they recognised my mission.'
Much force is lost in the A. V. by
translating ol boKovvres 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.
twv boKovvrav elvai rt] ' those who
are looked up to as authorities.' The
expression is sometimes used in a de
preciatory way, as in Plat. Apol. 41 e
iav boK&ai n eivai prjbev ovres, Euthyd.
303 0 r<3j< iroXXav avBpdirav Kal rav
aepvdv br) Kal boKovvrav n eivai ovbev
vpiv pekei, Gorg. 472 A eviore yap av
Kal KaratyevbopaprvpTjBeirj ris virb iroX-
Xdv Kal boKovvrav elvai n, and passages
from later writers quoted in Wetstein :
comp. Gal. vi. 3, el yap boKei ns eivai n
pribev av, and Ignat. Pol. 3 (Syr.). 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 01 virepXlav diroaroXoi of 2 Cor. xi. 5,
xii. 11.
biroioi irore rjaav] Does dmnoi irore
here mean ' qualescunque,' or has irore
its proper temporal sense 'in times

io8

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[H-7,8

jj-oi Biacpepei, 7rp6(TWKOV Qeos dvdpco7rov ov Xafx^aver
ifxol yap ol Bokovvtcs ovBev rrpoa-avedevTO, 7 dXXa
TovvavTiov IBovtcs oti 7re7rio-Tevjuai to evayyeXiov
Ttjs aKpofivcrTias Kadws YleTpos Trjs 7repiTO/j.fjs, 8 6 yap

past' ? In a classical writer we should
decide for the former: in St Paul the
latter seems more probable, as wore
never occurs with the meaning ' cun-
que' in the New Testament, and ac
cordingly it is rendered in the Latin
versions 'aliquando.' This decides
the import of the whole phrase. It
does not mean ' what reputation they
enjoyed,' but ' what was their posi
tion, what were their advantages in
former times,' referring to their per
sonal intercourse with the Lord. The
'knowing Christ after the flesh' (2 Cor.
v. 16) is in itself valueless in the
sight of God. The same reproach is
conveyed by the words here, as in
2 Cor. X. 7 rd Kard 7rpdo"G)7roi' j3Xeirere.
irpoaairov Xapfidveiv] A translation
of the Hebrew D»3D NC3 which signi
fies properly 'to accept the face'
(Gesenius Thes. p. 916, s.v. HBO), or
perhaps better ' to raise the face' of
another (opposed to D'JQ ^BH '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
irpoaairov as ' a mask,' SO that irpoaa
irov Xapfidveiv 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,
7rpoo-G)7roX rjpirrris, irpoaairoXrjpirreivfitc. '
which appear to occur there for the
first time.

Geds dvBpdirov] The natural order is
altered for two reasons; (1) To give
Geds an emphatic position, and (2) To
keep the contrasted words Geds dv
Bpdirov together.
ipol ydp k.t.X.] The sentence, which
was begun in dirb be rav boKovvrav
elvai n 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
ydp may be attached to arroiol irore
r^jaav ovbev pot bioxpepei, the paren
thesis running back into the main pro
position of the sentence, 'whatever
position they once held makes no
matter to me ; for to me they com
municated nothing': Winer § lxiii.
p. 590. But the interposition of the
words irpoa. G. dvBp. ov Xap/3. is an
objection to this construction.
irpoaaveBevro] ' communicated,' see
the note on i. 16. YlpoaavariBeaBai is
' to communicate, to impart,' whether
for the purpose of giving or of obtain
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 defec
tive or incorrect in my teaching; but
on the contrary, they heartily recog
nised my mission.'
7. ireirlarevpai to 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 iiriarevBrjaav rd Xdyia roS
GeoO. ro evayy. rrjs aKpofivarias] denotes
a distinction of sphere and not a
difference of type: see Tertull. Prcescr.

II. 9]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

109

ivepyna-as HeTpa) els diroo-ToX^v ttjs TrepiTOjmrjs ivrjpyr}-
o-ev Kai ifxol els tol edvrj, 9 Kal yvovTes Tt)v x^9lv T*lv
BodeTo-dv fj.01, 'laKwfios Kal Kqcpas Kal 'Iwdvvtis, ol
Bokovvtcs o-tvXoi elvai, Bellas eBwKav ifxol Kal Bapvdfia

Haer. 23 'Inter se distributionem
officii ordinaverunt, non separationem
evangelii, nee ut aliud alter sed ut
aliis alter preedicarent.'
8. d ivepyrjaas nerpia] 'He that
worked for Peter.' For the omis
sion of d Geds comp. i. 6, 15: for ivep
yeiv see the note on 1 Thess. ii. 13.
The dative Tlerpa ought probably to be
translated 'for Peter,' not 'in Peter;'
Comp. Prov. XXXi. 12 evepyei yap r<3
dvbpl (yvvr) dvbpeia) els dyaBd irdvra rov
/3iW As ivepyeiv is an inseparable
compound, it is doubtful whether the
preposition could govern Uerpa, and
accordingly the construction elsewhere
is ivepyeiv ev tivi. Comp. Acta Paul.
et Thecl. § 4° °' yap aol avvepyrjaas
els rb evayyeXiov xdpol avvrjpyrjaev els
to XovaaaBai.
9. Of the two words iSdvres and
yvbvres, 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.
'laKafios Kal TZrjfpds Kal 'ladvvrjs] The
best supported and doubtless the right
reading. The variation ne'rpos Kal
'laKafios Kal 'ladvvrjs 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, wbile 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 Alphaeus

though an Apostle not holdingany very
prominent rank. Secondly. The re
lative positions here assigned to Peter
and James accord exactly with the
account in the Acts. When St Paul
is speaking of the missionary office of
the Church at large, St Peter holds
the foremost place (ver. 7, 8) : when
he refers to a special act of the Church
of Jerusalem, St James is mentioned
first (ver. 9). See Acts xii. 17, xv. 13,
xxi. 18.
arvXoi] 'pillars.' A natural meta
phor occurring now and then in clas
sical writers (e.g. Eur. Iph. T. 57
arvKoi yap oikwv elal iraibes clpaeves,
and jEsch. Agam. 897), but commonly
used by the Jews in speaking of the
great teachers of the law. See the ex
amples given in Schottgen : comp.
Clem. Horn, xviii. 14 eVrd omJXovs
virdp£avras Koapa, said of the patri
archs. So in Clem. Rom. § 5 the Apo
stles Peter and Paul are called ol [koX-
Xi]o"roi Kal biKaioraroi arvXou In this
metaphor the Church is regarded as
the house or temple of God ; as Rev.
iii. 12 7roi7;o"o> avrov arvXov iv rd vaa
tov GeoO pov : comp. 1 Tim. iii. 15. The
accent of ortiXos is doubtful. On the
one hand the v is universally long in
poetry even of a late date (see Rost
u. Palm, Griech. Worterb. s. v., and
comp. Orac. Sib. iii. 250, 251). On
the other, the authority of the oldest
accents in the mss, and the quantity
of the Latin 'stylus,' are in favour of
oriJXos. The latter not improbably
represents the common pronunciation
of the Apostolic, age. See Lipsius
Gramm. Unters. p. 43.
Se£ids e'S<»Kay] 'gave pledges.' The
outward gesture is lost sight of in this
expression, as appears from the fact
that the plural Se|ids Sowai, 8e£ids

110

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[II. 10

Koivcavlas, 'iva rjfJieTs els Ta edvrj, avTol Be els Tt\v irepi-
TOfxriv' IO fxovov twv TTTuy^wv 'iva fxvrj/uiovevco^ev, 6 Kai
io~irovBa(ra avTO tovto iroir\a'ai.

Xapfidvew, is often used of a single
person ; I Mace. xi. 50, 62, xiii. 50.
As a symbol of contract or friendship
this does not appear prominently in
the Old Testament, (Esr. x. 19, and
perhaps 2 Kings x. 15 ; see below on
Koivavias), 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 e'trn Se t} irians avrrj |3e-
fiaiordrrj irapd roisHepaais, comp. Jus
tin, xi. 15. 13); and from Persian in
fluence the symbol and the phrase may
have become more common among
the Jews. Even Josephus (Ant. xviii.
9. 3) speaks of this not as a Jewish
practice, but as peyiarov irapd irdai
rois eKeivrj f$ap(3dpois irapdbeiypa rov
Bapaetv rois opiXovaiv, 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 Se-
£ids Trapd fiaaiXews <pepovres, Ages. 3.
4 ; comp. Tacit. Hist. i. 54, ii. 8.
Koii/mj/ias] 'of fellowship,' not a su
perfluous addition, for 'to give the
hand' (T \T\2) 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. Thes. p. 566.
iva rjpeis] 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 Judasa. Inde
pendently of their request, it was my
own earnest desire.'
pbvov] 'only they asked us': comp.
Ignat. Som. 5 povov iva 'Irjaov Xpiarov
iirirvxa. For similar instances of an
ellipsis after pbvov, see vi. 12, 2 Thess.
ii. 7 pbvov 6 Karexav apn eas iK peaov
yevrjrai. The latter passage presents
an exact parallel also in the derange
ment of the order for the sake of em
phasis. Two occasions are recorded, on which
St Paul was the bearer of alms from
the Gentile converts to the poor of
Jerusalem ; (1) on his second journey
to Jerusalem, Acts xi. 29, 30, some
years before the interview of which he
is speaking ; and (2) on his fifth and
last journey, Rom. xv. 26, 27, 1 Cor.
xvi. 3, 2 Cor. ix. 1 sq., Acts xxiv. 17,
shortly after this letter was written.
These facts throw light on the incident
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.
o Kal iairovbaaa k. t. X.] '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. 3. See the
introduction, pp. 25, 55.
The transition from the plural (pvrj-
povevapev) to the singular (eWov8ao-a)
is significant. Before St Paul had any
opportunity of fulfilling this request,
he had parted from Barnabas ; Acts
xv. 39.
atird roiiro] is best taken in apposi-

II. II, 12]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

in

11 ' Ore Be r)Xdev Kt]<pas els 'AvTioxeiav, KaTa. Trpoar-
wirov avTta dvTecrTnv, oti KaTeyvioo-jnevos r\v. ™wpo
tov ydp iXdelv Tivds diro 'laKtopiov fxeTa twv idvwv

tion with o, see Winer § xxiii. p. 161 ;
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. 1 7, i Pet. ii. 24.
11. 'At Jerusalem, I owed nothing
to the Apostles of the Circumcision.
I maintained my independence and
my equality. At Antioch, I was more
than an equal. The leading Apostle
of the Circumcision betrayed the
cause of the Gentiles by his inconsis
tency. He timidly yielded to pressure
from the ritualists. The rest were
carried away by his example. Even
Barnabas, my colleague, the friend
and Apostle of the Gentiles, went
astray. Alone I stood up in defence
of the liberty of the Gospel. This
was not done in a corner. The whole
Church of Antioch is my witness.'
"Ore Se'] This occurred probably
during the sojourn of Paul and Barna
bas at Antioch, immediately after the
Apostolic congress (Acts xv. 30 — -40).
The inconsistency which St Peter thus
appears to have shown so soon after
his championship of Gentile liberty
at the congress, is rather in favour of
than against this view ; for the point
of St Paul's rebuke is his inconsis
tency. 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). Je
rome (ad loc.) states still more defi
nitely that he was bishop of this
see first, whence he was translated to
Rome. See also Euseb. H. E. iii. 22,
36, Chrysost. Op. in. p. 70, ed. Ben.
KareywooTieVos] not 'reprehensible,'
but 'condemned.' His conduct carried
its own condemnation with it, as St
Paul shows w. 1 5 sqq. : comp. Rom.
XIV. 23 d biaKpivbpevos, iav qbdyn, Ka-
raKeKpirai, Joh. iii. l8 6 pr) iriarevav
rjbrj KeKpirai, Barnab. 10 KeKpipevoi rjbrj
ra Bavdnp. The condemnation spoken
of 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 is represented saying to Si
mon Magus (whose name is used as a
mask for St Paul), 'Thou hast with
stood me to the face.... If thou callest
me condemned, thou accusest God
who revealed Christ to me.' See the
whole passage Clem. Horn. xvii. 19:
comp. p. 61, and the notes on ii. 13,
iv. 16, 24.
12. ekBeiv nvds dirb'laKafiov]' 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, nves e£ rjpdv i£eX6bvres irdpa£av
vpds...ols ov bieareikdpeBa, and XV. I
rives KareXfldvres dirb rrjs 'IouSaias. The
terms, on which St James stood with
believers of this stamp may be ga
thered from his language in Acts xxi.
20 sq.
awrjaBiev] The Judaizers who trou-

112

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[II- 13

(rvvrio'diev' ore Be r)Xdov, vireo'TeXXev Kai d(pwpi^ev
eavTov, (pofiov/mevos tovs e/c TrepiTOfxrjs, I3 Kai o~vvv7r-
eKpldrjO'av avTw [Kal] ol Xonrol 'lovBalot, wtTTe Kal

12. Sre Se rjXBev.

bled the Church at this time are de
scribed, Acts xv. 5, as converts be
longing to the sect of the Pharisees.
The prohibition against eating meat
with the impure was one of the lead
ing principles of this sect, Luke xv. 2.
As the agape was the recognised bond
of brotherhood in the' infant Church,
this separation struck at the very root
of Christian hfe. 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 iBviKas. And when
in this instance he separated himself
from the Gentiles, he practically dis
sembled his convictions.
ore be tfXBov] 'but when they came!
The reading r]XBev yields no good
sense, whether we refer it to St
James with Origen (c. Cels- ii. 1 eX-
Bovtos 'laKwfiov) or to St Peter with
other writers. I have given it a place
nevertheless, as an alternative read
ing, on account of the weight ot 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 e'lnsairXdy-
X«a Kal o'tKrippoi. Such readings are
a valuable testimony to the scrupulous
exactness of the older transcribers,
who thus reproduced the text as they
found it, even when clearly incorrect.
In this passage the occurrence of the
same words ore Se jfXe'ei/, ver. 11, is
the probable cause of the mistake.
lOTeoreXXei/ Kal d(pdpi£ev] 'gradually
withdrew and separated himself!
Both verbs govern eavrov. compare
Polyb. vii. 17. I tWoTeiXav eavrods

virb nva irpanreirraKviav dq^pvv. The
words describe forcibly the cautious
withdrawal of a timid., person who
shrinks from observation, vrreareXXev
denoting the partial, d<pdpi£ev the
complete and final separation. The
word wroo-re'XXeii' is frequently used,
as in the passage quoted, in describ
ing strategical operations ; and so far
as it is metaphorical here, the me
taphor seems to be derived from
military rather than from nautical
matters. Comp. arekXeaBai, 2 Thess.
iii. 6.
rods ix irepiropfjs] not 'Jews' but
'converts from Judaism,' for this
seems to be the force of the prepo
sition : Acts x. 45, xi. 2, Col. iv. 1 1,
Tit. i. 10.
13. 01 Xonrol 'IovSaioi] i e. the rest
of the Jewish converts resident at
Antioch, who, like St Peter, had
mixed freely with the Gentiles until
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 vn-oKpio-is, 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 viroKpiais is not
a false motive entertained, but a false
impression produced. The writer of
the epistle prefixed to the Clemen
tines, doubtless alluding to this pas
sage, speaks of some who misrepre
sented Peter, as though he believed
that the law was abolished, 'but did
not preach it openly'; Ep. Petr. § 2.
See on ver. 11.
Kal Bapvdj3as] 'even Barnabas my
own friend and colleague, who so
lately had gone up to protect the in-

II. 14]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

H3

Bapvafias o~vvairr\-)(Qt] avTwv tt) vTTOKpia-ei. I4 dXX'
ore eiBov oti ovk 6pdo7roBovo-tv 7rpos ty\v uXrjdeiav tov
evayyeXiov, e'nrov tw Kr](j)a 't/j.7rpoo-8ev TrdvTtov Et o~v

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. ro he commends Mark to the Co-
lossian Church, as being the cousin of
Barnabas. avvairrjxBrj avrdv rfj viroKplaei] ' was
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. 1 7 iva pr) rfj rav dBea-
pav irXdvrj avvairaxBevres eKirearjre
k.t.X., Zosimus Hist.V. 6 Kal avrr) be rj
2Trdprrj avvairrjyero rfj KOivfj rrjs EXXa-
Sos dX&So-ei. 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. ovk bpBoirobovaiv irpbs k. t. X.]
i.e. 'they diverge from the straight
path of the Gospel truth.' The word
dp6Wo8eu> appears not to occur else
where, except in later ecclesiastical
writers where its use may be traced to
this passage of St Faul. Its classical
equivalent is eiioWopei!/. The prepo
sition irpbs here denotes not the goal to
GAL.

be attained, but the line of direction to
be observed. : see Winer § xlix. p. 424.
For r] dXrjBeia rov edayyeXi'ou see the
note on ii. 5.
elirov] Were all the concluding
verses of the chapter actually spoken
by St Paul at the time, or is he add
ing a comment while narrating the
incident afterwards to the Galatians ;
and if so, where does the text cease and
the comment begin ? To this question
it seems impossible to give a defi
nite answer. St Paul's narrative in
fact loses itself in the reflexions sug
gested by it. Text and comment are so
blended together that they cannot be
separated without violence. The use
of the word dpapraXoi, 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.
'iouSaios virdpxav] almost equiva
lent to (pvaei 'lovbaioi below ; see i..
14. In such cases virdpxav implies a
contrast between the original and the
after state, e.g. in Phil. ii. 6. Here it
is very emphatic; 'If you, born and
bred a Jew, discard Jewish customs,
how unreasonable to impose them on
Gentiles.' iBvtKds Cijs] i.e. mix freely with

ii4

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[II. is, 16

'lovBaTos virdpxav edviKoos Kal ovx 'lovBa'iKws Zrjs, ttws
Ta edvn dvayKateis 'lovBaiQiv ; isrjpe7s <pvo~ei 'lovBaToi
Kal ovk e£ idvwv dfxapTwXoi, l6eiBoTes Be oti ov BiKai-

ovTai avvpwTTOs e

epywv vo/Jiov, idv [x.r\ B,

ta 7ricrTews

16. Sid irlareas Xpiarov 'Iijaov.

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 Cossarea (Acts x. 28), and
just lately at Antioch (ver. 12), though
at the exact moment when St Paul
was speaking, he was living 'IouSoikws
and not iBviKas.
ovx 'lovba'iKds] The best mss agree
in reading the aspirated form ovx-
For other examples of anomalous as
pirates in the Greek Testament see
Winer § v. p. 57, and comp. the note
on Phil. ii. 23 d<plba. In this parti
cular instance the aspirate may per
haps be accounted for by the yh with
which the Hebrew word (DHliT) re
presented by 'iouScuoi commences.
dvayKa£eis] i. e. practically oblige
them, though such was not his inten
tion. The force of his example, con
cealing his true principles, became a
species of compulsion.
'louSaZfeiv] 'to adopt Jewish cus
toms,' opposed to iBviKas £jjs which in
connexion with 'louSaios virdpxav is e-
quivalent to eXXrjvl£eis ; comp. Esth. viii.
17 kal ttoXXoi rav iBvdv irepierepovro
Kai 'iouSdi'fov bid rov (pbfiov r<»v 'lou8ai-
av, Plut. Fit. Cic. 7 evo^os rcS 'iouSai-
feiv. See the note on 'louSaiayids, i. 1 3.
15, 16. 'For take 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 was the only means of
justification. Therefore we turned
to a belief in Christ. Thus our Chris
tian profession is in itself an acknow
ledgment that such ritual observances
are worthless and void.'

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
Se of ver. 16, which is omitted in the
received text, is certainly genuine.
15. (pvaei 'IovSaioi] '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.
e'£ iBvdv] Not 'of Gentile de-
sceut,' but ' taken from, belonging to
the Gentiles' ; comp. Acts xv. 23.
dpaprwXoi] 'sinners.' The word
was almost a synonyme for eBvrj in
the religious phraseology of the Jews.
See 1 Mace. ii. 44, Clem. Horn. xi. 16
ourios as od^i 'Iou'Saios, apapraXos
k.t.X.; and compare Luke vi. 32, 33
with Matt. v. 47, and especially Matt.
xxvi. 45 with Luke xviii. 32. Here
dpapraXol is used in preference to
eBvrj not without a shade of irony, as
better enforcing St Paul's argument.
See the note on ver. 1 7.
16. idv pr/] retains its proper
meaning, but refers only to ou Swcai-
o€rai, ' He is not justified from works
of law, he is not justified except
through faith.' See the note on i. 19.
ko.1 j?Ve's] 'we ourselves,' notwith
standing our privileges of race. Com
pare Kai avroi, ver. 17.
iiriarevaapev] 'became believers!
See the note on 2 Thess. i. 10. The
phrase iriareveiv eis or em nva is pe
culiarly Christian ; see Winer § xxxi.
p. 226. The constructions of the
Lxx are 7rio-redeiv rivi, rarely iriareveiv
iirl rivi or ev rivi, and once only iirl
nva, Wisd. xii. 2 n-io-redeiv iirl Gedv.
The phrase, which occurs in the re-

II. i7]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

"5

'Irjo-ov XpicrTOv, Kal rjfxels els XpicrTov 'Iti&ovv iTrio~Tev-
o-afxev, 'iva BiKaiwdw/Jiev iK 7rio~Tecos XpiaTov Kal ovk
e£ epywv vofxov, oti e£ epywv vo/mdv o-f AikaicoGhcgtai
ttaca cApl. I7et Be ^rjTOvvTes BiKaicoOijvai iv Xpio-Tto

vised Nicene and other creeds, iri
areveiv els*KKXrjaiav, 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 iriareveiv els should
be reserved for belief in God or in
Christ. See the passages in Suicer
Thesaur. s.v. iriareveiv, and Pearson
On the Creed Art. ix.
e'K iriafeas Xpio-rov] 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
iKTriarews and Sid r^s iriarews. Both
prepositions are used elsewhere by
St Paul with biKaiovv, biKaioavvrj, in
differently ; though where very great
precision is aimed at, he seems for an
obvious reason to prefer Sid, as in
Ephes. ii. 8, 9, Phil. iii. 9 pr) i'xwv
iprjv biKaioavvrjv rrjv iK vbpov dXXd
rrjv bid iriarews Xpiarov k.t.X., which
words present an exact parallel to the
former part of this verse, ovk it- epywv
vbpov, idv pr) Sid iriarews 'lrjaov Xpi
arov. Faith is strictly speaking only
the means, not the source of justifi
cation. The one preposition (Sid)
excludes this latter notion, while the
other (ck) might imply it. Besides
these we meet also with iirl iriarei
(Phil. iii. 9), but never 8id irianv,
'propter fidem,' which would involve
a doctrinal error. Compare the care
ful language in the Latin of our Arti
cle xi, 'per fidem, non propter opera.'
on] is the best supported, and
doubtless the correct reading. The
reading of the received text Sidn has
probably been imported from the pa
rallel passage, Rom. iii. 20.
on e'£ epyoiv K.r.X.J A quotation

from the Old Testament, as appears
from the Hebraism ov irdaa, and
from the introductory on. 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 biKaiaBrjaerai
ivdiribv aov irds £wv. For 7rds £dv, a
very common Hebrew synonyme, TrSo-a
adpg (-iKO"i>3), is substituted by St
Paul. In Rom, iii. 20 the passage is
quoted in the same form as here. In
both instances St Paul adds e'g epyav
vbpov as a comment of his own, to de
scribe the condition of the people
whom the Psalmist addressed. In
the context of the passage in the Ro
mans (iii. 19) this comment is justified
by his explanation, that ' whatever is
stated in the law applies to those
under the law.'
For ov Trao-a see Winer § xxvi.
p. 1 84 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.' 1 7. Among a vast number of inter
pretations which have been given of
this verse, the following alone deserve
consideration. First; We may regard Xpiarbs
dpaprias biaKovos as a conclusion
8—2

n6

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[II. 1 8

evpedtj/uiev Kal avTol dfxapTioXo'i, apa Xpia-Tos dpapTias
Biukovos; /ut) yevoiTO- l8et ydp a KaTeXvcra TavTa

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 sin
ful, then Christ is made a minister of
sin.' In this case Spa 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: (i) 'To be justified in Christ it
is necessary to abandon the law,' and
(2) 'To abandon the law is to become
sinners'; and as we suppose one or
other of these attacked, we shall get
two distinct meanings for the 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 dpapraXoi ('sinners' from
a Jewish point of view), which it had
in ver. 15, and is more consistent with
the indicative evpeBrjpev, 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 Xpiords
dpaprias biaKovos as an illogical con
clusion deduced from premisses in
themselves correct; 'Seeing that in
order to be justified in Christ it was
necessary to abandon our old ground
of legal righteousness and to become
sinners (i.e. to put ourselves in the
position of the heathen), may it not be
argued that Christ is thus made a
minister of sin ?' This interpretation
best developes the subtle irony of
dpapraXoi; '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 evpeBrjpev, and with St Paul's
usage of pr) yevoiro 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
Sid vbpov vbpa aireBavov which follow.
In this case ipa is to be preferred to
d'pa, because it at once introduces the
inference as a questionable one. It
may be added also in favour of dpa,
that elsewhere pr) ye'voiro follows an
interrogation. TApa expresses bewil
derment as to a possible conclusion.
Any attempt further to define its
meaning seems not to be justified
either by the context here, or by its
usage elsewhere. *Apa hesitates, while
apa concludes.
evpeBrjpev] involves more or less
prominently the idea oi a. surprise:
comp. Rom. vii. 10, 2 Cor. xi. 12, xii.
20. Its frequent use however must
be traced to the influence of the Ara
maic dialect: see Cureton Corp. Ign.
P- 27T- , , .
dpaprias biaKovos] while yet He is
biKaioavvrjs biaKovos, thus making a
direct contradiction in terms.

II. 19, 20]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

117

TraXiv oiKoBofj.00, TrapafiaTriv i/mavTov arvvia-Tavw I9iyw
ydp Bid vopov vo/jko diredavov, 'iva QetS tyo-co- ^Xpio-Tta

pr) yevoiro] 'Nay, verily,' 'Away with
the thought.' This is one out of
several lxx renderings of the Hebrew
rb'hn Cad profana' and so ' absit,' see
Gesenius Thes. p. 478). Another ren
dering of the same is TXeas (sc. d Geds)
which occurs Matt. xvi. 22 iXecas 0-01
Kvpie, 'far be it from thee, Lord ;' see
Glass. Phil. Sacr. p. 538. Mr) yevoiro
is not however confined to Jewish
and Christian writings, but is frequent
for instance in Arrian; see Raphel
Annot. Rom. iii. 4.
18. 'If after destroying the old
law of ordinances, I attempt to build
it up again, I condemn myself, I tes
tify to my guilt in the work of de
struction.' The pulling down and
building up have reference doubtless
to the Mosaic law, though expressed
as a general maxim (ravra). The dif
ficulty however is to trace the con
nexion involved in ydp.
With the interpretation of ver. 17
adopted above, it seems simplest to
attach ydp to pr) yevoiro, ' Nay verily,
for, so far from Christ being a minis
ter of sin, there is no sin at all in
abandoning the law : it is only con
verted into a sin by returning to the
law again.' For this use of ydp after
pr) yevoiro comp. Rom. ix. 14, 1 5, xi. 1.
irapafiaTrjv ipavrbv avviardva] I
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 dpapraXbs. Having passed
on from this to dpapria, St Paul at
length throws off the studied ambi
guity of dpaprwXbs ('a non-observer of
the law,' and ' a sinner') by substitut
ing the plain term irapafidrrjs.
ipavrbv avviardva is opposed to
Xpiords dpaprias biaKovos, though from
its position ipavrbv cannot be very
emphatic. avviardva] ' I prove,' like avpfitpd-

fa, as Rom. iii. 5, v. 8 ; comp. 2 Cor.
iii. 1.
19. Establishing the statement of
the foregoing verse: 'For in aban
doning the law, I did but follow the
leading of the law itself.'
iyd] 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 ey<a is
explained by the following verse, f<5
be ovKe'ri iyd k.t.X.
bid vbpov vbpa direBavov] 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 n-aiSayayds els
Xpiarbv. We may regard
i. Its economical purpose. ' The
law bore on its face the marks of its
transitory character. Its prophecies
foretold Christ. Its sacrifices and
other typical rites foreshadowed
Christ. It was therefore an act of
obedience to the law, when Christ
came, to take Him as my master in
place of the law.' This interpretation
however, though quite in character
with St Paul's teaching elsewhere, does
not suit the present passage; For (1)
The written law — the Old Testament
— is always d vbpos. At least it seems
never to be quoted otherwise. Nducs
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

u8

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[lb J*

o-vvea-Tavpcuiuai' £w Be ovkcti iyw, £»? 3e iv ip-Oi Xpio--
tos* 0 Be vvv £co iv o~apKi, iv wlcrTei £w tjJ tov viov
tov Qeov tov dyairna'avTOS [xe Kal 7rapaBovTOS eavTOV
10. r% rov Oeou Kal Xpiarov tov ayairr/jaavros.

words bid vbpov vbpa direBavov 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. Its 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. v. 13). Thus
the law is the strength of sin (1 Cor.
xv. 56). At the same time it provides
no remedy for the sinner. On the con
trary it condemns him hopelessly, for
no one can fulfil all the requirements
of the law. The law then exercises a
double power over those subject to it ;
it makes them sinners, and it punishes
them for being so. What can they do
to escape ? They have no choice but
to throw off the bondage of the law,
for the law itself has driven them to
this. They find the deliverance, which
they seek, in Christ. See Rom. vii.
24, 25, and indeed the whole passage,
Rom. v. 20 — viii. 11. Thus then they
pass through three stages, (1) Prior to
the law — sinful, but ignorant of sin ;
(2) Under the law — sinful, and con
scious of sin, yearning after better
things; (3) Free from the law — free
and justified in Christ. This sequence
is clearly stated Rom. v. 20. The se
cond stage (Sid vbpov) is a necessary
preparation for the third (vbpa dire
Bavov). ' Proinde,' says Luther on iii.
19 (the edition of 1519), 'utremissio
propter salutem, ita praevaricatio
propter remissionem, ita lex propter
transgressionem.'

What the Mosaic ordinances were
to the Jews, other codes of precepts
and systems of restraints were in an
inferior degree and less efficaciously
to other nations. They too, like the
Jews, had felt the bondage of law in
some form or other. See iv. 9, v. 1,
and the note on iv. 11.
vbpa direBavov] 'I died to law!
For the dative comp. Rom. vi. 2, 1 1
(rjj dpapria), and for the idea of ' dying
to the law' Rom. vii. 1 — 6, esp. ver. 4
Kal vp.eis iBavarwBrjTe rd vbpa, and ver.
6 KarrjpyrjBrjpev dirb rov vbpov airova-
vbvres iv a KareixbpeBa (literally, 'we
were nullified, i. e. discharged, by
death from the law in which we were
held'). 20. An expansion of the idea in
the last verse.
Xpiara o-uveoravpoj/iai] ' I 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 rjpepa in i Thess. v. 2 — 8.
For the idea of dying with Christ
etc., see Rom. vi. 6 d waXaids rjpdv

II. 21]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

119

VTrep ifJiov. 3I ovk ddeTco Trfv x<*Plv T°v Qeov' ei ydp
Bia vo/jiov BiKaioavvrj, dpa Xpio-Tos Bcopedv diredavev.

avBpairos avvearavpdBrj : comp. Gal. v.
24, vi. 14, Rom. vi. 8, Col. ii. 20, diro-
Baveiv avv Xpiarw, and Rom..vi. 4, Col.
ii. 12, awratprjvdi. Comp. Ignat. Bom.
§70 e'p-ds epois iaravparai. The cor
relative idea of rising and reigning
with Christ is equally common in St
Paul. £d be ovkcti iyd] 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 ey<o
ver. 19.
o Se vvv £w] Not exactly fjv vvv f<3
iarjv, but o limits and qualifies the
idea of life : ' So far as I now live in
the flesh, it is a life of faith': comp.
Rom. vi. IO 0 ydp direBavev, rfj dpapria
direBavev iq>dira(-, o be grj, ffj ra Bed,
Plut. Mor. p. IOO P o KaBevbovai, tov
adparos virvos iarl Kal dvdiravais.
vvv] ' now'; his new life in Christ,
as opposed to his old life before hi3
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.
e'v 7ri'o-rei] '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 rov viov rov Geov may be
pleaded the great preponderance of

the older authorities : for rov Geov ko.1
Xptarov, the testimony of a few ancient
copies, and the difficulty of conceiving
its substitution for the other simpler
reading. pe...ipov] 'loved me, gave himself
for me! He appropriates to himself,
as Chrysostom observes, the love which
belongs equally to the whole world.
For Christ is indeed the personal
friend of each man individually ; and
is as much to him, as if He had died
for him alone.
21. ovk d#er<3 K.r.X.] ' I do not set
at nought the grace of God. Setting
at nought I call it: for, if righteous
ness might be obtained through law,
then Christ's death were superfluous.'
For dBerd 'to nullify' see Luke vii. 30,
1 Cor. i. 19: its exact sense here is
fixed by Scupedv direBavev. ' The grace
of God' is manifested in Christ's
death. The connexion of ydp is with
the idea of doVcS, and may be ex
plained by a 'supplied clause, as
above. Soipedv] not 'in vain,' but 'uselessly,
without sufficient cause,' or, as we
might say, 'gratuitously.' Johnxv. 25
ipiarjadv pe bapedv, (Ps. xxxiv. 19);
Comp. LXX Of Ps. xxxiv. 7 bapedv
eKpvtydv poi biacpBopdv, Hebr. Djn,
where Symmachus had dvairioas; Ec-
clus. xx. 23.

120

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

(i) The
negative.Found in
most texts.

Omitted in
some few.

Omissiontraced to
the Old
Latin.

Various readings in ii. 5-
The reading which is given in the text, ols ovbe irpos dpav, is doubtless
correct. Two variations however occur, which deserve notice.
i. The omission of ovSe.
The negative is found in all the Greek uncial mss (i. e. in N ABCEF
GULP) except D, in which however it is inserted by a later hand, and
apparently in all or nearly all the Greek cursive mss. It is expressly
mentioned by the Ambrosian Hilary1 and by Jerome2, as the reading of
the Greek copies. It is found also in the Gothic, Memphitic, 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 Marcion3, Ephraem Syrus, Epiphanius4, Chrysostom,
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, the Pseudo-Ignatius6, and perhaps also
by Origen6, among the Greeks; and by Ambrose7, Augustine8, 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 Irenaeus9,
by Tertullian10, Victorinus, the Ambrosian Hilary, Pelagius (in his com
mentary), and apparently Sulpicius Severus11. We have it moreover on the
authority of Jerome12, of Primasius13, and of Sedulius14, that the negative
was not found in the Latin copies, and the same is implied by the language
of the Ambrosian Hilary.
In the face of this testimony, the statement of Victorinus, that it was
omitted ' in plurimis codicibus et Latinis et Greeds,' is not worthy of credit.
He may indeed have found the omission in some Greek ms or other, but
even this is doubtful. No stress can be laid on the casual statement of a
writer so loose and so ignorant of Greek.
It appears from these facts that the omission is due to some Western
ms or mss alone. The author of the Old Latin version used one of these.
And to the Old Latin version all or nearly all the existing authorities for
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. 'Gra;ci e contra dicunt:
Nee ad horam cessimus, et hoc aiunt
convenire causae etc'
2 ad loc. 'juxta Grsecos codices est
legendum : Quibus neque, etc'
3 Tertull. adv. Marc. v. 3.
4 Hares, p. 112 and p. 814.
6 Ep. ad Tars. § 2.
6 Orig. c. Cels. vii. 21, (1. p. 709,
Delarue) otiSeirore iv xaPQ viroreray-
pivos dvBpdrrois as Kpelrruv yevb/xevos,
where the conjecture ovSi irpbs dpav is
possibly correct.
7 Epist. 37.

8 ad loc. and Epist. Ixxxii (11. p.
194, ed. Bened.).
8 Iren. Hares, iii. 13. 3.
10 adv. Marc. v. 3.
11 Dial. iii. 13, p. 219 B (Migne).
12 ad loc. ' hoc esse quod in codici
bus legitur Latinis : Quibus ad horam
etc' 13 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.'

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 121
MS can be substantiated. Irenaeus 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 choice1.
Tertullian indeed accuses Marcion of interpolating the negative ; but Tertul-
no weight attaches to his assertion. The African father, not finding it fn s
in his own Latin copy and finding it in Marcion's recension, caught at what against
appeared the simplest way of accounting for the variation. He would not Marcion.
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 ms which he used, intentionally left it out, thinking, as some
later critics thought, that the sense of the passage or the veracity of the
Apostle required the omission. At all events the expedient of dropping
the negative, as a means of simplifying the sense, is characteristic of the
Latin copies. For other instances in St Paul see Gal. v. 8, Rom. v. 14,
1 Cor. v. 6, [Col. ii. 18] : comp. Joh. vi. 64, ix. 27 s.
The omission once made, arguments were not wanting to support it. Omission
Tertullian found that the negative vitiated the sense of the passage, how ac-
He objected to it moreover as at variance with history, which showed that °ounted
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 Hilary3.
With much greater justice Jerome maintains that it is required for the
sense. But feeble as were his reasons, doubtless the authority of Tertul
lian, 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 ovSe might have been expected to decide for or against the
circumcision of Titus. This however is not the case. The Latin Fathers,
who left out the negative, generally maintained that he was not circum
cised4. Several modern critics, who retain it, hold that he was.
2. The omission of ofs.

1 De Doctr. Christ, c. 15. Hilary. This is also the opinion of Ter-
2 For these references I am indebted tuffian (adv. Marc. v. 3), if I understand
to Reiche Comm. Crit. 11. p. 13. him rightly: though Baur, Paulus p. 122,
3 'Litterae enim hoc indicant quia interprets him differently. The only
cessit, et historia factum exclamat.' exception that I have remarked is Pe-
The passage is based on Tertullian. lagius, who however has not the same
4 So Victorinus and the Ambrosian reading in the text as in the notes.

122

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

(2) The
relative.

The relative is omitted in some few texts which retain ovSe', and
retained in some few which want ovSe'; but for the most part the two are
omitted or retained together. Here again the Greek texts are a.s 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 same
with the
visit of
Acts xv.

Argu- ments in
favour of
this view.
(i) Positive.
Coincidence of
circumstances.

The later of the two visits to Jerusalem mentioned in the Epistle has
from the earliest times been identified with the visit recorded in Acts xv.
This view is taken by Irenseus1, the first writer who alludes to the subject;
and though it has not escaped unchallenged either in ancient2 or modern
days, the arguments in its favour are sufficiently strong to resist the pres
sure of objections to which it is fairly exposed 3.
I. In support of this view may be urged the positive argument from
the striking coincidence of circumstances, and the negative argument from
the difficulty of finding any equally probable solution, or indeed any pro
bable solution at all besides.
(i) The later visit of the Galatian Epistle coincides with the third visit
of the Acts, when the so-called Apostolic Council was held, in all the most
important features. The geography is the same. In both narratives the
communications take place between Jerusalem and Antioch: in both the
head quarters of the false brethren are at the former place, their machina
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 events
15 or 16 years after his conversion : St Luke's narrative implies that they

1 Iren. iii. 13. 3 'Si quis igitur di-
ligenter ex Actibus Apostolorum scru-
tetur tempus de quo scriptum est,
Ascendi Hierosolymam, propter prssdic-
tam qusestionem, inveniet eos, qui prse-
dicti sunt a Paulo, annos concurrentes
etc' So also apparently Tertullian, adv.
Marc. v. 1, 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 Hares, xxviii.
4, p. 112. The Chron. Pasch. (1. p. 435
sq. ed. Dind.) places it after the inci
dents of Aots xiii. 1 — 3, and before
those of Acts xv, thus apparently inter
polating it between the second and third

visits of the Acts.
3 The view adopted is that of most
recent critics. It is well maintained by
Schott, De Wette, CoDybeare 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 sqq. The fourth visit of
the Acts finds its ablest champion in
Wieseler Galat. p. 553 sqq. The fifth
visit has been abandoned by modern
critics, as the epistle was clearly writ
ten before that time. Some few, e.g.
Paley Horcs Paulines ch. v. no. 10,
suppose this to be a journey to Jerusa
lem omitted in the Acts.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 123
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' (e'£ airdv) 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 contest2. 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 (ii) Nega-
St Luke. It has been taken by some for instance for the second visit of t™1-
the Acts. To this supposition the date alone is fatal. The second visit of 0f1ot™ry
the Acts synchronizes, or nearly so3, with the persecution and death of solutions.
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 visit4, whereas the account in the Epistle
1 This is calculated by a back reck- order, which is not directly chronolo-
oning of the time spent from the Apo- gical. Having mentioned in (1) St
stolic Council to the appointment of Paul's mission to Jerusalem, the writer
Festus, the date of which is fixed inde- is led in (2) to describe the condition
pendently at A.D. 60: see Wieseler of the Church there, Kar' iKeivov rdi*
Chronol. p. 66 sqq. xaipbv. This obliges him to pass on to
2 St Luke's notices are, xv. 2 yevo- (3) in order to show that God defeated
pivrjs ardo-eas Kal ^ijTi)aeas ovk bXl- the purposes of man, the persecutor
yr/s rip IlavXa Kal r<p Hapvdfia irpbs dying ignominiously, and the persecuted
avrobs, at Antioch; xv. 5 i^aviarrjcrav Church continuing to flourish. He then
Se nvesf at Jerusalem before the con- resumes the subject of (1) in (4). Thus
gress ; xv. 7 ttoXXijs Se avv^rjrrjaeas ye- it may be assumed, I think, that the
mpivrjs, at Jerusalem at the congress. Church was suffering from Herod's
3 The order of events in St Luke's persecutions when St Paul arrived, but
narrative is as follows ; (1) the notice of not that Herod was already dead. In
St Paul's setting out from Antioch for other words, the chronological order
Jerusalem, xi. 30 ; (2) the persecution was probably (2), (1), (4), (3).
of Herod, the death of James, and the * His career as an Apostle com-
imprisonment and escape of Peter, xii. mences with Acts xiii. He had before
1— r9; (3) the death of Herod, and this held a subordinate place, and his
the spread of the word, xii. 20—24 ; preaching had been confined to Damas-
(4) St Paul's business at Jerusalem and cus (ix. 22), Jerusalem (ix. 28), and the
his departure thence, xii. 25. The nar- neighbourhood of Tarsus and Antioch
rative itself suggests the motive of this (ix. 30, xi. 25 sqq.; oomp. also Gal. i. 21).

124

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

Objections
answered.

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-
c ulties, which however, when weighed, do not seem sufficient to turn the
scale. These difficulties are of two classes :
(i) Discre- (i) Discrepancies appearing to exist between the two narratives.
pancies. Qn the whole however the circumstances of the writers and the different
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) Motive (a) In the Acts St Paul is represented as sent to Jerusalem by the
of the Christians of Antioch to settle some disputes which had arisen there: in
journey. j.ne j;pjgye ne states that he went up by revelation. Here however there
is no contradiction. The historian naturally records the external impulse,
which led to the mission : the Apostle himself states his inward motive.
' What 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 Caesarea,
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.'
(0) 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 (direXvaav). So they
being sent forth by the Holy Ghost (iKirep(p8evres virb tov dyiov irveb-
paros) etc'
(y) Acts xv. 28, 'It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.'
(») Cha- (o) St Paul speaks of his communications as made to the Apostles in
racter of private : St Luke's narrative describes a general congress of the Church.
the con- The divergence is due to the different aims of the two writers. St Paul
erences. .g dwelling on wnat jle owe(j or di(j not owe to ^ rpwejve> gt Lu]je <je_

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 125
scribes the results as affecting the interests of the Church at large. St Paul
mentions or rather alludes to the private history which led to the public
transactions, the secret springs, as it were, which set the machinery in mo
tion. 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, dveBeprjv avrois, Kar' Iblav be rois boKovaiv, 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 (c) Eela-
perfect and unbroken harmony between St Paul and the Twelve ; while ^o?3 of
St Paul's narrative betrays, or seems to betray, signs of dissatisfaction withat^e
with their counsels. In the Acts the leading Apostles of the Circumcision Twelve.
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 obtained. 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. ,. . WOrnis-
(ii) More startling at first sight than these apparent discrepancies sions.

126

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

(a) 2nd
visit to
Jerusalem,

(5) The
Apostolicdecree.

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
salem, St Paul should mention the first and third, and pass over the second
recorded in the Acts 1
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 Judaea. 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 impossible1. Of this visit then,
so brief and so hurried, he makes no mention here. His object is not to
enumerate his journeys to Jerusalem, but to define his relations with the
Twelve; and on these relations it had no bearing.
(b) The omission of all mention of the Apostolic decree is a less con
siderable difficulty. The purport of the decree itself, and the form of
opposition which St Paul encountered in Galatia, sufficiently explain his
silence 2-
(i) The provisions of this decree seem to have been, as I have already
mentioned, 'Articles of Peace.' The Apostolic letter was only addressedto
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 dxooTeJXacTes
irpbs robs irpeafivripovs Sid xetpbs Bap-
yd|8a Kal SauXov, xii. 25 Bapvdpas Si
Kal 2a5\os biriaTpeipav e£ 'lepovaaX^p,
irXijpaeavres rijv Siaxovtav, avpirapaXa-
pbvres Kal 'ladwirv rbv iwiKXrjBivTa
MdpKOv. It seems probable then that
all the Apostles, perhaps even James,
were away. Of Peter this is all but
directly stated, xii. 1 7. This inference
accords with an ancient tradition, that
twelve years wa3 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. H. E. v. 18, as iK irapaSoireus), and
by Clem. Alex. Strom, vi. p. 762, ed.
Potter. The latter gives, as his author
ity, the Prcedicatio Petri, and quotes
the words ,ueTo SiiSeKa i'rn igiXBere els
rov Kbapov. This carries the tradition
back to an early date. On the sequence
of events in this portion of the Acts,
see above, p. 123, note 3.
2 Paley has some good remarks on
this decree, Hor. Paul. ch. v. § n.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 127
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 Romans1
entirely ignore one of its provisions, the prohibition against eating meats
offered to idols. He speaks of this as a matter of indifference in itself,
only important as it affected each man's conscience.
(2) The object of the decree was to relieve the Gentile Christians
from the burden of Jewish observances. It said, ' Concede so much and
we will protect you from any further exactions.' The Galatians sought no
such protection. They were willing recipients of Judaic rights; 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 wrung and sinful in submit
ting 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
appealing 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 upon2.

Patristic accounts of the collision at Antioch.
The conduct of St Peter at Antioch has been a great stumbling-block The inci-
both in ancient and modern times. It has been thought strange that the dent is ex-
very Apostle, to whom was specially vouchsafed the revelation that there is P*aped *Jy
nothing common or unclean, and who only a short time before this meeting cj,aracter.
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.
• - * 1 Cor. x. 27 sqq., Rom. xiv. 2 sqq. portant recent works will be given in
This question will be considered more the notes to the dissertation on 'St
at length in the dissertation on 'St Paul and the Three.' Since the 1st
Paul and the Three.' edition of this volume was published I
2 The accounts of this crisis in the have read the articles of Reuss, La
Apostolic history given by Neander Conference de Jerusalem, in the Nouvelle
Pflanz. I. p. 205 sqq., and de Pressense' Revue de Thgologie, xii. p. 324, xm. p.
Trois premiers siecles, ire sene, I. p. 62. Though they contain many things
457 sqq., seem to me on the whole with which I cannot agree, I gladly
among the most truthful, preserving recognise the spirit of fairness in which
a just mean between exaggerations on they are written.
either side. Other references to im-

128

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

sial wea
pon.

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 inferred 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.
Becomes a The history of the patristic interpretations of this passage is painfully
controver- instructive. The orthodox fathers of the early Church were sore pressed
both by heretics and unbelievers. On the one hand Ebionite writers, like
the author of the Clementines, made it a ground for a personal attack on
St Paul1. 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 Apostle3. 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 blasphemous3. How
were these diverse attacks to be met ? Tertullian, arguing against the
Marcionites, resisted all temptation to wrest the plain meaning of the
passage4. Cyprian and Ambrose moreover took it in its obvious sense5.
The same is done also by the commentators Victorinus and Hilary. But
the majority of early writers fell into the snare. Two disingenuous expla
nations were put forward to meet the attacks of heretics and unbelievers ;
each originating, it would appear, in one of the great fathers of Alexandria,
and dividing between them the allegiance of subsequent writers.
i. Clement of Alexandria maintained that the Cephas here mentioned
was not the Apostle Peter, but one of the seventy disciples bearing the
same name. Though the passage itself absolutely excludes such a view, it
nevertheless found several adherents, and is mentioned by Eusebius6 with-

Solutions
proposedby (i) Cle
ment.

1 See above p. 61, and the notes ii.
»i '3-
2 Tertull. adv. Marc. i. 20, v. 3, de
Prcescr. c. 23: comp. Iren. iii. 12. 15.
3 See esp. Hieron. in Ep. ad Gal.
prcef. (vii. p. 371, ed. Vallarsi) 'Vo-
lens et illi maculam erroris inurere et
huic procacitatis, et in commune ficti
dogmatis accusaremendacium, dum inter
se ecclesiarum principes discrepent,' and
p. 410. 4 See the passages of Tertullian re
ferred to, note 2.
6 Augustin. ap. Hieron. Op. T. 1.
Epist. cxvi. The passage in Cyprian,
to which Augustine appears to refer, is
in Epist. 71. At the Council of Car

thage too (held under Cyprian), 'Zosimus
a Tharassa dixit : Revelatione facta ve-
ritatis cedat error veritati, quia et Pe-
trus, qui prius circumcidebat, cessit
Paulo veritatem praidicanti ;' Concil.
Carlhag^ Ivi, Cypriani Op. p. 239, ed.
Fell. 0 Euseb. H.E. i. 12, referring to
the 5 th book of Clement's Hypotyposeis.
The amount of support that this view
obtained may be gathered from Hieron.
T. vii. p. 408 'Sunt qui Cepham...non
putent Apostolum Petrum etc,' Chry-
sost. T. in. p. 374 iriGs obv rives ttjv
jpfjrr)<riv ravTijv tKvaav, Gregor. Magn.
in Ezech. Lib. 11. H. 6 'Sunt vero non-
nulli qui etc' Jerome, Chrysostom,

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

129

out condemnation. Even in modern times it has been revived1, but has
not been received with any favour.
2. Origen started the theory2 that the dispute between Peter and Paul (ii) Origen.
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 supreme3. It was enforced with much perverse ingenuity and

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.
(Ecumenius however, or a commenta
tor in the fficumenian 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, I. app. p.
42) and to Dorotheus Tyrius (printed in
Dindorf's Chron. Pasch. II. p. 120), and
that of the Chron. Pasch. (1. p. 400, ed.
Dind.). Other attempts also were made in
the same direction. In the Armenian
Calendar Cephas is called a disciple of
St Paul: Sept. 25, 'Apollo et Cephas
discipulorum Pauli,' Assemann. Eibl.
Orient, in. p. 648. In the ApostoUc
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)^920. The
treatise is entitled ' Cepham a Paulo
reprehensum Petrumnon es3e,' a strange
specimen of criticism. It provoked re
plies from Boileau, Disquisit. Theolog.
in Galat. ii. 10, Paris, 1713; Calmet,
Dissert, in. p. 519, Paris, 1720; Hey-
ling, Obs. Sacr. 11.. p. 520, Lips. 1737.
The first of these I have not seen : the
last two might be called satisfactory, if
there were any case on the opposite side.
GAL.

2 Hieron. Epist. cxii (1. p. 740)
' Hanc explanationem quam primus Ori-
genes in decimo Stromateon libro ubi
epistolam Pauli ad Gala.tas interpreta-
tur, et cseteri deinceps interpretes sunt
secuti, etc' In an extant work however
(c. Cels. ii. 1), where Origen alludes to
the incident, there is no trace of this
interpretation. 3 See Hieron. 1. c. In this letter,
addressed to Augustine, he defends him-
Belf 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.l. 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 himself 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 human in
firmity, 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 mis
taken policy, Carm. II. p. 5^. ed.
Caillau, ds avvrpdirefrs ov KaXds rjv
eBveaiv, el koX t'oS' der' CxpeXiaeiv tov
Xbyov. Unless his text is here muti
lated, Gregory's memory has failed him

130

Chrysostom.

Contro
versy of
Jeromeand Au
gustine.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
misapplied eloquence by Chrysostom in his exposition of this epistle, and
in a separate homily devoted specially to the subject1. And about the
same time that these discourses were delivered, it found another indepen
dent and equally able advocate in Jerome, who maintained it in his com
mentary on the Galatians with characteristic vigour. The advocacy of
Jerome gave rise to a controversy between the two great Latin Fathers,
which became famous in the history of the Church2. Augustine wrote to
remonstrate with Jerome. To admit that the two leading Apostles con
spired to act a lie, he represented, was in fact to undermine the whole
authority of Scripture. He therefore entreated Jerome, like Stesichorus
of old, to sing a palinode, adding that the Truth of Christendom is incom
parably more beautiful than the Helen of Greece, for offending whom the
heathen poet had been struck blind3. 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 Dares4. In the corre
spondence 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
authority5. The glory of Augustine's victory however is somewhat tar
nished by a feeble attack made at the same time on those noble labours in
Biblical criticism which have earned for Jerome the gratitude of after ages.
To this letter of Augustine Jerome seems to have made no reply. His
pride had been deeply wounded by the successful assaults of a younger
rival, as he regarded Augustine : and a direct confession of wrong could
only be expected from a nature more frank and chivalrous than Jerome's.
But at a later date he tacitly adopted Augustine's view, and, whether from
accident or design, in the same writing, though on a different topic, made
honourable mention of his former opponent6. With this sequel' the whole

p.s 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' (ill.
p. 362, ed. Ben.). The opinion of Chry
sostom is alluded to by Jerome, Epist.
cxii, and by Augustine in reply, Hie
ron. Op. Epist. cxvi.
2 An account of this controversy is
given in Mbhler, Gesammelte Schriften,
p. 1 eq. For a 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 here given
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 re
spect none of the editions which I have
consulted seem altogether satisfactory.
Augustine discusses the passage again
more briefly, de Mendacio, § 8, VI. p.
424. 3 Hieron. Op. T. 1, Ep. lxvii.
4 lb. Ep. cii. See Augustine's re
ply, Ep. ex.
5 lb. Ep. cxvi.
6 Hieron. c. Pelag. i. 22 (11. 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

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

131

controversy, as well in the nature of the dispute itself, as in the courageous
rebuke of the younger father and the humble penitence of the elder, has
seemed to some to reflect the original dispute of the Apostles at Antioch,
and thus to be a striking illustration of and comment ou the text out of
which it arose1.
The great name of Augustine seems to have swayed later writers to- Later
wards the reasonable view of the incident, and from this time forward the wrlters-
forced explanation of Origen finds but little support2. 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 revived3.
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 standing4.

writing this , had in mind the tribute of
respect paid to St Paul in 2 Pet. iii. 15.
Other passages in which Jerome has
been thought tacitly to surrender his
former view are, adv. Jovin. i. 15 (n.
p. 264), c. Bufin. iii. 2 (II. p. 532),
Comm. in Philem. (vn. 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 Oceanus,
August. .Epist clxxx (1. p. 634, ed.Ben.).
1 e.g. Mdhler 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
(circ. 450) on those verses is wanting in
the MSS. What view he took cannot
with safety be gathered from the extant
context. It might be inferred however
from another passage of Theodoret, in

Esech. xlviii. 35 (II. p. 1046, ed. Schulze),
that he gave a straightforward explana
tion of the incident In the Dial, de
S. Trin. i. 24, falsely ascribed to Atha-
nasius (Athan. Op. II. 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 (circ.
650). 3 It is maintained by one of the
commentators in the CEcumenian Catena
and by Theophylact. Both these writers
would derive their opinions from Chry
sostom rather than from Jerome.
4 See especially Gregor. Magn. in
Ezech. Lib. II. Horn. 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 xi. p.
772).

9-2

132

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[III.

III. TC1 dvOY\TOi TaXaTai, t'is v/uas ifido-Kavev, ois
KaT ocpdaXjuovs 'lticrovs Xpio~Tos 7rpoeypd(pri icrTavpu>-r

III. i. In the last paragraph of
the foregoing chapter St Paul began
by speaking of the incident at Antioch,
but his thoughts have been working
round gradually to the false teachers
in Galatia, and have moulded his lan
guage accordingly. He is thus led to
dwell on the direct antagonism to the
Gospel involved in the conduct of the
Judaizers, which tacitly assumes that
a man may be justified by his own
works. It is a practical denial of
the efficacy of Christ's death. This
thought is intolerable to him, and he
bursts out into the indignant remon
strance with which this chapter opens.
' Christ's death in vain 1 0 ye sense
less Gauls, what bewitchment is this ?
I placarded Christ crucified before
your eyes. You suffered them to wan
der from this gracious proclamation
o? 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.'
efidaKavev] 'fascinated you! St
Paul's metaphor is derived from the
popular belief in the power of the evil
eye. Comp. Ignat. Rom. § 3 ov'Se'-
7rore if&aaKavare ovbeva (or ovSevi),
Wisd. iv. 12 fiaaKavia yap (pavXbrrjTos
dpavpoi rd KaXd. and see especially
the discussion in Plutarch, Symp. v.
7, p. 680 0 Trepi r<3v KarafiaaKalveiv
Xeyopevav Kal fiaaKavov e^eiv 6<pBaXpbv
ipireabvros Xbyov k.t.X. If the deri
vation of paaKalveiv now generally
adopted (see Benfey Wurzel. 11. p.
104), from /3afca, fiaaKa (cpdaKa), 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 (8id

tpaeav Kaivovaav, Tzetz.) is an evidence.
See Bacon's Essays ix. This belief is
not confined to the East or to ancient
times, but is common in some coun
tries of Europe even now. In parts
of Italy the power of the ' occhio cat-
tivo' or 'jettatura' is said to be a
deeply rooted popular superstition.
On its wide prevalence see the refer
ences in Winer's Bealworterb. s. v.
Zauberei, and in an article by 0.
Jahn, iiber den Aberglauben des los-
en Blicks etc. in the Verhandl. der
Sachs. Gesellsch. 1855, p. 31. The
word PaaKaiveiv 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 pj? JT) ('envious' or 'covet
ous,' e.g. Prov. xxiii. 6, Tobit iv. 16,
Ecclus. xiv. 10, and compare the 6<p-
BaXpbs irovrjpbs 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 fiaaKalveiv 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 fiaaKavia (bibn iroXXr)v e^ov-
aiv eviraBeiav Kal rpoirbv rrjs (pvaeas,
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.
ifidaKavetf (for which some copies
read ifidaKrjvev) is probably the first
aorist with a; see Ignat. I.e. On

III. 2]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

133

fxevos; *tovto fiovov deXw fiadelv dip' v/jloov, e£ ep
ywv vofiov to Trvevfxa iXafieTe rj e£ aKorjs Trio-Tews;

forms in rj and a, see Buttmann Ausf.
Sprachl. § 101. 4, A. Buttmann p. 35,
and Lobeck Phryn. p. 25, Parol, p. 22.
The words rfj dXrjBeiq pr) irei&eaBai
of the received text have no place
here, but are added from v. 7.
01s Kar StpBaXpovs] ' before whose
eyes': comp. Arist. Ban. 626 Iva aol
kot dtpBaXpovs Xiyrj. This expression
is slightly stronger than 7rpd dcpBaX-
pdv, 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 aairep idbrj nvb Kal (pBopoiroibv
aKriva i^idaiv dirb rrjs Koprjs avrdv Kal
avrrj eiawvaa bid rav 6<pBaXpwv rov
(pBovovpevov rpe^rei rrjv "\jrvxr)v Kal rrjv
<pvaiv k.t.X., Heliod. Mth. iii. 7 Sid
r<3v ocpBdXpwv ra irdBrj rais tyvxais
elaro^evovrai (these references I owe
to Jahn, p. 33); and comp. Ecclus.
XVlll. 18 boais (SaaKavov eKrrjKei o<pBaX-
povs, xiv. 8, Test, xii Pair. Is. 4. To
let the eye rest on the sorcerer there
fore was to yield to the fascination.
This the Galatians had done; 'So
deeply had they drunken in That look,
those shrunken serpent eyes, That all
their features were resigned To this
sole image in their mind.'
irpoeypd<prj] ' was posted up, pla- '
carded! The verb irpoypd<peiv is ca
pable of two meanings ; (1) 'To write
beforehand,' as Rom. xv. 4 oaa ydp
irpoeypdfprj els rr)v rjperepav bibaaKaXiav
iypdiprj. This sense however is ex
cluded here, as the words Kar' 6<p8aX-
povs forbid the supposition that the
Apostle is here speaking of the pre
dictions of the Old Testament, even
if such a sense were otherwise likely.
(2) ' To write up in public, to placard.'
It is the commou word to describe
all public notices or proclamations,

e. g. Arist. Av. 450 o n av irpoypdfpw-
pev iv rois irivaKiois : comp. Justin
Apol. ii. p. 52 B e'dv be vpeis rovro
irpoypa\jfrjTe, rjpeis rois iraai cpavepbv
iroirjaopev. These would sometimes
be notices of a trial or condemnation ;
comp. Jude 4 01 7rdXai irpoyeypappevoi
els rovro rd Kpipa, with Demosth. p.
1 15 1 rods irpvrdveis irpoypdcpeiv avrd
rrjv Kpiaiv iirl bvo rjpepas, Plut. Camill.
9 rijs bUrjs irpoy eypappevrjs: 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 (f3aaKaviov or irpoftaaKaviov,
Epist. Jer. 69) against all Judaic sor
ceries. The compound verb irpoypd~
cpeiv seems never to be used ot paint
ing, as some take it here.
ev vpiv is omitted after irpoeypdfpr)
in deference to the best authorities.
It is difficult however to account for
its insertion in some early copies, un
less it crept in from ver. 5. If retained,
it ought probably to be regarded as
a redundant expression enforcing the
idea of oh kot oqb&aXpovs, and to be
taken with irpoeypdtprj.
2, 3, 4. 'I have only one question
to ask you. The gifts of the Spirit
which ye have received, to what do
ye owe them? To works performed
in bondage to law, or to the willing
hearing that comes of faith ? What
monstrous folly is this then! Will
you so violate the divine order of
progress ? After taking your earliest
lessons in the Spirit, do you look
to attaining perfection through the
flesh? To what purpose then did ye
suffer persecution from these carnal
teachers of the law? Will ye now
stultify your past sufferings? I can-

134

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[HI- 3-5

3 ovtws dvot}Toi io-Te ; ivap^dfxevoi 7rvev/j.aTi vvv
o-apKl i7riTeXeTo~6e ; 4 Too-avTa iirdQeTe eUrj ; ei ye
Kal eiKrj. s6 ovv iirixopnyuv vfxiv to 7rvevfia Kal ivep-

not believe that ye will.'
aKorjs] in itself may mean either ' a
hearing' or 'a report.' For the latter
sense see Rom. x. 16, quoted from
the lxx of Is. liii. i. The former
meaning however is more probable
here, as presenting a better contrast
to epymv which requires some word
expressing the part taken by the Ga
latians themselves : comp. I Thess.
ii. 13.
TTiVretas] ' which comes of faith!
the subjective genitive. The parallel
ism of Rom. X. 17, apa rj irians i£
aKorjs, rj be aKor) bid prjparos, is only
apparent. A true parallel is the phrase
viraKor) iriarews, Rom. i. 5, xvi. 26. At
all events iriarews cannot be consi
dered equivalent to rijs iriarews (see
ou i. 23), taken as an objective geni
tive, with the sense ' listening to the
doctrines of the faith.'
3. ovrtas] refers to what follows:
' How senseless to reverse the natural
order of things ! '
ivap£dpevoi iirireXeiaBe] 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 ivdpxeaBai of the initiatory rites
see Pollux viii. 83, and comp. e.g.
Eur. Iph. Aul. 1471; for iirireXeiv
Herod, ii. 63 (tfvo-i'as, evx<oXds), iv. 186
(vrjartias Kal oprds).
iirireXeiaBe is perhaps the middle
voice rather than the passive, as in
Clem. Rom, § 55 7roXXai yvvaiKes e'vSvv-
apaBeiaai . . . iirereXeaavro 7roXXd dvbpeia,
and frequently in classical writers,
e.g. Plat. Phil. 27 0 koKXiov av Kal rrjv
Kplaiv iirireXeaaipetia. 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. roaavra iirdBere e'lKrj] ' did ye
suffer so much in vain,' referring
to the persecutions endured by them.
For similar appeals to sufferings un
dergone see Gal. v. 11, 1 Cor. xv. 32,
and comp. 1 Thess. ii. 14. The history
indeed says nothing of persecutions in
Galatia, but then it is equally silent
on all that relates to the condition of
the Galatian Churches : and while the
converts to the faith in Pisidia and
Lycaonia on the one side (Acts xiv.
2, 5, 19, 22), and in proconsular Asia
on the other (2 Cor. i. 8, Acts xix. 23
sqq.), 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, iirdBere has
been interpreted in a good sense, as
if referring to the spiritual blessings
of the Galatians: but 7rdo-xeiv 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.
ill. 15. I tov Bebv viropvrjaai pev oaa
iraBovres i£ avrov Kal irrjXiKav evepyei
aiav peraXafiovres k.t.X.
elKrj] '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.' ei' ye Kai eiKrj] '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 Kal widens this, implying
an unwillingness to believe on the part

III. 6, 7]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

135

7WI/ Bwafieis iv v/uuv, i£ epywv vojxov rj i£ aKorjs
Trio-Tews \ 6Ka6ws 'ABpA&wi enicTeyceN tu 0 6 a>, kai
eAon'cBH ayto) eic iiKAiocf nhn. 7 yivwcTKCTe dpa

of the speaker. Hermann's distinction
(ad Viger. p. 834), that eiye assumes
the truth of a proposition while enrep
leaves it doubtful, requires modifying
before it is applied to the New Testa
ment, where etVep is, if anything, more
directly affirmative than eiye. 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 ovv marks its resumption;
' Well then, as I said, etc'
d iirixoprjydv] 'He that supplieth
bountifully'; comp. Phil. i. 19 iirixo-
prjyias rov irvevparos lrjaov Xpiarov.
Even the simple word implies more
or less of liberality, and the com
pound iirixoprjyetv expresses this idea
more strongly. See 2 Pet. i. 5 iirixo-
prjyrjaare iv rrj iriarei vpav rrjv aperrjv,
and compare the use of the substan
tive eirixoprjyrjpa in Athen. iv. p. 140 0
iirdiKXa pev Xeyerai ravra, ovra olov
iirixoprjyrjpara tov avvreraypevov rois
(peifii'rais HkXov, i.e. the luxuries, the
superfluities of the meal.
ivepydv bvvdpeis iv vpiv] Comp.
I Cor. xii 10 ivepyrjpara bvvdpeav
(with VV. 28, 29), Matt. xiv. 2 al bvvd
peis ivepyovaiv iv avra (comp. Mark vi.
14). These passages favour the sense
'worketh miraculous powers in you,'
rather than 'worketh miracles among
you'; and this meaning also accords
better with the context : comp. 1 Cor.
xii. 6 d Se avrds 0eds d ivepydv rd
irdvTa iv ir&aiv. What was the exact

nature of these 'powers,' whether they
were exerted over the physical or the
moral world, it is impossible to deter-
mine. The limitations implied in
1 Cor. xii. 10, and the general use of
bvvdpeis, 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. 1 1,
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. Mar. v. 3 ' ostendi-
tur quid supra haeretica industria
eraserit, mentionem scilicet Abrahae'j
and Hieron. ad loc.
KaOds] The answer to the question
asked in the former verse is assumed,
' Surely of faith : and so it was with
Abraham.' KaoW, though not a good
Attic word, is common in later Greek;
see Lobeck Phryn. p. 425.
'Afipabp eiriarevaev K.r.X.] from the
lxx of Gen. xv. 6. The Hebrew has
in the second clause riplX 1? rntJTPl
'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. 156 sq.

136 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. [III. 8—10
oti 01 iK Trio-Tews, ovtoi viol elcriv 'AflpadjU. Trpo'i-
Bovcra Be r\ ypafpt) oti iK Trio-Tews BiKaioi Ta eQvr\ 6
Qeos, TrpoevriyyeXio-aTO tw A/3 pad fx oti eNeyAorH-
6HC0NTAI EN CO I TT A N T A T o\ I G N H, 9 WCTC Ol iK

Trio-Tews evXoyovvrai o~vv tw ttiq-tw 'A(3paa/Ji.

' 00-01

7. oVtoI elaiv viol 'A^padp.

7. The promise to Abraham, which
in the passage of Genesis introduces
the words just quoted, is the link of
connexion with what follows.
' 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 1 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 fore
sight discerning that God justifies the
Gentiles by faith; for so only could
they be blessed in Abraham. We
conclude therefore that the faithful
and the faithful alone share the bless
ing with him.'
yivdaKere] ' ye perceive,' the indica
tive rather than the imperative. The
former mood is perhaps more suited
to the argumentative character of the
sentence generally, as well as to the
special argumentative particle apa, and
possibly also to the meaning of the
verb yivdaKeiv ('to perceive' rather
than 'to know'; see the note iv. 8, 9);
COmp. I John ii. 29 e'dv elbrjre on bi-
Kaibs ianv, yivdaKere on irds 6 iroiwv
rrjv biKaioavvrjv i£ avrov yeyevvrjrai. On
the other hand, for the imperative
see Heb. xiii. 23.
ol iK iriarews] 'they whose starting-
point, whose fundamental principle is
faith.' comp. Rom. ii. 8 01 e'£ ipiBeias,
Rom. iv. 14 01 e'K vbpov.
8. rj ypacprj] 'the scripture' per
sonified. This instance stands by itself
in the New Testament, the personifi
cation elsewhere not going beyond

Xiyei or ewrev, or such expressions as
aweKXeiaev, ver. 22. The attributing
'sight' to the sacred writings is how
ever found in a not uncommon Jewish
formula of reference PINT DD, ' Quid
vidit?' see Schottgen here. On the
meaning of ypaqbrj, 'a passage of Scrip
ture,' see the note iii. 22.
biKawi] The tense denotes the cer
tainty of God's dealings, the sure ac
complishment of His purpose, as if it
were actually present: see on 1 Thess.
v. 2, and Winer § xi. 2, p. 280.
7rpoev?7yyeXio-aro] 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.
evevXoyrjBrjaovrai k.t.X.] A fusion
of the two passages, Gen. xii. 3 koi
[evJevXoy^^covrai ev coi irdaai al <pv-
Xal rrjs yijs, and Gen. xviii. 18 Kal
evevXoyrjBrjaovrai iv avra ('Aftpaap)
irdvra rd eBvrj rrjs yijs, in both of which
the lxx agrees with the Hebrew.
Comp. Clem. Rom. § 10.
e'v aoi] 'in thee,' as their spiritual
progenitor. 10, 11, 12. Having shewn by posi
tive 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^

III. n] EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. i3y
yap e£ epywv vopov elo-'iv, vtto KaTapav eWiv. ye-
ypaTTTaj. ydp oti em k atapatoc frac, oc ofx !m-
M6N6I IT A C I N TOIC rerp*MM6N0IC 6 N TW BlBAl'co
TOf NOMOY, TOY TT0IHC4I A f T A. " OTI Be iv VOjUlW
ovBels BiKaiovTai irapd ™ Qew BfjXov, oti 6 ai'kaioc

where spoken of as the source of life
(vv. II, 12).
oo-oi ef epyav vbpov elalv] ' those who
are of works of late,' whose character
is founded on works of law.
iiriKardparos k.t.X.] 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 lxx, iiriKardparos
iras avBpairos os ovk ippevei iv irdaiv
rois Xoyois tov vbpov rovrov tov iroirjaai
avrovs. For rots Xoyois rov vbpov rov
rov a slight modification is introduced
by St Paul, that the sentence may ex
plain itself. The words ttSs, 7racriv,
are absent in the Hebrew, though the
former is found in the Peshito, and
the latter in the Samar. Pen tat. Je
rome in this passage, referring to
the Samaritan reading, attributes the
omission to a wilful corruption of the
text on the part of the Jews, 'ne vi-
derentur esse sub maledicto.' The
charge is of course unfounded, but it is
an interesting notice of the state of the
text in his day. Justin, Dial. § 95,
p. 322 c, 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 ; Se', ' Then again.'
d b'iKaios K.r.X.] 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), flW irmDfcO pHX.'

