BARNES REFERENCE LIBRARY 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 ALFRED C. BARNES 
 
 
 i^ntti 
 
 ittifciAttl 
 
 ^^t^^fil^i^^j^j^^^^^^^^^^^t^iig^ 
 
CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 GIFT OF 
 
 Alfred C. Barnes 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029294125 
 
^^^ Cornell University Library 
 
 Bi52685 .L72 1887 
 
 Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians 
 
 olin 
 
 3 1924 029 294 125 
 
THE EPISTLES OF ST PAUL. 
 
 II. 
 THE THIKD APOSTOLIC JOUKNEY. 
 
 3- 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
If-o 
 
 Camferttige : 
 
 PEINTBD BY C. J. CLAY, M.A, & SONS 
 AT THE UNIVERSITY PB.ESS. 
 
SAINT PAUL'S 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 
 
 A REVISED TEXT 
 
 INTEODUCTION, NOTES, AND DISSERTATIONS 
 
 BY 
 
 J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D. 
 
 BIBHOP OF DURHAM, 
 HONORARY FELLOW OF TBINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. 
 
 NINTH EDITION 
 
 Honiron : 
 MACMILLAN AND CO. 
 
 AND NEW YOEK. 
 1887 
 
 [The Right of Translation is reserved.'] 
 
& 5 x^rs 
 
 I ft") 
 
 mimht<m' Moy r'NecGe kaGooc kap^ xpicToy. 
 ! ^ 
 
 Clement. 
 
 Ovx ws JlavXos Siaraao-ofiai vfuv' ^Keivos aTroffroXos, 
 iyu} KaraKpLTOs' ineipos iXe^depos, eyu dk fJ^xp'- vvv SoiJXos. 
 
 TnW A fTTTTO 
 
 Ignatius. 
 
 Oure iy^ ovre dWos 5fiot09 ifiol d6yarai KaTaKoKovOija-aL 
 Ty (Totpiq. Tov fiaKapiov Kal ivBd^ov IlaiiXou. 
 
 POLTCAEP. 
 
TO 
 
 THE RIGHT REV. E. W. BENSON, D.D., 
 
 LORD BISHOP OF TRURO, 
 IN AFFECTIONATE AND GRATEFUL RECOGNITION 
 
 OF 
 
 A LONG, CLOSE, AND UNBROKEN FRIENDSHIP. 
 
Preface to the First Edition. 
 
 THE present work is intended to form part of a complete 
 edition of St Paul's Epistles which, if my plan is ever 
 carried out, will he prefaced hy a general introduction and 
 arranged in chronological order. To such an arrangement the 
 half-title of the present work refers, assigning this epistle to 
 the second chronological group and placing it third in this group 
 in accordance with the view maintained in the introduction. 
 Meanwhile, should this design be delayed or abandoned, the 
 present commentary will form a whole in itself 
 
 The general plan and execution of the work will commend 
 or condemn themselves : but a few words may be added on one 
 or two points which require explanation. 
 
 It is no longer necessary, I trust, to offer any apology for 
 laying aside the received text. When so much conscientious 
 labour has been expended on textual criticism, it would be 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 
 craft, bringing to their task extensive knowledge and keen in- 
 sight. But Bentley's text^ was constructed out of very imperfect 
 
 ^ His text of this epistle is given in Bentleii Critica Sacra, p. 94 sq., edited 
 by the Rev, A. A. Ellis, 
 
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 Paul \ But apart from the difficulty of choosing a fit guide, 
 there is always some awkwardness in writing notes to another s 
 text, and the sacrifice of independent judgment is in itself an 
 evil ; nor will it be considered unseemly presumption in a far 
 inferior 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 Be v. 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 myself 
 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 
 
 ^ The part containing the Epistle to the Galatians has since 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, my obligations are 
 greatest to English and German writers of the last few years. 
 The period from the fifth century to the Reformation was an 
 entire blank as regards any progress made in the interpretation 
 of this epistle. And from that time to the present century, 
 though single commentators of great merit have appeared at 
 intervals, Calvin for instance in the sixteenth century, Grotius 
 in the seventeenth, and Bengel in the eighteenth, there has 
 been no such marked development of interpretational criticism 
 as we have seen in our own time. The value of Luther's work 
 stands apart from and in some respects higher than its merits 
 as a commentary. 
 
 To more recent critics therefore I am chiefly indebted. Among 
 my own countrymen I wish to acknowledge my 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 these commentators useful 
 though in a widely different way. Besides the writers already 
 mentioned I have constantly consulted Winer, Olshausen, De 
 Wette, and Schott ; and to all of these, to the first especially, 
 I am indebted. 
 
 I need scarcely add that my obligations to these various 
 writers differ widely in kind. Nor will it be necessary to guard 
 against the inference that the extent of these obligations is a 
 measure of my general agreement with the opinions of the 
 writers. He who succeeds signally in one branch of biblical 
 criticism or interpretation will often fail as signally in another. 
 I do not feel called upon to point out what seem to me to be the 
 faults of writers to whom I am most largely indebted, and I have 
 certainly no wish to blunt the edge of my acknowledgments by 
 doing so. 
 
 Besides commentaries, great use has been made of the com- 
 mon aids to the study of the language of the Greek Testament. 
 The works to which I am most indebted in matters of grammar 
 will appear from the frequent references in the notes. The 
 third English edition of Winer (Edinburgh, 1861) has been 
 used \ I have also availed myself constantly of the well-known 
 collections of illustrative parallels by Wetstein, Schottgen, 
 Grinfield, and others ; of indices to the later classical writers 
 and earlier fathers ; of the Concordances to the Septuagint and 
 New Testament ; and of the more important Greek Lexicons, 
 especially Hase and Dindorf 's edition of Stephanus. 
 
 My thanks are due for valuable suggestions and corrections 
 to the Kev. 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 
 
 ^ The references to Winer have since been altered and adapted to Moulton*s 
 Translation, Edinburgh, 1870. 
 
Preface to the First Edition. xi 
 
 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 
 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 relat- 
 ing to St PauVs personal history and his intercourse with the 
 Apostles and Church of the Circumcision. It is this feature in 
 the Epistle to the Galatians which has given it an 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, be- 
 cause 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 Tiibingen school are too extravagant to obtain 
 any wide or lasting hold over the minds of men. But even in 
 extreme cases mere denunciation maybe unjust and is certainly 
 unavailing. Moreover, for our own sakes we should try and 
 discover the element of truth which underlies even the greatest 
 exaggerations of able men, and correct our impressions thereby. 
 
 ' A number there are,' says Hooker, * who think they cannot 
 admire, as they ought, the power of the Word of God, if in 
 things divine they should attribute any force to man s reason.' 
 The circumstances which called forth this remark contrast 
 strangely with the main controversies of the present day; but 
 the caution is equally needed. The abnegation of reason is not 
 the evidence of faith but the confession of despair. Heason and 
 
xii Preface to the First Edition. 
 
 reverence are natural allies, though untoward circumstances 
 may sometimes interpose and divorce them. 
 
 Any one who has attempted to comment on St Paul's 
 Epistles must feel on laying down his task how far he has 
 fallen short even of his own poor ideal. Luther himself ex- 
 presses his shame that his ' so barren and simple commentaries 
 should be set forth upon so worthy an Apostle and elect vessel 
 of God/ Yet no man had a higher claim to a hearing on such 
 a subject; for no man was better fitted by the sympathy of 
 like experiences to appreciate the character and teaching of 
 St Paul. One who possesses no such qualifications is entitled 
 to feel and to express still deeper misgivings. 
 
 Trinity College, 
 
 February i8, 1865. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 INTROD UOTION. page 
 
 I. The Galatian People i — 17 
 
 II. The Churches of Oalatia 18 — 35 
 
 III. The Date of the Epistle 36 — 56 
 
 IV. Oenuinetiess of the Epistle 57 — 62 
 
 V. Character arid Contents of the Epistle 63 — 68 
 
 TEXT AND NOTES. 
 
 i. I — i. 24 71 — 86 
 
 St PauVs sojourn in Arabia 87 — 90 
 
 St PauVs first visit to Jerusalem 91, 92 
 
 The name and office of an Apostle 92 — loi 
 
 ii. I — ii. 21 102 — 120 
 
 Va/rious readings in ii. 5 121 — 123 
 
 The later visit of St Paul to Jerusalem 123 — 128 
 
 Patristic accounts of the collision at ArUioch 128 — 132 
 
 iii. I — iii. 29 1 33 — 1 5 1 
 
 The interpretation of Deut. xsi. 23 152 — 154 
 
 The words denoting ^ Faith^ 154 — 158 
 
 Tlie faith of Abraham 158 — 164 
 
xiv Contents. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 iv. I— V. I 165—185 
 
 St Paul's infirinity in the flesh 186 — 191 
 
 The various readings in iv. 25 192, 193 
 
 The Tneaning of Hagar in iv. 25 193 — 198 
 
 Phild's Allegory of Hagar and Sarah 198 — 200 
 
 The various readings in v. i 200 — 202 
 
 V. 2 — vi. 18 203 — 226 
 
 Patristic Commentaries on this Epistle 227 — 236 
 
 DISSERTATIONS. 
 
 1. Were the Galatians Celts or Teutons? 239 — 251 
 
 IL The Brethren of the Lord 252 — 291 
 
 III. St Paul and the Three 292 — 374 
 
 INDEX 375-384 
 
I. 
 
 THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 
 
 w 
 
 HEN St Paul carried the Gospel into Galatia, he was The Gala- 
 thrown for the first time among an alien people differing ^lien 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 Gaiatian 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 Coloss£e. 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 
 ^S GAL. T 
 
2 THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 
 
 of some questions of interest, which start up in connexion with 
 
 this epistle. 
 
 '^^^ The great subdivision of the human family which at the 
 
 names ° • n r. 
 
 Celtffi,Ga- dawn of European history occupied a large portion of the 
 
 GaUi. continent west of the Rhine with the outlying islands, and 
 which modern philologers have agreed to call Celtic, was known 
 to the classical writers of antiquity by three several names, 
 Celtce, Oalafce, and Galli^. Of these, CeltJB 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 Marseilles^ 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.*. 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- 
 tact^ On the other hand, the E-omans generally designated 
 
 ^ On these terms see Diefenbach ference from the confused notices in 
 
 Celtica ii. p. 6 sq., XJkert Geogr. der ancient writers. The most important 
 
 Griech. w. Rom. Th. ii. Abth. 2, p. 183 passage is Diod. v. 32, roM yap {jirkp 
 
 sq., Zeuss die Deutschen u. die Nach- Matra-aKiav KaTOLKOvvras iv 7-y fxe(Toyel(^ 
 
 harstdmme p. 6 sq., Thierry Histoire des Kal roi/s irapk rds "AXttcis h-i hk toi>s ^irl 
 
 Gaulois I. p. 28, rdde rdv ILvpTjvaiojv dpi^v KeXroiJj 6po- 
 
 ^ Hecat. JPra^fm. 19, 21, 22, ed. Mill- fii^ovac roi/s 5' vir^p ra^r-qs ttjs KeX- 
 
 ler; Herod, ii. 33, iv. 49. Both forms tlktjs els rd irpbs vhrov ve^ovra fi4p-rj, 
 
 KeXroi and K^rat occur. irapa re t6v lOKeavbu koI rb 'IBlpK^viov 6pos 
 
 " Diod. V. 32, quoted in note 5. KaOidpvfiij/ovs Kal irdj/Tas roi/s i^ijs fM^xpt 
 
 4 Timffius Fragm, 37, ed. Muller. r^s S/cu^tas, TaXdras irpoaayope^ovai 
 
 Pausanias says (i. 3. 5) byj/k U irore a^- k.t.\. See also Strabo iv. p. 189, and 
 
 rods Ka\€L<reat TaXdras ^^evIkw^- KeX- other passages cited in XJkert 11. 2, 
 
 rol yhp Kard re a-(pds rb dpxcuov Kal p. 197 sq., Diefenbach Gelt. 11. p. 10 
 
 Trapi Tois dXXois ix)vofxd^QVTo. See also the sq. At all events it seems certain that 
 
 passages in Diefenbach Celt. 11. p. 8. the Gauls in the neighbourhood of Mar- 
 
 ^ This seems the most probable in- seilles called themselves Celtre. 
 
THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 3 
 
 this people Galli. Whether this word exhibits the same root 
 as Celtge and Galatse, omitting however the Celtic sufiSx^j or 
 whether some other account of its origin is more probable, it 
 is needless to enquire. The term Galli is sometimes adopted Usage of 
 by later Greek writers, but, as a general rule, until some time Boman 
 after the Christian era they prefer Galatse, whether speaking ^^*®^^- 
 of the people of Gaul properly so called or of the Asiatic 
 colony^ The Komans in turn sometimes borrow Galatse from 
 
 1 See Zeuss Gramm, Gelt. 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, (i) 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 (Geltffi). It 
 occurs on the Monumentum Ancyranum 
 (Boecldi Gorp. Imcr. iii. 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 inPolybius,Diodorus, Strabo, 
 Josephus, Plutarch, Appian,PauBanias, 
 and Dion Cassius. It appears also in 
 Athen. p. 333 d, Clem. Alex. Strom, i. 
 p. 359 (Potter), and Origen c. Gels. p. 
 335 E. Even ^han (Nat. An. xvii. 19, 
 referring however to an earlier writer) 
 when speaking of the Asiatic people is 
 obliged to distinguish them as VaKdras 
 To^s i(tJoiJs. On the other hand St Basil 
 (Op. I. p. -28, Gamier) describes the 
 European Gauls as roiis eaireplovs Ta\d- 
 Tas Kai KeXroiJs. In Boeckh G. I. no. 
 9764 the Asiatic country is called jat/f/)d 
 PaXaWa, ' Little Gaul.' (2) The first in- 
 stance of Gallia (Galli) which I have 
 found in any Greek author is in Epicte- 
 tus (or rather Arriaji), Dissert, ii. 10. 1 7, 
 ihairep robs PaXXoi)? i} fxavla Kal 6 oTvos 
 (probably not before a.d. 100). It occurs 
 
 indeed in the present text of Dioscorides 
 (i. 92, dirb VaWias kuI Tvpprjiftas), per- 
 haps an earher writer, but the reading 
 is suspicious, since immediately after- 
 wards he has dirb TaXaWas ttjs irpos 
 rats "AXtrea-tV. Later transcribers were 
 sorely tempted to substitute the form 
 with which they were most familiar, as 
 is done in 2 Tim. iv. 10 in several mss. 
 See below, p. 31, note i. The substitu- 
 tion is so natural that it is sometimes 
 erroneously made where the eastern 
 country is plainly meant : e.g. Pseudo- 
 Doroth. Ghron. Pasch. 11. p. 136, ed. 
 Dind. The form TaXX^a occurs again 
 in the Ep. of the Churches of Vienne 
 and Lyons (Euseb. v. i) a.d. 177, and in 
 Theophil. ad Autol. ii. 32 rds KcCKovfxivas 
 VaWias. 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, rwv VaWiQv ds irpbrepov Va\arias 
 'iXeyov, and Theod. Mops, on 2 Tim. iv. 
 10, Tots vvv Ka\ovfx4vas VaWlas' ovtws 
 ycLp (i.e. VaXaTtav) adrds iravres iKoKovv 
 ol iraXaioL Accordingly Athanasius 
 {Apol. c. Avian. § i, pp. 97, 98) in the 
 same passage uses VaXaria of Asiatic 
 Gaul, VaWlaL of the European pro- 
 vinces. At amuchearlier date than this 
 Galen says (xrv. p. 80, Kuhn), /caXoOo-t 
 yovp a{iToi/s ^vlol fxh PaXaras ivLoi d^ 
 VaXKovs, avvqdiarepov 8k to twv KgXtcov 
 bvofia, but he must be referring in the 
 first two classes to the usage of the 
 Greek and Roman writers respectively. 
 
grations. 
 
 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 modern 
 sense of the term. The word Celtse still remains in common 
 use side by side with the Galatse of the Greek and Galli of the 
 Roman writers, being employed in some cases as coextensive 
 with these, and in others to denote a particular branch of the 
 Celtic race\ 
 Celtic mi- The rare and fitful glimpses which we obtain of the Celtic 
 peoples in the early twilight of history reveal the same restless, 
 fickle temperament, so familiar to us in St Paul's epistle. They 
 appear in a ferment of busy turmoil and ceaseless migration^. 
 They are already in possession of considerable tracts of country 
 to the south and east of their proper limits. They have over- 
 flowed the barrier of the Alps and poured into Northern Italy. 
 They have crossed the 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, 
 
 See similar notices in Straboiv. p. 195, ^ e.g. in Cjesar Bell. Gall. i. i. See 
 
 Appian Bell. Hisp. § i. The form Va- on the main subject of the preceding 
 
 Xaria of European Gaul stiU continued paragraph a good paper by M. D'Arbois 
 
 to be used occasionally, when VaWia de Jubainville, Les Geltesy Les Galatest 
 
 had usurped its place. It is found for Les Gaulois, from the Eevue ArcMo- 
 
 instance in Julian Epist. Ixsiii, and in logiqioe, Paris 1875. 
 
 Libanius fre(iuently : comp. Cureton 2 p^or the migrations of the Celts see 
 
 Corp.Ign.Tp. 351. Ammianus (sv.9)can the well-lmownworkof Thierry Ifisfoire 
 
 still say, ' Galatas dictos, ita enim Gal- des Gaulois (4th ed. 1857), or Contzen 
 
 los sermo Grfficusappellat.' Even later Wanderungen der Kelten (Leipz. 1861). 
 
 writers, who use TaWiai of the Eoman They are considered more in their philo- 
 
 provinces of Gaul, nevertheless seem to logical aspect in Diefenbach's Geltica, 
 
 prefer Tdharla when speaHng of the and in Prichard's Celtic Nations edited 
 
 western country as a whole, e.g. loann. by Latham. The article ' Galli ' by 
 
 Lydus Ostent. pp. 52, 54 (Wachsmuth), Baumstark in Pauly's Real-Encyclopd- 
 
 Kieiocl. Sy need. aj>y. p. ^i-^i^Sbxthey). die is a careful abstract of all that 
 
THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 5 
 
 as history emerges into broad daylight, the tide of Celtic 
 migration is seen rolling ever eastward. In the beginning of Sacking of 
 the fourth century a lateral wave sweeps over the Italian e.g. 390. 
 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.c. 279. 
 nated the Celtic invasion of Greece. 
 