•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
eav viroaTeikrjrai, ovk evboKei rj tyvxrj
pov ev avra, b be bUaibs pov eK iriarews
(or eK iriareds juov) {rjaerai : See below,
p. 154. 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. a).
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 roiDK
is not directly ' faith,' meaning ' trust,
belief,' but 'steadfastness, faithful
ness.' The context however justifies
irians, 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. 1 54, note 4. Targum
Jon. has JirWlp, 'their truth.' In its
original context the passage has refer
ence to the temporal calamities in
flicted by the Chaldean invasion . Here
a spiritual meaning and general ap
plication are given to words referring
primarily to special external incidents.
Another portion of this same pro
phecy of Habakkuk (i. 15, comp. ii. 5)
relating to the Chaldeans is similarly
applied in a speech of St Paul, Acts
xiii. 41, in which context (ver. 39, e'v
rovro) iras d iriarevav biKaiovrai) there
is perhaps a tacit allusion to the words
d b'iKaios k.t.X. quoted here.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[III. 12, 13

Ik TMCTeooc- zHceTAi- "o Be vofxos ovk ecrTiv iK
Trio-Tews, dXX' 6 ttoih'cac ayta zhcctai In^aytoTc.
I3Xpio-Tos n/mas igtiyopacrev iK Trjs KaTapas tov vokkov,
yevofxevos virep rijAwv KaTapa, oti yey pairTai eni-

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.'
d iroirjaas k.t.X.] 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 avrd is
explained by the words which in the
original text precede the passage
quoted, 7rdvra rd irpoardypard pov Kal
irdvra rd Kpipard pov, and with which
St Paul assumes a familiarity in his
readers. 13. e'^ydpaorev] This verb has two
meanings. (1) 'To redeem, ransom,'
especially from slavery: this is its
general signification: see the refer
ences in Dindorf's;StepA. 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> Tdv Kaipbv i^ayopa-
£6pevoi. rjpds] The Apostle is here thinking
of the deliverance of himself and the
Jewish race : see rd eBvrj, ver. 14.
Kardpa] as 2 Cor. V. 21 rov pr) yvbvra
dpaprlav virep rjpdv apapriav iirolrjaev :
comp. Protev. Jac. § 3, Where Anna
complaining of her barrenness says,
Kardpa iyevrjBrjv iyd evdiriov rav vlav
'laparjX. The expression is to be ex
plained partly by the Hebrew idiom,
the paucity of adjectives frequently
occasioning the use of a substantive
instead, but still more by the religious
conception which it involves. The
victim is regarded as bearing the
sins of those for whom atonement is
made. The curse is transferred from
them to it. It becomes in a certain

sense the impersonation of the sin
and of the curse. This idea is very pro
minent in the scape-goat, Lev. xvi.
5 sq. : see especially the language of
the Epistle of Barnabas, § 7, where
the writer explains the scape-goat as a
type of Christ. Compare also Lev. iv.
25 dVd rov alparos tov ttjs apaprias,
and iv. 29 iiriBrjaei rrjv xelPa '"'rov
iirl rrjv Ke(f>aXr)v rov dpaprrjparos
avrov. In Hebrew nNDn is both a
'sin' and a 'sin-offering.' Counter
parts to these types of the Great 1
Sacrifice are found also among hea-\
then nations, e. g. the Athenians, Arist. )
Ban. 733, Lysias Andoc. p. 108 <pbp- \
paKov diroirepireiv Kal dXtrrjpiov airaX-
XdrreaBai, and especially the Egyp
tians, Herod, ii. 39 KecpaXrj be Keivrj
(i. e. of the victim) n-oXXd Karaprj-
adpevoi (pepovai...Karapeovrai be
rdSe Xe'yovres rfjai KecpaXrjai, el n peX-
Xoi rj acplai rois #vovo"i rj Alyvirra rrj
avvairdarj kokov yeveaBai, els Ke<paXrjv
ravrrjv rpaireaBai.
yiyparrrai] in Deut. xxi. 23, where
the LXX runs KeKarrjpapevos virb Qeov
iras Kpepdpevos iirl £vXov. The passage
is quoted by Justin Dial. p. 323 0,
exactly as by St Paul; see p. 60,
and the note on ver. 10. Our Lord
had died the death of the worst
malefactors : He had undergone that
punishment, which under the law be
tokened the curse of God. So far He
had become Kardpa. But He was in
no literal sense Kardparos virb 6eov,
and St Paul instinctively omits those
words which do not strictly apply, and
which, if added, would have required
some qualification.
14. 'The law, the great barrier
which excluded the Gentiles, is done
away in Christ. By its removal the
Gentiles are put on a level with the

Ill- 14, IS]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

139

KATApATOC TT A C 6 KpeMAMeNOC 6 111 5 Y A 0 Y, *4'lVa CIS
Ta 'edvrj r\ evXoyia tov 'Aflpaafji yevr\Tai iv Xpi&Tw
'\no-ov, 'iva Trjv iirayyeXiav tov TrvevfxaTOs Xd/3wfxev
Bia Trjs Trio-Tews.
I5ABeX(poi, Kara dvdpwirov A.e'70). ojuiws dvdpwirov
14. iv 'iTftrou Xpitrrtp.

Jews; and, thus united, they both
gain access through the Spirit to the
Father.' 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
ha 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.
rrjv iirayyeXiav k.t.X.] we, i.e. 'all
the faithful, whether Jews or Gentiles,
may receive the promise! The divine
promise in the New Testament is
always iirayyeXia not v7rda-^eo-is, 'pol-
licitum' not 'promissum,' a gift gra
ciously bestowed and not a pledge
obtained by negociation. Indeed the
substantive iirayyeXia is scarcely ever
used (Acts xxiii. 21 is an excep
tion) of any thing else but the divine
promise. The phrase Xap/3dveiv rrjv
iirayyeXiav is employed not of those
to whom the promise is given, but
of those to whom it is fulfilled; as
Acts ii. 33, Heb. ix. 15. So also eVi-
rvyxdveiv ttjs iirayyeX'ias Heb. VI. 15,
irepipeveiv rrjv iirayyeXiav Acts 1. 4-
With this use of iirayyeXia, compare
that of iXiris, irians, etc., for the ob
ject of faith, of hope, etc.
15—18. 'Brethren, let me draw
an illustration from the common deal
ings of men. Even a human covenant
duly confirmed is held sacred and in

violable. It cannot be set aside, it
cannot be clogged with new conditions.
Much more then a divine covenant.
Now the promise of God was not
given to Abraham alone, but to his
seed. What is meant by 'his seed'?
The form of expression denotes unity.
It must have its fulfilment in some
one person. This person is Christ.
Thus it was unfulfilled when the law
came. Between the giving of the
promise then and the fulfilment of it,
the law intervened. And coming
many hundred years after, it was
plainly distinct from the promise, it
did not interpret the terms of the
promise. Thus the law cannot set
aside the promise. Yet this would
be done in effect, if the inheritance
could only bo obtained by obedience
to the law; since the promise itself
imposed no such condition.'
'ASeX<poi'] 'Brethren! There is a
touch of tenderness in the appeal
here, as if to make amends for the
severity of the foregoing rebuke, iii.
1 sq : comp. iv. 31, vi. 1.
Kara avBpairov Xeya] ' I speak after
the manner of men, I argue from
the practice of men'; see Rom. iii. 5,
1 Cor. ix. 8, and Rom. vi. 19 dvBpd-
irivov Xeyoi. Comp. also 1 Cor. iii. 3
Kara avBpairov irepiirareire, Gal. i. II,
I Cor. XV. 32 el Kara avBpairov iBrjpio-
pdxna-a k.t.X., ' If from nothing more
than worldly motives I fought with
beasts etc.,' where the false interpret
ation of /card avBpairov, 'metaphori
cally,' has been supported by the mis
taken analogy of the passage in our
text. For the usage of Kara av6pa~
irov in profane authors see the quo-

140

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[III. 16

KeKvpwfievr/v BiadrjKt/v ovBels dQeTei r\ iiriBiaTao-o-eTai.
lS™ Be 'APpadjui ippedrjo-av al iirayyeXiai,

KAI TOO

tations in Wetstein on Rom. iii. 5.
ducos dvBpdirov] The force is well
given in the A.V., 'though it be but
a man's covenant,' i. e. Kaiirep dvBpdirov
ovaav, bpws k.t.X. ; comp. I Cor. xiv. 7
opas ra d\jrvxa (pavrjv blbovra, Pausan.
i. 28. I KvXcova  dveBeaav rvpavviba
opas fiovXevaavra. In classical writers
this displacement of opas, 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 a fortiori
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
words ducos, except so far as it is
picked up again in rov Qeov (ver. 1 7),
and does not reappear, as some have
thought, in os eanv Xpiarbs.
biaBrJKrjv] 'a covenant! This word
(frequently in the plural biaBrJKai) in
classical writers almost always signi
fies 'a will, a testament.' There are
some few exceptions, however, e.g.
Arist. Av. 439 rjv pr) bidBavrai y oibe
biaBrJKrjv ipol., On the other hand in
the lxx it is as universally used of
a covenant (most frequently as a trans
lation of JVO), whether as a stipula
tion between two parties (awBrJKrj,
'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 a 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.
§ 1 1, 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 biaBrjurj. 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. Marc.
iv. 1, and comp. Kaye's Tertullian
p. 299. The lxx translators and the
New Testament writers probably pre
ferred biaBrjKrj to avvBrjKrj when speak
ing of the divine dispensation, be
cause the former term, like iirayye
Xia, better expresses the free grace
of God. The later Greek translators
frequently substituted o-vvc^Kn, where
the lxx has biaBrjKrj, sometimes per
haps not without a polemical aim.
dtfeTei] Comp. Philo Fragm. 11. p.
675 M dXXa on rj biaBrjKrj ddereirai.
iiribiardaaeTai] ' adds fresh clauses!
Virtually the doctrine of the Judaizers
was the annulling of the promise (dBe-
r?;cris) ; apparently it was but the im
posing new conditions (eViSidra£is).
On either showing it was a violation
of the covenant. The meaning of eVi-
8iardd-o-ecrc9ai is partially illustrated by
iiribiaBrJKij, which signifies 'a second
will,' Joseph. B.J. ii. 2. 3 d£icov r^s
iiribiaBrJKrjs rrjv biaBrJKrjv eivai Kvpiare-
pav, and § 6, Ant. xvii. 9. 4.
16. ippiBrjaavl For the form see

III. 16]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

141

cnepMATi avTov* ov Xeyei kai role cnepMAciN ws
eiri iroXXwV) dXX' ws id) evos ka'i toj cnepMATi coy,

Lobeck Phryn. p. 447, Buttmann
Ausf. Sprachl. 11. p. 165.
eVayyeX/ai] 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 ob
served, (1) That the words must be
spoken to Abraham himself, and not to
one of the later patriarchs; (2) That Kal
must be part of the quotation. These
considerations restrict the reference
to Gen. xiii. 1 5, 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. 1 1.
ov Xeyei] seems to be used imper
sonally, like the Attic 4>rjal in quoting
legal documents, the nominative be
ing lost sight of. If so, we need not
enquire whether d Seds or rj ypatpr) is
to be understood. Comp. Xeyei, Rom.
xv. 10, Ephes. iv. 8, v. 14 ; and <prjaiv,
1 Cor. vi. 16, 2 Cor. x. 10 (v. 1.).
Kal rois aireppaaiv K.r-X.] This com
ment of St Paul has given rise to much
discussion. It has been urged that the
stress of the argument rests on a gram
matical error; that, as the plural of
JHT (the word here rendered aireppa)
is only used to signify 'grain' or 'crops,'
e.g. 1 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 se
veral 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 aireppara with this meaning, as
to use the Hebrew DtylT. No doubt
by a forced and exceptional usage
aireppara might be so employed, as in
4 Mace. § 1 7 w rcov ' Afipapiaiwv airep-
pdrav dirbyovoi iraibes 'laparjXirai, 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 rd tckvo or 01 dird-
yovoi for instance might have been
substituted. Avoiding the technical
terms of grammar, he could not ex
press his meaning more simply than
by the opposition, 'not to thy seeds,
but to thy seed! A plural substan
tive would, be inconsistent with the
interpretation given ; the singular col
lective noun, if it admits of plurality
(as it is interpreted by St Paul him
self, Rom. iv. 18, ix. 7), at the same
time involves the idea of unity.
The question therefore is no longer
one of grammatical accuracy, but of
theological interpretation. Is this a
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

142

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[HI. 17

os io-Tiv Xoio-tos. i7tovto Be Xeyw BiadtiKrjv irpo-
KeKvpwfxevrjv viro tov Qeov 6 fxeTa TeTpaKoo-ia Kai
TpiaKOVTa erjj yeyovws vofxos ovk aKvpol els to KaT-

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 flesh be
comes the Israel after the spirit; the
Jewish nation denotes the Christian
Church. So St Paul interprets the
seed of Abraham, Rom. iv. 18, ix. 7,
and above, ver. 7.
These two interpretations are not
opposed to each other ; they are not
independent of each other. Without
Christ the Christian people have no
existence. He is the source of their
spiritual life. They are one in Him.
By this link St Paul at the close of
the chapter (vv. 28, 29) connects to
gether the two senses of the 'seed of
Abraham,' dwelling once more on the
unity of the seed: 'Ye are all one
man in Christ ; and if ye are part of
Christ, then are ye Abraham's seed
and heirs according to promise.'
See especially the remarks of Tho-
luck, Das Alte Test, im Neuen Test.
p. 44 sq.
iirl 7roXXcov] See Winer § xlvii. p. 393.
os ianv Xpiords] For the attrac
tion see Winer § xxiv. p. 179.
17. rovro be Xeyco '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 Xeyco be
rovro, on eKaaros k.t.X. In both pas
sages the A.V. gives a wrong turn to
the expression, translating it, 'this I
say.' See also Clem. Bom. ii §§ 2, 8, 1 2.
irpoKeKvpapevrjv] 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.
els Xpiarbv found, in the received
text after rov Qeov must be struck
out as a gloss. The balance of autho
rity is decidedly against it.
rerpaKoaia k.t.X.] In the prophetic
passage, Gen. xv. 13, the length of the
sojourn in Egypt is given in round
numbers as 400 years : in the historical
statement, Exod. xii. 40 sq., it is de
fined more exactly as 430 years. The
Hebrew text in both passages implies
that the residence in Egypt occupied
the whole time. In the latter how
ever the 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, rj be kot-
o'lKrjais rwv vlwv 'laparjX rjv KaraKijaav
iv yfj Alyvirra Kal iv yrj Xavaav err]
rerpaKoaia rpiaKovra irevre (the last
word however being erased). The
Alex. MS reads irapo'iKrjais, irapaKijaav,
adds after Xavadv the words avroi Kai
01 irarepes avrcov, so as to bring out the
revised chronology more clearly, and
omits 7re'vre. 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 Ant. ii. 15. 2, by the
Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, and sub
stantially by the book of Jubilees
(Ewald Jahrb. in. p. 77). On the other

III. 1 8, 19]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

18

143

apyfjcrai Tt]v iirayyeXiav. i0 ei yap e/c vo/mov n
KXrjpovofxia, ovkIti e£ eTrayyeXias- to Be Afipad/ji
Bi iirayyeXias Kexapio-Tai 6 Qeos. I9ti ovv 6 v6fj.os ;
twv irapa/3dcrewv x^PLV TrpocreTedr], axPL* °v %XQn

hand in St Stephen's speech (Acts vii.
6), and in Philo (Quis rer. div.her. § 54,
p. 511 m), Gen. xv. 13 is referred to,
which extends the sojourn in Egypt
over 400 years ; and this is the chrono
logy adopted in other passages of Jose-
phus (Ant. ii. 9. 1, B. J. v. 9. 4), who
is thus inconsistent with himself. The
lxx translators may have inserted the
explanatory clause on grounds of inter
nal criticism, or in deference to chrono
logical records to which they had ac
cess in Egypt. The difficulties, which
attend both systems of chronology,
need not be considered here, as they
- do not affect St Paul's argument and
cannot have entered into his thoughts.
18. el ydp k.t.X.] ' To abrogate and
annul the promise I say, for this is
the effect of making the inheritance
dependent on law.' The ydp justifies
the expressions 'abrogate,' 'annul,' of
the previous verses. Nd/ios and eVay-
yeXia are used without the article, as
describing two opposing principles.
ovkiti] is here logical, 'this being
once granted, it is not etc.', as Rom.
vii. 17, xi. 6. "En is so used fre
quently. Kexdpiarai] '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 verypurpose, 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 to man. There
was a double interposition, a twofold
mediation, between the giver and the
recipient. There were the angels, who
administered it as God's instruments;
there was Moses (or the high-priest)
who delivered it to man. Fourthly;
As follows from the idea of mediation,
it was of the nature of a contract,
depending for its fulfilment on the ob
servance of its conditions by the two
contracting parties. Not so the pro
mise, which, proceeding from the sole
fiat of God, is unconditional and un
changeable.' rl ovv 6 vbpos{] 'what then is the
law?', as 1 Cor. iii. 5 «' ovv iarlv
'An-oXXcos; ri Se e'crriv IlavXos; the cor
rect reading. Comp. also Rom. iii. 1.
rcov irapafidaeav \apiv] How is this
to be interpreted? Is it (1) ' To check
transgressions'? comp. Clem. Horn. xi.
16 irapairrapdrav xaPlv V ripapiu eire-
rai ; or is it rather (2) 'To create trans
gressions'? for 'wbere 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.
v. 20) sin or transgression. The use
of x<*Plv (comp. 1 Joh. iii. 12) is suffi
ciently wide to admit either meaning.
But the latter is to be preferred here';
for (1) The language of the Epistle to
the Romans shows this to be St Paul's
leading conception of the purposes
and functions of the law ; and (2) This
sense seems to be required by the
expressions in the context, 'able to
give life' (ver. 21), 'included all under
sin' (ver. 22). Comp. ii. 19.
irpoaerSBrj] This reading, which is
somewhat better supported than ireBrj,
expresses more strongly the adven
titious character of the law; comp.
iiribiardaaerai ver. 1 5, and Rom. v. 20

144 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. [III. 20
to 0-Trepjj.a w iirnyyeXTai, BiaTayeis Bi ayyeXwv iv
Xeipt jueo-'iTOV aod Be fxeo-'iTr\s evos ovk ecrTiv, 6 Be

vbpos be irapeiarjXBev iva irXeovdarj
rb irapdirrapa.
eXBrj] For the omission of civ see
A. Buttmann § 33, p. 198; for the con
junctive, the note on rpe'^co ii. 2.
rd aireppa K.r.X.] ' the seed to whom
the promise has been given! i.e. Christ.
iirrjyyeXrai is probably a passive, as
2 Mace. iv. 27.
Siarayeis bi dyyeXcov] ' ordered, Or
administered ly the medium of
angels! The first mention of angels
in connexion with the giving of the
law is in the benediction of Moses,
Deut. xxxiii. 2 KHp mmD nriNl,
literally, ' and He came from (amidst)
myriads of holiness,' i. e. countless
angels who attend Him. Some modern
commentators (see Knobel in loc.)
obliterate the mention of angels by
translating, 'He came from the heights
of Kadesh,' pointing the word EHp
with the lxx ; but though the paral
lelism gains by this, the sense thus
assigned to rQ3T is unsupported :
and Ewald, Gesch. des V. Isr. 11. 257,
still further changes 711321 into fD'HD.
The lxx render the words o-uv pvpidai
Kdbrjs, but introduce the angels in
the following clause ek be£tav avrov
ayyeXoi per avrov, where they must
have had a different reading from our
present Hebrew text (see Gesen. Thes.
p. 358). Aquila, Symmachus, the Tar-
gums,and Jewish expositors generally,
agree in the common rendering of I"l3m
BHp. Other allusions in the New
Testament to the angels as adminis
tering the law are Acts vii. 53 iXd-
/3ere rov vbpov els biarayds dyyeXav
(comp. vv. 35, 38), Heb. ii. 2. See
also Joseph. Ant. xv. 5. 3 rjpdv be rd
KaXXicrra rcov boypdrav Kal rd baid-
rara rcov e'v rois vbpois bi dyyeXcov
7rapd rov c9eov paBbvrav, Philo de
Simn. p. 642 m, and the Book of Ju
bilees c. 1 (Ewald's Jahrb. 11. p. 233,
in. p. 74). The angels who assisted

in the giving of the law hold a very
important place in the later rabbinical
speculations. See the interpretation
of Deut. xxxiii. 2 in the Jerusalem
Targum, and the passages cited by
Gfrorer Jahrh. des Heils 1. p. 226,
P- 357 sq., and by Wetstein here.
The theology of the schools having
thus enlarged upon the casual notices
in the Old Testament, a prominence
was given to the mediation of angels,
which would render St Paul's allusion
the more significant.
In St Stephen's speech (Acts vii. 53),
as in the passage of Josephus, the
angels are mentioned to glorify the
law, being opposed to mere human mi
nisters. Here the motive is different.
The interposition of created beings is
contrasted with the direct agency of
God Himself. So also in Heb. ii. 2,
where an a fortiori argument is drawn
from the superiority of the salvation
spoken by the Lord over the word
spoken by angels (Si' dyye'Xcov). 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 sqq.
iv xe'P'] A Hebraism or Arama-
ism, nearly equivalent to Sid: comp.
Acts vii. 35. It is a frequent lxx trans
lation of TO, occurring especially in
the expression e'v x(tpl Mcovcri;, e. g.
Num. iv. 37, 41, 45, etc. In Syriac we
meet with such phrases as fj^oi , » *">
(i.e. e'v yeipl Trvev/iaros, Acts iv. 25,
Pesh.), |Zn 1 V) ,Q1 , . «^ (i.e. e'v Xeipi
iriareas, Hab. ii. 4, Hexapl.)
jiealrov] The mediator is Moses.
This is his common title in Jewish
writers. In the apocryphal dvdftaais
or dvdXrj\)fis Moses says to Joshua 7rpo-
eBeaaarb pe 6 Geds fl-pd Karaj3oXrjs Koa-
pov eivai pe rrjs biaBrjKrjs avrov uecri-
rrjv, Fabric. Cod. Pseud. V. T.\. p. 845.
See the rabbinical passages in Wet
stein, and Philo Fit. Moys. iii. 19,

III. 21]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

H5

Qeos els io-Tiv. "6 ovv vofxos KaTa twv iwayye-
Xiwv [tov Geoy]; fj.rj yevoiTO. el ydp iBodt] vofxos

p. 160 M oia peairrjs Kal btaXXaKTrjs.
There would appear to be an allusion
to this recognised title of Moses also
in Heb. viii. 6 (comp. ix. 15, xii. 24),
where our Lord is styled ' a mediator
of a better covenant.' Though the
word itself does not occur in the Mo
saic narrative, the mediatorial func
tions of Moses appear clearly, e. g.
Exod. xx. 19, and Deut. v. 2, 5 Kv-
pios 6 Qebs vpdv bieBero irpbs vpds bia
BrJKrjv. . .Kayco eicrr>;Keiv dvd peaov Kvpi'ov
koi vpdv k.t.X. The reference in St
Paul seems to be to the first giving
of the law: if extended to its after
administration, the peairrjs would then
be the high priest; see Philo Mon.
ii. 12, p. 230 M peBbpiov dpepoiv iva bid
peaov nvds dvBpairoi IXdaKavrai Qeov :
but this extension does not seem to
be contemplated here.
On the other hand Origen (iv.p. 692,
ed. Delarue), misled by 1 Tim. ii. 5, un
derstood the mediator of Christ, and,
as usual, carried a vast number of
later commentators with him. . Thus
it is taken by Victorinus, Hilary, Je
rome, Augustine, and Chrysostom. So
also Concil. Antioch. (Routh Bel. Sacr.
in. p. 295), Euseb. Eccl. Th. i. 20. 11,
Athan. c. Apoll. i. 12. Much earlier
than Origen, Marcion would seem to
have entertained this view, Hippol.
Hcer. vii. 31, p. 254. Basil however
clearly showed that Moses was meant,
referring to Exod. xx. 19, de Spir.
Sanct. xiv. 33 (in. p. 27, Gamier), and
it was perhaps owing to his influence
that the correct interpretation was
reinstated. So Theodore Mops., Theo
doret, Gennadius ; aud comp. Didym. in
Ps. pp. 1 5 71, 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
GAL.

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.
d Se peairrjs evds ovk ecrriv] ' 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 on'y valid so long as
both parties fulfil the terms of the
contract. It is therefore contingent
and not absolute. The definite article
with peairrjs expresses the idea, the
specific type, as 2 Cor. xii. 12 rd arj-
peia rov diroarbXov, Joh. X. 1 1 6 iroiprjv
b koXos: see Winer § xviii. p. 119.
d be Qebs els iariv] 'but God, (the
giver of the promise) is one! Unlike
the law, the promise is absolute and
unconditional . It depends on the sole
decree of God. There are not two
contracting parties. There is uothing
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 fimda-
10

146

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[III. 22, 23

6 Bwd/mevos ^woTroifjo-at, ovtws iK vofiov [av] r\v r\
BiKaioo-vvn- 32dXXd o-vveKXeio-ev n 7Pa<P^ ™ ™vTa
virb dfxapTlav, 'iva r\ iirayyeXia iK iriarTews 'lno-ov
Xpia-Tov Bodfj toTs TTio-Tevovo-iv. a3Trpo tov Be iXdelv

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. But still it was
a preparatory discipline, it led the
way to Christ.'
rcov eVayyeXicov] the plural. See the
note on ver. 16.
vbpos 6 bwdpevos] ' a law, such as
could! For the position of the arti
cle see note i. 7, and comp. Acts iv. 12.
£aoiroirjaat] including alike the spi
ritual life in the present and the glo
rified life in the future, for in the
Apostle's conception the two are
blended together and inseparable.
The 'inheritance' applies to both.
Compare the scriptural use of ' salva
tion,' ' the kingdom of heaven,' etc.
22, 23. In this metaphor which
describes the position of the Jews
before Christ, two ideas are involved.
First, that of constraint or oppres
sion. They were brought under the
dominion of sin, were locked up in
its prison-house, and so were made
to feel its power. Secondly, that of
watchful care. They were fenced
about as a peculiar people, that in
due time they might become the de
pository of the Gospel and the centre
of its diffusion. The first idea is pro
minent in ver. 22, the second appears
in ver. 23.
22. ' On the contrary, as the pas
sage of Scripture testifies, the law con
demned all alike, yet not finally and

irrevocably, but only as leading the
way for the dispensation of faith, the
fulfilment of the promise.'
aweKXeiaev rj ypatprj] 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. cxliii. 2,
quoted above ii. 16, or Deut. xxvii.
26, quoted iii. 10. In Rom. iii. 10 —
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 show that
the singular ypa<pr) 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 yparpal 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
ypaxpr) 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. xii. 10; see
Joh. xiii. 1 8), 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 rd
PifrXia to the ' Bible '.
avve<Xeiaev viro dpaprlav] i. e. sub-

HL 34, 2S]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

147

Tr\v Trio-Tiv, viro vo/nov &ppovpovfxe6a o-WK.Xei6ixevoi els
ty\v jmeXXovo-av tt'io-tiv a.TTOKaXv(p6r\vai. a4wcrTe 6 vo-
/jios TraiBaywyos nfiwv yeyovev els XpicrTov, 'iva iK
Trio-Tews SiKaiwQwfxev ~5iX6ovar\s Be ttjs irio-Tews

jected to the dominion of sin without
means of escape, a pregnant expres
sion: comp. Rom. xi. yz aweKXeiaev
yap d ©eds rods irdvras els direiBeiaviva
rods jrdvras eXerjarj. The word avyKKei-
eiv seems never to mean simply 'to
include.' The A. V. has the more
correct but somewhat ambiguous ren
dering 'conclude' here. avytiXeieiv els is
a common construction ; see Fritzsche
Bom. 11. p. 545.
rd n-dvra] The neuter is naturally
used where the most compreliensive
term is wanted : comp. 1 Cor. i. 27,
Col. i. 20, Ephes. i. ia
iva] Tha_ prmanjftnanpgsj nf sin is a
necessary step towards justification.
See note ii. 19, and comp. Rom. I. c.
iK iriareas k.t.X.] Not a mere tauto
logy after rois iriarevovaiv. St Paul's
opponents agreed with him that only
a believer could obtain the promise.
They differed in holding that he ob
tained it not by his faith but by his
works. 23. irppovpovpeBaarvvKXeibjievoi] 'were
shut up and kept in ward': comp.
Wisd. xvii. 15 icppovpeiro els rr)v
daibrjpov e'ipKTr) v k or a k X e t a 6 e i s, Plut.
deDef. Orac.j). 426s ovSe <ppovpeiv
avyKXeiaavras rfj iiXi).
The use of irians in these verses
(w. 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. 155.
24. 7rat8ayi»yds] Comp. I Cor. iv. 15.
The ptedagogus 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 SiSdo-KoXos, so that the English

rendering, 'schoolmaster,' conveys a
wrong idea. The following passage of
Plato (Lysis p. 208 c) is a very com
plete illustration of the use which St
Paul makes of the metaphor ; Se avrdv
ecocriv apxetv aeavrov, rj ovbe rovro iirt-
rpeirovai aoi; lids ydp, icprj, irrirpe-
irovaiv ; 'AXX' dpxei t'is aov ; "Ooe iraib-
aywybs, e(prj. Mcov SoCXos cov ; 'AXXd
ti prjv ; rjperepbs ye, ecprj. ?H Seivdv, fjv
b iyd, iXeiiBepov ovra virb SovXov ap-
XeaBai. ri Se 7roicov av ovros 6 iraibaya-
yos aov dpxei;" Ay avbrjirov,e<prj,elsbibaa-
KaXov. Mcov ^17 Kal ovroi aov apx°vaiv,
ol SiSdcrKaXoi ; ndvrcos brjirov. TlapiroX-
Xovs dpa, aoi beairbras Kal dpxovras eKcov
d irarrjp itplarrjaiv. On the 'peedago-
gus ' see Becker and Marquardt Bom.
Alt. v. 1. p. 114, and Smith's Diet, of
Antiq. s. v. As well in his inferior
rank, as in his recoguised duty of en
forcing discipline, this person was a fit
emblem of the Mosaic law. The rabbi
nical writers naturalised the word 7rai-
8aycoyds, JIJIB (see Schottgen here),
and in the Jerusalem Targum it is
used to translate JDK (A.V. 'a nurs
ing father') Numb. xi. 12.
The tempting explanation of iraiba-
ycoyds els Xpiarbv, ' One to conduct US
to the school of Christ,' ought pro
bably to be abandoned. Even if this
sense did not require irpbs Xpiarbv or
eis Xpiarov, the context is unfavor
able to it. There is no reference here
to our Lord as a teacher. 'Christ'
represents the freedom of mature age,
for which the constraints of childhood
are a preparation ; compare Ephes. iv.
13 els avbpa reXeiov ('full grown'), els
perpov ijXiKi'as rov irXrjpaparos rov
Xpto-rov. The metaphor of the paeda-
gogus seems to have grown out of
i<ppovpovpeBa, and thus the main idea
is that of strict supervision. The n-aiS-
IO—2

148

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[III. 26-28

3 TravTes yap viol

ovkIti viro TraiBaywyov icrfiev
Qeov io-Te Bid Trjs Trio-Tews iv Xpio-Tti 'lrjo-ov' a7'ocroi
ydp els Xpio-Tov ij3airTlo-6r]Te, Xpio-Tov iveBvo-aarde.
a8 ovk evi 'lovBaTos ovBe ''EXXrjv, ovk evi BovXos ovBe

aycoyds had the whole moral direction
of the child, so that 7rai8aycoyi'a became
equivalent to 'moral training,' and the
idea conveyed by the term need not
be restricted to any one function.
Compare Plut. Num. 15 eVe be roiavrrjs
iraibayayias irpos to Beiov ovras rj irbXis
iyeybvei xeiporjBrjs K.T.X., and Liban. IV.
437 ed. Reiske (quoted in Wetstein)
irpdrov pev vbpa iraibayayrjaopev avrdv
rrjv irpoaipeaiv, as av rrjv dirb tov vbpov
(jjpiav dvabvbpevai crcocppoveiv dvayKcz-
£avrai. 25, 26. iapev, iare] See a similar
instance of the interchange of the first
and second persons in 1 Thess. v. 5
7ravres ydp vpeis viol (parbs iare Kal
viol rjpepas' ovk iapev vvktos ovbe cncd-
rovs. 26. irdvres yap K. r. X.] 'for ye all
are sons of God by your faith, sons of
God in Christ Jesus! The stress of
the sentence lies on irdvres and viol;
'all,' Jews and Gentiles alike, those
under the law and those without the
law; 'sons' (viol), claiming therefore
the privileges, the liberty of sons, so
that the rigorous supervision of the
tutor (flmSaycoyds) ceases when you
cease to be ehildren (7rat8es).
vioi Qeov] 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 guilt
lessness and love, e.g. 1 Joh. iii. 1, 2,
10. In accordance with this distinc
tion St Paul uses viol as well as rUva,
St John reVva only.
e'v XpiaraS 'Irjaov] The context shows
that these words must be separated
fruiii Sid r^s 7ri'crrecos. '1 hey 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 al'
ye, who were baptized into Christ,did
put on Christ:' ydp introduces the
explanation of the foregoing e'v Xpiarw
'Irjaov. ivebvaaaBe] The metaphor has been
supposed to be taken from the white
garments in which the newly baptized
were clothed; see Bingham Christ.
Antiq. xi. 11. § 1. It is scarcely pro
bable however that the ceremonial of
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 (alaxbvrjv), Xxix. 14 (biKaio-
avvrjv), xxxix. 1 9 (<pd/3ov), Ps. xxxiv. 26
(alaxvvrjv Kal evrpoirrjv), xcii. I (evirpe-
ireiav, bvvapiv), ciii. I, etc., COmp. iyKop-
fiovaBai 1 Pet. v. 5. See also Schott-
gen on Rom. xiii. 14. On the other
hand in the context of the passage of
Justin quoted below (ver. 28) there is
apparently an allusion to the baptismal
robes. 28. 'In Christ ye are all sons, all
free. Every barrier is swept away.
No special claims, no special disabili
ties exist in Him, none can exist. The
conventional distinctions of religious
caste or of social rank, even the natu
ral distinction of sex, are banished
hence. One heart beats in all : one
mind guides all : one life is lived by
all. Ye are all one man, for ye are
members of Christ.'
ovk evi] ' there is no room for, no
place for,' negativing not the fact
only, but the possibility, as James i. 17
7rap' co ovk evi 7rapaXXayi). The right
account of evi seems to be given by
Winer § xiv. p. 92. It is not a con-

III. 29]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

149

iXevdepos, ovk evi apo-ev Kal 6fjXv TrdvTes ydp v/mels
eis io-Te iv Xpio-Tw 'lrjo-ov. a9 el Be vfxe~is Xpia-Tov,
apa tov A(3pad[x o-7rep,ua io-Te, KaT iwayyeXiav
KXripovofxoi.

airavres yap vpeis.

traction of evean, but the preposition
e'v, e'vi, strengthened by a more vigor
ous accent, like ifiri, irapa, and used
with an ellipsis of the substantive verb.
"EXXqv] See the note ii. 3.
dpaev Kal BijXv] 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 dpaev Kal
BrjXv iirolrjaev avrovs, and if SO, this
clause will form a climax: 'even the
primeval distinction of sex has ceased.'
Comp. Col. iii. 1 1.
Either on this passage, or on some
unrecorded saying of our Lord similar
in import (comp. Luke xx. 35), may
have been founded the mystical lan
guage attributed to our Lord in the
apocryphal Gospel of the Egyptians
(Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. p. 553, ed.
Potter). Being asked by Salome when
His kingdom should come, He is re
ported to have answered, ' When the
two shall be one, and the male with
the female, neither male nor female.'
These obscure words were much dis
cussed in early times and diversely in
terpreted, e.g. by the Ophites (Hippol.
Hair. v. 7), by the Pseudo-Clement
of Rome (Epist. 2. § 12), by Cassianus
(Clem. Alex. 1. c.), and by Theddotus

(Clem. Alex. p. 9S5). See also the
remarks of Clement of Alexandria
himself, pp. 532, 539 sq., besides the
passage first cited. For another coin
cidence of St Paul's language with a
saying attributed to our Lord, but not
found in the Gospels, see 1 Thess.
v. 21.
efs eVre'] 'are one man.' Comp.
Ephes. ii. 15 rovs bvo Kr'iarj iv eavra els
eva Kaivbv avBpairov, and Justin Dial.
§ Il6, p. 344 B oiiras rjpeis ol bid rov.
irjaov ovoparos cos eis dvBpairns iriarev-
aavres...ra pvirapa Ipdria dirrjpfpiea-
pevoi k.tX., which seems to be a remi
niscence of this passage of St Paul.
The neuter ev, found in some texts,
destroys the point of the expression,
the oneness as a conscious agent.
29. Xpicrrov] 'are part of Christ,
are members of Christ,' not merely
'are the property of Christ, are serv
ants of Christ.' The argument turns
on the entire identity of the Christian
brotherhood with Christ.
dpa rov 'Al3padp] '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.
Kar' eVayyeXiav] emphatic; 'heirs
indeed, but heirs by promise, not by
law.' See ver. 18.

150 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.
Ambiguity The words of. the original are u?n DWX lY??p '3, 'for (the) curse
of the 0f q,0(j fis) jje ^at is hanged.' The ambiguity arises out of the construction
Hebrew. t f,
of DwK, since the case attached to T)??p may denote either the person
who, pronounces the curse, as Judges ix. 57 (DJ1V Jwp) and 2 Sam. xvi. 12
(1D7?p in the Q'ri), or the person against whom the curse is pronounced, as
Gen. xxvii. 13 C]rbbp); in other words, it represents either a subjective or
Two ren- an objective genitive. As we assign one or other sense therefore to the
derings. dependent case, we get two distinct interpretations.
(i) lxx and 1. 'He that is hanged is accursed in the sight of God.* This is the
St Paul, rendering of the lxx, KeKarrjpapevos virb tov Qeov, adopted in substance, it
would appear, by St Paul; and seems to have obtained the suffrages of
most recent commentators, whatever their opinions. It is certainly sup
ported by a more exact parallel (Judges ix. 57) than the alternative render
ing, and seems to suit the context better, for the sense will then be, ' Do
not let the body hang after sunset; for the hanging body (of a malefactor)
defiles the land, since the curse of God rests upon it.'
(ii) Judaic 2- 1ne other rendering is, 'He that hangeth) is a contempt of, *
writers. reproach or insult to God.' This seems to have been the popular Jewish
interpretation (shared therefore by Jewish Christians) at all events from
the second century of the Christian aera. The passage was so taken by
the Jewish or Ebionite translators, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus1.
It is explained in this way in the ancient Jewish commentary on Deutero
nomy, Siphri', and in the so-called Targum of Jonathan3. This rendering
appeared also in the Ebionite Gospel4. And in one of the earliest Chris
tian apologies, a Jewish interlocutor brought forward this text, quoting it
in the form, 'He that hangeth is a reviling of God5.' It is found more-

1 Jerome on this passage of Gala- Quia maledixit nomini (Dei) f see TJgo-
tians gives the rendering of Aquila and lin. Thes. xv. p. 766.
Theodotion as ' maledictio Dei est sus- a yfpfX& HthiS DID Kni^U
pensus.' This is re-translated Kardpa ~\2i, 'it is contempt before God to
Qeov in Bahrdt's Oria. Hexapl. 1. p. 436. hang a man.'
But just below (see note 5) speaking of * At least so I understand the lan-
anotber writer Jerome employs the same guage of Jerome, I.e., ' Hiec verba Ebion
word maledictio to translate XoiSopla, ille haeresiarches semichristianus et se-
which may therefore have been used by mijudseus ita interpretatus est, 8ri v»s
Aquila and Theodotion also, and is less 6eoO b Kpepdpevos, id est, quia injuria
ambiguous than Kardpa. The rendering Dei est suspensus.'
of Symmachus, as given in Latin by 5 Hieron. I.e., 'Meminimeinalter-
Jerome, was, ' quia propter blasfeheroiaui catione Iasonis et Papisci quae Graco
Dei suspensus est.* , '- sermone conscripta est ita reperisse,
a 'Qua de causa iste susr|nditur? XoiSopi a 6eou d Kpepdpevos, id est, ' male-

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. IS I
over in the Peshito Syriac1- The same also would seem to be the interpre
tation adopted in the older Targum2 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»r6x as the object, not the sub
ject, of }wp.
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 implied 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 welcomed3. 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 used by
way interpreted, it would seem to them equally available for their purpose. tne .Jew3
The 'offence of the cross' took its stand upon the letter of the lawgiver's christians
language, and counted its position impregnable. Again and again doubt
less, as he argued in the synagogues, St Paul must have had these words
cast in his teeth, 'accursed of God,' or 'an insult to God,' or 'a blasphemer
of God, is he that is hanged on the tree.' More than once the early Christ
ian apologists meet and refute this inference, when writing against the
Jews. This is the case with Ariston of Pella5, with Justin Martyr6, with
Tertullian7. In Jerome's time the same argument was brought by the
Jews against the leading fact on which the faith of a Christian rests8; and
later literature shows that Christ crucified did not cease to be 'to the Jews
a stumbling-block.'

dictio Dei qui appensus est.' See be- gen here. The following is the inter-
low, p. 151, note 5. pretation of a learned rabbi of our own
1 'Because whosoever blasphemeth time: 'L'impiccatoe (produce) impreca-
God shall be hanged.' zione contro Dio (cioe: il lasciare il ca-
2 So it may be inferred from a com- davere esposto lungo tempo alia pubblica
parison with the translations of Symma- vista non pub che irritare gli animi, e
chus, of the Peshito, and of the Ebionite indurli ad esecrare i giudici e le leggi) :
Gospel. Otherwise the same meaning e (oltraccib) non devi rendere impura la
might be got from the other rendering, tua terra etc.,' Luzzatto II Pentateuco,
'accursed of God' and so 'a sinner in Trieste 1858.
the sight of God.' 5 In the ' Dispute of Jason and Pa-
3 Thus the Targum of Pseudo-Jona- piscus' ; see above p. 150, note 5, and
than, after rendering the passage as given Routh Eel. Sacr. I. p. 95.
above p. 150, note 3, adds 'unless his 6 Dial. c. Tryph. c. 96, p. 323 0.
sins have occasioned it to him.' It is 7 Adv. Judceos § 10.
possible however that this is aimed at 8 Hieron. I. c. So too in the work
Christianity. At all events it presents of Evagrius (c. 430 A.D., see Gennad.
a curious contrast to the interpretation Vir. III. 50) entitled Altercatio inter
of the older Targum. Theophilum Christianum et Simonem Ju-
4 See the passages quoted in Schott- dosum, Migne's Pair. Lot. xx. p. 11 74 B.

152

EPISTLE TO. THE GALATIANS.

and ap- The passage in Deuteronomy, it is true, does not refer directly to cruci-
j?lielit£ fixion as a means of execution, but to impaling bodies after death. It has
cYucifixYon been said indeed that Phil01 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 (npwpiav aXXrjv
irpoabiardrrerai KeXevcov rods aveXdvras dvaaKoXoirlt^eoBai). 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, that so He might die in the manner He himself had foretold. It
had been employed occasionally in seasons of tumult by their own princes2,
but was regarded as an act of great atrocity. Even the Roman looked
upon crucifixion with abhorrence3. To the Jew it was especially hateful
owing in part no doubt to the curse attaching to this ignominious exposure
of the body in the passage of Deuteronomy. For though this passage did
not contemplate death by crucifixion, the application was quite legitimate.
It was the hanging, not the death, that brought ignominy on the sufferer
and defilement on the land. Hence the Chaldee paraphrase of Deutero
nomy employs the same word p?X) 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 (^D, ' the gibbeted one '), which they found in the original text
of the lawgiver4. 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 tuords denoting 'Faith.'

Active and
passive ,- h and trustworthiness, the frame of mind which
can be relied upon. Not only are the two connected together grammati-

The Hebrew riJlON, the Greek jrfcms,-the Latin 'fides,' and the Eng-
n r _..h 'faith,' hover between two meanings ; trustfulness, the frame of mind
of Faith which relies on another ;

1 de Spec. Leg. § 28, 11. p. 314 M.
2 Joseph. Ant. xiii. 14. 2 referred
to in Winer Realm, a. v. Kreurigung.
On this question see Carpzov Appar.
Crit. p. 591. I have not seen the trea
tise of Bornitius mentioned by Winer,
Diss, de cruce num Ebrcsor. suppl. fuerit,
Wittenb. 1644. Those who maintain
that crucifixion was a Jewish punish

ment rely mainly on this passage of
Galatians: see Lange 06s. Sacr. p. 163
sq. 3 Cic. Verr. v. 64 ' crudelissimum
teterriniumque supplicium.'
4 Eisenmenger's Enid. Judenth. I.
pp. 88 sqq. 287, 496. On the Greek
terms aravpovv, (TKoXoTrl^eiv, etc., see
Lipsius de Cruce i. 4 sqq. (Op. II. p. 769).

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 153
cally, as active and passive1 senses of the same word, or logically, as sub
ject and object of the same act ; but there is a close moral affinity between
them. Fidelity, constancy, firmness, confidence, reliance, trust, belief—
these are the links which connect the two extremes, the passive with the
active meaning of ' faith.' Owing to these combined causes, the two senses
will at times be so blended together that they can only be separated by
some arbitrary distinction. When the members of the Christian brother- sometimes
hood, for instance, are called ' the faithful,' ol iriaroi, what is meant by combined.
this? Does it imply their constancy, their trustworthiness, or their
faith, their belief 1 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 also2 ; they who have faith in God are stedfast and im
movable in the path of duty 1
The history of the terms for 'faith' in the three sacred languages of
Christian theology is instructive from more points of view than one.
I. The Hebrew verb signifying ' to believe, to trust,' is the Hiphil pQKn. i. Hebrew.
The Kal jDN would mean ' to strengthen, support, hold up,' but is only found iTJ-lDK
in the active participle, used as a substantive with the special sense, ' one
who supports, nurses, trains a child' (7raiSaycoyds, see note, Gal. iii. 24), and
in the passive participle 'firm, trustworthy.' The Niphal accordingly
means, ' to be firm, lasting, constant, trusty;' while the Hiphil pDXn, with
which we are more directly concerned, is, ' to hold trustworthy, to rely
upon, believe,' (taking either a simple accusative or one of the prepositions,
3 or ~i) and is rendered mcrrevco 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 H31DK, ' firmness, constancy, trust
worthiness.' This word is rendered in the lxx most frequently by dXrj-
Beia, dXrjBtvbs (twenty-four times), or by irians, iriarbs, d^imriaros (twenty
times); once it is translated iarrjpiypevos (Exod. xvii. 12), once ttXovtos
(Ps. xxxvi. 3, where Symm. had bajveKws, Aq. iriariv). It will thus be seen
that miDK properly represents the passive sense of irians, 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. 4.3 The latitude of
the lxx translation, irians, 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 miOK can scarcely be said ever to
have the sense ' belief, trust,' though sometimes approaching towards it.

1 Throughout this note I have used course change places.
the terms ' active ' and ' passive ' in refer- 2 'Qui fortis est, idem est fidens,'
ence to the act of believing. If referred says Cicero, Tusc. iii. 7.
to the act of persuading they would of 3 See the note on Gal. iii. n.

Aramaic.

ii. Greek.
irians.Classical writers.

Old Testa.
ment.

154 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 (sec Buxtorf Lex. Bobbin, s. v.). The Aramaic dialects did
something towards fixing this sense by an active form, derived from the
same root JOK, but from the conjugation 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 Mni3D»n, and the
Syriac renders n-iVris in the New Testament by the same word y 1 VljOt.
2. Unlike the Hebrew, the Greek word soems to have started from
the active meaning. In its earliest use it is opposed to ' distrust'; Hesiod
Op. 342 iriareis 8' lip roi bpws Kal diriariai dXeaav avbpas (comp. Theogn.
831 wiVrei xPWaT' dirdXea' diriaTtrj 8' eVcWa) ; and this is perhaps the sense
most favoured by analogy1. 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. ./Each. Fragm. 276 ovk dvbpbs dpKoi irians dXX opKwv dvrjp : and irians
became a common technical term for a ' proof.' The transition was aided
by the indefiniteness of the grammatical form, and such phrases as irlanv
exeiv nvbs 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 n-io-rds has both meanings, ' trusty,' as Horn. II. xvi.
147 7ricrrdraTos be oi envce, and ' trustful,' as -<Esch. Prom. 9 1 7 rots irebapaiois
ktvitois iriarbs. So also oViotos means both * incredulous' (Horn. Od. xiv.
150), and 'incredible' (Msch. 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 meaning2, irians has always the passive sense, 'fidelity,' 'constancy81,
unless the passage in Habakkuk be regarded as an exception4. So again
there is no clear instance of n-icrrdj with any but the passive sense.

1 Compare Xtjotis, pvrjarts, Buttm.
Ansf. Sprachl. § 119. 24.
2 As illustrating this fact, it is worth
noticing that the word ' faith ' occurs
only twice in the Authorized Vesion
of the Old Testament, Deut. xxxii. 20
('children in whom is no faith,' ]1?t$,
where it is plainly passive), and Hab. ii.
4 ; see note 4.
3 Besides nSlDN, it occurs as a ren
dering of pOX, PI3BN. DDK, and once
as a paraphrase of JTUJ)?, Prov. xv. 28.
In all these words the passive sense is
evident. 4 ii. 4. The original reading of the
lxx ib not clear. In the Vat. and Sin.
mss it is d 8e SUaios eK iriarews pov, in
the Alex, and others b Si SlKaibs pov iK
iriarews. In Hebr. x. 38 too (though
not without various readings) pov fol
lows SlKaios. Comp. also Clem. Alex.

Strom, ii. p. 432, Potter. With these
data it is difficult to decide between
two solutions; either (1) It may be in
ferred from the varying position of pov
that the word had no place in the ori
ginal text of the lxx; in this case St
P«ul (Gal, iii. 11, Rom, i. 17) may have
quoted directly from the LXX : or (2) 'E/c
iriarews pov was the original reading,
afterwards altered into pov iK iriarews to
remove any ambiguity as to the sense.
In this latter case the LXX translators
must have read TU1DK2 'my faith' (for
irU1DN3 « his faith,' the present He.
brew text), and perhaps intended their
rendering ex irlareds pov to be under
stood, ' by faith in me ;' (see however
Rom. iii. 3 rrjv irlariv rov OeoC). 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. 1 55
The usage of the Apocrypha is chiefly valuable as showing how difficult Apoery-
it is to discriminate the two meanings, where there is no Hebrew original Plla-
to act as a cheek, and how easily the one runs into the other ; e.g. Ecclus.
xlvi. 15 e'v iriarei avrov rJKpifidaBrj irpo(prJTrjs Kal eyvwaBrf iv morel avrov
TTiords bpdaews, I Mac. ii. 52 'A/3padp ov^S ev ireipaapw evpeBrj iriarbs Kal
eXoyiaBrj avr£ els biKamavvrjv; Ecclus. xlix. IO e^vrpcocraro airabs iv iriarei
eXiribos. 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 irians, ' faith/ 'belief,1 had a
recognised value as a theological term.
In the New Testament irians is found in both its passive and its active NewTesta-
sense. On the one hand it is used for constancy, trustworthiness, whether ment.
of the immutable purpose of God, Rom. iii. 3 rrjv irlanv rov Geov Karap-
yrjaei, or of good faith, honesty, uprightness in men, Matt, xxiii. 23
dcprJKare rd fiapvrepa rov vbpov, ttjv Kpiaiv Kal to eXeos Kal rrjv irlanv (see
the note on Gal. v. 22). On the other hand, as ' faith,' ' belief,* it assumes
in the teaching of our Lord, enforced and explained by St Paul, the fore
most 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 embodi
ment of faith, the Church (see Gal. i. 23, iii. 22 — 26, vi. 10).
All other senses however are exceptional, and irians, as a Christian
virtue, certainly has the active meaning, ' trust,' ' belief.' But the use of
the adjective 01 7rio-roi for the Christian brotherhood cannot be assigned naTis,
rigidly either to the one meaning or the other. Sometimes the context
requires the active, as Joh. xx. 27 pr) yivov amaTos dXXd iriarbs (comp.
Gal. iii. 9), sometimes the passive, as Apoc. ii. 10 yivov 7uo-rds d^pi Bavdrov.
But when there is no context to serve as a guide, who shall say in which of
the two senses the word is used 1 For the one it may be urged that the
passive sense of iriarbs is in other connexions by far the most common,
even in the New Testament ; for the other,-that its opposite airtaros cer
tainly means ' an unbeliever.' Is not a rigid definition of the sense in such
a case groundless and arbitrary ? For why should the sacred writers have
used with this meaning only or with that a term whose very comprehensive
ness was in itself a valuable lesson1 1
application of the passage (supposing the looseness of St Paul's language
him to quote from the Hebrew), but an entire mistake; but as a protest
also from the fact that all the Greek against the tendency of recent criticism
Versions collected by Origen so read it. to subtle restrictions of meaning, un-
See Jerome on Gal. iii. 11, and onHab. supported either by the context, or by
ii. 4, Op. VI. p. 608 sq. (ed. Vail.) confirmed usage, this essay seems to
1 The difficulty of exact definition me to be highly valuable. The use of
in similar cases is pointed out in a sug- oi iriarol is an illustration of this diffi-.
gestive essay in Jowett's Epistles of St culty. The expression rb evayyiXiov
Paul 11. p. 101 (2nd ed.). With Prof. roC Xpiorou is another. What is meant
Jowett's applications of his principles I by 'the Gospel of Christ'? Is it the
am far from agreeing in many cases, Gospel which speaks of Christ, or the
and I consider his general theory of Gospel which was delivered by Christ,

I56 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
iii. Latin. 3. It has been seen that the meaning of the Greek irians was reflected
¦fides- on its Hebrew original. Not less was this meaning infused into its Latin
rendering. The verb wiareva was naturally translated by ' credo,' but this
root supplied no substantive corresponding to irians, no adjective (for
'credulus' was stamped with a bad meaning) corresponding to iriarbs.
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 arrived1- In the absence therefore of any exact Latin equivalent
to the active sense of irians*, 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 iriarol was, as we have seen, sufficiently wide to admit it as at all
events a partial rendering.
English. The English terms ' faith, faithful,' derived from the Latin, have inhe
rited the latitude of meaning which marked their ancestry; and it is
perhaps a gain that we are able to render irians, iriarol, 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. The faith of Abraham.
Results of From the investigation just concluded it appears that the term ' Faith'
the forego- can scarcely be said to occur at all in the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old
or the Gospel which belongs to Christ? ledge or research would prove this posi-
or rather, does it not combine all these tion untenable. At all events the ordi-
meanings in itself ? nary sense of ' fides' in classical writers
1 Instances of such expressions are, is ' trustworthiness, credit, fidelity to
'facerefidemalicui,''haberefidemalicui;' engagements.'
comp. Ter. Beaut, iii. 3. 10 'Mihi fides 2 The Latin language indeed offered
apud hunc est me nihil facturum.' The two words of a directly active meaning,
trustworthiness, demonstrability, proof 'fidentia' and 'fiducia'; but the former
of the object, transferred to the subject, of these seems never to have obtained a
becomes 'assurance, conviction,' and firm footing in the language (see Cic.
so Cicero Parad. 9, in reference to argu- de Inv. ii. 163,165 Tusc iv 80) and
ments in public speaking says, 'fides est the signification of both alike was too
firma opinio.' See the whole passage. pronounced for the sense required 'Fi-
This senseof 'conviction' is, Ibelieve, the dentia ' does not occur at all in the Latin
nearest approach to the Christian use of translations (if the Concordance to the
the term. It never so far as I am aware Vulgate is sufficient evidence) • 'fiducia'
signifies trustfulness, confidence, as a is not uncommon, frequently 'as a ren-
quality inherent or abiding in a person. dering of irapprjala, less often of ireirol-
To assert a negative however is always Brjais, Bdpaos, but never of irians Fides
dangerous, and possibly wider know- fiducia, occur together in Senec'^p 94'

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 157
Testament. It is indeed a characteristic token of the difference between inginvesti-
the two covenants, that under the Law the 'fear of the Lord' holds very gation.
much the same place as 'faith in God,' 'faith in Christ,' under the Gospel.
Awe is the prominent idea in the earlier dispensation, trust in the later.
At the same time, though the word itself is not found in the Old Testament,
the idea is not absent ; for indeed a trust in the Infinite and Unseen, sub
ordinating thereto all interests that are finite and transitory, is the very
essence of the higher spiritual life.
In Abraham, the father of the chosen race, this attitude of trustfulness Lesson of
was most marked. By faith he left home and kindred, and settled in a Abraham a
strange land : by faith he acted upon God's promise of a race and an inhe
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 x.
Thus this one word 'faith' sumsup 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 irians, in the Aramaic NnUD'n, 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 righteousness2 (' Here however it is touched upon very
lightly. But there is, I think, sufficient evidence to show that at the time becomes a
of the Christian era the passage in Genesis relating to Abraham's faith had 1^^°^
become a standard text in the Jewish schools, variously discussed and
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 Grseco-Judaic, and in 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 ©Alex-
representative, but he represents it so fully as to leave little to be desired, j^™?^
In Philo's writings the life and character of Abraham are again and again '
commented upon3. 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 1 Mace. ii. 52. Other less distinct Abrah. I. p. 436 (Mangey), De Abrah.
references in the Apocrypha to the 11. p. >, Quwst. in Gen. p, 167 (Aucher),
faith of Abraham are 2 Mace. i. 2, Ec- besides being discussed in scattered
clus. xliv. 19—21. In both passages passages, especially in Quis Rer. Dm. Her.
iriarbs occurs, but not Ferris. ' I. p. 473> ^e Mutat. Nom. 1. p. 578.
3 The history of Abraham is made

I5& EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Philo's least ten times1. Once or twice Philo, like St Paul, comments on the
comments second clause of the verse, the imputation of righteousness to Abraham, but
xv 6™ ^or *ne mos* Par* *be coincidence is confined to the remarks on Abraham's
faith. Sometimes indeed faith is deposed from its sovereign throne by
being coordinated with piety2, or by being regarded as the reward3 rather
•than the source of a godly life. But far more generally it reigns supreme
in his theology. It is 'the most perfect of virtues4,' 'the queen of virtues5.'
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 excellent6.' They that 'preserve it sacred and inviolate'
have 'dedicated to God their soul, their senses, their reason7.' Such was
the faith of Abraham, a 'most steadfast and unwavering faith,' in the pos
session of which he was 'thrice blessed iudeed8.'
The story But in order to appreciate the points of divergence from, as well as of
of Abra- coincidence with, the Apostolic teaching in Philo's language and thoughts,
Wot*" &1 it; is ne('essary to remember the general be.iring of the history of Abraham
s IJ' 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 aseetie disci
pline9. Abraham therefore is the type of bibaaKaXiKr) dperrj, he is the man
who arrives at the knowledge of the true God by teaching (xii. 6)10. And
His migra- this is the meaning of his successive migrations, from Chaldsea to Charran,
tions. from Charran to the promised land11. For Chaldsea, the abode of astrology,
represents his uninstrncted state, when he worships the stars of heaven
and sets the material universe in the place of the great First Cause. By
1 leg. Alleg. I. p. 132, Quod Deus ais, ebSaipovlas KXrjpos, nor is it easy to
Imm. I. p. 273, de Migr. Abr. I. p. 443, find an adequate English rendering for
Quis Rer. Div. Her. 1. p. 485, 486, de them. 1
Mut. Norn. 1. p. 605, 606, 611, de Abr. 1 Quis Rer. Div. Her. 1. p. 487.
11. p. 39, de Prom, et Pmn. 11. p. 413, » de Prcem. et Pam. n. p. 413 AkXi-
de Nob. 11. p. 442. yoSs Kal §ejiaiordri)s iriarews k. r. X.,
2 de Migr. Abr. I. p. 456 rls ovv ij comp. de Nob. 11. p. 442.
k6XXo (i. e. which unites him to God) ; 9 AidaaKaXla, <piais, daKijais, de
rls; etaipeia Sijirov Kal irians. Mut. Norn. 1. p. 580, de Abr. I. p. 9,
3 de Prcem. et Pan. 11. p. 412 iK rb- de Prcem. et Pcen. 1. p. 412.
0ov peBoppiadpevos irpbs dX-fjBeiav, SiSa- '» The change of name from Abram
ktikv XPWdpevos ipery irpbs reXelwaiv to Abraham betokens this progress, de
dBXov alpeirai rijv irpbs rov Oedv irl- Clierub. 1. p. 139, de Mut. Norn. I. p.
aTi"i r, i t, r,- „ h^, de Abr. 11. p. 13, QUCBSt. in Oen.
4 Quis Rer. Div. Her. I. p . 485 rrjv re- p. 2 1 3 ( Aucher).
Xeior^v iperdv irlanv. 11 On the meaning of Chaldsa and
de Abr. II. p. 39 rrjv PaaiXISa Charran see de Migr. Abr. 1 p 463
rwv&perdv sq., de Som„, L p 6i6 & ^
de Abr. I. c. I am not sure that II. p. 11 sq., de Nob. n p 44i
I have caught the meaning of the words, in Gen. p. 167 (Aucher). ' '
KaKoSai/iovlas iirbyvwais, ebaeplelas yviS-

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 159
the divine monition he departs thence to Charran. What then is Charran?
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, of 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 things2. 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 engenders3 : the inheritance is the and lnne"
rich possession of wisdom, the lordship of the spirit over the domain of the
senses4. 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
blessings5.. If as full a record had been preserved of the Rabbinical Schools of (ii) Rub-
Palestine and Babylonia during the Apostolic age, we should probably hmical Ju-
have found that an equally prominent place was assigned to the faith of alsm"
Abraham in their teaching also. The interpretation put upon the passage,
and the lessons deduced from it, would indeed be widely different ; but the
importance of the text itself must have been felt even more strongly where
the national feeling was more intense. The promise to Abraham, the
charter of their existence as a people, was all important to them, and its
conditions would be minutely and carefully scanned.
In the fourth Book of Esdras, one of the very few Jewish writings which \ Esdras.
can be attributed with any confidence to the Apostolic ages, 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)6.
There is however other evidence besides. For though the extant works
of Rabbinical Judaism are, as written documents and in their present form,
for the most part the productions of a later age, there can be little doubt
that they embody more ancient traditions, and therefore reflect fairly,
though with some exceptions, the Jewish teaching at the Christian era.
Thus the importance then attached to faith, and the significance assigned
1 de Migr. Abr. I.e. p. 465 rpdyXv 4 QuisRer.Div. Her. 1. p. 487, Qwest.
rb Tip alaBtyrews xapiow, comp. de Somn. in Gen. p. 216 (Aucher).
I.e. 5 Queest. in Gen. p. 188 (Aucher).
2 de Migr. Abr. I. p. 437. 6 The references are taken from the
a ib. p. 444, comp. Qucest. in Gen. text as printed in Gfrorer's Prophet.
pp. 211, 229 (Aucher). Vet. Pseudepigr.

i6o

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

Mechilta.

Siphri.

Coincirlen ces and di
vergences.

to Abraham's example may be inferred from the following passage in the
Mechilta on Exodus xiv. 3 1 1 : ' Great is faith, whereby Israel believed on
Him that spake and the world was. For as a reward for Israel's having
believed in the Lord, the Holy Spirit dwelt on them... In like manner
thou findest that Abraham our father inherited this world and the world
to come solely by the merit of faith whereby he believed in the Lord ; for
it is said, and he believed in the Lord, and He counted it to him for right
eousness... Rabbi Nehemiah says: He that taketh unto himself one precept
in firm faith, on him the Holy Spirit dwelleth; for so we find in the case of
our fathers, that as a reward for their believing on the Lord, they were
deemed worthy that the Holy Spirit should dwell on them... So Abraham
solely for the merit of faith, whereby he believed in the Lord, inherited
this world and the other... Only as a reward for their faith were the Israel
ites redeemed out of Egypt, for it is said, And the people believed.. .Wha,t 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), 0 Lord, thine eyes look upon
faith, and Habakkuk (ii. 4), The righteous liveth of his faith... Great is
faith'; with more to the same effect. This passage should be taken in
connexion with the comment in Siphri on Deut. xi. 13.2 '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! Gfrorer, to whom I am indebted for these passages, illus-
tiates 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 life3.'
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 fights' of its
own fuller splendour. Yet on the other hand the resemblance must not be
exaggerated. It is possible to repeat the same words and yet to attach
to them an entirely different meaning: it is possible even to maintain the
same precept, and yet by placing it in another connexion to lead it to an
opposite practical issue. In the case before us the divergences are quite
as striking as the coincidences.

1 Ugolin. Thes. xiv. p. 202.
In marked contrast to these earlier
.comments is the treatment of the text,
Gen. xv. 6, by some later Jewish writers.
Anxious, it would appear, to cut the
ground from under St Paul's inference
of ' righteousness by faith, ' they inter
preted the latter clause, ' and Abraham
counted on God's righteousness,' i.e. on
His strict fulfilment' of 'His promise.

Pee the references in Beer's Leben Abra
ham's p. 147 ; comp. p. 33. Such a ren
dering is as harsh in itself, as it is de
void of traditional support.
2 Ugolin. Thes. xv. p. 554.
3 Abarbanel Rosh Amanah. p. 5 a,
Maimonides on Mishna Sanhedr. p.
121 a, referred to in Gfrorer Jahrh. des
Heils II. p. 162.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 161
If we look only to the individual man, faith with Philo is substantially St Pnul
the same as faith with St Paul. The lessons drawn from the history of aQd 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 hfe 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
faith, 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 an(J Juc'a-
Syrians and Romans had served only to develope and strengthen the lsmProPer'
national feeling. 'We are Abraham's sons, we have Abraham to our
father': such was their religious war-cry, full of meaning to every true
Israelite. It was a protest against selfish isolation. It spoke of a
corporate life, of national hopes and interests, of an outward community,
a common brotherhood, ruled by the same laws and animated by the same
feelings. In other words it kept alive the idea of a Church. This was the
point of contact between St Paul's teaching and Rabbinical Judaism. But
their agreement does not go much beyond this. With them indeed he
upheld tlje 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^Tung~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 Summary.
of his application of Abraham's history with the teaching of the Jewish
doctors are equally instructive. With the Alexandrian school it looked
to the growth of the individual man, with the Rabbinical it recognised the
claims of the society : with the one it was spiritual, with the other it was
historical. On the other hand, it was a protest alike against the selfish,
esoteric, individualising 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 gtep^ "
conception, it would be necessary to take into account the atoning death teacn;n„
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
GAL. 1 1

1 62

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

Compari
son of St
Paul and
St James,

illustratedby the
facts col
lected.

direct bearing on the lesson drawn from Abraham's example. In a cer
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 (Joh. 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 (%wpls) works of law,' says
St Paul (Rom. iii. 28). 'A man is justified of works and not of faith only,'
arc 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 ou the
mere coincidence of the examples chosen1.
1 This view of the Epistle of St dirarare eavrobs Kal dXXoi nvis bplv

James is taken by Michaelis (vi. p. 302,
Marsh's 2nd ed.). It is also adopted by
Neander; see especially his PJlanzung
p. 567 (4te Aufl.) He there refers, in
illustration of this Jewish mode of
thinking against which he supposes
the epistle to be directed, to Justin
Dial. c. Tryph,. p. 370 D- ovx as bpels

Spoioi (i. e. Judaizing Christians) kot4
rovro, ot Xiyovaiv Sri, ko,v d/iapruXol Cm
0ebv Se yivdaKovaiv, ob pr) Xoylaijrai
abrots Kipios apaprlav: and to the
Clem. Horn. iii. 6. Several later writ
ers have maintained the same view.
For more on this subject see the Disser
tation on 'St Paul and the Three.'

IV. I, 2l

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

163

IV. 'AeY&j Be, i<p' 00-ov ypovov 6 KXripovo/uos vyittios
io-Tiv, ovBev Bia(pepei BovXov Kvpios irdvTwv wv, 3dXXa

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 positivo
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. vrjirios, irpo-

Beapia), 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.
1. Xe'yco Se'] '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 rovro Se Xeyco, Gal.
iii. I 7 (with the note), I Cor. i. 1 2.
vrjirios] ' an infant! As this does
not appear to have been a technical
term in Greek, or at least in Attic
law i, where the distinction is between
irais and dvrjp), 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
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 BSm. Becht. ill. p. 25
sq. Nrjirios seems to be here 'a
minor' in any stage of his minority.
The word is opposed to dvnp, 1 Cor.
xiii. 11, Ephes. iv. 13, 14: comp.
Dion. Hal. B. H. iv. 9, Gruter Inscr.
p. 682. 9.
ovSev biafpepei SovXov] 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 tho
state, and whose sanction was neces
sary for the validity of any contract
undertaken on his behalf, was termed
II — 2

164

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[IV. 3, 4

viro iiriTpoirovs eo-Tiv Kal o'lKOVOfiovs &XP1 ™»s ^l0^60""
piias tov iraTpos. 3 o'vtws Kal jpeis, otc ^/xei/ vy\ttioi,

viro Ta o-TOixeTa tov Koo-fxov fipev BeBovXwpevoc

*OT6

in Attic law Kvpios, Meier Att. Proc.
p. 450. Prospectively however, though
not actually, the minor was Kvpios irdv-
twv, which the slave was not.
2. iirirpbirovs Kal oikovo/iovs] ' con
trollers of his person and property!
The language i3 intended, as the plurals
show, to be as comprehensive as pos
sible. It is therefore vain to search
for the exact technical term in Roman
law corresponding to each word. The
Latin fathers translate them various
ly; 'curatores et actores' Vict., Hil.,
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 eirirpoiroi are
the boy's legal representatives, his
guardians (whether 'curatores' or
'tutores' in Roman law); the oIkovo-
poi, stewards or bailiffs appointed to
manage his household or property.
The word iirirpoiros elsewhere in the
New Testament, Matt. xx. 8, Luke
viii. 3, is 'a steward.' Adopted into
the Rabbinical language (DIDIID'SN)
it has a comprehensive meaning, sig
nifying sometimes a guardian, some
times a steward : see Schottgeu here
and on Luke viii. 3.
rrjs 7rpocWuias] SC. rjpepas, ' th& day
appointed beforeliand,' generally as a
limit to the performance or nonper
formance of an action ; in this case as
the time at which the office of guardian
ceases. A difficulty however presents
itself in n-arpos. In Roman law the
term was fixed by statute, so that the
father did not generally exercise any
control over it. It has been supposed
indeed, that St Paul refers to some ex
ceptional legislation by which greater
power was given to the Galatians in
this respect: but this view seems to

rest on a mistaken interpretation of a
passage in Gaius (i. § 55)- It would
appear however, that by Roman law
some discretion was left to the father,
at all events in certain cases ; see Gaius
§ 186 'Si cui testamento tutor sub con-
dicione aut ex die certo datus sit':
comp. Justinian's Instit. 1. xiv. 3 ; and
probably more exact information would
show that the law was not so rigorous
as is often assumed. Considering then
(1) That though the term of guardian
ship was not generally settled by the
will of the testator, the choice of per
sons was, and (2) That in appoint
ments made for special purposes this
power was given to the testator; the
expression in question will perhaps
not appear out of place, even if St
Paul's illustration be supposed to be
drawn directly from Roman law.
3. rjueis] 'we,' Jews and Gentiles
alike, as appears from the whole con
text. See the note on ver. 1 1.
rd o-roixeta] ' 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. Horn. x.
9, 25, Justin Apol. ii. p. 44 a rd ovpd-
via aroixeia, Dial. p. 285 c. They were
probably so called chronologically, as
the elements of time (Theoph. ad Aut.
1. 4 rjXios koi o-eX?jvn Kai aarepes arbi-
Xeia avrov eicri'v, eis arjpeia Kal els Kai-
poiis Kal els rjpepas Kal eis e'viavrovs ye-
yovdra): (2) 'The alphabet of learning,
rudimentary instruction;' comp. Heb.
v. 12.
The former sense is commonly a-
dopted by the fathers, who for the

IV. 4]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

165

Be nXOev to irXnpwfxa tov xpovov, i^aTreo-TeiXev 6 Qeos
tov viov avTov, yevofxevov iK yvvaiKos, yevo^evov viro

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 Diogn. § 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
rjpeis, which must include Jews. The
agreement in favour of this sense of
aroixeia may, I think, be attributed
to the influence of a passage in the
Prwdicatio Petri, quoted in Clem.
Alex. Strom, vi. (p. 760, Potter), Orig.
in Joann. 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 Xarpevovres dyye'-
Xois Kal dpxayyeXois, prjvl Kal aeXrjvrj.
At all events I can scarcely doubt
that this interpretation of oroi^eTa 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.
li. 8 Kara rrjv irapdboaiv rav av-
Bpdirav Kara rd crroi^eia rov Koapov,
and ii. 20 el direBdvere avv Xpiara dirb
r&v oroixeiav tov Koapov, ti as fcovres

e'v Koapa boyparl£ea8e. In these
passages the words of the context
which are emphasized seem to show
that a mode of instruction is signified
by rd aroixeia rov Koapov.
tov Koapov] ' of the world' i. e. hav
ing reference to material and not to
spiritual things, formal and sensuous.
The force of rov Koapov is best ex-
plainedby the parallel passages already
cited, Col. ii. 8, 20. See below, vi. 14.
4. rd irXijpcoua rov xpdvov] 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 rj irpoBeapia
rov irarpbs. Secondly; In reference
to the recipient. The Gospel was with
held until the world had arrived at
mature age: law had worked out its
educational purpose and now was su
perseded. This educational work had
been twofold: (i) Negative: It was
the purpose of all law, but especially
of the Mosaic law, to deepen the con
viction of sin and thus to show the
inability of all. existing systems to
bring men near to God. This idea,
which is so prominent in the Epistle
to the Romans, appears in the context
here, vv. 19, 21. (2) Positive. The
comparison of the child implies more
than a negative effect. A moral and
spiritual expansion, which rendered 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

1 66

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. [IV. 5, 6
vopov, s'iva tovs viro vopov i^ayopdcrn, 'iva ty\v viotfe-
o-iav diroXdfiwixev. 6 oti Be io-Te viol, igaireaTeiXev 6

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. 11.
irXrjpapa] ' the complement! On this
word see Fritzsche, Rom. xi. 12.
e'^an-e'crreiXev] ' He sent forth from
Himself, as His representative;' 'ex
cselo a sese,' says Bengel. This word
assumes the pre-existence of the Son,
but must not be pressed to imply also
the unity with the Father, for it is
commonly used in later Greek in
speaking of any mission.
yevbpevov eK yvvaiKos] 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. Sand. v. 12.
yevbpevov virb vbpov] not rdv vopov;
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 verso 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 uccessary 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.
rods vfrd vduov] again not rdv vbpov.
St Paul refers primarily to the Mosaic
law, as at once the highest and most
rigorous form of law, but extends the
application to all those subject to any

system of positive ordinances. We seem
to have the same extension, starting
from the law of Moses, in 1 Cor. ix. 20,
iyevoprjv rois 'IovSaiois cos 'IovSaios...
rois virb vbpov cos V7rd vopov.
i^ayoodarj] See the note on iii. 13.
Iva, iva] For the repetition of iva,
and for the general connexion of
thought, see the note ii'. 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.
rrjv vloBeaiav] not 'the sonship,' but
'the adoption as sons.' YloBeaia 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,'
says Augustine with true apprecia
tion, 'ut distinctemtelligamusunicum
Dei filium.' We are sons by grace;
He is so by nature.
diroXdfiapev] The exact sense of the
preposition will depend on the mean
ing assigned to vloBeaiav. If vidtWia
be taken as adoption, diroXdfiapev
must signify 'receive as destined for,
as promised to us,' or, as Augustine
says 'nee 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 Xdfiapev. 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. on iare vloi] '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. 1 5,
16. St Paul seems here to be dwelling

IV. 7]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

167

Qeos to irvevpa tov viov avTov els Tas KapBias rjfxwv,
Kpd^pv 'A/3/3a 6 TraTr\p. 1 wo-Te ovkcti el BovXos, dXXa

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.
Kpdfav] The word denotes earnest
and importunate prayer, as in Is. xix.
20: comp. James v. 4.
'A/3/3d d irarrjp] Abba is the Aramaic
equivalent to the Greek irarrjp. The
combination of the two words seems
to have been a liturgical formula. It
occurs in St 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 in the Hellenistic Jews who
would naturally adhere with fondness
to the original word consecrated in
their prayers by long usage, and add
to it the equivalent in the Greek lan
guage which they ordinarily spoke. In
this case, in the passage of St Mark
the words 6 irarrjp 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 Schofctgen, n. p. 252 : e. g. a woman
eutreating a judge addresses him HO
'T3, the second word being Kvpie, the
Greek equivalent to the Aramaic "HO
'my lord.' For other examples see
Rev.ix. II CA7roXXvcov,'A/3a88cdv),xii.9,
xx. 2 (Saravas, Aid/3oXos). 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.
'Aft3d] In Chaldee K3S, iu Syriac
|o"). In the later dialect it is said
to have been pronounced with a dou
ble b when applied to a spiritual father,
with a single b when used in its first
sense: see Bernstein's Lex. s.v. and
comp. Hoffmann, Gram. Syr. 1. 1,
§17. With the double letter at all
events it has passed into the European
languages, as an ecclesiastical term,
' abbas,' ' abbot.' The Peshito in ren
dering 'A/3/3d d irarrjp can only repeat
the word, ' Father our Father,' in all
three passages where the expression
occurs. d irarrjp] The nominative with the
article is here used for an emphatic
vocative, as e. g. Luke viii. 54 1) n-ais,
eyeipe. See Winer, § xxix. p. 195.
This is a Hebraism; comp. Gesen.
Heb. Gramm. § 107.
7. coo-re] 'therefore,' in reference
to all that has gone before ; ' Seeing
(i) that this naturally follows when
your minority has come to an end;
and (2) that you have direct proof of
it in the gift of the Spirit, the token of
sonship.' ovKe'n el] ' thou art no longer,' now
that Christ has come. The appeal is
driven home by the successive changes
in the mode of address ; first, ' we, all
Christians, far and wide, Jews and
Gentiles alike,' (oVoXd/Jcouev, ver. 5) ;
next, 'you, my Galatian converts'
(e'o-re, ver. 6) ; lastly, ' each individual
man who hears my words' (el, ver. 7).
el be vlbs, Kal KXrjpovbpos] Comp.
Rom. viii. 17 el be reKva, Kal KXrjpovbpoi.
It has been made a question whether
St Paul is here drawing his illustrations

1 68

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[IV. 8, 9

vlos' el Be vlos, Kal KXnpovopos Bid Qeov. sdXXa TOTe
pev ovk elBoTes Qeov iBovXevo-aTe toTs (pv&ei pr\ ovo-iv
6eoTs' 9vvv Be yvovTes Qeov, pdXXov Be yvwo-QevTes

from Jewish or from Roman law. In
answer to this it is perhaps sufficient
to say, that so far as he has in view
any special form of law, he would
naturally refer to the Roman, as most
familiar to his readers. And indeed
the Roman law of inheritance supplied
a much truer illustration of the privi
leges of the Christian, than the Jewish.
By Roman law all the children, whe
ther sons or daughters, inherited alike
(comp. iii. 28 ovk evi dpaev Kal BrjXv) ;
by Jewish, the sons inherited un
equally, and except in default of male
heirs the daughters were excluded ;
Michaelis Laws of Moses in. 3, § 1.
See a paper of C. F. A. Fritzsche in
Fritzsch. Opusc. 1. p. 143.
Sid 6eov] 'heir not by virtue of
birth, or through merits of your own,
but through God who adopted you.'
For Sid see the note on i. 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, Kkrjpovb-
pos ©eov Sid Xpio-rov, are apparently
substitutions of a common expression
for one which is unusual and startling.
8. ' Nevertheless, in an unfilial spi
rit, 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.'
dXXd] 'yet still, in spite of your
sonship,' referring not to ibovXevaare
with which it stands in close proxi
mity, but to the more remote eiri-
crrpe'cpere (ver. 9); comp. Rom. vi. 17
Xapis be rco 9e<3, on iyre SovXoi, vV^-
Kovaare be iK Kapbias K. r. X. The in
tervening words (ver. 8) are inserted

to prepare the way for irakiv.
rdre pev ovk eiSdres] 'Then it Was
through ignorance of God that ye were
subject etc' ; a partial excuse for their
former bondage. For the expression
eiSe'vai Gedv see i Thess. iv. 5, 2 Thess.
i. 8. rois (pvaei pr) ovaiv Beois] ' to those
who by nature were not gods' i. e. pr)
ovaiv Beois dXXd baipoviois ; comp. I Cor.
X. 20 a Bvovaiv [rd eBvrj], baipoviois Kal
ov Gecp Bvovaiv. This is the correct
order. On the other hand in the read
ing of the received text, rois pr) cpvcrei
ovaiv Beois, the negative affects cpvaei ;
i.e. pr) cpvcrei dXXd Xdyco, ' not by na
ture, but by repute'; comp. 1 Cor. viii.
5 eicriv Xeyouevot Beoi.
9. yvdvres] 'having discerned, re
cognised,' to be distinguished from
the preceding eiSdres. See 1 Joh. ii.
29 idv elbrjre on b'iKaios iariv, yivd
aKere on Kal iras k.t.X., John xxi.
17, Ephes. v. 5, 1 Cor. ii. 11: comp.
Gal. ii. 7, 9. While oiSa 'I know' re
fers to the knowledge of facts abso
lutely, yuwKco ' I recognise,' being
relative, gives prominence either to
the attainment or the manifestation
of the knowledge. Thus yivdaKeiv
will be used in preference to eiSe'vai ;
(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 yivco-
aKeiv 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.
^ yvaaBevres virb Qeov] added to ob
viate any false inference, as though

IV. io]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

169

viro Qeov, ttws iirio-TpecpeTe irdXiv iirl Ta do-0evfj
Kal irTwxa a-TOi^eTa, ois irdXiv dvwdev BovXeveiv 6e-
Aere ; 1Qr]pepas irapaTY\peia-Qe Kal prjvas Kal Kaipovs

the reconciliation with God were at
tributable to a man's own effort. See
I Cor. viii. 2 ei ris SoKei iyvwKevai n,
ovira eyvco KaBds Set yvcovai" el be ns
dyaira tov Qeov, ovros 'iyvaarai vir av
rov: comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 12. God knows
man, but man knows not God or
knows Him but imperfectly. See also
I Joh. iv. IO ovx ^Tl Vl^is rjyairrjaapev
Tov Qeov, dXX' on avrds rjydirrjaev rjpds.
iras iiriarperpere] The Apostle's eager
ness 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 perar'iBea&e.
daBevrj ko.1 irrwxd] 'weak,' for they
have no power to rescue man from con
demnation ; ' beggarly,' for they bring
no rich endowment of spiritual trea
sures. For daBevfj see Rom. viii. 3 rd
dSvvarov rov vbpov (comp. Gal. iii. 21),
Heb. vii. 18 rd daBeves Kal dvcocpeXes.
irdkiv dvwBev] a strong expression to
describe the completeness of their

IO. rjpepas k.t.X.] Comp. Col. ii. 16
iv pepei eoprrjs rj vovprjvias rj aaBBdrwv,
which passage explains the expres
sions here, stopping short however of
iviavroi. The rjpepai are the days re
curring weekly, the sabbaths: pfjves,
the monthly celebrations, the new
moons: Kaipol, the annual festivals, as
the passover, pentecost, etc. ; iviavroi,
the sacred years, as the sabbatical
year and the year of jubilee. Comp.
Judith viii. 6 x^pls irpoaaBBdrav Kal
aaBBdrwv Kal irpovovprjviwv Kal vovprj-
viav Kal eoprcov Kal xappoavvdv o'ikov
'laparjX, Philo de Sept. p. 286 M iva rrjv
eB&opdba riprjarj Kara irdvras XP°V0VS
rjpepav Kal prjvdv Kal iviavrdv K. r. X.
For pfjves in the sense it has here
comp. Is. lxvj. 23 Kai earai prjv iK prj-

vbs Kal adBBarov iK aaBBdrov. On this
use of Kaipbs for an annually recurring
season see Moeris p. 214 (Bekk-.-r),
Qpa erovs, 'ArriKoi* Kaipbs erovs, EX-
Xrjves : and Hesychius, "Qpa erovs' Kai-
pds erovs' rb eap Kal rb Bepos.
iviavroi] It has been calculated
(Wfieseler, Chron. Synops.\>. 204 sq. and
bere) 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 in
tended as general and exhaustive, and
no special reference can be assumed.
On the Christian observance of days
in reference to this prohibition of St
Paul see the excellent remarks of Ori
gen c. Cels. viii. 21 — 23.
7rapar?)peicr0e] 'ye minutely, scru
pulously observe,' literally 'ye go along
with and observe': comp. Ps. exxix. 3
e'dv dvoplas irapaTrjprjarjs, Joseph. Ant.
iii. 5- 5 iraparrjpeiv rds eBbopdbas,
Clem. Hom. xix. 22 dpeXrjaavres rrjv
iraparrjprjaiv. In this last passage,
which enjoins the observance of days
(iirirrjprjaipoi rjpepai, there is apparent
ly an attack on St Paul; see above,
p. 6 1 . There seems to be no authority
for assigning to iraparrjpeiv the sense
'wrongly observe,' nor is the analogy
of such words as irapaKoveiv sufficiently
close to bear it out. Here the middle
voice still further enforces the idea
of interested, assiduous observance;
comp. Luke xiv. 1.
1 1. KeKoiriaKa] the indicative mood,
because the speaker suspects that what
he fears has actually happened. Herm.
on Soph. Aj. 272 says, ' prj ian veren-
tis quidem est sed indicantis simul
putare se ita esse ut veretur.' See
Winer § lvi. p. 525-
In the above passage St Paul ex
pressively describes the Mosaic, law,

170

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[IV. 11

Kal iviavTOvs ; " <po/3ovpai vpds, pr\ ttws e'lKrj kcko-
TriaKa eis vpds.

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
his including his Galatian hearers
under the same tutelage. Nor is this
fact to be explained by supposing
them to have passed through a stage
of Jewish proselytism on their way to
Christianity. St Paul distinctly refers
to their previous idolatrous worship
(ver. 8), and no less distinctly and em
phatically does he describe their adop
tion of Jewish ritualism, as a return
to the weak and beggarly discipline of
childhood, from which they had been
emancipated when they abandoned
that worship.
But how, we may ask, could St Paul
class in the same category that di
vinely ordained law which he elsewhere
describes as 'holy and just and good'
(Rom. vii. 1 2), and those degraded hea
then systems which he elsewhere re
probates 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
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 o-roixeTa, 'elementary
systems of training.' They had at least

IV. 12, i3]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

171

Ia Tiveo-Qe ws iyw, oti Kayw ws vpeTs, dBeX<pol,
Beopai vpwv ovBev pe rjBiKrjaaTe' I3oiBaTe Be oti Bi

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 re
straint, which multiplying transgres
sions and thus begetting and cherish
ing a conviction 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, aroi-
Xeia: Heathenism; (1) The ritualis
tic — relatively good, o-roi^eia; (2)
The spiritual — absolutely bad, antag
onistic to the Gospel.
If this explanation of St Paul's mean
ing be correct, it will appear on the
one hand that his teaching has nothing
in common with Goethe's classifica-
¦ tion, when he placed Judaism at the
head of Ethnic religions. On the other
hand it will explain the intense hatred
with which the Judaizers, wholly un
able to rise above the level of their
sectarian prejudices and take a com
prehensive view of God's providence,
regarded the name and teaching of
St Paul.
12 — 16. 'By our common sympa
thies, as brethren I appeal to you. I
laid aside the privileges, the preju
dices of my race : I became a Gentile,
even as ye were Gentiles. And now I
ask you to make me some return. I ask
you to throw off this Judaic bondage,
and to be free, as I am free. Do not

mistake me ; I have no personal com
plaint ; ye did me no wrong. Nay, ye
remember, when detained by sickness
I preached the Gospel to you, what a
hearty welcome ye gave me. My in
firmity might well have tempted you
to reject my message. It was far
otherwise. Ye did not spurn me, did
not loathe me ; but received me as an
angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself.
And what has now become of your
felicitations? Are they scattered to
the winds ? Yet ye did felicitate
yourselves then. Yea, I bear you wit
ness, 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 V
12. I'i'veo-6'e cos eyed K.r.X.] Of the
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
yC are now,' i. e. Kctyco fjprjv 'lovSaios
cos duels vvv 'IovSaifere. So Eusebius
(of Emesa ?), Chrysostom, Jerome, and
apparently Pseudo-Justin Oral, ad
Grcec. § 5 ; see p. 60 note 1 : (2) ' For
I abandoned my legal ground of righte
ousness, I became a Gentile like you,'
i.e. Kay co iyevbprjv "EXXjjv cos vpeis
rjre"~EXXr)ves; 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, e'ye-
vbprjv, not 'rjprjv. 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

172

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[IV. 14

dcrdeveiav Tr\s aapKOS evriyyeXio-dptiv vpiv to TrpoTepov
14 Kal tov Treipacrpdv vpwv iv Ty crapKi pov ovk i£ov-
6evrjo-aTe ovBe i^eirTvcraTe, dXXa ws dyyeXov Qeov

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. Fun. i. 2. 115 'meus fac sis pos-
tremo animus, quando ego sum tuus.'
ovSe'v pe 7/SiKijcraTe] To these words
two different meanings have been as
signed; (i)'Ye never disobeyed me
before ; do not disobey me now ' : (2)
' I have no personal ground of com
plaint.' The latter seems better adapt
ed to the context. Possibly however
the real explanation is hidden under
some unknown circumstances to which
St Paul alludes; see below on Si'

aaaeveiav.

13. oibare be] ' on the contrary ye
know! Si' daBiveiav rrjs aapKos]' 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 ovSe'v pe ij8i/c?Jo-are. For the
expression compare Thucyd. vi. 102
avrdv Se rdv kvkXov [aipeiv] NiKias bie-
KaXvaev eru^e ydp e'v avrd Si' daBivei
av viroXeXeippevos. Alluding to this
afterwards in an impassioned appeal,
Nicias might well have said, Si' daBi
veiav eaaaa tov kvkXov. 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 bi daBiveiav as
if it were Si' dcro'eveias or iv aaBeveia,
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 vestrce! 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 e'v aaBeveia. Photius ( ? ap.
GEcum.) is the first, so far as I have
noticed, who boldly gives the ungram-
matical rendering perd daBeveias.
rb irpbrepov] ' on the former of my
two visits! To irpbrepov, which de
rives a certain emphasis from the
article, cannot be simply equivalent
to TrdXai, 'some time ago.' It may
mean either (1) 'formerly,' with a di
rect and emphatic reference to some
later point of time ; comp Joh. vi. 62,
ix. 8, 1 Tim. i. 13, or (2) 'on the for
mer of two occasions.' In the present
passage it is difficult to explain the
emphasis, if we assign the first of
these two meanings to it, so that we
have to fall back upon the second as
the probable interpretation. The ex
pression therefore seems to justify the
assumption of two visits to Galatia
before this letter was written ; see pp.
25,41. ^
14. tov ireipaapbv vpdv k.tX.]' your
temptation which was in my flesh,'
i.e. St Paul's bodily ailment, which
was a trial to the Galatians and which
might have led them to reject his
preaching. neipao>ids, like the corre
sponding English word ' temptation,'

IV. is]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

173

eBe^ao-de pe, ws Xpio-Tov 'Irjcrovv. 15irov ovv 6 paKapio--
pos vpwv ; papTvpw ydp vplv oti, ei BvvaTov, tovs

15. rls oSv b paKapiapbs.

is employed here by a laxity of usage
common in all languages for 'the thing
which tempts or tries.' On this con
crete sense of substantives in -pos, see
Buttm. Ausf. Sprachl. § 1 19. 23. anm.
11. The apparent harshness of the
expression here, 'your temptation ye
did not despise nor loathe,' is ex
plained and in soma degree relieved
by the position of rdv ireipaapbv vpdv
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 e'v
rfj crapKi pov have given to ireipaa
pbv. For vucov some texts have pov rdv,
the received reading, others simply
rdv. Considering however that the
weight of authority is strongly in fa
vour of vpdv (see below, p. 183, note i)
and that the transcribers were under
every temptation to soften a harsh
and at first sight unintelligible phrase
by altering or Emitting 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
vpdv (Reiche, Comrn. Crit. 11. 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 rdv, it seems to be
merely the insertion of a classicist.
ovk i£ovBevrjaare ovbe e'^en-rvcrare]
'ye did not treat with contemptuous
indifference or with active loathing.'
As cm-07rrveiv is more usual than ck-
irrveiv in this metaphorical sense, the

latter seems to be preferred here for
the sake of the alliteration.
15. irov ovv o paKapiapbs vpdv;]
The reading of the received text differs
from this in two points: (1) It inserts
rjv after ovv. This is certainly to be
omitted, as very deficient in authority
and perhaps also as giving a wrong
sense to the passage. (2) It reads r/s
for 7rov. On this point there is more
difficulty. The weight of direct evi
dence is certainly in favour of irov,
but on the other hand it is more pro
bable that 7rov should have been sub
stituted for ris than conversely ; espe
cially as several Greek commentators
(Theud. Mops., Theodoret, Severianus)
who read n's explain it by irov.
If the reading n's 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 rjv) ; (2) ' What has be
come of your rejoicing? where has it
vanished?' (understanding e'o-n'v). In
the latter sense it would coincide in
meaning with ttov ovv d paKapiapbs,
which can only be taken in one way.
This interpretation seems more natu
ral than the former.
d paKapiapbs vpwv] 'your felicita
tion of yourselves] 'your happiness in
my teaching,' as the sense seems to re
quire, vjucov is probably the subjective
genitive, though the Galatians were at
the same time also the object of the
paKapiapbs. 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 paKapiapbs would
ill express their welcoming of him ;
not the latter, for St Paul is dwelling
on the change of feeling which they

174

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[IV. 16, 17

16 «' >
wq-tc e%-

6(p6aXpovs vpwv i^opvgavTes iBwKaTe poi.
6pos vpwv yeyova dXnOevwv vpTv ; 17 Zr]Xovo-iv vpds ov
KaXws, dXXd iKKXelo-ai vpds 6eXovo-iv, 'iva uvtovs fy-

themselves had. undergone. For paKa
piapbs, 'beatitudo,' see Rom. iv. 6,
9, and Clem. Rom. § 50.
^aprvpco] '/ bear witness,' see the
note on 1 Thess. ii. 12.
el bwarbv k.t.X.] 'if it had been
possible, if you could have benefited
me thereby, you would have plucked
out your very eyes, would have given
me that which is most precious to
you.' For Kal rods dcpBaXpovs 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. 188, note.
e'SwKare] 'ye had given! The sup
pression of the condition expresses
more vividly their readiness ; see Wi
ner § xiii. p. 3 2 1 . The insertion of av in
the received text enfeebles the sense.
16. coo-re] '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 ?'
ixBpos vpdv] 'your enemy! It
was a term by which the Judaizers of
a later age, and perhaps even at this
time, designated St Paul ; Clem. Hum.
Ep. Petr. § 2 rov exBpov dvBpdirov
avopov nva Kal (pXvapdbrj irpoarjKd-
pevoi bibaaKaXiav, Clem. Rec. i. 70 :
see p. 61. This quotation suggests
that dvopos was another of these hos
tile names which he is parrying in 1
Cor. ix. 21 pr) wv iivopos Geov.
dXrjBevav] probably referring to
some warnings given during his se
cond visit. See the introduction
p. 25. Compare the proverb, Ter.
Andr. i. 1. 41 'obsequium amicos,
Veritas odium parit.'
17. From speaking of the former
interchange of affection between him
self and his Galatian converts, he goes

ou to contrast their relations with the
false teachers: 'I once held the first
place in your hearts. Now you look
upon me as an euemy. 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.' Z^Xovo-iv] 'they pay court to! As
c^Xovv 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 £r)Xos, if cor
rectly derived from fe'co. See 2 Cor.
xi. 2 ^rjXw ydp vpds Geov fijXco : SO
also Plut. Mor. p. 448 E virb xP*las rb
irpdrov eirovrai Kal £rjXovaiv, varepov be
Kal (piXovaiv : 1 Cor. xii. 31, xiv. 1, 39,
Ezek. xxxix. 25.
dXXd] is connected not with fijXoC-
o-iv, but with ov koXcos : comp. Mscix.
Bum. 458 e<p6iff ovros' ov KaXws, po-
Xcov is oikov, dXXd viv KeXaivb(ppav epr)
prjrrjp KareKra.
eKKXeiaai vpds] ' to exclude, to debar
you! If it is asked 'from what?', the
reply is to be sought in the tendency
of the false teaching. By insisting on
ceremonial observances, they were in
fact shutting out the Galatians from
Christ. The idea is the same as in
V. 4 KarrjpyrjBrjTe dirb rot) Xpiorov, rijs
Xapiros i^eiriaare. The reading rjpds,
though it gives a good sense, is almost
destitute of authority.
iva avrovs fijXovre] 'that, having no
refuge elsewhere, you may pay court
to them! For the present indicative
after i'va comp. r Cor. iv. 6 iva pr)

IV. 18-20]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

175

XovTe. l8KaXov Be fyXovo-6ai iv koXw irdvTOTe, Kal
pr) povov iv tw irapeivai pe irpos vpds, I9TeKvla pov, ovs
irdXiv wBivw pe^pis ov pop(pwdr) XpicrTos iv vplv sor}de-

19. riKva pov. dxpis

(pvaiovaBe : a usage quite unclassical,
but often found in later writers ; see
Winer § xii. p. 304. The future in
dicative with iva is comparatively com
mon, as e.g. ii. 4. The attempt to
give iva with the indicative a local
sense (quo in statu) as opposed to a
final, (e.g. Fritzsche on Matth. p. 836
sq.), may mislead, as seeming to as
sume that there is an essential differ
ence between the local and the final
ha. The final 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 iva 7roieire and iva iroirjre
is not in the adverb, which is of con
stant value, but in the moods.
(j/Xovre be rd Kpeirra ^apiVp-ara IS
interpolated here in many copies from
1 Cor. xii. 31 ; comp. iii. 1, note.
18. KaXdv be £r]Xova8ai k.t.X.] The
number of possible explanations is
limited by two considerations; (1)
That frXovv 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 &-
XovaBai must be passive and not mid
dle; a transitive sense of £rjXova8ai,
even if it were supported by usage
elsewhere, being inexplicable here in
the immediate neighbourhood of the
active faXovv.
With these limitations only two
interpretations present themselves,
whichdeservetobe considered. 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 pr) pbvov iv ra
irapeivai pe. The objection to the latter
sense is, that it supplies too much. 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 fyXovaBe found in the
two best mss, is in itself but another
way of writing the infinitive faXovaBai,
the sounds e and ai being the same.
It was however liable to be mistaken
for an imperative, and is so translated
in the Vulgate.
19. This verse should be taken with
the preceding and the punctuation re
gulated accordingly. It is difficult to
explain Se, ver. 20, if reKvia pov be made
the beginning of a new sentence. The
connexion of thought seems to be as
follows : ' I have a right to ask for con
stancy in your affections. I have a
greater claim on you than these new
teachers. They speak but as strangers
to strangers; I as a mother to her
children with whom she has travailed.'
Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 14 'Though ye have
ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have
ye not many fathers.'
reKvia p.ov] 'my little children,' a
mode of address common in St John,-

176

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[IV. 21

Xov Be irapeivai irpos vpds dpTi Kal dXXa^ai Tr\v (pwvr\v
pov, oti diropovpai iv vpiv.
"Aeyere poi, ol viro vopov deXovTes eivai, tov vo-

but not found elsewhere in St Paul.
This however is no argument for the
reading reTcva in preference to reKvia,
for St Paul does not elsewhere use the
vocatives re'Kva, tckvov, except in Ephes-
vi. 1, Col. iii. 20, where he could not
possibly have had reKvia, and in 1 Tim.
i. 18, 2 Tim. ii. 1, where reKvi'ov 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 re'Kva however
is very highly supported and may per
haps be correct.
7rdXiv coSi'vco] 'I travailed with you
once in bringing you to Christ. By
your relapse you have renewed a mo
ther's pangs in me.' There is no allu
sion here, as some have thought, to
the new birth in the Spirit (maXiyyeve-
0-1'd) as opposed to the old birth in
the flesh.
popqbaBji iv vpiv] i.e. 'until you have
taken the form of Christ,' as the em
bryo developes into the child. Com
pare the similar expression of 'grow
ing up into the full stature of Christ,'
Ephes. iv. 13. The words popcpaBrj iv
vpiv 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,howeverindirectly,
the idea of subordination.
For an elaborate application of the
metaphor in the text see the Epistle

of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons,
Euseb. v. 1 §§ 40, 41, especially the
words oi irXeiovs aveprjrpovvro Kal
dveKvip-Kovro k.t.X.
20. rjBeXov be k.t.X.] ' b ut, speaking
of my presence, / would I had been
present with you now! The Se catches
up the passing thought of irapeivai
(ver. 18), before it escapes; comp. 1
Cor. i. 16 iBdirnaa be Kal rdv 2re0av2
oocov. The connexion of this clause
with the previous irapeivai requires
that the sentence should be continu
ous, and that there should be no full
stop after irpos vpds (ver. 18) ; see the
note on ver. 19. All other explana
tions seem harsh. Ae 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 reKvia pov, rjBeXov be.
rjBeXov, as rjvx°lulv Rom. ix. 3, iBov-
Xbprjv Acts xxv. 22. The thing is
spoken of in itself, prior to and inde
pendently of any conditions which
might affect its possibility ; see Winer
§ xii. p. 298, and Fritzsche on Rom. 11.
p. 245.
apn] See the note i. 9.
dXXd£ai rr)v (pavrjv pov] not 'to mo
dify my language from time to time
as occasion demands,' for this is more
than the phrase will bear, but ' to
change my present tone.' The change
meant is surely from severity to gen
tleness, and not from less to greater
severity, as it has often been taken.
His anxiety to mitigate the effects of
his written rebuke has an exact pa
rallel in his dealings with the Corin
thian offender ; see esp. 2 Cor. ii. 5
Sq", airopovpai iv vpiv] 'I am perplexed
about you, I am at a loss how to deal
with you': comp. 2 Cor. vii. 16 0appc3

IV. 22, 23]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

177

pov ovk aKOveTe ; ^ yey pairTai yap oti 'Afipadp Bvo
vlovs 'ecrxev, eva iK ttjs iraiBlo-Kris Kal eva ck Trjs iXev-
Bepas. 23aAA' 6 [pev] iK Trjs iraiBio-Kris KaTa o-dpKa

iv vpiv. The idea of inward question
ing is expressed more strongly by dVo-
peiaBai than by diropeiv. It is proba
bly a middle rather than a passive;
though diropeiv is found as a transitive
verb in Clem. Horn. i. 1 1 dVopeiv avrdv
ireipdpevoi as BdpBapov nva baipovwv-
ra, if the text be not corrupt.
21. 01 V7rd vbpov K.r.X.] 'ye, who
would be subject to law, who must
needs submit to bondage in some way
¦or other.' Observe here again the
distinction between vdpos and 6 vbpos,
and see the notes on ii. 19, iv. 4, 5.
rdv vbpov] 'the few,' when referring
to the written word, either comprises
the whole of the Old Testament writ
ings (e.g. Rom. iii. 19), or is restricted
to the Pentateuch (e. g. Rom. iii. 21,
Luke xxiv. 44).
ovk aKovere] 'will ye not listen to?'
Matth. 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 dvayivaaKere, which has
respectable authority, is evidently a
gloss on this latter sense assigned to
the word.
ye'ypajrrai] 'it is stated in the scrip
tures,' introducing a general reference,
and not a direct quotation ; as in 1 Cor.
xv. 45. See Genesis xvi, xxi.
rijs 7raiSi'crKT)s] ' the bondmaid;'
COmp. Gen. xvi. I rjv be avTrj iraibiaKrj
Myvirria, t) ovopa " Kyap. 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 on Phryn. p. 239
iraibiaKrj' rovro iirl rrjs Bepairaivrjs 01
vvv nBeaaiv, 01 S' dp^aioi iirl rrjs veavi-
bos. 23. dXXd] 'but,'i.e. although sons
of the same father. The opposition
implied in dXXd is illustrated by Rom.
GAL.

IX. 7 ovS' on elalv aireppa 'ABpadp,
iravres TeKva, and ix. IO it-evbs Koirrjv
e'xovaa. Kard adpKa] i.e. '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. yeye'wijrai] the perfect, 'is recorded
as born,' 'is born, as we read.'
24. dnva] 'now all these things;'
not simply a ' which particular things,'
but dnva 'which class of things:'
COmp. Col. ii. 23 drivd e'crnv Xdyov
pev exovra aoqblas, i.e. precepts of this
sort. dXX?/yopov^eva] The word has two
senses : (1) 'To speak in an allegory,'
e. g. Joseph. Ant. procem. 4 rd pev
alvirropevov tov vopoBerov Sef icos ra Se
dXXnyopovvros K.r.X.; (2) 'To treat or
interpret as an allegory,' e.g. Philo
de Vit. Cont. § 3, II. p. 475 M ivrvyxd-
vovres ydp rois lepois ypdpipaai qpiXoao-
<povai rrjv irdrpiov (piXoaofpiav aXXrjyo-
povvres, iireibr) avpBoXa rd rrjs prjrrjs
epprjveias vopltjivai (pvaeas airoKeKpvp-
pevrjs iv virovolais brjXovpevrjs, Clem.
Horn. vi. 18, 20, and frequently : comp.
Plut. Op. Mor. p. 363 D dWep"EXXnves
Kpdvov aXXrjyopovai rov Xpbvov k.t.X.
It is possible that St Paul uses the
word in this latter sense, referring to
some recognised mode of interpreta
tion. Comp. the note on o-vv<rroixei
ver. 25, and see the remarks p. 195.
St Paul uses dXXi^yopia here much
in the same sense as he uses rvn-os
12

1 78

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[IV. 24

yeyevvtiTai, 6 Be eK Trjs iXevdepas Bid Trjs iirayyeXias.
s4aTivd eo-Tiv dXXnyopovpeva. avTai ydp elcriv Bvo
BiadrJKai, pia pev diro opovs livd, els BovXeiav yevvwaa,

I Cor. X. II ravra be rviriKas avve-
Baivev, not denying the historical
truth of the narrative, but super
posing a secondary meaning. By a
stricter definition dXXrjyopia and rv-
7ros were distinguished as denoting
the former a fictitious, the latter a
true narrative. See the definition of
dXXrjyopia, Heracl. Alleg. Horn. 5 6
aXXa pev dyopevav rpbiros erepa be av
Xeyei arjpaivav. Hence the jealousyof
the Antiochene fathers (Chrysostom,
Severianus, Theod. Mops.) in explain
ing that St Paul uses the word Kara-
XprjariKds here and does not deny the
historical truth of the narrative.
The author of the Clem. Horn. (ii.
22) indirectly attacks this allegory :
see the introduction, p. 61.
avrai yap k.t.X.] 'for these women
are (represent) two covenants! Elalv
'are' not actually, but mystically or
typically; Matt. xiii. 39, xxvi. 26 —
28, 1 Cor. x. 4. The article before Svo
must be omitted.
pia pev] 'one of them, which was
given from Mount Sinai, bearing
children unto bondage! The true an
tithesis would have been iripa be,
but it melts away in the general fu
sion of the sentence, vv. 25, 26. For
yewcoo-a used of a mother, see Luke
i. 13: it occurs so in Xen. de Bep.
Lac. i. 3, and occasionally elsewhere,
especially in later writers.
77ns] 'inasmuch as she! rj would
simply declare the fact, 17ns places it
in dependence on the context.
25. rd ydp Siva k.t.X.] 'for Sinai
is a mountain in Arabia,' i. e. in the
land of bondsmen, themselves de
scended from Hagar. The stress lies
on ev rfj 'ApaBla, not on d'pos which
is unemphatic. Perhaps the order is
against taking the words, 'Mount
Sinai is in Arabia'; though this would

yield a better sense. The Arabians are
called 'sons of Hagar,' Baruch iii. 23 :
see Ewald Gesch. des V. Isr. 1. p. 418.
St Paul's language here is further
illustrated by the prominence given
to Hagar in the national legends of
the Arabs, where she is represented
as the lawful wife of Abraham : see
d'Herbelot Bibl. Or. s. v. Hagiar.
The word is preserved also in the
name of several Arab tribes, e.g.
the Hagarenes or Hagarites of the
Old Testament (Ps. lxxxiii. 7, QHjn,
'Ayaprjvoi; and 1 Chron. v. 19, D^HJn,
'Ayapaioi, comp. ver. 10), and the
'Aypaioi of heathen writers (Eratosth.
ap. Strab. 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. 194.
The clause rd ydp Siva k.t.X. is par
enthetical and the nominative to aw-
aroixei IS pia biaBrjKrj.
For the various readings in this
passage and for different interpreta
tions of the word 'Hagar,' see the de
tached notes p. 189 sq.
o-wcrroi^ei] 'answers to'; literally,
'belongs to the same row or column
with.' In military language avaroixia
denotes a, file, as o-vfvyia does a rank
ofsqldiers; comp. Polyb. x.21. 7. The
use of this word here is best illus
trated by the Pythagorean o-vo-roixi'ai
of opposing principles (Arist. Eth. N.
i. 6, Metaph. i. 5), which stood thus ;

Good,
Finite,
One,Permanent, etc.

Bad,
Infinite, Many,Changing, etc.

IV. 25, 26]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

179

rJTis io-Tlv '' Ayap- *$to yap livd opos io-Tlv iv Tr) 'A-
pafiia' o-vvo-Toixei Be Ty vvv '\epovo-aXr\p, BovXevei yap
peTa twv TeKVWv avTrjs' a6rJ Be avw 'lepovcraXrjp iXev-

Similar also were the avaroix'iai 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 avaroixiai thus;
Hagar, the bond- Sarah, the free-
woman, woman.
Ishmael, the child Isaac, the child of
after the flesh. promise.
The old covenant. The new covenant.
The earthly Jeru- The heavenly Jeru
salem, salem.
etc. etc .
The old covenant is thus avaroixos with
the earthly Jerusalem, but avnaroixos
to the heavenly. It is not improbable
that St Paul is alluding to some mode
of representation common with Jewish
teachers to exhibit this and similar
allegories. Strangely enough the fa
thers with but few exceptions trans
late awaroixei 'borders upon," is con
tiguous to,' which is scarcely true
even in the most forced sense of con
tiguity. rfj vvv 'lepovaaXrjp] The metropolis
of the Jews is taken to represent the
whole race.
SovXevei ydp K.r.X.] 'is in spiritual
bondage with her children,' just as
Hagar was in social bondage with her
child Ishmael. For rcov reKvav avrrjs
see Matt, xxiii. 37.
26. rj dva 'lepovaaXrjp] St Paul here
uses an expression familiar to rab
binical teachers, but detaches it from
those sensuous and material concep
tions with which they invested it. See
the treatise de Hieros. Cosiest, in
Schottgen's Hor. Hebr. 1. p. 1205.
With them it is an actual city, the

exact counterpart of the earthly Jeru
salem in its topography and its furni
ture : with him it is a symbol or image,
representing that spiritual city of
which the Christian is even now a
denizen (Phil. iii. 20). See Heb.
Xll. 22 'iepovcraX^fi iirovpdvios, Rev. iii.
1 2, xxi. 2 Kawr) 'lepovaaXrjp : COmp.
Test, xii Patr. Dan 5, Clem. Bee. i.
51. The contrast between the two
scenes, as they appeared 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 beauti
ful than ever in the fresh glories of
the Herodian renaissance, 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 oppressive power of
which the Apostle himself had felt
during his sojourn there (see p. 89) —
these scenes fitly represented the con
trast between the glorious hopes of
the new covenant and the blank de
spair of the old. Comp. Heb. xii. 18
— 22. The Apostle instinctively prefers
the Hebrew form 'lepovaaXrjp here
for the typical city, as elsewhere in
this epistle (i. 17, 18, ii. 1) he employs
the Greecised form 'lepoo-dXv/ia for the
actual city. ' 'lepovaaXrjp est appellatio
Hebraica, originaria et sanctior : 'Ie-
poabXvpa, deinceps obvia, Graeca, ma-
gis politica,' says Bengel on Rev. xxL 2,
accounting for the usage of St John
('in evangelio 'IepocrdXvpa, in apoca-
lypsi 'lepovaaXrjp'), and referring to
this passage in illustration. In his
other epistles St Paul has always
'iepovcraXifp. ; Rom. XV. 19, 25, 26, 31,
1 Cor. xvi. 3.
prjrrjp rjpdv] 'the mother of us
Christians.' St Paul's expression was
12 — 2

i8o

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[IV. 27, 28

depa eo-Tiv, vtis io-Tlv pr\Tr\p npuv. s7 yey pairTai ydp
eYfppA'NGHTI CTeTpA H Of TIKTOYCA, 'pHlON KAI BOHCON
H OYK WilNOYCA, oti tt 0 A A a TA T 6 K N A THC epHMOY
maAAon h thc epycHc ton anApa. ^vpels Be, dBeX-
28. ijpeis Si — reVva eapiv.

borrowed and adapted by Polycarp
§ 3 rrjv boBeiaav vpiv irianv rjns eari
prjrrjp rrdvrav rjpav. From a confusion
of this loose quotation with the original
text, the word 7rdvrcov was early inter
polated in St Paul; e.g. in Iren. (in
terp.) v. 35. 2. This at all events is not
an improbable account of the origin of
the received reading irdvrwv rjpdv ; or
perhaps n-dvrcov crept in from Rom. iv.
16 os eanv irarrjp irdvrav rjpdv.
27. St Paul here illustrates the
allegory by reference to a passage in
Isaiah liv. t. This passage in its con
text is a song of triumph anticipating
the deliverance of God's afflicted people
Israel from a foreign yoke. Sion has
been deserted by her Lord (xlix. 14),
and is mourning in her widowhood :
she will be restored to favour and be
come the mother of a large and pro
sperous people. The image of con
jugal xmion, as representing the rela
tion of Jehovah to His people, is
drawn out at some length in the con
text, see esp. Ii v. 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 de
scendants. Accordingly Jewish wri
ters connected li. 2 with liv. 1 ; ' Steri-
litas Abrahae et Sarse figura fuit steri-
litatis Sion,' Ir Gibborim fol. 49. 2,
quoted in Schbttgen. Here then Sarah
= the chosen people = the Church of
Christ. yeypairrai ydp] from the lxx where
some few texts add Kai repirov after
Bbrjaov with the Hebrew. It is quoted
as St Paul quotes it in Pseudo-Clem.
Epist. ii. § 2, and Justin, Apol. i. c. 53,

p. 88 c, 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.
1. p. 258 sq. (Eng. Tr.). The Hebrew
differs somewhat, as do the other
Greek versions (see Jerome and Pro-
copius in Is. 1. c). rdp links the quo
tation with prjrrjp rjpdv.
7roXXd rd reKva pdXXov rj] for the
usual Greek irXeiova rj, the Hebrew
idiom (}D D^l), which has no com
parative, being followed.
rrjs ixovarjs tov dvSpa] 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.
rj o-reipa] 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 dypieXaios, Rom. xi. 17.
28. ipeis bi] resuming the main
subject, ver. 27 being in a manner
parentbetical. Kara 'laaaK] See Rom. ix. 7 — 9.
The Gentiles were sprung from one
'as good as dead': they had no claims
of race or descent. Thus they were
sons not Kara adpKa, but, like Isaac,
e£ iirayyeXias.
The^ reading rjpeis-. -iapev, for vuels.
...iare, is very highly supported, but
perhaps was a transcriber's correction
to conform to ver. 26, 31. The direct
appeal of vpeis is more forcible, and
the change of persons is characteristic
of St Paul ; see the note ver. 7.

IV. 29, 30]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

ISI

(f)ol, KaTa 'lo-aaK iirayyeXias TeKva io-Te. *9 dXX'
too-irep Tore 6 KaTa o-dpKa yevvridels iBiwKev tov KaTa
irvevpa, ovtws Kal vvv. 3°dXXd t'i Xeyei rj ypacbtj;
CKBAAe THN TTAlAl'cKHN Ka) TON YION A y T H C- of f^p

29. e'Si'coKev rov K.r.X.] The He
brew text, Gen. xxi. 9, has simply
'laughing' (plTSO). This single word
the lxx expands into irai£ovra perd
'laaaK rov vtoii avrfjs. From this it
may be conjectured that the verse
originally ended [pnx'3 H331] pnXD,
(comp. Gen. xxxix. 14, 17), the words
in brackets having dropped out owing
to the homceoteleuton. At all events
the word seems to mean 'mocking,
jeering;' 'Lusio ilia illusio erat', says
Augustine pertinently (Serm. 3). The
anger of Sarah taken in connexion
with the occasion, a festival in honour
of the weaning of Isaac, seems to re
quire it. Such also would appear to
be the force of the rendering in the
older Targum, "VTO. 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
Jahrb. in. p. 1 3.) 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 ag
gressions of the Arab tribes (of the
Hagarenes especially, see Ps. Ixxxiii.
7, 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.
ovrcos Kal vvv] '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. rj ypa<prj] Gen. xxi. io, taken
from the lxx which again is a close
translation of the Hebrew. At the
end of the quotation however St Paul
has substituted rrjs iraibiaKrjs perd tov
viov rrjs eXevBepas for the LXX r^s !rai-
biaKrjs ravrns perd rov viov pov 'laaaK,
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 ^17 KXj/povo/iijVei] 'shall in no
wise inherit;' comp. Joh. viii. 35 6
SovXos ov pivei iv rrj o'lKia els rov aldva
k.t.X. The Law and the Gospel can
not coexist; 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

182

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[IV. 31; v.,

MH KAHpONOMHCei 6 YIOC THC TT A I A I C K H C M6TA TOY
Yioy thc eAeYeepAc. 3I Bio, dBeX<pol, ovk io-pev
TraiBlo-Krjs TCKva, dXXd Trjs iXevdepas [V] zTrj iXevde-
pia r\ rjpds Xpio-Tos tjXevdepwo-ev. crTrjKeTe ovv Kal pr\
irdXiv Zvyw BovXeias ivex^crde.
iv. 31, V. 1. rrjs eXevdipas. r% eXevBepla ijpds k.t.X.

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 owu
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.
KXi/povofiijVei should probably beread,
not KXrjpovoprjarj, as being better sup
ported here and in the lxx ; comp. Wi-
ner§lvi.p.S28,andA.Buttmannp. 183.
31. Sid] '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 Sid is
probably correct. Some copies have
rjpeis Se, others rjpeis ovv, others apa or
Spa ovv, and one at least entirely omits
the connecting particle. The difficulty
in Sid was evidently felt, but sufficient
allowance was not made for St Paul's
freedom in the employment of con
necting particles.
ov iraibiaKrjs dXXd K.r.X.] Observe
the omission of the article before
iraibiaKrjs; '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 dvtfpco-
wovs ireiBa rj rdv Bebv;
V.I. tji eXevBepla fj k.t.X.] If this
reading be adopted (see the detached
note, p. 197), the words are best taken

with the preceding sentence. They
may then be connected either (1) with
reKva iapev rrjs eXevBipas, 'we are SOUS
of the free by virtue of the freedom
which Christ has given us'; or (2) with
r^s eXevBipas alone, 'of her who is free
with that freedom which Christ etc'
The latter is perhaps the simpler con
struction. In either case rj; iXevBepia
k.t.X. serves the purpose of an explan
atory note.
If on the other hand we read rfj
iXev&eplarjpds Xpiarbs rjXevBepaaev, 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 iir
eXevBepla iKXrjBrjre, and especially John
viii. 36 e'dv ovv d vids vpds iXevBepdarj,
ovras iXevBepoi eaeaBe. The abrupt
ness of the sentence, introduced with
out a connected particle, has a fair
parallel in Ephes. ii. 5 xapiri e'o-re o-e-
aaapevoi : but the dative, 'with' or
'in' or 'for freedom,' is awkward, in
whatever way it is taken; see A. Butt-
man p. 155.
arrJKere] 'stand firm, stand up
right, do not bow your necks to the
yoke of slavery'; comp. 2 Thess. ii. 15
apa ovv, dbeXtpol, arrjKere K.r.X. The
form o-r^Kco appears not to occur ear
lier than the New Testament, where
with one exception (Mark xi. 25) it is
found only in St Paul.
irdXiv] '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 irds iiriarpecpere irdXiv, ird
Xiv dvwBev bovXeveiv BeXere. For the
force of these expressions see the in
troduction, p. 30, and the note on iv. 1 1.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 183

St Paul's infirmity in the flesh.
In the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (xii. 7) St Paul, after speaking References
of the abundant revelations vouchsafed to him, adds that ' a thorn' or to nj3 ln-
rather 'a stake' was ' given him in his flesh, a messenger of Satan sent to rau y-
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 it1.
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 question2, shaped in many Different
instances by the circumstances of the interpreters themselves, who saw in aocolmts-
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 i- A bodily
the incident, is also the first in point of time. A very early tradition ^^"Jl
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. I. c), ' Tradunt eum gravissimum capitis dolorem ssepe per-
pessum.' The headache is mentioned also by Pelagius and Primasius (both
1 Of the three readings, tov ireipaa- Catena, p. 158) have a mixed reading rdv
pbv pov rov ev, tov ireipaapbv rdv ev ireipaapbv bp&v rov ev k.t.X. Both
(omitting pov), and tov ireipaapbv bpwv these authorities are overlooked by
ev (omitting rbv), I have no hesitation Tischendorf.
in preferring the last; for (1) it is the 2 A long list of references to writers
most difficult of the three ; (2) it ac- who have discussed this question is
counts for the remaining two, (see the given in Wolf Cur. Philol. on 1, Cor.
note on the passage) ; and (3) it has far xii. 7. I have to acknowledge my ob-
higher support than the others in the ligations chiefly to Calov. Bibl. Illustr.
ancient copies. To the authorities in its on 2 Cor. 1. c, and Stanley's Corinth-
favour given by Tischendorf, which are ians p. 563 sq. (2nd ed.). I have had
already perhaps sufficient to decide the no opportunity of using Bertholdt
question, tf must now be added. Eusebius Opusc. 134 sq., to which I find fre-
of Emesa here (Cramer's Catena, p. 65) quent references in recent commenta-
and Origen on Ephes. iii. 14 (Cramer's ries.

1 84

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

ii. Perse
cution (Greek fa
thers).

Jerome.

on 2 Cor. I. c). Others seem to have followed a different tradition as to
the complaint in question1; but in some form or other illness was the
solution which suggested itself to the earliest writers. This appears to
be the idea of Irenseus, the first writer who alludes to the subject, and
of Victorinus, the first extant commentator on the Epistle to the Gala
tians3. 2. 'Nay, not so,' argued Chrysostom (2 Cor., Gal.), as others probably
had argued before him ; ' it cannot have been a headache,, it cannot have
been any physical malady. God would not have delivered over the body of
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. I. c.) among the Greek, and the Ambrosian Hilary
(2 Cor., Gal.) among the Latin fathers. It is adopted also by Augustine
(Gal.), by Theodore of Mopsuestia (Gal.), by Theodoret (2 Cor., Gal.), by
Photius ( ? ap. OUcum., 2 Cor., Gal.), and by Theophylact (2 Cor., Gal.)3.
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

1 An ancient writer (Cotel. Mon.
Eccles. I. p. 252) says, rpixdv iirairjad-
peBa rty atfialpeaiv avva(j>iXwpev abrals
Kal robs iv Ty Ke<paXrj axbXoiras' Kopd-
aavres yip outoi e'lrnrXe'av ij/ias bbvv&ai'
to pev ydp rplxapa ijpav ijv b Kara rov
filov Kbapos, ripal, S6£ai, xpvpdrav kti)-
creis, K-r.X., on which the editor (p. 756)
absurdly enough remarks, 'ex toto
contextu suspicari datur a nostro per
o-KoXoTra animalcula quas caput pungunt
intellectaesse.' 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)
attributes to Gregory Nazianzen. Aqui
nas mentions the opinion, ' quod fuit ve-
hetnenter afflictus dolore iliaco' (colic),
but I have not noticed it in any earlier
writer. On the whole the tradition of
the headache (KeipaXaXyla) is fairly con
stant. 2 Iren. v. 3. 1, but his language is
obscure. Viotorinus says, 'infirmus
oarne,' 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. Pus. Tract, ad fin. (11. p.
400, Gamier).

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 1 85
may be inferred from the alternative explanations which Jerome offers in
his commentary on the Galatians, derived in part from tradition, but partly
without doubt conjectural. These are four in number : (i) St Paul's carnal
preaching of the Gospel, as addressed to babes ; (2) His mean personal
appearance ; (3) Some bodily malady, traditionally reported as headache ;
(4) Persecutions endured by him1.
3. ' No,' thought the monks and ascetics of a somewhat later date, iii. Carnal
'not persecution. It was surely something which we can realise, something thoughts
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 ear
lier writers had used language which prepared the way for it2. Through
out 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 Lapide3, and
Estius. Luther is probably correct when he attributes the prevalence of
this interpretation to the influence of the Latin version, which renders o-ko-
Xo^r rfj aapA by ' stimulus oarnis.'
This account again of St Paul's thorn in the flesh may confidently be
set aside. In such a temptation he could not have ' gloried '; nor would
this struggle, hidden as it must have been in his own heart, have exposed
him to the contempt of others. But indeed from painful trials of this kind
we have his own assurance that he was free : ' I would,' he says, ' that all
men were even as myself (1 Cor. vii. 7). 'Ah no,' said Luther, 'he was
too hard pressed by the devil to think of such things.'
4. And in turn Luther propounded his own view of the thorn in the iv. Spiri-
1 Ephraem Syrus (on Gal. iv. 13), a interpretation, ' naturalem infirmita-
little earlier than Jerome, says ' Either tern'; Primasius more definitely, though
disease of his limbs or temptation from still only as an alternative explanation,
his enemies.' 'alii dicunt titillatione carnis stimula-
2 Jerome Epist. xxii (ad Eustoch.) turn.' Gregory the Great, Mor. yiii.
§ 5, says : ' Si apostolus vas electionis c. 29, writes, ' Sic Paulus ad tertium
et separatus in evangelium Christi ob coelum raptus ducituj, paradisi pene-
carnis aculeos et incentiva vitiorum trans secreta considerat, et tameo ad
reprimit corpus suum, etc.,' quoting semetipsum rediens contra carnis bellum
Rom. vii. 24, but he makes no refer- laborat, legem aliam in membria susti-
ence to either of the passages in St Paul net.' Comp. also x. 10. And thus, as
which relate to his 'thorn in the flesh,' time went on, this opinion gained
and in § 31 of the same letter he says, strength, till at length it assumed the
•' Si aliquis te afflixerit dolor, legito, coarsest and most revolting form.
dolus est mihi stimulus carnis mew, ' evi- 3 Corn, a Lapide on 1 Cor. xu. 7 .
dently explaining it of some bodily pain. almost exalts this interpretation into an
The passage in Augustine, Ps. Iviii. article of faith: 'Videtur communis
Serm. ii (iv. pp. 572, 3), is vague, and fidelium sensus, qui hinc libidmis ten-
need not necessarily refer to this kind tationem stimulum carnis vooant : vox
of temptation. Pelagius gives, as one autem populi est vox dei.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

tual trials
(Reformers).

Recent critics.

Conditions
of the pro
blem.

flesh. He complained that the older churchmen were unable from their
position to appreciate St Paul's meaning, and thus he consciously threw
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 devil1. This view naturally com
mended 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
pretation, criticism has returned to the point from which it started.
Bodily ailment of some kind has been felt by most recent writers to be the
only solution which meets all the conditions of the question.
These conditions are as follows : (i) The Apostle speaks of physical pain
of a very acute kind ; for nothing less can be implied by his metaphor of a
stake driven through his flesh2. (2) The malady, whatever its nature, was
very humiliating to himself, for he speaks of it as a set-off against his spiri
tual 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 con
stancy and resolution, a grievous hindrance to the Gospel in itself, a power
ful testimony to the Gospel when overcome as he was enabled to overcome
it. (4) His suffering was such that he could not conceal it from others. It
seems to have attacked him in the course of his public ministrations, so
that he feared it might expose him to the contempt and even loathing of

1 In his shorter and earlier com
mentary on the G alatians ( 1 5 1 9) 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 perse
cution and speaks of spiritual trials
only, xxiv. § 7 (vol. xxn. p. 1092 of
the Halle edition). This last passage
forms a striking contrast to the lan
guage of a Lapide quoted in the last
note. ' Those were high spiritual temp
tations,' says Luther, ' which no papist
has understood,' with more in the same
strain. Thus each of these writers
makes his own interpretation in a man
ner a test of orthodoxy. Other refer
ences in Luther's works to the ' thorn
in the flesh' are, vol. vm. p. 959, xi.
p. 1437, XII. p. 561.
2 This seems to he the meaning of

aKbXoij/: see the notes of Meyer and
Stanley on 1 Cor. xii. 7. Robertson,
Lectures on the Corinthians lix, lx, speaks
of the thorn as peculiarly suggestive of
some ' secret sorro w ' ; 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 or loathing 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 struggle against '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.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 1 87
his hearers. (5) In the meanness of his personal presence, of which he was
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' (1 Cor. ii. 3). Lastly, from the twin
references to his malady, in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians and in
the Epistle to the Galatians, it may be inferred that he had a fresh attack
about the years 57, 58, when these letters were written, and to this he may
allude in part when he speaks in the former of these epistles of having
'despaired even of life,' of having 'had the sentence of death in himself
(2 Cor. i. 8, 9).
The life of the greatest and best of English kings presents so close a Parallel
parallel to the Apostle's thorn in the flesh, that I cannot forbear quoting °f.:F!"S
the passage at length, though the illustration is not my own1. f " ' ''
"It was in the midst of these rejoicings (on the occasion of his marriage)
that Alfred was suddenly attached 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. The 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, I. p. 368 (2nd ed.).

1 88 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
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 (Engl. 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.
Conclu- Unless then we accept the earliest tradition of this infirmity, and
sion. assume that the Apostle suffered from acute pain in the head, (an account
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 examination1.
1 It is put forward in a lively and eyes! (2) The expression irijXlKa ypda-
interesting paper in Dr J. Brown's para (vi. 11) is thought to be illus-
Horm Subsecivce. But the foundation trated by this view of St Paul's com-
on which this opinion is built seems to plaint, as though his defective eyesight
me scarcely strong enough to hear it ; explained the allusion to the size of the
for (1) The stress of the argument rests letters, or the length of the epistle, which-
on what I cannot but think a mistaken ever way we take it. It seems to me
interpretation of Gal. iv. 15, 'If it had that a much better account can be given
been possible, ye would have plucked of that expression : see the note there.
out your eyes and have given them to (3) It is supposed that this defective
me.' Here the English version has eyesight was a permanent effect of the
'your own eyes,' whioh lends some temporary blindness which seized the
countenance to the idea that'St Paul Apostle on the way to Damascus; and
intended to say they would have re- that thus his thorn in the flesh was
placed his eyes with their own, if it eminently fitted to be a check on spi-
could have been done: but the Greek ritual pride produced by his ' visions
is Toils b<pBaXpobs bpuv, where bpwv is and revelations.' But the narrative of
as unemphatic as possible, so that the the Acts implies, if it does not state,
meaning is not « your eyes, ' but * your that this blindness was completely healed ;

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 1 89

The various readings in iv. 25.
The following are the variations of text, which the opening clause of Variations.
this verse presents.
(i) rd ydp SivS opos eVn'v. So it is read in NCFG, 17; in the Old Latin
(f.g), Vulgate, jEthiopic, and Armenian Versions; in Origen1, Epi-
phanius2, Cyril 3 and Damascene ; in Victorinus, the Ambrosian
Hilary ('Sina autem mons,' in his text), Augustine, Jerome, Pelagius,
Primasius, and probably all the Latin fathers. This is also the
reading of the Gothic Version, except that it omits ydp. The
Thebaic Version reads similarly, 'quae vero mons Sina est.' The
ms N after iarlv adds ov, in which respect it stands alone (except
perhaps the Memphitic Version); and Epiphanius transposes 2iva
and opos.
(ii) rd be "Ayap Siva opos eVri'v. Such is the reading of ABDE, 37, 73,
80, lectionary 40, and of the Memphitic Version.
(iii) rb ydp "Ayap Siva opos eVri'v. So KLP with the vast majority of
cursive manuscripts, with both Syriac Versions, and with the Greek
commentators generally, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theo
doret, Theophylact, and the GScumenian Catena. This also is appa
rently the reading of Ephraem Syrus.
(iv) rd ydp "Ayap dpos iarlv found only in the Latin of D and E.4
It will thus be seen that the strongest, because the most varied, testi- Reading
mony is in favour of the first of these readings. And there is also this adopted.
weighty argument on the same side, that supposing it to have been the
and the passage in 1 Corinthians refers the other hand it is possible that he suf-
to incidents which occurred only four- fered from weak eyes, and this may ac-
teen years before the letter was written, count for the incident of Acts xxiii. 5 ;
and therefore much later than the Apo- but it is not implied in Gal. iv. 15, and
stle's conversion. (4) To the arguments does not explain the strong expressions
already considered, some have added used of his ' stake in the flesh,' though
the expression drevl^eiv, ' to look stead- perhaps it might be one of the conse-
twice used of St Paul (Acts quences of that infirmity. St Paul's

xiii. 9, xxiii. 1), as indicating a de- language implies some more striking
f ective vision ; but, not to mention that complaint.
the word occurs frequently in the Acts 1 In Cant, ii (in. p. 52, ed. Delarue)
of others besides St Paul, this ' stead- extant only in a Latin translation.
fast gaze' would seem, if anything, to 2 Havres. p. 69*.
imply a powerful eye. Thus it may be 3 Glaphyr. 1. p. 75 (ed. Auberti).
connected with the tradition or fiction, Cyril is said in other passages to read
dating at least from the second century, rb Se "Ayap and rb ydp "Ayap, but I am
that St Paul was abvoippvs (Acta Paul. unable to verify the statement.
et Thecl. § 3). The overhanging brows * The Ambrosian Hilary (in his
and piercing glance make up at least a commentary) is also quoted in favour of
consistent and characteristic portrait of this reading, but his words do not bear
the Apostle, if not a true likeness. On out the inference.

190

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

original reading we have on the whole a more probable explanation of the
variations in the text, than on any other hypothesis. By the negligence or
confusion of a scribe rd "Ayap might easily be substituted for rd ydp, the
word "Ayap occurring in the immediate context1. As a next step a con
necting particle must be supplied ; and 8e or ydp was inserted according to
the caprice or judgment of the transcriber, thus producing the second and
third readings. Lastly, the word 2iv5, 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 2 and Lachmann.
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 rd 8e "Ayap avaroixei rrj vvv 'lepovaaXrjp, but it seems sim
pler, if any such solution be adopted, to erase the whole clause rd ydp 
e'v rfj '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.

Probable interpretation of
' Hagar.'

The meaning of Hagar in iv. 25.
If the word Hagar be omitted, the passage is capable of a very easy
and natural interpretation; 'Sinai,' St Paul argues, 'is situated in Arabia,
the country of Hagar's descendants, the land of bondslaves.' And such
too seems to be the most probable account of his meaning, even if with the
received text we retain Hagar; 'This Hagar .is Mount Sinai in Arabia,'
i. e. it represents Mount Sinai, because Mount Sinai is in Arabia, the land
of Hagar and her descendants. It is not rj "Ayap, the woman Hagar, but
rd "Ayap, the thing Hagar, the Hagar of the allegory, the Hagar which is
under discussion3.

1 The commentary of Theodore
Mops, on this passage shews how easily
"Ayap might be foisted in. The Greek
text of this writer (in Cramer's Catena)
has dXX' "Ayap rj re eprjpos iraaa K.r.X.,
which makes nd sense. The Latin
translation runs 'sed et solitudo omnis, '
which doubtless represents the original
reading, dXXd Kai ij re iprj/nos iraaa.
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,
a. ydp (i.e. cZXXoi' ydp), marking a
various reading in the conneoting par

ticle, to have been transferred from the
margin to the text.
2 In his text of the epistle as given
inBentleii Crit. Sacr. p. 108. This text
is much later than his 'Epistola ad
Millium,' (lb. p. 45) in which he starts
the hypothesis of a gloss. This hypo
thesis was adopted by Mill and others.
3 rb denotes that ' Hagar' is regard
ed not as a person, but as an object of
thought or of speech. For this use of
the neuter article see "Winer § xviii.
p. 121, A. Buttmann p. 84. It need
not necessarily mean ' the word Hagar';
compare for instance Ephes. iv. 9 to Si

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 191
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 (rd rijs "Ayap iaKijvarai yivos)!
'The Saracens,' remarks a third writer, perhaps Severianus1, '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.' Hagar
This interpretation, which prevails widely, is put in its most attractive form taken for
by Dean Stanley. ' There is another traveller through Arabia,' he writes, g—
'at this time, on whose visit to Mount Sinai we should look with still
greater interest. I went into Arabia, says St Paul, in describing his con
version to the Galatians. It is useless to speculate ; yet when in a later
chapter of the same epistle 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
alludes2.' 'Hagar'3 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 arise on the interpretation, Objections
I have endeavoured to shew that 'Hagar' ought to be expelled from the to this.
text on the ground of external authority alone. Yet, if it be a 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.
dve/Si; ri eoriv; where rd is the state- rather 'CAajar'). The Arabic alphabet
ment, for the preceding word was not hag tw0 letter3) and • a softer
dve/3„ but &va?as._ The Ambrosia* Hi- and _ hargher ^ corres^onding to
lary (after the middle of the fourth ^ Qne Hebrew fal {C/leth).
century) explains it ' oausam Agar : a The .^.^ ^^ rf , H , , a stone;,
very early example of the sense which ^ ^ former of ^ & eoff. guttural
this word bears in the Romance Ian- a &nd Mt & gi lfJ irate- The
guages, ' cosa, ' chose.
1 In Cramer's Catena. It is ano- second letter of the word is •£, oorre-
nymous (d'XXos irdXiv iprjalv), but in the sponding to the Hebrew 3, our G, but
immediate neighbourhood there is a note generally pronounced by the Arabs
assigned to Severianus. softly like the English J, as we pro-
2 Sinai and Palestine p. 50 ; see nounce it in gem. I shall in this note
above, p. 89. represent Z by Ch, £ by 0, both in
3 y^5*" pronounced ' Ch&gax ' (or Italics.

192

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

(1) Incon
clusiveevidence.Chryso
stom.

Harant.

Theirstatements
accounted for.