 The Gaulish settlement in Asia Minor is directly connected 
 with this invasion \ A considerable force had detached them- The Gauls 
 
 iTi Aria 
 
 selves from the main body, refusing to take part in the ex- Minor. 
 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 
 
 relates to the subject. See also LeBas Bobiou Histoire des Gaulois d'Orient 
 
 Asie Mineure (Paris, 1863). (1866). The existing monuments of 
 
 ^ The chief authorities for the history Galatia are described by Tezier, Asie 
 
 of the Asiatic Gauls are Polybius v. 77, Mineure (1839 — 1849), ^* P* ^^3 ^1* -^ 
 
 78, iii,sxii. 16 — 24,Livyxxxviii.i2sq., article in the Revue des Deux Mondes 
 
 Strabo xii. p. 566 sq., Memnon {Geogr. (i84i)jrv.p.574,bythesamewriter,con- 
 
 J\Ii7i. ed. Miiller, in, p. 535 sq.), Justin tains an account of the actual condition 
 
 XXV. 2 sq., Arrian Syr. 42, Pausanias i. of this country with a summary of its 
 
 4. 5 . See other references in Diefenbach history ancient and modern. See also 
 
 Celt. n.p. 250. It formed the main sub- his smaller book, Asie Mineure (1862), 
 
 ject of several works no longer extant, p. 453 sqq. More recent; is the impor- 
 
 the most important of which was the tant work Exploration Archeologique 
 
 raXartJccLofEratosthenesinforty books. de la Galatie et de la. Bithynie etc. by 
 
 The monograph of Wernsdorff, De Me- Perrot and Guillaume. The account 
 
 puhlica Galatarum (Nuremb. 1743), to oftheMonumentum Ancyranumin this 
 
 which all later writers are largely in- work is very complete and illustrated 
 
 debted, is a storehouse of facts relating by numerous plates. The ancient his- 
 
 to early Galatian history. See also tory of Galatia is also given at length. 
 
o THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 
 
 Syrian kings, it is said, were forced to submit to these humi- 
 liating terms^. Alternately, the scourge and the allies of 
 each Asiatic prince in succession, as passion or interest dictated, 
 they for a time indulged their predatory instincts unchecked. 
 At length vengeance overbook them. A series of disasters, cul- 
 B.o. 230. minating in a total defeat inflicted by the Pergamene prince 
 Attains the First, effectually curbed their power and insolence^. 
 
 Limits of By these successive checks thev were compressed within 
 Galatia. -^ . . . , . . !. a • ii/r- 
 
 comparatively narrow limits m 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 Oappadocia 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 Galatia^ 
 Galatia But though their power was greatly crippled by these 
 
 by^th?^^ disasters, the Gauls still continued to play an important part 
 Eomans, {^ the feuds of the Asiatic princes. It was while engaged in 
 these mercenary services that they first came into collision 
 with the terrible might of Rome. A body of Galatian troops 
 fighting on the side of Antiochus at the battle of Magnesia 
 attracted the notice of the Eomans, and from that moment 
 their doom was sealed. A single campaign of the Consul 
 B.C. 189. Manlius sufficed for the entire subjugation of Galatia. 
 
 1 Livyzxsviii. 16. inscriptions, Boeckh in. nos. 4010,4011, 
 
 2 Thechronology is somewhat uncer- 4085. Memnon is therefore in error 
 tain. See Niebuhr Kl. Schrift. p. 286. (c. 19), when he assigns the chief towns 
 The date given is an approximation. differently. The names of the three 
 
 3 So Strabo xii. p. 567, Pliny H. N. tribesarevariouslywritten(seeContzen, 
 V. 42, in accordance with ancient au- p. 221), but the orthography adopted 
 thorities generally and confirmed by the in the text is the best supported. 
 
THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 7 
 
 From that time forward they lived as peaceably as their 
 restless spirit allowed them under Koman 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.c. 25. ' 
 Amyntas one of their princes, Galatia was formed by Augustus 
 into a Roman province. 
 
 The limits of the province are not unimportant in their 
 bearing on some questions relating to the early history of the 
 Gospel. It corresponded roughly to the kingdom of Amyntas, Extent of 
 though some districts of the latter were assigned to a dif- province. 
 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 Pisidia^. Lycaonia is especially mentioned as belonging to 
 it, and there is evidence that the cities of Derbe and Lystra 
 in particular^ were included within its boundaries. When the 
 
 ^ The extent of the kingdom of This sweeping statement however must 
 
 Amyntas may be gathered from the be qualified. See Dion Cass. hii. 26, 
 
 following passages : Strabo xii. p. 568, rod 5' 'Afxijj/rov reXevTTjaavTos ou rots 
 
 Dion Cass. xlix. 32 (Lycaonia), Strabo iraLalv avrov ttjp dpx^h^ eirirpe^ev, aXX' 
 
 xii. p. 569 (Isauria), p. 571 (Pisidia), ds rrjv vit-Jkoov eariyayG' Kal ovt(x) koX 
 
 P* 577 (part of Phrygia), xiv. p. 671 i} VaXarta fieroL r^s AvKaovlas "Pby/jLOLov 
 
 (Cilicia Tracheia), Dion Cass. xlix. 32 dpxovra ^o-xe* rd bk x^pict to. e/c r^s 
 
 (part of Pamphylia). See Becker i2o?n. IIa/i^uX£as irporepov r^ 'Afivvrg. Trpoave- 
 
 Alterth. iii. 1. p. 155, Cellarius Not. ix-qdh^TaT^ldit^ vop.Q aireBod-q. Cilicia 
 
 Orb. Ant. 11. '^. 182. Of the formation Tracheia was also separated and as- 
 
 of the Boman province Strabo says, signed to Archelaus, Strabo xiv. p. 671. 
 
 xii. p. 567, vvv 8" ^ovat 'Pw/Aatot Kal On the subject generally see Perrot de 
 
 Ta&TTjv [rrjv VaKariavJ Kal r-qv virb ry Gal. Prov, Bom, Paris 1867. 
 
 'Afi^vrg. yevop.iv7)v ird<raj> els fdav nvva^ ^ The Lystreni are included by Pliny 
 
 7a76vres ^Trapx^aj/, and similarly p. 569. among the Galatian peoples, H. N. v. 
 
o THE GALA.TIAN PEOPLE. 
 
 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 \ 
 Ainbiguity Thus when the writers of the Roman period, St Paul and 
 
 of the . ^ . . 
 
 name. 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. 
 Other ele- Attention has hitherto been directed solely to the barbarian 
 the Gala- settlers in this region. These however did not form by any 
 lation'^^^" ^^^^s ^^^ 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- 
 Phry- vaded country, chiefly Phrygians, of whose language not much 
 gians. ^g 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 
 Greeks, through the social mass were Greek settlers, many of whom 
 doubtless had followed the successors of Alexander thither and 
 were already in the country when the Gauls took possession of 
 it^. To the country thus peopled the Romans, ignoring the old 
 Phrygian population, gave the name of Gallogreecia. At the 
 time when Manlius invaded it, the victorious Gauls had not 
 amalgamated with their Phrygian subjects ; and the Roman 
 consul on opening his campaign was met by a troop of the 
 Phrygian priests of Cybele, who clad in the robes of their 
 order and chanting a wild strain of prophecy declared to him 
 that the goddess approved of the war, and would make him 
 
 42. That Derbe also belonged to Ga- Alterth. iii. i. p. 156. 
 latia may be inferred from Strabo xii. ^ j^ might be inferred from the in- 
 
 p. 569. See Bottger Beitrage, Suppl. scription, Boeckh iii. p. 82, 'lovXiov 
 
 p. 26. XeovT^pov Tov TTpibrov tQv 'EXX^j'oi^, that 
 
 1 SejSao-r^ Te/crotrtiyajj/, S. ToXktto- the Greeksin Galatia were recognised as 
 
 0(t)ylo)Vj S. T}p6K/jLUjy, See Becker Rom, a distinct class even under the Komans. 
 
THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 9 
 
 master of the country\ The great work of the Roman conquest 
 
 was the fusion of the dominant with the conquered race — the Fusion of 
 
 result chiefly, it would appear, of that natural process by which phry- 
 
 all minor distinctions are levelled in the presence of a superior S^^'^^* 
 
 power. From this time forward the amalgamation began, and 
 
 it was not long before the Gauls adopted even the religion of 
 
 their Phrygian subjects I 
 
 The Galatia of Manlius then was peopled by a mixed race 
 of Phrygians, Gauls, and Greeks. But before St Paul visited the Eomans. 
 country two new elements had been added to this already 
 heterogeneous population. The establishment of the province 
 must have drawn thither a considerable number of Romans, 
 not very widely spread in all probability, but gathered about 
 the centres of government, either holding oflScial positions 
 themselves, or connected more or less directly with those who 
 did. From the prominence of the ruling race in the Galatian 
 monuments^ we might even infer that the whole nation had been 
 romanized. Such an impression however would certainly be 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 interval^ Antiochus 
 
 1 Polyb. xxii. 20, Livy xxxviii. 18. In 2 Maee. viii. 20 there is an obscure 
 
 ^ A BrogitaruB is mentioned as priest allusion to an engagement with them in 
 
 of the mother of the gods at Pessinus ; Babylonia. In i Mace. viii. 2 it is said 
 
 Cicero de Arusp.Resp. 28ipro Sext. 26. that Judas Maccabseus 'heard of the 
 
 A Dyteutus son of Adiatorix held the warsoftheEomansandthebravedeeds 
 
 same of&ce in the temple of the goddess which they did among the Galatians (or 
 
 worshipped at Comana, Strabo xii. p. Gauls) and how they subdued them and 
 
 558. Other instances are given in laid them under tribute': but whether 
 
 Thierry i. p. 411, Perrot Expl. Arch. we suppose the enumeration of the Ko- 
 
 p. 185. man triuijiphs to proceed in geographi- 
 
 3 Boecth Corp. Inscr. iii. pp. 73 — cal or chronological order, the refer- 
 
 1 15 . ence is probably to the "Western Gauls, 
 
 * The direct connexion of the Gala- either chiefly or solely, since the suc- 
 
 tians with Jewish history is very slight. cesses of the Eomans in Spain are 
 
10 
 
 THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 
 
 Their 
 
 commer- 
 cial 
 instincts, 
 
 attracted 
 by the 
 natural 
 advan- 
 
 of Galatia, 
 
 the Great had settled two thousand Jewish families in Lydia 
 and Phrygia^ ; and even if we suppose that these settlements did 
 not extend to Galatia properly so called, the Jewish colonists 
 must in course of time have overflowed into a neighbouring 
 country which possessed so many attractions for them. Those 
 commercial instincts, which achieved a wide renown in the 
 neighbouring 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 created ^ It was moreover conveni- 
 ently situated for mercantile transactions, being traversed by a 
 great high road between the East and the shores of the -^gean, 
 along which caravans were constantly passing, and among its 
 towns it numbered not a few which are mentioned as great centres 
 of commerce^. We read especially of a considerable traffic in cloth 
 
 mentioned in the following verse, their 
 victories over Philip and Perseus in 
 the 5th, and the defeat of Antioohus 
 not till the 6th verse. The same un- 
 certainty hangs over the incident in 
 Joseph. Ant. xv. 7. 3, Bell. Jud. i. 20, 
 3, where we read that Augustus gave 
 to Herod as his body-guard 400 Gala- 
 tians (or Gauls) who had belonged to 
 Cleopatra. 
 
 1 Joseph. Ant. xii. 3. 4. 
 
 2 An anonymous geographer (Geogr. 
 Min. Miiller, 11. p. 521) describes Gala- 
 tia as 'provincia optima, sibi sufficiens.' 
 Other ancient writers also speak of 
 the natural advantages of this country; 
 see Wernsdorff p. 199 sq. A modern 
 traveller writes as follows : ' Malgr^ tant 
 de ravages et de guerres d^sastreuses, 
 
 la Galatie, par la fertility de son sol et 
 la richesse de ses produits agricoles, est 
 encore une des provinces les plus hen- 
 reuses de I'Asie Mineure.' And again : 
 ' Malgr6 tons ses malheurs, la ville mo- 
 derne d'Angora est une des plus peu- 
 plees de I'Asie Mineure. EUe doit la 
 prosp6ritd relative dont elle n'a cess^ 
 de jouir ^ son heureuse situation, k 
 un climat admirablement sain, a un 
 sol fertile, et surtout k ses innombrables 
 troupeaux de ch&vres, etc' Texier, 
 Revue des Deux Mondes, 1, c. pp. 507 
 602. 
 
 3 Strabo, xii. p. 567, especially men- 
 tions Tavium and Pessinus, describing 
 the latter as ^^iropetov tCov ravTy fiiyt- 
 (TTOp. Livy, xxxviii. 18, calls Gordium 
 ' celebre et frequens emporium.' 
 
THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. II 
 
 goods ; but whether these were of home or foreign manufacture 
 we are not expressly tol(i\ With these attractions it is not dif- 
 ficult to explain the vast increase of the Jewish population in 
 Galatia, and it is a significant fact that in the generation before 
 St Paul Augustus directed a decree granting especial privileges 
 to the Jews to be inscribed in his temple at Ancyra, the Galatian 
 metropolis ^ doubtless because this was a principal seat of the 
 dispersion in these parts of Asia Minor. Other testimony to Their in- 
 the same effect is afforded by the inscriptions found in Galatia, 
 which present here and there Jewish names and symbols'* 
 amidst a strange confusion of Phrygian and Celtic, Roman and 
 Greek. At the time of St Paul they probably boasted a large 
 number of proselytes and may even have infused a beneficial 
 leaven into the religion of the mass of the heathen population. 
 Some accidental points of resemblance in the Mosaic ritual may 
 perhaps have secured for the inspired teaching of the Old Testa- 
 ment a welcome which would have been denied to its lofty 
 theology and pure code of morals ^ 
 
 1 MtHler's Geogr. Min. 1. e. 'negotia- Armenians, Asia Minor, i. p. 419. 
 tur plurimam vestem.* It is interest- ^ See Boeckh Corp. Inscr. Vol- in. 
 ing to find that at the present day a P. xviii. Inno. 4129 thename'HuaiJos 
 yery large trade is carried on at An- occurs with a symhol which Boeckh 
 gora, the ancient Ancyra, in the fabric conjectures to he the seven-branched 
 manufactured from the fine hair of the candlestick. We have also 'lojdvvov 
 peculiar breed of goats reared in the 4045, Xca/^aros 4074, Mararas 4088, 
 neighbourhood. See Hamilton Asia 0a5ei>s 4092. 'A/c/Xas ox'AicuXas a name 
 Minor, i. p. 418, Texier, 1. c. p. 602 commonly borne by Jews in these parts 
 sq., and especially Eitter's Erdkunde occurs several times. It is possible 
 XVIII. p. 505. It is to this probably however that some of these may be 
 that the ancient geographer refers. Christian ; nor is it always easy to pro- 
 
 2 Joseph. Antiq. xvi. 6. 2. The in- nounce on the Hebrew origin of a name 
 fluenee of Judaism on St Paul's con- in the confusion of nations which these 
 verts here does not derive the same inscriptions exhibit. 
 
 illustration from the statistics of the ^ Pausanias (vii. 17, 5) mentions that 
 existing population as it does in some the people of Pessinus abstained from 
 other places, Thessalonica for instance, swine's flesh {iiujv o^x cLTTTOfievot), a state- 
 where the Jews are said to form at ment which has given rise to much 
 least one half of the inhabitants. In discussion. See Wernsdorff p. 324 sq. 
 1836 Hamilton was informed that out Some have attributed this abstinence to 
 of about 11,000 houses in Ancyra only Jewish influence, but the aversion to 
 150 were Jewish, the majority of the swine's flesh was common to several 
 population being Turks or Catholic Eastern peoples. Instances are given 
 
12 THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 
 
 The Celtic Still with all this foreiffn admixture, it was the Celtic blood 
 
 type pre- . ° 
 
 domi- 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 Colossse, though edu- 
 cated in the same Phrygian worship and subjected to the same 
 Jewish influences. The tough vitality of the Celtic character 
 maintained itself in Asia comparatively unimpaired among 
 Phrygians and Greeks, as it has done in our own islands among. 
 Saxons and Danes and Normans, retaining its individuality of 
 type after the lapse of ages and under conditions the most 
 adverse ^ 
 The Gala- A very striking instance of the permanence of Celtic insti- 
 tain their tutions is the retention of their language by these Gauls of Asia 
 language j^jij^op. 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 Ehine. St Jerome, 
 who had himself visited both the Gaul of the West and the 
 Gaul of Asia Minor, illustrates the relation of the two forms of 
 speech by the connexion existing between the language of the 
 Phoenicians and their African colonies, or between the different 
 dialects of Latin ^. 
 
 in Milman's Hist, of the Jews i. p. 177 les yeux bleux rappellent le caract^re 
 
 (3rd ed,). des populations de Touest de la France.' 
 
 ^ Modern travellers have seen, or ^ Hieron. in Epist. ad Gal. lib. 11. 
 
 imagined they saw, in the physical fea- prsef. ' Galatas except© sermone Graeco, 
 
 tures of the modern inhabitants of Ga- quo omnis Oriens loquitur, propriam 
 
 latia traces of their Celtic origin. So liuguam eandem pene habere quam 
 
 Texier, 1. c. p. 598, ' Sans chercher k se Treveros, nee referre si aliqua exinde 
 
 faire illusion, on reconnalt quelquefois, corruperint, quum et Afri Phoenicum 
 
 surtout parmi les pasteurs, des types linguam nonnulla ex parte mutaverint, 
 
 qui se rapportent merveilleusement k et ipsa Latinitas et regionibus quotidie 
 
 certainea races de nos provinces de mutetur et tempore ' (vii. P. i. p. 430, 
 
 France. On voit plus decheveux blonds ed. Vallarsl). By 'excepto sermone 
 
 en Galatie qu'en aucun autre royaume Grieco' he means that they spote 
 
 de I'Asie Mineure; les tetes carries et Greek in common with the rest of the 
 
THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 13 
 
 With the knowledge of this remarkable fact, it will not be and their 
 
 character 
 thought idle to look for traces of the Celtic character in the essentially 
 
 Galatians of St Paul's Epistle, for in general the character of ^^ ^^^ 
 a nation even outlives its language. No doubt it had under- 
 gone many changes. They were no longer that fierce hardy 
 race with which Rome and Greece successively had grappled in 
 a struggle of life and death. After centuries of intercourse 
 with Greeks and Phrygians, with the latter especially who were 
 reputed among the most effeminate and worthless of Asiatics, 
 the ancient valour of the Gauls must have been largely diluted. 
 Like the Celts of Western Europe, they had gradually dete- 
 riorated under the enervating influence of a premature or 
 forced civilisation^ Nevertheless beneath the surface the Celtic 
 character remains still the same, whether manifested in the 
 rude and fiery barbarians who were crushed by the arms of 
 Csesar, or the impetuous and fickle converts who call down 
 the indignant rebuke of the Apostle of the Gentiles. 
 
 St Paul's language indeed will suggest many coincidences, Minor co- 
 which perhaps we may be tempted to press unduly. His denun- j^ g^ 
 ciation of 'drunkenness and revellingsV falling in with the -^^.^'^ 
 taunts of ancient writers, will appear to point to a darling sin 
 of the Celtic people^. His condemnation of the niggardly 
 
 East, as well as Celtic. Thierry (i, p. bly an anachronism in the mouth of 
 
 415) strangely mistakes the meaning, ManUus, but it was doubtless true when 
 
 ' las Galates ^taient les seuls, entre Livy wrote and when St Paul preached, 
 
 tons les peuples asiatiques, qui ne se On the degeneracy of the "Western 
 
 servissent point de la langue grecque.' Gauls, see Cses&rBell. Gall, vi. 24, Tac. 
 
 It is probable that they understood St Ann. xi. 18, Agric. 11, Germ. 28. 
 