1. The evidence on which the assumed fact rests is both deficient
in amount and suspicious in character. Not more than two independent
witnesses, if they be independent, have, so far as I know, been produced.
(i) Chrysostom at the close of the fourth century in his exposition of
this epistle writes somewhat obscurely; 'Hagar was the name of the
bondmaid; and Mount Sinai is so interpreted in their native tongue (rd
be 2iva opos ovrco peBepprjveverai rfj eVi^copico av'rcov yXdrrrj) ; ' and afterwards
he speaks of the mountain as ' bearing the same name with the bondmaid
(ducdwuov rfj bovXr,).' To the same effect writes Theophylact, who is often a
mere echo of Chrysostom, as do one or two anonymous commentators in
the aScumenian Catena, without doubt deriving their information from
the same source1.
(ii) The Bohemian traveller Harant, who visited Sinai in the year
1 598, says : ' The Arabian and Mauritanian heathen call Mount Sinai Agar
or TurV Though, for anything that is found in the context, this might
have been written without a thought of the passage of St Paul, yet I think
it hardly probable. Luther, following Erasmus, bad maintained this inter
pretation ; and from the enormous popularity of his commentaries on the
Galatians, it is likely that they were known to Harant, who himself ulti
mately became a protestant. If so, he did not necessarily derive his infor
mation 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' (Ch&gar meaning 'a rock,' or
' a stone,' must be heard again and again from native lips in this wild
region3; 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. 4*7: l5a^ OCTI "Ui£Z± i_^CTl
.jjs-lb |j>j|o : Ja-^ This
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.
3 Harant's authority is generally
quoted at second hand through Biis-
ching's Erdbeschr. I. 1. p. 603 (Hamb.
1792). In Harant's work itself, Der
Christliche Ulysses (Niirnb. 1678), the
passage runs : ' Den Berg Synai nennen
die Arabische und Mauritanische Hey-
den Agar oder Tur : Weissenberg, wie
auch Tucla, wie Odoardo Barbosa nel'
summ. del' Ind. Orient, bezeuget.' The

work was written in Bohemian, but
translated into German by his brother
and published by his nephew (see Bal-
binus Bohem. Doct. II. 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 (sic).'
3 The index to Ritter's Erdhtnde,
Sinai etc. 11. p. 1331, s.v. 'Hadschar,'
'Hadjar,' etc., names several 'stones'
on and about Sinai ; ' Hadschar Elma,'
' Hadsjar rakkabe,' 'Hadj Musa,' etc-

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

193

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 Petrsea or in some
district bordering upon the Sinaitic mountains, (for the name seems to have
been not uncommon1), 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 meaning2. It is at least worthy of notice that
neither his friend Theodore of Mopsuestia, nor Theodoret the pupil of
Theodore, both natives of Antioch and both acquainted with his work,
makes any mention whatever of this assumed fact or the interpretation
based on it. Probably they were better informed on the subject, and for
this reason tacitly abandoned Chrysostom's explanation.
2. But supposing it were proved that Sinai were so called by the (2) False
Arabs, this word ' Chagar' is not written or pronounced in the same way as elym°l°gy-
the proper name ' Hagar,' and etymologically the two are entirely distinct.
The proper name ' Hagar,' with the simple aspirate, ("ijn, in Arabic^s-la>)
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. I. p. 504), assert that Petra
itself bears the name Hagar (Chugur)
in Arabic writers, just as in Greek it is
called Ilerpa, and in Hebrew il?D,
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
' Ch&g&r,' but ' Chigr' ; and (2) The
place which bears this name 'El Chigr'
m 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 sq., Robinson's Palestine
etc. II. p. 522. There is no evidence
that Petra itself Was so called.
There is a place fcOJn, ' CAagra,'
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
GAL.

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 y^^) 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 peBepprjveberai. Ac
cording to Eiirst Concord, and Hebr.
Handb. s.v., 'J'D signifies 'rocky,' so
that interpreted in Arabic it would be
_«[»-, and to this identity of meaning
in 'Sinai' and 'Hagar' he supposes
Chrysostom to allude. But even if the
account which Eiirst gives of the word
i^D were altogether satisfactory, it
would still remain in the highest degree
improbable that ChrysoBtom should be
acquainted with an etymology so ab
struse.

13

194

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

the familiar term for the flight of Mahomet (compare also the Hebrew
-I1J and "W). Thus it has nothing in common with 'Chagar,' 'a stone'
( -sr-)7 which if it occurred in Hebrew would be written -|jn. It is true
that the gutturals are closely allied and were sometimes confounded1;
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 acceptina; 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 Philo2.
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 "Un 'rock,' but "ijn '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)StPaul's j_ JBut lastly, is it probable, supposing this to have been St Paul's

language.

meaning, that he would have expressed himself as he has done ? If in
writing to a half-Greek half-Celtic people he ventured to argue from an
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, (i) By their inter
change in the same language in differ
ent words connected or identical in
meaning and obviously derived from
the same root, e.g. "1HD and 1ITO,
inS and "HIX; (2) By their interchange
in different languages of the Semitic
family, e.g. Heb. I1t3 and Syr. oo'jJD
(Hoffmann, Gramm. Syr. p. 123), or in
different dialects of {he same language,
e. g. in the Aramaic dialects the Syriac
,<3"L. compared with the Chaldee ]rU,
(see Gesen. Thes. p. 359, Fiirst Aram.
Idiome § 45); (3) By the confusion of
sound in the same language or dialect,
e. g. a Judcean in the story professes
himself unable to distinguish between
-IgS/alamb.'-ipj; , 'wool,'"10n, 'wine,'
and "ibn , 'an ass, ' as pronounced by a
Galilean, when the latterwantsto make
a purchase; see Fiirst ib. § 15. There
was the same confusion also iu the Sa
maritan pronunciation of the gutturals;
Gesen. Lehrgeb. § 32. ,. On the rela

tion of the gutturals to each other, see
Ewald A usf. Lehrb. d. Heb. Spr. § 39
sq. Assemani indeed (Bibl. Or. ill. 2,
p. 753) gives an instance of the inter
change of the gutturals He and Cheth
in this very word Hagar : ' Hagar
rHiOl , Arabibus g0- Hagiar, hoc est,
Petra ; Ptolemseo Agra, unde Agrsei
populi Aiabise 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 (Beaiw. s. v. Hagariter) is wrong
in understanding Assemani's remark of
the station between Damascus and
Mecca (see p. j 93, note 1), and has been
blindly followed by others.
2 irapoUriais, Leg. Alleg.l. p. 135 M,
Sacr. Ab. et Ca. 1. p. 170 (irapoiKei aotplf,
oi KaroiKei). Auother derivation of
Hagar, or rather a play upon the word,
was ")13K Nil, 'here is thy wages'; see
Beer Leben Abraham's p. 148.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 195
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 e'v rfj 'ApaBia at all a likely expression to be used by
any writer for e'v rfj 'ApaBiKjj yXdaarj or 'ApaBiari, unless it were made
intelligible by the context ? Yet this is the meaning generally assigned to
e'v rrj '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 Sarah1.

In giving an allegorical meaning to this passage of the Old Testament
narrative St Paul did not stand alone. It might be inferred indeed from
his own language that such applications of the history of Hagar and Sarah
were not uncommon in the schools of his day2. 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 his 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 Philo's al-
— unites himself first with Sarah and then with Hagar. These two alliance:, leg°ry»
stand in direct opposition the one to the other3. Sarah, the priucess — 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' (irapoUrjais), and points therefore
to something transient and unsatisfying, is a preparatory or intermediate
1 For Philo's allegory of Hagar and 4 In some passages Philo still further
Sarah, see esp. de Congr. Qumr. Erud. refines on the change in her name (Gen.
Gr. I. p. 519 sq., esp. pp. 521, 522, 530, xvii. 15) : e.g. de Mut. Nom. I. p. 590,
592, and Qucest. in Gen. p. 189 sq., Qucest. in Gen. p. 229 (Aucher), de
233 sq. (Aucher). Compare also Leg. Cherub. I. p. 139. Her first name 2 dpa
Alleg. I. p. 135, de Cherub. I. p. 139 sq., (V1B>) is dpxv pov, her after-name Zappa

de Prof. 1. p. 546, de Abr. II. p. 52, (TYW) is dpxovaa (see Hieron.
de Somn. 1. p. 656. in Gen., in. p. 331)- Thus they are
2 See the notes on cruvcrroixei and related to each other as the special to
aXXrryopobpeva. the general, as the finite and perishable
3 de Abr. n. p. 1 5 evavridraroi Se to the infinite and imperishable.
d\X?)Xois etalv ol XexB^vres ydpot.
13—2

196 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
training— the instruction of the schools — secular learning, as it might be
termed in modern phrase1. 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 developement to
profit thereby. As yet he begets no son by her. She therefore directs him
to go in to her handmaid, to apply himself to the learning of the schools.
This inferior alliance proves fruitful at once. At a later date and after this
preliminary training he again unites himself to Sarah ; and this time his
union with divine wisdom is fertile. Not only does Sarah bear him a son,
but she is pointed out as the mother of a countless offspring2. 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 children3.'
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 men, Ishmael the sophistry of the sophist4. 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 princess5.
compared Such is the ingenious application of Philo — most like and yet most
with St unlike that of St Paul. They both allegorize, and in so doing they touch
upon the same points in the narrative, they use the same text by way of
illustration. Yet in their whole tone and method they stand in direct con
trast, and their results have nothing in common- Philo is, as usual, wholly
unhistorical. With St Paul on the other hand Hagar's career is an alle-
• gory, because it is a history. The symbol and the thing symbolized are
the same in kind. This 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 i) piarj Kal eyKikXios iraiSela is they are present to his mind.
Philo's favourite phrase, e.g.de Cherub. 4 de Sobr. 1. p. 394 aotplav pev 'laadK,
I. p. 139. aa<piarelavSe'Iapar)XKeKXi)pwTai: comp.
2 de Conor. Queer. Erud. Gr. I. p. 519 de Cherub. 1. p. 140, and other passages
rabrijv Mavarjs, rb irapabo&raTov, Kal referred to in p. 195, note I. The
arelpav diroipalvei Kal TroXvyovwrdrriv. names give-Philo some trouble. Isaac
comp. de Mut. Norn. 1. pp. 599, 600, of course signifies ' laughter,' betokeu-
where he adds Kara, rb a'56/xc-vox aapa ing the joy which comes of divine wis-
bnb ttjs xdpiros "Avvrjs 1, (prjaiv, Srelpa dom ; see, besides the passao-es just re-
ereKei/ eTrrd i) Se iroXXr) iv rewois r)aB(- ferred to, Leg. Alleg. I. p.%31, Quod
"^ (i Sr'" "' 5)" Det P0t- h PP- *°3- "5- Ishmael he
de Execr. 11. p. 434 ^ ydp Ip-qpos, contrasts with Israel, the one signifying
¦0 <f>rjalv 6 irpo^rjrrjs, eOreKvbs re Kal wo- the hearing God, the other the seeing
Xbirais, bwep Xbyiov nal iirl fvxvs dXXV- God ('pK ilKT WH, ' vir videns deum';
yopeirai (Is. liv. 1). The coincidence comp. Hieron. in Gen., in. p. 357).
with St Paul is the more striking inas- Thus they are opposed to each other,
much as Philo very rarely goes beyond as d«{, to Spaais, as the fallacious to
the Pentateuch m seeking subjects for the infallible, as the aoQiarijs to the
allegorical interpretation. There is in- o-o0os, de Prof. 1. p. 577, de Mut. Norn.
deed no mention of Sarah and Hagar I. p. 609.
here, but it appears, both from the con- 6 de Cherub. 1. p. 140.
text and from parallel passages, that

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 197
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 modo 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 Bearing on
metaphor or the character of an illustration or the form of an argument, as Inspira-
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 boun
daries 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 must be assigned to either ? We should at least be prepared with an
answer to these questions, before we venture to sit in judgment on any
individual case.

The various readings in v. 1.
The variations of reading in this verse are the more perplexing, in
that they seriously affect the punctuation, and thereby the whole texture of
the passage. The main variations are threefold.
I. The position of o£v. (i) Position
(i) It stands after o-^Kere in XABCFGP and a few of the better cur- oi ovv.
sive mss ; in f.g, the Vulgate, Gothic, Memphitic, .Ethiopic, Armenian,
and perhaps the Peshito Syriac1 versions, in Origen3, Basil3, and
Cyril4, in Victorinus, Augustine, and others. The Memphitic version
also inserts ydp after eXevBepla.
1 This is doubtful, the order of the the printed editions however it stands
words being altered in this version. after iXevBepla. In the de Bapt. (II.
2 in Exod. H. 3 (II. p. 139), in Jud. p. 641, Gamier), a treatise ascribed to
H. 9 (n. p. 477), both extant only in Basil but of doubtful authorship, its
Latin. place is after cfT?;We.
3 Mor. 14 (11. p. 247, Gamier), ac- 4 Glaphyr. 1. p. 75- ' '
cording to some of the best mss. In

198 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
(ii) Its position is after eXevBepla in C (by a third hand) KL and very
many cursive mss, in Marcus Monachus1, Damascene, Theophylact,
and GScumenius.
(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 rfj ydp iXevBepla k.t.X.
In Asterius2 and in the Thebaic version ovv is absent after eXevBepla,
but as the context is wanting in both, it is impossible to say whether
it occurred after arrJKere or not.
Thus it will be seen that the balance of authority is decidedly in favour
of placing ovv after cmJKere ; and this is probably the correct reading. The
displacement (ii) and the omission (iii) were, it would seem, different expe
dients to relieve the awkwardness in the position of the connecting particle,
on the supposition that the sentence began with rfj iXevBepla.
(2) Position 2. The position of rjpds. It is found,
of rjpds. (i) Before Xpiarbs in NABDEFGP and some cursive mss, in Origen
(Latin translation), Theodore of Mopsuestia (Latin translation), and
Cyril3.
(ii) After Xpio-rds in CKL and many cursive mss, and in Chrysostom,
Theodoret, Asterius, Marcus Monachus, and Damascene.
(iii) After rjXevBipaaev in Theophylact.
The versions in the Latin fathers vary, the majority placing it after
Xpiarbs ; 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 (Xpio-rds rjpds being perhaps the more natural order)
so that one authority in favour of rjpds Xpiarbs is of more weight than a
number against it. The order rjpuis Xpiarbs may therefore be retained
with confidence.
(3) The 3- Besides these, there still remains a third and more important variation.
relative. (i) Tfj iXevBepla. rj is read in D (by the correction of later hands4)
EKL and the great majority of cursives, in both Syriac versions, in
Basil, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia (Latin), Theodoret (twice),
Cyril, Asterius, Marcns Monachus, Theophylact, and OJcumenius. The
jEthiopic has ' quia Christus nos liberavit ; et state igitur.'
(ii) rrj iXevBepla alone is found in NABCDP and a few cursive mss,
in the Thebaic and Memphitic versions, and in Damascene and others.
(iii) rj iXevBepla in FG, in the old Latin, Vulgate, and Gothic versions,
in Marcion (or rather Tertullian6), Origen (Latin translation6), in Vic
torinus, Augustine, Jerome, and others.
1 Gallandi viii. p. 47. tereaque D** addidit signa quibus ijxs
2 In Ps. v. Horn. 5, Cotel. Mem. ante rjpas ponendum esse significant,
Eccl. u. p. 46. sed videntur ea signa rursus deleta
3 The Latin of D has ' qua libertate esse.' Tischendorf Cod. Clarom.
nostra.' It has been suggested to me 6 adv. Marc. v. 4.
that tra was originally a direction to « in Gen. H. 7 (n. p. 78), in Cant.
transpose 'nos'. j. 6 (in. p. 52). ,
4 'D** etD***pra?posuerunti;, prse-

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 199
, 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 rfj iXev8epia without § is so difficult as to be almost
unintelligible. At a certain point Bengel's rule, ' proclivi scriptioni prasstat
ardjray attains its maximum value ; beyond this point it ceases to apply.
knd in the present instance it is difficult to give any interpretation to the
' words which is not either meaningless or ungrammatical.
Secondly. Supposing rfj iXevBepla § to have been the original reading,
the omission of g in some texts admits of a very simple explanation.
Standing immediately before rjpds (which in its proper position, as we have
seen, precedes Xpiarbs) it would easily drop out through the carelessness of
transcribers. In this case too the transposition Xpiarbs rjpds for rjpds
Xpiarbs was probably made for the sake of euphony to avoid the juxta
position of fj rjpds which came together in the original text.
At the same time the testimony in favour of rfi iXevBepla 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, § iXevBepla, found chiefly in the Latin copies, is not
very easily accounted for, but was perhaps substituted for rjj iXevBepla §
as a more elegant expression or as a retranslation from the loose Latiu
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, rrjs
iXevBepas rrj eXev&epla fj rjpds Xpiarbs rjXevBepaaev. SrijKere ovv K.r.X.

200

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[V. 2-4

a''lSe iyco TlavXos Xeyco vfiiv, oti, idv TrepiTefxvrjcr6e,
Xpio-Tos v/uds ovfiev w(peXrjo-er 3 juapTvpofxai $e 7ruXtv
TravTi dvOpunrvo 7repiTefxvofxevio, oti 6(peiXeTr]s io-Tiv
oXov tov vo/uiov iroirjo-ai. 4 K.aTr\pyr\Qt]Te diro Xpio-Tov,

2. At this point St Paul assumes
a severer tone, in condemning the ob
servance of the law. It is not only a
useless imposition, a slavish burden;
it is pernicious and fatal in itself.
"iSe] so to be accented rather than
iSe'. According to the ancient gram
marians, the pronunciation of common
dialect was i'8e, XdBe, of the Attic iSe,
Xaj3e'. See Winer § vi. p. 62.
e'yoj IlaCXos] What is the exact force
of this? Is it (1) An assertion of
authority? 'I Paul, who received a
direct commission from Christ, who
have done and suffered so much for
the Gospel and for you, who have so
strong a claim on your hearing' ? Or
is it rather (2) An indirect refutation
of calumnies? 'I Paul, who have my
self preached circumcision forsooth,
who say smooth things to please men,
who season my doctrine to the tastes
of my hearers ' ? For the latter sense
see 2Cor. x. 1, where thewords avrds be
iyd navXos are used in combating the
contemptuous criticism of his enemies ;
and compare his tone in i. 10 of this
epistle; 'do I now persuade men?'
See also the notes on ii. 3, v. 11, and
the introduction p. 28. For the former
sense compare perhaps Ephes. iii. 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 himself so strongly.
irepirepvrjaBe] 'suffer yourselves to
be circumcised' ; see the note on irepi-
repvopiva ver. 3.
3. The argument is this ; ' Circum
cision is the seal of the law. He, who
willingly and deliberately undergoes
circumcision, enters upon a compact
to fulfil the law. To fulfil it therefore
he is bound, and he cannot plead the

grace of Christ; for he has entered
on another mode of justification.'
fiaprvpopai be TrdXiv] ' Christ benefit
you ? nay, I protest again! The
adversative sense of be is to be ex
plained by the idea of dq^eXrjaei. nd-
Xiv refers to the preceding Xeyco ; ' I
have said it, and I repeat it with pro
testation.' paprvpopai] ' I protest,' i. e. I assert
as in the presence of witnesses. The
word signifies properly ' to call to wit
ness' ; and is never, except perhaps in
very late Greek, equivalent to pap-
rvpd, ' I bear witness.' See the notes
on 1 Thess. ii. 12. For the dative
dvBpdira compare Acts xx. 26. This
use of the dative is a remnant of the
fuller construction paprvpeaBal rivi ti
(Judith vii. 28 paprvpbpeBa vpiv rdv
ovpavbv Kal rrjv yrjv), the ' accusative
being suppressed and the verb used
absolutely without reference to the
person of the witness.
Trepirefivo/ievco] 'who undergoes cir
cumcision,' as irepirepvrjaBe ver. 2,
and 01 irepirepv&pevoi vi. 1 3 (the better
reading). In all these cases the pre
sent tense is more appropriate than
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 allow
ing themselves to be circumcised, be
ing free agents.
4. KarrjpyrjBrjre, i£eireaare~\ 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 e'dv prj ns
peivrj iv ipol, iBXrjBrj e£co cos rd KXrj-
pa, Rev. x. 7 : comp. Winer § xl. p. 292.
KarrjpyrjBrjTe dirb Xpio-rov] a pregnant
expression for KarrjpyrjBrjre Kal e'xapla-
Brjre dirb Xpiarov, ' Ye are nothing as

V. S, 6]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

201

ohives iv vojuia Sucaiovcrde, Trjs x«V'T0? e£e7re'<raTe.
srjfie1s ydp irvev^aTi iK Trio-Tews iXwida liKaio<Tvvr]s
direKdexofxeda- 6ev ydp Xpto-Tw [Irjcrov] ovTe wepiTO}xr]
ti icrxvet ovtc dupofivo-Tia, dXXd tt'io-tis hi dydirns
ivepyovfxevr].

regards Christ, ye are entirely sepa
rate from Him'; as Rom. vii. 2, 6;
comp. 2 Cor. xi. 3 q^Bapfj rd vorjpara
vpdv dirb rrjs dirXbrrjros, Col. ii. 20.
oinves SiKaiovo-^e] 'all ye who seek
your justification! See on irepirep-
vopevm, ver. 3.
e'^en-eo-are] • are driven forth, are
banished with Hagar your mother ' :
see iv. 30 eK/3aXe rrjv iraibiaKrjv. The
words iKiriirreiv and iKBdXXeiv are cor
relatives in this sense; e.g. Thucyd.
VI. 4 V7T0 Sajuicov Kai aXXcov 'Icovcov c'k-
7Ti7rrovcriv. ..rods be ^apiovs 'Ava^i'Xas
Prjytvav rvpavvos ov iroXXd varepov
e'K/3aXcdv K.r.X. For the form i^eire-
aare see Lobeck Phryn. p. 724, Wi
ner § xiii. p. 86.
5. rjpeis ydp] 'for we, who are in
union with Christ, we who cling to the
covenant of grace.' ydp introduces an
argument from the opposite, as in
iii. 10.
7rvevjuari] ' spiritually ' or 'by the
Spirit! It is almost always difficult
and sometimes, as here, impossible to
say when wvevpa 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 mani
festation, an indwelling of the Divine
Spirit. iXiriba'] hero used in a concrete
sense, 'the thing hoped for'; comp.
Col. i. J r^v iXiriba rrjv diroKeipevrjv vpiv,
Tit. ii. 13 irpoabexbpevoi rrjv paKaplav
iXiriba, Heb. vi. 18 ; and see the note
on iirayyeXia, iii. 1 4.
direKbexbpeBa] '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 dWd in diro-

KapaboKla, and see a paper by 0. F. A.
Fritzsche in Fritzsch. Opusc. p. 156.
6. ydp] explaining the emphatic
irvevpan e'K iriarews which has gone
before; 'By the Spirit, for the dispo
sitions of the flesh, such as circumci
sion or uncircumcision, are indifferent :
from faith, for faith working by love
is all powerful in Christ Jesus.'
St Paul had before pronounced a
direct and positive condemnation of
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 wbich attends it, the
glorying in the flesh, makes the differ
ence, and calls down the rebuke.
irians k.t.X!] 'In his stat totus
Christianismus,' says Bengel.
ivepyovpevrj] 'working' ; the middle
voice according to the general usage
of St Paul. The Spirit of God or the
Spirit of Evil ivepyei; the human agent
or the human mind evepyeirai : see the
note on 1 Thess. ii. 13. On the other
hand ivepyeiaBai is never passive in
St Paul (as it seems to be taken here
by Tertullian adv. Marc. v. 4, 'di-
cendo per dilectionem perfici'), and
therefore this passage does not ex
press the doctrine of 'fides caritate
formata.' These words bi dydirrjs ivepyovpevr)
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 Ian-

202

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[V. 7-10

7 'Et pex^Te KaXws- t'is vfxas iveKO^ev dXrjdeia /xr]
ireiQeo-Qai ; 8rj Treicrfxovn ovk e'/c tou kuXovvtos v/uas.
9/u.iKpd ^v/mrj oXov to (pvpafjia tv/uol. I0iyto 7re7roi6a
i. 12, but the metaphor being subse
quently lost sight of, the dative was
replaced by an accusative, as always
in the New Testament, e.g. Acts xxiv.
4, i Thess. ii. 18. Compare the pas
sive, Rom. xv. 22, i Pet. iii. 7. See
the note on rpBovovvres, ver. 26.
The testimony in favour of iveKo-^rev
is overwhelming. Otherwise the re
ceived reading dve'Koi^ev suits the
metaphor of the stadium better ; for
dvaKoirreiv ' to beat back ' would apply
to the paBboiixoi (Thuc. v. 50) who
kept the course : comp. Lucian Nigr.
§ 35 (!• P- 77) i^eiriirrov re Kal dveKo-
irrbprjv, Polyc. § 5 dvaKon-recrflai dVd
rcov iiriBvpidv. The word iyKoirreiv
seems to have given offence to tran
scribers : in 1 Thess. ii. 1 8, as here, dva
Koirreiv stands as a various reading; in
Acts xxiv. 4, I Pet. iii. 7, iKKoirreiv.
8. weio-p-ov?;] with a faint reference
to the preceding irelBeaBai ; 'You have
refused to obey the truth, you have
rendered another obedience which is
not of God.' ireiapovrj (Ignat. Bom. 3,
Justin Apol. 1. c. 53, p. 17 E; comp.
jrXT/o-p-ovi;, Col. ii. 23), like the English
' persuasion,' may be either active or
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.
' rov koKovvtos'] 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,
§ xiv. p. 370.
9. This proverb is quoted also in
1 Cor. v. 6. Compare 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

guage here, which appears on the sur
face in 1 Thess. i. 3, Col. i. 4, 5. See the
note on the former of these two pas
sages. 7 — n. 'Ye were running a gal
lant race. Who has checked you in
your mid career ? Whence this dis
loyalty to the truth ? Be assured, this
change of opinion comes not of God by
whom ye are called. The deserters
are only few in number ? Yes, but the
contagion will spread: for what says
the proverb ? A little leaven leaveneth
the 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 1 Nay, we shall work
together henceforth ! there is no dif
ference between us now ! I have
ceased to preach the Cross of Christ !
The stumbling-block in the way of
the Gospel is removed!'
7. irpexere koXcos] ' 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.
e'veKoi/rev] 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 oppo
site of irpoKoirretv, ' to clear a way,' ' to
act as pioneer'; comp. Greg. Naz. Or.
xiv. 31 (1. p. 279 ed. Ben.) r) kokios
eyKonropevrjs bvairaBela rcov irovrjpdv rj
aperfjs oboiroiovpevrjs ev'iraBeia rdv BeX-
nbvav. Hence it originally took a
dative of the person, e. g. Polyb. xxiv.

V. n]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

203

eis vpids iv Kvpica, oti ovSev dXXo (ppovrjo-eTe' 6 de
Tapao-coov v/iias flao-Tacrei to Kpifxa, bo-Tis iav r). niyw
Se, ddeX(p>oi, ei TrepiTO\xr\v ert Krjpvo-o-w, t'i eTi hiwKO/Jiai;

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 com
pact body disturbing the peace of the
Church ; and the metaphor is thus ap
plied also in 1 Cor. v. 7, where again
it refers to the contagious example of
a few evil-doers.
The leaven in Scripture is always a
symbol of evil, with the single excep
tion 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 Schott-
gen on 1 Cor. v. 6. Heathen nations
also regarded leaven as unholy. Plu
tarch, Qumst. Bom. 109 (p. 289 b) in
answer to the question why the Fla-
men Dialis was not allowed to touch
leaven, explains it, rj £iiprj ko.1 yeyovev
ix (pBopds avrrj Kal (pBeipei rb rpvpapa
piywpivrj. See Trench On the Para
bles, p. m.
For the expression frpovv rb rpvpa-
pa see Exod. xii. 34.
10. e'yco] emphatic, '/, who know
you so well, who remember your for
mer zeal': iv. 14, 15.
ireiroiBa] still dwelling on the same
word, irelBeaBai, ireiapovrj ; see Winer
§ lxviii. p. 658 sq.
els vpds] 'in regard to you'; see
Winer § xlix. p. 415: comp. 2 Cor. viii.
22 ireiroiBrjaei ttoXX^ rrj els vpds, 2 Cor.
ii. 3 ireiroiBds iirl irdvras vpds on k.t.X.
2 Thess. iii. 4 ireiroiBapev iv Kvpi'co e'ep'
vpds on k.t.X. As in the passage last
cited, e'v Kvpi'co here denotes not the
object of the writer's confidence, but
the sphere in which it is exercised.
ovSev aXXo cppovijcrere] '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'; sec
irpexere KaXds, ver. 7-
rapdcro-cBv] 'raises seditions, excites
tumults among you,' the metaphor be
ing continued in dvao-rarovvres ver. 12.
See the note on i. 7.
Baardaei] 'shall bear as a burden ;
it shall press grievously on him': see
vi. 2, 5.
dcrns e'dv r'] i.e. 'whatever may be
his position in the Church, however he
may vaunt his personal intercourse
with the Lord.' See 2 Cor. x. 7.
Kpipa] On the accent of this word,
which is Kpipa in classical writers, see
Lobeck Parol, p. 418, Fritzsche Bom.
1. p. 96, Lipsius Gram. Unters. p. 40.
Compare the note on crrvXoi, ii. 9.
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 I, who have incurred the
deadly hatred of the Judaizers, who
am exposed to continual persecution
from them, do / preach circumcision ? '
'in Kijpvaaa~] For an explanation
of this en, see the note i. 10. Perhaps
however it should be explained rather
by the form which the slander of his
enemies would take ; 'You still preach
circumcision, though you have become
a Christian : why should not we con
tinue to do the same?'
ri en] The second en is probably
argumentative, 'this being the case,'
as in Rom. iii. 7, ix. 19.
c?pa] 'so it appears!' Spa introduces
a false statement or inference also
in 1 Cor. v. 10, xv. 14, i5> i8> 2 Cor->-
17. It is here ironical; 'So I have
adopted their mode of justification;
I am silent about the Cross of Christ ]

204

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[V- 12, 13

dpa KaTrjpyrjTai to CTKavSaXov tov o-Tavpov. "oCpeXov
Kai diroKo^sovTai oi dvacrTaTOvvTes vfxds.
I3'YfjieTs ydp eV iXevdepia iKXrjdrjTe, d$eX(poi fxo-

110 one takes offence at my preaching
now ; all goes on pleasantly enough ! '
The aravpbs here stands for the aton
ing death of Christ. The crucifixion
of 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.
o-Kdv8aXov] almost confined, it would
appear, to biblical and ecclesiastical
Greek. aKavbdXrjBpov however is a
classical word, e.g. Arist. Ach. 687.
12. After this abrupt digression
St Paul returns again to the false
brethren: 'Why do they stop at cir
cumcision?' he asks indignantly, 'why
do they not mutilate themselves, like
your priests of Cybele?' The severity
of the irony may be compared with
2 Cor. xi. 19, 'Ye suffer fools gladly,
seeing ye yourselves are wise.'
Circumcision under the law and to
the Jews was the token of a covenant.
To the Galatians under the Gospel
dispensation it had no such signifi
cance. It was merely a bodily mutila
tion, as such differing rather in degree
than in kind from the terrible practices
of the heathen priests. Compare Phil.
iii. 2, 3, BXiirere rrjv Kararoprjv' rjpeis ydp
iapev rj irepiroprj, where the same idea
appears, clothed in similar language.
ocpeXov] Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 8, 2 Cor.
xi. 1, 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 ocpeXov is lost sight of, and
it is treated as a mere particle ; see
Winer § xii. p. 317, A. Buttmann
§ 139- IO> P- l85-.
dn-oKdr^ovrai] 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 dn-oKo^ovrai 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 diroKeKoppevos, Deut.
xxiii. I, and indeed diroKoirreaBai 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 irepirepveiv and diroxbirreiv see Dion
Cassius lxxix. 1 1 (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 J3 diroKOTTTovrai nves Kal
els prjrepa Beav rd pvarrjpia dvarpepovat.
See also Bardesanes de Fato § 20, in
Cureton's Spic. Syr. p. 32. Thus by
' glorying in the flesh ' the Galatians
were returning in a very marked way
to the bondage of their former hea
thenism. See iv. 9, v. 1.
dvacrrarovvres] stronger than rapda-
aovres; 'They not only incite you to
sedition, but they overthrow the whole
framework of your heavenly polity.'
For dvacrraroOv, a word unknown to
classical writers, who would use dva-
ardrovs iroieiv instead, see Acts xvii. 6,
xxi. 38. ' Well does he say dvacrrarovv
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

V. i4]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

205

vov fxr) Trjv iXevdepiav eis d(poppr)v Trj <rapici, dXXd Bid
Trjs dyairns SovXeveTe dXXrjXois. I4d ydp Tras vo/ulos
iv evi Xoyia 7re7rXripWTai, iv Tip cxr^ni-iceic ton

forcing them to wander about as cap
tives and aliens.'
13. This is the justification of the
mdignML-Scnrjx_pom^dj5njyiejr_of-fence-u^l-h«-y~are -defeating ibe. very"
pnrj303e_pXyjnjrcalljng: ye were called
not for bondage, but for liberty.'
eV iXevBepla] For KaXeiv iirl see
1 Thess. iv. 7 : comp. Ephes. ii. 10, and
Winer^ xlviii. p. 412.
p?ovdv f.rj] Here he suddenly checks
himself, to avoid misunderstanding;
' Liberty and not license.' It may be
that here, as in the Corinthian Church,
a party opposed to the Judaizers had
shown a tendency to Antinoniian 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). iidvov pr) k.t.X.] 'only turn not your
liberty! Some mss supply Score, which
is perhaps a retranslation from 'detis'
of the Latin versions. For similar in
stances of ellipsis see the notes ii. 9, 1 o.
The omission of the verb after the
prohibitive pr) is common in animated
passages in classical writers : e.g. Arist.
Ach. 345 dXXd prj poi irpbrpaaiv. See
the instances in Jelf's Gramm. § 897.
Comp. Matt. xxvi. 5 prj ev rg eoprfj.
drpopprjv] 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.
Sid r^s dydirrjs SouXevere] Both dyd-
7ri;s and SovXevere are emphatic. St
Paul's meaning may be expressed by
a paraphrase thus; 'You desire to be

in bondage : I too recommend to you a
bondage, the subservience of mutual
love. Temper your liberty with this
bondage, and( it will not degenerate
into license.' A similar contrast be
tween true and false servitude ap
pears in I Pet. ii. 16 cos e'Xevdepoi Kal
Ipr) as iiriKaXvppa e'xovres rrjs KaKias
rrjv iXevBepiav, dXX' ds 6eov SovXoi.
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.'
d iras vbpos] 'the entire law! The
idea of totality is expressed more
strongly by the exceptional position of
the article instead of the more usual
order iras b vbpos; comp. 1 Tim. i. 16
rrjv dtraaav paKpoBvplav, Plat. Gorg.ry.
47° E ev tovtio rj irdaa evbaipovia iariv,
Ignat. Magn. I rrjv irdaav iirrjpeiav.
ireirXrjparai] 'is summarily ful
filled! For the force of the perfect
see Winer § xl. p. 288, A. Buttmann
p. 1 72. Tertullian (adv. Marc. v. 4)
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 7rXi/povrai in the received text
enfeebles the sense. The meaning of
irXrjpovv here is not ' to sum up, com
prehend,' but 'to perform, complete,'
as appears from the parallel passage,
Rom. xiii. 8 6 dyairav rov erepov, vopov
ireirXrjpaKev ; so that e'v e'vi Xoyco, 'in
one maxim or precept,' means 'in the
observance of one maxim or precept.'
e'v repj probably neuter, in apposi
tion to' the sentence; comp. Rom. xiii.
9, 10. See above on iv. 25.
rdv irXrjaiov] In the original text
(Lev. xix. 18) the word 'neighbour'

206

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[V. 15-17

tiAhcion coy <bc ceAYTON. l5 ei Be dXXrjXovs SaWre
Kai KaTeadieTe, /3Xe7reTe fxr) vir dXXrjXwv dvaXwdrJTe.
16 Ae'7 w $e, irvev fxaTi TrepiiraTe'iTe, Kai i7ridvfxiav
arapKOs ov fxr] TeXecrr]Te. I7rj ydp adp^ iTTidvjU.e'i KaTa

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, v. 43.
aeavrbv] The received text has eav
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 e'avrov 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 eavrdv etc., never rjpdv avrdv,
vpdv avrdv etc., as mere reflexives,
yet (2) in the singular there is not one
decisive instance of eavrov in the first
or second persons ; the authority of
the best mss being mostly against it.
See A. Buttmann p. 99 ; and for the
testimony of the mss in this text (Lev.
xix. 1 8) as quoted in the N.T., Tischen
dorf on Rom. xiii. 9.
15. BXiirere k.t.X.] A sort of par
enthetic warning; 'The contest will
not end in a victory to either party,
such as you crave. It will lead to the
common extinction of both.' St Paul
returns to his main subject again in
ver. 16. See the introduction, p. 33,
note 3.
16—18. 'This is my command.
Walk by the rule of the Spirit. If you
do so, you will not, you cannot gratify
the lusts of the flesh. Between the
Spirit and the flesh there is not only

no alliance ; there is an interminable,
deadly feud. (You feel these antago
nistic forces working in you: you
would fain follow the guidance of your
conscience, and you are dragged back
by an opposing power.) And if you
adopt the rule of the Spirit, you there
by renounce your allegiance to the
law! In this passage the Spirit is doubly
contrasted, first, with the flesh, and
secondly, with the law. 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.
1 6. irveiipari] the dative of the rule
or direction: see the notes v. 25, vi. 16.
ov pr) reXearjre] 'ye shall in no wise
fulfil! A strong form of the future,
especially frequent in later Greek ;
see Lobeck Phryn. p. 724.
17. rd Se irvevpa] 'but the Spirit
strives, fights against the flesh! As
iiri&vpieiv cannot apply to the Spirit,
some other verb must be supplied in
the second clause. Throughout this
passage the irvevpia is evidently tho
Divine Spirit; for the human spirit in
itself and unaided does not stand in
direct antagonism to the flesh. See
Muller's Doctrine of Sin 1. p. 354 sq.
(Eng. transl.).
ravra Se k.t.X.] A parenthetical
clause, suggested by what has gone
before but not bearing on the main
argument. It is an appeal to their
own consciousness ; ' Have you not evi
dence of these two opposing principles
in your own hearts? How otherwise

V. 1 8— 20]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

tov 7rveVjUaTos, to Se irvevfxa KaTa Trjs crapKos'
yap dXXrjXois dvTiKeiTai, iva /mrj, a idv deXrjTe,
iroirJTe. l8et Se 7rvevfxaTi dyeaOe, ovk
19 (pavepd

207

TavTa TavTa

he

ecTTiv Ta

6ai

epya

eo-Te VTTO VOfXOV.

iropveia, aKaVapcria,
do you not always obey the dictates of
your conscience?'
Iva] here seems to denote simply
the result, whereas in classical writers
it always expresses the purpose'. For
this late use of the word see the note
on 1 Thess. v. 4.
a idv BeXrjre] The parallel passage,
Rom. vii. 15, 16, determines the mean
ing of oVXeiv here. It denotes the
promptings of the conscience ; 'video
meliora proboque.'
18. irvevpan dyecro'e] Comp. Rom.
Viii. 14 dcroi ydp irvevpan Qeov dyovrai.
ovk iare virb vbpov] 'You have escaped
from the dominion of law.' See on ver.
23. An anonymous writer in Cramer's
Catena p. 81 (where the words are
wrongly assigned to Chrysostom) says,
ov vopa rd direiXovvn bovXots, irvevpan
be tco dyovn reKva Qeov. For vbpos
without the article, see the notes iii. 18,
iv. 4, 5.
19. ' Would you ascertain whether
you are walking by the Spirit ? Then
apply the plain practical test.'
dnva] 'such as are,' not a, 'which
are' ; the list not being exhaustive, but
giving instances only. See on iv. 24.
Though no systematic, classification
is to be looked for in the catalogue
which follows, yet a partial and uncon
scious arrangement may perhaps be
discerned. The sins here mentioned
seem to fall into four classes : (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

Trjs o-apKOS, aTiva ecrTiv
daeXyeia, ao eidwXoXaTpeia, (pap-

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.
iropveia k.t.X.] The same three words
occur together in a different order
2 Cor. xii. 21. The order here is per
haps the more natural; iropveia a spe
cial form of impurity, aKaBapala un
cleanness in whatever guise, do-e'Xyeia
an open and reckless contempt of pro
priety. aKaBapala] 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.
daeXyeia] ' wantonness! A man may
be aKadapros and hide his sin ; he does
not become do-eXy^s until he shocks
public decency. In classical Greek the
word dcre'Xyeia generally signifies in
solence or violence towards another, as
it is defined in Bekker'a Anecd. p. 451,
rj per iirrjpeaapov Kal Bpaavrrjros Bia.
In the later language, in the New Tes
tament for instance, the prominent
idea is sensuality, according to the
loose definition in Etym. Magn. eroi-
pbrrjs irpbs irdaav rjbovrjv : comp. Polyb.
Xxxvii. 2 7roXX^ Se' ns daeXyeia Kal irepi
ras aapariKas iiriBvpias avra avve£rjKO-
XovBei. Thus it has much the same
range of meaning as vBpts.
20. In spiritual things two sins are
named; elbaXoXarpeia the open recog
nition of false gods, and rpappaKela the
secret tampering with the powers of
evil.

208

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[V. 21

/uiaKeia, exOpai, epis, gfjXos, dvfxoi, ipidelai, Sixoo-Tacriai,
aipeo-eis, aI<p66voi, [<povoi], \xeQai, kw/uloi, Kai Ta ofxoia
tovtois' a 7rpoXeyoo v/uuv Kaduos [Kai] Trpoelirov, oti oi
Ta ToiavTa irpdo-o-ovTes j3ao-iXeiav 6eov ov KXrjpovofxtj-
20. ixBpai, Speis.

ipappaKeia] not 'poisoning' here, but
'sorcery, witchcraft,' as its association
with 'idolatry' shows : comp. Rev. xxi.
8 (pappaKois Kal elbaXoXdrpais- On the
different kinds of rpappaKela see espe
cially Plato Legg. xi. pp. 932, 933:
comp. Philo de Migr. Abr. p. 449 m
rj ovx opas tovs eiraoibovs Kal (pappa-
Kevrds dvriao<piarevovras rd Beia Xdyco,
QuodDet. Pot. p. 1 98 M rods e'v Aiyv7rr<»
ra adpari aorpioras ovs (pappaKeas bvo-
pd£ei, Plato Symp. p. 203 D Seivdsyd^s
Kal (bappaKevs Kal aofpiarrjs. This is a
common sense of tpappaKevs, (pappaKeia,
in the lxx. It is a striking coincidence,
if nothing more, that (pappaKeiai were
condemned by a very stringent canon
of the council held at Ancyra the capi
tal of Galatia (about a.d. 314); see
Hefele Concilieng. 1. p. 209. For the
prevalence of yorjrela in Asia Minor
see Greg. Naz. Orat. iv. 31 (1. p. 91);
comp. 2 Tim. iii. 13.
20, 21. i'xBpai k.t.X.] A principle
of order may be observed in the enu
meration which follows; (1) i'xBpai, a
general expression opposed to dyd7rr;,
breaches of charity in feeling or in act :
from this point onward the terms are
in an ascending scale : (2), (3) epis
'strife,' not necessarily implying self-
interest ; £rjXos ' rivalry,' in which the
idea of self-assertion is prominent :
(4), (S) Bvpol 'wraths,' a more passion
ate form of epis; ipiBeiai 'factious ca
bals,' a stronger developement of (rjXos :
(6), (7) hostility has reached the point
where the contending parties separate ;
such separation is either temporary
(bixoaraaiai ' divisions'), or permanent
(alpiaeis ' sects, heresies'). (8) (pBbvoi,
a grosser breach of charity than any
hitherto mentioned, the wish to de
prive another of what he has; (9)

(pbvoi, the extreme form which hatred
can take, the deprivation of life.
The first four words epis fijXos Bvpol
ipiBeiai occur in the same order 2 Cor.
xii. 20 : comp. Rom. xiii. 1 3.
CrjXos] 'emulation, rivalry,' not ne
cessarily, like 4>Bbvos, 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, ffXos falls in
the scale of Christian ethics (see Clem.
Rom. §§ 4 — 6), while raireivorns for in
stance rises.
BvpoQ 'outbursts of wrath! On
Bvpbs in its relation to dpyij, as the
outward manifestation to the inward
feeling, see Trench, iV. T. Syn. 1st ser.
§ xxxvii. The plural is frequent even
in classical writers: see Lobeck on
Soph. Aj. 716.
e'pic^eiai] ' caballings! Derived from
epiOos, the word signifies properly
'working for hire'; hence it gets to
mean ' the canvassing of hired parti-
zans' (Suidas, ipiBeiieaBai dpoibv ion
rco beKa£ea6ai, Kal yap rj ipiBela eiprjrai
dirb rrjs rov piaBov boaeas) and hence
more generally 'factiousness'; comp.
Arist. Polit. v. [viii.] 3, peraBdXXovai
b ai 7roXire?ai Kai civev ordcrecos Sid re
ras epiBelas dairep iv'Hpala' e'f alperdv
yap bia rovro iirolrjaav KXrjpards, on
rjpovvro rovs ipiBevopevovs. Thus it has
no connexion with epis, unless indeed
both are to be referred ultimately to
the same root epco epSco, as is maintain
ed by Lobeck Pathol, p. 365. Comp.
Fritzsche Bom. 1. p. 143. For epitfeia
following upon fiXos see James iii. 14,
el be £fjXov iriKpbv e^ere Kai ipiBeiav, and
ib. ver. 16.
alpiaeis] A more aggravated form

V. 22, 23]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

209

o-ovo-iv. Md Se Kapiros tov irvevixaTos icrTiv dydirr],
X<*pd, eiprjvr], ^.aKpodvfxia, xpnvTOTns, dyadwcrvvri, iria-

tis, zTrpavTt}s, eyKpaTeia. KaTa twv toiovtwv ovk

of bixoaraaiai, when the divisions have
developed into distinct and organized
parties: comp. iCor.xi. iSaKovcoo-xicr-
para ev vpiv virapxeiv Kal pepos n
iriareva, bei yap Kal alpiaeis iv vpiv
eivai, and the remarks of Tertullian de
Prwscr. Hmr. § 5, thereon.
21. tpBbvoi] On the distinction of
irjXos the desire to be as well off as
another, and rpBbvos the desire to de
prive another of what he has, see
Aristotle Bhet. ii. 9, 10, 11, who says,
Sid Kal eirieiKes iariv 6 £rjXos Kal iiri-
eiKcov, rd Se (pBoveiv (pavXov Kal <pav-
Xav. Compare Trench N. T. Syn.
ist ser. § xxvi, and to the references
there given add iEsch. Agam. 939 6
b a(pBbvrjrbs y ovk iirl£rjXos ireXei, and
Thucyd. ii. 64.
rpdvoi] is omitted by some editors
with a few of the most ancient texts,
as an interpolation from Rom. i. 29,
where rpBbvov (pbvov occur together.
The fact however of the same alli
teration occurring in another epistle
written about the same time is ra
ther in its favour, and the omission in
some texts may be due to the careless
ness of a copyist transcribing words
so closely resembling each other. The
reading must therefore remain doubt
ful. Comp. Eur. Troad. 763 cpBbvov
cpdvov re. For the paronomasia see
Winer § lxviii. p. 658.
pe6ai,Kapoi] as Rom. xiii. 13; comp.
Dion Cass. lxv. 3 pi&ai re Kal Kapoi.
a irpoXiya k.t.X.] For the construc
tion comp. Joh. viii. 54 ov vpeis Xeyere
on Geds jjucov eanv.
7rpoein-ov] probably on the occasion
of his second visit. See i. 9, iv. 13, 16,
and the introduction p. 25.
BaaiXeiav k.t.X.] Comp. I Cor. vi. 9,
10, xv. 50.
22. d be Kapiros] The Apostle had
before mentioned the works of the
GAL.

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, 1 1 , Rom. vi. 21);
and St Paul's language here recals the
contrast of the fig and vine with the
thorn and the thistle in the parable,
Matt. vii. 16 sq.
22, 23. The difficulty of classifica
tion in the list which follows is still
greater than in the case of the works
of the flesh. Nevertheless some sort
of order may be observed. The 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 lifee the first, exhibits the
principles which guide a Christian's
conduct, 'honesty, gentleness, temper
ance.' dydirr] k.t.X.] The fabric is built up,
story upon story. Love is the foun
dation, joy the superstructure, peace
the crown of all.
paKpoBvpia k.t.X.] This triad is again
arranged in an ascending scale ; paKpo-
Bvpia is passive, 'patient endurance
under injuries inflicted by others';
xprjarorrjs, neutral, 'a kindly disposi
tion towards one's neighbours' not ne
cessarily taking a practical form ; dya-
Baavvrj, active, 'goodness, beneficence'
as an energetic principle. For the
first two words compare 1 Cor. xiii. 4
rj dydirr] paKpoBvpei xp^frreverai. The
second is distinguished from the third,
as the rjBos from the ivipyeia ; xp^ord-
rrjs is potential dyaBaaiivr], dyaBaavvt]
is energizing xPrlar°TVs- They might
be translated by 'benignitas' and 'bo-
14

2IO

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[V. 24—26

eo-Tiv vojjios. s4ol Se tov XpurTOV 'ln<rov Trjv adpKa
io-Tavptdo-av o-vv toTs iradnpiao-iv Kal Tats i7Tidvfxiais.
95 et ^Sjaev irvevfJiaTi, 7rvevp.aTi Kai o-Toixupev. 8 fir/

nitas' respectively, as Jerome renders
them here, or by 'benevolentia' and
' beneficentia.' Other distinctions
which have been given of these words
are discussed in Trench's N> T. Syn.
2nd ser. § xiii.
jrio-Tis] seems not to be used here
in its theological sense 'belief in God.'
Its position points rather to the pas
sive meaning of faith, 'trustworthiness,
fidelity, honesty,' as in Matt, xxiii. 23,
Tit.ii.10; comp. Rom. iii. 3. Seeabove,
p. 155. Possibly however it may here
signify 'trustfulness, reliance,' in one's
dealings with others ; comp. 1 Cor.
xiii. 7 rj dydirrj . . .irdvra iriarevei.
23. irpairrjs] 'meekness' is joined
with irians (used apparently in the
same sense as here) in Ecclus. xiv. 4
e'v iriarei Kal irpavrrjrt avrov rjylaaev (sc.
Mcovo-/;v). On the meaning of irpairrjs
see Trench N. T. Syn. 1st ser. §§ xiii,
xliii ; and on the varying forms irpdos
(-dnjs), 7rpavs (-irrjs), Lobeck Phryn.
p. 403, Lipsius Gram. Vnters. p. 7.
The forms in v are the best supported
in the New Testament : see A. Butt
mann pp. 23, 24.
Kard rcov roiovrcov K.r.X.] 'against
such things! Law exists for the pur
pose of restraint, but in the works of
the Spirit there is nothing to restrain ;
comp. I Tim. i. 9 eiScos rovro, on biKaia
vbpos ov Keirai, avbpois be Kal dvvirordK-
tois K.r.X. 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. oi Se rov Xplarov 'irjaov] 'now
they that are of Christ Jesus! Seve
ral of the Greek fathers strangely con
nected rov Xpiorov with rrjv adpKa,
'these persons have crucified the flesh
of Christ,' explainingit in various ways ;
see e.g. Clem. Alex. Fragm. 1015 (Pot
ter). Origen however, who so took it,

seems not to have had Se in his text,
and therefore made 01 a relative agree
ing with rcov roiovrcov, which he took as
masculine. See Jerome's note here.
'irjaov, 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 d Xpio-rds 'Irjaovs. This order
occurs also in Ephes. iii. 1, 1 1, Col. ii. 6,
but in both passages with some varia
tion of reading.
iaraiipaaav] '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 d 7raXaids rjpdv dvBpairos avve-
aravpdBrj; 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, Karrjp
yrjBrjre. rois iraBrjjjiaaiv k.t.X.] 'the affections
and the lusts'; comp. Col. iii. 5, 1 Thess.
iv. 5, and see TrenchiV T.Syn.2T\6\ser.
§ xxxvii. The two words are chiefly
distinguished as presenting vice on
its passive and its active side respect
ively. Comp. Joseph. [?] Mace. § 3. At
the same time iraBrjpara perhaps re
tains something of tbe meaning which
it has in Greek philosophy; arid, if so,
it is more comprehensive than iiriBv-
piai ; see for instance Arist. Eth. Nic.
ii. 4 Xeyco Se irdBrj pev iiriBvpiav
opyrjv cpdjSov Bpdaos k.t.X.
25. 'You bave 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

VI. i]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

211

yivwfie6a Kevodo^oi, dXXrjXovs TrpoKaXov/jievoi, dXXrjXovs

yovovvTes.

VI. 'AdeXcpoi, idv Kai 7rpoXrjiui(p6rj dv6pw7ros ev tivi

26. dXX?JXois rpBovovvres.

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. 0-
therwise 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.
el fcouev 7rvedp.ari] ' if we live to the
Spirit! The dative here is safest in
terpreted by the corresponding datives
in the parallel passage, Rom. vi. 2, 10,
ttj dpapria airoBaveiv, ver. 1 1 veKpovs pev
rfj dpapria fcovras Se rco Bed : comp.
also Rom. xiv. 6, 8, Kvpia £dpev, Kvpla
drroBvrjaKopev, 2 Cor. V. 1 5.
irvevpan Kal aroixdpev] 'let US also
walk by the Spirit! The dative with
aroixeiv, irepiirareiv, etc., marks the
line or direction; as Polyb; xxviii.
5. 6 BovXbpevoi aroixeiv rrj rrjs avyKXrj-
tov irpoBiaei. Comp. Fritzsche Bom.
m. p. 142, and A. Buttmann p. 160.
See above v. 16 (with the note), vi. 16.
26. St Paul works round again to
the subject of ver. 15, and repeats his
warning. It is clear that something
had occurred which alarmed him on
this point. See the introduction, p. 1 3.
There is a gradation in the phrases
used here. Vainglory provokes con
tention ; contention produces envy.
yivcouecla] not couev; This vainglory-
ing was a departure from their spiri
tual standard.
KevdSo|oi] 'vainglorious! So Kevo-
8o£ia, Phil. if. 3, and occasionally in
Polybius and later writers. In Wisd.
xiv. 14 Kevobo£la seems to mean rather
'vain opinion,' 'folly.'
irpoKaXovpevoi] 'provoking, challeng

ing to combat! Both this word and
(pBoveiv are dira£ Xeybpeva in the New
Testament. In the lxx (pBoveiv oc
curs once only, Tob. iv. 16 ; n-poKaXei-
a&ai never.
dXXrjXovs cptfovovvres] 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 epBoveiv 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 iyKoirreiv ver. 7. Comp. also
Heb. viii. 8 pepcpbpevos avrovs (the cor
rect reading). So too iroXepeiv 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 flagraht. 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
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
14 — 2

212 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. [VI. 2
TrapaTTTWfxaTi, vfxeTs oi TrvevixaTiKol KaTapTi^eTe tov
toiovtov iv TrvevfxaTi TrpavTrjTOs, g-kottwv ceavTOv \xr\
Kai crv Treipao-Qrjs. 3 dXXrjXwv Ta fldprj /3ao-Ta^eTe, Kai

responsibilities. Each of us must carry
his own load.'
1. dSeXcpoi] ' 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.
e'dv Kai] See the note on i. 8.
irpoXrjprpBrj] ' be surprised, detected
in the act of committing any sin,' so
that his guilt is placed beyond a doubt.
For this sense of irpoXapBdveiv, 'to
take by surprise, to overpower before
one can escape,' see Wisd. xvii. 16
irpoXrjpipBels rrjv bvadXvKTov epevev
dvdyKrjV. Comp. KareXrjp(b6r), Joh. viii. 4.
The word cannot here mean ' be be
trayed into sin,' for neither will the
preposition e'v admit this meaning, nor
is it well suited to the context.
vpeis oi jrvevuariKoi] St Paul had
once and again urged them to walk
by the Spirit (v. 16, 25). This ex
plains the form of address here ; 'Ye
who have taken my lesson to heart,
ye who would indeed be guided by
the Spirit.' Their readiness to for

give would be a test of their spirit
uality of mind. It might indeed be
supposed that the Apostle was here
addressing himself especially to the
party of more liberal views, who had
taken his side against the Judaizers,
and in their opposition to ritualism
were in danger of paying too little
regard to the weaker brethren ; comp.
Rom. xv. I rjpeis ol Svvaroi. In this
case there would be a slight shade of
irony in irvevpariKol. The epistle how
ever betrays no very distinct traces of
the existence of such a party in the
Galatian Churches (see v. 13), and in
deed the context here is far too general
to apply to them alone. For oi n-vev-
pariKol, see 1 Cor. ii. 13, 15, iii. 1.
Karaprl^ere] ' correct, restore! The
idea of punishment is quite subordi
nate to that of amendment in Karaprl-
fere, which on this account is preferred
here to KoXd^ere or even vovoVreire,
though the latter occurs in a similar
passage, 2 Thess. iii. 1 5 pr) as ixBpbv
ijyeiaBe dXXd vovBereire cos dbeXcpbv. On
Karapri£eiv see the note 1 Thess. iii. 10.
It is used especially as a surgical term,
of setting a bone or joint ; see the
passages in Wetstein on Matt. iv. 21.
e'v irvevpan irpavrrjTOs] Comp. I Cor.
IV. 21 ev ayairg irvevjxari re irpavrrjros.
Gentleness is a characteristic of true
spirituality. By their conduct towards
wrong-doers their claim to the title of
irvevpariKol would be tested.
o-kojtcov] The transition from the
plural to the singular gives the charge
a direct personal application; 'each
one of you individually.' Compare the
koi o-v, 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

VI. 3, 4]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

213

ovtws dvaTrXrjpwo-eTe tov vofxov toO Xpio-ToO. ^ei ydp
SokcF tis elvai ti fxnZev wv, cppevawaTa eavTov *to Se
epyov eavToS SoKifxa^Tio <Wtos, Kai roVe eis iavTov

2. ovrtiis dvairXijpdaaTe.

have used both Bdprj and vdp.ov (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 cpopri-
£ere rois dvBpairovs qbopria bvaBda-
TOKra, Acts XV. IO eirtBeivai £vybv bv
ovre 01 irarepes rjpdv ovre rjpeis icr^v-
crauev Baardaai, ver. 28 prjbev irXe'ov
imrlBeaBai vpiv Bdpos. For the 'law
of Christ,' always in contrast to the
law of Moses, see 1 Cor..ix. 21 ewopos
Xpiarov, Rom. iii. 27 Sid n-oiov vbpov ;
rdv epycov ; ov^i, dXXd Sid vbpov iria-
Tecos, Vlll. 2 o vbpos rov irvevparos rrjs
{aijs k.t.X.; comp. James i. 25, ii. 12.
dXXrjXav ra jBdprj K.T.X.] Comp. Matt.
viii. 17, Rom. XV. I rd daBevrjpara rdv
dbvvdrav Baardgeiv, Ignat. Polyc. I.
irdvras Bdara^e cos ere d Kvpios, and
again 7rdvrcov rods vbaovs Bdara£e,
Epist. ad Diogn. § 10 do-ns rd tov
irXrjaiov dva^exerai Bdpos. Here the po
sition of oXXtJXcov 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 aud sufferings.'
ava7rX77pcoo-ere] 'ye will rigorously
fulfil,' the idea of completeness being
contained in the preposition. It is
difficult to decide here between the
readings dvaTrXrjpdaere and avairXrjpd-
aare, the external authority for either
being nearly balanced. On the whole
the preference may perhaps be given
to dvan-XimcoVere 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 dva-
irXrjpdaare 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. 330.
rov Xpio-rov] is added in a manner
7rapd irpoaboKiav ; ' the law not of MosCS
but of Christ.'
3. These words are connected with
the first verse of the chapter, the
second being an amplification of and
inference from the first.
el yap boKei ns k.t.X.] Comp. Plat.
Apol. p. 41 B e'dv boKaai n elvai prjbev
ovres, Arrian Epict. ii. 24 Sokcdv pev
ns eivai av S' ovSei? : and for ovSev
elvai, see 1 Cor. xiii. 2, 2 Cor. xii. 1 1.
prjbev av] ' being nothing] i.e. '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, ro, 2 Cor. iii. 5.
eppevan-ard] ' deceives by his fancies'
comp. Tit. i. 10 paraioXbyoi Kal (ppeva-
irdrai. More is implied by this word
than by dirardv, for it brings out the
idea of subjective fancies and thus en
forces the previous SoKeZ. 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. rd be epyov eavrov] ' his own
work '; epyov, emphatic by its position,
stands in contrast to SoKei and eppeva-
irara ; and this contrast is enhanced
by the addition of eavrov.
boKipa£era] ' let him test, examine' ;
see the notes on 1 Thess. ii. 4, v. 21.

214

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[VI. 5, 6

fxovov to KavxW" *£"> K£" ™K e's T°v *rePov' S*Ka-
cttos yap to 'ISiov (popTiov fiao-Tao-ei.
6KoLvwveiTW Se 6 KaTiixovfxevos tov Xoyov tw k«t»7-

ro Kai>xrjpa] 'his ground for boast
ing' ; Kavxrjpa is the matter of Kavxv
ais ; compare Rom. iii. 27 with iv. 2,
and 2 Cor. i. 12 rj yap Kavy^cris rjpdv
avrrj iarlv K.r.X. with i. 14 on Kavxtpa
vpdv iapev.
els iavrbv k.t.X] ' 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 KparaiaBfjvai els tov eaa
avBpairov, Rom. iv. 20, xv. 2, xvi. 6,
etc.: Winer § xlix. p. 416.
rdv erepov] ' his neighbour! For the
article compare Rom. ii. 1, xiii. 8,
1 Cor. vi. 1, x. 24, 29.
5. Having started from the pre
cept 'bear one another's loads,' the
Apostle has worked round to an appa
rently contradictory statement ' each
man must bear his own burden.' This
expression of complementary truths
under antagonistic forms is character
istic of St Paul. For instances of
similar paradoxes of expression see
Phil. ii. 12, 13 'work out your own
salvation, for it is God that worketh
in you,' or 2 Cor, xii. 10 'when I am
weak, then I am strong.' Compare
also bis language in speaking of the
law, Romans vi, vii.
to ibiov cpopriov] It is difficult to
establish any precise distinction be
tween cpopriov here and Bdprj, ver. 2.
This much' difference however there
seems to be, that tbe latter suggests
the idea of an adventitious and op
pressive burden, whicb is not neces
sarily implied' in the former; so that
Bdprj points to a, load °f which a man
may fairly rid himself when occasion
serves, cpopriov to a load which he is
expected to bear. Thus cpopriov 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 (cpop
riov), as each is supplied with his own
provisions (e'cpdSia, Clem. Rom. 2), and
each receives his proper pay (dijrdvia
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
SO, Baard^eiv rb 'ibiov cpopriov refers
rather to the discharge of the obliga
tions themselves than to the punish
ment undergone for their neglect.
Baardaei] 'is appointed to bear,
must bear.' Each man has certain
responsibilities imposed on him indi- .
vidually, which he cannot throw off.
For the future tense see ii. 16, Winer
§ xl. p. 296.
6. ' I spoke of bearing one another's
burdens. There is one special appli
cation I would make of this rule. Pro
vide for the temporal wants of your
teachers in Christ.' Ae arrests a for
mer topic before it passes out of sight ;
see the note iv.20. Otherwise it might
betaken 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
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 Se'.
6. Koivcoveirco] 'let him impart to' ;
literally ' let him go shares with.' The
word is properly intransitive and
equivalent to koivcovos eivai ' 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. 11. 14 KeKoivdvrjKev alparos Kal aap-
Kbs ; comp. Prov. i. 1 1, 2 Mace. xiv. 25.

VI. 7, 8]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

215

XOVvti iv Trao-tv dyaddls. 7 fj.rj TrXavao-6e, Qeos ov /nvKTri-
pi^eTai' b yap iav o-ireipv] avdpwrros, tovto Kai depiaei'
8oti 6 cnreipcuv eis Tr]v cdpKa eavTov iK Ttjs cap/cos

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 iEsch.
C. Ctes. p. 63 oi dirodbpevoi Kal Kara-
Koivavrjaavres rd r^s 7rdXecos laxvpd,
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
koivcovos, and expresses the person or
thing with which the other makes
common cause. He who Koivavei in
this case may be either the receiver, as
Rom.xv.27rois irvev par ikois avrdv iKoi-
vdvrjaav rd eBvrj, or the giver, as Rom.
Xll. 1 3 TaTs xP€<-ats T®v ay iav Koivavovv-
res. Here the latter is intended.
Karrjxovpevos] 'instructed! The word
in this sense is not peculiar to biblical
Greek. Karrjxrjais 'oral instruction'
occurs as early as Hippocrates p. 28.
25 Karrjxrjaios Ibiareav, and probably
' Karrjxeiv '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 dirbaroXos, p. 92
note 3.
e'v 7rao-ivdya5ois] 'in allgood 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
whieh 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 dyaBois, 'temporal blessings,' see
Luke i. 53, xii, 18, 19, xvi. 25. Com
pare Barnabas § 19 Koivcovijo-eis e'v
7rdo-i rco irXrjaiov aov.
7, 8. ' ' What ? you hold back ? Nay,
do not deceive yourselves. Your
niggardliness will find you out. You
cannot cheat God by your fair pro
fessions. You cannot mock Him. Ac
cording as you sow, thus will you reap.
If you plant the seed of your own
selfish desires, if you sow the field of
the flesh, then when you gather in
your harvest, you will find the ears
blighted and rotten. But if you sow
the good ground of the spirit, you
will of that good ground gather the
golden grain of life eternal.'
7. ov pvK-rrjpi^erai] 'is not mocked!
MvKrrjpl£eiv, which is properly 'to turn
up the nose at,' 'to treat with con
tempt,' involves as a secoudary mean
ing the idea of contradicting one's
language by one's gesture or look,
and so implies an outward avowal of
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
pvKrrjp is frequently eppnected with
elpaveia, as in Lucian Prom. c. 1 ¦
compare Pollux ii. 78 koI rdv e'ipavd
nves pvKrrjpa KaXovai*. In writers on
rhetoric pvKrrjpiapbs is. ordinarily
treated as a species of eipcovei'a; see,
for instance four different treatises on
'tropes' in the Bhet. Grcec. 111. pp.
205, 213, 235, 254 (ed. Spengel).
Similarly Quintilian, viii. 6. 59, well
defines it, 'dissimulates quidam sed
non latens risus.' Such is the force of
pvKrrjpiCerai in this passage: 'you
cannot with impunity turn your pro-

2l6

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[VI. 9, 10

depicrei <j)dopdv, 6 Se o-ireipusv eis to Trvevpa iK tov
TrvevfxaTOs 6epio-ei £wr)v aiwviov. 9 to Se KaXov iroi-
ovvTes fxr) iyKaKWfxev Kaipw ydp ihiw 6epio-Ofj.ev fxrj
iKXvofievoi. 10dpa ovv ws Kaipov exofJtev, ipya^wtxeda

fessions to contempt, you cannot with
God indulge in a,postica sanna!
o ydp idv k.t.X.] 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. Bhet. iii. 3 crd Se ravra
alaxpds pev eaireipas kokcos Se eBeptaas
(see Plato Phcvdr. 260 c, Thompson's
note). It occurs in 2 Cor. ix. 6, of
the contributions for the brethren
of Judsea. To this object the Gala
tians also had been asked to contri
bute (1 Cor. xvL 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 (3 e'dv aireipg). In
the present the metaphor is otherwise
applied, and the harvest is made to
depend on the nature of the ground
in which it is east (els), as in the para
ble of 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.
eavrov] which disturbs the equi
librium of the clauses, is added to
bring out the idea of selfishness.
epBopdv] '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 airelperai

iv (pBopd, Col. ii. 22 a ianv irdvra els
(pBopav rfj diroxprjaei. The metaphor
suggests that (bBopdv 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 to life eternal, and so forms the
link of connexion between the emblem
and the thing signified. In fcoi) aicdvios
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 pr) iyKaKrjarjre
KaXoiroiovvres. The word KaXoiroieiv
includes dyaBoiroieiv and more, for
while rd dyaBd are beneficent actions,
kind services, etc., things good in their
results, rd KaXd are right actions, such
as are beautiful in themselves, things
absolutely good. In this passage, as
in 2 Thess. I. c, the antithesis of koXov
and kokov seems to be intended, though
it can scarcely be translated into Eng
lish ; 'in well doing let us not show an
ill heart.'
e'yKaKcSpev] 'turn cowards, lose
heart'; e'yKaxeiv or ivKaKeiv is the cor
rect word in the New Testament, not
e'KKaKeiv. It is read .persistently in a
few of the best mss, though in all
six passages where it occurs eKKaKeiv
is found as a various reading; see the
note on 2 Thess. iii. 13.
Kaipco Ibla] 'at its proper season,'
i.e. the regular time for harvest ; comp.
1 Tim. ii. 6, vi. 15, Tit. i. 3.
IO. cos Kaipov exopev] 'as we find
a seasonable time, as opportunity pre
sents.' The Kaipbs here answers to the
Kaipbs of the former verse. There is
a time for sowing as there is a time

VI. u]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

217

to dyadov Trpos irdvTas, fxaXio-Ta Se Trpos tovs o'lKeiovs
rews. eTe TrrjXiKOts vjXiv ypafx/nao-iv eypa\jsa Trj ifxij

Tr\s TricrTews
""IS,

for harvest. 'Qs is perhaps best trans
lated as above. There is however no
objection to rendering it 'while we
have time'; comp. Joh. xii. 35 as rb
cpcos 'ixere (as it is read in the best
MSS), Ignat. Smyrn. 9 cos en Kaipov
exopev, Clem. Bom. ii. 8 cos ovv e'crpev
iirl yrjs, ib. § 9 cos Kaipov exopev. The
distinction is introduced by transla
tion; the original co's covers both
meanings. pr) iKXvbpevoi] ' if we faint not,' as
husbandmen overcome with heat and
fatigue. Comp. James v. 7. For eV
XveaBai compare 1 Mace. iii. 17, Matt.
xv. 32, Mark viii. 3. On the synonymes
here used Bengel remarks ; ' e'KKaKeiv
[rather e'yKaKeiv] est in velle, iKXveaBai
est in posse! To this it may be added
that e'KXveo-0ai is a consequence of e'y
KaKeiv; the prostration of the powers
following on the submission of the will.
rois oheiovs k.t.X.] ' the members of
the household of the faith' : compare
Ephes. ii. 19 crvvn-oXTrai rcov dyicov Kal
oiKeToi tov Qeov. Similarly the Church
is elsewhere spoken of as the house of
God, 1 Tim. iii. 15, 1 Pet. iv. 17 ; comp.
1 Pet. ii. 5, Heb. iii. 6. We need not
therefore hesitate to assign this mean
ing to o'tKeiot here. Comp. Clem. Bee.
p. 45 1. 31 (Syr.). In this case rrjs iria-
recos will probably be nearly equiva
lent to rov evayyeXiov, see above, p.
155. On the other hand, o'lKeibs twos
is not an uncommon phrase in profane
writers for ' acquainted with ' e. g. cpi-
Xoao<pias, yeaypa(pias, dXiyapxias, rv-
pavvibos, rpv(j>rjs ; see the passages in
Wetstein : but this sense would be in
sipid here.
1 1. 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
thefinal benediction (2 Thess. iii. 17, 18),
with perhaps a single sentence of ex
hortation, as ' If any one love not the
Lord Jesus Christ, etc' (1 Cor. xvi.
21 — -24), or 'Remember my bonds'
(Col. iv. 18). In the Epistle to the
Romans he seems to have appended
the ascription of praise which reads
like a postscript (xvi. 25 — 27). In the
present case he writes a whole para
graph, 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 deter
mination of his soul (see above, p. 65).
To this feature he calls attention in
the words which follow.
"iSere k.t.X.] ' 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 ypdp
para sometimes signifies 'a letter'
(Acts xxviii. 21, 1 Mace. v. 10, comp.
Ignat. Polyc. 7, Clem. Horn. xii. 10),
and therefore irrjXiKa ypdppara might
mean ' how long a letter ' ; but on the
other hand, it seems equally clear that
ypdppaaiv ypd(peiv ' to write with let
ters' cannot be used for ypdppara
ypd(peiv ' 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

2l8

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[VI. u

Xeipl- ™ 00-01 BeXovcriv evirpoo-WTrrjo-ai iv crapKi, ovtoi
dvayKa^ovo-iv v/uas TrepiTefxveo-dai, fiovov iva tw CTTavpw

it at all probable that St Paul who
had received a careful education at
Jerusalem and at Tarsus, the great
centres of Jewish and of Greek learn
ing, should have betrayed this child
like ignorance and even gloried in it ?
Or again does he, as others imagine,
refer to the physical difficulties under
which he was labouring, the irregu
larity of the handwriting being ex
plained by his defective eyesight or
by his bodily suffering? But here
again irrfXlKois 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, dyav pei£oaiv ixprjaaro
ypdppaaiv ip(j>aivav on ovre avrds epv-
Bpia ovre dpveirai rd Xeydu-eva. The
boldness of the handwriting answers
to the force of the Apostle's convic
tions. The size of the characters will
arrest the attention of his readers in
spite of themselves.
viuv] Its right place is after irrjXl-
kois, though a few mss have transposed
the words. Standing therefore in this
position, it cannot well be taken with
eypatya, 'I write' Or 'I wrpte to you';
but is connected rather with irrjXiKois,
which it emphasizes, ' how large, mark
you' ; see e. g. Plat. Thecet. p. 143 e
aKOvaai iravv a£tov oico vpiv rdv 7ToXi-
rcov peipaxia ivrervxrjKa.
eypa\jra] '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 eypaijra see Philem. 19, 21,
1 Pet. v. 12, 1 Joh. ii. 14, 21, 26, v. 13 ;
comp. eVeoreiXa, Heb. xiii. 22. The
objection, that the aorist cannot be
so used except at the close of a letter

and in reference to what goes before,
seems to be groundless ; for (i)it fails
to recognise the significance of the
epistolary aorist, the explanation of
the past tense being that events are
referred to the time at which the letter
is received: (2) There are clear in
stances of the past tense used as here,
e. g. in Mart. Polyc. § 1 iypdfyapev
vpiv, abeXrpoi, rd Kara rovs paprvprjaav-
ras, these words occurring immedi
ately after the opening salutation ;
comp. eirep\i/a, 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. § 345. Thus eypa^a in
no way prejudices the question whe
ther the wbole letter or the last para
graph only was written by St Paul.
12, 13. 'Certain men have an ob
ject in displaying their zeal for carnal
ordinances. These are they, who would
force circumcision upon you. They
have no sincere belief in its value.
Their motive is far different. They
hope thereby to save themselves from
persecution for professing the cross of
Christ. For only look at their incon
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

VI. 13]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

219

tov Xpio-Tov \xr\ ZiwKwvTai. n ovde ydp oi TrepiTefxvo-
fievoi avTOi vopov (pvXaa-arov&iv, dXXd BeXovo-iv v/mas

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.
1 2. evirpoaairrjaai K.r.X.] ' to show
fair in the flesh,' i.e. 'to make a pre
tentious display of their religion in
outward ordinances.' The emphasis
seems to lie as much on evVpoo-co7rJ/o-ai
as on e'v aapd, 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, oirives e£aBev (paivovrai
dpaioi (Matt, xxiii. 27). The adjec
tive ev7rpdo-con-os is not uncommon in
classical Greek, and generally has this
sense, 'specious, plausible,' e.g. De-
mosth. p. 277 Xdyovs ev5rpocrcd7rovs Kal
pvBovs avvBels Kal bte£eXBdv. The verb
evVpoo-co7ri£eiv (?) occurs in Symmachus,
Ps. cxli. 6.
e'v aapKi] 'in the flesh,' i.e. in ex
ternal rites. It has been taken by
some as equivalent to aapKiKol d'vrc;s,
but, besides that this interpretation
is harsh in itself, e'v o-apKJ here cannot
well be separated from e'v r% vperepa
aapKi of the following verse.
pbvov iva] seemingly elliptical ; ' only
(their object in doing so is) that tbey
may not etc.' See the note on ii. io,
rep oravpcS rov Xpicrrov] not as it is
sometimes taken, 'with the. sufferings
of Christ,' but 'for professing the cross
of Christ.' A comparison with ver. 14
and v. 1 1 seems to place this beyond a
doubt. The cross of Christ and the
flesh are opposed, as faith and works.
They are two antagonistic principles,
either of which is a denial of the other.
For the dative of the occasion com
pare Rom. xi. 20, 30, 2 Cor. ii. 13.
SicoKcovrai] The reading Sicokovtoi,
however well supported, can only be
regarded as a careless way of writing
SicoKcovrai. In the same way in ver. 9

many texts read ipya£6pe6a for e'pya-
£dpe6a ; compare Rom. v. 1, exnpev
and exapev.
13. ovSe ydp k.t.X.] 'for even the
advocates of circumcision themselves
do not keep the law! The allusion
here is not to the impossibility of ob
serving the law, the distance from Je
rusalem 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. oi irepirepvbpevoi] 'the circumcision-
party, the advocates of circumcision.'
See tbe apt quotation from the apo
cryphal book Act. Petr. et Paul. § 63
(p. 28, ed. Tisch.), where Simon says
of the two Apostles, ovroi ol irepi-
repvbpevoi iravovpyol elaiv, to which
St Paul replies, irpb rov rjpds iiriyvdvai
rrjv dXrjBeiav aapKOS iaxopev irepiroprjv'
ore be i(pdvrj rj dXrjBeia, iv rfj Kapblas
irepiropfj Kal irepirepvopeBa Kal ire-
piripvopev. and compare the some
what similar classical usage in the ex
pression oi peovre,s Plat. Theayt.r). 1 8 1 A.
See the, note i. 23. If this interpre
tation be correct, the present tense
leaves tbe, 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 irepirepvbpevoi rather than
irepirerprjpevoi, as the versions which
have a present tense may safely be
urged in favour of the former, while
those which have a past cannot with the
same confidence be alleged to support
the latter; but independently of ex
ternal authority, a preference must be
given to irepirepvbpevoi, as probably
the original reading, of which n-eptre-
rprjpivoi is so obvious a correction.

220

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[VI. 14

TrepiTe/mvecrdai, 'iva iv Trj v/ueTepa orapKi KavxrjcrwvTai
I4e/UOi Se fxr) yevoiTO Kavxdo-0ai, ei p.r) iv tw crTavpa
tov Kvpiov rjfjiwv 'IrjQ-ov Xpio-Tov, St' OV ifXOl KOO-jUOS i-

vbpov] 'They are no rigorous ob
servers of law,' regarded as a prin
ciple. On the absence of the article,
see the references in the note on
v. 18.
vpds, vperepa] opposed to avrol ;
'Indifferent themselves, they make
capital out of you!
iv Tg vperepa k.t.X.] i. e. that they
may vaunt your submission to this
carnal rite and so gain credit with the
Jews for proselytizing. ' Comp. Phil.
iii. 3 Kavxdpevoi iv Xpiara 'irjaov Kal
ovk iv aapKi ireiroiBbres.
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.'
pr) yevoiro] 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.
e'v rco o-ravpep] 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.
Si' ov] probably refers to oravpov;
'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 Xpiard, we
should have expected rather e'v a or
o-vv a. For the same image as here
compare Col. ii. 14 avrd r]pKev iK tov
peaov irpoarjXdaas avrb Ta aravpd (i. e.
it was nailed with Christ to the cross,
and rent as His body was rent) ; and
for the general purport of the passage,
Col. ii. 20, 'If ye died with Christ from

the rudiments of the world, why as if
living in the world are ye subject to
ordinances ?' This koo-uos, the material
universe, is the sphere of external or
dinances. Some texts insert the article before
Koapos and Koapa — 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
adopted is the shortest form, and
doubtless represents the genuine text.
ovre ydp k.t.X.] In this annihilation
of the world all external distinctions
have ceased to be. This sentence oc
curs again, v. 6 and 1 Cor. vii. 19, in
substantially the same words.
Nevertheless this passage is said by
several ancient authors (Photius Am-
phil. Qu. 183, G. Syncellus Chronogr.
p. 27 ; see also Cotel. on Apost. Const.
vi. 16, Cod. Bodl. JEthiop. 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 Offenb. d. Johann.
1. p. 232. Cedrenus (Hist. Comp. p. 4)
states that the Revelation of Moses
was identified by some persons (cpacri
nves) with the ' Little Genesis.' This
latter title is another name for the
Book of Jubilees, which of late years
has been discovered in an iEthiopic
translation. In the Book of Jubilees
however the words in question do not
occur; see Ewald's Jahrb. in. p. 74.

VI. i5, i6]

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

221

15ovtc yap TrepiTOfxr] ti eo-Ttv

o-TavpwTai Kayw Koar\xw
ovTe aKpoQvo-Tia, dXXa Kaivr\ kt'iq-is. "Kai oaroi tw
Kavovi tovtw aToixrio-ovcriv, eiprjvr] eV avTOvs Kai eXeos,

16" \ <r
Kai oaroi

Kaivr) Krlais]' anew creature! Com
pare the parallel passage, 2 Cor. v. 17
ei ns e'v Xpiard, Kaivr) Krlais. This
phrase Kaivr) Kriais, HKHn fVG, is a
common expression in Jewish writers
for one brought to the knowledge of
the true God. See the passages in
SchBttgen 1. p. 704. The idea of spi
ritual enlightenment as a creating
anew appears also inn-aXiyyevecria 're
generation'; see also Ephes. iv. 24
Kaivdv avBpairov KriaBevra; comp.
Ephes. ii. 10, 15, Col. iii. 10; and 2
Cor. iv. 16, dvaKaivovaBai.
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.'
dcroi] 'as many as; no matter
whether they are of the circumcision
or of the uncircumcision.'
o-roixijo-ovcriv] ' shall walk! This
reading is to be preferred to o-roi-
Xovaiv, both ashavingsomewhat higher
support and as being slightly more
difficult. It is at the same time more
expressive as implying the continu
ance of this order. Compare ii. 16,
Rom. iii. 30, and see Winer § xl. p. 296.
rep Kavbvi rov rep] ' by this line,' cor
responding to the meaning of aroixeiv.
Kavcov is the carpenter's or surveyor's
line by which a direction is taken. In
2 Cor. x. 13, 16, it is used metaphori
cally, where the image is taken from
surveying and mapping out a district,
so as to assign to different persons
their respective parcels of ground.
For the several senses through which
this word has passed, and for its eccle
siastical meaning especially, see West-
cott On the Canon, App. a, p. 541 sq.
On the dative see the notes, v. 16, 25 ;
comp. Phil. iii. 16 t<3 avrd aroixeiv,
where Kavbvi is interpolated in some
texts from this passage.
koi iirl rov 'lapar/X k.t.X.] '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 N. T.
Syn. ist ser. § xxxix, and compare
Ephes. il. 12 dirrjXXorpiapevoirrjsiroXi-
relas rov 'laparjX, Rom. ix. 4 oinve's
eicriv 'laparjXirai, cdv rj vloBeaia K.r.X.
(comp. 2 Cor. xi. 22, Phil. iii. 5), John i.
48 1'Se dXrjBds 'laparjXirrjs, compared
with vel'. 50 av BaaiXei/s el rov 'Icrpa7jX.
St Paul is perhaps referring here to
the benediction elprjvrj iirl rdv 'icrpajjX,
which closes Psalms exxv, exxviii, and
must have been a familiar sound in
the ears of all devout Israelites.
The 'Israel of God' is in implied
contrast to the 'Israel after the flesh '
(1 Cor. x. 18); comp. Rom. ix. 6 ov
ydp Trdvres oi e'£ 'Io-pa^X ovroi 'Iopa?;X,
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 Kal is epexegetic, i.e. it intro
duces the same thing under a new
aspect, as in Heb. xi. 17, etc.; see
Winer § liii. p. 458.
17. St Paul closes the epistle, as he
had begun it, with an uncompromising
assertion of his office : 'Henceforth let
no man question my authority: let no
man thwart or annoy me. Jesus is my
Master, my Protector. His brand is
stamped on my body. I bear this badge
of an honourable servitude.'
rov Xonrov] ' henceforth' differs from
rd Xoittov, as 'in the time to come'
from 'throughout the time to come.'
Compare vvktos and vvkto. In the
New Testament it occurs only here
and Ephes. vi. 10, where however the
received reading is rd Xowrdv.
rd any para] ' the brands] i. e. the
marks of ownership branded on his
body. These anypara were used; (1)

222

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[VI. 17, 18

Kai eVi tov 'laparjX tov Qeov. z1tov Xoittov kottovs
fxoi fxrjdeis TrapexeTW iyw ydp Ta crTiypiaTa tov 'Irjcrov
iv tw o-w/naTi /uiov /3a<rra£&>.
18 'H X'XP15 T°v KVpi°v rjfxwv 'Irjcrov Xpto-TOv fxeTa
tov TrvevfJiaTOs vfxwv, dheXcpoi. d[xr\v.

In the case of domestic slaves. With
these however branding was not usual,
at least among the Greeks and Romans,
except to mark such as had attempted
to escape or had otherwise miscon
ducted themselves, hence called o-ny-
pariai, 'literati' (see the ample collec
tion of passages in Wetstein), and such
brands were held a badge of disgrace ;
Pseudo-Phocyl. 212 ariypara pr) ypd-
¦^i-rjs eVoveiSi'fcov Bepdirovra, Senec. de
Benef. iv. 37, 38. (2) Slaves attached
to some temple (iepbbovXoi) or persons
devoted to the service of some deity
were so branded: Herod, ii. 113 area
avBpairav iiriBdXrjrai ariypara Ipd,
eavrov biboiis rep Bed, ovk e^eari rov-
rov dyjraaBai, Lucian de Dea Syr. §
59 orl£ovrai be irdvres oi pev e's Kapirovs
ol be is avxevas ; Philo de Mon. II. p.
22 1 m : comp. 3 MacC. ii. 29. The pas
sage of Lucian is a good illustration
of Rev. xiii. 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 Jac. Lydius de Be Milit. p.
27 sq. 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 SovXos
is mentioned in a Galatian inscription,
Texier Asie Mineure 1. p. 135.
The brands of which the Apostle
speaks were doubtless the permanent
marks which he bore of persecution
undergone in the service of Christ :
comp. 2 Cor. iv. IO rrjv vixpaaiv rov
'Iijctov e'v rep adpari irepicpepovTes,xi. 23.
See the introduction, p. 51.
Whether the stigmata of St Francis

of Assisi can be connected by any
historical link with a mistaken inter
pretation of the passage, I do not
know. Bonaventura in his life of this
saint (§ 13. 4) apostrophizes him in
the language of St Paul, 'Jam enim
propter stigmata Domini Jesu quae in
corpore tuo portas, nemo debet tibi
esse molestus'; and the very use of
the word 'stigmata' (which is retained
untranslated in the Latin Versions)
points to such a connexion. On the
other hand, I am not aware that this
interpretation of the passage was cur
rent in the age of St Francis. A little
later Aquinas paraphrases the words,
'portabat insignia passionis Christi,'
but explains this expression away in
the next sentence.
'Irjaov] So it is read in the majority
of the older mss. All other variations,
including the received reading rov kv-
plov 'iijo-ov^are inferior, for the personal
name of the owner alone is wanted.
Baard^a] St Chrysostom has pro
bably caught the right idea, ovk ewrev
exa aXXa Baara£a, aairep ns iirl rpo-
iralois piya (ppovdv. Compare theuse
of irepi(pipovTes in 2 Cor. iv. 10 already
quoted. For Baardfa see Acts ix. 15.
1 8. uerd tov irvevparos vpdv] ' with
your spirit'; perhaps in reference to
the carual 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.
dSeXepoi] ' 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 epistolce severitas.'
See the note on vi. 1.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 223

Patristic Commentaries on this Epistle.
The patristic commentaries on the Galatians, extant either whole or in part,
are perhaps more numerous than on any other of St Paul's Epistles. The
earlier of these have for the most part an independent value; the later
are mere collections or digests of the labours of preceding writers and have
no claim to originality. In the list which follows an asterisk is prefixed to
the name of the author in cases where fragments only remain.
In drawing up this account 1 have had occasion to refer frequently to Books of
Cave's Script. Eccles. Hist. Liter. (Oxon. 1740), to Fabricius's Bibliotheca referelloe.
Grceca (ed. Harles), and to Schrockh's Christliche Kirchengeschichte.
Special works relating to the subject, to which reference is also made, are
Simon's Histoire Critique des Principaux Commentateurs du N. T.
(1693), Rosenmiiller's Historia Interpretationis Librorum Sacrorum
(1795— 1814), and a treatise by J. F. S. AugUstin in Nosselt's Opusc. in.
p. 321 sq.
1. Earlier Commentaries. i.Eabliee
COMHEir-
(a) Greek and Syrian Fathers. tabies.
(i) *Oriqeites (f 253). The recently discovered list of Origen's works (a) Greek
drawn up by Jerome mentions fifteen books on the Epistle to the Galatians, andSyrian.
besides seven homilies on the same (Redepenning in Niedner's Zeitschr. °"Sen-
1851, pp. 77, 78); while the same Jerome in the preface to his Commen
tary (vn. p. 370, ed. Vail.) 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) Ephraem Syrus (t 378), the deacon of Edessa. An Armenian Ephraem
version of a commentary on the Scriptures, including St Paul's Epistles, Syrus.

224

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

School of
Antioch.

Eusebiusof Emisa.

Chryso
stom.

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 viii,
p. 217, Schiockk xv. p. 527; and the article by E. Rodiger in Herzog's
Beal-Encyclopaedie, with the references there given. Lagarde (Apost-
Const, p. vi) very decidedly maintains the genuineness of these Armenian
works; and Rodiger seems also to take this view. In the few passages
which I have had the opportunity of testing, both the readings and the in
terpretations 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 Csesarea, 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. 11. p. 498, in. p. 497 sq.
(Eng. trans.), Reuss Gesch. d. Heil. Schr. § 518 (3te ausg.), and especially
Kihn Die Bedeutung der Antioch. Schule(i86j).
(iii) * Eusebius Emisenus (+ about 360), so called from the name of his
see Emesa or Emisa (Hums), a native of Edessa. A few fragments of his
work are preserved in Cramer's Catena, pp. 6, 8, 12, 20, 28, 32, 40, 44, 57,
62, 64, 65, 67, 91. It is described by Jerome, as 'ad Galatas libri decern'
(de Fir. Illustr. c. 91). Eusebius enjoyed a great reputation with his contem
poraries, and these scanty fragments seem to indicate an acute and careful
expositor. His writings are the subject of monographs by Augusti
Eusebii Emeseni Opusc. Grcec. etc. 1829, and by Thilo Ueber die Schr if ten
d. Euseb. v. Alexandrien u. d. Euseb. v. Emisa (1832). See also Fabricius
vii. p. 412, Schrockh v. p. 68 sq. The publication of Cramer's Catena has
since added materials for an account of this writer.
(iv) Joannes Chrysostomus (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 to its value. At the same time
it would seem from its character to have been intended for oral delivery.
1 Zenker Bibl. Orient, also m

tions as published at Venice in 1833 a
book by Aucher, bearing the title S. P.
Ephraemi Syri Comment, in Epist. S.
Pauli etc. ex antiquissima Armeniea ver-
sione nunc primum latinitate donatum.
But it is not included in a recent cata
logue of the works printed at the Ar

menian press at Venice, and though
advertised, seems never to have ap
peared. Through the kindness of Dr
Rieu of the British Museum, of whose
knowledge of Armenian I gladly availed
myself, I have been able in some im
portant passages to give the readings
and interpretations of Ephraem.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 225
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. Epist. cxii. See above p. 130). The exposition of the Galatians
may be read in the Benedictine edition of Chrysostom's works x. p. 657 ; or
- still better in Field's edition of the Homilies (Oxon. 1852).
(v) *Severianus (about 400), bishop of Gabala in Syria, first the friend Severia-
and afterwards the opponent of Chrysostom; see Schrockh x. p. 458 sq. nus-
He wrote an Expositio in Epistolam ad Galatas (Gennad. de Vir. Illustr.
c. 21, Hier. Op. 11. p. 981). Gennadius speaks of him as 'in divinis scrip-
turis eruditus.' Several fragments of this work are preserved in Cramer's
Catena, pp. 16, 18, 23, 29, 39, 40, 55, 58, 59, 64, 66, 70, 82, 93, and one at
least in the Qicumenian commentary (Gal. i. 1 3). Like most writers of the
Graeco-Syrian School he maintained the literal meaning of Scripture against
the allegorists. See Cave 1. p. 375, Fabricius x. p. 507.
(vi) Theodorus Mopsuestenus (t 429), a native of Tarsus, so called Theodore
from the see of Mopsuestia which he held. He wrote commentaries on all oi Mopsu-
St Paul's Epistles ; see Ebed Jesu's Catalogue in Assemann. Bibl. Orient. es w"
m. p. 32. Several fragments of these in the original are preserved in the
Catenas1, and have been collected and edited by 0. F. Fritzsche Theod.
Mops. Comment, in N. T. (1847). This editor had before written a mono
graph, De Theodori Mopsuesteni Vita et Scriptis (1836). Fritzsehe's mono
graph and collection of fragments are reprinted in the edition of Theodore's
works in Migne's Patrol. Grove, lxvi. But though only portions survive in
the Greek, the complete commentaries on the smaller epistles from Gala
tians to Philemon inclusive are extant in a Latin translation. These com
mentaries, from Philippians onwards, had been long known in the compila
tion of Rabanus Maurus (Migne's Patrol. Lat. cxn), where they are incor
porated nearly entire under the name of Ambrose; and a few years since
Dom Pitra, Spicil. Solesm. 1. p. 49 sq. (1852), printed the expositions of
the Galatians, Ephesians, and Philemon complete, and supplied the omissions
and corrected the errors in the extracts on the remaining epistles in Raba
nus, 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. 228),
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
conjecture of Dom Pitra, that the great Hilary was their author. The true
1 The fragments assigned to Theo- 408 are none of his, but belong to Theo
dore in Mai Nov. Pair. Bibl. VII. 1. p. doret.
GAL. J5

226

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

authorship was ascertained by the Rev. F. J. A. Hort1 from a comparison
with the Greek fragments of Theodore, and pointed out by him in the
Journ. of Glass, and Sacr. Phil. iv. p. 302 (Camb. 1859). Though much
marred by an indifferent Latin translator2, this commentary is inferior in
importance to the works of Jerome and Chrysostom alone among the
patristic expositions now extant. Theodore was a 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. 11. 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 in p. 250 sq., Schrockh xv. p. 197 sq.
Theodoret. (vii) Theodoretus (t 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 Schrockh xvhi. p. 398 sq., Simon
p. 314 sq., Rosenmiiller rv. p. 93 sq., and the monograph of Richter, de
Theodoreto Epist. Paulin. interprete (Lips. 1822). For appreciation, terse
ness of expression, and good sense, they are perhaps unsurpassed, and, if
the absence of faults were a just standard of merit, they would deserve the
first place ; but they have little claim to originality, and he who has read
Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia will find scarcely anything in
Theodoret which he has not seen before. It is right to add however that
Theodoret himself modestly disclaims any such merit. In his preface he
apologises for attempting to interpret St Paul after two such men (perd
rbv beiva Kal rdv Seiva) 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.
Euthalius. (viii) Euthalius, afterwards bishop of Sulce (supposed to have been in
Egypt, but as no such place is known to have existed there, probably Sulce
in Sardinia is meant; see the Notitia printed in Hierocl. Synecd. p. 79, ed.
Parthey), wrote his work while a young man in the year 458. On his date
see Zacagni Collect. Mon. Vet. 1. pp. 402, 536, Fabricius ix. p. 287. Eutha
lius edited the Epistles of St Paul, dividing them into chapters (KecpdXdia) and
verses (o-n'xoi), writing a general preface and arguments to the several epi
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

1 Whilst the first edition of this
work was going through the press my
attention was directed by Mr 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
recent writer (Reinken Bilarius von
Poitiers, Schaffhausen 1864) states fair
ly the objections to Dom Pitra's view,

but is apparently ignorant that the au
thorship of the commentary is no longer
a matter of conjecture.
2 Thus for instance he makes Theo
dore fall into the common error of inter
preting o-vvcfToixe?, Gal. iv. 25, 'is con
tiguous to' ('affinis,' 'confinis'); but
the context, as well as the Greek frag
ment which has laoSvvapei, shows that
the blunder is the translator's own.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 227
A.d. 396 (ib. p. 536). Mill conjectures this person to have been Theodore of
Mopsuestia ; Proleg. pp. lxxxvi, lxxxvii. Reasons however have been as
signed for thinking that Euthalius in this work was largely indebted to a
much earlier critic, Pamphilus the martyr (T309) : see Tregelles in Home's
Introduction, p. 27. On the stichometry of Euthalius see Mill Proleg. p. xc,
Scrivener's Introduction, pp. 45, 53, and especially Tregelles I.e. Though
not a commentary, the work is sufficiently important in its bearing on the
criticism of St Paul's Epistles to deserve a place here. It was first printed
entire in Zacagni's Collect. Mon. Vet. 1. p. 402 sq. and may be found in
Gallandi x. p. 197 sq.
(ix) "Gennadius (f 471), patriarch of Constantinople. A few extracts Genna-
in the printed editions of the GScumenian Catena bear the name of Gen- dms-
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. Grcec. lxxxv.
p. 161 1, for they can scarcely be assigned to any other of the name. So
far as I know, there is no record of any work on St Paul by this or any
Gennadius. The fragments on the Galatians indeed are so scanty that they
do not in themselves warrant us in assuming a special work on this epistle,
but the numerous extracts on the Epistle to the Romans in Cramer's Catena
must certainly have been taken from a continuous exposition.
(x) *Photius (fabout 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 GScu-
menian Catena, taken it would appear from a commentary on St Paul's
Epistles no longer extant. Cave indeed asserts (11. p. 49) that a ms exists
in the Cambridge University Library, and this statement is repeated by
Fabricius, xi. p. 33, and others. This is a mistake. The ms in question
(Ff. 1. 30), which is incorrectly labelled with the name of Photius, proves—
as far at least as relates to the Epistle to the Galatians — to contain a col
lection of notes identical with that of the 03cumenian Catena. It is accu
rately described in the new Catalogue. These fragments of Photius do not
contribute much that is new to the criticism of St Paul, but they are an
additional testimony to the extensive learning and intellectual vigour of the
writer. (b) Latin Fathers.
(i) C. Marius Victorinus (about 360), an African, surnamed the Phi- (b) Latin.
losopher, converted to Christianity in old age, taught rhetoric at Rome victori-
when Jerome was a boy. He wrote commentaries apparently on all St nus.
Paul's Epistles (Hieron. de Vir. IUustr. 101, praf. 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. in. 2, p. 1 (1828),
and may be found in Migne Patr. Lot. viii. p. H45- Ik is dhficulfc to
understand the reputation which Victorinus had for eloquence. His work
on the Galatians is obscure, confused, and as an exposition almost worthless ;
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.
15—2

228 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
There is a lacuna from v- r8 to the end of the chapter. On this writer see
Mai's Preface, p. x sq. and the article in Smith's Diet, of Biography.
Hilary. (ii) Ambrosiaster, so called because his commentary was wrongly as
cribed to St Ambrose and is commonly printed with the works of that
father : see the Benedictine Edition, n. App. p. 20 sq. It is however
quoted by Augustme (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
36610384. See Schrockh vi. p. 210, xiv. p. 310. This work, which includes
the thirteen epistles of St Paul, is one of the best Latin commentaries. A
good account of it is given in Simon p. 133 sq.: see also Rosenmiiller hi.
p. 589 sq. I have generally quoted this commentator as the Ambrosian
Hilary, or as Hilary simply.
Jerome. (iii) Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus. His ' Commentarii in Epi-
stolam ad Galatas' (vn. p. 367 ed. Vallars) were written about the year
387 (Hieron. Vit. xi. p. 104). In his preface he speaks of himself as
undertaking a task unattempted by any Latin writer (he afterwards ex
cepts Victorinus of whom he speaks contemptuously), and treated by very
few even of the Greeks in a manner worthy of the dignity of the subject
It is clear from this that he had not seen the work of the Ambrosiaster,
which perhaps had only been published a few years before. Of the Greeks
he singles out Origen, whose labours he extols highly and whom he pro
fesses to have followed. Besides Origen he mentions having read Didymus
(of Alexandria, who died in 396 at an advanced age : see Fabricius ix.
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 vm. p. 589), Eusebius of Emisa, and Theodorus
of Heraclea (f about 355 ; see Fabricius ix. p. 319). Of these writers he
speaks loosely as having left 'nonnullos cominentariolos,' which were not
without their value. All these he read and digested before commencing
his own work. Though abounding in fanciful and perverse interpretations,
violations of good taste and good feeling, faults of all kinds, this is never
theless the most valuable of all the patristic commentaries on the Epistle
to the Galatians : for the faults are more than redeemed by extensive learn
ing, acute criticism, and lively and vigorous exposition.
Augustine. (iv) Aurelius Auqustinus; ' Expositio Epistolce ad Galatas,' written
about 394 and apparently without consulting previous commentators (see
p. 124, note 4), of whom he shows no knowledge. The great excellences of
Augustine as an 'Interpreter of Scripture' are sufficiently vindicated by
Archbishop Trench (in his introduction to the 'Exposition of the Sermon
on the Mount') against the attacks of writers who had too little sympathy

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 229
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) Pelagius 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
(xi. 2. p. 135 ed. Vail.). The true authorship however is established almost
beyond a doubt by the quotations and references of Augustine and Marius
Mercator, the contemporaries of Pelagius. On the other hand some of the
passages given by Marius Mercator are wanting in the extant copies ; but
history supplies the clue to this perplexity. About the middle of the sixth
century Cassiodorus (Inst. Div. Lit. c. 8), finding this commentary tainted
with Pelagian errors, expurgated the Epistle to the Romans by removing the
heretical passages, and thus set an example, as he tells us, which might be
followed the more easily by others in the remaining epistles1. 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.,
Schrockh xrv. p. 338 sq., and Rosenmiiller in. p. 503 sq.
(vi) Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus (t after 562). ' Complexiones in Cassiodo-
Epistolas Apostolorum, in Acta, et in Apocalypsin,' first brought to light rus.
and published by Scipio Maffei in 1721. It was reprinted by Chandler(i722
and 1723), and may be found in Migne's Patrol. Lat. lxx. p. 1343. This
work consists of a few reflexions on detached passages, utterly valueless in
themselves. It has a peculiar interest however as containing traces of
1 Joh. v. 7. On this work see Schrockh xvi. p. 153, Rosenmuller v.
p. 412 sq.
2. Secondary Commentaries, excerpts, compilations, and collections of 2. Later
variorum notes, mostly of a later date. tame™"
(a) Greek Writers. (a) Greek.
These are compiled from the Greek fathers already mentioned, but espe
cially from Chrysostom.
1 Migne's Patrol. Lat. lxx. p. 1119 what apparently he regards as another
sq. The identity of the work of which work the description of which would
Cassiodorus speaks with this commen- suit this commentary equally well :
tary is inferred from his description, for 'Tertium vero codicem reperi epistola-
he does not himself mention the true rum Sancti Pauli, qui a nonnullis beati
author, though protesting against as- Hieronymi adnotationes brevissunas di-
signing it to Gelasius. On the other citur continere, quern vobis panter
hand Cassiodorus a little later mentions Christo largiente dereliqui.'

230

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

Damas cene.

Cramer's Catena.

CEcume-nius.

(i) Joannes Damascenus (about 750). A commentary on St Paul's
Epistles, being an epitome of Chrysostom (see Fabricius ix. p. 281,
Schrockh xx. p. 207), printed in Jo. Damasc. Op. n. 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 frag
ments (enumerated above, pp. 224, 225) bear the names of Eusebius of Emisa
and Severianus. Of the anonymous fragments, those which belong to Chry
sostom and Theodore can be verified ; and such as remain after this verifi
cation ought probably to be assigned to either Eusebius or Severianus.
(iii) QScumenius (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 viii. 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 OBcumenius 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. S. Augustin de Gat. Patr. Grmc. p. 366. There are
considerable variations in the different mss of this work ; see Fabricius
I. c. p. 696, and Cramer's Catena p. 411. The names on the margin of the
printed editions in the portion relating to the Galatians are Photius (ap
parently by far the largest contributor), Joannes (i. e. Chrysostom), Genna-
dius, Severianus, Theodoret, Cyril, and GScumenius. 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) Theophylactus (latter part of the nth century), archbishop of
Acris in Bulgaria. His commentary on St Paul's Epistles is founded chiefly
on Chrysostom, with the aid of some other of the Greek fathers. The man
ner of execution has secured it a high reputation, but it possesses no inde
pendent value. On this commentary see Simon p. 403, Augustin p. 346 ;
comp. Fabricius vn. p. 591.
To these should be added the commentary of Euthymius Zigabenus
(about mo), which is said to exist in ms, but has never been printed.
(b) Latin. (b) Latin Writers.
These are derived from the four Latin commentators, Hilary (Ambro
siaster), Jerome, Augustine, and Pelagius, directly or indirectly.
Primasius. (i) Primasius (about 550), bishop of Adrumetum in Africa, wrote a
commentary on all St Paul's Epistles including the Epistle to the' Hebrews
and the Apocalypse. It is a brief and fairly executed compilation from
the Latin fathers already noticed, the most successful of these secondary
commentaries. The editio princeps is by Gagnee (Lyons, 1537) This work
is printed also in the Magn. Bibl. Vet. Patr. vi. 2. p. 18 sq and in Migne's

Theophy
lact.

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 231
¦Patrol. Lat. lxviii. p. 415. See Rosenmiiller v. p. 12, Cave 1. p. 525,
Schrockh xvii. 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 B'Dl!oal
few years. The interest in Biblical studies was evidently very keen at this leamln£*
time, especially in France, and may be traced to the influence of our own
Alcuin. I have already had occasion to speak of a similar period of
activity in the history of Biblical Interpretation during the latter half of
the fourth and beginning of the fifth centuries, having its head quarters
at Antioch. In one respect these movements present a remarkable parallel.
The first followed upon the establishment of Christianity as the religion of
the Roman Empire under Constantine ; the second upon the consolidation
and extension of Western Christendom under Charlemagne. Thus the two
most prominent epochs in the history of Biblical interpretation during the
early centuries were ushered in by the two political events which exerted
incomparably the greatest influence on the practical working of the Church ;
and it seems not unreasonable to attribute them in some measure to the
stimulus given by these events. In real importance however the second of
these two epochs in Biblical criticism bears no comparison with the first.
It was feeble in character and wholly unoriginal, and has therefore left no
permanent stamp on the interpretation of Scripture. The commentaries on
the Epistle to the Galatians belonging to this period are derived entirely
from one or more of the four great Latin expositors already mentioned
either directly or through the medium of Primasius, together with the
Latin translation of Theodore's work (then attributed to St Ambrose)
which was made use of in 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) Sedulius (Scotus? 8th or 9th century?) 'In omnes S. Pauli Sedulius.
Epistolas Collectaneum,' compiled from the Latin fathers, a direct re
ference 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 n. p. 15, Simon
p. 379. This commentary is printed in Magn. Bibl. Vet. Patr. v. 1. p. 438,
Migne's Patrol. Lat. cm. p. 181.
(iii) Claudius Taurinensis (t about 840), less correctly called ' Altis- Claudius-.
siodorensis' or ' Autissiodorensis' (of Auxerre), a Spaniard by birth, but
bishop of Turin. Of his commentaries on St Paul, the exposition of the
Epistle to the Galatians alone is printed (Magn. Bibl. Vet. Patr. ix. p. 66,
Migne's Patrol. Lat. civ. p. 838), but other portions exist or did exist
in ms, and references are made to them in Simon p. 353 sq., where the
fullest account of this writer will be found. See also Schrockh xxiii.
p. 281, Cave n. p. 16.
(iv) Florus Lugdunensis, surnamed 'Magister' (t after 852). A Floras.
commentary on St Paul's Epistles, being a catena from the works of
Augustine. The portion relating to the Galatians is not taken from

232

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

Rabanus Maurus.

Glossaordinaria.

Haymo.

Atto,Lanfranc,Bruno,Herveus.

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 MabiUon Vet. Anal. pp. 18, 488 (1723). On this work see Simon
p. 339, Cave 11. p. 24. It is printed in Migne's Patrol. Lat. cxrx. p. 363.
(v) Rabanus Maurus (t 856), archbishop of Mentz. Enarrationum
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 Theodore of Mopsuestia
(quoted under the name of Ambrose ; see above, p. 225), with one or two
passages from extraneous writers, e.g. Gregory the Great. In Migne's
Patrol. Lat. cxi, cxn.
(vi) Walafredus Strabo or Strabus (t 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 Rosenmuller v. p. 135, and especially Simon p. 377.
Printed in Migne's Patrol. Lat. cxiv. p. 570.
(vii) Haymo, bishop of Halberstadt (t 853), wrote a commentary on
St Paul's Epistles, which has been attributed also to his contemporary
Remigius (of Lyons?). See Cave 11. pp. 28, 42, Schrockh xxm. p. 283,
Simon p. 365. Printed in Migne's Patrol. Lat. oxvn. p. 669.
Later commentaries still, differing little in character from those just
enumerated and for the most part equally unoriginal, are those of Atto
Vercellensis (t about 960), Migne's Patrol. Lat. cxxxiv. p. 491 ; see
Schrockh xxm. p. 302 : of Lanfranc (f 1089), an interlinear gloss and
commentary, Migne cl. p. 259; see Simon p. 385, Schrockh xxiv. p. 334;
the authorship however has been questioned : of Bruno Carthusianus,
(t 1 101), the founder of the order, Migne cliii. p. 281 ; see Simon p. 387 :
and of Herveus Dolensis (about 1130), Migne, clxxxi. p. 1129; see Cave
11. pp. 187, 213, Simon p. 386. The authorship of the last-mentioned work
is doubtful ; it has been wrongly attributed to Anselm of Canterbury, but
there is some authority for assigning it to his namesake of Laon.

DISSERTATIONS.

I.
WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS?
II.
THE BRETHREN OP THE LORD.
III.
ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS?
Tj^OLLOWING the universal tradition of ancient writers, I have
-*- hitherto assumed that tbe 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 tbe character
and temperament of tbe Asiatic nation. A Teutonic origin how- Teutonic
ever has been claimed for them by several writers, more especially theory-
commentators ou 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 tbe 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 rebuke-
we Germans are descended from tbe 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
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.
1 Luther's later commentary on Gal. i. 6.

236

WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS?

French
and Ger
man wri
ters.

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 history1.' 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 Ger
mans, 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
alike were savage and lawless tribes, living in the far North beyond
tbe 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 races3. In
Caesar 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

of Greeks
and Ro
mans.

1 Texier in the Revue des deux
Mondes, 1841, IV. p. 575.
3 Galater p. 528.
3 The authorities will be found in
Diefenbach's Celtica II. They are very
fairly and clearly stated also in Brandes
Kelten und Germanen (Leipz. 1857). See
especially bis summary, p. ix. The only

really important exception among an
cient authors is Dion Cassius, who per
sistently makes the Rhine the boundary-
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 distin
guishes them from the Gauls. Extreme

WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 237
very strong presumption from the agreement of ancient authorities,
both Greek and Roman. Classical writers uniformly regard the
ruthless hordes who poured into Italy and sacked Rome, the sacrile
gious invaders who attacked the temple at Delphi, and the warlike
immigrants who settled in tbe 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, j^^1'
On this point there is little or no wavering, I believe, from first
to last. It would not be strange that an incorrect view of the affini
ties of some obscure tribe, springing up in the early twilight of his
tory, when the intercourse between distant nations was slight and
intermitted, should pass unchallenged. But it is less easy to under
stand how, when a wide-spread 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 beeu many who for purposes of com
merce or from love of travel or in discharge of some official duty or
through missionary zeal bad visited both the mother country of the
Gauls and their Asiatic settlement, and had seen in the language
and physiognomy and national character of these distant peoples
many striking features which betokened -identity of race.
The testimony of one of these witnesses is especially valuable. Jerome's
Jerome, who writes at the close of the fourth century, had spent theGala-
some time both in Gaul proper and in Galatia1. He had thus ample tians.
opportunities of ascertaining the facts. He was moreover eminently
paradoxes have been held by some re- latia (totius Galatias iter), and his
cent writers. On tbe one hand Holtz- sojourn in Gaul (Rheni semibarbarEe
mann, Kelten und Germanen (1855), ripas) in the same letter (Epist. 111, I.
maintains that tbe Celts and Germans pp. 10, 12). While in Gaul, he appears
of the ancients (the inhabitants of Gaul to have stayed some time apud Ire-
as well as of Germany) were Teutonic veros' (Epist. v, I. p. 15)- JUsewnere
in the language of modern ethnography he tells us that he paid this visit to
(see esp. p. 157); on the other, Mone Gaul when a very young man (adoles-
Celtische Forschungen (1857), is of opi- centulus, adv. Jonn. u. 7, "¦ P- Sal
mon that Germany as well as Gaul was Lastly, in his commentary on this
of old occupied by races which we should Epistle (vn. p. 43°). ^ expressly men-
call Celtic. tions having seen Anc3'ra the capital
1 Jerome mentions his visit to Ga- of Galatia.

238 WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS?
qualified by his critical ability and t linguistic attainments for forming
an opinion. In the preface to his Commentaiy 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 testi
mony of the Christian Lactantius. This author states that the
Galatas were so called from the whiteness of their complexion (ya'Xa),
described by Virgil (2En. viii. 660), Turn lactea colla auro innec-
tuntur, informing us also that a horde of these Gauls arrived in
Asia Minor and there settled among the Greeks, whence the country
was called Gallo-Grsecia and afterwards Galatia. No wonder, adds
Jerome, after illustrating this iucident by other migrations between
the East and the West, that the Galatians are called fools and slow
of understanding2, when Hilary, the Rhone of Latin eloquence,
himself a Gaul and a native of Poitiers, calls the Gauls stupid (indo-
ciles). It is true that Gaul produces orators, but then Aquitania
boasts a Greek origin, and the Galatians are not descended from
these but from the fiercer Gaulish tribes (de ferocioribus Gallis sint
profecti).' Though betraying the weakness common to all ancient
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.
Its indirect But beyond the testimony borne to Jerome's personal knowledge
value. an(j corLViction, this passage suggests another very important con
sideration. The influence of the Christian Church must have been
largely instrumental in spreading information of this kind. The
Roman official was under no obligation to leam 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 empire3. At the same time the feeling of
1 II. p. 425. their snare. The passage of Hilary to
2 It is scarcely necessary to say that which Jerome refers is not extant.
Jerome here misses the point of St 3 'The science of language,' says
Paul's rebuke. The Galatians were in- Prof. Max Miiller, ' owes more than
tellectually quick enough (see p. 15, its first impulse to Christianity. The
note 1). The 'folly' with which they pioneers of our science were those very
are charged arose not from obtuseness apostles who were commanded to go
but from fickleness and levity ; the very into all the world and preach the Gospel
versatility of their intellect was in fact to every creature ; and their true sue-

WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 239
brotherhood inspired by Christianity surmounted the barriers of race
and language and linked together the most distant nations. There
is no more striking phenomenon in the history of the early centuries
than the close and sympathetic intercourse kept up between Churches
as far apart as those of Asia and Gaul. These communications could
scarcely have failed to clear up the errour as to the origin of the
Galatian people, if any errour 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 t,Ian8 8poke
, the same
concludes the passage above quoted ; ' Besides the Greek,' he says, language
'¦ which is spoken throughout the East, the Galatians use as their ™tb *e
native tongue a language almost identical with that of the Treveri ;
for any corruption they may have introduced need not be taken into
account1.' The Treveri, it is affirmed, were Germans and spoke a
German tongue3.
This question is not free from difficulty. The fact that German who were
is now spoken and has been spoken for many centuries in the district au s'
corresponding to the ancient Treveri (Treves) is in itself a presump
tion 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 iu 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 claims3.
cessors, the missionaries of the whole he somewhat impugns that testimony,
Christian Church ' (Science of Language, suggesting that Jerome was mistaken,
ist series, p. 121). and starting tbe theory that the Gala-
1 See above, p. 12, note 2. The cor- tians were neither Gauls nor Germans,
rect form is Treveri, not Treviri: see but Slavonians.
Gliick Die lei Ccesar vorkommenden 3 Tac. Germ. 28 'Treveri et Nervii
Keltischen Namen (1857), p. 155. circa adfectationem Germanicse originis
8 Even Niebuhr, who maintained the ultro ambitiosi sunt, tanquam per hanc
Celtic origin of the Galatians, consider- gloriam sanguinis a similitudine et iner-
ed that German was the language of tia Galloram separentur. Ipsam Rheni
the Treveri, and accounted for Jerome's ripam haud dubie Germanorum populi
statement by supposing him to have colunt, Vangioues, Triboci, Nemetes.'
heard some Germans who had recently Strabo (iv. p. 194) says Tprjovlpois de
settled in Galatia (Vortrdge iiher BSm. avvexeis 'Sepovioi Kal rovro TeppaviKov
Gesch. n. p. 181). This view is opposed IBvos. If Kal rovro here refers to Tprjov-
by Dr Latham (Germania of Tacitus, tpois, which however is very question-
p. 98, comp. p. cxlv), who upholds the able (see Ukert n. 2, p. 361, note 65),
testimony of Jerome. In a later work it would seem that Strabo did not care
(Prichard's Celtic Nations p. 106 sq.) to dispute their claims.

240

WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS?

but subse
quently re
placed by
German
settlers.

Elsewhere he speaks of them plainly as Belgians and Gauls1. The
testimony of Csesar leans the same way, though here again there is
some indistinctness; 'Being harassed by constant wars, owing to
their proximity to Germany, they did not differ much in their
warlike habits from the Germans2;' but he too expressly calls them
Gauls or Belgians elsewhere3.
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 origiD.
The country of the Treveri indeed has long been occupied by a
German-speaking population, but history is not silent as to the
change. About the close of the third centuiy a colony of Franks
settled iu the waste lands of the Nervii and Treveri4. This was

1Ann. i. 43, 44, iii. 44, Hist. iv. 71, 73.
' Bell. Gall. viii. 25 ' Treveros quo
rum civitas propter Germanise vicinita-
tem quotidianis exercitata bellis cultu
et feritate non nraltum a Germanis dif-
ferebat.' 3 Bell. Gall. ii. 4, 24, v. 3, 45, vi.
2, 7, 8, vii. 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 KeX-
roi (i.e. Germans). See Diefenb. Celt.
II. p. 80 sq. In some of these passages
they (as well as the Nervii) are spoken
of as Gauls, in others as Belgians. This
latter designation cannot be regarded
as conclusive, inasmuch as some writers
have maintained that the Belgians were
themselves a German race. The evi
dence however 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
Belgse are Celtic. Thus we find proper
names having well-known Celtic termi
nations, and occasionally even identical
with the names of Gallic places and
heroes : see Zeuss Die Deutschen etc.
p. 189. This is true even of the Tre
veri, e.g. Cingetorix (Bell. Gall. v. 3)
compared with Vercingetorix (ib. vii.
4) ; see Brandes, p. 84. (2) Caesar relates
that the maritime parts of Britain were
peopled by the Belgse (V. 12, comp. ii.
4), and the British on the sea-coasts

were certainly Celts. These facts seem
decisive. On the other hand (3) Csssar
speaks of a difference of language be
tween the three divisions of Gaul, the
Belgse, the Aquitani, and the Celts
(' hi omnes lingua institutis legibus in
ter se differunt,' i. 1), but this is most
naturally explained of various dialects
of the same language, as in fact Strabo
represents it (who however excepts the
Aquitani), bpoyXdrTOVs b' ov irdvras,
dXX' ivlovs piKpbv irapaXXdrrovras roXs
yXdrrais, iv. p. 176. (4) Csesar relates
' plerosque Belgas esse ortos ab Germa
nis' (ii. 4, comp. Tac. Germ. 2); but this
very expression implies that the staple
of the population was Celtic, and it be
comes 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 Belgas to the
Cymric (see Diefenbach II. p. 58 sq.,
Thierry I. p. 153, 4me ed., Brandes
p. 85 sq.), and as the tradition seems to
connect the Galatians with the Belgso,
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 examination of
local words and names in Galatia might
even now clear up some difficulties.
4 Eumen. Paneg. Constantio Cos. c.

WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 24 1
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.
But the evideuce for the Celtic parentage of the Galatians is not Evidence
confined to the testimony of ancient writers, however well informed. fj,°c(fi
The Galatian language itself is a witness free from all suspicion of tian lan-
ignorance or perjury. And considering that a mere handful of guage'
words, chiefly proper names, has alone survived, the evidence thence
derived is far fuller than might have been anticipated1.
(r) Several Galatian names of places and persons exhibit Celtic (il Tenni-
terminations. These are as follows : proper
Of places : names of
-briga. Eccobriga (Itin. Ant. .p. 203, ed. Wess., Tab. Pent.) ; Places
Ipetobrigen (Itin. Hieros. p. 574). It signifies 'a hill'; see Zeuss
Gr. Celt. p. 101, Gliick p. 126.
-iacum. Rosologiacum (Itin. Ant. p. 143) ; Acitorihiacum (Tab.
Peut.); Teutobodiaoi (Plin. v. 42); Timoniacenses (? Plin. v. 42).
On this very common Celtic termination see Zeuss G. C. p. 772.
Of persons : and per-
-gnatus. Eposognatus (Polyb. xxii. 20) : compare Critognatus, sons-
Boduognatus (Csesar), and several Celtic names in inscriptions ;
(gnath, 'consuetus' ; Zeuss G. C. p. 82, and compare ib. p. 19).
-makus. Combolomarus (Liv. xxxviii. 19) ; Chiomara (Polyb.
xxii. 21); compare Virdumarus, Indutiomarus (Csesar), 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.
21, 'Tuo, Maximiane Auguste, nutu needs some apology from one who has
Nerviorum et Treverorum arva jacentia no pretensions to Celtic scholarship and
lsetus postlimimo restitutus et receptus may possibly betray great ignorance.
in leges Francus excoluit^GruterPamefl-. But the investigation could not well be
Vet. p. 207 ; comp. ib. Paneg. Constan- avoided, while the facts seemed to lie
tino Aug. cc. 5, 6, Gruter p. 18 r. See very much on the surface. At a^e™™8
Brandes pp. 243, 267, Gibbon's Decline the general result will not, I think, be
and Fall c. xiii ; comp. ib. c. xix. invalidated by any inaccuracy or weak-
1 The account which follows perhaps ness that there may be in the details.
GAL. l6

242 WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS?
-rix. Adiatorix1 (Cic. Fam. ii. 12, Strabo xii. p. 534); Albiorix,
Ateporix (Boeckh Inscr. 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. Besp. 28); Deiotarus (Cic. pro Reg. Deiot., comp.
Boeckh Inscr. 4072). See Zeuss G. C. p. 823.
(2) Gala- (2) But it is not only in the terminations that the Celtic origin
and words3 of tne language is seen. It appears unmistakeably also in a large
proportion of the Galatian names and words which have been pre
served.
Drynseme- Strabo tells us (xii. p. 567) that the great council of the Galatian
ium' people met at a place called Dryimemetum: (Apvvaiperov). 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 refert2;
in another Vernemetum also in Britain (Itin. Ant. p. 479) ; and in
several other names : comp. Diefenb. Celt. I. p. 83, 11. p. 329, Zeuss
G. C. pp. n, 186, Gliick p. 75. The first syllable of Drynsemetum
again represents the Celtic (Welsh) derw, 'quercus,' whence Druid
('derwydd'), Derwent, etc.: see Zeuss G. C. pp. 8, 16, and Diefenb.
1. p. 160. Thus ' Drynsemetuin ' is the 'oak-shrine' or the 'grove
temple,' recalling a characteristic feature of the old Celtic worship
which prevailed in Britain and Gaul.
Galatian Again the names of several of the Galatian chieftains betray
chieftains, their Celtic extraction. The leader of the expedition against Greece,
of which the Galatian immigration was au offshoot, bears the same
name with the Gaulish captain who sacked Rome ; he too, like his
predecessor, is a Brennus — no proper name but a good Celtic word
signifying a 'prince' or 'chieftain' (Thierry Hist, des Gaul. 1. p. 160,
Zeuss G. C. p. 101). A second name assigned to this same king was
Pkausus, '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 Cerethrius, ' the famous, the glorious,' (Pausan.
x. 19. 4; certh, 'celebrated,' certhrwyz, 'glory'; Thierry I. p. 219,
from Owen's Welsh Diet.). Bolgius again (Pausan. ib.), also written
1 The first element in this word also tunnus, Adiatumarus, etc., Gliick p. 1.
occurs in several Celtic names, Adia- s Venant. Fortun. i. 9.

WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 243
Belgius (Justin, xxiv. 5), presents the same Celtic root which appears
in 'Belgfe' (comp. Diefenb. 1. p. 200, 11. pp. 61 sq., 267). The
name of Acichorius (Pausan. 1. c.) too or Cichorius (Diod. xxii.
fragm.), who is associated with Brennus in the command, taken as a
Celtic word, describes his office (cygwiawr, ' colleague,' Thierry 1.
p. 225). Among later Galatian names of persons we meet with G^ezato- and others.
diastus (Boeckh Inscr. 4039), doubtless to be connected with the
'Gesatse' of whom we read among the western Gauls, and whose
name, signifying ' warriors,' is derived from the Gallic word gesum,
'a spear' (Cses. B. G. iii. 4; comp. Serv. in Yirg. JEn. viii. 662,
Diefenb. 1. p. 126) ; and Brogoris (Boeckh Inscr. 41 18), the root of
which appears in Brogitarus, Allobroges, etc. ; Zeuss G. C. p. 106 ;
Gliick p. 27. Again the name Bittjittjs, Bitovitus, or Bitcetus,
seems to occur both in Asiatic (Appian Mithr. in) and in Euro
pean Gaul (ib. Celt. 12, Liv. Epit. 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. Bom. Bhen. no. 440).
Again, of the three tribes which composed the Galatian people Galatian
two at least proclaim their Celtic descent in their names. The Tec- trlbeB-
TOSAG.E or Tectosages bear identically the same name with a tribe of
western Gauls (Cses. B. G. vi. 24) whom we find moving eastward
and occupying a district which was properly German (see Diefenb. 11.
p. 264 sqq.). Similarly both the component parts of Tolistobogii,
the name of the second of these tribes, claim a Celtic affinity. The
word is variously written, but its original Celtic form would seem to
be represented by Tolosatobogh. 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. Pirn.
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 avert
ing the wrath of heaven by sinking their ill-gotten gains in the neigh
bouring lake (Justin. xxxii..3; comp. Strab. iv. p. 188, Dion Cass.
Uxc. 1. p. 133, ed. L. Dind.). The riddle of this legend I shall not
1 6 — 2

244

OtherGala- tian words.

Result.

SupposedGerman affinities,

WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS ?
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 (Tab. Peut), and To'Wra
vcopiW (Ptol. v. 4). The second element in the composition of Tolos-
tobogii or Tolostoboii is no less Celtic. It is the name borne by
the tribe of the Boii which plays so prominent a part in early Gallic
history, and is not uncommon as a termination of other Celtic names
(see instances in Zeuss G. C. p. 69, comp. p. 58, and compare the
proper name Adobogius already referred to). Even in the third and
remaining tribe the Trocmi Celtic affinities have been pointed out
(Diefenb. 1. p. 256, Zeuss G. C. p. 28), but these are obscure and
far from convincing1.
Of Galatian words besides proper names very few indeed have
been recorded. The explanations given of these may be found in
Diefenbach (see his references 11. p. 251). Among others which are
less patent, one is certainly a good Celtic word ; pdpKa., mentioned
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 tbe Celtic extrac
tion of the Galatians as afforded by their language I have omitted
many questionable affinities ; and even of those which are given some
perhaps will appear uncertain. But taken as a whole the evidence,
if I mistake not, places the result beyond a doubt; and the few
German etymologies real or imagined, which have been alleged on
the other side, will be quite insufficient to turn the scale. Thus it is
asserted that the names of the leaders of the Asiatic expedition,
Lutarius and Leonnorius, are both German ; and that the Galatian
tribe Teutobodiaci 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

1 Diefenbach, Celt. 11. p. 248, quotes
Solinus (c. 42) as mentioning a Galatian
tribe ' Ambiani,' this being the ancient
Gaulish name for the modern 'Amiens.'
But there seems to be an accidental
error here. In the most recent and
most critical edition of Solinus (c. 41,
ed. Mommsen, 1864) the word is 'Am-
bitoti,' and hi 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 he
the same word which appears in many
Gallic names, as Rigodulum, Rigoma-
gus, etc. ; see Diefenbach I. p. 53, n.
p. 331, Zeuss G. C. p. 25.

WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 245
names might perhaps have been accepted. But with the vast mass how to be
of evidence on the other side, it becomes a question whether some exPlalned-
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 (Csesar 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
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 (1. p. 225), that A possible
swept away with the hordes of Gaulish invaders a small body of1 dement.
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 Conclusion
settlers were genuine Celts, and of the two main subdivisions
into which modern philologers have divided the Celtic race, they
seem rather to have belonged to the Cymric, of which the Welsh are
the living representatives. Thus in the age when St Paul preached,

246 WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS?
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 haircloths 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.

II.

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD1.

TN the early ages of the Church two conflicting opinions were held Two rival
J- regarding the relationship of those who in the Gospels and Apo- eone3-
stolic 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 Brief e Zweener Bru-
der Jem m unserem Eanon (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, De rois ddeXtpois et rais ddeX-
(pais tou Kvplov (Leyden, 1839); of
Schaf , Das Verhaltniss des Jakobus Bru-
ders des Herrn zu Jakobus A Iphdi (Ber
lin, 1842); and of Mill, The Accounts of
ow 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 oarefully. I am 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
Siihne Zebedai Vettern des Herrn (1840,
p. 648), and TJeber die Brilder des Herrn,
etc. (1842, p. 71). In preparing for
the 2nd edition I looked over the
careful investigation in Laurent's Neu-
test. Studien p. 155 sq. (1866), where
the Helvidian hypothesis is maintained,
but saw no reason to make any
change in consequence. The works of
Arnaud, Recherches sur VEpitre de Jude,
and of Goy (Mont. 1845), referred to in
Bishop Ellicott's Galatians i. 19, 1 have
not seen. My object in this disserta
tion is mainly twofold ; (1) To place the
Hieronymian hypothesis in its true
light, as an effort of pure criticism un
supported by any traditional sanction;
and (2) To say a word on behalf of the
Epiphanian solution, which seems, at
least of late years, to have met with the
fate reserved for rd piaa in literature
and theology, as well as in politics, bir'
dptporepav 1) Sri ov £vvijyuvlfovTO ij
tpdbvip rov irepieivai 5ie<pdelpovTO. I sup
pose it was because he considered it idle
to discuss a theory which had no friends,
that Prof. Jowett (on Gal. i. 19), while
balancing the claims of the other two
solutions, does not even mention the
existence of this, though in the early
centuries it was the received account.

248

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

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 tbe term adapted to the exceptional fact of
the miraculous incarnation. On the other hand certain person's
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 as
ceticism of the day, and to whom therefore it was a very serviceable
weapon of controversy.
A third Such was the state of opinion, when towards the close of the
Td'bv"111 " fourth century Jerome struck out a novel hypothesis. One Helvi-
Jerome. dius, who lived in Rome, had attacked the prevailing view of the
superiority of virgin over married life, and in doing so had laid
great stress on the example of the Lord's mother who had borne
children to her husband. In or about the year 383 Jerome, then
a young man, at the instigation of ' the brethren ' wrote a treatise in
reply to Helvidius, in which he put forward his own view1. He
maintained that the Lord's brethren were His cousins after the flesh,
being sons of Mary the wife of Alphseus and sister of the Virgin.
Thus, as he boasted, he asserted the virginity not of Mary only but
of Joseph also.
^Tnedto TteSe thr6e accounts are a11 of sufncient importance either from
Sthree! *eir real merits or from tbeir wide popularity to deserve con
sideration, and I shall therefore investigate their several claims. As
it will be convenient to have some short mode of designation, I shall
call them respectively the Epiphanian, the Helvidian, and the Hie-
ronymian 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
1 Adv. Helvidium de Perpetua Virginitate B. Marios, 11. p. 206 (ed. Vail.).
Comp. Comment, ad Gal. i, 19.

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 249
built upon arbitrary assumptions or improbable combinations of Arbitrary
known facts, and from their artificial character have failed to secure f?B„?l*>~
any wide acceptance. It is assumed for instance, that two persons
of the same name, James tbe son of Alphseus and James the Lord's
brother, were leading members of tbe Church of Jerusalem, though
history points to one only1; 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
death3 ; or that the Lord's brethren had a double parentage, a legal
as well as an actual father, Joseph having raised seed to bis 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 5.
All such assumptions it will be necessary to set aside. In them- to be set
selves indeed they can neither be proved nor disproved. But it is aB1 e'
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 in
troduce any fresh difficulties by giving way to the license of con
jecture. To confine ourselves then to the three accounts which have tbe Relation of
greatest claim to a hearing. It will be seen that the hypothesis founts!
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
1 e. g. Wieseler Ueler die Bruder name as bishops of Jerusalem, making
etc., 1. c, p. 80 sq. According to this the son of Alphseus the successor of the
writer the James of Gal. ii. 9 and of the Lord's brother.
Acts is the son of Alphseus, not the * e.g. the writers mentioned in fecnai,
Lord's brother, and therefore different p. 11.
from the James of i. 19. See his notes 3 Lange in Hereof > Real-Encykl. in
on Gal. i. 19, ii. 9. An ancient writer, the article 'Jakobus lm N.T.
the pseudo-Dorotheus (see below, p. 4 Theophylact; see below, p. 281.
277, note) had represented two of the 5 Kenan Vu de Jesus p. 24.

250 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.
on Christian doctrine and feeling, the Helvidian and Epiphaniau
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.
Jerome's St Jerome then states his view in the treatise against Helvidius
statement. gomewhat ag follows :
The son of The list of the Twelve Apostles contains two of the name of
Alphasus is james the gon 0f Zebedee and the son of Alphseus. But elsewhere
the Lord s '
brother; we read of one James the Lord's brother. What account are we to
give of this last James 1 Either he was an Apostle or he was not.
If an Apostle, he must be identified with the son of Alphseus, for the
son of Zebedee was no longer living : if not an Apostle, then there
were three persons bearing this name. But in this case how can
a certain James be called ' the less,' a term which implies only one
besides ? 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) 1 Clearly therefore James the son of Alphseus and
James the Lord's brother are the same person.
the Vir- And the Gospel narrative explains this identity. Among the
gin s sister Tj0r^'s brethren occur the names of James and Joseph. Now it is
being his r
mother. stated elsewhere that Mary the mother of James the less and of
Joseph (or Joses) was present at the crucifixion (Matt, xxvii. 56,
Mark xv. 40). This Mary therefore must have been the wife of
Alphseus, for Alphseus 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 Alphseus and mother of James. Thus James the Lord's
brother was in reality the Lord's cousin.
Meaning But, if His cousin, how is he called His brother ? The following
Br^hre3™ is tte 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).

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 251
So far St Jerome, who started the theory. But, as worked out Jerome's
by other writers and as generally stated, it involves two particulars t\eoryB^
besides. (i) The identity of Alphceus and Clopas. These two words, Alphams
it is said, are different renderings of the same Aramaic name isbn *th Clo-
or . 1 ^\k> (Chalphai), the form Clopas being peculiar to St John, pas.
the more completely grecized Alphseus taking its place in the other
Evangelists. The Aramaic guttural Cheth, when the name was
reproduced in Greek, might either be omitted as in Alphseus, or
replaced by a k (or x) as in Clopas. Just in the same way Aloysius
and Ludovicus are recognised Latin representatives of the Frankish
name 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 Clopse (or Cleophse, as he writes it) : it may be, he suggests,
after her father or from her family surname ('gentilitate familise')
or for some other reason2. In his treatise on Hebrew names too
he gives an account of the word Alphseus which is scarcely consistent
with this identity a. 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 Theo
doret who is more explicit (both on Gal. i. 19)4. To a Syrian Greek,
who, even if he were unable to read the Peshito version, must at all
events have known that Chalphai was the Aramsean rendering or
rather the Aramsean original of 'AAcpcuos, it might not unnaturally
occur to graft this identification on the original theory of Jerome.
(ii) The identity of Judas the Apostle and Judas the Lord's Jude the
brother. In St Luke's catalogues of the Twelve (Luke vi. 16, Acts ^one^f
i. 13) the name 'Judas of James' ('Iouoas 'Ia,Kw/3ov) occurs. Now the Twelve,
we find a Judas also among the four brethren of the Lord (Matt.
1 This illustration is taken from ib. p. 98. Thus he deliberately rejects
Mill, p. 236. the derivation with a Cheth, which is
3 adv. Helvid. § 15, n. p. 219. required in order to identify 'Alphseus'
3 'Alphaus, fugitivus [S^TI; the with 'Clopas.' Indeed, as he incor-
Greek of Origen was doubtless olxdpe- rectly wrote Cleopas (or Cleophas) for
vos, see p. 626], sed melius millesimus Clopas with the Latin version, this iden-
Pl^K] vel doctus [*]?N] ;' in. p. 89; tification was not likely to occur to
and again, 'Alphceus, millesimus, sive him.
super os [HB bv ?] ab ore non ab osse.' 4 See below, p. 280.

252 .. THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.
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 per- And some have gone a step farther. We find not only a
hapsbimon james arui a judas among the Lord's brethren, but also a Symeon
or Simon. Now it is remarkable that these three names occur
together in St Luke's lists of the Twelve: James (the son) of Al
phseus, Simon called Zelotes, and Judas (the brother) of James. In
the lists of the other Evangelists too these three persons are kept
together, though the order is different and Judas appears under
another name, Lebbseus or Thaddseus. Can this have been a mere
accident ? Would the name of a stranger have been inserted by St
Luke between two brothers 1 Is it not therefore highly probable
that this Simon also was one of the Lord's brethren 1 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 no where 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
himself by. divegting jt 0f all fictitious advantages and placing it in its true
light. The two points to which attention may be directed, as having
been generally overlooked, are these :
(1) Jerome claims no traditional support for his theory. This
is a remarkable feature in his treatise against Helvidius. He
argues the question solely on critical and theological grounds. His
1 It is found in Sophronius (?), who 958. Compare the pseudo-Hippolytus
however confuses him with Jude; 'Si- (1. App. p. 3o, ed. Fabric.). Perhaps
monCananseuscognomento Judas, frater the earliest genuine writing in which it
Jacobi episoopi, qui et successit illi in occurs is Isidor. Hispal. de Vit. et Ob.
episcopatum etc.'; Hieron. Op. 11. p. Sanct. c. 81. See Mill p. 248

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 253
opponent had claimed the sanction of two older writers, Tertullian (i) claims
and Victorinus of Pettaw. Jerome in reply is obliged to concede tionaisane-
him Tertullian, whose authority he invalidates as ' not a member tion for his
of the Church,' but denies him Victorinus. Can it be doubted that eory"
if he could have produced any names on his own side he would
only too gladly have done so % When for instance be is maintaining
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, Irenseus, Justin, and many other ' eloquent
apostolic men' occur to him at once1. But in support of bis 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 Scripture2. Again in his later writings, when he
refers to the subject, bis tone is the same : ' Some suppose them to
have been sons of Joseph : it is my opinion, I have maintained in
my book against Helvidius, that they were the children of Mary
the Virgin's sister8.' And the whole tenor of patristic evidence,
as I shall hope to show, is in accordance with this tone. No de
cisive instance can be produced of a writer holding Jerome's view,
before it was propounded by Jerome himself.
(2I Jerome does not hold his theory staunchly and consistently, (ii) and does
\ ' . not hold it
The references to the subject in his works taken in chronological consistent-
order will speak for themselves. The theory is first propounded, ]y>
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 bis hypothesis more and more loosely. In his com
mentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (i. 19) written about 387
he speaks very vaguely: he remembers, he says, having when at
Rome written a treatise on the subject, with which such as it is
he ought to be satisfied (' qualiacunque sunt ilia quse scripsimus
1 See however below, p. 270, note 1. tern mihi videtur Marise sororis matris
* He sets aside the appeal to autho- Domini  filius;' Comment m Malth.
rity thus: 'Verum nugas terimus, et xii. 49 (™. P- 86), 'Quidam , fratres
fonte veritatis omisso opinionum rivulos Domini de alia uxore Joseph hlios sus-
consectamur,' adv. Helvid. 1 7. picantur. . .nos autem, sicut in hbro quern
3 de Vir. IUustr. 2 'ut nonnultt ex- contra Helvidium scripsimus contine-
istimant, Joseph ex alia uxore ; ut au- tur etc'

254 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.
but wavers his contenti esse debemus'); after which he goes on inconsistently
inhisview, enoug^ «gumce 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 tbe 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 John1.' In his Catalogue of
Illustrious Men (a.d. 392) and in his Commentary on St Matthew
(a.d. 398) he adheres to his earlier opinion, referring in the passages
already quoted2 to his treatise against Helvidius, and taunting
those who considered the Lord's brethren to be the sons of Joseph
by a former wife with ' following the ravings of the apocryphal
writings and inventing a wretched creature (mulierculam) Melcha
and seems or Escha by name3.' Yet after all in a still later work, the Epistle
to abandon to Hedibia (about 406 or 407), enumerating the Maries of the
it. Gospels he mentions Mary of Cleophas tbe 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 Joses
was His aunt4.' 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 Pales-
1 'Quod autem exceptis duodecim phorum et quandam Melcham vel Es-
quidam vocentur apostoli, illud in causa cham mulierculam confingentes. ' Gomm.
est, omnes qui Dominum viderant et in Matth. 1. c. 'Nemo non videt,'
eum postea prsedicabant fuisse aposto- says Blom, p. 116, 'illud nomen i"lti>N
los appellatos ;' and then after giving [wife, woman] esse mere fictitium, nee
instances (among others 1 Cor. xv. 7) minus posterius [prius] H3^D [queen].'
he adds, 'TJnde vehementer erravit qui (Comp. Julius Africanus in Routh's Rd.
arbitratus est Jacobum hunc de evange- Sacr. 11. pp. 233, 339). If so, the work
lio esse apostolum fratrem Johannis;... must have been the production of some
lnc autem Jacobus episcopus Hierosoly- Jewish Christian. But Escha is not a
morum primus fuit cognomento Justus very exact representation of HK'N (Is-
etc.' (vn. p. 396). These are just hah). On the other hand, making al-
the arguments which would be brought lowauce for the uncertain vocalisation
by one maintaining the Epiphanian ac- of the Hebrew, the two daughters of
count. Altogether Jerome's language Haran (Gen. xi. 29) bear identically the
here is that of a man who has commit- same names: 'the father of Miloah (LXX
ted himself to a theory of which he has MeXxd) and the father of Iscah (rOD',
misgivings, and yet from which he is lxx 'Ie<rXa).' Doubtless these names
not bold enough to break loose. were borrowed thence.
2 See p. 253, note 3. * Bpist_ CXX] L p_ g„6_ Comp
3 ' Sequentes deliramenta apocry- Tischendorf's Evang. Apocr. p. 104.