 Paul's epistle as well as if it had been ^ Gal. y. 21. 
 
 written in their original tongue. None ^ Diod. Sic. v. 26 k6,tqlvol dk 6vre^ 
 
 of the Galatian inscriptions are in the KaO^ {nr€p^o\7]v rhv ehaydfjievov {;ir6 ruy 
 
 Celtic language. The people of Ancyra ifj^irbpiov olvov aKparov ifxcpopovvraL Kal 
 
 were perhaps 'trilingues' like the Celts dia t^v iiridvfj.iav Xa/3py xp^l^^v^'- ^V 
 
 of Marseilles. Trory koI fiedvffd^Tes els virvov ^ (lavub- 
 
 ^ Livy, xxxviii. 17, represents Man- Sets Zi.o.6i<xei.s TpiwovraL /c.r.X,; Epictet. 
 
 lius as saying 'Etillis majoribus nos- Dissert, ii. 20. 17, referred to in the note 
 
 tris cum haud dubiis Gallis in terra p. 3. Compare also the jest, * Gallos 
 
 sua genitis res erat. Hi jamdegeneres post hsec dilutius esse poturos,' quoted 
 
 sunt, mixti et Gallogrseci yere, quod from Cicero by Ammian. Marc. xv. 12, 
 
 app ellantur.' This language is proba- and the account Ammianus himself 
 
H 
 
 THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 
 
 spirit with which they had doled out their alms, as a * mockery 
 of GodV will remind us that the race is constantly reproached 
 with its greed of wealth, so that Gaulish avarice passed almost 
 into a proverb I His reiterated warning against strife and vain- 
 glory^ will seem directed against a vice of the old Celtic blood 
 still boiUng in their veins and breaking out in fierce and rancor- 
 ous self-assertion*. His very expression, ' if ye bite and devour 
 one another/ will recall the angry gesticulations and menacing 
 tones of this excitable peopled But without laying too much 
 stress on these points of resemblance, which however plausible 
 do not afford ground enough for a safe inference, we may con- 
 fidently appeal to the broader features of the Galatian charac- 
 ter, as they appear in this Epistle. In two important points 
 especially, in the general temperament and the religious bias of 
 his converts, light is shed on the language of St Paul by the 
 notices of the Gauls found in classical authors. 
 
 I. The main features of the Gaulish character are traced 
 with great distinctness by the Eoman writers. Quickness of ap- 
 prehension, promptitude in action, great impressibility, an eager 
 craving after knowledge, this is the brighter aspect of the Celtic 
 character. Inconstant and quarrelsome, treacherous in their 
 dealings, incapable of sustained effort, easily disheartened by 
 failure, such they appear when viewed on their darker side. It is 
 curious to note the same eager inquisitive temper revealing itself 
 under widely different circumstances, at opposite limits both of 
 time and space, in their early barbarism in the West and their 
 worn-out civilisation in the East. The great Eoman captain relates 
 
 gives of the intemperance of the 
 Gauls. 
 
 ^ Gal. vi. 6, 7. 
 
 2 Died. Sic. V. 27 ^PTwv tujv KeX- 
 Tuiv (pL\apyvpo)v kclO^ ^irep^oX'^v, Livy, 
 xxxviii. -27, calls the Galatians 'avidis- 
 sima rapiendi gens.' Compare Labb. 
 Gone. V. 49 (ed. Colet) icpojpdBTjtrav 
 TLV^s Kara tQv VaKarQiv dXiyojpovpres koX 
 7rapapaivovT€S 5i' alffXpoKipdeiav Kal 0t\- 
 apyvpiap k.t.X., in the encyclical letter 
 
 against simony, a.d. 459. 
 
 3 Gal. V. 15, 26; comp. v. 20, 21, 
 vi. 3. 
 
 4 Ammian. 1. c. ' avidi jurgiorum et 
 sublatius insolescentes,* Diod. Sic. v. 
 28. 
 
 ^ Diod. Sic. v. 31 &7r€L\7}ral dk Kal 
 dparaTLKol Kal T€Tpayij}d7}(j.4yot virdpxov- 
 (Tt, Ammian. 1. c. ' Metuends9 voces 
 complurium et minaces, placatorum 
 juxta et irascentium.' 
 
THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 15 
 
 how the Gauls would gather about any merchant or traveller 
 who came in their way, detaining him even against his will and 
 eagerly pressing him for news\ A late Greek rhetorician com- 
 mends the Galatians as more keen and quicker of apprehension 
 than the genuine Greeks, adding that the moment they catch 
 sight of a philosopher, they cling to the skirts of his cloak, as 
 the steel does to the magnet I It is chiefly however on the more 
 forbidding features of their character that contemporary writers 
 dwell. Fickleness is the term used to express their tempera- Their 
 ment . This instability of character was the great difficulty 
 against which Csesar had to contend in his dealings with the 
 Gaul*. He complains that they all with scarcely an exception 
 are impelled by the desire of changed Nor did they show 
 more constancy in the discharge of their religious, than of 
 their social obligations. The hearty zeal with which they em- 
 braced the Apostle's teaching followed by their rapid apostasy 
 is only an instance out of many of the reckless facility with 
 which they adopted and discarded one religious system after 
 another. To St Paul, who had had much bitter experience of 
 hollow professions and fickle purposes, this extraordinary levity 
 was yet a matter of unfeigned surprise. 'I marvel,' he says, 
 'that ye are changing so quickly ^' He looked upon it as some 
 strange fascination. 'Ye senseless Gauls, who did bewitch you^?' 
 The language in which Roman writers speak of the martial 
 courage of the Gauls, impetuous at the first onset but rapidly 
 melting in the heat of the fray^ well describes the short-lived 
 
 1 Cffisar Bell. Gall iv. 5. esistimavit.' Comp. Motley United 
 
 2 Themistius Or. xxiii, p. 299 a Netherlands in. p. 326, ' As has al- 
 (referred to by Wetstein on Gal. i. 6) ready been depicted in these pages, 
 ol 5^ dvSpes ta-re Hti S^ecs Kal djxivoL the Celtic element had been more apt 
 Kal e^/jLad4(rr€poi rojy dyav '^Wi^vojv Kal to receive than consistent to retain the 
 rpi^ojviov 7rapa<f}av4vros iKKpifj-avrat ei5- generous impression which had once 
 dijs (Jiffirep ttjs \i6ov ra fftS^pm. been stamped on all the Netherlands.' 
 
 ^ Bell. Gall. u. i ' Mobilitate et le- ^ Ih. in. 10 ' Quum inteUigeret om- 
 
 vitate animi'; comp. Tac. Germ. 29. nes fere Gallos novis rebus studere.' 
 
 4 Bell. Gall. iv. 5 * Infirmitatem Gal- ^ (^^1. i. 6. 
 
 lorum veritus quod sunt in consiliis 7 Qal. iii i ^fl avdTjroi TaXarat, rls 
 
 capiendis mobiles et novis plerumque ifids i^d<rKavep ; 
 
 rebus student, nihil his committendum ^ Livy s, 28 ' Gallorum quidem etiam 
 
1 6 THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 
 
 prowess of these converts in the warfare of the Christian 
 
 Church. 
 
 2, Their 2. Equally important, in its relation to St Paul's epistle, 
 
 religious • i « n . i j 
 
 tendencies IS the type of religious worship which seems to have pervaded 
 
 the Celtic nations. The Gauls are described as a superstitious 
 people given over to ritual observances^. Nor is it perhaps 
 a mere accident that the only Asiatic Gaul of whom history 
 affords more than a passing glimpse, Deiotarus the client of 
 Cicero, in his extravagant devotion to augury fully bears out 
 the character ascribed to the parent race^. 
 
 The colours in which contemporary writers have painted 
 the religion of the primitive Gauls are dark and terrible enough, 
 passionate A gross superstition, appealing to the senses and the passions 
 istic 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 creeds The Druids 
 were an exclusive caste with an esoteric doctrine, and it is with 
 the popular worship that we are concerned. The point to be 
 observed is that an outward material passionate religion had 
 shown in grown up among the Gauls, as their own creation, answering to 
 thenwor- ^^^^ peculiar features of their character. Settled among the 
 stiip. Phrygians they with their wonted facility adopted the religion 
 
 of the subject people. The worship of Cybele with its wild 
 ceremonial and hideous mutilations would naturally be attrac- 
 tive to the Gaulish mind. Its external rites were similar 
 enough in their general character to those of the primitive 
 Celtic religion to commend it to a people who had found satis- 
 
 corpora intolerantissima laboris atque nibus,' BelL Gall. vi. i6; comp. Diod, 
 
 sestus fluere; primaque eorum prselia Sic. v. 27. 
 
 plusquam virorum, postrema minus 2 Cicero de Div. i. 15, ii. ^6, 57. 
 
 quam feminarum esse.' Comp. Plorus ^ The nobler aspect of the Druidical 
 
 ii. 4. To the same effect Csesar B. G. system has been exaggerated. See the 
 
 iii. 19, and Polyb. ii. 35. remarks of M. de Pressens^, Trois Pre- 
 
 1 Cffisar's words are, ' Natio est om- miers SUcles, 2me s6rie, i, p. 52. 
 nis Gallorum admodum dedita religio- 
 
THE GALATIAN PEOPLE. 
 
 17 
 
 faction in the latter. And though we may suppose that the 
 mystic element in the Phrygian worship, which appealed so 
 powerfully to the Grseco-Asiatic, awoke no corresponding echo 
 in the Gaul, still there was enough in the outward ritual with 
 its passionate orgies to allure them. Then the Gospel was 
 offered to them and the energy of the Apostle's preaching took and infect- 
 their hearts by storm. But the old leaven still remained. The ohrietian- 
 pure and spiritual teaching of Christianity soon ceased to ^^^' 
 satisfy them. Their religious temperament, fostered by long 
 habit, prompted them to seek a system more external and 
 ritualistic \ 'Having begun in the Spirit, they would be made 
 perfect in the fleshl' Such is the language of the Apostle 
 rebuking this unnatural violation of the law of progress. At 
 a later period in the history of the Church we find the Gala- 
 tians still hankering after new forms of Christianity in the 
 same spirit of ceaseless innovation, still looking for some 
 * other gospel' which might better satisfy their cravings after 
 a more passionate worship. 
 
 ^ Compare the language of a modern 
 historian describing the western race 
 in a much later age ; Motley Dutch 
 Bepublic in. p. 26 *The stronger in- 
 fusion of the Celtic element, which 
 
 from the earliest ages had always been 
 so keenly alive to the more sensuous 
 and splendid manifestations of the de- 
 votional principle. '' 
 ^ Gal. iii. 3. 
 
 GAL. 
 
II. 
 
 THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 
 
 What is 
 meant by 
 Galatia? 
 
 Consider- 
 ations in 
 favour of 
 the Eo- 
 man pro- 
 vince. 
 
 TN what sense do the sacred writers use the word Galatia? 
 -*" Has it an ethnographical or a political meaning ? In other 
 words, does it signify the comparatively small district occupied 
 by the Gauls, Galatia properly so called, or the much larger 
 territory included in the Roman province of the name ? This 
 question must be answered before attempting to give an ac- 
 count of the Galatian Churches. 
 
 Important consequences flow from the assumption that the 
 term covers the wider area^. In that case it will comprise not 
 only the towns of Derbe and Lystra^ but also, it would seem, 
 Iconium and the Pisidian Antioch : and we shall then have in 
 the narrative of St Luke® a full and detailed account of the 
 founding of the Galatian Churches. Moreover the favourite 
 disciple and most constant companion of the Apostle, Timotheus, 
 was on this showing a Galatian*; and through him St Paul's 
 communications with these Churches would be more or less 
 close to the end of his life. It must be confessed too, that this 
 view has much to recommend it at first sight. The Apostle's 
 account of his hearty and enthusiastic welcome by the Galatians, 
 as an angel of God^ will have its counterpart in the impulsive 
 warmth of the barbarians at Lystra, who would have sacrificed 
 to him, imagining that 'the gods had come down in the like- 
 
 1 The warmest advocates of this view 
 are Bottger Beitrdge i. p. a8 sq., iii. 
 p. I sq., and Renan Saint Paul p. 51, 
 etc. See more on this subject in Colos- 
 eiam p. 24 sq. 
 
 2 See above, p. 7, note 1. 
 
 3 Acts siii. 14 — xiv. 24. 
 
 4 Acts xvi. I. 
 s Gal. vi. 14. 
 
THE CHUECHES OF GALATIA. 19 
 
 ness of men\' His references to ' the temptations in the flesh/ 
 and ' the marks of the Lord Jesus * branded on his body^, are 
 then illustrated, or thought to be illustrated, by the perse- 
 cutions and sufferings that * came unto him at Antioch, at 
 Iconium, at Lystral' The progress of Judaizing tendencies 
 among the Galatians is then accounted for by the presence of a 
 large Jewish element such as the history describes in these 
 Churches of Lycaonia and Pisidia*. 
 
 Without stopping however to sift these supposed coinci- Ol)jections 
 dences, or insisting on the chronological and historical difi&cul- view. 
 ties which this view creates, there are many reasons which 
 make it probable that the Galatia of St Paul and St Luke is 
 not the Roman province of that name, but the land of the 
 Gauls ^ By writers speaking familiarly of the scenes in which 
 they had themselves taken part, the term would naturally be 
 used in its popular rather than in its formal and official sense. 
 It would scarcely be more strange to speak of Pesth and Pres- 
 burg, of Venice and Verona, as 'the Austrian cities,' than to 
 entitle the Christian brotherhoods of Derbe and Lystra, Iconium 
 and Antioch, 'the Churches of Galatia/ Again, analogy is 
 strongly in favour of the popular use of the term^. Mysia, 
 Phrygia, Pisidia, are all ' geographical expressions ' destitute of 
 any political significance; and as they occur in the same parts 
 of the narrative with Galatia^, it seems fair to infer that the 
 latter is similarly used. The direct transition for instance, 
 which we find from Galatia to Phrygia, is only explicable if the 
 two are kindred terms, both alike being used in a popular way. 
 Moreover, St Luke distinctly calls Lystra and Derbe * cities of 
 
 ^ Acts siv. II. visited the district. 
 
 2 Gal. iv. 14, vi. 17. ^ The case of ' Asia ' however is an 
 
 3 2 Tim. iii. 11. exception. The foundation of this pro- 
 ^ Acts xiii. 14, 43, 45, xiv. i, xvi. 3. vince dating very far back, its official 
 ^ On the other hand in i Peter i. i, name had to a great extent superseded 
 
 where the enumeration seems to pro- the local designations of the districts 
 
 ceed by provinces, Galatia is probably which it comprised. Hence Asia in the 
 
 used in its political sense. This is New Testament is always Proconsular 
 
 not unnatural in one who was writing Asia, 
 from a distance, and perhaps had never ^ Acts xiv. 24, xvi. 6 — 8, xviii. 23. 
 
20 THE CHUECHES OF GALATIA. 
 
 LycaoniaV while he no less distinctly assigns Antioch to Pisidia^ 
 a convincing proof that in the language of the day they were 
 not regarded as Galatian towns. Lastly, the expression used in 
 the Acts of St Paul's visit to these parts, ' the Phrygian and 
 Galatian countryV 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 Galatia. Churches of Galatia within narrower limits. In the absence of 
 all direct testimony, we may conjecture that it was at Ancyra, 
 now the capital of the Roman province as formerly of the 
 Gaulish settlement, 'the most illustrious metropolis/ as it is 
 styled in formal documents^; at Pessinus; under the shadow 
 of Mount Dindymus, the cradle of the 'worship of the great 
 goddess, and one of the principal commercial towns of the dis- 
 trict^; at Tavium, at once a strong fortress and a great empo- 
 rium, situated at the point of convergence of several important 
 roads^; perhaps also at Juliopolis, the ancient Gordium, for- 
 merly the capital of Phrygia, almost equidistant from the three 
 seas, and from its central position a busy mart''; at these, 
 or some of these places, that St Paul founded the earliest 
 ' Churches of Galatia.' The ecclesiastical geography of Galatia 
 two or three centuries later is no safe guide in settling ques- 
 tions relating to the apostolic age, but it is worth while to 
 
 ^ Acts xiv. 6, Galatia. 
 
 2 Acts xiii. 14. ^ Plinj v. 42 ' Caputque quondam 
 
 3 Actsxvi.6. See below, note 3, p. 2 -2. ejus (i.e. Phrygiffi) Gordium.' Comp. 
 '^ Boeckh Corp. Inscr. no. 4015 i) Livy xxxviii. 18'Haudmagnumquidem 
 
 /SouXt/ koX 6 8ij/jLos T'qs XafiirpOTdrTjs /xtj- oppidum est, sed plusquam mediter- 
 
 T/307r6Xews 'AjKvpas. It is frequently raneum,celebreetfrequens emporium: 
 
 styled the * metropolis ' in inscriptions tria maria pari ferme distantia inter- 
 
 and on coins. vallo habet.' See Eitter Erdkunde 
 
 5 Strabo xii. p. 567. xviii. p. 561. The identity of Gordium 
 
 ^ Strabo 1. c. See Hamilton's Asia and Juliopolis however, though as- 
 
 Minor p. 395. Perhaps however Ta- sumed by Bitter, 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 Sitzungsher. der Konigl. 
 
 more directly to the western parts of hayer. Akad. i860, p. 169 sq. 
 
THE CHUKCHES OF GALATIA. 21 
 
 observe that these are among the earliest episcopal sees on 
 record in this country\ 
 
 In Galatia the Gospel would find itself in conflict with two 
 distinct t3^es of worship, which then divided the allegiance 
 of civiHsed 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 Eome was one of the 
 earliest and most striking embodiments of the new political 
 worship which imperial statecraft had devised to secure the 
 respect of its subject peoples. We should gladly have learnt Silence of 
 how the great Apostle advocated the cause of the truth against and St 
 either form of error. Our curiosity however is here disappointed. ^ ®* 
 It is strange that while we have more or less acquaintance with 
 all the other important Churches of St Paul's founding, with 
 Corinth and Ephesus, with Philippi and Thessalonica, not a 
 single name of a person or place, scarcely a single incident of 
 any kind, connected with the Apostle's preaching in Galatia, 
 should be preserved in either the history or the epistle. The 
 reticence of the Apostle himself indeed may be partly accounted 
 for by the circumstances of the Galatian Church. The same 
 delicacy, which has concealed from us the name of the Corinth- 
 ian offender, may have led him to avoid all special allusions in 
 addressing a community to which he wrote in a strain of the 
 severest censure. Yet even the slight knowledge we do possess 
 of the early Galatian Church is gathered from the Epistle, with 
 scarcely any aid from the history. Can it be that the historian 
 gladly drew a veil over the infancy of a Church which swerved 
 so soon and so widely from the purity of the Gospel ? 
 
 St Luke mentions two visits to Galatia, but beyond the bare Two visits 
 fact he adds nothing to our knowledge. The first occasion was ° ^ ^ ^^• 
 during the Apostle's second missionary journey, probably in the 
 year 51 or 52 1 The second visit took place a few years later, 
 perhaps in the year 54, in the course of his third missionary 
 ^ Le Quien Oriens Christ, i. p. 456 sq, ^ Acts xvi, 6. 
 
22 THE CHURCHES OF GAL ATI A. 
 
 journey, and immediately before his long residence in Ephesus^. 
 The epistle contains allusions, as will be seen, to both visits ; 
 and combining these two sources of information, we arrive at 
 the following scanty facts. 
 First visit I. After the Apostolic congress St Paul starting from 
 ^.D. 51 or ^j^^-^^j^ ^-^j^ g£^^g revisited the churches he had founded in 
 Syria, Cilicia, and Lycaonia. At Lystra they fell in with Timo- 
 theus, who also accompanied them on their journey ^ Hitherto 
 the Apostle had been travelling over old ground. He now 
 entered upon a new mission-field, 'the region of Phrygia and 
 Galatia^* The form of the Greek expression implies that 
 Phrygia and Galatia here are not to be regarded as separate 
 districts. The country which was now evangelized might be 
 called indifferently Phrygia or Galatia. It was in fact the land 
 originally inhabited by Phrygians, but subsequently occupied 
 by Gauls: or so far as he travelled beyond the limits of the 
 Gallic settlement, it was still in the neighbouring parts of 
 Phrygia that he preached, which might fairly be included under 
 one general expression*. 
 