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 255
tinian tradition brought more prominently before him, he first
relaxed his hold of and finally relinquished his own hypothesis 1
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 °Diecti°n''
theory exposes, when examined, many vulnerable parts. theory.
(1) The instances alleged notwithstanding, the sense thus as- (1) Use of
signed to 'brethren' seems to be unsupported by biblical usage. In5?e w°rd
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 t"°"i?s D_e_
of the Twelve. This is hardly reconcileable with the place they hold thren to
in the EvangeUcal narratives, where they appear sometimes as dis- e eve'
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
the Apostles, and apparently by this time their unbelief has been
converted into faith. Yet even on this later occasion, though with
the Twelve, they are distinguished from the Twelve; for the latter
are described as assembling in prayer ' with the women and Mary
the mother of Jesus and [with] His brethren' (Acts i. 14).
And scarcely less consistent is this theory with what we know of especially
James and Jude in particular. James, as the resident bishop or pre- jj^f8 au
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

2$6 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.
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 Barnabas1. 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 Gos-
comiexion pels in C0lmexi0n with. Joseph His reputed father and Mary His
Bfiph and mother, never once with Mary of Clopas (the assumed wife of Al-
Mary. phseus). 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
the less. jameSj as if it implied two only, and even those who impugn his
theory seem generally to acquiesce in his rendering. But the
Greek gives not 'James the Less' but 'James the little' (6 /u/cpos).
Is it not most natural then to explain this epithet of his height8?
' 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
is no Scriptural or early sanction for speaking of the son of Zebedee
as ' James the Great.'
(5) The (5) The manner in which Jude is mentioned in the lists of the
mention of Twelve is on this hypothesis full of perplexities. In the first place
lists of the it is necessary to translate 'Ia/cco/Jov not 'the son' but 'the brother
Twelve. 0f James,' though the former is the obvious rendering and is sup
ported by two of the three earliest versions, the Peshito Syriac and
the Thebaic, while the remaining version, the Old Latin, leaves the
ellipsis unsupplied and thus preserves 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 Al
phseus and Jude his brother,' or ' James and Jude the sons of
Alphseus,' 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 (la.Kdj3ov) attached to the name of Judas only l
1 See the detached note, p. 95. ring to stature, as appears from Plato,
2 As in Xen. Mem. 1. 4. 2 'Apiaro- Symp. 173 b; and in Arist. Ran. 708
Srjpov rdv piKpbv eiriKaXovpevov, refer- TUXeiytvrjs d pixpos.

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

257

Moreover in the different lists of the three Evangelists the
Apostle in question is designated in three different ways. In St
Matthew (x. 3) be is called Lebbasus (at least according to a highly
probable reading) ; in St Mark (iii. 18) Thaddseus; and in St Luke
'Jude of James.' St John again having occasion to mention him
(xiv. 22) distinguishes him by a negative, 'Judas not Iscariot1.' Is
it possible, if he were the Lord's brother Judas, he would in all
these places have escaped being so designated, when this designation
would have fixed the person meant at once 1
(6) Lastly ; in order to maintain the Hieronymian theory it is (6) Punc-
necessary to retain the common punctuation of John xix. 25, thus j^h-x
making 'Mary of Clopas' the Virgin's sister. But it is at least 25.
improbable that two sisters should have borne the same name. The
case of the Herodian family is scarcely parallel, for Herod was a
family name, and it is unlikely that a humble Jewish household
should have copied a practice which must lead to so much confusion.
Here it is not unlikely that a tradition underlies the Peshito render
ing which inserts a conjunction: -'His mother and his mother's
sister, and Mary of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene2.' The Greek at

1 The perplexity is increased by the
Curetonian Syriac, which for 'IobSas ovx
6 'InKapLuTVi reads |LOO]Z. |}OTL-»,
'Judas Thomas,' i. e. 'Judas the Twin.'
It seems therefore that the translator
took the person intended by St John to
be not the Judas Jacobi in the list of
the Twelve, butthe Thomas Didymus, for
Thomas was commonly called Judas in
the Syrian Church ; e. g. Euseb. H. E.
r. 13 'IotiSas d Kal Ow/iaj, and Acta
Thomce 1 'lobSa Qupf rip Kal Aibbptp
(ed. Tisch. p. 190) ; see Assemani Bibl.
Orient. I. pp. 100, 318 ; Cureton's Syriac
Gospels p. li, Anc. Syr. Documents p.
33. As Thomas (Aldvpos), 'the Twin,'
is properly a surname, and this Apostle
must have had some other name, there
seems do 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 different persons
in the two cases. The name of the
other brother is supplied in Clem. Horn.
GAL.

II. I irpoo-in Si Qapds Kal "EXiifepos
ol 8l8vy.oi. The Thebaic version again for 01%
b 'lo-Kapidrrjs substitutes 6 Kavavlrijs.
Similarly in Matth. x. 3 for QaSdalos
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 above, p. 252,
note. 2 See Wieseler Die Sohne Zebeddi
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. 265, note ; and see the various
reading 'ladvvijs for 'Iw<ri;c/> 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—
17

258 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.
all events admits, even if it does not favour, this interpretation, for
the arrangement of names in couples has a parallel in the lists of
the Apostles (e. g. Matt. x. 2 — 4).
Jerome's I have shown then, if I mistake not, that St Jerome pleaded
hypothesis nQ t,.aditionai authority for his theory, and that therefore the evi-
must D6 * n • 1X1
abandoned dence in its favour is to be sought in Scripture alone. I have
examined the scriptural evidence, and the conclusion seems to be,
that though this hypothesis, supplemented as it has been by subse
quent 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
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.
and re- Thus, as compared with the Hieronymian view, both the Epi-
p ed j^ phanian and the Helvidian have higher claims to acceptance. They
remaining both assign to the word brethren its natural meaning ; they both
'" recognise the main facts related of the Lord's brethren in the Gos
pels — their unbelief, their distinctness from the Twelve, their con
nexion with Joseph and Mary— and they both avoid the other
difficulties which the Hieronymian theory creates.
A coinci- And moreover they both exhibit a coincidence which deserves
nimrto"1" noti°e- A very short time before tbe Lord's death His brethren
both. refuse to accept His mission : they are still unbelievers. Immedi
ately after His ascension we find them gathered together with the
Apostles, evidently recognising Him as their Master. Whence comes
this change 1 Surely the crucifixion of one who professed to be the
Messiah was not likely to bring it about. He had claimed to be
King of Israel and he had been condemned as a malefactor: He
bad 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,
both these identifications must be con- places (pp. 387, 541, the exception being
sidered precarious. It would be strange p. 445) a stop is put after ' His mo-
that no hint should be given in the ther's sister,' thus separating the words
Gospels of the relationship of the sons from 'Mary of Cleophas' aud suggest-
of Zebedee to our Lord, if it existed. ing by punctuation the same interpret*
The Jerusalem Syriac lectionary tion which the Peshito fixos by insert-
gives the passage Joh. xix. 25 not less ing a conjunction.
than three times. In two of these

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 259
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 James1 after His
ascension. This interposition, we may suppose, was tbe turning point in
the religious life of the Lord's brethren; the veil was removed at,
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, Objections
which the Hieronymian escapes. ° ° '
(1) They both, it is objected, assume the existence of two pairs (1) Repeti-
of cousins bearing the same names, James and Joseph the sons of 1011 °„
a > r names.
Alphseus, and James and Joseph the Lord's brothers. If moreover
we accept the statement of Hegesippus2 that James was succeeded
in the bishopric of Jerusalem by. Symeon son of Clopas, and also
admit the identification of Clopas with Alphseus, we get a third name
Symeon or Simon 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 Cousin-
as a cousinhood on the mothers' side, and that it depends on three either
assumptions; (1) The identification of James tbe son of Alphseus mothers'
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
1 See below, p. 266. 2 See below, p. 269.
17 — 2

26o

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

gives two sisters both called Mary — a difficulty far surpassing that
of supposing two or even three cousins bearing the same name. On
the other hand, if, admitting the second identification and supply
ing the ellipsis in 'Mary of Clopas' by 'wife1,' we combine with it the
statement of Hegesippus3 that Clopas the father of Symeon was brother
or fathers' of Joseph, we get three cousins, James, Joses, and Symeon, on their
"rotable fat^ers' si^e- "*"et tnis result again must be 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 Alphseus will still
remain an open question3.

1 As r) tov KXwirS may mean either
the daughter or the wife or the mother
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. 32 (ed. Tisch. p. I04), Evang. Inf.
Arab. 29 (ib. p. 1S6), and the marginal
note on the Philoxenian version, Joh.
xix. 15, besides other references which
will be given in the account of the pa
tristic authorities.
3 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?
8 Of the three names Alphceus (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 latt3r 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.
Cleopse (or Cleophse) is read in the Pe
shito, Old Latin, Memphitic, Vulgate,
and Armenian texts of St John. (3) Of
these the evidence of the Peshito is par
ticularly important in a matter relating
to Aramaic names. While for 'AXip<uos
in all five places it restores what was
doubtless the original Aramaic form
. . o\ \ ... Chalphai; on the other
hand, it gives the same word j om*i . \ o
Kleopha (i.e. KXebiras) in Luke xxiv. 18
and in John xix. 25, if the printed texts
may be trusted. The Jerusalem Syriac
too renders KXarras by -HICM-I . \f*)j
(Eleophas), and 'AXipatos by •_> [£i \ »¦'
(Chalphai). (4) The form KX&iTrcis, which
St John's text gives, is confirmed by
Hegesippus (Euseb. H. E. iii. 11), and
there is every reason to believe that this
was a common mode of writing some
proper name or other with those ac
quainted with Aramaic; but it is diffi
cult to see why, if the word intended
to be represented were Chalphai, they
should not have reproduced it more
exactly in Greek. The name XaX0i
in fact does occur in 1 Mace. xi. 70.
(5) It is true that KXebiras is strictly &
Greek name contracted from KXeoVo-
rpos, like 'Avrliras from 'AvriTarpos, etc.
But it was a common practice with the
Jews to adopt the genuine Greek name
which bore the closest resemblance in
sound to their own Aramaic name, either
side by side with it or in place of it, as

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

261

But, whether they were cousins or not, does the fact of two The names
families having two or three names in common constitute any real are com-
difficulty 1 Is not this a frequent occurrence among ourselves 1 It m°D'
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 tbe most common, being consecrated in the
affections of the Jews from patriarchal times. In the list of the
Twelve the name of James appears twice, Symeon twice. In the
New Testament no less than twelve persons bear the name of
Symeon or Simon, and nearly as many that of Joseph or Joses'.

Simon for Symeon, Jason for Jesus;
and thus a man, whose real Aramaic
name was Clopas, might grecize the word
and called 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 Alphseus. But the
identification of names does not carry
with it the identification of persons.
St Paul's Epaphras for instance is pro
bably a different person from his Ep-
aphroditus. A Jewish name ' Alfius ' occurs in
an inscription alfivs . jvda . arcon .
aboosinagogvs (Inscr. Gudii, p. cclxiii.
3), and possibly this is the Latin sub
stitute for Chalphai or Chalphi, as 'AX-
<paios 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 hid
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. 35) is
'Iwcrijc/>, the son of Mary (xxvii. 56)
'Iuirijs. In St Mark on the other
hand the latter word is found (the geni
tive being differently written 'laarjTos
or '\uaij, 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 Sohne Zebe-
dai etc. p. 678) that St Matthew's text
suggests the real difference, and that the
original reading in Mark vi. 3 was 'Iw-
arj(f>; but if so, the corruption was
very ancient and very general, for 'Iu-
arjip is found in K alone of the uncial
manuscripts. A similar confusion of
these names appears in the case of Bar-
sabbas, Actsi. 23, and Barnabas, iv. 36 ;
in the former case we find a various
reading ' Joses ' for 'Joseph', in thelatter
we should almost certainly read ' Joseph '
for 'Joses' of the received text. I am
disposed to think tbe identification of
the names Joses and Joseph improbable
for two reasons ; (1) It seems unlikely
that the same nameshouldberepresen ted
in Greek by two such divergent forms as
'laarjs, making a genitive 'luiarJTos, and
'laarjtp or 'laaijiros, which perhaps (re
placed by a genuine Greek name) became
"B.yrjaimros. (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. Juchanon for 'ladvvrjs, Zabdai for
Ze/3ecra?os. Following this rule, it ought,
if the names were identical, to have re
stored -g^mn . (Joseph) for the Greek
'laarjs, in place of which it has |rfK") 1
(Josi, JausI, or Jusi). [On the other
hand, similar instances of abbreviation,
e. g. Ashe for Asher, Jochana for Jo-
chan:in, Shabba for Shabbath, are pro-
duced; see Deiitzsch in Laurent Neu-
test. Stud. p. 168].

262

THE BRETHREN OF TfiE LORD.

In the index to Josephus may be counted nineteen Josephs, and
twenty-five Simons1.
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 least2 in a list of thirty-four direct
ancestors.
(2) 'Mary (2) When a certain Mary is described as 'the mother of James',
themother is it not highly probable that the person intended should be the
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,
were yet sufficiently weil 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 nob very serious ; and up to this point in
the investigation they present equal claims to acceptance. The next

The two
theoriescompared.

1 The popularity of this name is pro
bably due to Simon Maccabseus.
3 And perhaps not more than twice
'luayip (vv. 24, 30). In ver. 26 'laarjx
seems to be the right reading, where the
received text has 'Iucnjc^; and in ver.
29 'IijcroD, where it has 'Luarj. Possibly

'lao-r)x may be a corruption for 'Ia<ri)<j>
through the confusion of *\ and "J, which
in their older forms resemble each other
closely; but if so, it is a corruption not
of St Luke's text, but of the Hebrew or
Aramaic document from which the ge-
uealogy was derived.

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 263
step will be to compare them together, in order to decide which
of the two must yield to the other.
1. The Epiphaniau view assumes that the Lord's brethren had (1) Rela-
really no relationship with Him ; and so far the Helvidian has l°"t^ e
the advantage. But this advantage is rather seeming than real, to Joseph
It is very natural that those who called Joseph His father should and Mar-y-
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). 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 (2) Virgin-
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' bis wife, ' till (a%pi<; ov)
she brought forth a son' (i. 25)1; 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 z. Again,
the prominent idea conveyed by the term 'firstborn' to a Jew would
be not the birth of other children, but the special consecration
of this one. The typical reference in fact is foremost in the mind
of St Luke, as he himself explains it, 'Every male that openeth the
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 tbe condition under
which in obedience to the law a child was consecrated to God. The
1 rbv irparbroKov ought to be reject- ' For parallel instances see Mill,
ed from St Matthew's text, having been p. 304 sqq.
interpolated from L.uke ii. 7.

264 THB BRETHREN OF TfiE LORD.
'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 tbe perpetual virginity of the Lord's mother a matter of such
paramount importance as it was held to be in the fourth and follow
ing 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
appears in fact to be due quite as much to another sentiment which
the fathers fantastically expressed by a comparison between the con
ception 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 Pales
tine where there was less disposition than elsewhere to depreciate
married life, and prevailed too at a time when extreme ascetic views
had not yet mastered the Church at large.
(3) Our 3- -^ut one objection has been hurled at the Helvidian theory
Lord's dy- with great force, and as it seems to me with fatal effect, which is
' powerless against the Epiphanian1. 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
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.

26s

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 1
Though within a few days a special appearance is vouchsafed to one
of these brethren, who is destined to rule the mother Church of
Jerusalem, and all alike are converted to the faith of Christ; yet
she, their mother, living in the same city and joining with them in a
common worship (Acts i. 14), is consigned to the care of a stranger
of whose bouse she becomes henceforth tbe inmate.
Thus it would appear that, taking the scriptural notices alone, Conclu-
the Hieronymian account must be abandoned ; while of the re- s'°n'
maining two the balance of the argument is against the Helvidian
and in favour of the Epiphanian. To what extent the last men
tioned theory can plead the prestige of tradition, will be seen from
the following catena of references to the fathers and other early
Christian writings1.

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. 11. p. 34, Routh's Rel. Sacr. 1.
p. 16, and runs as follows : ' Maria
mater Domini : Maria Cleophse, sive
Alphei uxor, quse fuit mater Jacobi
episcopi et apostoli et Symonis et
Thadei et cujusdam Joseph : Maria Sa
lome uxor Zebedei mater Joannis evan-
gelistse et Jacobi : Maria Magdalene :
istse quatuor in Evangelio reperiuntur.
Jacobus et Judas et Joseph filii erant
matertera? Domini; Jacobus quoque et
Joannes alterius materterae Domini fue-
runt filii. Maria Jacobi minoiis et
Joseph mater, uxor Alphei, soror fuit
Maria' matris Domini, quam Cleophse
Joannes nominat vel a patre vel a gen-
tilitatis familia vel alia causa. Maria
Salome a viro vel a vico dicitur: hanc
eandem Cleophse quidam dicunt quod
duos viros habuerit. Maria dicitur
illuminatrix sive Stella maris, genuit
enim lumen inundi; 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 Bpurious. 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. ' is evidently
very late, and is, as Dr Mill says, 'justly
rejected by Grabe.' Grabe says, ' ad-
didit is qui descripsit ex suo'; but the
passage is continuous in the MS, and
there is neither more nor less authority
for assigning this to Papias than the
remainder of the extract. (2) The state
ment about 'Maria uxor Alphei' is taken
from Jerome (adv. Helvid. ) almost word
for word, as Dr Mill has seen; and it is
purely arbitrary to reject this as spuri
ous and accept the rest as genuine.

266 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.
Hebrew T- The Gospel accordixg to the Hebrews, one of the earliest
Gospel. anfi most respectable of the apocryphal narratives, related that the
Lord after His resurrection ' went to James and appeared to him ;
for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour
in which the Lord had drunk the cup (biberat calicem Dominus),
till he saw Him risen from the dead.' Jesus therefore ' took bread
and blessed it and brake it and gave it to James the Just and said to
him, 'My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of Man has risen from
the dead' (Hieron, de Vir. Illustr. 2). I have adopted the reading
' Dominus,' as the Greek translation has Kvpios, 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 death1.
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) 2; 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-
(3) The writings of Papias were in Je- under the name of the Lexicon or
rome's hands, and, eager as he was Vocabulist. I have not had access to
to claim the support of authority, he a printed copy, but there is a MS of
could not have failed to refer to testi- the work (marked Kk. 4. 1) in the
mony which was so important and CambridgeTJniversity Library, the know-
which so entirely confirmed his view ledge of which I owe to Mr Brad-
in the most minute points. Nor is it shaw, the Librarian. The variations
conceivable that a passage like this, from the Bodleian extract are unim-
coming from so early a writer, should portant. It is strange that though
not have impressed itself very strongly Grabe actually mentions the later Pa-
on the ecclesiastical tradition of the pias the author of the Dictionary, and
early centuries, whereas in fact we dis- Eouth copies his note, neither the one
cover no traces of it.] nor the other got on the right track.
Eor these reasons the extract seemed I made the discovery while the first
to me manifestly spurious ; but I n.iyht edition of this work was passing through
have saved myself the trouble of ex- the press.
amining the Bodleian MS and writing 1 There might possibly have been
these remarks, if I had known at the an ambiguity in the Hebrew original
time, that the passage was written by a owing to the absence of case endings,
medueval namesake of the bishop of as Blom suggests (p. 83) • but it is more
Hierapohs, Papias the author of the probable that a transcriber of Jerome
Elemeutarium, who lived in the nth carelessly wrote down the familiar
century. This seems to have been a phrase ' the cup of tbe Lord ' '
standard work in its day, and was = Comp. Mart. Pohjc. 14" ev rd to-
printed four times in the 15th century rrjpla rov X^urroi? aov

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 267
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 Gospel of
Docetse of the second century. Towards the close of that century, Peter"
Serapion, bishop of Antioch, found it in circulation at Ebossus a
Cilician town, and at first tolerated it : but finding on examination
that, though it had much in eommon with the Gospels recognised
by the Catholic Church, there were sentiments in it favourable to
the heretical views that were secretly gaining ground there, he for
bad its use. In the fragment of Serapion preserved by Eusebius
(H. E. vi. 12)1, 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 mother8.
3. ProteVangelium Jacobi, a purely fictitious but very early Protevan-
narrative, dating probably not later than the middle of the second Sf'luln and
' o e j other apo-
century, represents Joseph as an old man when the Virgin was cryphal
espoused to him, having sons of his own (§ 9, ed. Tisch. p. 18) but §osPels-
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 Pseudo-Mattlwei Evang.
(§ 32, ed! Tisch. p. 104), Evang. de Nativ. Mar. (§ 8, ib. p. 11 1), His-
toria Joseph. (§ 2, ib. p. 116), Evang. Thomas (§ 16, p. 147), Evang.
Infant. Arab. (§ 35, p. 191), besides the apocryphal Gospels mentioned
by Jerome (Comm. in Matlh. T. vn. p. 86) which were different from
any now extant3. 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
1 For this fragment see Ronth's s See below, p. 273.
Rel. Sacr. I. p. 452, and Westcott His- 3 As appears from the fact mentioned
tory of the Canon, p. 444. by Jerome ; see above, p. 254, note 3.

268

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

Older Ver
sions.

Clementine writings.

Hegesip
pus.

even known when they were written. It is to these sources that
Jerome refers when ho taunts the holders of the Epiphanian view
with following ' deliramenta apocryphorum.'
4. The Earliest Versions, with the exception of the Old Latin
which translates the Greek literally and preserves the same ambi
guities, give renderings of certain passages bearing on tbe subject,
which are opposed to the Hieronymiau view. The Curetokian
Syriac translates Mapla 'UkwPov (Luke xxiv. 10) 'Mary the daughter
of James.' The Peshito 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.' The oldest
of the Egyptian versions again, the Thebaic, in John xix. 25 gives
'Mary daughter of Clopas,' and in Acts i. 13 'Judas son of James.'
5. The Clementine Homilies, written, it would appear, not
late in the second century to support a peculiar phase of Ebionism,
speak of James as being 'called the brother of the Lord,' (6 XexBels
dSeXcpcls tou Kvplov, 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 itself1. It is more
important to observe that in the Epistle of Clement prefixed to this
work and belonging to the same cycle of writings James is styled
not Apostle, but Bishop of Bishops, and seems to be distinguished
from and in some respects exalted above the Twelve.
6. In the portion of the Clementine Recognitions, which seems
to have been founded on the Ascents of James, another very early
Ebionite writing", the distinction thus implied in the Homilies is
explicitly stated. The Twelve Apostles after disputing severally
with Caiaphas give an account of their conference to James the chief
of Bishops ; while James the son of Alphseus is distinctly mentioned
among the Twelve as one of the disputants (i. 59).
7. Hegesippus (about 160), a Hebrew Christian of Palestine,
writes as follows : ' After the martyrdom of James the Just on the
same charge as the Lord, his paternal uncle's child Symeon the son of
Clopas is next made bishop, who was put forward by all as the second
in succession, being cousin of the Lord ' (perd to paprvprjo-ai 'IaKWjSov
iw Sikcuov os Kai o Kupios iirl Taj avrm Xdycp, irdXiv 6 eK tov Beiov auroJ
Sufiecoe 6 tov KAcojra KaQio-Tarcu lirio-Koiros, ov irpoedtvro iravres ovra

1 The word Xex^els is most natural
ly taken, I think, to refer to the reputed
brotherhood of James, as a consequence
of the reputed fatherhood of Joseph,

and thus to favour the Epiphanian view.
See the expressions of Hegesippus, and
of Eusebius, pp. 269, 274.
a See the next dissertation.

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 269
dvevjiov tov Kvpiov Bevrepov1, Euseb. H. E. iv. 22). If the passage be
correctly rendered thus (and this rendering alone seems intelligible5),
Hegesippus distinguishes between the relationships of James the
Lord's brother and Symeon His cousin. So again, referring appa
rently to this passage, he in another fragment (Euseb. H. E. iii. 32)
speaks of ' the child of the Lord's paternal uncle, the aforesaid Symeon
son of Clopas' (o Ik Oeiov tov Kvpiov d irpouprjpivoi Hvpeoiv vids KXu>7ra),
to which Eusebius adds, ' for Hegesippus relates that Clopas was the
brother of Joseph.' Thus in Hegesippus Symeon is never once
called the Lord's brother, while James is. always so designated. And
this argument powerful in itself is materially strengthened by the
fact that, where Hegesippus has occasion to mention Jude, he too like
James is styled 'the Lord's brother'; 'There still survived members
of the Lord's family (ot arro -ycrovs rov Kvpiov) grandsons of Judas
who was called His brother according to the flesh' (tov Kara, o-dpKa
Xeyopevov avrov dSeAcpov); Euseb. H. E. iii. 20. In this passage the
word 'called' seems to me to point to the Epiphanian rather than
the Helvidian view, tbe brotherhood of these brethren, like the
fatherhood of Joseph, being reputed but not real. In yet another
passage (Euseb. H. E. ii. 23) Hegesippus relates that 'the Church was
committed in conjunction with the Apostles3 to the charge of (Sia-
Se'x€Tcu Tt)v eKKXyjaiav perd. tcoV dn-ocrTo'A.aii') the Lord's brother James,
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 pas
sage however no inference can be safely drawn; for, supposing the
term ' Apostles' to be here restricted to tbe Twelve, the expression
fitTa, tc3v aima-ToXwv may distinguish St James not from but among
1 For Sebrepov comp. Euseb. H. E. sent Symeon as a brother of James, no
iii. 14. more circuitous mode could well have
2 A different meaning however has been devised for the purpose of stating
been assigned to the words; irdXiv and so very simple a fact. Let me add that
Sebrepov being taken to signify 'another Eusebius (I.e.) and Epiphanius (Hares.
child of his uncle, another cousin,' and pp.636, 1039, 1046, ed. Petav.)musthave
thus the passage has been represented interpreted the words as I have done.
as favouring the Hieronymian view. So Whether avrov should be referred
for instance Mill p. 253, Schaf p. 64. to 'IdxajSov or to Kiyjios is doubtful. If
On the other hand see Credner Einl. to the former, this alone decides the
p. 575, Neander Pfianz. p. 559 (4te meaning of the passage. This seems the
aufl.). To this rendering the presence more natural reference of the two, but
of the definite article alone seems fatal the form of expression will admit either.
(0 eK 0eiov not Irepos rdv ex Belov) ; but 3 Jerome (de Vir. Illustr. § 2) care-
indeed the whole passage appears to be lessly renders it • post apostolos,' as if
framed so as to distinguish the rela- perd robs airoarbXovs. Rufinus has it
tionships of the two persons; whereas, correctly ' cum apostolus.'
had the author's object been to repre-

270 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.
the Apostles; as in Acts v. 29, 'Peter and the Apostles an
swered.' Thus the testimony of Hegesippus seems distinctly opposed to
the Hieronymian view, while of the other two it favours the Epi
phanian rather than the Helvidian. If any doubt still remains, the
fact that both Eusebius and Epiphanius, who derived their informa
tion mainly from Hegesippus, gave this account of the Lord's brethren
materially strengthens the position. The testimony of an early Pales
tinian 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
lian. Jerome is content to reply that be was not a member of the Church
('de Tertulliano nihil amplius dico quam ecclesise hominem non
fuisse,' adv. Helvid. § 17). It is generally assumed in consequence
that Tertullian held tbe Lord's brethren to be sons of Joseph and
Mary. This assumption, though probable, is not absolutely certain.
The point at issue in this passage is not the particular opinion of
Helvidius respecting the Lord's brethren, but the virginity of the
Lord's mother. Accordingly in reply Jerome alleges on his own side
the authority of others1, whose testimony certainly did not go beyond
this one point and had no reference to the relationship of the Lord's
brethren. Thus too the more distinct passages in the extant writings
of Tertullian relate to the virginity only (de Corn. Christ, c. 23 and
passim, de Mo-nog. c. 8). Elsewhere however, though he does not
1 ' Numquid non possum tibi totam less referring here.
veterum scriptorum seriem commovere : In Cowper's Syriac Misoell. p. 61,
Ignatium, Polycarpum, Irenseum, Jus- I find an extract, 'Justin one of the
tinum Martyrem, inultosque alios apo- authors who were in the days of Augus-
stolicos et eloquentes viros?' (adv. tus and Tiberius and Gaius wrote in the
Helvid. 17). I have already (p. 129, third discourse: That Mary the Gali-
note 3) mentioned an instance of the lean, who was the mother of Christ who
unfair way in which Jerome piles toge- was crucified in Jerusalem, had not been
ther his authorities. In the present case with a husband. And Joseph did not
we are in a position to test him. Jerome repudiate her, but Joseph continued in
did not possess any writings of Ignatius holiness without a wife, he and his five
which are not extant now ; and in no sons by a former wife : and Mary con-
place does this apostolic father maintain tioued without a husband.' The editor
the perpetual virginity of St Mary. In assigns this passage to Justin Martyr;
one remarkable passage indeed (Ephes. but not to mention the anachronism,
19), which is several times quoted by the whole tenour of the passage and the
subsequent writers, he speaks of the immediate neighbourhood of similar
virginity of Mary as a mystery, but this extracts show that it was intended for
refers distinctly to the time before the the testimony (unquestionably spurious)
birth of our Lord. To this passage of some contemporary heathen writer
which he elsewhere quotes (Comment, in to the facts of the Gospel.
Matth. T. vn. p. 12), Jerome is doubt-

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 271
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. Marc. iv. 19, de Corn. Christ, 7). It is therefore highly probable
that he held the Helvidian view. Such an admission from one who
was so strenuous an advocate of asceticism is worthy of notice.
9. Clement op Alexandria (about a.d. 200) in a passage of the Clement
Hypotyposeis preserved in a Latin translation by , Cassiodorus (the °U(jriaX'
authorship has been questioned but without sufficient reason1) puts
forward the Epiphanian solution ; ' Jude, who wrote the Catholic
Epistle, being one of the sons of Joseph and [tbe Lord's] brother, a Latin
man of deep piety, though he was aware of his relationship to the fragment>
Lord, nevertheless did not say he was His brother; but what said
he 1 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]'2 (ed. Potter, p. 1007). This statement is explicit.
On the other hand, owing to an extract preserved in Eusebius, his
authority is generally claimed for tbe Hieronymian view ; ' Clement,'
says Eusebius, ' in the sixth book of the Hypotyposeis gives the
following account: Peter and James and John, he tells us, after tlie Quotations
resurrection of the Saviour were not ambitious of honour, though bms>
the preference shown them by the Lord might have entitled them
to it, but cJwse 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) ; ' The Lord after
the, resurrection delivered the gnosis to James the Just3 and John
1 We read in Cassiodorus (de Inst. out in confirmation of this, that while
Div. Lit. 8), ' In epistolas autem canoni- Clement elsewhere directly quotes the
cas Clemens Alexandrinus presbyter, qui Epistle of St Jude, he never refers to
et Stromateus vocatur, id est, in epistola the Epistle of St James. Bunsen has
(-am?) S.Petri prima (-am?) S. Johannis included these notes in his collection of
prima (-am?) etsecunda (-am?) et Jacobi fragments of the Hypotyposeis, Anal.
qusedam Attico sermone declaravit. Ubi Anten. I. p. 325. It should be added
multa quidem subtiliter sed aliqua in- that the statement about the relation-
caute loquutus est, quse nos ita transferri ship of Jude must be Clement's own and
fecimus in Latinum, ut exclusis quibus- cannot have been inserted by Cassiodo-
dam offendiculis purificata doctrina ejus rus, since Cassiodorus in common with
securior possit hauriri.' If 'Jude' be the Latin Church would naturally hold
substituted for 'James*, this description the Hieronymian hypothesis. ^
exactly applies to the Latin notes extant 2 ' Prater erat ejus [Alius] Joseph.
underthe title Adumbratixmes. This was The insertion of 'filius' (with Bunsen) is
a very easy slip of the pen, and I can necessary for the sense, whether Cassio-
scarcely doubt that these notes are the dorus had it or not. Perhaps _the Greek
same to which Cassiodorus refers as words were &SeX<pbs avrov «3x 'luarjip,
taken from theHypotyposeisof Clement. which would account for the omission.
MrWestcott((7anoii, p. 401) has pointed 3 Credner, Einl. p. 585, condemns

272

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

Origen.

and Peter. These delivered it to tlie rest of the Apostles; and t/ie
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
tlie pinnacle (of the temple) and beaten to death with a club by a fuller,
and another who was beheaded' (H. E. ii. i). This passage however
proves nothing. Clement says that there were two of the name of
James, but he neither states nor implies that there were two only.
His sole object was to distinguish the son of Zebedee from the Lord's
brother; and the son of Alphseus, 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 notoriously uncritical in
his historical notices1 such a contradiction would not be surprising2.
10. Origen (ta.d. 253) declares himself very distinctly in favour
of the Epiphanian view, stating that the brethren were sons of

the words rip SiKala as spurious. Though
it might be inferred from the previous
extract given by Eusebius that the son
of Zebedee is meant here, I believe never
theless that they are genuine. For (1)
They seem to be required as the motive
for the explanation which is given after
wards of the different persons bearing
the name James. (2) It is natural that
a special prominence should be given to
the same three Apostles of the Circum
cision who are mentioned in Gal. ii. 9
as the pillars of Jewish Christendom.
(3) Eusebius introduces the quotation as
relating to James the Just (irepi avrov),
which would not be a very good descrip
tion if the other James were the promi
nent 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,
ravra eoriv airb ToXXuv irdvv Xbyav rd
Kec/>d\aia & (pr/aiv irapaSeSuiKivai Mapi-
dpvv rbv 'laKaflov rov Kvpiov rbv dSeXtpov,
Hares, x. 6, p. 95. Clement seems to
have derived his information from some
work of a Jewish Gnostic complexion,
perhaps from the Gospel of the Egyp
tians with which he was well acquainted
(Strom, iii. pp. 529 sq., 553, ed. Potter);
and as Hippolytus tells us that the
Ophites made use of this Gospel (rds Si
O-aXXayds rabras tcJj iroiKlXas iv np

iiriyparbopiva Kar' Alyvirrlovs evayyeXltp
Kcipiivas expvo-iv, ib. v. 7, p. 98), it is
probable that the account of Clement
coincided with that of the Ophites. The
words rip SiKalip 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 rip SiKalip therefore to be the
genuine words of Clement, but I do not
feel so sure that the closing explanation
Sbo Si yeybvamv 'Ia/cojjSot K.r.X. is not
an addition of Eusebius. This I suppose
to be Bunsen's opinion, for he ends his
fragment with the preceding words,
I. p. 32'.
1 For instance he distinguished Ce
phas of Gal. ii. 11 from Peter (see
above, p. 124), and apparently confused
Philip the deacon with Philip one of the
Twelve (Euseb. H.E. iii. 30).
2 On the supposition that Clement
held the Hieronymian theory, as he is
represented even by those who them
selves reject it, the silence of Origen,
who seems never to have heard of this
theory, is quite inexplicable. Epipha-
nius moreover, who appears equally
ignorant of it, refers to Clement while
writing on this very subject (Horres. p.
irg, Petav.). Indeed Clement would
then stand quite alone before the age of
Jerome.

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 273
Joseph by a deceased wife1- Elsewhere" indeed be says that St Paul
'calls this James the Lord's brother, uot so much on account of his
kinsmanship or their companionship together, as on account of his
character and language,' but this is not inconsistent with the explicit
statement already referred to. In one passage he writes at some
length on the subject; 'Some persons, on' the ground of a tradition in
the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or the Book of James
(i.e. the Protevangelium), say that the brothers of Jesus were Joseph's
sons by a former wife to whom he was married before Mary. Those
who hold this view wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity
throughout... And I think it reasonable that as Jesus was the first-
fruit of purity and chastity among men, so Mary was among women :
for it is not seemly to ascribe the first-fruit of virginity to any
other woman but her' (in Matt. xiii. 55, in. p. 462)1 This passage
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 virginity4.

1 In Joann. ii. 12 (Catena Corder.
p. 75) &5eX<pobs piv o6k ei%e <j>iaei,
aire rrjs irapBivov reKOvarjs irepov ovSe
airrbs iK rov 'laaijrp Tvyxdvav vbpip
roiyapovv ixpnpdriffav avrov dbeXtpol,
viol 'Iw<r$j<p bvres ix irporedvrjKvlas yvvai
Kos: Horn, in Luc. 7 (in. p. 940, ed.
Delarue) 'Hi enim filii qui Joseph dice-
bantur non erant orti de Maria, neque
est ulla scriptura qusa ista eommemoret.'
In this latter passage either the trans
lator has been confused by the order in
the original or the words in the trans
lation itself have been displaced acci
dentally, but the meaning is clear.
2 c. Cels. i. 47 (1. p. 363) ov roa-
ovrov Sid rb irpbs a'lparos avyyevis i) tt)v
KQivrjv avrdv dvaarpo^rjv baov bid rb
1J80S Kal rbv Xbyov.
3 Op. III. p. 462 sq. Mill, pp. 261,
273, has strangely misunderstood the
purport of this passage. He speaks of
Origen here as ' teaching the opinion of
his (James the Just) being the son of
Joseph, both as the sentiment of a minor
ity among right-minded Christians and
as founded on apocryphal traditions';
and so considers the note on John ii. 12,
alreadyreferredto, as 'standing strangely
contrasted ' to Origen's statement here.

If Dr Mill's attention however had been
directed to the last sentence, Kal dlpai
Xbyov £xel-v k.t.X., which, though most
important, he has himself omitted in
quoting the passage, he could scarcely
have failed to see Origen's real meaning.
4 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. Eabric. I. app. p. 30) it is said
of James the son of Alphseus, Kijpvcr-
ffuv iv 'lepovaaXrjp virb 'lovSalav Kara-
Xevadeh dvaipetrai Kal Odirrerai iKel irapd
rip vaip. He is thus confused or iden
tified with James the Lord's brother.
But this blundering treatise was certainly
not written by the bishop of Portus :
see La Moyne in Eabricius I. p. 84, and
Bunsen's Hippol. I. p. 456 (ed 2). On
the other hand in the work De LXX
Apostolis (Eabricius I. app. p. 41),
also ascribed to this writer, we find
among the 70 the name of 'laKwfios b
dSeXcpodeos iirldKOiros 'lepoaoXv/Aav, who
is thus distinguished from the Twelve.
This treatise also is manifestly spurious.
Again Nicephorus Callistus, H.E. ii. 3,
cites as from Hippolytus of Portus an

GAL.

274

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

Aposto
lical Con
stitutions.

Victor inus of
Pettaw.

Eusebius of
Caesarea.

Cyril of
Jerusalem.

ii. The Apostolical Constitutions, the main part of which
may perhaps be regarded as a work of tbe third century, though they
received considerable additions in later ages, distinguish James the
Lord's brother from James the son of Alphseus, making him, like
St Paul, a supernumerary apostle, and thus counting fourteen in all
(vi. 12, 13, 14; compare ii. 55, vii. 46, viii. 4).
1 2. Victorinus Petavionensis (about 300) was claimed by Hel
vidius as a witness in his own favour. Jerome denied this and put
in a counter-claim. It may perhaps be inferred from this circumstance
that Victorinus did little more than repeat the statements of the
evangelists respecting the Lord's brethren (adv. Helvid. 17).
13. Eusebius of Caesarea (t about 340) distinguished James the
Lord's brother from the Twelve, representing him as a supernumerary
apostle like St Paul (Comm. in Isai. in Montfaucon's Coll. Nov. Patr.
n. p. 422; Hist. Eccl. 1. 12; comp. vn. 19). Accordingly in another
passage he explains that this James was called the Lord's brother,
because Joseph was His reputed father (Hist. Eccl. 11. i)1.
14. Cyril op Jerusalem (t 386) comments on the successive
appearances of our Lord related by St Paul, first to Peter, then to
the Twelve, then to tbe 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
elaborate account of our Lord's brethren (p. 272) seems disposed to think, imply

following the Epiphanian view (Hippol.
Op. I. app. 43, ed. Fabric. ); but this
account seems to be drawn either from
Hippolytus the Theban, unless asBuusen
(I. c.) supposes this Theban Hippolytus
be a mythical personage, or from some
forged writings which bore the name of
the older Hippolytus.
1 'JaKafiov rov rov Kvpiov Xeybfievov
AdeXtfrov, tin 5r) Kal ovros rov 'Iwo-^/0
ibvojiaaro irals, rov Si yLpivrov irarrjp
6 'luarjip, cp pvnarevBetaa ij irapdivos
k.t.X. On the whole this passage seems
to be best explained by referring ovros
to Kvpios. But this is not necessary;
for bvojj.d£ea8ai (or KaXelaBai) irals nvbs
is a good Greek phrase to denote real
as well as reputed sonship: as iEsch.
Fragm. 285 atS' Sirr "ArXavros iraiSes
dvopao-pivai, Soph. Trach. 1105 a Trjt
aplarrjs prjrpos avopaapivos, Eur. Elect.
935 : comp. Ephes. iii. 15 rbv iraripa
i£ ov irdaa irarpid bvopd^trai. The word
dvopaaro cannot at all events, as Mill

any doubt on the part of Eusebius about
the parentage of James, for the whole
drift of the passage is plainly against
this. The other reading, Sri Srj Kal ovros
rov 'laarpp rod vojii^opivov olovel irarpbs
rov Xpiarov, found in some MSS and in
the Syriac version, and preferred by
Blom p. 98, and Credner Einl. p. 585,
I cannot but regard as an obvious alter
ation of some early transcriber for the
sake of clearness.
Compare the expressions in i. 12 els
Si Kal oSrosrdv (pepopivav &8eX(pdv rjv,
and iii. 7 rov Kvpiov xpvpartfwv dSeX-
<j>6s. He was a reputed brother of the
Lord, because Joseph was His reputed
father. See also Eusebius On the Star,
'Joseph and Mary and Our Lord with
them and the five sons of Hannah
(Anna) the first wife of Joseph' (p. 17,
Wright's Transl.). The account from
which this passage is taken professes
to be founded on a document dating.
A.D. 1 in.

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 275
(Catech. xiv. 21, p. 216 ed Touttee). It may be gathered thence that
he distinguished this James from tbe Twelve. As this however is
only an inference from his language and not a direct statement of his
own, too much stress must not be laid on it. In another passage also
(Catech. iv. 28, p. 65, Kai tois aVooroXois Kai 'IaKioySco tc3 Taurijs rfjs
eKKXijcrias «rio-KoVa>) Cyril seems to make the same distinction, but
here again the inference is doubtful.
15. Hilary of Poitiers (T368) denounces those who ' claim Hilary of
authority for their opinion (against the virginity of the Lord's •Poltlers-
mother) from the fact of its being recorded that our Lord bad 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 tbe passion have been transferred to the Apostle
John to be his mother' (Comm. in Math, i, 1. p. 671, ed. Bened.).
Thus he not only adopts the Epiphanian solution, but shows himself
entirely ignoraut of the Hieronymian.
16. Victorinus the Philosopher (about 360) takes elp-r) in Victor- •
Gal. i. 19 as expressing not exception but opposition, and distinctly p!18, _ e
states that James was not an apostle: 'Cum autem fratrem dixit, sopher.
apostolum negavit.'
17. The Ambrosian Hilary (about 375) comments on Gal. i. 19 Ambrosi
as follows; 'The Lord is called tbe 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. Basil the Great (t 379), while allowing that the perpetual Basil.
virginity is not a necessaiy 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' (Horn, in Sanct. Christ. Gen. 11. p.
600, ed. Gam.)1. As immediately afterwards he refers, in support of
1 This very moderate expression of ed to an appendix as of doubtful authen-
opinion is marked by the editors with a ticity. The main argument urged against
caute legendum in the margin ; and in it is the passage here referred to. (See
Garnier's edition the treatise is consign- Gamier, 11. prsef. p. xv.}

276

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

Gregory
Nyssen.

his view, to some apocryphal work which related that Zacharias was
slain by tbe Jews for testifying to the virginity of tbe mother of
Jesus (a story which closely resembles the narrative of his death in
the Protevang. §§ 23, 24), it may perliaps-be inferred that he accepted
that account of the Lord's brethren- which ran through • these apo
cryphal gospels.
19. His brother Gregory Nyssen (t after 394) certainly adopted
the Epiphanian account. At the same time he takes up the very
untenable position that the 'Mary who is designated -in tbe other
Evangelists (besides St John) the mother of James and Joses is the
motlier of God and none else1', 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 Alphaius who was 'great, because he was in the
number of the Twelve Apostles,' which the Lord's brother was not
(in Christ. Besurr. ii, Op. in. pp. 412, 413, ed. Paris. 1638).
20. The Antidicomarianites, an obscure Arabian sect in the
marianites. latter half of the fourth century, maintained that the Lord's mother
bore children to her husband Joseph. These opinions seem to have
produced a reaction, or to have been themselves reactionary, for we
read about the same time of a sect called Collyridians likewise in
Arabia, who going to the opposite extreme paid divine honours to
the Virgin (Epiphan. Hcnres. lxxviii, lxxix2).
21. Epiphanius a native of Palestine became bishop of Con-
stantia in Cyprus in the year 367. Not very long before Jerome

Antidico-

1 Similarly Chrysostom, see below,
p. 280, 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
cryphal gospels : Hist. Joseph. 4 (Tisch.
p. 117). Possibly Gregory derived it
from some such source. It was also
part of the Helvidian hypothesis, where
it was less out of place, and gave Jerome
an easy triumph over his adversary (adv.
Helvid. 12 etc.). It is adopted more
over 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 Al
phseus. Fritzsche also identifies these
two Maries (Matth. p. 822, Marc. p.
697)-

2 The names are plainly terms of
ridicule invented by their enemies. Au
gustine supposes the 'Antidicomarianitae'
of Epiphanius (he writes the word ' An-
tidicomaritse') to be the same as the
Helvidians of Jerome (adv. Hcsres.
84, viii. p. 24). They held tbe same
tenets, it is true, but there seems to
have been otherwise no connexion be
tween the two. Considerations of time
and place alike resist this identifica
tion. 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 Apollinarius
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.

.(CHE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 2Jf
wrote rh -defence of the perpetual virginity of the Lord's mother Epipha-
against the Helvidians at Pome, Epiphanius came forward as the mus*
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,
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 coin
cides with thafi 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. 104 1) ; 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 produc
tion 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 bis 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 Helvidius, who resided in HoMdius
i j.1 t j» xionosus,
Eome, published a treatise in which he maintained that the Lord s and Jovi.
brethren were sons of Joseph and Mary. He seems to have sue- nianus.
ceeded in convincing a considerable number of persons, for contem
porary writers speak of the Helvidians as a party. These views
were moreover advocated by Bonosus, bishop of Sardica in Illyria,
about the same time, and apparently also by Jovinianus a monk
probably of Milan. The former was condemned by a synod assem
bled at Capua (a.d. 392), and the latter by synods held at Eome
and at Milan (about a.d. 390 ; see Hefele Conciliengesch. 11. pp. Ai,
48)1. 1 The work ascribed to Dorotheas Hist. Lit. I. p. 163); and I have there-
Tyrius is obviously spurious (see Cave, fore not included his testimony in this

278

Motive
of the
Helvi
dians.

Eviderce
summed
up.

Jerome's
treatise. Ambrose.

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.
In earlier times this account of the Lord's brethren, so far as it
was the badge of a party, seems to have been held in conjunction
with Ebionite views respecting the conception and person of Christ1.
For, though not necessarily affecting the belief in the miraculous
Incarnation, it was yet a natural accompaniment of the denial there
of. The motive of these later 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 defi
ance of public opinion refused to bow their necks to an extrava
gant and tyrannous superstition.
We have thus arrived at the point of time when Jerome's answer
to Helvidius created a new epoch in the history of this controversy.
And the following inferences are, if I mistake not, fairly deducible
from the evidence produced. First : there is not the slightest indi
cation that the Hieronymian solution ever occurred to any individual
or sect or church, until it was put forward by Jerome himself. If
it had been otherwise, writers like Origen, the two Hilaries, and
Epiphanius, who discuss the question, could not have failed to notice
it. Secondly : the Epiphanian account has the highest claims to
the sanction of tradition, whether the value of this sanction be great
or small. Thirdly : this solution seems especially ta represent the
Palestinian view.
In the year 382 (or 383) Jerome published his treatise; and the
effect of it is visible at once,
Ambrose in the year 392 wrote a work De Institutions Virginis,
in which be especially refutes the impugners of the perpetual virgin
ity of the Lord's mother. In -a passage which is perhaps intention
ally obscure he speaks to this effect : ' The term brothers has a wide
application; it is used of members of the same family, the same race

list. The writer distinguishes James
the Lord's brother and James the son of
Alphseus, and makes them successive
bishops of Jerusalem. (See Combefis
in Eabricius' 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

stantiate the assertions in the following
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.

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 279
the same country. Witness the Lord's own words / will declare thy '
name for my brethren (Ps. xxii. 22). St Paul too says : I could wish
to be accursed for my brethren (Rom. ix. 3). Doubtless they might be
called brothers as sons of Joseph, not of Mary. And if any one will
go into the question carefully, he will find this to be the true account.
For myself I do not intend to enter upon this question : it is of no
importance to decide what particular relationship is implied; it is
sufficient for my purpose that the term " brethren " is used in an
extended sense (i. e. of others besides sons of the same mother) '.'
From this I infer that St Ambrose had heard of, though possibly
not read, Jerome's tract, in which he discourses on tbe wide meaning
of the term : that, if he had read it, he did not feel inclined to aban
don the view with which he was familiar in favour of the novel hypo
thesis 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 tbe perpetual virginity by the
discussion of details.
Pelagius, who commented on St Paul a few years after Jerome, Pelagius.
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 Augustine.
advocate in St Augustine. 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
by Jerome in the treatise against Helvidius (In Joh. Evang. x, in.
2. p. 368, ib. xxviii, in. 2. p. 508 ; Enarr. in Ps. cxxvii, iv. 2. p.
1443 ; Contr. Faust, xxii. 35, viii. p. 383 ; comp. Qucest. XVII in
Matth., in. 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 church-
the son of Zebedee, thus identifying the Lord's brother with the son
of Alphseus. 1 The passage, which I have thus Quod quidem si quis diligentius prose-
paraphrased, is 'Eratres autem gentis, quatur inveniet. Nos ea prosequenda
et generis, populi quoque consortium non putavimus, quoniam fraternum no-
mmcupari docet Dominus ipse qui dicit: men liquet pluribus esse commune'
Narrabo nomen tuum fratribus meis; (11. p. 260, ed. Ben.). St Ambrose
in medio eeclesice laudabo te. Paulus seems to accept so much of Jerome's
quoque ait: Optabam ego anathema esse argument as relates to the wide use-
pro fratribus meis. Potuerunt autem of the term 'brothers' and nothing-
fratres esse ex Joseph, non ex Maria. more.

28o

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

Chiwso
stom.

In the East also it met with a certain amount of success, but this
was only temporary. Chrysostom wrote both before and after Je
rome's treatise had become generally known, and bis expositions of
the New Testament mark a period of transition. In his Homilies on
the earlier books he takes the Epiphanian view : St James, he says,
was at one time an unbeliever with the rest of the Lord's brethren (on
Matth. i. 25, vn. p. 77 ; John vii. 5, viii. p. 284 ; see also on 1 Cor.
ix. 4, x. p. 181 e) ; the resurrection was the, turning point in
their career ; they were called the Lord's brethren, as Joseph him
self was reputed the husband of Mary (on Matth. i. 25, 1. c.)1.
Hitherto he betrays no knowledge of tbe Hieronymian account.
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 Clopas2. Thus
he would appear meanwhile to have accepted the hypothesis of
Jerome and to have completed it by the identification of Clopas with
Theodoret. Alphseus. And Theodoret, who for the most part closely follows
Chrysostom, distinctly repudiates the older view : 'He was not,
as some have supposed, a son of Joseph, the offspring of a former

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; 'ASeXipobs tou Ki/-
plov Xiyei rois vopiaBivras ettal avrov
dbeXthovs' irreiSr) ydp ovros b xPVUarlfav
Kal avrbs Kara r-rjv kolvtjv Sb^av elrrev
avrobs' toi)i Si vlobs 'Iuirijc/) Xiyei, o{
dbeXipol toB Kvpiov ixprpidnirav Sid rrjv
irpbs rrjv BeoroKov pvrjarelav, tou 'laaijij).
Xc^yei Si 'IdKw(3ov OrlaKoirov'lepoo-oXv'puv
Kal 'lcocr^0 bpdvvpov rip iraripi Kal 'Zl-
pava Kal 'IoiiSct. I give the passage
without attempting to correct the text.
This note reappears almost word for
word in the (Ecumenian 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-Chryso-
stom, Op. II. p. 797.
The passages referred to in the text
show clearly what was Chrysostom's
earlier view. To these may be added
the comments on 1 Cor. xv. 7 (x.
355 D)i where he evidently regards
James as not one of the Twelve; on
Matth. x. 2 (vii. pp. 368, 9), where he

makes James the son of Alphseus 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 Mapla
'IaKtifiov with the Lord's mother. The
accounts of Chrysostom's opinion on this
subject given by Blom p. 111 sq., and
Mill p. 284 note, are unsatisfactory.
. The Homilies on the Acts also take
the same view (rx. pp. 23 B, 26 a),
but though these are generally ascribed
to Chrysostom, their genuineness is very
questionable. In another spurious work,
Opus imp. in Matth., vi. p. clxxiv E,
the Hieronymian view appears ; ' Jaco-
bum Alphsei lapidantes : . propter quas
omnia Jerusalem destructa est a Ro
man is.'
2 roc tov KXuva, Sirep Kal b eilayye-
Xio-rrjs e\eyev. He is referring, I sup
pose, to the lists of. the Apostles which
mention James the son of Alphceus.
See above, p. 260. This portion of his
exposition however is somewhat con
fused, and it is difficult to resist the
suspicion that it has been interpolated.

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. g8l
marriage, bub 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 Cyril of A-
ground in tbe East. It is found again in Cyril of Alexandria for exan j
instance (Glaphyr. in Gen. lib. vii. p. 22 t), and seems to have been
held^by later Greek writers almost, if not quite, universally. In Theophy-
Theophylact indeed (on Matth. xiii. 55, Gal. i. 19) we find an
attempt to unite the two accounts. James, argues this 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 levirate1.
This novel suggestion however found but little favour, and the East- Eastern
era Churches continued to distinguish between James the Lord's
brother and James the son of Alphseus. The Greek, Syrian, and
Coptic Calendars assign a separate day to each.
The table on the next page gives a conspectus of the patristic
and early authorities. 1 See the remarks of Mill, p. 228.

2g2

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

T A. Sons of
Joseph and
Mary.

B. Sons of
< Joseph by a
former wife.

0. Song of the
Virgin's sister.

' Tertullian,
Helvidius,
Bonosus,
Jovinianus (1),
Antidicomarianites.

" Gospel of peter,
Protevangelium etc.,
Clement of alex.,
Origen,Eusebius,Hilary of poitiers,
Ambrosiaster,
Gregory of nyssa,
Epiphanius, Ambrose, [Chrysostom],
Cyril of alex.,
Eastern services
(Greek, Syrian, and
Coptic),
Later greek
writers.
" Jerome,Pelagius,Augustine,[Chrysostom],
Theodoret,Western services,
Later latin
writers.

A. or B. 'Brethren'
in a strict sense.
James the Just not
one of the Twelve.

M

B. or C Perpetual
virginity of Mary.

Early versions,
Clementine ho
milies (?),
Ascents of
James,
Hegesippus,Apost. constit.,
Cyril of Jeru
salem (?),
Victorinus the
philosopher.

Basil,Catholic wri
ters gene
rally.

Uncertain. Hebrew gospel, Victorinus petavionensis.
Levirate. Theophylact.

III.
ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
THREE and three only of the personal disciples and immediate Three Apo-
followers of our Lord hold any prominent place in the Apostolic sties alone
records — James, Peter, and John ; the first the Lord's brother, the St Paul
two latter the foremost members of the Twelve. Apart from an in- Promment-
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 The four
teachers met together face to face. It was the one great crisis in ™^ a °|e"
the history of the Church, on the issue of which was staked her great
future progress and triumph. Was she to open her doors wide and crlaia'
receive all comers, to declare her legitimate boundaries coextensive
with the limits of the human race 1 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,

284

Questions
suggestedby this
meeting.

Import ance of the
GalatianEpistle.

Apologyfor this
essay.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
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
tions of much wider interest are suggested by the accounts of this
conference : What degree of coincidence or antagonism between
Jewish and Gentile converts may be discerned in the Church ? What
were the relations existing between St Paul and the Apostles of the
Circumcision 1 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 tbe leading Apostles? What in fact is the
secret history — if there be any secret history — of the origin of Ca
tholic Christianity 1
On this battle-field the most important of recent theological con
troversies has been waged : and it is felt by both sides that the Epi
stle to the Galatians is the true key to the position. In tbe first
place, it is one of the very few documents of the Apostolic ages,
whose genuineness has not been seriously challenged by the oppo
nents of revelation. Moreover, as the immediate utterance of one
who himself took the chief part in the incidents recorded, it cannot
be discredited as having passed through a coloured medium or
gathered accretions by lapse of time. And lastly, the very form in
which the information is conveyed — by partial and broken allusions
rather than by direct and continuous statement — -raises it beyond
the reach of suspicion, even where suspicion is most active. Here
at least both combatants can take their stand on common ground.
Nor need the defenders of the Christian faith hesitate to accept the
challenge of their opponents and try the question on this issue. If
it be only interpreted aright, the Epistle to the Galatians ought to
present us with a true, if only a partial, solution of the 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

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 285
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 ethereally
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 Proposed
of the relations between the Jewish and Gentile converts in the 8ketoh of
early ages of the Church, as gathered from the apostolic writings, tions6of"
aided by such scanty information as can be got together from other Jewii?n and
sources. This will be a fit and indeed a necessary introduction to Christians.
the subject with which tbe 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 Three main
stages in its progress : (1) The Extension of the Church to the Gen- ^vt^onab
tiles; (2) The Recognition of Gentile Liberty; (3) The Emancipa- ject.
tion of the Jewish Churches1.

1. The Extension of the Church to the Gentiles.
It appears from the Apostolic history that the believers in the The early
Church of
Jerusalem.

earliest days conformed strictly to Jewish customs iii their religious " h "'

life, retaining the fixed hours of prayer, attending the temple wor-
1 Important works treating of the with a noble sacrifice of consistency to
relations between -the Jewish and Gen- truth he has abandoned many of his
tile Christians are Lechler's Apostolisches former positions, and placed himself in
und Nachapostolisches Zeitalter (2teaufl. more direct antagonism to the Tiibiii-
'85 7), and Ritschl's Entstehung der Alt- gen school in which he was educated.
katholischen Kirche (2te aufl. 1857). I The historical speculations of that school
am indebted to both these works, but are developed in Baur's Paulus and
to the latter especially, which is very Christenthum und die Christliche Kirche
able and suggestive. Ritschl should be der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, and in
read in his second edition, in which Schwegler's Nachapostolisches Zeitalter.

286 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
ship and sacrifices, observing the sacred festivals. The Church was
still confined to one nation and had not yet broken loose from the
national rights 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 were ever to attain to a healthy
maturity. This emancipation then was the great problem which the
Our Lord's Apostles had to work out. The Master Himself had left no express
img. jng^rU0^orjlS jje had. charged them, it is true, to preach the Gospel
to all nations, but how this injunction was to be carried out, by what
changes a national Church must expand into an universal Church,
they had not been told. He had indeed asserted the sovereignty of
the spirit over the letter ; He had enunciated the great principle —
as wide in its application as the law itself — that ' Man was not made
for the sabbath, but tbe 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.
Jews of And soon enough the pressure of events began to be felt. The
the Dis- dispersion was the link which connected the Hebrews of Palestine
pm-Biun. J . -
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 Csesars, 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
gate1 — superstitious devotees who observed the rights 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
i The distinction between proselytes the initiatory rite. The former alone,
of the covenant or of righteousness and it would appear, are called irpoai)XvToi
proselytes of the gate is found in the in the New Testament ; the latter, who
Gemara : the former were circumcised, hardly form a distinct class, are oi ire-
and observed the whole law ; the latter §6pevoi rbv Qeov, ol evo-epleis etc. In
acknowledged the God of Israel and speaking therefore of ' proselytes of the
conformed to Jewish worship in some gate' I am using a convenient anaohro-
respects, but stood without the cove- uism.
nant, not having been incorporated by

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 287
despised him in turn. Thus the train was unconsciously laid, when
the spark fell from heaven and fired it.
The very baptism of the Christian Church opened the path for its First day
extension to the Gentile world. On the first day of Pentecost were coat
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 associations1, 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
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. Tbe Apostles still observed tbe Mosaic
ritual ; they still confined their preaching to Jews by birth, or Jews
by adoption, the proselytes of the covenant. At length a breach
was made, and the assailants as might be expected were Hellenists.
The first step towards the creation of an organized ministry was also Appoint-
the first step towards the emancipation of the Church. The Jews He"lenist
of Judasa, ' Hebrews of the Hebrews,' had ever regarded their Hel- officers.
lenist brethren with suspicion and distrust ; and this estrangement
reproduced itself in the Christian Church. Tbe interests of the
Hellenist widows had been neglected in the daily distribution of
alms. Hence 'arose a murmuring of tbe Hellenists against the
Hebrews (Acts vi. 1),' which was met by the appointment of seven
persons specially charged with providing for the wants of these neg
lected poor. If the selection was made, as St Luke's language
seems to imply, not by the Hellenists themselves but by the Church
at large (vi. 2), the concession when granted was carried out in a
liberal spirit. All tbe 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
1 ' Trust not a proselyte,' said one (Shimoni) on Ruth i. 1 1, 12, § 601. See
of the rabbis, 'till twenty-four genera- also the passages given by Danz in
tions; for he holds his leaven.' ^alkut Meuschen Test. Illustr. p. 651.

388

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

of this
measure.

Stephen's
testimony

Indirect
conse
quences.

the Church; and the effects of this measure soon became visible;
Two out of the seven stand prominently forward as the champions
of emancipation," Stephen the preacher and martyr of liberty, -and
Philip the practical worker1.
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,' Saicl his accusers, ' ceaseth
not to speak words against tbe 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
justification. To seal this testimony the first blood of the noble army
of martyrs is shed.
The indirect consequences of his martyrdom extend far beyond
the immediate effect of his dying words. A persecution ' arose about
Stephen.' The disciples of tbe mother Church ' were scattered
abroad throughout the regions of Judsea and Samaria (viii. 1).' Some
of the refugees even ' travelled as far as Phenice and Cyprus and
Antioch (xi. 19).' This dispersion was, as we shall see, the parent

1 In Nicolas, the only one of the
remaining five whose name reappears in
history, liberty is degraded into license.
I see no valid reason for doubting the
very early tradition that theNicolaitanes
(Apoc. ii. 6, 15) derived their name from
him. If there was a traitor among the
Twelve, there might well be a heresi
arch among the Seven. Nor is it likely
that an account so discreditable to one
who in the New Testament is named only
in connexion with his appointment to an
honourable office would have been circu
lated, unless there were some foundation
in fact. At the same time the Nicolai-
tanes may have exaggerated and per
verted the teaching of Nicolas. Iren-
a?us (i. 26. 3) and Hippolytus (Hear.
vii. 36) believe him to have been the
founder of the sect : while Clement of
Alexandria (Strom : ii. p. 41 1, iii. p. 522,
Potter) attributes to him an ambiguous
saying that ' the flesh must be abused
(Se?v irapaxpijo-Bai rrj aapKi)', of which

these Nicolaitanes 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 Anecd. Syr. p. 87, Cowper's
Syr. Miscell. p. 55) and taken from the
' Discourse on the Resurrection ' ad
dressed to Mammaea, this writer again
represents Nicolas as the founder of the
sect, speaking of him as 'stirred by a
strange spirit' and teaching that the
resurrection is past (2 Tim. ii. 1 8), but not
attributing to him any directly immoral
doctrines. A common interpretation,
which makes Nicolaus a Greek rendering
of Balaam, is not very happy ; for Niko'-
Xaos does not altogether correspond with
any possible derivation of Balaam, least
of all with DJ? J^O 'the destroyer of the
people,' generally adopted by those who
so,explain NikoXoos. See below, p. 298,
note 1.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 289
of the first Gentile congregation. The Church of the Gentiles, it
may be truly said, was baptized in the blood of Stephen.
The doctrine, which Stephen preached and for which he died, Philip con-
was carried into practice by Philip. Tbe sacred narrative mentions verta
two incidents in his career, each marking an onward stride in the
free development of the Church. It is therefore not without signi
ficance that years afterwards we find him styled ' the Evangelist'
(xxi. 8), as if he had earned this honourable title by some signal ser
vice rendered ±0 the Gospel.
1. The Samaritan occupied the border land between the Jew(i)TheSa-
and the Gentile. Theologically, as geographically, he was the con- mantaIls >
necting link between the one and the other. Half Hebrew by race,
half IsrElfelite in his acceptance of a portion of the second canon, he
held an anomalous position, shunning and shunned by the Jew, yet
clinging to the same promises and looking forward to the same hopes.
With a bold venture of faith Philip offers the Gospel to this mon
grel people. His overtures are welcomed with joy, and ' Samaria
receives the word of God.' Tbe sacred historian relates moreover,
that his labours were sanctioned by the presence of the chief Apo
stles Peter and John, and confirmed by an outpouring of the Holy
Spirit (viii. 14 — 17). 'He who eats the bread of a Samaritan,' said
the Jewish doctor, 'is as one who eats swine's flesh1.' 'No Samari
tan shall ever be made a proselyte. They have no share in the resur
rection of the dead2.' In opening her treasures to this hated race, the
1 Mishnah Shebiith viii. 10. they (the elders) said: "Whosoever eats
2 Pirke Rabbi Elieser 38. The pas- the bread of a Cuthsean is as if he ate
sage so well illustrates the statement in swine's flesh ; and no Cuthsean shall ever
the text, that I give it in full: ' What did be made a proselyte : and they have no
EzraandZerubbabelthesonofShealtiel share in the resurrection of the dead;
and Jehoshua the son of Jehozadak? for it is said (Ezra iv. 3) Ye have nothing
(They went) and they gathered together to do with us to build an house unto
all the congregation into the temple of our God, (that is) neither in this world
the Lord, and they brought 300 priests nor in the future. And that they
and 300 children and 300 trumpets and should have neither portion nor inhe-
300 scrolls of the law in their hands, ritance in Jerusalem, as it is said (Neh.
and they blew, and the Levites sang ii. 20), But ye had no portion nor right
and played, and they banned the Cuth- nor memorial in Jerusalem. And they
seans (Samaritans) by the mystery of communicated the anathema to Israel
the ineffable name and by the writing which is in Babylon. And they put
which is written on the tables and by upon them anathema upon anathema.
the anathema of the upper (heavenly) And king Cyrus also decreed upon them
court of justice and by the anathema of an everlasting anathema as it is said
the nether (earthly) court of justice, (Ezra vi. 12), And the God that has
that no one of Israel should eat the caused His name to dwell there etc
bread of a Cuthsean for ever. Hence Several passages bearing on this subject
GAL. T9

290 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
Church had surmounted the first barrier of prejudice behind which
the exclusiveness of the nation had entrenched itself. To be a Sama
ritan was to have a devil, in the eyes of a rigid Jew (John viii. 48,
comp. iv. 9).
(2) The 2. Nor was it long before Philip broke through a second and
Ethiopian more formidable line 0f defence. The blood of the patriarchs, though
eunuch. # .
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 Ham1, shut out from the congregation by his physical defect
(Deut. xxiii. 1), tbe 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.
Conversion The venture of the subordinate minister however still wanted the
of Come- sancti0n of the leaders of the Church. At length this sanction was
iius, °
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 centu
rion 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, tbe usual sequence is reversed and
the outpouring of the Spirit precedes the rite of baptism (x. 44—48).
can^of The CaS6 °f 0ornelius does not> * think, differ essentially from
this event. *ne case of the Ethiopian eunuch. There is no ground for assuming
that the latter was a proselyte of the covenant. His mutilation ex
cluded him from the congregation by a Mosaic ordinance, and it is
an arbitrary conjecture that tbe definite enactment of tbe law was
are collected in the article 'Samaritan 1 Amos ix. 7 'Are ye not as the
Pentateuch,' by Mr E. Deutsoh, in children of the Ethiopians unto me, 0
bimth s Dictionary of the Bible. children of Israel.'

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 291
overruled by the spiritual promise of the prophet (Is. Ivi. 3—5).
This liberal interpretation at all events accords little with the narrow
and formal spirit of the age. Both converts alike had the inward
qualification of 'fearing God and working righteousness' (x. 35);
both alike were disabled by external circumstances, and the dis
abilities of the Ethiopian eunuch were even greater than those of the
Roman centurion. If so, the significance of the conversion of the
latter consists in this, that now in the case of the Gentile, as before
in the case of the Samaritan, the principle asserted by the Hellenist
Philip is confirmed by the Apostles of the Circumcision in the person
of their chief and sealed by the outpouring of the Spirit.
Meanwhile others were asserting the universality of the Church Preaching
elsewhere, if not with the same sanction of authority, at all events to Gentlle8
.,, 1 „ „-_. , , , . at Antioch.
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 conversions 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 innovaters were not He
brews but Hellenists, 'men of Cyprus and Cyrene' (xi. 20). Their
success 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 ljnrlstlans-
and contempt then, now the pride and glory of the civilised world.
Hitherto the believers had been known as 'Galileans' or 'Naza-
renes'; now they were called 'Christians.' The transition from 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 Cir
cumcision. Thus the first stage in the emancipation of the Church was The first
gained. The principle was broadly asserted that the Gospel received s'eP =am"
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,
19 — 2

292

Questionsyet unset
tled.

Saul of
Tarsus

goes to
Antioch;

Circumstances affecting
the mother
Church.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
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 neces
sarily elapse, for many misgivings have to be dissipated and many
impediments overcome.
So it was with the growth of Gentile Christendom. The Gen
tiles were no longer refused admission into the Church unless first
incorporated with Israel by the initiatory rite. But many questions
remained still unsettled. What was their exact position, when thus
received ? What submission, if any, must they yield to the Mosaic
law ? Should they be treated as in all respects on an equality with the
true Israelite ? Was it right for the Jewish Christian so far to lay
aside the traditions of his race, as to associate freely with his Gentile
brother 1 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 ap
pears on the scene. The mantle of Stephen has fallen on the perse
cutor of Stephen. Saul has been called to bear the name of Christ
to the Gentiles. Descended of pure Hebrew ancestry and schooled
in the law by the most famous of living teachers, born and residing
in a great university town second to none in its reputation for Greek
wisdom and learning, inheriting the privileges and the bearing of a
Roman citizen, he seemed to combine in himself all those varied
qualifications which would best fit him for this work. These wide
experiences, which had lain dormant before, were quickened into
thought and life by the lightning flash on the way to Damascus ;
and stubborn zeal was melted and fused into large-hearted and compre
hensive 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 An
tioch. Doubtless he seemed to all to be the fittest instrument for
carrying out the work so auspiciously begun.
Meanwhile events at Jerusalem were clearing the way for
his great work. The star of Jewish Christendom was already on
the wane, while the independence of the Gentiles was gradually
asserting itself. Two circumstances especially were instrumental in

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 293.
reversing the positions hitherto held by these two branches of the
Church. 1. It has been seen that the martyrdom of Stephen marked an (0 With-
epoch in the emancipation of tbe Church. The martyrdom of James theTpo-
the son of Zebedee is scarcely less important in its influence on her sties.
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 close1. 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.
2. About the same time another incident also contributed to W Famine
lessen her influence. A severe famine devastated Palestine and re- Gentile
duced the Christian population to extreme want. Collections were alms.
made at Antioch, and relief was sent to the brethren in Judsea. 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 Gen
tile Christians were conveyed by the hands of the Gentile Apostles,
and the Churches of Judsea laid themselves under fresh obligations to
the heathen converts.
Events being thus ripe, Saul still residing at Antioch is set apart
by the Spirit for the Apostleship of the Gentiles to which he had
been called years before.
The Gospel thus enters upon a new career of triumph. The New stage
primacy of the Church passes from Peter to Paul — from the Apostle °pe, e
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
1 See above, p. 126, note 1.

294

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

St Paul's
first mis
sionary
journey.

The ques
tion of cir
cumcision
raised.

Accountsof the con
ference.

Twofold results.

visited, its character is signally manifested in the conversion of the
Roman proconsul, Sergius Paulus. And soon it becomes evident that
the younger Church must supplant the elder. At Antioch in
Pisidia matters are brought to a crisis : the Jews reject the offer of
the Gospel ; the Gentiles entreat to hear the message. Thereupon
the doom is pronounced : ' It was necessary that the word of God
should first have been spoken to you ; but seeing ye put it from you
and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo we turn to the
Gentiles' (xiii. 46). The incidents at Pisidian Antioch foreshadow
the destiny which awaits the Gospel throughout the world. Every
where the Apostles deliver their message to the Jews first, and every
where the offer rejected by them is welcomed by the heathen. The
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
of Jewish and Gentile converts. All such questions, it would seem,
had been tacitly passed over, neither side perhaps being desirous of
provoking discussion. But the inevitable crisis at length arrives.
Certain converts, who had imported into the Church of Christ the
rigid and exclusive spirit of Pharisaism, stir up the slumbering feud
at Antioch, starting the question in its most trenchant form. They
desire to impose circumcision on the Gentiles, not only as a condition
of equality, but as necessary to salvation (xv. 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
the part taken by the leading Apostles in these controversies1, and
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
ference. These are twofold : First, the settlement of the points of
dispute between the Jewish and Gentile converts : Secondly, the
recognition of the authority and commission of Paul and Barnabas by
the Apostles of the Circumcision. It will be necessary, as briefly as
possible, to point out the significance of these two conclusions and

1 See above, p. 125 sq., and the notes on ii. 1— 10.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 295
to examine how far they were recognised and acted upon subse
quently. 1. The arrangement of the disputed points was effected by a The decree
mutual compromise. On the one hand it was decided once and for a ?ompro"
. mise.
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.'
The first of these decisions was a question of principle. If the Emanci-
initiatory rite of the old dispensation were imposed on all members of Patmg
, . , clause.
the Christian Church, this would be in effect to deny that the Gospel
was a new covenant ; in other words to deny its essential character1.
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 Restrictive
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 tbe 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 to
gether and brought under one prohibition : but this is perhaps
sufficiently explained by supposing the decree framed to meet some
definite complaint of the Jewish brethren. If in the course of the
hot dispute which preceded the speeches of the leading Apostles,
attention had been specially called by the Pharisaic party to these
detested practices, St James would not unnaturally take up the sub
ject and propose to satisfy them by a direct condemnation of the.
offences in question2.
1 See Ritschl p. 127. Jews. In this latter case iropveia will
2 This seems to me much simpler perhaps refer to unlawful marriage e.g.
than explaining the clauses as enforc- within the prohibited degrees of kindred
ing the conditions under which prose- (Levit: xvii. 18), as it is interpreted by
lytes of the gate were received by the Ritschl p. 129 sq., who ably maintains

296 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
The decree It would betray great ignorance of human nature to suppose that
edbySsome. a decision thus authoritatively pronounced must have silenced all
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.
Circumci- Even the question of circumcision, on which an absolute decision
sion still jja(j ]3eeil pronounced, was revived again and again. Long after, the
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.
The re- But while the emancipating clause of the decree, though express
stnctive an(j ^finite, was thus parried or resisted, the restrictive clauses were
clauses not
uniformly with much greater reason interpreted with latitude. The miscella-
enforced. neou3 character of these prohibitions showed that, taken as a whole,
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
St James, for much latitude in individual cases. St James, as the head of the
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-
Antioch verts (xxi. 25). At Antioch too and in the neighbouring Churches
neigh-6 °f Syria and Cilicia> t0 wllicn alone the Apostolic letter was addressed
bouring and on which alone therefore the enactments were directly bind-
churches. jng (xv. 23); it was doubtless long observed. The close communica
tion between these churches and Jerusalem would at once justify
this view. These difficulties of inter- evidence of the genuineness of the de-
pretation are to my mind a very strong cree.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 297
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 feeling (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 St Paul
two of tbe 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 therefore
is this : ' Do not sit down to a banquet celebrated in an idol's tem
ple. You may say that in itself an idol is nothing, that neither the
abstaining from meat nor the partaking of meat commends us to
God. All this I grant is true: but such knowledge is dangerous.
You are running the risk of falling into idolatry yourself, you are
certainly by your example leading others astray ; you are in fact
committing an overt act of treason to God, you are a partaker of
the tables of devils. On the other hand do not officiously inquire
when you make a purchase at the shambles or when you dine in
a private house : but if in such cases you are plainly told that
the meat has been offered in sacrifice, then abstain at all hazards.
Lay down this rule, to give no offence either to Jews or Gentiles
or to the churches of God' (1 Cor. viii. 1— 13, x. 14—22). This wise
counsel, if it disregards the letter, preserves the spirit of the decree,
which was framed for the avoidance of offence. But St Paul's
language shows that the decree itself was not held binding, perhaps
was unknown, at Corinth : otherwise the discussion would have
been foreclosed. Once again we come across the same topics in St John
the apocalyptic message to the Churches of Pergamos and Thyatira. Asiat;c
The same irregularities prevailed here as at Corinth: there was the churches.
temptation on the one hand to impure living, on the other to acts of
conformity with heathen worship which compromised their allegiance
to the one true God. Our Lord in St John's vision denounces them
through the symbolism of the Old Testament history. In the Church of
Pergamos were certain Nicolaitanes 'holding the doctrine of Balaam
who taught Balac to cast a stumbling-block before tbe children of
Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication (11.
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

298 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
herself a prophetess, and she teacheth and seduceth God's servants
to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols.' I see no
reason for assuming a reference here to the Apostolic decree. The
two offences singled out are those to which Gentile churches would
be most liable, and which at the same time are illustrated by the
Old Testament parallels. If St Paul denounces them independently
of the decree, St John may have done so likewise1. In the matter of
sacrificial meats indeed the condemnation of the latter is more absolute
and uncomijromising. 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 assumed2.
In both cases the practice was justified by a vaunted knowledge which
held itself superior to any such restrictions8. But at Corinth this temper
was still immature and under restraint : while in the Asiatic churches
it had outgrown shame and broken out into the wildest excesses4.

1 Yet the expression ob p&XXa i<j>'
bpds aXXo fidpos (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 peo
ple sat down to eat and drink, and rose
up to play: neither let us commit for
nication, as some of them committed,
and fell in one day three and twenty
thousand.' (2) If St John speaks ' of
casting a stumblingblock (aKai/SaXov)
before the children of Israel,' the whole
purport of St Paul's warning is ' to give
no offence' (prj UKavSaXl^eiv, viii. 13,
dirpbaKoiroi ylveaBai, x. 32). With all
these coincidences of matter and lan
guage, it is a strange phenomenon that
any critic should maintain, as Baur,
Zeller, and Schwegler have done, that
the denunciations in the Apocalypse are
directed against St Paul himself.
3 Comp. Apoo. ii. 24 cicroi ovk lxov-
aiv rijv SiSaxijv ra&rijv, o'lrives ovk ?7pw-
aav rd j3a8ia rov Xarava, iis X£-
yovaiv. 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 meaning
is illustrated by a passage in Hippoly
tus (Hares, v. 6, p. 94) relating to the

Ophites, who offer other striking resem
blances to the heretics of the Apostolic
age; irreKaXeaav iavrobs yvaarmobs,
tpdoKOVTes pbvoi rd (Uddrj yivdtrKeiv;
see also Iren. ii. 28. 9. St Paul's re
buke 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, to defer, to sym
pathize, even to encourage: and then
he turns round upon 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 fellowship with devils.'
4 The subject of elSuXoBvra 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. E. iv. 7) writing
against Basilides, and in Justin (Dial.
35> P- 253 n) who mentions the Ba3ili-
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
persecutions began, and the Christians
were required to deny their faith by
participating in the sacrifices, it became
a matter of extreme importance to avoid
any act of conformity, however slight.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 299
Thus then the decree was neither permanently nor universally Object of
binding. But there was also another point which admitted much the <rDaot;"
. x ments not
latitude of interpretation. What was understood to be the design of defined.
these enactments 1 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
terests; 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 tbe 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 tbe 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 St Paul's
points was the other result of these conferences, the recognition 0f authority
1 ° recognised.
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 tbe 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 cany weight with a large Continued
number of Jewish converts : but no sanction of authority could over- ^^."p^
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

300 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
to the Thessalonians, which were written too early to be affected by
this struggle, all his letters addressed to churches, with but one
exception1, 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. This 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.
Zeal for We have seen hitherto no signs of waning affection for the law
the law. in tne jewish converts to Christianity as a body. On the contrary
the danger which threatened it from a quarter so unexpected seems
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 cheek the encroachments of tbe Judaizing party. Only
here and there, in mixed communities, tbe 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- jewjsj1 C0ILverts, lacked these valuable lessons of daily experience.
SBFv£luC6 111
the mother Moreover the law had claims on a Hebrew of Palestine wholly inde-
Church. penfJent of his religious obligations. To him it was a national insti
tution, as well as a divine covenant. Under the Gospel he might
consider his relations to it in this latter character altered, but as
embodying the decrees and usages of his country it still demanded
his allegiance. To be a good Christian he was not required to be
a bad citizen. On these grounds the more enlightened members of
the mother church would justify their continued adhesion to the law.
Nor is there any reason to suppose that St Paul himself took a dif
ferent view of their obligations. The Apostles of the Circumcision
meanwhile, if conscious themselves that the law was fulfilled in the
Gospel they strove nevertheless by strict conformity to conciliate
the zealots both within and without the Church, were only acting
1 This exception, the Epistle to the churches, in which special references
Ephesians, may be explained by its cha- would be out of place.
racter as a circular letter to the Asiatic

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 30 1
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 tbey were left
in uncertainty as to the time and manner of this divine event, the
mysterious warnings of the Lord had placed the fact itself beyond a
doubt. They might well therefore leave all perplexing questions to
the solution of time, devoting themselves meanwhile to the practical
work which lay at their doors.
And soon the catastrophe came which solved the difficult problem. Pall of Je-
The storm which had long been gathering burst over the devoted
city. Jerusalem was razed to the ground, and the temple-worship
ceased, never again to be revived. The Christians foreseeing the
calamity had fled before the tempest; and at Pella, a city of the
Decapolis, in the midst of a population chiefly Gentile the Church
of the Circumcision was reconstituted. They were warned to flee,
said the story, by an oracle1: but no special message from heaven
was needed at this juncture; the signs of the times, in themselves
full of warning, interpreted by the light of the Master's prophecies
plainly foretold the approaching doom. Before the crisis came, they
had been deprived of the counsel and guidance of the leading Apostles.
Peter had fallen a martyr at Rome ; John had retired to Asia Minor ;
James the Lord's brother was slain not long before the great cata
strophe; and some thought that the horrors of the Flavian war were
the just vengeance of an offended God for the murder of so holy a
man2. He was succeeded by his cousin Symeon, the son of Clopas
and nephew of Joseph.
Under these circumstances the Church was re-formed at Pella. The church
Its history in the ages following is a hopeless blank3; and it would a
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
would be powerfully felt, in the change of opinion produced within Effect™^
the Church itself and in tbe altered relations between the converted
and unconverted Jews.
1 Euseb. H. E. iii. 5 «ari wa s The Church of Pella however con-
ypijvpbv rats avrbBi SoKipois Si' diroKa- tributed one author at least to the ranks
Zlpeas iKSoBtvra K.r.X. of early Christian literature m Anston
¦ Hegesippus in Euseb. H. E. ii. 23 the writer of an apology in the form of
KalevBbs'obeo-iraaiavbsiroXiopKeiavrois, a dialogue between Jason a, Hebrew
and the pseudo-Josephus also quoted Christian and Papiscus an Alexandrian
there, rira Si avp^ijKev 'lovSalois Jew: see Routh I. p. 93; One of his
Kar' iKSlKijaiv 'Uk^ov rod SiKalov k.t.X. works however was wruten after the

302 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
(i) The law (i) The loss of their great leaders at this critical moment was
power*8 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 tbe 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) Jews (2) At the same time it wholly changed their relations with
fans in ant" *'leir unconverted countrymen. Hitherto they had maintained such
agonism. 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
prayers1. 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
Bar-cochba rebellion, to which it alludes to Ariston. The name of the author
(Euseb. H. E. iv. 6) ; and from the pur- however is of little consequence, for the
port of the allusion we may infer that it work was clearly written by a Hebrew
was this very dialogue. The expulsion Christian not later than the middle of
of the Jews by Hadrian was a powerful the second century. Whoever he may
common-place in' the treatises of the have been, the writer was no Ebionite,
Apologists; see e.g. Justin Martyr Apol. for he explained Gen. i. 1, 'InEUio fecit
i. 47. On the- other hand it cannot Deus coelum et terram' (Hieron. Qucest.
have been written long after, for it was Hebr. in Gen., in. p. 305, ed. Vail.);
quoted by Celsus (Orig. c. Ceh. iv. 52, and the fact is important, as this is the
p. 544, Delarue). The shade of doubt earliest known expression of Hebrew
which rests on the authorship of this Christian doctrine after the canonical
dialogue is very slight. Undue weight writings, except perhaps the Testaments
seems to be attributed to the fact of of the Twelve Patriarchs.
its being quoted anonymously; e. g. in 1 See especially Graetz Geschichte
Westcott's Canon, p. \o6, Donaldson's der Juden iv. p. 112 sq. The antago-
Christian Literature etc. II. p. 58. If nism between the Jews and Christians
I am right in conjecturing that the at this period is strongly insisted upon
reference to the banishment of the by this writer, whose account is the
Jews was taken from this dialogue, more striking as given from a Jewish
Eusebius himself directly attributes it point of view.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 303
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
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
people must have worked as leaven in the minds of the Christians .
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 tbe Gospel to tbe 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 mo
derated extreme tendencies and to whom all would have looked in
stinctively for counsel and instruction, had passed away from the
scene. One personal follower of the Lord however still remained,
Symeon the aged bishop, who bad succeeded James1. At length Symeon,
. .V, r. .*. 1 , j son of Clo-
he too was removed. After a long tenure of office he was martyred pag
at a very advanced age in the ninth year of Trajan. His death, AiD< I06.
according to Hegesippus, was tbe signal for a shameless outbreak
of multitudinous heresies, which had hitherto worked underground,
the Church having as yet preserved her virgin purity undented3.
Though this early historian has interwoven many fabulous details
in his account, there seems no reason to doubt the truth of tbe
broad statement, confirmed as it is from another source3, that this
epoch was the birth-time of many forms of dissent in tbe 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
at length completed by the advent of another crisis. By this second
1 Hegesippus in Euseb. H. E. iv. 22. dpa pjjtpi rdv rbre xpoW irapBivos Ka-
This writer also mentions grandsons of Bapd Kal abid^Bopos tpeivev 1, iKKXijirla,
Jude the Lord's brother as ruling over iv dSr)Xa irov eKorei QaXevovrav elain
the churches and surviving till the time rbre rdv, el Kal nves vrrrjpXov, irapa^del-
Of Trajan ; H. E. iii. 32. peivinXeipo6vTav K.r.X. comp iv. 22.
« Euseb. H. E. iii. 32 ^'Xiyei &t " See below, p. 3", note 5-

304 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
catastrophe the Church and the law were finally divorced; and the
malcontents who bad hitherto remained within the pale of the'
Church became declared separatists.
Rebellion A revolution of the Jews broke out in all the principal centres of
of ??r" the dispersion. The flame thus kindled in the dependencies spread
cochba. r L ^
a d J,,- later to the mother country. In Palestine a leader started up,
i3S- professing himself to be the long promised Messiah, and in reference
to the prophecy of Balaam styling . himself ' Bar-cochba,' ' the Son of
the Star.' We have the testimony of one who wrote while these
scenes of bloodshed were still fresh in men's memories, that the
Christians were the chief sufferers from this rebel chieftain1. 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-coehba 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 re
bellion was trampled out and tbe severest vengeance taken on the
insurgents. The practice of circumcision and the observance of the
sabbath — indeed all the distinguishing marks of Judaism — -were
visited with the severest penalties. On the other hand the Chris
tians, as the avowed enemies of the rebel chief, seem to have been
iElia Ca- favourably received. On the ruins of Jerusalem Hadrian had built
pitohna. his new city ^Elia Capitolina. Though no Jew was admitted within
sight of its walls, the Christians were allowed to settle there freely2.
Now for tbe first time a Gentile bishop was appointed, and the Church
of Jerusalem ceased to be tbe Church of the Circumcision 3.
The church The account of Eusebius seems to imply that long before this
tuteT l" disastrous outbreak of the Jews the main part of the Christians
had left their retirement in Pella and returned to their original
home. At all events he traces the succession of bishops of Jeru
salem in an unbroken line from James the Lord's brother until the
foundation of the new city4. If so, we must imagine the Church
1 Justin Apol. i. 31, p. 72 B, iv rip 3 Sulpicius Severus (H. S. ii. 31)
vvv yeyevrjpivip'IovbaXKip iroXipip Bapx"- speaking of Hadrian's decree says,
Xifias 6 rrjs 'lovSalav dirotrrdaeas dp- ' Quod quidem Christianas fidei profioie-
xnyirns Xpionavobs jiovovs els njiaplas bat, quia turn pene omnes Christum
Seivds, el jitj dpvdivTo 'Iijtrow rbv Xpiarbv Deum sub legis observatione credebant ;
Kal j3Xao-<pijpo'lev, iKiXevev dvayeaBai. nimirum id Domino ordinante disposi-
2 Justin Apol. i. 47, p. 84 B, Dial. turn, ut legis servitus a libertate fidei
II0> P- 337 D; Ariston of Pella in atque ecclesias tolleretur.'
Euseb. H.E. iv. 6; Celsus in Orig. c. * H. E. iii. 32, 35, iv. 5. Eusebius
Cels. via. 69. seems to narrate all the incidents affect-

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

3°5

once more scattered by this second catastrophe, and once more re
formed when the terror was past. But, the Church of ^Elia 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 Gentiles1. 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 Judaiz-
there were others who clung to the law of their -forefathers with a "^ seots-
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

grounds2. ing the Church of the Circumcision dur
ing this period, as taking place not at
Pella but at Jerusalem.
1 Euseb. H. E. iv. 6 rrjs avrb&i Ik-
KXijalas e£ iBvdv avyKpornBelans.
a.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-communion
and a means of salvation (Dial. c.
Tryph. § 47; see Schliemann Clement.
P- 553 S<1-)- 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 definite
account of both sects is given by the
fathers of the. fourth century, especially
Epiphanius and Jerome, who distinguish
them by the respective names of ' Na-
zarenes' and 'Ebionites.' Irenaeus (i. 16.
2), Tertullian (cie Pressor. 33), and Hip
polytus (Hcsr. vii. 34, p. 257), contem
plate only the second, whom they call
Ebionites. The Xazarenes 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
GAL.

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 ('E/3iawcuoi dixipbrepoi) 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
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. E. iii. 27), seems to have
taken his account wholly from Iren»us
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 (Staudlin u. Tzschirner Archiv fiir
Kirchengesch. IV. p. 279 sq., 1819), the
distinction has been generally recog
nised. A succinct and good account of
these sects of Judaizers will be found in
Schliemann Clement, p. 449 sq., where
the authorities are given ; but the dis-.
20

306 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
Nazarenes. j. The Nazarejtes appear at the close of the fourth centuiy as
a small and insignificant sect dwelling beyond the Jordan in Pella
and the neighbouring places1. 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 tbe abandonment of the
law seemed too heavy a price to pay for Roman forbearance 1
Their The account of their tenets is at all events favourable to this
tenets. inference2. They held themselves bound to the Mosaic ordinances,
rejecting however all Pharisaic interpretations aud additions. Ne
vertheless they did not consider the Gentile Christians under the
same obligations or refuse to hold communion with them ; and in
the like spirit, in this distinguished from all other Judaizing sec
tarians, they fully recognised the work and mission of St Paul3, It
is stated moreover that they mourned over the unbelief of their
fellow-countrymen, praying for and looking forward to the time
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 else4': 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.
Their rela- Thus they were distinguished from other Judaizing sects by a
Twelve.**16 lofti6r concePtio11 of the person of Christ and by a frank recognition
covery of the work of Hippolytus has conantur: Adveniente Christo et pras-
aince thrown fresh light on the Essene dicatione illius coruscante prima terra
Ebionites. The portion of Hitachi's work Zabulon et terra Nephthali scribarum
(p. 152 sq.) relating to these sects should et Pharisasorura est erroribus liberate et
be consulted. gravissimum traditionum Judaicarum
1 Epiphan. Harts, xxix. 7; comp. jugumexcussit de cervicibus suis. Post-
Hieron. de Vir. III. § 3. ea autem per evangelium apostoli Pau-
2 See the_ account in Schliemann li, qui novissimus apostolorum omnium
p. 445 sq., with the authorities there fuit, ingravata est, id est, multiplicata
given, and compare Ritschl p. 152 prajdicatio; et in terminos gentium et
B1- viam universi maris Christi evangelium
3 Hieron. in Is. ix. 1 (iv. p. 130), splenduit.'
-'NazarEei...hunc locum ita explanare 4 Hares, xxx. g.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

30Z

of the liberty of the Gentile Churches and th« 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 tbe letter, they did not copy tbe 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 l?™!? 1
' Testaments of the twelve Patriarchs-' ' was certainly written after Patriarchs.
the capture of Jerusalem by Titus and probably before the rebellion
of Bar-cochba, but may be later2. 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

1 It is printed in Grabe's Spicil. SS.
Patr. I. p. 145 sq. (ed. 2, 1700), and in
Fabricius Cod. Pseudepigr. Vet. Test. 1.
p. 519 sq. (ed. /i, 1722), and has re
cently been edited with an introductory
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 Strasburg. Beitr. z.
den Theol. Wissensch. in. p. 107 (185 1),
and with characteristic honesty he with
drew it in his second edition, attributing
the work to a Nazarene author (p. 172
sq.). Meanwhile Ritschl's first view
had been adopted in a. monograph by
'Vorstman Disquis. de Test, xii Patr.
(Roterod. 1857), and defended against
Kayser. The whole tone and colouring
of the book however seem to show very
plainly that the writer was a Jewish
Christian, and the opposite view would
probably never have been entertained
but for the preconceived 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 main
tained the Judaic authorship (Kayser
for instance, 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. u. n (the prophecy

about St Paul) was a later addition to
the work' (Gesch. d. Volkes Isr. vn. p.
329), and certainly such arbitrary as
sumptions would render criticism hope
less. 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. p. 333)-
2 The following dates have been
assigned to it by recent critics; a.d.
100-135 (Dorner), 100-120 (Wieseler),
133-163 (Kayser), 100-150 (Nitzsch,
Liicke), 117-193 (Gieseler),, 100-200
(Hase), about 150 (Reuss), 90-1 10 (E-
wald). These dates except the last are
taken from Vorstman p. 19 sq., who
himself places it soon after the fall of
Jerusalem (A. D. 70). The frequent re
ferences to this event fix the earliest
possible date, while the absence of any
allusion to the rebellion of Bar-cochba
seems to show that it was written
before that time. It is directly named
by Origen (Horn, in Jos. XV. 6), and
probably was known to Tertullian (c.
Marc. v. 1, Scorpiace 13), and (as I be
lieve) even earlier to Irenaeus (Fragm.
17, p. 836 sq. Stieren).
20 — 2

308 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
it offers a remarkable parallel, that to a strong Israelite feeling it
Hebrew unites the fullest recognition of the Gentile Churches. Our Lord is
sympa- represented as the renovator of the law1: 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 source2. Nay more ; the sympathies of
the writer are not only Judaic but Levitical. The Messiah is repre
sented as a descendant not of Judah only but of Levi also ; thus he
is high priest as well as king3; but his priestly office is higher than
his kingly, as Levi is greater than Judah4: the dying patriarchs one
after another enjoin obedience to Levi : to the Testament of Levi
are consigned the most important prophecies of all : the character of
Levi is justified and partially cleansed of the stain which in the Old
Testament narrative attaches to it5. Yet notwithstanding all this,
united the admission of the Gentiles into the privileges of tbe covenant is a
with liberal constant theme of thanksgiving with the writer, who mourns over
principles. ° ° .
the falling away of the Jews but looks forward to their final restitu
tion. And into tbe mouth of the dying Benjamin he puts a pro
phecy foretelling an illustrious descendant who is to ' arise in after
days, beloved of tbe Lord, listening to His voice, enlightening all the
Geutiles 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 ever6.'
1 Levi 10 dvaKaivorrotovvra rbv vopov 'lobSav, Judas 21 Kal vvv riKva jiov dya-
h> Svvd/Jiei bxplarov. 'The law of God, Trr/oare rbv Aevt...ipol ydp IBaKC Kvpios
the law of the Lord,' are constant ttJv (3ao-iXelav KaKelvip rijv leparelav Kal
phrased with this writer; Levi 13, 19, brrira^e rrjv fiaaiXeiav rff lepaabvy ipol
Judas 18, 26, Issach. 5, Zabul. IO, Dan ISuKe rd irrl rrjs yijs KaKelvip rd iv
6, Gad 3, Aser 2, 6, 7, Joseph il, Benj. ovpavols, ib. 25 Aevt irparos, Seorepos
1 o : see also Nepht. 8. His language iu iyw, Nepht. 5 Aevt iKpdrrjae rbv ijXiov
this respect is formed on the model of Kal 'lo65as tpddcas irrlaae rrjv aeXrjvijv.
the Epistle of St James, as Ewald re- 5 Levi 6, 7.
marks (p. 329). Thus the law of God 6 Benj. 11. Besides this prophecy
with him 'is one with the revealed will the work presents several coincidences
of God and he never therefore under- of language with St Paul (see Vorst-
stands it in the narrow sense of a Jew man p. 115 sq.), and at least one quo-
or even of an Ebionite.' tatiun, Levi 6 fipBao-e Si ij dpyr) Kvpiov
2 See Ewald Gesch. I. p. 490. cV avrobs els riXos, from 1 Thess. ii. 16.
s Simeon 5, 7, Issach. 5, Dan 5, On the whole however the language in
Nepht. 6, 8, Gad 8, Joseph 19, besides the the moral and didactic portions takes its
parages referred to in the next note. colour from the Epistle of St James,
4 Ruben 6 irpbs rbv Aevt eyylaare... and in the prophetic and apocalyptic
avrbs ydp ebXoyjjaei rbv 'lapaijX /col to from the Revelation of St John.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 309
2. But besides these Nazarenes, there were other Judaizing Ebionites.
sects, narrow and uncompromising, to whose principles or prejudices
language such as I have just quoted would be most abhorrent.
The Ebionites were a much larger and more important body Their te-
than the Nazarenes. They were not confined to the neighbourhood net8,
of Pella or even to Palestine and the surrounding countries, but were
found in Eome and probably also in all the great centres of the
dispersion1. 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
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 per
formance of the law8.
If the Nazarenes might have claimed some affinity to the Apo- Relation to
sties of the Circumcision, the Ebionites were the direct spiritual ^ "i . n1_
descendants of those false brethren, the Judaizers of the apostolic apostolic
age, who first disturbed the peace of the Antiochene Church and then age'
dogged St Paul's footsteps from city to city, everywhere thwarting his
efforts and undermining his authority. If Ebionism was not primi
tive Christianity, neither was it a creation of the second century. As
an organization, a distinct sect, it first made itself known, we may sup
pose, in the reign of Trajan : but as a sentiment, it bad been har
boured 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 Judai
zers were tolerated for a time themselves. The beginning of the
second century was a winnowing season in the Church of the Circum
cision. The form of Ebionism3, which is most prominent in early writers Another
and which I have hitherto had in view, is purely Pharisaic; but we j^^"
' Epiphan. Hares, xxx. 18. Kal avrbv bpolas dvdpwirov elvai irdaiv
2 Eor the opinions of these Ebion- Xiyovaiv.
ites see the references in Schliemann 3 The following opinions were shared
p. 481 sq., and add Hippol. Hcer. vii. by all Ebionites alike: (1) The recogni-
34 el ydp Kal trepbs to ireiroii}Ki rd iv tion of Jesus as Messiah ; (2) The denial
vbpa irpoareraypiva, jv &v iKeivos b of His divinity ; (3) The universal obh-
Xaunbv SbvaoBai Si Kal iavrobs bpolas gation of the law; (4) The rejection and
vonjo-avras Xpiarobs yevicBai- koX ydp hatred of St Paul. Their differences

no

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

derived
from the
Essenes.

Its later
origin,

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
characteristic features of the Jewish sect as to place their parentage
almost beyond a doubt1: and moreover the bead quarters of these
heretics — the countries bordering on the Dead Sea — coincide roughly
with the head quarters of their prototype. This view however does
not exclude the working of other influences more directly Gnostic
or Oriental : and as this type of Ebionism seems to have passed
through different phases at different times, and indeed to have compre
hended 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 Ebionism
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
a later infection caught by external contact. In the Palestinian
Church at all events we see no symptoms of it during the apostolic
age. It is a probable conjecture, that after the destruction of Jeru
salem the fugitive Christians, living in their retirement in the neigh
bourhood of the Essene settlements, received large accessions to their
numbers from this sect, which thus inoculated the Church with its
peculiar yiews". 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 destruction of the
holy place3.'

oonsisted in (i) Their view of what con
stituted the law, and (2) Their concep
tion of the Person of Christ; e.g. whe
ther He was born of a Virgin or in the
course of nature; what supernatural
endowments He had and at what time
they were bestowed on Him, whether at
His birth or at His baptism, etc.
The Ebionites of earlier writers, as
Irenaeus and Hippolytus, belong to the
Pharisaic type ; while those of Epipha
nius are strongly 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.
Horn. iii. 15 great stress is laid on the.
fulfilment of these prophecies : comp.
also Clem. Recogn. i. 37 (especially in
the Syriac).
3 Clem. Horn. ii. 17 perd KaBatpeaiv
tou £7(011 toitou evayyiXiov dXi/Bis Kpvtpa
SiarreptpBrjvai els iiravopBuaiv rdv cVo-

ST PAUL AND THE THREE, 311
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.
This prominence is probably due in some measure to their greater but greater
literary capacity, a remarkable feature doubtless derived from the lite.ra.ry
speculative tendencies and studious habits of the Jewish sect1 to a°
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 Alexandria2,
to which the account of St Peter in the extant Clementines presents
a close parallel3.
And with greater literary activity they seem also to have united and zealous
greater missionary zeal. To this spirit of proselytism we owe much ?™se y "
important information relating to the tenets of the sect.
One of their missionaries early in the third century brought to
Rome a sacred book bearing the name of Elchasai or Elxai, whence
also the sect were called Elcbasaites. This book fell into the hands
of Hippolytus the writer on heresies4, from whom our knowledge of Book of
it is chiefly derived. It professed to have been obtained from the ¦Il'lcnasal-
Seres, a Parthian tribe, and to contain a revelation which had been
first made in the third year of Trajan (a.d. 100). These Seres hold
the same place in the fictions of Essene Ebionism, as the Hyperbo
reans in Greek legend : they are a mythical race, perfectly pure and
therefore perfectly happy, long-lived and free from pain, scrupulous
in the performance of all ceremonial rites and thus exempt from the
penalties attaching to their neglect5. Elchasai, an Aramaic word
pivav alpiaeav. comp. Clem. Recogn. (1853), the substance of which is given
i- 37, *M> iii- 61 (in the Syriac, as be- also in the second edition of his Alt-
low, p. 316, note 3). See also Epiphan. katholische Kirche. Hilgenfeld has re-
Hares. xxx. 2. ceutly edited the fragments of the book
1 Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 6. of Elxai in his Novum Testamentum ex-
2 Padag. ii. 1 (p. 174 Potter), where tra Canonem Receptum, fasc. in. p. 153
St Matthew is said to have lived on sq. (1866). The use made of it by
seeds, berries, and herbs, abstainiugfrom Epiphanius is investigated by Lipsius,
animal food. See Ritschl p. 224. Quellenkritik des Epiphan. p. 143 sq.
3 Clem. Horn. xii. 6, comp. viii. 5, 5 Clem. Recogn. viii. 48, ix. 19. Even
XT- » in classical writers the Seres or Chinese
4 Hares, ix. 13. See a valuable are invested with something of an ideal
paper on the Elcbasaites by Ritschl in character: e.g. Plin. vi. 24, Strabo xv.
Niedner's Zeilschrift iv. p. 573 sq. p. 70 r, Mela iii. 7. But in the passage

312 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
signifying the 'hidden power1,' 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 re
ceived the revelation, the founder of the sect. ' Elchasai,' adds this
father, ' delivered it to a certain person called SobiaL' Here again
he was led astray by his ignorance of Aramaic : Sobiai is not the
iiame of an individual but signifies ' tbe sworn members2,' to whom
alone the revelation was to be communicated and who perhaps,
like their Essene prototypes3, 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
Its pre- Ebionism or not, it is unimportant for my purpose to enquire. The
dte pretended era of this revelation is of more consequence. Whether
the book itself was really as early as the reign of Trajan or whether
the date was part of the dramatic fiction, it is impossible to decide4.
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 5.
Without attempting to discriminate the different forms of doc-
which most strikingly illustrates this (Gesch. VII. p. 159) derives Sobiai from
fact (Geogr. Grac. Min. 11. p. 514, ed. ' ° .
Mttller) the name disappears when the ' ' S*^ *-e- Perioral.
text is correctly read ('se regentes,'.and 3 Joseph. B. J. ii. 8, 7.
not 'Serss gentes'). 4 Hilgenfeld (p. xxi) maintains the
1 1DD 7TI. Epiphanius correctly early date very positively against Ritschl.
explains it Svvapis KeKaXvppivn, Har. Lipsius (I. c.) will not pronounce an
xix. 2. See Bitschl I. c. p. 581, and opinion.
Altkath. Eirche p. 245. Other ex- 6 See above, p. 303. In the passage
planations of the word, given in Hil- there quoted Hegesippus speaks of these
genfeld I.e. p. 156, in M. Nicolas Eran- heresies 'as living underground, bur-
giles Apocryphes p. 108 (1866), and by rowing (tpaXevovrav)' until the reign of
Geiger Zeitsch. der Deutsch. Morgenl. Trajan. This agrees with the statement
Gesellsch. xviii. p. 824 (1864), do not in the Homilies (ii. 17) already referred
recommend themselves. The name is to (p. 310, note 3), that the true Gospel
differently written in Greek, HXxctcrcu, (i.e. Essene Ebionism) was first 'secretly
EXicecrcu and HX£ai. The first, which propagated ' after the destruction of the
is most correct, is found in Hippolytus temple. The opinions which had thus
who had seen the book. been progressing stealthily now showed
2 From J}2^. Accordingly Hippo- a bold front : but whether the actual
lytus (ix. 17) relates that the Elcha- organization of the sect or sects took
saite missionary Alcibiades made a place now or at a still later date (after
mystery of his teaching, forbidding it the rebellion of Barcochba), it is impos-
to be divulged except to the faithful ; Bible to say.
see Ritschl I.e. p. 589. Ewald however

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 313
trine which this Essene Ebionism comprised in itself — to point out
for instance the distinctive features of the book of Elchasai, of the
Homilies, and of the Recognitions respectively — it will be sufficient Essene
to observe the broad line of demarcation which separates the Essene Ebionites
from the Pharisaic type1. Laying almost equal stress with the guished
others on the observance of the law as an essential part of Christi- J!™? a"
¦*¦ riBLllCj
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 — cutting
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 bad 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 tbe 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 Paul2.
If the Pharisaic Ebionites are the direct lineal descendants of and allied
the 'false brethren' who seduced St Paul's Galatian converts from ^.^ h°"_
their allegiauce, the Essene Ebionites bear a striking family likeness retics.
to those other Judaizers against whom he raises his voice as endan
gering the safety of the Church at Colossse.
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 Boman bishop Clement. These are pre- Clemen-
served in two forms : the Homilies, extant in the Greek, apparently ^m^
an uniform and original work, which perhaps may be assigned to the
middle or latter half of the second century ; and the Becognitions a
composite production later than the Homilies, founded, it would
1 The chief authorities for the Es- Elchasai; and the Clementine writings.
sene Ebionites are Epiphanius {Bar. xix, 2 See Epiphan. Bar .xxx. 16, 25,
xxx) ; Hippolytus (Har. ix. tj-i?) and Orig. ap. Euseb. I c. rbv dirocroXov ri-
Oriden (Euseb. H.E. vi. 38), whose Xeov dBerei ; besides the passages 11 1 the
accounts refer especially to the book of Clementine writings quoted in the text.

;h

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

Attack on

the Homi
lies.

appear, partly on them and partly on other documents; and known to
us through the Latin translation of Bufinus, who avowedly altered
his original with great freedom1.
In the Homilies Simon Magus is the impersonation of manifold
fil^nLT beresy, and as such is refuted and condemned by St Peter. Among
other false teachers, who are covertly denounced in his person, we
cannot fail to recognise the lineaments of St Paul2. Thus St Peter
charges bis 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 witnesses3 ; 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-

1 The only complete editions of the
Homilies are those of Dressel, dementis
Romani qua feruntur Homilia Viginti
(1853), and of de Lagarde, Clementina
(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 print
ed several times may be read most con
veniently in Gersdorf's edition (Lips.
1838). A Syriac version lately published
by de Lagarde (dementis Romani Recog-
nitiones 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
measure the liberties which Rufinus
took with his original. An important
instance of his arbitrary treatment will

be given below, p. 316, note 3. Two
abridgments of the Homilies are extant.
These have been edited by Dressel, Cle-
mentinorum Epitomw dua (Lips. 1859),
one of them for the first time. Of the
many able monographs which have ap
peared on the relations between the dif
ferent Clementine writings, the treatise
of Uhlhorn, Die Homilien und Recog-
nilionen etc. (Gbttingen, 1854), seems to
me on the whole the most satisfactory.
It is dangerous to express an opinion
where able critics are so divided; and
the remarks in the text are not hazarded
without some hesitation. Baur, Schlie
mann, Schwegler, and TJhlhorn, give
the priority to the Homilies, Hilgenfeld
and Ritschl to the Recognitions, while
Reuss and others decline to pronounce
a decided opinion.
2 See on this subject Schliemann
Clement, pp. 96 sq., 534 sq. : comp.
Stanley's Corinthians, p." 366 sq. (2nd
ed.). 3 Kal perd paprbpav TrpoaeXijXvBbra.
It is needless to insert prj with Schlie
mann and Schwegler : the negative is
carried on from the former clause prj
irpbrepov dvnfidXXovTa.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 315-
mendatory letters' (2 Cor., iii. 1) and to the scene on the way to"
Damascus (Acts ix. 3) are clear. In another passage St Peter, after
explaining that Christ must be preceded by Antichrist, the true pro
phet by the false, and applying this law to the preaching of Simon
and himself, adds : ' If he had been known (el iyivao-Kero) be 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 1 If thou sayest be can, then why did the
Teacher abide and converse with us a whole year when we were awake ]
And how shall we ever believe thee in this, that He was seen of thee ]
Nay, how could He have been seen of thee, when thy thoughts are
Contrary to His teaching ? If having been seen and instructed of
Him for a single hour thou wast made an Apostle, then preach His
words, expouud His teaching, love His Apostles, do not fight against
me His Companion. Eor thou hast withstood and opposed me (evav-
tios c\vde.<TTr)Ka.s p.ot), 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 (/caTa-yvcoo-0eVros) and thou wert highly re
garded1. Nay, if thou callest me condemned (Kareyvwo-pevov), thou
aecusest God who revealed Christ to me and assailest Him that called
me blessed in my revelation" (xvii. 1 9).' In this same bitter spirit the
writer would rob him of all his missionary triumphs and transfer
them to his supposed rival : the Apostleship of the Gentiles, accord
ing to the Homilies, belongs not to St Paul but to St Peter : Barnabas
1 The existing text has Kal ipav neat emendation. Some change how-
evSoKipovvros, for which some have pro- ever is absolutely needed.
posed to read Kal prj evSoKipovvros. It 3 tov iirl diroKaXb\j/ei fiaKaplaavros
is better perhaps to substitute crou or pe. The allusion is to Matt. xvi. 17,
ovSapov for ipov, though . neither is a jmKdpios el k.t.X.

Peter,

316 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
is no more the companion nor Clement the disciple of St Paul but of
St Peter1.
, the Again in the letter of Peter to James prefixed to the Homilies,
Letter of emanating from the same school though perhaps not part of the
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 (rov i)(8pov dvdptoircrv avopqv nva Kal
<pXvapw8rj SiSacr/caXiW), complaining also that ' certain persons at
tempted by crafty interpretations to wrest his words to the abolish
ing of tbe law, pretending that this was bis opinion, but that he did
not openly preach it,' with more to the same effect (§ 2).
in the Re- In the Recognitions, a later patch-work2, the harsher features of
cognitions, £}je Essene-Ebionite doctrine, as it appears in the Homilies, are
softened down, and these bitter though indirect attacks on St Paul
omitted ; whether by the original redactor or by his translator Ru
finus, it is not easy to say 3. Thus in the portions corresponding to
and probably taken from the Homilies no traces of this hostility
remain. But in one passage adopted from another work, probably
tbe 'Ascents of James4,' 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
1 See also other references to St pivov els iiriarpoipTjv, Srav iKpifaBrj rb
Paul noted above p. 61. &yiov Kal els rty ipr)pacriv abrov 8i)aovai
2 Not much earlier than the begin- rb f3SiXvypa : see Dan. ix. 27, and com-
ning of the third century ; for a portion p-ire Clem. Horn. ii. 17 (quoted above
of the treatise deFato, discovered of late p. 310, note 3). Thus the commenda-
in a Syriac version and written either tion of St Paul, which is wholly alien
by Bardesanes or by one of his disciples, to the spirit of these Clementine writ-
is worked up in the later books. i"fis, disappears.
3 In one instance at least the change 4 Uhlhorn, p. 366. Epiphanius men-
is due to Rufinus himself. His trans- tions this book, avafSaBjiol 'laKitipov, as
lation of Clem. Recogn. iii. 61 contains being in circulation among the Ebionites
a distinct recognition of St Paul's A- (xxx. 16). It was so called doubtless
postleship, ' Nonum (par) omnium gen- as describing the ascents of James up
tium et illius qui mittetur seminare the temple stairs, whence he harangued
verbum inter gentes.' (On these crt/fu- the people. The name and the dp-
ylai of the false and the true see above scription of its contents in Epiphanius
p. 315). But the corresponding pas- alike favour the view that it was the
sage in the Syriac version (p. 115, 1. 20, original of this portion of the Recogni-
Lagarde) is wholly different, and trans- tions. But if so, the redactor of the
lated back into Greek will run thus : ij Recognitions must have taken the same
Si ivvdrn (avfvyla) tov airippxiTos rav liberties with it, as he has done with
fifavluv Kal rov evayyeXiov rov irepiro- the Homilies.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE 317
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)1. The original work, from which this
portion of the Eecognitions seems to have been borrowed, was much and in the
more violent and unscrupulous in its attacks on St Paul ; for in the j scen 8 u
'Ascents of James' Epiphanius read the story, that he was of Gen
tile parentage, but coming to Jerusalem and wishing to marry tbe
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 (Hceres. xxx. 16).
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 s
emissary of the sect, one Alcibiades of Apamea in Syria, appeared
in Rome with the pretended revelation of Elchasai, and (thinking at Rome,
himself tbe better juggler of the two, says Hippolytus) half sue- 21t/_^t,
ceeded in cajoling tbe pope Callistus, but was exposed and defeated
by tbe zealous bishop of Portus who tells the story (Hares, ix. 13 — 17).
Not many years after another emissaiy, if it was not this same and Csesa-
Alcibiades, appears to have visited Csesarea, where he was confronted ^"^ 2^
and denounced by Origen2.
This display of activity might lead to an exaggerated estimate The
of the influence of these Judaizing sects. It is not probable that of PaIe8.
they left any wide or lasting impression west of Syria. In Palestine tine not
, , r. , , j. ¦ 1 iv Ebionite.
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 .Mia Capitolina the Chris
tianity of Palestine seems to have been for the most part neither Ebion
ite nor Nazarene. It is a significant fact, implying more than appears
at first sight, that in the Paschal controversy, which raged in the ^^^
middle and later half of the second century the bishops of Caesarea ™n
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 Borne and Alexandria and Gaul which observed another
1 This passage is substantially the "nfe 82nd Psalm wh^appear^to
-it, * 38. This ex- S \7. See Redepenning Origenes
tract is taken from Origen's Homily u. 72.

3i8

ST PAUL AND THE- THREE.

Justin.

Hegesip pus,

rule ; thus avoiding even the semblance of Judaism1. 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
he expressly argues, maintaining the divinity of Christ2. On the
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 saved8.
If, as an apologist for the Gospel against Gentile and Jew, he is
precluded by the nature of his writings from quoting St Paul4, 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 writings5. 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
Borne, 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
preach6.' "Was the doctrine of the whole Christian world at this

1 Euseb. H.E. v. 23, 24. See below,
p. 328, note 2.
2 Dial. cc. 48, 127.
3 Dial. cc. 47, 48.
4 See Westcott's argument (Canon
V- r35 s1-) drawn from the usage of
other apologists, Tertullian for instance,
who does not quote even the Gospels in
his apology.
5 See the introduction p. 60, and
the notes on iii. 28, iv. 27.
6 In Euseb. H. E. iv. 22. The ex
tract ends, yevopevos Si iv 'Pdy.w SiaSo-
Xijv iiroino-dpijv pexpis 'AviKrjrov oiT Sid-
kovos ijv "EXebdepoS" Kal irapd ' AviKryrov
SiaSixerai Zwrrjp, peB' Sv'EXeiBepos- iv
iKdtrrn Si SiaSoxy Kal iv iKdtrrrj irbXei
ovras %xet «">s b vo/ios Kijpbrrei Kal ol
irpotprjrai koI b Kvpios. If the text be
correct, SiaSoxijv iiroiijadprjv must mean
' I drew up a list or an account of the
successive bishops' (see Pearson in

Routh I. 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 supplements.
Possibly however the conjectural read
ing Siarpifiijv irroiijtrdpijv, ' I continued
to reside' may be correct : but the trans
lation of Rufinus, ' permansi inibi (i. e,
Romae) donee Aniceto Soter et Soteri
successit Eleutherus,' 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 retain 81060x771', the words of He
gesippus would still seem to imply that
he left Rome during the episcopate of
Anicetus. Eusebius indeed (H. E. iv.
11) infers, apparently from this passage,
that he remained there till Eleutherus
became bishop; and Jerome (de vir. ill

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 319
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 not an
speaks of Hegesippus as 'having recorded the unerring tradition of Eblomte-
the apostolic preaching (H. E. iv. 8)'; and classes him with Dio-
nysius of Corinth, Melito, Irenfeus, and others, as one of those in
whose writings ' the orthodoxy of sound faith derived from the apo
stolic tradition had been handed down1.' 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. E. 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 ascetic2; 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
Lord3'; but this is a natural equivalent for 'the Old and New Tes-
22), as usual, repeats Eusebius. This 318, note 6. For the inferences of the
inference, though intelligible, seems Tubingen school see Schwegler Nacha-
hardly correct; but it shows almost con- post. Zeitalter 1. p. 355, Baur Christen-
clusively that Eusebius did not read thum etc. p. 78. A parallel instance
Biarpipijv. The early Syriac translator will serve the purpose better than much
of Eusebius (see above, p. 272, note) argument. In a recent poem (Winfrid,
certainly read 5ici5oxi;<'. The dates of afterwards called Boniface, Camb. 1864)
the successive bishops as given by Dean the hero is spoken of, as 'Printing
Milman are, Pius 143, Anicetus 157, heaven's message deeper in his soul, By
Soter 168, Eleutherus 176 or 177, Vic- reading holy writ, Prophet and Law,
tor igo(?), Zephyrinus 202 (?), Callis- And fourfold Gospel.' Here, as in He-
tus 219, Urbanus 223. But there is gesippus, the law is mentioned and 'the
considerable variation, the accession of Apostle' is not. Yet who would say
Anicetus being placed by some as early that this passage savours of Ebionism?
as A.n. 150; see the lists in Clinton's Comp. Irenaeus Bar. 11. 30. 6 Rehn-
Fasti Romani 11. p. 534 eq- 1uentes elo1uia D°mml et .^ ?
1 H E iv 21 dv Kal els fads rrjs reliquos prophetas' and again m Spicil.
diroaroXiKijs irapabdaeas 1, rrjs byiovs Solesm. I. p. 3, and the Clement.ne
irlareas Hyypafos KarijXBev bpBoSo^la. Epistles to Virgins i 12 Sicut ex lege
* Euseb H. E. ii. 23. See the ac- ac prophetis et a Domino nostro Jesu
count of St James below. Christo didicimus ' (referred to by West-
3 See the passage ' quoted above, p. cott Canon p. 163, 2nd ed.).

320

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

Ebionismnot preva
lent in
ofher
churches.

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.1, 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 (i Cor. ii. 9). Many of the facts mentioned
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 tbe Hebrew Church in his
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
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,

1 The fragment to which I refer
is preserved in an extract from Stepha-
nus Gobarus given in Photius Bibl.'i$2.
After quoting the words rb. irroi/majiiva
rois SiKalois ayaBd otre bipBaXpbs eTSev
aire obs r)Kovirev obre iirl KapSlav dvBpd
irov dvi^rj, Stephanus proceeds, 'Hyrjanr-
iros pivroi, apxaibs re dvrjp koX dirvaro-
Xik'os, iv tQ iripnrrip ruv biropvrjindrav,
ovk bib1 6 n Kal iraBdv, pdrrjv jj.iv elprj&Bai
ravra Xiyei Kal Kara^/evSeaBai robs ravra
<j>apivovs rdv re Belav ypaipdv Kal tov
Kvpiov Xiyovros Mct/cetpioi oi b<p8a\pol
bjiibv k.t.X. It is not surprising that
this writer, who lived when Gnosticism
had passed out of memory, should be
puzzled to 'know what had come to
Hegesippus': but modern critics ought
not to have gone astray. Hegesippus
can hardly be objecting to the passage
itself, which is probably a quotation
from Is. lxiv. 4. His objection there
fore must be to some application of it.
But whose application? Even had there
been no direct evidence, it might have
been gathered from the argument which
follows that he referred to the esoteric
teaching of the Gnostics ; but the" lately

discovered treatise of Hippolytus estab
lishes 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 Valenlinus). This is the opinion of
Lechler p. 463, Ritschl p. 267, West-
cott Canon pp. 233, 315, Bunsen Hip
polytus I. p. 132 (2nd ed.), and Hilgen
feld Apost. Vdter. p. 102. Yet Baur
(Christenthum p. 77, Paulus p. 221),
and Schwegler (1. p. 352), forcing an
unnatural meaning on the words, con
tend that Hegesippus is directly deny
ing St Paul's claim, to a revelation and
asserting that this privilege belongs
only to those who have seen and
heard Christ in the flesh. It is worth
noticing that the same quotation, ' eye
hath not seen etc.', is found in the
Epistle of Clement (c. 34); and this
epistle was referred to by Hegesippus,
as the notice of Eusebius seems to
imply (H. E. iv. 22), with approval.
This very mention of Clement's epistle
is in itself a secondary evidence that
Hegesippus recognised the authority of
St Paul.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 321
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 tbe 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 : Irenseus bears
witness to tbe 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. Tbe 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 fgr
two centuries after. Tbe 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 TheChurch
Borne, if anywhere, we should expect to see very distinct traces of of Kome'
these successive phenomena, which are supposed to have extended
throughout or almost throughout the Christian Church— first the
supremacy of Ebionism— then tbe 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 Christianity1. Yet even if this were the history of Catho
licity at Borne, it would still be an unfounded assumption to extend
the phenomenon to other parts of Christendom. Borne 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
1 The episcopate of Victor (A.D. for his approval of this Church extends
190-202?) is fixed by the Tubingen to the episcopate of Eleutherus, the
critics (see Schwegler 11. p. 206 sq.) immediate predecessor of Victor : see
as the epoch of the antijudaio revolu- above, p. 318, ?°te 6. They suppose
tion in the Roman Church. This date however that the current had been
follows necessarily from their assump- setting in this direction some time be-
tion that Hegesippus was an Ebionite ; fore.
GAL. 2I

322 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
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 ten
dencies of the Boman Church during this period were towards
Heretics Ebionism. Her early history indeed is wrapt in obscurity. If the
congregate _^^ 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 Bome bad been the sink of all pagan
superstitions, so early Christian Bome 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 Bome.
Ebionism alone would not be idle, where all other heresies were
active. But the great hattle with this form of error seems to have
been fought out at an early date, in the life-time of the Apostles
themselves and in the age immediately following.
Secession The last notice of the Boman Church in the apostolic writings
of Juda- seems to point to two separate communities, a Judaizing Church
lzers. r r jo
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
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 law1. Thus 'in every way Christ
was preached.'
St Peter in If St Peter ever visited Bome, it must have been at a later
Rome. ,jate tjjan tliese notices of this visit, far from improbable in itself,
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
1 The inferences in the text are the circumcision) are my fellow-workers
drawn from Phil. i. 15-18, compared etc'
with Col. iv. 11 ' These only (i. e. of

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 323
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 Bome was large enough A twofold
to admit two communities or two sections in one community, until rch>
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 Bome were organized by the combined action
of the two Apostles. This fact seems to underlie the tradition that
St Peter and St Paul were joint founders of the Boman Church : and
it also explains the discrepancies in the lists of the early bishops,
which point to a 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 tbe one side would be met eagerly by
advances on tbe other. Hence at the close of the first century we united un-
see no more traces of a twofold Church. The work of the Apostles, meernt e"
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 Boman 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 Clement's
of the Boman Church cannot well be placed after the close of the Epistle.
first century and may possibly date some years earlier. It is not a.d. 97?
unreasonable to regard this as a typical document, reflecting tbe
comprehensive principles and large sympathies which had been im
pressed upon the united Church of Bome, 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,
21 — 2

324 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
at one time echoing the language of St Peter, at another repeating
the very words of the Epistle to the Hebrews1. 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.
Testimony Not many years after this epistle was written, Ignatius now on
of Igna- j^ way tQ martyr(j0ln addresses a letter to the Boman brethren. It
a.d. 107 ? 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 tbe honour of martyrdom by their intercessions. To
the Ephesians, and even to Polycarp, he offers words of advice and
warning; but to the Bomans he utters only the language of joyful
satisfaction2. 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 Boman Church during the first half of the second century3.
Shepherd In its general tone the Shepherd of Hermas confessedly differs
of Hermas from the Epistle of Clement ; but on the other hand the writer was
not Ebion- ....
ite. certainly no Ebionite, as he has been sometimes represented. If he
c a.d. 145. dwells almost exclusively on works, he yet states that the ' elect of
God will be saved through faith4': 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
1 See Westcott History of the Canon xpdparos).' This interpolator appears
p. 29 sq. in other passages as a stubborn oppo-
3 I assume that the Syriac repre- nent of Judaism, Magn. 8, 10, Philad.
sents the genuine Ignatius. The inter- 6. His date seems to be about A. D.
polator of the short Greek recension 140, as it is fixed by Lipsius Ueber die
distinctly acquits the Romans of any Aechtheit etc. in Niedner's Zeitschrift, I.
participation in heresy; he speaks of p. 3 sq. (1856). If so, his testimony
them as 'united in flesh and spirit with supplies a gap in our knowledge of the
every commandment of Christ, filled Roman Church.
with the grace of God inseparably, and 3 On the date of the Shepherd see
Btrained clear of every foreign colour above, p. 99, note 3.
(d7ro8ii;\io7ie'i'ois dwb iravrbs dXXorplov 4 Vis. iii. 8: comp. Mand. viii.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 325
Father in counsel at the founding of creation1,' and holds that the
world is 'sustained by Him'2. 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
times reflects : but tbe 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 supererogation3. "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 tbe devi
ation is the same in kind and not greater in degree than marks a
vast number of mediaeval writings, and may in fact be said to cha
racterize more or less distinctly the whole mediaeval 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 be 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. The Clementine writings have been assigned with great confi- Roman
dence by most recent critics of ability to a Boman authorship4. Of ^Cle-
1 Sim. ix. 12. The whole passage iXBaai roC Qeov.
is striking : YLpdrov, 4>rjpl, irdvrav, Kb- 2 Sim. ix. 14 rb tvopa. rov viov toO
pie, rovro poi Sr)Xao-ov ij irirpa Kal i, Qeov piya iirrl Kal dxdprjrov Kal rov
iriXrj rls ianv; 'H irirpa, ipijalv, avrn Koapov SXov §aard^ei. On the whole
ko.1 ii irvXrj b vlbs tov QeoC icrl. Jlds, subject see Dorner Lehre etc. 1. p. 186
iprjul, Kvpie, -h irirpa iraXaid ianv, i, Si sq., "Westcott Canon p. 220 sq._
TTtiXij Kaivrj ; "Alcove, ipijirl, Kal nbvie, 3 Sim. v. 3 : comp. Mand. iv. 4.
b piv vlbs rov Qeov irdo-ns rijs 4 So for instance Baur, Schliemann,

aavvere.

Krtaeas abrov irpoyeviarepos ianv, dare Ritschl, Hilgenfeld : and this view is
obpPovXov abrbv yevicBai rip irarpl rijs adopted by Dean Milman Latin Chns-
Krlo-eas abrov- Sid rovro Kal iraXaibs ia- tianity I. p. 31, who speaks of it as 'the
nv.'U Si irvXrj Sid rl Kaivr], <j>rjpl,Kbpie; unanimous opinion of those who in
"On, drrjo-lv, iir' i<rXdrav rdv ijpepSv rijs later days have critically examined the
awreXelas ipavepbs iyivero, Sid rovro, Clementina.' Uhlhorn is almost alone
law*, iyivero i, irbXr,, Iva ol piXXovres among recent critics in raising his voice
sd^enBai Si' avrijs els rijv pacriXelav el<r- against this general verdict: p. 370 sq.

32(5

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

mentines
questioned.

Their im
portance exagger
ated.

the truth of this view I am very far from convinced ; The great
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 Bome, 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
foreign churches1. 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 bis example enforce
the duty of obedience to the Church of the Circumcision, as the
prerogative Church and the true standard of orthodoxy. At all
events it is to be noticed that, beyond the use made of Clement's
name, these writings do not betray any familiarity with or make any
reference to tbe Boman Church in particular2. 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 tbe Gentiles, the reputed
founder of tbe Boman Church, but James the Lord's brother, the
bishop of bishops, the ruler of tbe mother Church of the Circum
cision. If the Boman origin of these works is more than doubtful, the
time of writing also is open to much question. The dates assigned
to the Homilies by the ablest critics range over the whole of the
¦second century, and some place them even later. If the Boman
authorship be abandoned, many reasons for a very early date will fall
to the ground also. Whenever they were written, the Homilies are
among tbe most interesting and important of early Christian writings ;
but they have no right to the place assigned them in the system of
a modern critical school, as the missing link between tbe Judaism of
the Christian era and tbe Catholicism of tbe close of the second

1 Hermas Vis. ii. 4 iriji\pei obv KXif-
pns els ras ££« iroXeis' ixelvip ydp iiri-
rirpairrai. 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. i6,comp..fleco£/n.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.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

32^

can-

century, as representing in fact the phase of Christianity taught at
Bome and generally throughout the Church during the early ages.
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,' They _
founded on the Old Testament Scriptures, a more plausible case not repre-
raight have been made out. But the theology of the Clementines decline of
does not lie in a direct line between the Old Testament and Catholic ^ Ehman
Christianity : it deviates equally from the one and the other. In its "r° '
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 Boman 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 Notice in
Ebionism cannot have obtained any wide or lasting influence in the,?lppoly"
„. jo tu8_
Church of Bome. During the episcopate of Callistus (a.d. 219—
223) a heretical teacher appears in the metropolis, promulgating
Elchasaite doctrines substantially, though not identically, tbe 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 Bome, it had passed into oblivion
when Hippolytus wrote.
The few notices of the Boman Church in the second century No Ebion-
point to other than Ebionite leanings. In their ecclesiastical ordi- ^n^,mngB
nances the Bomans seem anxious to separate themselves as widely Roman
as possible from Jewish practices. Thus they extended the Friday's Church.

328 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
fast over the Saturday, showing thereby a marked disregard of the
sabbatical festival1. Thus again they observed Easter on a different
day from the Jewish passover ; and so zealous were they in favour
Evidence of their' own traditional usage in this respect, that in the Paschal
h 1 6 - " contro'versy their bishop Victor resorted to the extreme measure of
troversy. renouncing communion with those churches which differed from it 2.
This controversy affords a valuable testimony to the Catholicity of
Christianity at Bome 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 Bome 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-
nseus when he remonstrates with Victor for disturbing the peace of
the Church by insisting on non-essentials3. In its creed the Boman
Church was one with the Gallic and Asiatic Churches ; and that this
creed was not Ebionite, the names of Polycarp and Irenseus are
guarantees. Nor is it only in tbe Paschal controversy that the
Catholicity of the Bomans may be inferred from their intercourse
Other com- with other Christian communities. Tbe remains of ecclesiastical
t/onTwith literature, though sparse and fragmentary, are yet sufficient to reveal
foreign a wide network of intercommunication between the churches of the
xa0 e3- second century ; and herein Bome 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
1 Tertull. deJejun. 14; see Neander index of Judaic or antijudaic leanings :
Ch. Hist. I. p. 410 (Bohn). but when once attention was called to
2 On the Paschal controversy see its existence, and it became a matter of
Euseb. H. E. v. 23-25. Polycrates on controversy, the observance of the Chris-
behalf of the Asiatic Churches claimed tian anniversary on the same day with
the sanction of St John; and there the Jewish festival would afford a
seems no reason to doubt the validity handle for the charge of Judaism ; anil
of this claim. On the other hand a where it was a matter of policy or of
different rule had been observed in the principle to stand clear of any sympa-
Roman Church at least as far back as thy with Jewish customs (as for in-
the episcopate of Xystus (about 120- stance in Palestine after the collision of
129) and perhaps earlier. It seems the Jews with the Romans), the Roman
probable then that the Easter festival usage would be adopted in preference
had been established independently by to the Asiatic.
the Romans and those who followed 3 In Euseb. H. E. v. 24 \ Sia<j>avla
the Roman practice. Thus in the first rrjs vrjarelas tijv bpbvoiav rrjs irlareus
instance the difference of usage was no avvlurrjo-iv, and the whole extract.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 329
to foreign churches, writing also to the Bomans in terms of cordial
sympathy and respect1. On the Catholicity of the African Church
I have already remarked : and the African Church was a daughter
of the Boman, from whom therefore it may be assumed she derived
her doctrine2.
The gleams of light which break in upon the internal history of Internal
the Boman Church at the close of the second and beginning of the c™£fon
third century exhibit her assailed by rival heresies, compromised by Roman
the weakness and worldliness of her rulers, altogether distracted and churoh-
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 Praxeas3. 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 Sabellius4. It was at this point in her history
that the Church of Bome 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 Bome or in Christendom generally.
Ebionites indeed there were at this time and very much later.
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
not prolonged much later. About the middle of the fifth century ou '
they had almost disappeared5. They would gradually be absorbed
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
1 In Euseb. H. E. iv. 23. Praxeas Roma? procuravit, prophetiam
2 Tertull. de Prascr. 36. Cyprian expulit et hseresim intulit, paracletum
Epist. 48 (ed. FeE) writing to Cornelius fugavit et patrem crucifixit.' For spe-
speaks of Rome as ' Ecclesise catholicae culations as to the name of this bishop
radicem et matricem,' in reference to see Wordsworth's Hippolytus pp. 131,
the African Churches. 132.
3 Tertull. adv. Prax. i. Tertullian, 4 Hippol. Hares, ix. 7 sq.
now a Montanist, writes of Praxeas 5 Theodoret, Bar. Fab. ii. 1 1, men-
who had persuaded this nameless bishop tions the Ebionites and the Elchasaites
of Rome to revoke his concessions to among those of whom obSi Ppaxb Sii-
Montanism, ' Ita "duo negotia diaboli piive Xelfavov.

330 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
recognition of Jewish and Gentile Apostles alike throughout the
greater part of Christendom. At the same time it could liardly
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 is therefore no great surprise to find that in dif
ferent writers of the second century and in different parts of the early
Church, the Epistles of St Paul on the one band2, the Apocalypse
of St John or the letter of St James on the other, should be seldom
or never appealed to as authorities. The equable circulation of all
the Apostolic writings was necessarily the work of time.
Use of the fipHE foregoing account of the conflict of the Church with Judaism
account8 ^as keen necessarily imperfect, and in some points conjectural;
but it will prepare tbe 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
1 Gal. ii. 9 : see Westcott's History allowed to be the same to which Euse-
o/ the Canon p. 84 sq. bius refers ; and yet this letter abounds
2 Westcott, I.e. 'Though he (Papias) in quotations from the Apostolic writ-
ivas the friend of Polycarp, he nowhere ings— more especially the Epistles of
alludes to any of the Pauline writings. St Paul. The phenomenon exhibited in
It cannot be an -accident that he omits the Ancient Syriac Documents (edited by
all these— the Epistles of St Paul, the Cureton, 1864) is remarkable. Though
Gospel of St Luke, and the Acts of the they refer more than once to the Acts of
Apostles— and these only of the acknow- the Apostles (pp. 15, 27, 35) as the work
ledged books of the New Testament.' of St Luke and as possessing canonical
At the same time the silence of Euse- authority, and though they allude inci-
bius is not conclusive. His account of dentally to St Paul's labours (pp. 35, 61,
Polycarp's Epistle (H. E. iv. 14) shows 62), there is yet no reference to the epi-
how far from exhaustive his statements sties of this Apostle where the omission
may be in such cases. He there says cannot have been accidental (p. 32), and
that ' Polycarp employs some testimo- the most important Churches founded
nies from the former (first) Epistle of by him, as Ephesus, Thessalonica, Co-
Peter.' Though some recent writers rinth, etc., are stated to have received
have doubted the genuineness of the ex- 'the Apostles' Hand of Priesthood from
isting letter ascribed to Polycarp, it is John the Evangelist ' (p. 34).

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 331
the value of later traditional accounts of these first preachers of the
Gospel. St Paul himself is so clearly reflected in his own writings, that St Paul.
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, tbe 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 tbe very last.
Of this fact the narrative of the Acts affords many striking His por-
exatnples. It exhibits him associating with the Apostles of the trait ln 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.
But the character of the witness has been called in question. Its truth
This narrative, it is said, is neither contemporary nor trustworthy. 1"eatl0n"
It was written long after tbe 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. The Acts of the Apostles in the multiplicity and variety of its
details probably affords greater means of testing its general character
for truth than any other ancient narrative in existence ; and in my
opinion it satisfies the tests fully. But this is not the place for such
an investigation. Neither shall I start from the assumption that it
has any historical value. Taking common ground with those whose
views I am considering, I shall draw my proofs from St Paul's
Epistles alone in the first instance, nor from all of these, but from
such only as are allowed even by the extreme critics of the Tubingen but esta-
school to be genuine, tbe Epistles to tbe Bomans, Corinthians, and n;g80^n y
Galatians1. It so happens that they are the most important for my writings.
1 These four epistles alone were master.' He accepts as genuine I Thes-
accepted as genuine by Baur and salonians, Philippians, and Philemon :
Schwegler. Hilgenfeld, who may now thus substituting, as he expresses
be regarded as the chief of the Tii- it, the sacred number Seven for the
bingen school, has in this, as in many heathen Tetractys of his master: see
other points, deserted the extreme po- Zeitsch. fur wissensch. Theol. v. p. 226
sition of Baur whom he calls the 'great (1862).

332-

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

(i) Position
of the
Jews.

(2) His
affection
for them.

(3) His
practicalcare for
them.