 St Paul does not appear to have had any intention of 
 preaching the Gospel here^ He was perhaps anxious at once 
 to bear his message to the more important and promising dis- 
 trict of Proconsular Asia^. But he was detained by a return 
 
 ) 
 ^ Acts xviii. 23. latia before Phrygia, but it is quite con- 
 
 2 Acts XV. 40 — xvi. 5. sistent with the expression in the first, 
 
 3 Acts xvi. 6 diTp^dop 8^ TTjp ^pv where the two districts are not sepa- 
 yiav Kal [ttjv'] VdXartKrjv x'^P^^' The rated. If we retain the received read- 
 second T-qv of the received reading ought ing, we must suppose that St Paul went 
 to be omitted with the best arss, in from west to east on the first occasion, 
 which case ^pvyiav becomes an adjec- and from east to west on the second. 
 tive. Thisvarietyofreadinghas escaped ^ Colossse would thus lie beyond the 
 the notice of cormnentators, 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), dLepxofievos KaOe^ijs ttjv 6, 7, ii. i. See on the whole subject 
 VaXaTLK'^v x^P^'^ f^^^ ^pvylau. The Colossians p. 23 sq. 
 
 general direction of St Paul's route on ^ I see no reason for departing from 
 
 both occasions was rather westward the strictly grammatical interpretation 
 
 than eastward, and this is expressed of Gal. iv. 13, 5t' do-d4i/€Lav ttjs ffapKos. 
 
 in the second passage by naming Ga- ^ Acts xvi. 6. 
 
THE CHUECHES OF GALATIA. 23 
 
 of his old malady, 'the thorn in the flesh, the messenger of^*^^^'^ 
 Satan sent to buffet himV some sharp and violent attack, it hearty re- 
 would appear, which humiliated him and prostrated his physical Oalatia. 
 strength. To this the Galatians owed their knowledge of 
 Christ. Though a homeless stricken wanderer might seem but 
 a feeble advocate of a cause so momentous, yet it was the 
 divine order that in the preaching of the Gospel strength should 
 be made perfect in weakness. The zeal of the preacher and the 
 enthusiasm of the hearers triumphed over all impediments. 
 *They did not despise nor loathe the temptation in his flesh. 
 They received him as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. 
 They would have plucked out their very eyes, if they could, and 
 have given them to himl' 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- Attitudeof 
 11*1 11 pnii * *^^ Crala- 
 
 pathy which attracted them so poweriully, though so transi- tians to- 
 
 ently, to the Gospel. They may indeed have held the doctrine Gospel. ^ 
 of the immortality of the soul, which is said to have formed 
 part of the Druidical teaching in European Gaul^. It is pos- 
 sible too that there lingered, even in Galatia, the old Celtic 
 conviction, so cruelly expressed in their barbarous sacrifices, 
 that only by man's blood can man be redeemed*. But with 
 these doubtful exceptions, the Gospel, as a message of mercy 
 and a spiritual faith, stood in direct contrast to the gross and 
 material religions in which the race had been nurtured, whether 
 the cruel ritualism of their old Celtic creed, or the frightful 
 orgies of their adopted worship of the mother of the gods. Yet 
 though the whole spirit of Christianity was so alien to their 
 habits of thought, we may well imagine how the fervour of the 
 Apostle's preaching may have fired their religious enthusiasm. 
 The very image under which he describes his work brings 
 
 1 1 Cor. xii. 7. 4 ;qqii^ Qall. vi. 16 'Pro vita homi- 
 
 2 Gal. iv. 14, 15. nis nisi homiois vita reddatnr, non 
 
 3 They believed also in its transmi- posse ahter deorum immortalium nu- 
 gration. See Csesar Bell. Gall. vi. 14, men placari arhitrantur.' 
 
 Died. Sic. V. 28. 
 
H THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 
 
 Earnest- vividly before us the energy and force with which he delivered 
 
 ij6SS 01 TtJj.6 _ , _ , -f 
 
 Apostle's his message. He placarded Christ crucified before their eyes , 
 preac mg. ^j.j.gg^^jjg ^j^^ g^^e of the spiritual loiterer, and riveting it on 
 this proclamation of his Sovereign. If we picture to ourselves 
 the Apostle as he appeared before the GalatianS; a friendless 
 outcast, writhing under the tortures of a painful malady, yet 
 instant in season and out of season, by turns denouncing and 
 entreating, appealing to the agonies of a crucified Saviour, 
 perhaps also, as at Lystra, enforcing this appeal by some 
 striking miracle, we shall be at no loss to conceive how the 
 fervid temperament of the Gaul might have been aroused, 
 while yet only the surface of his spiritual consciousness was 
 ruffled. For the time indeed all seemed to be going on well. 
 'Ye were running bravely/ says the Apostle^ alluding to his 
 favourite image of the foot-race. But the very eagerness with 
 which they had embraced the Gospel was in itself a dangerous 
 symptom. A material so easily moulded soon loses the im- 
 pression it has taken. The passionate current of their Celtic 
 blood, which flowed in this direction now, might only too easily 
 be diverted into a fresh channel by some new religious impulse. 
 Their reception of the Gospel was not built on a deeply-rooted 
 conviction of its truth, or a genuine appreciation of its spiritual 
 power. 
 His de- This visit to Galatia, we may suppose, was not very pro- 
 
 parture. 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 
 
 visit, before his second visit. He was now on his third missionary 
 
 journey; and according to his wont, before entering upon a new 
 field of labour, his first care was to revisit and ' confirm * the 
 churches he had already founded. This brought him to *the 
 Galatian country and Phrygia.' From the language used in 
 
 1 Gal. iii. 1) TTpoeypdfpT}. See the note. 2 QqJ^ y_ ^^ 
 
THE CHUKCHES OF GALATIA. . 2$ 
 
 describing this visit we may infer that not a few congregations 
 had been established in Galatia. *He went through the dis- 
 trict in order, confirming all the disciples \' 
 
 Of the second visit to Galatia even less is known than of the Danger- 
 former. It would seem however that some unhealthy symp- toms. 
 toms had already appeared, threatening the purity of the 
 Gospel. At all events certain expressions in the epistle, which 
 are most naturally referred to this visit, imply that cause for 
 uneasiness had even then arisen. He was constrained to address 
 his converts in language of solemn warning^ He charged them 
 to hold accursed any one who perverted the Gospel as he had 
 taught it^. Writing to them afterwards, he contrasts the 
 hearty welcome of his first visit with his cold reception on this 
 occasion, attributing their estrangement to the freedom with 
 which he denounced their errors. 'Have I become your enemy,' 
 he asks, ' because I told you the truth* ? ' 
 
 The epistle was written, as I hope to show, about three or Subse- 
 four years after the second visit, but in the meanwhile St Paul conmiuni- 
 doubtless kept up his intercourse with \he Galatian Churches *^^^^°^^' 
 by messengers or otherwise. A large portion of the intei*vening 
 time was spent at Ephesus, whence communication with Ga- 
 latia would be easily maintained. An incidental allusion in the 
 First Epistle to the Corinthians throws light on this subject. It Collection 
 there appears that St Paul appealed^ to the Churches of Galatia, 
 as he did also to those of Macedonia and Achaia, to contribute 
 towards the relief of their poorer brethren in Palestine, who 
 were suffering from a severe famine. By communication thus 
 maintained St Paul was made acquainted with the growing 
 corruption of the Galatian Churches from the spread of Juda- 
 izing errors. 
 
 The avidity with which these errors were caught up im- Jemsh in- 
 plies some previous acquaintance with Jewish history and some Gulatia ^ 
 habituation to Jewish modes of thought. The same inference 
 
 ^ Acts xviii. 23. 4 Gal. iv. 13 — 16. See the notes. 
 
 2 Gal. V. 21. 5 I Cor. xvi i — 6. 
 
 '■" Gal. i. 9. 
 
26 THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 
 
 may be drawn from the frequent and minute references in the 
 epistle to the Old Testament, assuming no inconsiderable know- 
 ledge of the sacred writings on the part of his converts. It has 
 been shown already that there was in Galatia a large population 
 of Jews to whom this influence may be traced\ 
 The Ga- The Apostle had probably selected as centres of his mission 
 
 latian r r j 
 
 Churclies those places especially where he would find a sufficient body of 
 
 a°nucleua Jewish residents to form the nucleus of a Christian Church. 
 
 of Jewish j^ ^g^g almost as much a matter of missionary convenience, as 
 converts, .... 
 
 of religious obligation, to offer the Gospel ' to the Jew first and 
 
 then to the Gentile^.' They were the keepers of the sacred 
 archives, and the natural referees in all that related to the 
 history and traditions of the race. To them therefore he must 
 of necessity appeal. In almost every instance where a detailed 
 account is given in the Apostolic history of the foundation of 
 a Church, we find St Paul introducing himself to his fellow- 
 countrymen first, the time the sabbath-day, the place the 
 synagogue, or, where there was no synagogue, the humbler 
 proseucha. Thus in the very act of planting a Christian 
 Church, the Apostle himself planted the germs of bigotry and 
 disaffection, 
 but were Not however that the Gospel seems to have spread widely 
 
 ohiefly^of among the Jews in Galatia, for St Paul's own language shows 
 Gentiles. ^]^^|^ ^j^^ great mass at least of his converts were Gentiles^, and 
 the analogy of other churches points to the same result. But 
 Jewish influences spread far beyond the range of Jewish circles. 
 The dalliance with this ' foreign superstition,' which excited the 
 indignation of the short-sighted moralists of Eome, was certainly 
 
 1 See above, p. 9 sq. therefore, as his epistles are addressed 
 
 2 Kom. i. 16, ii. 9, 10. to the Galatians among others, there 
 
 3 Gal. iv. 8 'Then not knowing was a large number of converts from 
 God, ye did service to them which by Judaism in the Churches of Galatia. 
 nature are no gods.' See also Gal. iii. His own language however shows that 
 29, V. z, vi. 12, and the notes on i. 14 heiswritingchieflytoGentiles(i Pet.ii. 
 €v Tt^yheL fiov, ii. 5 wphs vfids. It has 9, 10) and that therefore the diao-iropoL 
 been assumed that St Peter, as the of the opening salutation is the spiri- 
 Apostle of the Circumcision, must have tual dispersion. Comp. i Pet. ii. 1 1 
 written to Jewish Christians, and that 12. 
 
THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 27 
 
 not less rife in the provinces than in the metropolis. Many a 
 man, who had not cast off his heathen religion, and perhaps 
 had no intention of casting it off, was yet directly or indirectly 
 acquainted with the customs and creed of the Jews, and pos- 
 sibly had some knowledge of the writings of the lawgiver and 
 the prophets. Still there were doubtless some Jewish converts 
 in the Galatian Church \ These would be a link of communi- 
 cation with the brethren of Palestine, and a conducting medium 
 by which Jewish practices were transmitted to their Gentile 
 fellow-Christians. 
 
 For whatever reason, the Judaism of the Galatians was Violent 
 much more decided than we find in any other Gentile Church, of Gala- 
 The infection was both sudden and virulent. They were checked ^ai^m" 
 all at once in the gallant race for the prize^. Their gaze was 
 averted by some strange fascination from the proclamation of 
 Christ crucified ^ Such are the images under which the Apo- 
 stle describes their apostasy. It was a Judaism of the sharp 
 Pharisaic type, unclouded or unrelieved by any haze of Essene 
 mysticism, such as prevailed a few years later in the neigh- 
 bouring Colossian Church. The necessity of circumcision was Strict ob- 
 strongly insisted upon*. Great stress was laid on the observ- of the law. 
 ance of ' days and months and seasons and years^' In short, 
 nothing less than submission to the whole ceremonial law 
 seems to have been contemplated by the innovators^ At aU 
 events, this was the logical consequence of the adoption of the 
 initiatory rite^ 
 
 This position could only be maintained by impugning the St Paul's 
 credit of St Paul. By some means or other his authority must impugned. 
 be set aside, and an easy method suggested itself. They re- 
 presented him as no true Apostle. He had not been one of 
 the Lord's personal followers, he had derived his knowledge of 
 the Gospel at second hand. It was therefore to the mother 
 
 ^ See the note on vi. 13, where the ^ G-al. iii. 1. 
 
 various readings ol ireptTeTfjLtjfjiivoi and ^ Gal. v. 2, 11, vi. 12, 13. 
 
 ol TrepLTefjLvofjievoL have some hearing on ^ Gal. iv. 10. 
 
 this point. ® Gal. iii. ■£, iv. 21, v. 4, 18. 
 
 2 Gal. V. 7. "^ Gal. v. 3. 
 
28 THE CHUECHES OE GALATIA. 
 
 Church of Jerusalem that all questions must be referred, to 
 the great Apostles of the Circumcision especially, the 'pillars 
 of the Church; to James in the forefront as the Lord's brother, 
 to Peter who had received a special commission from his Master, 
 to John the most intimate of His personal friends\ This dis- 
 paraging criticism of his opponents St Paul has in view from 
 first to last in the Epistle to the Galatians. He commences 
 His de- by asserting in the strongest terms his immediate divine com- 
 ^^^^' mission as an Apostle 'not of men neither by manV and this 
 assertion he emphatically reiterates^. He gives in the body of 
 the letter a minute historical account of his intercourse with 
 the Apostles of the Circumcision, showing his entire independ- 
 ence of them*. He closes, as he had begun, with a defence of 
 his office and commission. 'Henceforth,' he exclaims indig- 
 nantly, 'let no man trouble me, for I bear in my body the 
 marks of the Lord Jesus^' He felt that there was a heart- 
 less mockery in the denial of his Apostleship, when he had 
 been marked as the servant of Christ for ever by the cruel 
 brand of persecution. 
 He is But the attacks of his enemies did not stop here. They 
 
 ^^th m- charged him with inconsistency in his own conduct. He too, 
 
 consist- {^ -yyas represented, had been known to preach that circumcision 
 ency. 
 
 which he so strenuously opposed®. It was convenient to him, 
 
 they insinuated, to repudiate his convictions now, in order to 
 
 ingratiate himself with the Gentiles ^ There must have been 
 
 doubtless many passages in the life of one who held it a sacred 
 
 duty to become all things to all men, especially to become as 
 
 1 The participles toIs 5okov<7lv (ii. 2), * Gal. i. 15 — ii. 21. 
 TWi* SoKovvTOJv etval tl, ol 5okovvt€s (ii, ^ Gal. vi. 17. 
 
 6), ol 5oKovpT€? (TTv'Koi ctvaL (ii. 9), ought ^ Gal. v. 11. See Lechler Apost. u. 
 
 probahly to be translated as presents, Nachapost. Zeitalter {ed. 2),-p. 3S4. 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. order to meet this charge. 
 
 See the notes. ^ See the notes on Gal. i. 10, *Do I 
 
 2 Gal. i. I. now persuade men?' 'Do I seek to 
 
 3 Gal. i. II, 12. please men?' and on ii. 3, v. 2, 11. 
 
THE CHUECHES OF GALATIA. 29 
 
 a Jew to the Jews\ to which bigoted or unscrupulous adver- 
 saries might give this colour. Such for instance was the 
 circumcision of Timothy'"' ; such again was the sanction given 
 to Jewish usages during his last visit to Jerusalem, when at 
 the instigation of James he defrayed the expenses of those 
 who had taken Nazarite vows^. To concessions like these, I 
 imagine, continued throughout his life, and not, as some have 
 thought, to any earlier stage of the Apostle's teaching, when his 
 Christian education was not yet matured, and some remnants 
 of Judaism still hung about him (for of such a stage there 
 is no evidence), are we to look for the grounds on which his 
 opponents charged him with inconsistency. 
 
 The instigators of this rebellion against St Paul's autho- These er- 
 rity and teachmg seem not to have been Galatian residents, from with- 
 His leading antagonists were most probably emissaries from 
 the mother Church of Jerusalem, either abusing a commission 
 actually received from the Apostles of the Circumcision, or 
 assuming an authority which had never been conferred upon 
 them. The parallel case of the Corinthian Church, where 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 James V 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 
 
 ^ I Gor. ix. 20, 21. ^ Acts sxi. 20 — 26. 
 
 2 Acts xvi. 3. * Gal. ii. 12. 
 
30 THE CHUKCHES OF GALATIA. 
 
 whole lump\' 'There be some that trouble you I' 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 beV 
 The Gala- But howsoever they were disseminated, these errors found 
 congenial ^^ Galatia a congenial soil. The corruption took the direction 
 CTowth wiiicli might have been expected from the religious education 
 of the people. A passionate and striking ritualism expressing 
 itself in bodily mortifications of the most terrible kind had 
 been supplanted by the simple spiritual teaching of the Gospel. 
 For a time the pure morality and lofty sanctions of the new 
 faith appealed not in vain to their higher instincts, but they 
 soon began to yearn after a creed which suited their material 
 cravings better, and was more allied to the system they had 
 abandoned. This end they attained by overlaying the simpli- 
 city of the Gospel with Judaic observances. This new phase 
 of their religious life is ascribed by St Paul himself to the 
 temper which their old heathen education had fostered. It was 
 a return to the ' weak and beggarly elements ' which they had 
 outgrown, a renewed subjection to the *yoke of bondage' which 
 they had thrown off in Christ^. They had escaped from one 
 ritualistic system only to bow before another. The innate fail- 
 ing of a race ' excessive in its devotion to external observances^' 
 was here reasserting itself. 
 
 To check these errors, which were already spreading fast, 
 the Apostle wrote his Epistle to the Galatians. What effect 
 his remonstrance had upon them can only be conjectured, for 
 from this time forward the Galatian Church may be said to 
 disappear from the Apostolic history. If we could be sure that 
 the mission of Crescens, mentioned in the latest of St Paul's 
 
 1 Gal, V. 9. irdy^iv dvojOep dovXevetv ^^\ere, and 
 
 2 Gal. i. 7. See also iv. 17, vi. 12. v. i p.7} irdXiv ^y(} douXeia^ h^x^ade. 
 
 3 Gal. V. 10. ^ CsBSar Bell. Gall. vi. 16, quoted 
 ^ Gal. iv. 9 TTtus eiricrTpi^eTe irdXiv p. 16, note i. 
 
 iirl Tin dffdevT] Kal Trrwxa ffToix^Ta oh 
 
THE CHUKCHES OF GALATIA. 31 
 
 epistles, refers to the Asiatic settlement, there would be some 
 ground for assuming that the Apostle maintained a friendly 
 intercourse with his Galatian converts to the close of his life; Effect of 
 but it is at least as likely that the mother country of the uncertain. 
 Gauls is there meant \ Neither from the epistles of St Peter 
 can any facts be elicited ; for as they are addressed to all the 
 great Churches of Asia Minor alike, no inference can be drawn 
 as to the condition of the Galatian Church in particular. In 
 the absence of all information, we would gladly believe that 
 here, as at Corinth, the Apostle's rebuke was successful, that 
 his authority was restored, the offenders were denounced, and 
 the whole Church, overwhelmed with shame, returned to its 
 allegiance. The cases however are not parallel. The severity 
 of tone is more sustained in this instance, the personal appeals 
 are fewer, the remonstrances more indignant and less affec- 
 tionate. One ray of hope indeed seems to break through the 
 dark cloud, but we must not build too much on a single ex- 
 pression of confidence^ dictated it may be by a generous and 
 politic charity which * believeth all things/ 
 
 It is not idle, as it might seem at first sight, to follow the 
 
 ^ 1 Tim. iv. 10. *Galatia' in this 3888 KfyrjaKevra eirlrpoTrov AouySouj/oi; 
 
 passage was traditionally interpreted of VaWias. 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. 
 