(4). His
conformity to their
usages.

purpose. If they contain the severest denunciations of the Judaizers,
if they display the most uncompromising antagonism to Judaism,
they also exhibit more strongly than any others St Paul's sympathies
with his fellow-countrymen.
These then are the facts for which we have St Paul's direct per
sonal testimony in the epistles allowed by all to be genuine. (1)
The position of the Jews. He assigns to them the prerogative over
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 (Bom.
i. 16, ii. 9, 10). In the same spirit he declares that the advantage
is on tbe side of the Jew, and that this advantage is ' much every
way' (Bom. iii. 1, 2). (2) His affection for his countrymen. His
earnestness and depth of feeling are no where more striking than
when he is speaking of tbe 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' (Bom. x. 1, 2). Thus in spite of their present stubborn
apostasy he will not allow that they have been cast away (xi. 1),
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 (dvd6ep.a cii/ai auros eyw diro tov
Xpio-rov) for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh' (Bom.
ix. 1 — 3). (3) His practical care for his countrymen. Tbe collection
of alms for the poor brethren of Judsea occupies much of his atten
tion and suggests messages to various Churches (Bom. 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

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 333
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' (ix. 20). The charges of bis Judaizing
opponents are a witness that he did carry out his maxim in this
direction, as in the other. With a semblance of truth they taunt
him with inconsistency, urging that in his own practice he had
virtually admitted their principles, that in fact he had himself
preached circumcision1. (5) His reverence for the Old Testament (5> His use
Scriptures. This is a strongly marked feature in the four epistles Testa-
which I am considering. They teem with quotations, while there ment-
are comparatively few in his remaining letters. Eor example, meta
phor, allegory, argument, confirmation, he draws upon this inex
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 "ween^he"
otherwise. Written in the heat of the conflict, written to confute Acts and
unscrupulous antagonists and to guard against dangerous errors, pl3
St Paul's language could not give a complete picture of his relations
with the Apostles and the Church of tbe Circumcision. Arguments
directed against men, who disparaged bis authority by undue exal
tation 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 Bomans are much more moderate,
guarded by constant explanations and counterpoised by expressions of
1 See above, p. 28 sq., and notes on i. 10, ii. 3, v. 2, 1 1.

334

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

St Paul's
relations with the
Three as
describedin this
epistle.

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-
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.
(i) There is a general recognition of the position and authority
of the elder Apostles, both in tbe 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 bis office is most . complete. The language is decisive in
two respects: it represents this recognition ,/iVs* 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

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 335
assigned to each : the one are to preach to the heathen, the other to
the Circumcision. There is no implication, as some have represented,
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 Judsea, 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 *°i*erem ™
more bearing directly on the relations between St Paul and the Apo- sties.
sties 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 be
hind the very chiefest Apostles' (tojv virep Xlav dirocrroXoiv, 2 Cor. xi. 5,
xii. n), 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 be 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 1 What then is Apollos, and what is
PaulV Apollos was so closely connected with him (see 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 bro
ther Apostle.
In all this there is nothing inconsistent with the character ofNoantago-
St Paul as drawn in the Acts, nothing certainly which represents ^ «'
him as he was represented by extreme partisans in ancient times, by Paul and
Ebionites on the one hand and Marcionites on the other, and as he e

336 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
Apostles, 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.
St Petee x. The author of the Clementine Homilies makes St Peter
Ebionites7 tte 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. ' Ear be it,' he adds,
'for to act so is to oppose the law of God which was spoken by
Moses and to which our Lord bare witness that it should abide for
ever. For thus He said, Heaven and earth shall pass away : one jot
or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law. And this He
said that all things might be fulfilled. Yet these persons professing
to give my sentiments (tov ipov vovv eVayyeAAdpLevoi) I know not how,
attempt to interpret the words that they have heard from me more
cleverly (ebpovipoirepov) than myself who spoke them, telling their
pupils that this is my meaning (<ppovqpd), though it never once
entered into my mind (o eyco ovSe ive$vp-rjdrjv). 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 tbe 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 be is treading on hollow
and also by and dangerous ground. But without insisting on this, it is im-
opposite portant to observe that the sanction of this venerated name was
sects. .
claimed by other sectarians of opposite opinions. Basilides (about
a.d. 130), tbe famous Gnostic teacher, announced that he had been
instructed by one Glaucias an 'interpreter' of St Peter1. An early
apocryphal writing moreover, which should probably be assigned to
the beginning of the second century and which expressed strong anti-
judaic views3, was entitled the ' Preaching of Peter.' I do not see
1 Clem. Alex. Strom, vii. p. 898, rpov, see Schwegler Nachap. Zeit. n.
Potter. p. 30 sq. Its opposition to Judaism
8 On this work, the Kijpvypa Hi- appears in an extant fragment preserved

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

337

why these assertions have not as great a claim to a bearing 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 irresponsible venture of an anonymous romance writer. The
probable inference however from such conflicting statements would
be, that St Peter's true position was somewhere between the two
extremes. 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
ary notice in the Epistle to the Galatians will reveal more than all st ^aul s
. ~ noticu of
the distorted and interested accounts of later ages : But when Oe- tne O0CUI-
phas came to Antioch I withstood him to the face, for he was con- rence at
demned (his conduct condemned itself). For before that certain
came from James, be did eat with the Gentiles, but when they came,
he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those of the Circumcision :
and the rest of tbe Jews also dissembled with him, so that even Bar
nabas was carried away with their dissimulation (o-vvamJxOv avrav rrj

in Clem. Alex. Strom, vi. p. 760, priSi
Kara 'lavSalovs <refSeo-de...ware koX v/mIs
balas Kal SiKalas pivBdvovres a irapaSl-
Sopev bpXv ipvXdao-eade, Kaivds rbv Qeov
Sid rov Xpio-rov aefibpevoi- e'bpopev ydp
iv rais ypaipais KaOas b Kvpios Xiyei-
'ISob SiarlBepai vpiv Kaivrjv SiaBrJKijv
k.t.X. The fragments of this work are
collected by Grabe, Spicil. 1. p. 62 sq.
It was made use of by Heracleon the
Valentinian, ai.d is quoted more than
once, apparently as genuine, by Clement
of A lexandiia.
The identity of this work with the
Praidicalio Pauli quoted in the treatise
De Baptisrno Bareticorum-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 (Chrislenthum p. 53). I give
his words, lest I should have misunder
stood him: ' Auch die kirehliche Sage,
welche die Apostel wieder zusammen-
hrachte, lasst erst am Ende nach einer
langen Zeit der Tremiuug die gegenseit-
ige Anerkennung zu Stande kommcn.
Post tanta tempora, Mess es in der Prse-
dicatio Pauli in der Stelle, welche sic-h
in der Cyprian's Werken angehangten
GAL.

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
tunc 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 Pradicatio Pauli as
maintaining 'adulterinum, imo interne-
cinum baptisma ;' in order to invalidate
its authority, he proceeds to show its
thoroughly unhistoiical 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, 11. p. 32.
Other early apocryphal works attri
buted to tbe 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. 267.
22

338 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
vrroKp'io-ei). 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 ('IoiiScuog irrdpx'ov), 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. n — 14)-'
Now tbe point of St Paul's rebuke is plainly this : that in sanc
tioning tbe 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 tbe argument which follows he
assumes that it was tbe normal practice of Peter to live as a Gentile
(e9viK<2s t,fji and not 16vik£<; £4175), 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 right1.
It accords How St Peter came to hold these liberal principles, so entirely
with an in- opposed to the narrow traditions of bis age and country, is explained
la ted1 in the by an incident narrated in the Acts. He was at one time as rigid
Acts 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 tbe moment at least convinces
(xi. 18).
and with And if his normal principles are explained by the narrative of
hischarac- the Acts, his exceptional departure from them is illustrated by his
ter as given 1 I do not see how this conclusion and severing it from the context ; but
can be resisted. According to the Tii- even then he is obliged to acquit the
bingen view of St Peter's position, his other Jewish Christians at Antioch of
hypocrisy or dissimulation must have Ebionism. Hilgenfeld (Galater p. 61
consisted not in withdrawing from, but sq.) discards Schwegler's interpretation
in holding intercourse with the Gen- and explains viroKpiais of the self-cou-
tiles; but this is not the view of St Paul traduction, the unconscious inconsist-
on any natural interpretation of his ency of Jewish Christian or Ebionite
words ; and certainly the Ebionite wri- principles : but inconsistency is not dis-
ter already quoted (p. 336) did not so simulation or hypocrisy, and this inter-
understand his meaning. Schwegler (1. pretation, like the former, loses sight of
p. 129) explains avvvireKplBrjaav avrip the context which denounces St Peter
'were hypocritical enough to side with for abandoning a certain line of con-
him,' thus forcing the expression itself duct from timidity.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 339
Character as it appears in the Gospels. The occasional timidity in the Gos-
and weakness of St Peter will be judged most harshly by those who Pels-
have never themselves felt tbe 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 (chtaAios dvu>p.aXov) ; and this is a
much safer criterion of truth. But there is yet another source of
information to be considered — his own letters. If the deficiency of The First
external evidence forbids the use of the Second Epistle in contro- „P~ ,e
... "t Peter
versy, the First labours under no such disabilities ; for very few of the
apostolical writings are better attested.
To this epistle indeed it has been objected that it bears too
manifest traces of Pauline influence to be the genuine writing of St shows the
Peter. The objection however seems to overlook two important ^ gt pau]
considerations. First. If we consider the prominent part borne by
St Paul as the chief preacher of Christianity in countries Hellenic
by race or by adoption ; if we remember further that bis writings
were probably the first which clothed tbe 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 tbe idiom thus
moulded V Secondly. It is begging the whole question to assume
that St Peter derived nothing from the influence of the Apostle of
the Gentiles. Tbe one was essentially a character to impress, the
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 frank and
enthusiastic temperament of the elder Apostle. The weighty spiritual
maxims thrown out during the dispute at Antioch for instance would
sink deep into his heart2 : and taking into account the many occasions
1 Schleiermacher EM. ins. N. T. p. 2 See 1 Pet. ii. 24 ™ dpaprias ijpdv
aire's dvr)veyKev iv rip trwpan avrov em
402 iSU.
22 — 2

34°

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

but bears
the indi
vidualstamp

of a mind
Hebrew
but not
Ebionite.

Its rela
tion to St
Paul and
St James.

when either by his writings or by personal intercourse 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
quite independent of this foreign element. The substratum of the
thoughts is the writer's own. Its individuality indeed appears more
in the contemplation of the life and sufferings of Christ, in the view
taken of the relations between the believer and the world around,
in the realisation of the promises made to the chosen people of old,
in the pervading sense of a regenerate life and the reiterated hope of
a glorious advent, than in any special developement of doctrine : but
it would be difficult to give any reason why, prior to experience, we
should have expected it to be otherwise.
Altogether the epistle is anything but Ebionite. Not only is
the 'law' never once named, but there is no allusion to formal ordi
nances of any kind. The writer indeed is essentially an Israelite,
but he 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 con
verts, but he transfers to them the cherished titles of the covenant
race ; they are the true 'dispersion (i. i)'; they are 'a chosen gene
ration, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people (ii. 9).'
The believer in Christ is tbe Israelite ; tbe unbelieving the Gentile
(ii. 12). Corresponding to tbe position of St Peter as he appears in the
apostolic history, this epistle in its language and tone occupies a
place midway between the writings of St James and St Paul. With
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 tbe simple and homely virtues, in its
fond reference to past examples in Jewish history for imitation or
warning, it recals 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 tortile language of the
Apostle of the Gentiles.

to £b\ov, iva rais dpaprlais diroyevopevoi
rrj SiKaioabvi, j;rjcrapev. This is the
most striking instance which the epistle
exhibits of coincidence with St Paul's
doctrinal teaching (though thtre are

occasionally strong resemblances of lan
guage). With it compare Gal. ii. 20
Xpitrrip avvetrrabpapai- fuj Se obKiri iydi,
'(XI Si iv ipol Xpiarbs k.t.X.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE, 34 1
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 Sllvanus-
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 tbe Gospel in Europe. Silvanus is tbe
bearer or the amanuensis of St Peter's letter; Mark joins in the salu
tations (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 p ,
Apostles as the greatest teachers of the Gospel, the brightest exam- ciated in
pies of Christian life. At Bome probably, at Antioch certainly, both Jjition ™~
these Apostles were personally known. We have the witness of the
one Church in Clement ; of the other in Jgnatius. The former Rome.
classes them together as the two ' noble ensamples of bis own gene
ration,' 'the greatest and most righteous pillars' of the Church, who,
'for hatred and envy were persecuted even unto death (§ 5).' The Antioch.
latter will not venture to command tbe Christians of Bome, 'as Peter
and Paul did ; they were Apostles, he a convict ; they were free, he
a slave to that very hour1.' Clement wrote before the close of the
first century, Ignatius at the beginning of the second. It seems pro
bable that both these fathers had conversed with one or other of the
two Apostles. Besides Antioch and Bome, the names of St Peter
and St Paul appear together also in connexion with the Church of Corinth.
Corinth (1 Cor. iii. 22). This Church again has not withheld her
voice, though here the later date of her testimony detracts somewhat
from its value2. Dionysius bishop of Corinth, writing to the Bomans
during the episcopate of Soter (168-177), claims kindred with them
on the ground that both Churches alike had profited by the joint
instruction of St Peter and St Paul3-
1 Rom. 4. The words ovx ds Tlir- Kal ydp dpipa Kal els rr)v ijperipav Ko-
pos Kal IlavXos Siardaaofiai bplv gain pivBov cfoiTijaavres ijp&s bpotas iSlSafav,
force, as addressed to the Romans, if we bpolas Si Kal els -rrjv 'IraXlav bpbae
suppose both Apostles to have preached SiUfrvres ipaprbprjaav Kara rbv abrbv
in Rome. '""P0"- AU the MSS and the Syrlac
2 The language of Clement however version here have <pvrebaavTes; but
implicitly contains the testimony of this ohoir-ljaavres is read by Georgius Syn-
Church at an earlier date : for he assumes cellus, and Rufinus has ' adventantes ;
the acquiescence of the Corinthians the sense too seems to require it. In
when he mentions both Apostles as of any case it is hardly a safe inference
equal authority (§§ 5, 4 7)- that Dionysius erroneously supposed
3 in EuseD. B. E. ii. 25 Av dirb the Churches of Rome and Connth to
Xlirpov Kal XlabXov fvrdav yevijSeiaav have been founded by both Apostles
'Vapalwv re Kal KopivBtav o-vveKepdaare. jointly.

342 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
Misrepre- But though the essential unity of these two Apostles is thus
sentations recognise(i Dy different branches of the Catholic Church, a disposition
of extreme o j
parties. to sever them seems early to have manifested itself m 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 tbe sanction of the one or the other
for their own views. Tbe 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
Concilia- nor they were able to bear. The precursors of Marcionism exagge-
th^Acts °f rated the antag°nism 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 St
Luke's narrative, which must have been written not many years
after tbe martyrdom of both Apostles, to show that this growing
tendency was false, and that in their life, as in their death, they were
not divided. A rough parallelism between tbe career of the two
reveals itself in the narrative when carefully examined. Becent
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 enter
tained by a writer, if the two Apostles were essentially united, as if
they were not. Tbe truth or falsehood of the account must be deter
mined on other grounds.
St John 2. While St Peter was claimed as their leader by the Judaizers,
n°* elaim" no such liberty seems to have been taken with the name of St John1.
Ebionites. Long settled in an important Gentile city, surrounded by a nu
merous school of disciples, still living at the dawn of the second
century, he must have secured for bis teaching such notoriety as
protected it from gross misrepresentation.
1 In the portion of the first book of in their writings. In another passage
the Recognitions, which seems to have Epiphanius attributes to the sons of Ze-
been taken from the 'Ascents of James,' bedee the same ascetic practices, which
the sons of Zebedee ara introduced with distinguished James the Lord's brother
the rest of the Twelve confuting here- (Bares. Ixxviii. 13); and this account
sies, but the sentiments attributed to he perhaps derived from some Esseno
them are in no way Ebionite (i. 57). Ebionite source. But I do not know
It is this work perhaps to which Epi- that they ever claimed St John in the
phanius refers (xxx. 23), for his notice same way as they claimed St Peter and
does not imply anything more than a St James.
casual introduction of St John's name

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 343
His last act recorded in St Luke's narrative is a visit to the His posi-
newly founded Churches of Samaria, in company with St Peter (viii. *xo° t™;the
14). He thus stamps with bis approval the first movement of the history.
Church in its liberal progress. From tbe 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 an
other 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 be 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 bis Lord.
At length the hidden fires of his nature burst out into flame. His life in
When St Peter and St Paul have ended their labours, the more hfga^_t0
active career of St John is just beginning. If it has been their task ings.
to organize and extend tbe Church, to remove her barriers and to
advance her liberties, it is bis special province to build up and com
plete her theology. The most probable chronology makes his with
drawal from Palestine to Asia Minor coincide very nearly with tbe
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 be will be as a Gentile among
Gentiles. The writings of St John in tbe Canon probably mark the
close of each period. The Apocalypse winds up his career in the
Church of the Circumcision; tbe Gospel and tbe Epistles are the crown
ing result of a long residence in the heart of Gentile Christendom
Both the one and tbe other contrast strongly with the leading
features of Ebionite doctrine; and this fact alone would deter tbe
Judaizers from claiming the sanction of a name so revered.
Of all tbe writings of the New Testament tbe Apocalypse is TheApoca-
most thoroughly Jewish in its language and imagery. The whole brew in its
book is saturated with illustrations from the Old Testament. It imagery,
speaks not the language of Paul, but of Isaiah and Ezekiel and
Daniel. Its tone may be well described by an expression borrowed

344 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
from the book itself; 'the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of pro
phecy (xix. 10).' The doctrine of Balaam, the whoredoms of Je
zebel, the song of Moses, the Lion of Judah, the key of David, the
great river Euphrates, tbe 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 tbe 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 tbe Apocalypse is completely Jewish and might have
but not E- been Ebionite. But tbe same framing serves only to bring out more
doctrine!1 strongly the contrast between the pictures themselves. The two
distinctive features of" Ebionism, its mean - estimate of the person
of Christ and its extravagant exaltation of the Mosaic law, are
The Christ, opposed alike to the spirit and language of St John. It might have
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, tbe
faithful and true witness, tbe beginning (the source) of the creation
of God (iii. 14).' 'Blessing, honour, glory, and power' are ascribed
not 'to Him that sitteth on tbe 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, tbe first and last, the beginning
and tbe end (xxii. 13, i. n; comp. i. 8).' He is 'the Lord of lords
and the King of kings (xvii. 14, xix. 16).' And so too tbe Ebionite
The law. reverence for tbe law as still binding has no place in the Apocalypse.
The word does not occur from beginning to end, nor is there a single
allusion to its ceremonial as an abiding ordinance. The Paschal
Lamb indeed is ever present to St John's thought ; but with bim it
signifies not the sacrifice offered in every Jewish bome year by year,
but the Christ who once 'was slain, and bath redeemed us to God
by His blood out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation
(vii. 9).' All this is very remarkable, since there is every reason
to believe that up to this time St John had in practice observed
the Jewish law1. To him however it was only a national custom
1 Certain traditions of St John's tice here. They are given by Polycrates
residence at Ephesus, illustrating his who was himself Bishop of Ephesus
relation to the Mosaic law, deserves no- (Euseb. H. E. v, 24). Writing to pope

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

345

and not an universal obligation, only one of the many garbs in which
religious worship might clothe itself, and not the essence of religious

Victor, probably in the last decade of
the second century, he mentions that
he ' numbers (ixuv) 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.
(i) 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. 328),
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 prob
ably 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 (8s
iyevrjBrj lepebs rb iriraXov irerpopeKas Kal
. pdprvs teal SiSacKaXos).' The reference
in the iriraXov is doubtless to the metal
plate on the high-priest's mitre (Exod.
xxviii. 36 iriraXov xPv<T°vv Kadapbv,
comp. I'rotevang. u. 5 rb iriraXov rov
lepias) ; 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. peydXa aroixeia
KeKoiprjrai (where aroixeia means 'lu
minaries,' being used of the heavenly
bodies) ; yieXlrava rbv evvovxpv (proba
bly a metaphor, as Rufinus translates
it, ' propter regnum dei eunuchum'; Bee
Matt. xix. 1 2 and comp. Athenag. Suppl.
33, 34, Clem. Alex. Pad. iii. 4, p. 269,
Strom, iii. 1, p. 509 sq.) ; top piKpbv p.ov
avBpairov ('my insignificance'; comp.
Rom. vi. 6 6 iraXaibs ijp&v avBpuiros,
2 Cor. iv. 16 d 'i£a r)pCv dvBpairos, I Pet.
iii. 4 6 Kpvrrrbs rrjs KapStas dvBpairos).
The whole passage is a very rude speei-
men of the florid 'Asiatic' style, which
even in its higher forms Cicero con
demns as suited only to the ears of a
people wanting in polish and good taste
('minime politae minimeque elegantes',
Orator, 25) and which is described by
another writer as KopirdSrjs Kal ippvayv-a-
rlas Kcd Kevov yavpidparos Kal tpiXonplas
dvupdXov pearbs, Plut. Vit. Anton. 2 ;
see Bernhaidy Griech. Litt. I. p. 465.
On the other hand it is possible— I think
not probable— that St John did wear
this decoration as an emblem of his
Christian privileges ; nor ought this view
to cause any offence, as inconsistent
with the spirituality of his character.
If in Christ the use of external symbols
is nothing, the avoidance of them is no
thing also. But whether the statement
of Polycrates be metaphor or matter of
fact, its significance, as in the case of
the Paschal celebration, is to be learnt
from the Apostle's own language in the
Apocalypse, where not only is great
stress laid on the priesthood of the be
lievers generally (i. 6, v. 10, xx. 6), but
even the special privileges of the high-
priest are bestowed on the victorious
Christian (Rev. ii. 17, aa explained by
Ziillig, Trench, and others : see Stanley
I. c. p. 285 ; comp. Justin Dial. 1 16
apxi-epariKov rb dXrjBivov yivos iapev tov
Qeov, and see Philippians p. 252). The
expression is a striking example of the
lingering power not of Ebionite tenets
but of Hebrew imagery.

lypne.

346 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
life. In itself circumcision is nothing, as uncircumcision also is
nothing ; and therefore he passes it over as if it were not. The
distinction between Jew and Gentile has ceased; the middle wall of
partition is broken down in Christ. If preserving the Jewish ima
gery which pervades the book, he records the sealing of twelve
thousand from each tribe of Israel, his range of vision expands at
once, and he sees before the throne ' a great multitude, which no man
could number, of all nations and kindreds and peoples and tongues
(vii. 9).' If be denounces the errors of heathen speculation, taking
up their own watchword ' knowledge (yvukris)' and retorting upon
them that they know only 'the depths of Satan (ii. 24),1' on the
other hand be condemns in similar language the bigotry of Jewish
prejudice, denouncing the blasphemy of those ' who say they are Jews
and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan ' (ii. 9 ; comp. iii. 9).
The Gospel A lapse of more than thirty years spent in the midst of a
sties con- Gr^ntiile population will explain the contrast of language and imagery
trasted and between the Apocalypse and the later writings of St John, due allow-
with the ance b)eing made for the difference of subject2. Tbe language and
Apoca- colouring of the Gospel and Epistles are no longer Hebrew ; but so
far as a Hebrew mind was capable of the transformation, Greek or
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 no where else in the New Testament. On
the other hand, if tbe 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. n)', and that 'Salvation
1 See above, p. 298, note 2. increased if a late date is assigned to
2 Owing to the difference of style, the Apocalypse. Writers of the Tii-
many critics have seen only the alterna- bingen school rej-ct the Goapel and
tive of denying the apostolic authorship Epistles but accept the Apocalypse.
either of the Apocalypse or of the Goa- This book, alone, if its apostolical au-
pel and Epistles. The considerations thorship is conceded, seems to me to
urged in the text seem sufficient to furnish an ample refutation of their
meet the difficulties, which are greatly peculiar views.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 347
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 lan
guage. The Apocalypse is not Ebionite, unless the Gospel and
Epistles are Ebionite also.
3. St James occupies a position very different from St Peter St James
or St John. If bis importance to the brotherhood of Jerusalem was ,l0,lcls a lo"
. cal omce.
greater than theirs, it was far less to the world at large. In a
foregoing essay I have attempted to show that be 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 bis 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 Reasons
earthly life, he was convinced, it would seem, by tbe appearance of iur. *"s aP"
the risen Jesus1. This interposition marked him out for some special
work. Among a people who set a high value on advantages of race
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 tbe 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, tbe ' 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- Hisea^;
cision we must consider him. To one holding this position the law ^
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
: See above* p. 258.

348 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
entangled St Peter at Antioch, need perplex him. Under the law
he must live and die. His surname of the Just1 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
bis rigid life and strict integrity he had won the respect of tbe whole
Jewishpeople 2 .
The ac- A strict observer of the law he doubtless was ; but whether to
count ot ^|a j^ jyj^g^ a rigorous asceticism, may fairly be questioned. The
pus 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 tbe bath. He alone was allowed to
enter into the holy place (eis ret dyia). Eor be wore no wool, but
only fine linen. And he would enter into the temple (vaov) alone,
and be found there kneeling on bis knees and asking forgiveness for
not trust- the people, so that his knees grew hard like a camel's knees, because
worthy. jJg wag ever Up0n them worshipping God and asking forgiveness for
the people.' There is much in this account which cannot be true :
tbe 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 services3. Moreover
the account of his testimony and death, which follows, not only con
tradicts the brief contemporary notice of Josephus4, but is in itself
1 In the account of Hegesippus, re- (Har. Ixxviii. [4) makes the same state-
ferred to in the following note, 6 Skaios ment of St James, which Polycrates
'Justus' is used almost as a proper does of St John, iriraXov iirl rijs Keipa-
name. Two later bishops of Jerusalem Xfjs iipbpeire.
in the early part of the second century 4 Josephus (Antiq. xx. 9. 1) relates
also bear the name 'Justus' (Euseb. that in the interregnum between the
H. E. iv. 5), either in memory of their death of Festus and the arrival of Albi-
predecessor or in tnken of their own nus, the high-priest Ananus the younger,
rigid lives : compare also Acts i. 23, who belonged to the sect of the Saddu-
xviii. 7, Col. iv. 11. cees (notorious for their severity in
a Hegesippus in Euseb. B. E. ii. 23. judicial matters), considering this a fa-
3 It is perhaps to be explained like vourable opportunity KaBlfei avviSpiov
the similar account of St John : see Kpirdv, koI irapayayav els avrb rov
above, p. 345, note. Compare Stan- aSeXipbv 'Ir/croi? toD Xeyopivov Xpio-rov,
ley Apostolical Age p. 324. Epiphanius- 'IdKajSos Svopa avT$, Kal rivas iripovs,

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 349
so melodramatic and so full of high improbabilities, that it must
throw discredit on tbe whole context1.

ws irapavoprjaavrav Karrjyopiav iroii,<ra-
pevos irapiSaKe Xev<r6rjaopivovs. This
notice is wholly irreconcileable 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 Judtea. On the other
hand, if the passage had been a Chris
tian interpolation, the notice of James
would have been more laudatory, as is
actually the case in the spurious passage
of Josephus read by Origen and Euse
bius (H. E. ii. 23, see above, p. 301,
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 I. p. 367, Eng.
Trans.), of Ewald (Geschichtevi. p. 547),
and of some few writers besides (so
recently Gerlach Romische Statthalter
etc. p. 81, 1865) : but the majority take
the opposite view.
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 (irrepbyiov) of the tem
ple. Instead of denouncing Jesus how
ever, he preaches Him. Einding their
mistake, the scribes and Pharisees throw
him down from the height ; and as he
is not killed by the fall, they stone"him.
Finally he is despatched by a fuller's
club, praying meanwhile for bis 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. 316) 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 Hegesinpus 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
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 Eecognitions 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. 311), 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

350 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
He was We are not therefore justified in laying much stress on this tra-
perhaps an cliti jt is interesting as a phenomenon, but not trustworthy as a
ascetic. o i
history. Still it is possible that James may have been a Nazarite, may
have been a strict ascetic. Such a representation perhaps some will
view with impatience, as unworthy an Apostle of Christ. But this
is unreasonable. Christian devotion does not assume the same out
ward 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 tbe world, but of whom
nevertheless the world was not and is not worthy.
St James But to retrace our steps from this slippery path of tradition to
stands a- £[rn)el. ground. Tbe difference of position between St James and
part from ° , *
the Twelve the other Apostles appears plainly in the narrative of the so-called
in the Acts, Apostolic council in the Acts. It is Peter who jiroposes tbe 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 aud 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 in the And the same distinction extends also to their own writings.
Catholic g£ pe;ker an(j gt joijjj with a larcrer sphere of action and wider obli-
Epistles. ' o i
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 tbe other
hand, mixing only with those to whom tbe Mosaic ordinances were
the rule of life, tbe word aud the thing have a higher importance.
The neutrality of the former is reflected in the silence which pervades
their writings, where 'law' is not once mentioned1. The respect of
writers eagerly and unsuspiciously ga- disappears in the account of James
thered incidents from writings of which given by Hegesippus.
they repudiated the doctrines. It is 1 As regards St John this is true
worthy of notice that though the Essenes only of the Epistles and the Apocalypse:
are named among the sects in Hege- in the Gospel the law is necessarily
sippus, they are not mentioned in the mentioned by way of narrative. In
Recognitions ; and that, while the Re- i Joh. iii. 4 it is said significantly, rj
cognitions lay much stress on baptisms dpapria iarlv rj avopla. In St Peter
and washings (a cardinal doctrine of neither vbpos nor avopla occurs.
Essene Ebionism), this feature entirely

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 351
the latter appears in his deferential use of the term, which he employs
almost as a synonyme for ' Gospel V
But while so using the term 'law,' he nowhere implies that the The Gospel
Mosaic ritual is identical with or even a necessary part of Chris- a hiSher
tianity. On tbe 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 de
ceitful and vain. The external service, the outward garb, the very
ritual, of Christianity is a life of purity and love and self-devotion2.
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, tbe ideas underlying 1.
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 worka-
persons to whom the epistle is addressed. If it is intended to coun
teract any modification or perversion of St Paul's teaching, then there
is, though not a plain contradiction, yet at all events a considerable
divergence 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 James3. If ou the
other band tbe epistle is directed against an arrogant and barren
orthodoxy, a Pharisaic self-satisfaction, to which the Churches of tbe
Circumcision would be most exposed, then the case is considerably
altered. The language of tbe Epistles to the Romans and Galatians
1 The words evayyiXiov, evayyeXl^ea- signification of BpijaKela both in the
Sat, do not occur in St James. New Testament and elsewhere, as the
2 James i. 26, 27. Coleridge directs 'cultus exterior,' see Trench Synon.
attention to the meaning of Bprjo-Kela ist ser. § xlviii. _
and the consequent bearing of the text, 3 e. g. Rom. vi. 15-23, 1 Cor. vi.
in a well-known passage in Aids to 9-20, GaL v. 13 sq.
Reflection, Introd. Aphor. 23. For the

• 352 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
at once suggests the former as the true accouut. 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 schools1. 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 dead2,' but the fundamental axiom of the
law 'Thou believest that God is one3'; 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, aud seems directed against
a kindred spirit ; it is reasonable to conclude that St James is de
nouncing not the moral aberrations of the professed disciple of St
Paul (for with such be was not likely to be brought into close con
tact), but tbe 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 tbe 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 preju
dices, that in the teaching of the two Apostles ' there exists certainly
a striking difference in the whole bent of mind, but no opposition of
doctrine4.'
Ebionite Tbus the representation of St James in tbe canonical Scriptures
misrepie- differs from its Ebionite counterpart as the true portrait from the
of St James caricature. The James of the Clementines could not have acquiesced
explained. ^n tke apogtoiic decree, nor could he have held out the right band
of fellowship to St Paul. On the other band, the Ebionite picture
was not drawn entirely from imagination. A scrupulous observer
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
1 See above, p. 162. « Bleek (EM. in das N. T. p. 550),
2 Rom. x. 9. who however considers that St James
3 ii. 19. Comp. Clem. Bom. iii. is writing against perversions of St
6 sq. Paul's teaching.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 353
in the external forms of worship than in the vital principles of re
ligion. 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 tbe authority of the Apostles of thTjudat
tlie Circumcision : and that in some instances at least, as members offers.
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 rup- Antioch.
ture 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 1 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 tbe 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
years and by a special revelation ; in this, as in bis recognition of
Jesus as the Christ, moving more slowly than the Twelve.
Turning from Antioch to Galatia, we meet with Judaic teachers Galatia.
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 tbe 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 tbe Apostles of tbe Circumcision, especially by St James,
would furnish a plausible argument to men who were unscrupulous
GAL. 23

354 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.
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 tbe 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 'I
am of Peter, and I of Christ,' among the latter especially, that we
are to seek the counterpart of the Galatian Judaizers1. 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'
Judaizing ^ ^ ^^ inva(je(j another's sphere of labour and boasted of work
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 note-worthy that this party of
extreme Judaizers call themselves by tbe name not of James, but of
Christ. This may perhaps be taken as a token that his coneessions
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. 1 sq.). On the other hand, of the party
of Cephas no distinct features are preserved ; but the passage itself
implies that they differed from the extreme Judaizers, and we may
1 Several writers representing dif- interpreted. (2) The remonstrance im-
ferent schools have agreed in denying mediately following (pepipiarai b Xpi-
the existence of a 'Christ party.' Pos- arbs) 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 et ns rriiroiBev
if admissible at all, I cannot see how, iavnp Xpio-rov elvai 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 ia of a party
cation that iyd Si XpiaroC is to be of Peter.
isolated from the others and differently

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 355
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 aXon™'
the Corinthians and of recommendation from them ' (iii. i) ? If so,
by whom were these letters to Corinth given 1 By some half- Judaic,
half-Christian brotherhood of the dispersion ? By the mother Church
of Jerusalem ? By any of tbe primitive disciples ? By James the
Lord's brother himself? It is wisest to confess plainly that the facts
are too scanty to supply an answer. We may well be content to
rest on the broad and direct statements in the Acts and Epistles,
which declare the relations between St James and St Paul. A habit
of suspicious interpretation, which neglects plain facts and dwells on
doubtful allusions, is as unhealthy in theological criticism as in social
life, and not more conducive to truth.
Such incidental notices then, though they throw much light on Inferences
the practical difficulties and entanglements of his position, reveal j^™™ ese
nothing or next to nothing of tbe true principles of St James. Only
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 Chris
tendom 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 tbe 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.'

23—2

INDEX.

Abraham, the faith of, p. 156 sq. (pas
sim) ; see Hagar
accusative, for other objective cases, v.
7, 26
Acichorius, p. 243
Acts of the Apostles, its scope and cha
racter, p. 331, 342; its relation to St
Paul's Epistles, ii. 1 sq., p. 91 sq.,
122 sq. (passim), 294 sq., 331 sq., 342
Aelia Capitolina, foundation of, p. 304 ;
Church of, p. 305
seons, the two, i. 4
Africa, the Church of, p. 321, 329
Alcibiades of Apamea, p. 3 1 7
Alcuin founds a school of biblical in
terpretation, p. 231
Alexandria, the Church of, p. 321
Alfred's (king) malady, p. 187 sq.
Alphseus, to be identified with Clopas ?
p. 251, 260, 280; with Alfius? p.
261
Ambrose (the friend of Origen), a trea
tise by, p. 60
Ambrose (St), commentary wrongly
ascribed to, p. 225 ; on the Lord's
brethren, p. 278 sq.
Ambrosiaster : see Hilary
Ancient Syriac Documents (Cureton's),
P- 60, 330
Ancyra, p. 6, 8, n, 13, 20 sq., 32, 34,
sq., 237, v. 20
Andronicus and Junia (-as), p. 06
angels administering the law, iii. 19
Anselm, commentary ascribed to, p. 232
Antidicomarianites, p. 276
Antioch, foundation of the Church at,
p. 291 ; the new metropolis of Christ
endom, p. 293 ; St Peter reputed bi

shop of, ii. 1 1 ; catholicity of, p. 320,
341 ; Judaizers at, ii. 12 sq., p. 353 ;
biblical school of, p. 224
Antioch in Pisidia, St Paul preaches at,
p. 294
aorist, uses of, v. 4, 24, vi. 2; episto
lary, vi. 11
Apocryphal Gospels, on the Lord's bre
thren, p. 254, 267 sq.
Apollos, not an Apostle, p. 96, 98
apologists, references to Galatians, p.
60
Apostle, meaning of the term, p. 92 sq. ;
not limited to the twelve, p. 93 sq.,
p. 254; qualifications and functions
of, p. 97 sq. (passim)
apostolic congress and decree, ii. 1 sq.
(passim), p. 124 sq., 294 sq. (passim),
334
Apostolic Constitutions, mention of
Philip in, p. 100; on the Jameses, p.
274
apostolic fathers, references to Gala
tians in, p. 58 sq. ; use of the term
'Apostle' in, p. 99
Arabia, meaning of, p. 88; St Paul's
visit to, p. 87 sq., 191
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. 150 sq., 301 sq.
article, the definite, i. 4, 7, 10, 13, 23,
iii. 20, 21, iv. 6, 31, v. 14, p. 190;
see also vbpos
Artotyritse, p. 32
Ascents of James, p. 268, 316, 342,
349

358

INDEX.

Ascodrobi, etc., p. 32
Asia, meaning of in N. T., p. 19
aspirates, anomalous, ii. 14
Atto "Vercellensis, his commentary on
St Paul, p. 232
Augustine (St), bis dispute with Je
rome, p. 130 sq.; commentary on Ga
latians, p. 228; on the Lord's bre
thren, p. 279
dpfid, iv. 6
dyaBd, vi. 6
dyaBowoieiv, saXoiroielv, vi. 9
dyaBaabvij, xpijarorrjs, v. 2 2
dSeXipol, emphatic, iii. 15, vi. I, 18
dBereiv, ii. 21
a'tpeais, v. 20
alav, i. 4
aKaOapcrta, v. 19
aKorj, iii. 2
dXrjBeia, 1) dX. rov eiayyeXlov, il. 5
dXXrjyopeiv (-yopla), iv. 24
dXXos, 'irepos,'i. 6
bpapraX&s, ii. 14, 15, 17, 18
av omitted, iii. 19, iv. 15
dvafialveiv, i. 17
dvdBepa, dvdBijpa, i. 8
dvaKoirreiv, v. 7
dvaararovv, v. 12
dvarlBcoBai, ii. 2
dvipxecrBai, i. 17
drreKbixeoBai, v. 5
dirb, Sid, i. 1
cctto, irapd, i. 12
diroKdwreaBai, v. 12
drroXapfSdveiv, iv. 5
diropeiv (-peiaBai), iv. 20
ct7roVroXos, p. 92 sq.
opa, v. 11; (apa), ii. 17
dp™, i. 9
dcr^X-yeia, v. 19
drevlfciv, p. 189
ai5rd rovro, ii. 10
dtpoptfay, i. 15
dipopprj, v. 13
Barcochba, rebellion of, p. 302, 304
Barnabas, an apostle, p. 96, 100 ; Jo
seph, not Joses, p. 261 ; his estrange
ment from St Paul, ii. 13

Barsabas, Joseph or Joses ? p. 261 ;
identified with Matthias, p. 97
Basil (St), on the Lord's brethren, p. 275 ..
Basilides, and eldaXoBvra, p. 298
Bede, commentary wrongly ascribed to,
P- 232
Belgae, a Celtic people, p. 240
Belka (el), p. 87, 193
biblical studies, Antiochene school of,
p. 224; revival of, under Charle
magne, p. 231
Bolgius, p. 242
Bonosus, p. 277
branding among the ancients, vl. 1 7
Brennus, p. 242
brethren of the Lord, p. 247 sq. (pas
sim)
' brother,' wide use of the term, p. 250,
255, 278 sq.
Bruno Carthusianus, commentary on St
Paul, p. 232
fiaoKatveiv, iii. 1
Paard^eiv, vi. 17
Cassiodorus, his notes on St Paul, p.
229; he expurgates the commentary
of Pelagius, ib. ; he translates the
notes of Clement of Alexandria, p.
271
Catena (Cramer's), on Galatians, p. 230
causa, 'a thing,' early use of, p. 191
Celsus quotes Galatians, p. 61
Celtie, the name, p. 2 sq. ; its use in
Dion Cassius, p. 236 ; migrations of
the, p. 4 sq. (passim), 237; distin
guished from Germans, p. 236 sq.
Cephas, use of the name, i. 18; falsely
assigned to different persons, p. 128
Cerethrius, p. 242
chiasm, the figure, iv. 5
Christian, the name, p. 291
chronology of the exodus, iii. 17; of
St Paul, see Paul
Chrysostom (St), his homily on St Peter
at Antioch, p. 130, 225 ; his com
mentary on Galatians, p. 224 sq. ; oii
St Paul's infirmity, p. 184 ; on Hagar,
p. 192 ; on the Lord's brethren, p.
251, 28Q

INDEX.

359

circumcision, the question of, p. 294
sq. (passim), ii. 1 sq. (passim)
Claudius Altissiodorensis (or Tauri-
nensis), his commentary on St Paul,
P- 231
Clement of Alexandria, on Cephas at
Antioch, p. 128; on the Lord's bre
thren, p. 271 sq. ; on the Nicolaitans,
p. 288 ; his use of the word 'apostle,'
p. 100; his commentary on the Ca
tholic Epistles, p. 271
Clement of Rome, his position in the
Church, p. 323, 326; his Epistle, p.
323 eq., 341 aq-
Clementine Homilies, their scope and
complexion, p. 326 sq. ; editions and
epitomes of, etc. p. 314 ; their Ro
man origin doubtful, p. 326 ; their re
presentation of St James, p. 266, 268,
352 sq. ; attacks on St Paul, ii. 11, 13,
iv. 10, 16, 24, p. 61 sq., 128, 314 sq. ;
limitation of the term ' apostle ' in,
p. 100 ; letter of Peter prefixed to,
p. 316; letter of Clement prefixed to,
p. 326
Clementine Recognitions, composition
of, p. 316; editions and translations
of, p. 314; Ascents of James in
corporated in, p. 26S, 316, 342, 349;
allusion to St Paul in, iv. 16; arbi
trary alteration of Bufinus in, p. 316
Cleopas, the name, p. 260
Clopas, p. 249 sq., 259 sq., 269 ; to be
identified with Alphseus? p. 251,
260, 280
collection of alms for Judsea, p. 25, 55,
293, ii. 10, vi. 7
Collyridians, p. 276
Corinth, the Church of, its catholicity,
p. 341 ; parties in, p. 354; Judaizers
in, ib. ; the offender in, p. 54, vi. 1
Corinthians, ist Epistle to the, when
written, p. 38 ; compared with Gala
tians, p. 51 sq., 64
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. 290 sq.
Cramer's Catena, on Galatians, p. 230

Crescens, p. 31
cross, offence of the, p. 151 sq.
crucifixion, not a Jewish punishment,
p. 152
crucifying with Christ, ii. 20, vi. 14
Cyril of Alexandria, on the Lord's bre
thren, p. 281
Cyril of Jerusalem, on the Lord's bre
thren, p. 274
KaBds, ii. 5
Kal idv, idv Kal, i. 8
Kaivrj Krlais, vi. 15
Kaipol, iv. 10
KaXetv, b KaXdv (KaXiaas), 1. 6, v. 8 ;
KaXelv iirl, V. 13
/ca\o7rote2V, vi. 9
Kavdv, vi. 16
Kani dvBpairov, i. 11, iii. 15
Karapalveiv, i. 17
Karaprl^etv, vi. I
KaTao-Koireiv, ii. 4
Karipxeadai, i. 17
Kar-qxelv, vi. 6
Kavxnais, Kabxnpa, vi. 4
KevbSo^os (-So|£a), v. 26
KXlpa, i. 21
KoiXias (ix), i. 15
Koivaveiv, vi. 6
Kpdfciv, iv. 6
Kplpa (xpipa), v. IO
Xdpiv, iii. 19
Xelp, iv XetPl> iii- J9
Xp-narbrns- (dyaBaavvrj), v. 22
Damascenus (Johannes), commentary on
St Paul, p. 230
dative, uses of, ii. 19, v. 16, 25, vi.
12, 16
Didymus of Alexandria, on St Peter at
Antioch, p. 129; his commentary on
St Paul, p. 228
Dionysius of Corinth, p. 328
dispersion, the, p. 286
Dorotheus Tyrius, the pseudo-, p. 277
Drynsemetum, p. 242
dying and being buried with Christ,
ii. 20
SeKairivre, i. 18
5e£ids Sovvai, Xappdveiv, ii. 9

360

INDEX.

Sid with gen. , i. I ; Sid (iK)- irlareas, ii.
16; with accus., iv. 13
SiaB-ijKij, iii. 15
SoKeiv, elvai n (ns), ii. 6, vi. 3 ; oi Sokovv-
res, ii. 2
bvvdpeis, iii. 5
Sapedv, ii. 21
Eastern Churches, testimony respecting
the Jameses, p. 28 1
Ebionites, different classes of, p. 305,
309 sq. (passim)
Egyptians, Gospel of ; saying ascribed
to our Lord in, iii. 23 ; tradition re
specting gnosis in, p. 272
Elchasai or Elxai, book of, p. 3ri sq. ;
see Hippolytus
Elieser (Rabbi), on the Samaritans,
p. 289
ellipsis, after Iva, ii. 9 ; with pbvov, ii. 10,
vi. 12 ; with prj, v. 13 ; of the name of
God, i. 6, 15, v. 8
Ephraem Syrus, his commentary on St
Paul, p. 223 ; on Ha^ar, p. 191
Epiphanius, on the Lord's brethren,
p. 248 sq. (passim), 276 sq. ; on the
Nazarenes, p. 306
Esdras, 4th hook of, on Faith, p. 159
Essene Ebionism, p. 310 sq. (passim)
Ethiopian eunuch, conversion of, p. 290
Eusebius of Caesarea, Syriac translation
of, p. 272, 274, 319, 341 ; the passage
B. E. ii. 1 commented on, p. 272 ;
on the Lord's brethren, p. 274 ; cha
racter of his statements, p. 330
Eusebius of Emesa, his commentary on
St Paul, p. 37, 224
Euthalius, his edition of St Paul, p. 226
Euthymius Zigabenus, his commentary,
p. 230
evil eye, iii. 1
exodus, see chronology
idv Kal, Kal idv, i. 8
iavrov, v. 14
iynaKeiv (iKKaKeiv), vi. 9
iyKSirreiv, v. 7
el ye, ttirep, iii. 4
el prj (idv pij), i. 19, ii. 16
elSivai, see yivdaKeiv

elSaXbBvra, p. 299 sq.
els, v. 10, vi. 4
iK, Sid, with irlareas, ii. 16 ; ol Ik iri
arews, iii. 7 ! is: KoiXias, i. 15
iKKXijala, i. 22
iKXveaBai, vi. 10
"'EiXX'nv, ii. 3
iXirls, v. 5
iv ipol, i. 16
ivdpxeaBai, iii. 3
ivbveaBai, iii. 27
ivepyeiv, ii. 8, iii. 5, v. 6
iveards, i. 4
ivi, iii. 28
i^ayopd^av, iii. 13
iirayyeXia, iii. 14
iiriSiardaaea&ai, iii. 15
iirireXetaBai, iii. 3
iirlrpoiros, iv. 2
irrixoprjytiv, iii. 5
ipiBeta, v. 20
ippiBrj, iii. 16
Erepos, dXXos, i. 6; b Erepos, vi. 4
En, i. 10, v. II
evayyeXlgeaBai, i. 9
evvovxos, p. 345
ebirpoaarreiv, vi. 12
evpeBrjvai, ii. 17
ijpipai, p. 89
Faith, words denoting, p. 152 sq. ; not
in the O. T., p. 153, 156 sq. ; of Abra
ham, p. 156 sq.; Philo on, p. 157 sq.,
161 ; rabbinical teachers on, p. I59sq.,
161 : see James the Lord's brother
fascination, iii. 1
fides, fidelis, fidentia, fiducia, p. 156
first-born, meaning of, p. 263
Florus Magister, his commentary on St
Paul, p. 231
Francis (St) of Assisi, his stigmata,
vi. 17
fulness of time, iv. 4'
future tense, uses of, vi. 5, 16
Gsezatodiastus, p. 243
Galatse, 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,

P. 6 sq., 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 sq. (passim) ; their lan
guage, p. 12, 241 sq.; their three
tribes, p. 7, 243 ; their national cha
racter, p. 12 sq. ; their religion, p. 8,
11, 16 sq., 21, 23, 30; mutilation
among, p. 16, v. 12; witchcraftamong,
v. 20; were they Celts or Teutons?
p. 235 sq. (passim) ; supposed German
affinities explained, p. 244 sq. ; names
among, p. 242
Gaiatia, the Churches of, their locality,
p. 20 sq. ; composition of, p. 26 ; St
Paul's intercourse with, p. 21 sq.
(passim), p. 41 ; Judaism in, p. 27 sq.,
352 sq. ; persecutions of, iii. 4 ; later
history of, p. 31 sq. ; heresies of, p.
32 sq. ; 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. I, 6; its resemblance to 2 Cor., p.
44 sq. ; and to Rom., p. 45 sq. ; genu-,,
ineness of, p. 57 sq., external testi
mony to, p. 58 sq. ; analysis of, p. O5
sq. ; postscript to, p. 65, vi. n ; com
mentaries on, p. 223 sq. (passim) ; its
importance in modern controversy, p.
68, 284
Galli, Gallia, the names, p. 2 sq.
Gauls : see Celtse, Galatse, Galli
Gelasius (Pope), commentary falsely
ascribed to, p. 229
Gennadius, his commentary on St Paul,
p. 227
Gentiles, the Gospel preached to, p. 288
sq. (passim) ; emancipation and pro
gress of, p. 292 sq. (passim)
Germanopolis, p. 244 sq.
Glossa Ordinaria, p. 232
Gordium, p. to, 20
Gregory Nazianzen, on St Peter at An
tioch, p. 129
Gregory Nyssen, on the Lord's bre
thren, p. 276

INDEX. 36 t
guardianship, ancient laws respecting,

gutturals interchanged in the Shemitic
languages, p. 194
yevvav, iv. 24
yivdoKeiv, elSivai, iii. 7, iv. 9
yvuplfa bptv, i. 1 1
ypdppara, vi. n
ypatprj, iii. 8, 22
Hadrian, his treatment of Jews and
Christians, p. 304 sq.
Hagar, meaning of, p. 90 sq. ; places
bearing the name, p. 193 ; a syno-
nymefor Sinai?, p. 89, 193 sq., iv. 25 ;
doubtful reading, p. 1 89 sq.
Hagarenes, iv. 25, 29
Harant, der Chiistliche Ulysses, p. 192;
on Hagar, ib.
Haymo, commentary on St Paul, p. 232
Hebrews, Gospel of tbe; account of our
Lord appearing to James, p. 266
Hegesippus, his sojourn in Rome, p. 318 ;
not an Ebionite, p. 318 sq. ; on the
Lord's brethren, p. 268 sq. ; on James
the Lord's brother, p. 348 sq. ; on
heresies in the Church of J erusalem,
P- 3°3, 3"
Hellenists, their influence in the Church,
p. 287 sq.
Helvidius, on the Lord's brethren, p.
248 sq. (passim), 276, 277
Hermas, the shepherd of ; its date, p. 99 ;
its character and teaching, p. 324 sq. ;
use of the term 'apostle' in, p. 99
Herod, persecution of, p. 123, 126
Herveus Dolensis, commentary on St
Paul, p. 232
Hilary (Ambrosiaster), commentary on
St Paul, p. 225, 228 ; on the Lord's
brethren, p. 275
Hilary of Poitiers, on the Gauls, p. 238 ;
on the Lord's brethren, p. 275; com
mentary wrongly ascribed to, p. 225
Hippolytus on the Nicolaitans, p. 28S.;
on the book of Elchasai, p. 311 sq.,
317, 327 ; St John illustrated from,
p. 298 ; the pseudo-, concerning the
Lord's brethren, p. 273

362

INDEX.

James the Lord's brother; was he an
apostle?, i. 19, p. 95, 100, 255 sq.
(passim) ; our Lord's appearance to
him, p. 258 sq., 266 sq., 347 ; his po
sition, ii. 9, p. 349 sq. (passim) ; his
asceticism, p. 348 sq. ; his relation
to the Judaizers, p. 29, 296, 347, 352
sq. (passim) ; to St Peter and St John,
P- 35° 5 to St Paul (faith and works),
p. 162, 351, v. 6; his death, p. 301,
348 sq. ; account of him in the He
brew Gospel, p. 266 ; in the Clemen
tines, p. 268 ; among the Ophites, p.
272: see also Ascents of James
James the son of Alphseus, p. 249 sq.
(passim)
James the son of Mary, p. 250 sq. (pas
sim) ; why called 0 juKpos, p. 256, 276
James the son of Zebedee, martyrdom
of, p. 293 ; was he a cousin of our
Lord? p. 257
Jason and Papiscus, Dialogue of, p. 150
sq. : see Ariston
idols, things sacrificed to, p. 299 sq.
Jerome, his commentary on the Gala
tians, p. 228 ; his dispute with Au
gustine, p. 129 sq. ; his visit to Gaul
and Galatia, p. 237 ; his disingenu-
ousness, p. 129, 270; his allegorizing,
p. 90; on the Galatian language, p.
12, 239: on Galatian heresies, p. 32;
on the origin of the Galatian people,
p. 237 sq. ; on the Nazarenes, p. 306;
on the Lord's brethren, p. 248 sq.
(passim), 278 ; on the thorn in the
flesh, p. 183, 185 ; commentary of
Pelagius ascribed to him, p. 229
Jerusalem, the fall of, p. 301 ; the early
Church of, p. 285 sq. (passim) ; its
waning influence, p. 292 sq. (passim);
outbreak of heresies in, p. 303 sq. ;
reconstitution of, p. 304 sq. : see also
Paul (St), collection of alms ; the new,
heavenly, Jerusalem, iv. 16
Jewish names, exchanged for heathen,
p. 260 sq. ; abbreviated, p. 261
Ignatius, recensions of his Epistles, p.
324 ; his testimony to the Roman
Church, ib.

imperfect tense, iv. 20
John (St), was he the Lord's cousin?
p. 257 ; his position in the Church,
p. 343 ; on elSaX&Bvra, p. 299 ; tradi
tions relating to, p. 344 sq. ; not
claimed by Ebionites, p. 342 ; Gospel
and Epistles of, p. 346 ; Apocalypse
of, p- 343
Joseph, a common name, p. 261 ; oc
currence in our Lord's genealogy, p.
262 ; the same with Joses?, p. 261
Joseph, the Virgin's husband, early
death of, p. 263
Josephus, on the death of St James, p.
348 sq. ; the pseudo-, p. 301
Joses, the son of Mary, p. 262
Jovinianus, p. 277
Irenseus on the Paschal controversy,
p. 328
Isaac, explained by Philo, p. 196
Ishmael, meaning of, p. 196 ; rabbinical
accounts of, iv. 29
Israel (Israelite), force of, vi. 16; ex
plained by Philo, p. 196
Judaizers, ii. 1 sq. (passim), 12, vi. 12,
13, p. 27 sq., 299 sq. (passim), 305 sq.
(passim), 333 sq. (passim), 353 sq.
(passim)
Judas,' the Apostle and the Lord's
brother the same?, p. 95, 251 sq.
(passim)
Judas, a name of Thomas, p. 257
Julian and the Galatians, p. 33 sq.
Juliopolis (Gordium), p. 20
Justin Martyr, not an Ebionite, p. 318;
acquainted with St Paul's Epistles,
iii. 10, 13, iv. 27, p. 60: Orat. ad
Grac. wrongly ascribed to, p. 60; a
fragment wrongly ascribed to, p. 270
Justus, the name, p. 348
tSe (ISob) on, i. 20 ; iSe or ISi, v. 2
'lepoaoXvpa, i. 18; ('lepovaaXrjp), iv. 26
lKavbs,'p. 89
iva, with indie, ii. 4, iv. 17; ellipsis
with, ii. 9 ; repeated, iii, 14, iv. 5
'lov8al£eiv, ii. 14
IouSaiVws with aspirate, ii. 14
'lovSaiapos, i. 13
laropeiv, i. 18

INDEX.

363

Lactantius, on the Galatian people, p.
238
Lanfranc, commentary on St Paul, p.
232
Law, the ; St Paul's conception of, ii.
19 sq., iii. 10 sq., 19, 24, iv. 5, 11, 30,
vi. 2. Our Lord's teaching as regards,
p. 286 ; zeal for and decline of, p. 300
feq. (passim) ; relation of St Peter to,
P- 34°, 35°; of St John to, p. 344,
350; of St James to, p. 347 sq., 350
sq. . see Paul (St), and vbpos
leaven, a symbol, v. 9
Leonnorius, p. 5, 244 sq,
Lutarius, p. 5, 244 sq.
Luther, on the Epistle to the Galatians,
p. 18; on the Galatian people, p. 235 ;
on the thom in the flesh, p. 185 sq, ;
his different language at different
times, p. 334
Xiyeiv, Xiyei impersonal, iii. 16; Xiya
Si, iv. 1
Xoi7ro's, difference of rb Xoiirbv and toO
XoittoO, vi. 17
Marcion, the canon of ; order of St
Paul's Epistles in, p. 36 ; Galatians
in, p. 59; omissions in his text, i. 1,
iii. 6
Mary, different person's bearing the
name, p. 250, 253 sq., 256 sq., 262,
276, 280
Mary, the Lord's mother; her virginity,
p. 263; commended to the keeping
of St John, p. 264
Melito, p. 345
Moses, called a mediator, iii. 19; Reve
lation of, vi. 15
Muratorian Canon, order of St Paul's
Epistles in, p. 37
paKapiapbs, iv. 15
paprvpopai, v. 3
peairrjs, iii. 19
peraarpiipeiv, i. 7
peraHBeaBai, i. 6
pi) with indie, iv. 1 1
prjiras, construction with, ii. 2
prj yivoiro, ii. 17, vi. 14
piKpbs (6), p. 256

pvKrrjplgeiv, vi. 7
Nazarenes, p. 305 Bq.
neighbour, meaning of, v. 14
Nervii, a Celtic people, p. 239 sq.
Nicola* and the Nicolaitans, p. 288
vrjirios, iv. I
vbpos and 6 vopos, ii. 19, iv. 4, 5, 21, v.
IS, vi. 13
GUcumenius, Catena bearing his name,
p. 230
Old Testament, interpretation of types
in, iii. 16
Ophites, their use of Galatians, p. 61 ;
reference to, in the Apocalypse, p.
298; their use of the Gospel of the
Egyptians, p. 272
optative, not after final particles, ii. 2
Origen, his commentaries on Galatians,
p. 223; on St Peter at Antioch, p.
129; on the Lord's brethren, p. 272
sq. ; on the Ebionites, p. 305, 317;
misinterpretations of, iii. 19, v. 24
0 and a confused, vi. 12
okeios, vi. 10
olKovbpos, iv. 2
opas, iii. 15
ovojid^eaBai, p. 274
bpBoiroSeiv, ii. 14
bans, 8s, distinguished, iv. 24, 26, v. 19
8n with quotations, i. 23
ovbi... obre, i. 12
oiWti logical, iii. 18
ou pij with fut. ind., iv. 30
ou iras for ou5e£s, ii. 16
6(f>eXov, v. 12
ws, 'while,' vi. 10
Palestine, Churches of, 317 sq.
Papias (of Hierapolis), does not refer
to St Paul, p. 330; confuses (?) the
two Philips, p. 100; distinguishes
other disciples from the Apostles, p.
99 ; passage wrongly ascribed to, p.
265
Papias (the mediaeval), his Elementa-
Hum, p. 266
Paschal controversy, p. 317 sq., 328
Passalorhynchitce, p. 32

364

INDEX.

Paul (St) ; chronology of his early life,
ii. 1, p. 123 ; his qualifications and
conversion, p. 292 ; date of his apo
stolic commission, i. 1, p. 98, 123;
visit to Arabia, p. 87 sq. ; at Damas
cus, i. 17, 18, p. 89; first visit to Je
rusalem, p. 91 sq., i. 21, 22; first
missionary journey, p. 293 sq.; third
visit to Jerusalem, ii. 1 sq. (passim),
122 sq. (passim), 294 sq. ; conflict
with St Peter at Antioch, ii. 1 1 sq.,
p. 127 sq., p. 337 sq. ; preaching
in Galatia, p. 22 sq. (passim), 41 ;
sojourn at Ephesus, p. 38 ; history
in the years 57, 58, p. 38 sq. ; his
personal appearance, p. 188; eye
sight, vi. 1 1, p. 188; thorn in the
flesh, p. 23, 183 sq. (passim), iv. 13
sq. ; on the support of the ministry,
vi. 6; on elSaXbBvra, p. 299; relation
to the Apostles of the Circumcision,
p. 57, 91 sq., 125 sq,, 283 sq. (pas
sim), 332 sq. (passim), ii. 1 sq. (pas
sim) (see James, Peter, John) ; rela
tions to his countrymen, p. 332 sq. ;
account of him in the Acts, p. 331 ;
in the Test, xii Patr., p. 307 sq. ; at
tacks of Judaizers on, i. 10, p. 27 sq.
(see Judaizers, Clementine Homilies);
his teaching compared with Philo, p.
161, 196; with rabbinical writers, p.
161 ; 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. 43; postscripts to,
vi. 11; partial reception of, p. 3 30 ;
questioned by modern critics, p. 331
Pauli Priedicatio, p. 337
Pelagius, his commentary on St Paul,
p. 229; on the Lord's brethren, p. 279
Pella, Church of, p. 301, 304: see Ari-
ston
perfect, uses of, ii. 7, iii. 18, iv. 23, v. 14
Pessinus, p. 6, 8, 10, 20, 21, 34, v. 12
Peter (St), his vision and its effects, ii.
12, 14, p. 338; at Antioch, ii. 11 sq.,
p. 127 sq., 337 sq. ; at Rome, p. 322
s1-> 335 j his character, p. 128, 339

sq. ; how regarded by St Paul, p.
335 ; how represented by the Cle
mentines, ii. 11, 13, p. 311, 3i4sq.,
336 sq. ; by Basilides, etc. p. 336;
coupled with St Paul in early writers,
p. 341 ; writings ascribed to, p. 337
Peter St, ist Epistle of; to whom writ
ten, p. 26 ; its character etc., p. 340 ;
its resemblance to St Paul, p. 339
Peter, Gospel of; its docetism, p. 267 ;
account of the Lord's brethren in, ib.
Peter, Preaching of ; tradition preserved
by, p. 126; influence of a passage in,
iv. 3 ; not Ebionite, p. 336 sq.
Philip the deacon; his work, p. 289 sq.;
confused with the Apostle, p. 100,
272
philology, advanced by Christian mis
sions, p. 238
Philo, his doctrine of faith, p. 157 sq. ;
allegory of Abraham, p. 158 sq. ; of
Hagar and Sarah, p. 195 sq. ; on the
name of Hagar, p. 194 ; on those of
Isaac and Ishmael, p. 196
Photius, his commentary on St Paul, p.
227
Polycarp, the Epistle of, p. 59, 330, iv.
26; at Rome, p. 328
Polycrates (of .Ephesus), his date and
style, p. 344 ; traditions preserved by,
P- 328, 344 sq. ; confuses the two
Philips, p. 100
Prausus, p. 242
Primasius, his commentary on St Paul,
p. 230
proselytes, different classes of, p. 286
Protevangelium, on the Lord's brethren,
p. 267, 272
iraBrjjiara, iwiBvplai, v. 24
7ratcia7Ctry6s, iii. 24
iraiSloKij, iv. 22
irapd, airo, i. 12
irapdboais, i. 14
irapaXappdveiv, i. 12
iraparijpeiv, iv. 10
irapc-iVa/CTos, irapeiaeXBeiv, ii. 4
rrdaxeiv, iii. 4
irelBa, i. 10; iriiroiBa els (irl), v. 10
ireipaapos, iv. 14

INDEX.

365

ireiapovij, v. 8
irepi, birip, i. 4
rrepiaaoripus, i. 14
irepiripveaBai, ol irepirepvbpevoi, vi. 13
irepirop-rj, oi c?K irepiropijs, ii. 12
iriraXov, p. 345, 348
iriaredeiv, constructions with, ii. 16 ;
iriareveaBal n, ii. 7
7tJcttis, i. 23, iii. ^23, v. 22, p. 152 sq.
(passim)
riards, p. 154 sq.
irXijpovv, v. 14
irXijpapa, rb ir. rov xpbvov, iv. 4
Tro-re1, meaning, ii. 6; displaced, i. 13, 23
irpavTijs (irpairrjs), v. 23
irpoypdipeiv, iii. 1
irpoOeapla, iv. a
irpoKaXeiadai, v. 26
irpoXappdveiv, vi. 1
xpds, ii. 14
irpoaavarl&eaBai, i. 16, ii. 6
irpoaairov Xapj3dveiv, ii. 6
rrpdrepov, to irp., iv. 13
irparoroKOS, p. 263
ipappaKeia, v. 20
rpBoveiv (with accus.), v. 26
tpBbvos, £ijXos, v. 21
(pdopd, vi. 8
tpoprlov, pdpos, vi. 5
(ppevarrardv, vi. 3
Rabanus Maurus, his commentary on
St Paul, p. 232
regeneration, vi. 15
Romans, Epistle to the ; when written,
p. 40; resemblance to Galatians, p.
45 B1- (passim) ; contrast to Galatians,
P- 333 sq.
Rome, Church of; early history, p. 321
sq. ; succession of bishops, p. 319;
recognition of St Peter and St Paul
by, p. 34i
Rufinus, his translation of Eusebius,
p. 318; of the Clementine Recogni
tions, p. 314, 316
Salome, p. 257
Samaritans, how regarded by the Jews,
p. 289 ; conversion of, ib.

Sarah (Sarai), meaning of the word, p.
195 ; typifies Jerusalem, iv. 27 : see
also Hagar
Scripture and scriptures, iii. 22
Sedulius, his commentary on St Paul,
p. 231
Serapion, on the Gospel of Peter, p.
267
Seres, mythical character of, p. 3 1 1
Seven, appointment of the, p. 287
Seventy, the ; called apostles, p. 1 00
Severianus, his commentary on Gala
tians, p. 225 ; (?) on Hagar, p. 191
Silas, an apostle (?), p. 96
Simon or Symeon, different persons
called, p. 252, 259; a common name,
p. 261 sq.
Sinai, St Paul at, p. 88; allegorical
meaning of, iv. 25 : see Hagar
spirit and the Spirit, v. 5? 17
stadium, St Paul's metaphor of the, ii.
2, v. 7
Stephen (St), influence and work of, p.
288, 291
Symeon, son of Clopas, p. 259 sq., 268
sq. ; his martyrdom, p. 303: see Simon
Syriac translations ; of the Clementines,
p. 314, 316; of Ignatius, p. 324; of
Eusebius, see Eusebius
aKavSaXov, v. it
aKbXo\j/, p. 184 sq.
orrippara (plural), iii. 16
ariJKeiv, v. I
ariypara, vi. 17
aroixeia, iv. 3
arvXoi, usage and accent, ii. 9
avyyevels, i. 14
avykXeleiv els (virb), iii. 22
aw- superfluous (avvrjXiKidrrjs), i. 14
avvairdyeaBai with dative, ii. 13
avviardveiv, il 18
awaTOixeiv (-x*a)> iv. 24, p. 226
Tavium, p. 6, 8, 10, 20
Tectosages (-gse), p- 6, 243
Tertullian, charges against Marcion, p.
121, 128; on the Lord's brethren,
p. 248, 253, 270 sq.; on St Paul's
infirmity, p. 183; on Praxeas, p. 329

366

INDEX.

Testaments of Twelve Patriarchs, p.
307 sq.
Teutobodiaci, p. 244 sq.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, his commen
tary on St Paul's Epistles, p. 225 sq.;
error in the Greek text, p. 190; in
the Latin translation, p. 226; on St
Peter at Antioch, p. 131 ; on Hagar,
p. 191, 193
Theodoret, his commentary on StPaul's
Epistles, p. 226 ; on St Peter at An
tioch, p. 131 ; on Hagar, p. 191, 193;
on the Lord's brethren, p. 251, 280
Theophylact, his commentary on St
Paul's Epistles, p. 230 ; on the Lord's
brethren, p. 249, 281
Thomas (St), his name Judas, p. 257
thorn in the flesh : see Paul (St)
Timotheus, circumcision of, ii. 3; not
an apostle, p. 96, 98
Titus, mission of, ii. 1 ; circumcision of,
etc. ii. 3, p. 121
Tolistobogii, p. 6, 243
Tolosa, p. 243
transcribers, fidelity of, ii. 12
Treveri, the name how written, p. 239 ;
were Celts, not Germans, p. 239 sq. ;
later German settlement among, p.
240 sq.
Trocmi, p. 6, 244
rapdaaeiv, i. 7> v. 10

raxias, p. 41, i. 6
riKva (viol) Gcou, iii. 26
reKvia, iv. 19
rpixeiv, see stadium
Bvpol (plural), v. 20
Versions, testimony respecting the Lord's
brethren, p. 268; Itala, p. 121
Victor of Rome, p. 321, 328
Victorinus the philosopher, his com
mentary on St Paul, p. 227; on the
date of Galatians, p. 36 ; on the Lord's
brethren, p. 275 ; he mistakes the
Latin version, p. 90
Victorinus Petavionensis, on the Lord's
brethren, p. 253, 274
vloBeala, iv. 5
viol Qeov, iii. 26
birdpxeiv, ii. 14
iVc^p, irepi, i. 4
biroariXXeiv, ii. 12
Walafredus Strabo, his commentary,
p. 232
Western Services, testimony respecting
the Jameses, p. 279
Zealots, i. 14
f^Xos, v. 20, 21
tvXovv, iv. 17
tijXarijs, i. 14

367

PASSAGES COMMENTED ON.

Gen. xv. 6,

p. 157 sq.

Gen. xv. 13,

iii. 17.

Gen. xxi. 9, 10,

iv. 29, 30.

Exod. xii. 40,

iii. 17.

Deut. xxi. 23,

p- 15° sq-

Deut. xxvii. 26,

iii. 10.

Deut. xxxiii. 2,

iii. 19.

Habak. ii. 4,

p. 154, iii. 11.

1 Maco. viii. 2,

p. 9.

John xix. 25,

p. 257, 259 sq,

Acts ix. 20 — 26,

p. 89.

Acts xv. 29,

P- 295 sq.

Acts xvi. 6,

p. 20, 22.

Acts xxviii. 21,

P-93-

Rom. xvi. 7,

p. 96.

1 Cor. i. 12,

P- 354-

1 Cor. ii. 9,

p. 320.

1 Cor. viii. 1 — 13,)
X. 14— 22, i

p. 297.

Ephes. ii. 20, )
iii. 5. !

p. 97.

2 Tim. iv. 10,

P- 3> 3i-

1 Pet. i. 1,

p. 19, 26.

Apoc. ii. 24,

p. 298.

CAMBRIDGE : PRINTED BY 0. J. OLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

3 9002 02114 3889