 Hmres. li. 11, p. 433, Jerome (?) Op. Supposing St Paul to have meant this, 
 
 II. p. 960 (ed. Vallarsi), and by Theo- he wotild almost certainly have used 
 
 dore of MopSTiestiaandTheodoretcom- VaKaTiav and not VaXKlavy see the 
 
 menting on the passage. It is so taken note, p. 3 ; and to the authorities there 
 
 also by those mss which read VaWiav quoted add Theodoret on 2 Tim. iv. 10, 
 
 for VaXarlav^ for the former reading rds VdKKla^ ovtcos e/caXeo-ep* ovtoj yap 
 
 may be regarded as a gloss. The eKoKovvro iraKac ovtoj S^ nal vvv clu- 
 
 Churches of Vienna and Mayence both ras 6vofj.a.^QvcrLv ol rri$ ^|aj TratSeias ^er- 
 
 claimed Crescens as their founder. The ciX?;xores. A passage in the Monumen- 
 
 passage in the Apost. Const, vii. 46 ium Ancyranum (Boeckh Inscr. no. 
 
 Kp7i(TKT]s rcSv Kara VaKaTiav hKK\7]<TMv 4040) presents a coincidence with -z 
 
 perhaps points to Asiatic Gaul, but is Tim. iv. 10, in the juxta-position of 
 
 ambiguous. Later writers made Ores- Galatia (i.e. European Gaul) and Dal- 
 
 cens visit both the European and the matia, e| 'lairavia^ Kai TaKaTias koI 
 
 Asiatic country. A curious coincidence irapa AaX/^aTw. 
 
 of names occurs in Boeckh Imcr. no. ^ Gal. v. 10. 
 
32 
 
 THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 
 
 Later 
 heresies 
 of the 
 Gralatian 
 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 
 St Paul's day. To Catholic writers of a later date indeed the 
 failings of its infancy seemed to be so faithfully reproduced in 
 its mature age, that they invested the Apostle's rebuke with a 
 prophetic import \ Asia Minor was the nursery of heresy, and 
 of all the Asiatic Churches it was nowhere so rife as in Galatia. 
 The Galatian capital was the stronghold of the Montanist re- 
 vival^, which lingered on for more than two centuries, splitting 
 into diverse sects, each distinguished by some fantastic gesture 
 or minute ritual observance^. Here too were to be found 
 
 ^ Euseb. c. Marcell. i. p. 7 a t^ffirepydp 
 BeaTrlpjiv TO fiiWov a'drois Vaka/raLS ttjv 
 Tov SojT^pos e^Kpi^ov deoXoyiav, k.t.'X.j 
 Hieron. ad Gal. ii. prcef. (vi. p. 427, ed. 
 Vallarsi) *...quomodo apostolus unam- 
 ctuamqueprovinciamsuisproprietatibus 
 denotarit ? Usque hodie eadem vel vir- 
 tutum vestigia permanent yel errorum. ' 
 
 ^ Au anonymous 'writer quoted by 
 Euseb. H. E. v. 16. 3. Comp. Epiphan. 
 Hcer. xlviii. 14, p, 416. 
 
 3 Hieron. 1. c. p. 430 * Scit meeum 
 qui vidit Ancyram metropolim Galatiffi 
 eivitatem,quot nunc usque schismatibus 
 dilacerata sit, quot dogmatum varieta- 
 tibus constuprata. Omitto Cataphry- 
 gas, Ophitas, Borboritas , et Manichseos ; 
 nota enim jam hfeehumansecalamitatis 
 vocabula sunt. Quis uuquam Passa- 
 lorynchitaset Ascodrobos et Artotyritas 
 et cffitera magis portenta quam nomina 
 in ahqua parte Bomani orbis audivit?' 
 The Passalorynchites and Artotyrites 
 were ofE-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. H<Eres. Ixxiv, 
 Ixxvi. In the word Ascodrobi there is 
 perhaps some corruption. Theodoret, 
 
 Hceret. Fab. i. 10, speaks of the Asco- 
 drupi or Ascodrupitse, as a Mareosian 
 (Gnostic) sect. Epiphanius, I.e., men- 
 tions Tascodrugitffi as a barbarous equi- 
 valent to Passalorynohitse. Jerome how- 
 ever seems to have had in view the sect 
 called Ascodrogitffi by Philastrius, Hce- 
 res. Ixxv. The account of Philastrius well 
 exhibits the general temper of Galatian 
 heresy : ' Alii sunt Ascodrogitse 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 
 C£ecitatibus properant inservire, alieni 
 modis omnibus Christiana salutis repe- 
 riuntur, cum apostolus dejiciat justifi- 
 cationem illam Judaicam carnalemque 
 vanitatem,' After all allowance made 
 for the exaggerations of orthodox wri- 
 ters, the orgiastic character of the wor- 
 ship of these sects is very apparent. 
 The apostasy of St Paul's converts 
 is still further illustrated by Phi- 
 lastrius' account of the Quartodecimani, 
 Ixxxvii; 'Alia est hseresis qu£e ad- 
 serit cum Judseis debere fieri pascha. 
 Isti in Galatia et Syria et Phrygia 
 commorantur, et Hierosolymis ; et cum 
 Judffios sequantur, simili cum eis er- 
 rore depereunt.' 
 
THE CHUECHES OF GAL ATI A. 33 
 
 Ophites, Manichseans, sectarians of all kinds. Hence during 
 the great controversies of the fourth century issued two succes- 
 sive bishops, who disturbed the peace of the Church, swerving 
 or seeming to swerve from Catholic truth in opposite directions, 
 the one on the side of Sabellian, the other of Arian error\ A 
 Christian father of this period denounces 'the folly of the Gala- 
 tians, who abound in many impious denominations ^' A harsher 
 critic, likewise a contemporary, affirms that whole villages in 
 Galatia were depopulated by the Christians in their intestine 
 quarrels®. 
 
 From these painful scenes of discord it is a relief to turn to Final 
 a nobler contest in which the Galatian Christians bore their -^rith Pa- 
 part gallantly. A sketch of their final struggle with and victory S^^^^"^- 
 over heathendom will fitly close this account of the first preach- 
 ing of the Gospel among them. 
 
 The Galatian Churches furnished their quota to the army of 
 martyrs in the Diocletian persecution, and the oldest existing 
 church in the capital still bears the name of its bishop Clement, 
 who perished during this reign of terror*. The struggle over 
 
 1 Marcellus and Basilius; Le Quien tain neighbouring districts) dpdyjv dua- 
 Oriens Ghristianus i. p. 458. Eusebius rpa.ir'qvaL TropdTjdela-as /cci/tas, is a painful 
 wrote two elaborate treatises against conxment on St Paul's warning, Gal. v. 
 Marcellus, which are extant. On the 15, 'If ye bite and devour one another, 
 otherhandjhis orthodoxy was defended take heed ye be not consumed one of 
 at one time by several of his Catholic another.' Julian, however, atnotimean 
 contemporaries, but his reputation suf- unprejudiced witness, has here a direct 
 fered from the more decided Sabellian- interest in exaggerating these horrors, 
 ism of his pupn the hteresiarch Pho- as he is contrasting the mutual in- 
 tinus, likewise a, Galatian. BasHius tolerance of the Christians with his 
 presided at the semi-Arian Synod of own forbearance. 
 
 Ancyra, held in 358. See Hefele Con- ^ Texier Asie Mineure i. pp. 195, 
 
 ciliengesch. 1. p. 655. -200, describes and figures the Church 
 
 2 Greg. Naz. Or at. xxii. (i. p. 42-2 a of St Clement at Ancyra. He is wrong 
 ed. Ben.) i) ToKaruiv &voia itXovtovp- however in mentioning the Decian per- 
 Twv iv iroWoLs TTJs dae^elas dvdfiaffi, secution. The legend speaks of that 
 doubtless alluding to St Paul's dvb-qToi. of Diocletian; Acta Sand. Jan. xxiii. 
 VaXdrai. Compare Basil. Epist. 237 In a Syrian martyrology published 
 (ill. p. 365, sq. ed. Gamier), HUar. de by Dr W. Wright (in the Journal 
 Trin. vii. 3 (11. p. 176, ed. Ben.). of Sacred Literature, Oct. 1865 and 
 
 3 The Emperor Julian's language Jan. 1866) the Galatian martyrs men- 
 (Epist. 52, speaking of Galatia and cer- tioned are numerous. 
 
 GAL. ^ 
 
34 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 combat'. When the contest was renewed under Julian, 
 the forces of paganism were concentrated upon Galatia, as a 
 key to the heathen position, in one of their last desperate 
 struggles to retrieve the day. The once popular worship of the 
 mother of the gods, which issuing from Pessinus had spread 
 throughout the Greek and Eoman world, was a fit rallying 
 point for the broken ranks of heathendom. In this part of the 
 Efforts of field, as at Antioch, Julian appeared in person. He stimu- 
 ^^ lated the zeal of the heathen worshippers by his own example, 
 visiting the ancient shrine of Cybele, and offering costly gifts 
 and sacrifices there "". He distributed special largesses among 
 the poor who attended at the temples. He wrote a scolding 
 letter to the pontiff of Galatia, rebuking the priests for their 
 careless living, and promising aid to Pessinus on*^ondition that 
 they took more pains to propitiate the goddess I The Chris- 
 tians met these measures for the most part in an attitude of 
 defied by fierce defiance. At Ancyra one Basil, a presbyter of the church, 
 tia^ns ^' fearlessly braving the imperial anger, won for himself a martyr s 
 crown. Going about from place to place, he denounced all 
 participation in the polluting rites of heathen sacrifice, and 
 warned his Christian brethren against bartering their hopes of 
 heaven for such transitory honours as an earthly monarch 
 could confer. At length brought before the provincial governor, 
 he was tortured, condemned, and put to death^ At Pessinus 
 
 ^ About the year 314; Hefele Con- taken the worship of the mother of the 
 
 ciliengesch. x. p. 188. See the note on gods under his special protection. An 
 
 Gah V. 20. elaborate oration of his (Orat. 3) is de- 
 
 2 Ammian. xxii. 9, Liban. Or. xii, voted to this subject. Comp. Gregor. 
 I. p. 398, xvii. I, p. 513 (Eeiske). Naz. 1. p. 109 (ed. Ben.). 
 
 3 Julian Epist, 49 ^Apa-aKltp Apxi-epst ^ Sozom. v. 11. The Acts of the 
 TaXarfas, preserved in Sozom. v. 16. Martyrdom of St Basil of Ancyra 
 The 'high priest' is mentioned in the (Euinart Acta Mart. Sine. p. 510) are 
 Galatian inscriptions, Boeckh nos. less exaggerated than most, and per- 
 4016, 4020, 4026. Julian seems to have haps entitled to respect. 
 
THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 35 
 
 another zealous Christian, entering the temple, openly insulted 
 the mother of the gods and tore down the altar. Summoned 
 before Julian, he appeared in the imperial presence with an air 
 of triumph, and even derided the remonstrances which the 
 emperor addressed to him^. This attempt to galvanize the 
 expiring form of heathen devotion in Galatia seems to have 
 borne little fruit. With the emperor's departure paganism 
 relapsed into its former torpor. And not long after in the 
 presence of Jovian, the Christian successor of the apostate, who 
 halted at Ancyra on his way to assume the imperial purple^, 
 the Galatian churches had an assurance of the final triumph of 
 the truth. 
 
 ^ Gregor. Naz. Orat. v. i. p. 175 a. tortures. One or other of these may 
 
 Gregory at the same time mentions be that Busiria, of whom Sozomen 
 
 another Christian — apparently in Ga- (I.e.) speaks as a Christian confessor 
 
 latia, though this is not stated — whose at Ancyra under JuUan. 
 
 bold defiance was visited with extreme ^ Ammian. xxv. 10. 
 
 3—2 
 
III. 
 
 THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 Absence T'j' j^g^g been already noticed that the epistle itself contains 
 evidence. -*- 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 
 Diversity has naturally been great diversity of opinion. The Epistle to the 
 opinion. Qaia^ians has been placed by different critics both the earliest 
 and the latest of St Paul's writings, and almost every inter- 
 mediate position has at one time or the other been assigned to 
 it. The patristic writers are for the most part divided between 
 two views. Some of these, as Victorinus^ and Primasius, suppose 
 
 1 Mai Script. VeU Coll. vol. in. 
 Vietorimis, 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 Origen. In the 
 Canon of Marcion (TertuU. adv. Marc. 
 V. 2, Epiphan. Hcer. xlii. p. 350) the 
 Epistle to the Galatians stood first, but 
 I cannot think that his order was chro- 
 
 nological. At all events, supposing it to 
 be so, the fact of his placing the Epistles 
 to the Thessalonians after the Romans 
 diminishes the respect which would 
 otherwise be felt for the opinion of a 
 writer so ancient. TertuUian's language 
 however clearly points to a different 
 principle of arrangement in Marcion's 
 Canon : ' Principalem adversus Judais- 
 mum epistolam nos quoque confite- 
 mur, qua Galatas docet.' He placed 
 
THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 37 
 
 it to have been written from Ephesus\ Others, among whom 
 are Eusebius of Emesa^, Jerome^ Theodoret^ and Euthalius, 
 date it from Rome, in accordance with the subscription found in 
 some MSS and in the two Syriac and the Coptic versions. Of 
 these two opinions, the former was doubtless a critical inference 
 from the statement in the Acts^ that St Paul visited Ephesus 
 immediately after leaving Galatia, combined with his own men- 
 tion of the suddenness of the Galatian apostasy^; the latter is 
 founded on some fancied allusions in the epistle to his bonds^ 
 The former view has been adopted by the vast majority of View 
 recent critics, who agree in dating the epistle during the three 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. 
 
 thia epistle in the forefront as the 
 most decided in its antagonism to Ju- 
 daism. At the same time where no 
 such motive interposed, and where the 
 connexion was obvious, as in the Epi- 
 stles to the Colossians and Philemon 
 (on the juxtaposition of which Wieseler 
 lays some stress, as estabhshing the 
 principle of a chronological arrange- 
 ment in Marcion's Canon Chron. p. 
 230), he would naturally follow the 
 chronological order. Volkmar (Credner, 
 Neutest. Kanon, p. 399) accepts the in- 
 terpretation of Tertullian which I have 
 given, but denies the accuracy of his 
 statement. The author of the Mura- 
 torian fragment (c. 170, a.d.) seems to 
 give as the chronological order, Corin- 
 thians, Galatians, Romans (see Tre- 
 ge'lles Can. Murat. p. 42), which corre- 
 sponds with the view I have adopted ; 
 but his language is very obscure, and 
 his statements, at least on some points, 
 are obviously inaccurate. 
 ^ So Florus Lngdun. and Claudius 
 
 Altissiod. who copy the words of Pri- 
 
 masius. Chrysoetom (Prooem. ad iJom.) 
 says merely that the Galatians was 
 written before the Eomans, but does 
 not define the time or place of writing. 
 Theophylact (Argum. ad Mom.) repeats 
 Chrysostom. 
 
 2 About 350 A.D. Cramer Caten. ad 
 Gal. iv. 20; 'He was a prisoner and in 
 confinement at the time.' This com- 
 ment is ascribed simply to 'Eusebius' 
 in the Catena^ but the person intended 
 is doubtless the bishop of Emesa, whose 
 commentary on the Galatians is men- 
 tioned by Jerome [Comm. in Ep. ad Gal. 
 Lib. I. Prcef.). He naturally represents 
 the tradition of the Syrian Churches. 
 
 ^ As may be inferred from his com- 
 mentaiy on Gal. iv. so, vi. ix, 17 (vn. 
 pp. 468, 529, 534), Philem. i (vn. 
 
 P- 747)- 
 ^ Praf. ad Rom. 
 5 Acts xviii. 23, xix. 6. 
 ^ Gal. i. 6. 
 7 Gal. iv. 20, vi. 17. 
 
38 THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 it will be necessary to bear in mind, in order to follow the 
 course of the argument. 
 Sojourn at St Paul's long sojourn at Ephesus is now drawing to a close. 
 His labours there have been crowned with no ordinary success. 
 •The word of God prevailed and grew mightily^' So we read 
 in the historian's narrative. He says nothing of persecutions. 
 But we must draw no hasty conclusions from this silence. For 
 the same historian records how the Apostle, in his farewell to 
 the Ephesian elders a year later, speaking of his labours among 
 them, reminded them of his ' many tears and temptations, which 
 befel him by the lying in wait of the Jews^.' In his own 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 
 spectacle^ The Apostles, he says, were made as the filth of the 
 world, as the offscouring of all things*. 
 
 It was now the spring of the year fifty-seven, and he con- 
 templated leaving Ephesus after Whitsuntide^. Friends had 
 arrived from Corinth and drawn a fearful picture of the feuds 
 and irregularities that prevailed there. He at once despatched 
 I Corinth- a letter to the Corinthians, reprobating their dissensions and 
 ten A.D. 57 exhorting them to acquit themselves of guilt by the punishment 
 (Spring). ^£ ^ flagrant 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 letter ^ Titus was one of these: and he 
 awaited his return in great anxiety, as he had misgivings of the 
 reception of his letter at Corinth. And now a tumult broke 
 out at Ephesus. The opposition to the Gospel came to a head. 
 His companions were seized and violently hurried before the 
 people. He himself was with diflficulty persuaded to shelter 
 himself by concealment till the storm was over. The storm 
 
 1 Acts xix. 2o. "* I Cor. iv. 13, 
 
 3 Acts XX. 19. ^ I Cor. xvi. 8. 
 
 8 I Cor. iv. 9, XV. 32. ^ I Cor. xvi. 11, 2 Cor. sii. iS. 
 
THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 39 
 
 passed, but the sky was still lowering. It was evident that his 
 presence at Ephesus could now be of little use, and might only 
 exasperate the enemies of the Gospel. Besides the time was 
 near, perhaps had already arrived, when he had intended under 
 any circumstances to turn his steps westward. So he left 
 Ephesus\ But Titus had not yet come, and his anxiety for the 
 Church at Corinth pressed heavily upon him. He hastened to 
 Troas, hoping to meet Titus there. *A door was opened' to 
 him at Troas. But Titus came not. He was oppressed at once 
 with a sense of loneliness and an ever growing anxiety for the 
 Corinthian Church. He could no longer bear the suspense. He St Paul 
 left Troas and crossed over to Macedonia. Still Titus came not. donia. 
 Still the agony of suspense, the sense of loneliness remained^ 
 Time only increased his suffering. Every day brought fresh 
 troubles; gloomy tidings poured in from all sides; church after 
 church added to his anxiety^. Nor had persecution ceased. 
 The marks of violence imprinted on his body about this time 
 remained long after — perhaps never left him*. Probably too his 
 constitutional complaint visited him once more — the thorn in 
 the flesh to which he alludes in his letter to the Corinthians — 
 the weakness which years before had detained him in Galatia. . 
 He seemed to be spared no suffering either of body or mind. 
 There were fightings without and fears within. At length Titus 
 arrived^. This was the first gleam of sunshine. The tidings 
 from Corinth were far more cheerful than he had hoped. His 
 mind was relieved. He wrote off at once to the Corinthians, 2 Corinth- 
 expressing his joy at their penitence, and recommending mercy ten a.d. 57 
 towards the offender. The crisis was now over. He breathed (^^*i^^^^)- 
 freely once more. From this time his troubles seem gradually 
 to have abated. A single verse in the sacred historian conveys 
 all we know beyond this point of his sojourn in Macedonia. 
 ' He went over those parts,' we are told, * and exhorted the 
 people in many words®/ From thence he visited Greece, where Greece. 
 
 1 Acts xix. 21 — 41. « Gal. vi. 17. 
 
 2 2 Cor. ii. 12, 13. ^ 2 Cor. vii. 5 — 16. 
 
 3 2 Cor. sii. 28. ^ Acts ss. z. 
 
40 
 
 THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 Komans 
 ■written 
 A.D. 58 
 (early). 
 
 Probable 
 
 date of 
 G-alatians. 
 
 Direct 
 
 historical 
 notices. 
 
 Jerusalem 
 
 and Anti- 
 och. 
 
 he remained three months. While at Corinth he wrote the 
 Epistle to the Komans. 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, 
 I 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. 
 
 I. A few scattered historical notices more or less distinct 
 must be put in evidence first, as fixing the date of the epistle 
 later than the events to which they refer. These notices are 
 twofold, referring partly to St Paul's communications with the 
 Apostles of the circumcision, partly to his intercourse with the 
 Galatian Church. 
 
 (i) In the opening chapters St Paul mentions two distinct 
 visits to Jerusalem \ For reasons which will be given else- 
 where, it seems necessary to identify the second of these with 
 the third recorded in the Acts, during which the Apostolic 
 
 1 Gal. i. 18, ii. x. 
 
THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 4 1 
 
 Council was held. The epistle moreover alludes to an interview 
 with St Peter at Antioch, in language which seems to imply- 
 that it took place after, and probably soon after, their con- 
 ference at Jerusalem\ If so, it must have occurred during 
 St Paul's stay at Antioch, recorded in the fifteenth chapter of 
 the Acts^. On the most probable system of chronology these 
 events took place in the year 51, before which date therefore 
 the epistle cannot have been written. 
 
 (ii) The epistle apparently contains an allusion to two Galatia. 
 separate visits of St Paul to Galatia. 'Ye know/ says the 
 Apostle, 'that through infirmity of the flesh, I preached to you 
 before, and... ye received me as an angel of God... What then... 
 have I become your enemy by telling you the truth^?' He is 
 here contrasting his reception on the two occasions, on the 
 second of which he fears he may have incurred their enmity 
 by his plain-speaking. If this interpretation be correct, the 
 two Galafcian visits thus alluded to must be the same two 
 which are recorded in the Acts*. The epistle therefore must 
 be later than the second of these, which took place in 54 A.B. 
 
 Thus we have established the earliest possible date of the 
 epistle, as a starting point. On the other hand an incidental 
 expression has been rigorously pressed to show that it cannot 
 have been written much after this date. *I marvel,' says St 'So soon 
 Paul, 'that ye are so soon, or so fast, changing from Him that ^ ^^^^^' 
 called you to another GospeP.* 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 ^^^ ^i^®**- 
 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. * Acts xvi. 6, xviii. 23. 
 
 2 Acts sv. 30 — 40. ^ Gal. i. 6. See the note on ofJrws 
 » G-al. iv. 13 — 16. See the notes. rax^ws. 
 
42 THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 * They have so soon deserted their Christian profession, so soon 
 taken np 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 
 so lightly forgotten his latest instructions, but that they have 
 so easily tired of their newly obtained liberty in Christ. ' I 
 marvel/ he says, 'that ye are so soon changing from Him that 
 called you! Whatever interval therefore is implied by 'so 
 soon,' it must reckon from their first knowledge of the Gospel, 
 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 o£f 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 hjrpothesis as 
 to the date of the epistle; and therefore this expression, which 
 has been so strongly insisted upon, seems to contribute little or 
 nothing towards the solution of the problem \ 
 This epi- 2. On the other hand the argument from the style and 
 
 to the 2nd character of the epistle is one of great importance. It may 
 loKica?" ^^^ ^^ regarded as a generally recognised fact that St Paul's 
 group. epistles fall chronologically into four groups, separated from 
 
 1 The problem of the date of the to find the resultant. I think that the 
 
 Galatian Epistle, as it is generally con- formerconsiderationmaybeeliminated, 
 
 ceived, may be stated thus : Given on 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 Bomans 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 
 Epistles to the Corinthians and Romans, written at the close of 
 the third missionary journey, in the years 57 and 58. Now it 
 appears that while the Epistle to the Galatians possesses no 
 special features in common with the epistles of the preceding or 
 succeeding groups, either in style, matter, or general tone and 
 treatment, it is most closely allied in all these respects to the 
 epistles of the third missionary journey. It was a season of 
 severe conflict with St Paul, both mental and bodily, and the 
 traces of this conflict are stamped indelibly on the epistles 
 written during this period. They exhibit an unwonted tension Charac- 
 of feeling, a fiery energy of expression, which we do not find in o/this 
 anything like the same degree in either the earlier or the later g^^^P- 
 epistles. They are marked by a vast profusion of quotations from 
 the Old Testament, by a frequent use of interrogation, by great 
 variety and abruptness of expression, by words and images not 
 found elsewhere, or found very rarely, in St Paul. They have 
 also their own doctrinal features distinguishing them from the 
 other groups — due for the most part to the phase which the 
 antagonism to the Gospel assumed at this time. Justification 
 by faith, the contrast of law and grace, the relation of Jew and 
 Gentile, the liberty of the Gospel — these and kindred topics are 
 dwelt upon at greater length and with intense earnestness. 
 All these characteristic features the letter to the Galatians 
 shares in an eminent degree, so much so indeed, that it may be 
 considered the typical epistle of the group; and by those who 
 have made St Paul's style their study, the conviction arising 
 from this resemblance will probably be felt so strongly, that 
 nothing but the most direct and positive evidence could over- 
 come it. 
 
 3. It seems to follow then tliat some place must be found It closely 
 for the Galatian Epistle in the group which comprises the a^Co^inth- 
 Epistles to the Corinthians and Romans. We have next to ^^^ ^^ 
 
 . Bomans, 
 
 enquire whether there is suflicient evidence for determining its 
 
44 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 Komans. 
 
 1 Corinth- In the case of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, the 
 ians. . ., . 
 
 Similarity consists not so much in words and arguments as m 
 
 Resem- tone and feeling. " In both there is the same sensitiveness in 
 general"^ the Apostle to the behaviour of his converts to himself, the 
 tone. same earnestn ess about the points of difference, the same 
 
 remembrance of his 'infirmity' while he was yet with them, 
 the same consciousness of the precarious basis on which his 
 own authority rested in the existing state of the two Churches. 
 In both there is a greater display of his own feelings than in 
 any other portion of his writings, a deeper contrast of inward 
 exaltation and outward suffering, more of personal entreaty, a 
 greater readiness to impart himself \" If it were necessary to 
 add anything to this j ust and appreciative criticism; the 
 Apostle's tone in dealing with his antagonists would supply an 
 instructive field for comparison. Both epistles exhibit the same 
 combination of protest and concession in combating the exclusive 
 rights claimed for the elder Apostles, the same vehement con- 
 demnation of the false teachers guarded by the same careful sup- 
 pression of names, the same strong assertion of his Apostolic office 
 tempered with the same depreciation of his own personal merits. 
 Special Besides this general resemblance, which must be felt in order 
 
 der^es ^^ ^® 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 usV has a close parallel in 
 the allied epistle, ' He made Him to be sin for us, who knew no 
 sin, that we, etc.^* The image, 'Whatsoever a man soweth that 
 shall he also reapV is reproduced in almost the same words, 
 
 1 Jowett, 1. p. ig6, ist ed. It is Mopsuestia, Spicil. Solesm, i. p. 50. 
 
 interesting to find that the resemblance ^ Gal. iii. 13. 
 
 between the two epistles was observed ^ 2 Cor. v. 21. 
 
 by a writer as early as Theodore of ^ Gal. vi. 7. 
 
THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 45 
 
 'He that soweth sparingly shall reap sparingly \* Again, the 
 two epistles have in common the peculiar phrases, 'another 
 gospel/ 'a new creature/ * zealously affect you/ 'persuade men^.' 
 And other instances might be brought^ On these special coin- 
 cidences however I do not lay any great stress. 
 
 The resemblance to the Epistle to the Komans 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 jn thought 
 epistle. The following table of parallels will show how remark- ^^Jf'^' 
 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. 
 (i) iii. 6. Even as Abraham 
 believed God, and it was account- 
 ed to him for righteousness. 
 
 iii. 7. Know ye therefore that 
 they which are of faith, the same 
 are the children of Abraham. 
 
 ^iii. 8. And the Scripture fore- 
 seeing... preached before the Gos- 
 pel unto Abraham, saying, 'In 
 thee shall all nations be blessed.' 
 iii. 9. So then they which are 
 of faith, are blessed with faithful 
 Abraham . . . 
 
 iii. 10. For as many as are of the 
 works of the law are under a curse. . 
 
 Romans. 
 
 iv. 3. What saith the Scrip- Parallel 
 ture? Abraham believed God, 
 and it was accounted to him for 
 righteousness. 
 
 iv. 10, II. 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. t8. *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 
 beheve, etc. Comp. iv. 12. 
 
 iv. 15, Because the law work- 
 eth wrath. 
 
 1 2 Cor. ix. 6. 
 
 2 Gal. i. 6, 2 Cor. si. 4 ; Gal. vi. 15, 
 2 Cor. V. 17; Gal. iv. 17, 2 Cor. xi, 2; 
 Gal. i. TO, 2 Cor. v. 11. 
 
 ^ Compare Gal. i. 9, v. 21, with 
 2 Cor. xiii. 2, and Gal. iii. 3 with 2 Cor. 
 yiii. 6. Again, the expressions aTro- 
 peia-dai, Kavtxsv^ KVpow, TO-duavrlov, (f>o^ov- 
 jLcat fx-j^irujs, and the metaphor KaTeaOUiVt 
 
 Gal. V. 15, 2 Cor. xi. 20, are peculiar 
 to these epistles ; and this list is pro- 
 bably not complete. On the other hand, 
 the Galatian Epistle presents a few 
 special coincidences with i Corinthians, 
 the most remarkable being the proverb, 
 'A little leaven etc.,' occurring i Cor. 
 V. 6, Gal. V. 9. 
 
46 
 
 THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 Galatians. 
 Parallel iii. ii. But that no man is 
 
 passages, justified by the law in the sight 
 of God it is evident, for 
 
 *The just shall live by faith.' 
 
 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 
 inheritance be of the law, it is no 
 more of promise: but God gave 
 it (Kexaipio-Tai) to Abraham by 
 promise. 
 
 iii. 19 — 21. [But the law was 
 temporary and ineffective : for] 
 
 iii. 22. The scripture hath con- 
 cluded all under sin, that the pro- 
 mise by faith of Jesus Christ 
 might be given to them that be- 
 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. I — 5. [We have been hither- 
 to in the position of an heir still 
 in his minority. Christ's death 
 has recovered us our right.] 
 
 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 (xapts). 
 
 [Comp. Bom. 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. i — 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 passages, 
 received the Spirit of adoption, 
 whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 
 The Spirit itself beareth witness 
 with our spirit, that we are the 
 children of God : and if children, 
 then heirs, heirs of God, and joint 
 heirs with Christ. 
 
 iii. 20. For 'by the works of 
 the law shall no flesh be justified 
 before him.' 
 
 In both passages the quotation is oblique : in both the 
 clause 'by the works of the law' is inserted by way of explana- 
 tion : in both 'flesh' is substituted for 'living man' {iraa-a aap^ 
 for 7ra9 ^oop of the LXX, which agrees also with the Hebrew): 
 and in both the application of the text is the same. 
 
 Galatians. 
 (3) ii. 19. For I through the 
 law am dead to the law, that I 
 miffht live to God. 
 
 ii. 20. I am crucified with 
 Christ. Comp. v. 24, vi. 14. 
 
 Nevertheless I Hve, 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, {iv toJ), 
 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 
 
 Eomans. 
 
 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. 11. Alive 
 unto God through Jesus Christ. 
 
 ix. 7, 8. * In Isaac shall thy 
 seed be caUed.' 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 toj), 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. 
 
 Galatians. 
 Parallel against the spirit, and the spirit 
 passages, 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. I. We that are strong 
 ought to bear the infirmities of 
 the weak\ 
 
 The re- 
 semblance 
 is mani- 
 fold. 
 
 Galatians 
 
 written 
 about the 
 same time 
 with, 
 
 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 
 tlie letters to the Colossians and Ephesians. Those letters were 
 written about the same time and sent by the same messenger ; 
 and I cannot but think that we should be doing violence to his- 
 toric probability by separating the Epistles to the Galatians 
 and Romans from each other by an interval of more than a few 
 months, though in this instance the similarity is not quite so 
 great as in the other. 
 
 ^ 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 : ^aa-rd^etv, dovkela^ iXev- 
 depdWf fSe, Kara dvdpwirov \4y(a {6.vdpU3- 
 TTLVov \4yui), Kardpa /carapao-^at, Kwp.oi, 
 fxaKapia-pMs, /J-^Otj^ oi rcfc Toiadra irpda- 
 <rovT€s, 6(p€Lk4T7)s, irapa^aTTjs, Trap' 0, ri 
 ^Ti ; tI XiycL ^ ypatp'q ; 
 
THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 49 
 
 But the comparison advances us yet another stage towards 
 the solution of our problem. There can be no reasonable 
 doubt which of the two epistles contains the earlier expression 
 of the thoughts common to both. The Epistle to the Galatiaus 
 stands in relation to the Eoman letter, as the rough model to 
 the finished statue; or rather, if I may press the metaphor 
 without misapprehension, it is the first study of a single figure, 
 which is worked into a group in the latter writing. To the but before 
 Galatians the Apostle flashes out in indignant remonstrance the 
 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 aUke. 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 afiinities with these two epistles, A connect 
 
 the letter to the Galatians seems naturally to claim an inter- ^fween 
 
 mediate position, as a chronological link between them. Its ? *^onnth- 
 . . . ... ^^^^ ^^^ 
 
 claim, I think, is well illustrated, if it is not vindicated, by a Bomans. 
 
 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, hackhitings, 
 whisperings, swellings, 
 
 tumults uncleanness 
 
 and fornication and las- 
 civiousness. xii. 20, 21. 
 
 GAIiATIANS. 
 
 Fornications, uncleanness, 
 lasciviousness, idolatry, 
 witchcraft, hatred, strife, 
 emulations, wraths, fac- 
 tions, seditions, heresies, 
 envies, murders, drunh~ . 
 ennesses, revellings, and 
 suchlike, v. 19 — 31. 
 
 Romaics. 
 Unrighteousness, wick- 
 edness, eovetousness, 
 maliciousness, full of en- 
 vy, murder, strife, deceit, 
 malignity, whisperers, 
 backbiters, etc., i. ig, 30; 
 in revellings and drunk- 
 ennesses, in chamberings 
 and wantormesses, in 
 strife and emulation. 
 xiii. 13. 
 
 But if on the other hand this sequence is altered by inter- 
 
 GAL. 
 
so THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 The con- posing the letters to the Corinthians between those to the 
 broken in Galatians and Romans, the dislocation is felt at once. It then 
 ed^order!^" becomes difficult to explain how the same thoughts, argued out 
 in the same way and expressed in similar language, should 
 appear in the Galatian and reappear in the Eoman Epistle, 
 while in two letters written in the interval they have no place 
 at all, or at least do not lie on the surface. I cannot but think 
 that the truths which were so deeply impressed on the Apostle's 
 mind, and on which he dwelt with such characteristic energy 
 on two different occasions, must have forced themselves into 
 prominence in any letter written meanwhile. 
 
 4. Again, if it is found that the order here maintained 
 accords best with the history of St Paul's personal sufferings 
 at this period, so far as we can decipher it, as well as with 
 the progress of his controversy with the Judaizers, such an 
 accordance will not be without its value. I shall take these 
 two points in order. 
 
 (i) In the First Epistle to the Corinthians he alludes to his 
 sufferings for the Gospel more than once. He refers to them 
 in one passage at some length \ to point a contrast between the 
 humiliation of the teacher and the exaltation of the taught. 
 He speaks of himself as suffering every privation, as treated 
 with every kind of contempt. And he alludes once and again 
 to these afflictions, as witnesses to the immortality of man. 'If 
 in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most 
 miserable V 'Why stand we in jeopardy every hour? I pro- 
 test I die daily. If I fought with beasts at Ephesus, what 
 advantageth it me, if the dead rise not^?' But the mention of 
 them is only occasional ; it does not colour the whole epistle. 
 In the Second Epistle the case is very different. Here it is the 
 one topic from beginning to end. His physical sufferings have 
 increased meanwhile: and to them have been added mental 
 agonies far more severe. Tribulation and comfort — strength 
 and weakness — glorying and humiliation — alternate throughout 
 
 ^ I Cor. iv. 9 — 13. 2 I Cor. xv. 19. 
 
 3 I Cor. XV. 30 — 32. 
 
THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. SI 
 
 the epistle*. But though the whole letter is one outpouring of 
 afiaiction, yet we feel that the worst is already past. The first 
 ray of sunshine has pierced the gloom. The penitence of the 
 Corinthian Church has made him 'exceeding joyful in all his 
 tribulation I' We are not surprised therefore, when, after the 
 lapse of a few months, we find the Apostle writing in a strain 
 of less impassioned sorrow. In the Epistle to the Romans per- 
 secution is sometimes mentioned, but in the more tranquil tone 
 of one recalling past experiences, when the conflict is already 
 over and the victory won. 
 
 In the Epistle to the Galatians again he says but little of Reference 
 his own sufferings. He is too absorbed in the momentous ferings in 
 question at issue to speak much of himself. Yet once or twice 
 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 connection 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 persecuted^?' 'If I were still pleas- 
 ing men, I should not have been a servant of GhristV May we 
 
 1 2 Cor. i. 3—10, iv. 7— II, iv. 16— ^ 2 Cor. vii. 4. 
 
 V. 4, vi. 4—10, vii. 4 — 7, xi. 23—28, ^ Gal. v. 11. 
 
 xii. 7—10, 12. 4 Gal. i. 10. 
 
 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 Jesus^'l These sufferings marked a crisis in his spiritual 
 
 life, an epoch to date from. In the permanent injuries then 
 
 inflicted upon him, he delighted to see the tokens of his service 
 
 to his Lord, the signs of ownership, as it were, branded on him. 
 
 Henceforth Jesus was his Master, henceforth he was the slave 
 
 of Christ, in a fuller sense than he had been hitherto ^ It is 
 
 at least remarkable, that in the epistle which follows next upon 
 
 this, he designates himself 'a slave of Jesus Christ^,' a title 
 
 there adopted for the first time. 
 
 (ii) The (i{\ The same result which is thus obtained from an ex- 
 
 progress of . 
 the Judaic amination of St Paul's personal history, seems to follow also 
 
 tionr^ from the progress of his controv^sy 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 antagonist would take up. The heresy 
 combated in the Galatian Epistle is much more matured . 
 The personal antagonism remains as before, while the doctrinal 
 opposition has assumed a distinct and threatening form. 
 
 For how different is St Paul's language in the two cases. 
 He tells both Churches indeed in almost the same words, that 
 
 ^ Gal. vi. 17. service, that I will always call Him 
 
 2 It is related of George Herbert that 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 often repetition of them, seemed to 
 
 as to bring glory to my Jesus, whovil perfume his mind,' etc. I. Walton's 
 
 have this day taken to he my Master and Life of Herbert. 
 
 Governor; and I am so proud of His ^ Rom. i. 1. 
 
THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. S3 
 
 ' circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing\' but 
 then his practical comment in the two cases presents a striking 
 contrast. To the Corinthians he says ; * Is any man called 
 being circumcised ? let him not be uncircumcised ; Is any called 
 in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised^': to the Gala- 
 tians ; ' Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised 
 Christ shall profit you nothing; and again I testify, etc.^' In 
 the one epistle he is dealing with a hypothetical case ; he 
 speaks as if to guard against future error. In the other he is 
 wrestling with an actual evil present in its most virulent form. 
 If circumcision is but one point, it at least contains all 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- progressm 
 trines with which the errors of the Judaizers were in direct *^^ ^}^^^' 
 
 ment of 
 
 conflict. Such is the case with his account of the temporary doctrine. 
 purpose of the law, especially in its negative effect as ' multi- 
 plying sin.' In the Corinthian Epistles the subject is dismissed 
 with a casual sentence, pregnant with meaning indeed, but 
 standing quite alone. ' The strength of sin is the law*.' In the 
 Galatian letter it is the one prominent topic. So again with 
 its correlative, the doctrine of justification by faith. This doc- 
 trine is incidentally alluded to more than once in the letter to 
 Corinth^ In one passage especially it appears prominently; 
 * God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not 
 imputing their trespasses to them : for He hath made Him to 
 be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the 
 righteousness (Sifcacoo-vvT)) of Godl' Here the doctrine is stated 
 clearly enough, but there is no approach to the fulness with 
 which it is set forth in the Galatian Epistle. The illustration, 
 the antithesis, the aphorism, the scriptural sanction, are missing. 
 
 1 I Cor. vii. 19, GaJ. 7. 6, vi. 15. ^ j Cqj,. i. 30, iv. 4, vi. 11, 2 Cor. 
 
 2 I Cor. vii. 18. iii. 9. 
 
 3 Gal. V. 2. 62 Cor. v. 19—21. 
 ^ I 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 in the Epistle to the Galatians which otherwise it is 
 
 difficult to account for. 
 
 (i) The sixth chapter commences with the exhortation, 
 Treatment ' Brethren, though a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are 
 
 of offend- . . , .,..„, 
 
 ers. spiritual restore such an one m the spirit of meekness, consi- 
 
 dering thyself lest thou also be tempted/ There is something 
 peculiarly earnest in the abruptness with which this command 
 is introduced. There is a marked tenderness in the appeal to 
 their brotherhood which prefaces it. An undercurrent of deep 
 feeling is evident here. It is as though some care weighed on 
 the Apostle's mind. Now if we suppose the Galatian Epistle 
 to have been written after the Second to the Corinthians, we 
 have at once an adequate explanation of this. A grievous 
 offence had been committed in the Christian community at 
 Corinth. In his first Epistle to the Church there, St Paul had 
 appealed to the brotherhood to punish the guilty person. The 
 appeal had not only been answered, but answered with so much 
 promptness, that it was necessary to intercede for the offender. 
 He commended their indignation, their zeal, their revenge; 
 they had approved themselves clear in the matter^; and now 
 they must forgive and comfort their erring brother, lest he be 
 swallowed up with overmuch sorrow^. It was the recollection 
 of this circumstance that dictated the injunction in the Galatian 
 Epistle. The Galatians were proverbially passionate and fickle. 
 If a reaction came, it might be attended, as at Corinth, with 
 undue severity towards the delinquents. The epistle therefore 
 was probably written while the event at Corinth was fresh on 
 St Paul's mind — perhaps immediately after he had despatched 
 Titus and the Second Epistle, and was still in suspense as to 
 the issue — perhaps after he had himself arrived at Corinth, and 
 witnessed too evident signs of over-severity. 
 
 ^ 2 Cor. vii. II. ^2 Cor. ii. 7. 
 
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 goodmalms- 
 unto all men\' The admonition is thrown into a general form, ^™^^' 
 but it has evidently a special application in the Apostle's own 
 mind. 
 
 An allusion in the First Epistle to the Corinthians supplies 
 the key to the difficulty. ' As I gave orders to the Churches of 
 Galatia, even so do ye^.' He had solicited their alms for the 
 suffering brethren of 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 Conclu- 
 Galatian Epistle after the letters to Corinth. They certainly 
 do not amount to a demonstration, but every historical question 
 must be decided by striking a balance between conflicting 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 Eomans, the Galatian letter ought 
 probably to be placed. Beyond this I will not venture to define 
 the time ; only suggesting that the greeting from ' all the bre- 
 thren which are with me^' seems naturally to apply to the little 
 band of his fellow-travellers, and to hint that the letter was not 
 despatched from any of the great churches of Macedonia or 
 from Corinth. It may have been written on the journey be- 
 tween Macedonia and Achaia. And it is not improbable that it 
 was during St Paul's residence in Macedonia, about the time 
 when the Second Epistle to the Corinthians was_ written, that 
 1 Gal. vi. 7—10. - I Cor. xvi. i. 3 q^I. i. 2. 
 
5*^ THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 St Paul received news of the falling away of his Galatian con- 
 verts, so that they were prominent in his mind, when he num- 
 bered among his daily anxieties ' the care of all the churches ^' 
 If so, he would despatch his letter to the Galatians as soon 
 after as a suitable bearer could be found**. 
 
 1 1 Cor. xi. 28. by Conybeare and Howson (11. p. 165, 
 
 2 This investigation of the date of the ed. 2), and by Bleek (Einl. in das N. 
 Galatian Epistle is taken from a paper T. pp. 418, 419); but otherwise it had 
 which I pubhshed in the Journal of not found much favour. Since the 
 Glass, and Sacr. Philol. vol. iii. p. appearance of my first edition it ap- 
 289, altered in parts. The view here pears to have gained ground, 
 maintained had also been advocated 
 
IV. 
 
 GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 THE Epistle to the Galatians has escaped unchallenged Genume- 
 . , , . . . p ... -r ness un- 
 
 amid the sweeping proscriptions oi recent criticism. Its disputed. 
 
 every sentence so completely reflects the life and character of 
 
 the Apostle of the Gentiles that its genuineness has not been 
 
 seriously questioned \ 
 
 Any laboured discussion of this subject would therefore 
 
 be out of place. Yet it will be worth while to point to a 
 
 single instance, as showing the sort of testimony which may be 
 
 elicited from the epistle itself. 
 
 The account of St Paul's relations with the Apostles of the Internal 
 
 evidence . 
 Circumcision has a double edge, as an evidential weapon. On 
 
 the one hand, as an exhibition of the working of the Apostle*s 
 
 mind, it lies far beyond the reach of a forger in an age 
 
 singularly unskilled in the analysis and representation of the 
 
 finer shades of character. The suppressed conflict of feeling, 
 
 the intermingling of strong protest and courteous reserve, 
 
 the alternation of respectful concession and uncompromising 
 
 rebuke — the grammar being meanwhile dislocated and the 
 
 incidents obscured in this struggle of opposing thoughts — such 
 
 a combination of features reflects one mind alone, and can 
 
 have proceeded but from one author. On the other hand, 
 
 looking at the passage as a narrative of events, it seems wholly 
 
 impossible that the conceptions of a later age should have 
 
 taken this form. The incidents are too fragmentary and in- 
 
 1 One exception is recorded, which may serve to point a moral. 
 
58 
 
 GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 External 
 evidence. 
 
 Apostolic 
 Fathers. 
 
 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 espression of deference to the Apostles of 
 the Circumcision. The Ebionite would have shrunk with 
 loathing from an^ seeming depreciation of the cherished cus- 
 toms or the acknowledged leaders of his race, as the tone of 
 the author of the Clementines shows \ The Catholic writer, 
 forging with a view to 'conciliation,' would be more unlikely 
 than either to invent such a narrative, anxious as he would 
 be to avoid any appearance of conflict between the two great 
 teachers of the Church. The very unevenness of the incidents 
 is the surest token of their authenticity. 
 
 On the other hand, the external evidence, though not very 
 considerable, is perhaps as great as might be expected from 
 the paucity of early Christian literature, and the nature of the 
 few writings still extant. 
 
 I. The Apostolic Fathers in whose ears the echoes of the 
 Apostle's voice still lingered, while blending his thoughts 
 almost insensibly with their own, were less likely to quote 
 directly from his written remains. Allusions and indirect cita- 
 tions are not wanting. 
 
 Clement's words (§2) 'His sufferings were before your eyes' 
 with the impHed rebuke may perhaps be a faint reflection of 
 Gal. iii. i. 
 
 In the second so-called Epistle ascribed to Clement (§ 2), 
 which though not genuine is a very early work, Is. liv. i is 
 quoted and applied as in Gal. iv. 27. 
 
 Ignatius Polyc. § i, found in the Syriac, *Bear all men, as the 
 Lord beareth thee... Bear the ailments of all men,' resembles Gal. 
 vi. 2. (See however Matth. viii. 17, Rom. xv. i.) 
 
 Romans § 7, ' My passion is crucified,' also found in the Syriac, 
 recalls Gal. v. 24, vi. 14. 
 
 ^ See p. 61. 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 59 
 
 The G-reek text, which, whether genuine or not, at all events 
 cannot date late in the second century, offers besides one or two 
 coincidences 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. 
 
 PoLYCARP more than once adopts the language of this epistle ; 
 c. 5 ' Knowing then that ^ " 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, i Pet. iii. 13 (v. L). 
 
 c. 1 2 ' Qui credituri sunt in Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum 
 et in ipsius patrem, qui resuscitavit eum a mortuis,' resembles 
 Gal. i. I J comp. E.om. iv. 24. 
 
 2. The Miscellaneous Writings of the Subapostolio Ages Other 
 present one or two vague resemblances on "which no stress can of subapo- 
 belaid. stoHcages. 
 
 Barnabas. A passage in the epistle bearing his name, c. 19, 
 ' Thou shalt communicate in all things with thy neighbour,' re- 
 flects Gal. vi. 6. 
 
 Hermas (c. 140 A.D. ?) 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 Syeiac 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 Mxjeatorian Fragment (probably not later than 
 170 A.r>.). 
 
 4. The Apologists, writing for unbelievers, naturally avoided Apolo- 
 direct quotations from the sacred writers, which would carry no ^^ ^' 
 
 1 The expression * knowing that ' scriptures or in any other extant 
 
 {elS&res Uti) in Polycarp seems to be a writing, they seem in force and point 
 
 form of citation. In c. i it introduces so far above the level of Polycarp's 
 
 a passage from Ephes. ii. 8, in c. 4 one own manner, that I can scarcely doubt 
 
 from I Tim. vi. 7. It occurs once that he is quoting the language of one 
 
 again in c. 6, 'knowing that we aU are greater than himself. They ring al- 
 
 debtors of sin.' Though these words most Hke a sentence of St Paul, 
 are not found either in the Canonical 
 
6o 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 (Trapa-njprjo-iv) of months and of days,' derived ap- 
 parently from Gal. iv. 10, 'Ye observe (Trapar-qp^lo-Oe) days and 
 months etc' In another passage, c. 8, 9, the writer repro- 
 duces many of the thoughts of the Epistles to the Galatians 
 and Romans. 
 
 JusTiN" Martyr seems certainly to have known this epistle \ In 
 the Dial. c. Tryph. 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. ID, 13. Moreover, he introduces the first in language closely 
 resembling that of St Paul, ' Every race of men will be found 
 under a curse (wo Kordpav) 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 lxxI Again in the Apol. 
 I- S2t^ Justin applies Isaiah Hv. i, 'Pejoice, 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, 
 writers, -g ^^^ more important, as showing how widely the epistle was 
 
 1 In c. 5 of the Orat. ad Gfrtecos, often \6yoLs toO *-. toIjtov toO tt. aiJroiJs: in 
 ascribed to Justia and generally as- Deut. xxi. 23, 'B7rtKaT(£paros7ras, where 
 signed to the second century, there are the lsx, following the Hebrew, has 
 two indirect quotations from this epi- KcKarTjpafi^vos virb GeoO irds. 
 
 stle, iv. 12 and V. 20, 21. A recension ^ Cureton's Spicil. Syr, p. 49, Spi~ 
 
 of this treatise however, discovered of ciL Solesm. 11. p. i. The authorship 
 
 late years in a Syriac translation (Cure- however is doubted; see Otto Apol. 
 
 ton's Spicil. Syr. p. 61), bears the Christ, is., p. ^60. A close parallel to 
 
 name of Ambrose, by whom proba- Gal. iv. 8 appears also in Hhe doctrine 
 
 bly is meant the friend and pupil of of Addseus' (Cureton's Anc. Syr. Doc. 
 
 Origen. p. 9) ; but this may be accidental, as 
 
 2 In Deut. xxvii. 26, 8? oi5/c ifxfj,. h there is no other recognition of St Paul 
 iraffiv Tots yeypaixfxivoLS iv t(^ §i^\l(^ in the work. In another document of 
 Tov v6/j.ov Tov TT. a^rd, for the lxx the same collection (p. 56) there is 
 (which is nearer to the Hebrew) iras 6 seemingly a reference to Gal. vi, 17. 
 dv&pojiros 6(TTLS ot/K ifM/ji. ip 7rd(nv to'ls See also Clem. Horn. ix. i. 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 6 1 
 
 received. Most of the references quoted below seem to belong 
 to the first half of the century. 
 
 The Ophites appear to have made great use of this epistle. 
 Several direct quotations from it were found in their writings ; 
 e.g. Gal. iv. 26, see Hippol. H ceres, 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. i. 3. 5. A comment on 
 Gal. vi. 14 is given by Irenseus from their writings, apparently 
 from the works of Ptolemseus^ 
 
 Marcion included it in his Canon and attached great import- 
 ance to it. See p. 35, note i. Gomp. also the note on iii. 19. 
 
 Tatian recognised it, quoting vi, 8 in support of his ascetic 
 views : Hieron. Comm. ad Gal. ad loc.^ 
 
 6. Neither is the testimony of Adversaries of the second Adversa- 
 
 century wanting to the authenticity of this epistle. P^^° 
 
 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 (Aeyovrwr 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 ' 
 (Grig. 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 (ei/avrtos 
 av^ea-TT/Kas /AOt). If thou hadst not been an adversary, thou 
 wouldest not have calumniated and reviled my preaching... If 
 thou callest me condemned (KaTeyvojo-/Aevoi/), thou accusest 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 sq. In a third 
 passage also St Peter maintaining the observance (irapaT-qpy^a-iv) 
 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' (xis. 22): comp. Gal. iv. 10. 
 
 ^ See the Latin of Iren. i. 8. 5 ad dotus, Exc. ap. Clem. Alex. c. 53, p. 
 
 fin., and comp. "Westcott Canon, p. 982 (Potter), where Gal. iii. 19, 20 is 
 
 304 (ed. 4). quoted: but the date and authorship 
 
 2 To this list should be added Theo- of 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. i. 8; viii. 18 
 (St' dyyiXov vofxog iapia-Orj) to Gal. iii. 19; ix. I to Gal. iv. 8. See 
 more on this subject in the dissertation on *St Paul and the 
 Three ' at the end of this volume. 
 
 ^hal At ^" ^^ Apocryphal Acts relating to St Paul one extant 
 
 work at least seems to date from the second century : 
 
 Acts of Paul and Thecla § 40 (apparently the work referred 
 to by Tertullian, de Baptism. % 17). The sentence, 'For he that 
 wrought with thee unto the Gospel wrought with me also unto 
 baptism,' is moulded on Gal. ii. 8. 
 
 IrensBUS, 
 Clement, 
 and Ter- 
 tullian. 
 
 8. Owing to the nature of the earliest Christian writings, 
 the testimony hitherto brought forward has been for the most 
 part indirect. As soon as a strictly Theological literature 
 springs up in the Church, we find the epistle at once quoted 
 distinctly and by name. This is the case with the writers of 
 the close of the second century, Iren^us, Clement of Alex- 
 andria and Tertullian". From their position as representa- 
 tives of widely separate branches of the Church, and their 
 manner of quotation, which shows that the writings thus 
 cited were recognised and authoritative, the importance of their 
 testimony is much greater than might be inferred from their 
 comparatively late date\ 
 
 ^ In compiling this account of the 
 external evidence in favour of the epi- 
 stle I have made use of Lardner's Cre- 
 dibility, of 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. 
 
 XN discussing the relation of this epistle to the contem- 
 -■- poraneous letters, I have dwelt on those features which it 
 shares in common with them. It remains to point out some 
 characteristics which are peculiarly its own. 
 
 I. The Epistle to the Galatians is especially distinguished Unity of 
 
 'DTirDOSB 
 
 among St Paul's letters by its unity of purpose \ The Galatian 
 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 Taul' has no sooner passed 
 from his lips, than he at once launches into it. The long 
 historical explanation which succeeds is instinct with this 
 motive in all its details. The body of the letter, the doctrinal 
 argument, is wholly occupied with it. The practical exhorta- 
 tions which follow all or nearly all flow from it, either as 
 cautions against a rebound to the opposite extreme, or as sug- 
 gesting the true rule of life of which the Galatians were following 
 the counterfeit. Lastly, in the postscript he again brings it 
 prominently forward. The two closing sentences reflect the 
 twofold aspect of the one purpose, which has run through 
 the letter. 'Henceforth let no man trouble me. The grace 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.' Thus his last 
 
 1 Ewald Paulus, p. 55, 'Eein ande- keines ergiesst sich wie dieses in einem 
 res sendschreiben ist so sehr wie dieses machtig stiirmisehen aber unaufhalt- 
 aus einem gedanken entsprungen, und samen und unnnterbrocbenen stroma.' 
 
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 
 
 allied *o Corinth with which it possesses so many features in common. 
 
 epistles. Like the First Epistle to the Corinthians, it was written with 
 an immediate purpose to correct actual errors. But the differ- 
 ence is striking. The factions at Corinth were manifold, the 
 irregularities were irregularities of detail not founded on any 
 one broad principle of error, and the epistle necessarily reflects 
 this varied character. Like the Second Epistle to the Corinth- 
 ians again, it is a complete reflection of the Apostle's inner 
 life. Yet the contrast is not less marked than before. In the 
 one epistle he pours out his feelings without restraint^ recurring 
 to his own experiences, his own sorrows, freely and without any 
 definite purpose. In the other the mention of himself is 
 always subordinated to the purpose of the letter; however 
 tumultuous may be the workings of his soul, they are all forced 
 into this one channel. He never speaks of himself but to 
 enforce the authority of his office or the liberty of the Gospel. 
 
 Its BUS- 2. The sustained severity of this epistle is an equally 
 
 tSiiued 
 
 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 aU 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 sti^ained 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. Eebuke 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 
 
 hand-writing. It was his wont to add a few words at the close Postscript 
 of his epistles, either to vouch for their authorship, or to im- Paui'g 
 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 
 epistle \ These sentences are condensed beyond the ordinary 
 compression of the Apostle's style. The language almost bursts 
 with the surcharge of feeling. The very forms of the letters 
 too bear witness to his intense earnestness. He writes in large 
 bold characters to arrest the eye and rivet the mind. He has 
 been accused of vacillation. There has been no want of firm- 
 ness in the tone of the letter, and there shall be none in the 
 handwriting. No man can henceforth question or misapprehend 
 the Apostle's meaning. 
 
 A rough analysis of the epistle separates it into three Threefold 
 sections of two chapters each, the first couplet (i, ii) containing 
 the personal or narrative portion, the second (iii, iv) the argu- 
 mentative or doctrinal, and the third (v, vi) the hortatory 
 or practical. It will be borne in mind however, that in a 
 writer like St Paul any systematic arrangement must be more 
 or less artificial, especially where, as in the present instance, he 
 is stirred by deep feelings and writes under the pressure of 
 an urgent necessity. The main breaks however, occurring at 
 the end of the second and fourth chapters, suggest this three- 
 fold division ; and though narrative, argument, and exhortation, 
 are to some extent blended together, each portion retains for 
 the most part its own characteristic form. 
 
 The following is a more exact analysis of the contents of the 
 epistle. 
 
 I. Personal, chiefly in the form of a narrative. Analysis 
 
 of the 
 
 1. The salutation and ascription of praise so worded as to in- epistle. 
 troduce the main subject of the letter (i. i — 5). 
 
 2. The Apostle rebukes the Galatians for their apostasy, de- 
 nounces the false teachers, and declares the eternal truth of 
 the Gospel which he preached (i. 6 — 10). 
 
 ^ Gal. vi. II — 18. See the notes on irTjXiKOLS ypdfjLfiaaiv 'iypa.\j/a. 
 GAL. 5 
 
66 
 
 CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 Analysis 
 of the 
 epistle. 
 
 3. This Gospel came directly from God. 
 
 (i) He received it by special revelation (i. ii, 12). 
 
 (ii) His previous education indeed could not have led up to 
 it, for he was brought up in principles directly opposed to 
 the liberty of the Gospel (i. 13, 14). 
 
 (iii) JSTor 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. i — 10). 
 
 (vi) Nay more : at Antioch he rebuked Peter for his incon- 
 sistency. By yielding to pressure from the ritualists, 
 Peter was substituting law for grace, and so denying 
 the fundamental principle of the Gospel (ii. 11 — 21). 
 [This incident at Antioch forms the link of connexion between 
 
 the first and second portions of the epistle. The error of the 
 
 Galatians was the same with that of the formalists whom 
 
 St Peter had countenanced. Thus St Paul passes insensibly 
 
 from the narrative to the doctrinal statement.] 
 
 II. 
 
 1. 
 
 2. 
 
 3. 
 
 4. 
 
 5. 
 
 Doctrinal, mostly argumentative. 
 
 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. i — 5). 
 
 Yet Abraham was justified by faith, and so must it be with 
 the true children of Abraham (iii. 6 — 9). 
 
 The law, on the contrary, so far from justifying, did but 
 condemn, and from this condemnation Christ rescued us 
 (iii. 10 — 14). 
 
 Thus He fulfilled the promise given to Abraham, which 
 being prior to the law could not be annulled by it (iii. 
 
 15-18). 
 
 If so, what was the purpose of the law*? (iii. 19). 
 
 (i) It was an inferior dispensation, given as a witness against 
 sin, a badge of a state of bondage, not as contrary to, but 
 as preparing for, the Gospel (iii. 19 — 23). 
 
 (ii) And so through the law we are educated for the freedom 
 of the Gospel (iii. 24 — 29). 
 
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. i — 7). *^^-*tf 
 
 (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 
 linlr of connexion with the third part of the epistle. 
 
 III. Hortatory. Practical applications. 
 
 1. Hold fast by this freedomy which your false teachers are 
 
 endangering (v. i — 12). 
 
 2. But do not let it degenerate into license. Love is the 
 fulfilment of the law. Walk in the Spirit, and the Spirit 
 will save you from licentiousness, as it saves you from 
 formalism, both being carnal. Your course is plain. The 
 works of the Spirit are easily distinguished from the works 
 of the flesh (v. 13 — 26). 
 
 3. Let me add two special injunctions : 
 
 (i) Show forbearance and brotherly sympathy (vi. i — 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 Its place 
 weapons to the combatants in the two greatest controversies contro- 
 which in modern times have agitated the Christian Church ; '^^'^^y- 
 the one a struggle for liberty within the camp, the other a war 
 of defence against assailants from without ; the one vitally 
 affecting the doctrine, the other the evidences of the Gospel. 
 
 5—2 
 
68 
 
 CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 The refor- 
 mation. 
 
 Rational- 
 ism. 
 
 When Luther commenced his attack on the corruptions of 
 the medieeval Church, he chose this epistle as his most efficient 
 engine in overthrowing the mass of error which time had piled 
 on the simple foundations of the Gospel. His commentary on 
 the Galatians was written and rewritten. It cost him more 
 labour, and was more highly esteemed by him, than any of his 
 works\ If age has diminished its value as an aid to the study 
 of St Paul, it still remains and ever will remain a speaking 
 monument of the mind of the reformer and the principles of 
 the reformation. 
 
 Once again, in the present day, this epistle has been thrust 
 into prominence by those who deny the divine origin of the 
 Gospel. In this latter controversy however it is no longer to its 
 doctrinal features, but to its historical notices, that attention 
 is chiefly directed. ' The earliest form of Christianity,' it is 
 argued, 'was a modified Judaism. The distinctive features of 
 the system current under this name were added by St Paul. 
 There was an irreconcilable opposition between the Apostle of 
 the Gentiles and the Apostles of the Jews, a personal feud 
 between the teachers themselves and a direct antagonism be- 
 tween their doctrines. After a long struggle St Paul pre- 
 vailed, and Christianity — our Christianity — was the result.' The 
 Epistle to the Galatians affords at once the ground for, and the 
 refutation of, this view. It affords the ground, for it discovers 
 the mutual jealousy and suspicions of the Jew and Gentile con- 
 verts. It affords the refutation, for it shows the true relations 
 existing between St Paul and the Twelve. It presents not 
 indeed a colourless uniformity of feeling and opinion, but a far 
 higher and more instructive harmony, the general agreement 
 amidst some lesser differences and some human failings, of men 
 animated by the same divine Spirit and working together for 
 the same hallowed purpose, fit inmates of that Father's house 
 in which are many mansions. 
 
 1 'The Epistle to the Galatians,' 
 said Luther, * is my epistle j I have 
 betrothed myself to it : it is my wife. ' 
 
 See Seckendorf de Lutheran. L. i. 
 § Izxxv. p. 139. 
 
nPOS rAAATAS. 
 
WHY SEEK TE THE LIVING AMONG THE DEAD? 
 
 The old order changeth, yielding place to neWj 
 And God Juljils Himself in many ways. 
 
nPOS TAAATAS. 
 
 n 
 
 AYA02 aTTOo-ToXos ovk aV dpdptoTrcov ovBe ^t dv- 
 dpcoTTOVy dWd Sia 'Irjcov XpiCTTOv kui Qeov iraTpo^ 
 
 I — 5. The two threads which run 
 through this epistle — the defence of 
 the Apostle's own authority, and the 
 maintenance of the doctrine of grace 
 — are knotted together in the opening 
 salutation. By expanding his oflScial 
 title into a statement of his direct 
 commission from God (ver. i), St Paul 
 meets the personal attack of his op- 
 ponents; by dwelling on the work of 
 redemption in connexion with the 
 name of Christ (ver. 4), he protests 
 against their doctrinal errors. See 
 the introduction, p. 63. 
 
 *PAtrL AN Apostle, whose authority 
 does not flow from any human source, 
 and whose office was not conferred 
 through any human mediation, but 
 through Jesus Christ, yea through 
 God the Father Himself who raised 
 Him from the dead — together with 
 all the brethren in my company — to 
 the Churches op Galatia. Grace the 
 fountain of all good things, and peace 
 the crown of all blessings, be unto you 
 from God the Father and our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for 
 our sins that He might rescue us 
 from the tyranny of this present age 
 with all its sins and miseries, accord- 
 ing to the will of our God and Father, 
 whose is the glory throughout all the 
 Amen/ 
 
 I. OVK aTT dvOpaTTOiV ovbe 8c dvSpcct- 
 TTou] ''not of merij nor yet hy 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. Ata, as distinguished from 
 a7r(i, is used consistently in the New 
 Testament to denote the means or 
 instrument^ especially as describing 
 eitiier (i) the operations of our Lord, 
 as the Word of God, e.g. i Cor. viii. 6 
 ets Kvpto? 'iT^trouff Xptoros hi ov to. 
 Travra, or (2) the human agency em- 
 ployed in carrying out the divine pur- 
 pose, e.g. I Cor. iii. 5 biaKovot di ^p 
 €7TLo-T€v<TaTe. The chauge of preposi- 
 tion (' of,' * by ') in this passage carries 
 with it the change of number also 
 ('men,' *man'). Titles and offices 
 which emanate from a body of men 
 will be conferred by their single re- 
 presentative. The acts of the Senate 
 took effect through the prince, those 
 of the Sanhedrin through the high- 
 priest. The transition to the singular 
 moreover, independently of its own 
 fitness, would suggest itself in antici- 
 pation of the clause fim 'Ijjo-oO XpLo-rov, 
 which was to follow. 
 
 dXXcE fita 'It]<tov XptOToij] To what 
 
 event does the Apostle here refer? 
 When did he receive his commission 
 from Christ himself? In i Cor. ix. i, 
 he speaks of his having ' seen the Lord 
 Jesus,' as a token of his apostleship; 
 and this seems naturally to refer to 
 the appearance on the way to Damas- 
 cus, Acts ix. 3 sq. From this point of 
 time therefore his commission dated. 
 
72 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [I. 2, 3 
 
 Tov eyeipavTO^ avTov e/c veKpwv^ ^kui ol (tvv efxot irav- 
 res dde\(j)oiy rats iKKXrja-iais Ttjs FaAarias. ^X"P*^ 
 vijuv Kul elp^i/f] diro Qeov Trarpo^ kuc Kvpiov nfxwv 'lfj(Tov 
 
 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. 
 
 KoX G€ov irarpos] It might be ex- 
 pected that the first preposition (dno) 
 would have been resumed here, as 
 more appropriate. It is incorrect 
 however to say that Sia is loosely 
 used ; for if there be any laxity of ex- 
 pression, it is rather in the connexion 
 of the sentences than in the use of the 
 prepositions. At the same time the 
 Apostle's language, as it stands, is 
 more forcible. By including both 
 clauses under the same preposition, he 
 expresses with greater emphasis the 
 directness of his divine commission. 
 The channel of his authority (Sta) coin- 
 cides with its source (aTro). The point 
 of the sentence would have been 
 blunted by inserting diro, Nor indeed 
 is the extension of Bia 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. 'Atto, 
 though by far the most common, is 
 not the only preposition which may 
 be used in speaking of the Father. 
 He is the beginning, middle, and 
 end of all His works (e^ avrov Kal 
 
 St' avTOV Koi els avrou^ 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, I Cor. i. 9, and see "Winer, 
 Gramm. § xlvii. p. 473 sq. Marcion 
 (Hieron. ad I.) cut the knot by omit- 
 ting KaX Qeov irarpos, and apparently 
 reading iavrov for avrov. 
 
 Here the Apostle's words are 'By 
 Jesus Christ and God 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).' 
 
 rov iyeipavros avrov eK veKpmvl ' who 
 raised Him from the deadl This 
 expression occurs elsewhere with a 
 more general reference to Christian 
 faith or Christian life: Rom. iv. 24, 
 viii. II ; comp. i Cor. xv. 15. Here 
 it has a special bearing on St Paul's 
 apostleship, as the context shows. 'I 
 was commissioned by the risen and 
 glorified Lord : I am in all respects an 
 Apostle, a qualified witness of His re- 
 surrection, and a signal instance of 
 His power.' 
 
 2. 01 (TVV ifjLoi TTCLvres dSeX0ot] ' all 
 the brethren who are with mel 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. i) and Erastus 
 (Acts xix. 22). He may also at this 
 time have been rejoined by Titus with 
 the two brethren from Corinth (2 Cor. 
 viii. 16—24), and may have had with 
 him besides some of those who accom- 
 panied him afterwards on his return 
 to Asia, as Tychicus and Trophimus 
 
1.4] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 73 
 
 OTro)^ i^eXfjTat i^fxa? e/c tov alwvo^ tov evecTTWTO'i Troi/rj^ 
 
 4. {fJT^p TWV cL/J-apTLuiy. 
 
 for instance (Acts xx. 4, 5), if indeed 
 they are not to be identified with the 
 two brethren already mentioned. 
 
 The patristic writers, followed by 
 several modern commentators, see in 
 this expression a desire on the part of 
 the Apostle to fortify his teaching by 
 the sanction of others : ' Faciens eis 
 pudorem, quod contra omnes sentiunt,' 
 says Victorinus. Such a motive seems 
 alien to the whole spirit of this epistle, 
 in which all human authority is set 
 aside. The Apostle in fact dismisses 
 the mention of his companions as ra- 
 pidly as possible in one general ex- 
 pression. He then returns to the 
 singular, '/ marvel,' which he retains 
 throughout the epistle. Paul's autho- 
 rity has been challenged, and Paul 
 alone answers the challenge. 
 
 rats cKKXtjaLais ttjs PaXartas] ' to the 
 Churches of Galatia.'' On this mode 
 of address, as marking the earlier 
 epistles, see i Thess. i. i. The abrupt- 
 ness of the language here is remark- 
 ahle. Elsewhere the Apostle adds 
 some words of commendation. The 
 Church of the Thessalonians, for in- 
 stance, is 'in God the Father and the 
 Lord Jesus Christ' (i Thess. i. i, 
 2 Thess. i. i) : that of the Corinthians is 
 composed of those ' sanctified in Christ 
 Jesus, called to be saints' (i Cor. i. 2, 
 comp. 2 Cor. i. i). The omission of 
 any expression of praise in addressing 
 the Galatians shows the extent of 
 their apostasy ; see p. 64. 
 
 3. , X^P''^ vfuv Koi elpT^vrjj K.r.X,] On 
 this form of salutation see the notes 
 I Thess. i. i. 
 
 4. TOV dovTos eavTov, K.r.X.] ^who 
 gave Himself/or 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. 
 
 Trepi rmv a}j.apTL^v\ The MS3 here, as 
 
 in several other passages, are divided 
 between ircpX and virip, though here 
 the balance of authority is perhaps in 
 favour of irepL Generally it may be 
 said that irepX is used of things, vrrep 
 of persons, as i Pet. iii. 18 ore koI 
 ILpurTos aira^ ire pi afxaprt^v airiOavev 
 dUatos vTTcp dbiKoap, but exceptions 
 are very numerous, and in Heb. v. 3 
 we have nepl iavrov irpoaf^epeiv irepl 
 dfiapTLav (not virep dfiapTiSv, as some 
 read), though just before (ver. i) the 
 
 expression used is Trpoacjiepri virep d^ap- 
 
 tlSv. "Where TrepX is used of persons, 
 it is frequently explained by some 
 clause added, e.g. Matt. xxvi. 28 t6 
 
 nepl TToWSv eKXVVVOfiePOj/ eis a(f>eaiv 
 
 dfiapTiSv. With this compare the par- 
 allel passages Luke xxii. 19, 20 (uTrep 
 ujLitBv), Mark xiv. 24 {vnep ttoAXcSv, the 
 correct reading), where there is no 
 explanatory clause. All this follows 
 from the meaning of the prepositions, 
 UTrep having a sense of 'interest in,' 
 which is wanting to Trepi The dis- 
 tinction is marked in AthensLg. JResurr. 
 I, X6yQ>v diTrSif Totv p.ev inrep ttjs d\r}- 
 Belas Ta>v he TrepX ttjs dXrjOeias k.t.X. 
 
 (comp. § 11). Neither conveys the 
 idea of a vicarious act (ai/r/), though 
 such will frequently appear in the 
 context. On vTrep and Trepi see Winer 
 § xlvii. p. 479, and especially Wieseler's 
 note here. 
 
 eieXrjTai] 'deliver' strikes the key- 
 note of the epistle. The Gospel is a 
 rescue, an emancipation from a state 
 of bondage. See esp. iv. 9, 31, v. i, 13. 
 
 TOV almvos tov eve(TTa>TOs TTOV7]pov] the 
 
 correct reading, in which the detached 
 position oiTTovqpQv is emphatic: 'with 
 all its evils.' Comp. Arist. Eth, Nic, 
 
 i. 13 KCLi yap Tayadov dvOpcdTTivov 
 i^rjTOvpev koi ttjv evbaLp,oviav dudpfo- 
 
 TTIVTJV, Polit. ii. 9 TG^V y d8lKT]p,dTCi>V 
 
 eKOVO-lojv Ta TrXetcrra (Tvp^aivei k.tX. 
 
 The reading of the received text, tov 
 
74 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [1.5 
 
 pov Kara to deXrjima rod Qeov kui Trarpo^ n^iaiu ^w v 
 
 evcoTwro? atavos irovTjpov, IS gramma- 
 tically simpler, but less forcible. 
 
 The author of the Clementines, who 
 was certainly acquainted with this 
 epistle (see p. 6i), seems to have St 
 Paul's expression in mind, Epist. Clem. 
 I, eVt rov ivearoiTos TTOvjjpov tov icro- 
 y.€vov dyadov oXm tw Koa-fico firjvva-as 
 iSatrtXea (where alSvos found in some 
 texts after irovr^pov is evidently an in- 
 terpolation). If so, he appears to have 
 interpreted the words * from the seen, 
 the dominion, of the present evil one' : 
 comp. I John v. 19 o Koa-fios oXoy iv 
 T<5 TTourjpS Keirat, Barnab. § 2. At all 
 events a possible interpretation is thus 
 suggested. Comp. Polyb. xviii. 38. 5 
 TOP eveaTaTa ^aaiKea. 
 
 TOV alavos TOV eveaTWTosI The pre- 
 sent transitory world, elsewhere 6 vvv 
 alcovy e.g. I Tim. vi. 17, o alav tov koo-- 
 fxov TovTov Ephes. ii. 2, and most fre- 
 quently o alcav ovTosj e.g. Rom. xii. 2, as 
 opposed to the other world, the world 
 of eternity, 6 alav eKelvos Luke xx. 35, 
 o aiatv 6 epxofievos Luke viii. 20, ala>v 
 fieXkoiu Hebr. vi. 5, and often in the 
 plural, oi alSves oi iirep^Ofxivoi Ephes. 
 ii. 7) Oi aloives T^v alcovaVj and 01 almves 
 simply. This age, this world, is under 
 a 'god' (2 Cor. iv. 4), or 'rulers' (i 
 Cor. ii. 6) of its own, who are opposed 
 to the Eternal God, the King of the 
 ages, 6 ^aatXevs Tav aicovcovj I Tim. i. 
 17. See especially Ephes. ii. 2 — 7, and 
 comp. [Clem. Rom.] ii. § 6 eo-rty de 
 
 ovTOS 6 alatv koX 6 fieXXatv Bvo i^opoL. 
 
 The Apostles speak of themselves and 
 their generation as living on the fron- 
 tier of two seons, 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- 
 (TTws here in the sense of 'impending,' 
 as referring to the final apostasy. In 
 
 other passages however ivea-TMTa is 
 plainly 'present' as opposed to fii\- 
 XovTa 'future,' Rom. viii. 38, i Cor.iii. 22 
 (comp. Heb. ix. 9), in accordance with 
 the sense it bears in the language of 
 grammar, where 6 xp^^^s 6 ivea-Tas is 
 'the present tense.' Comp. Philo ti^ 
 Plant. Noe ii. § 27, p. 346 M rpt- 
 fjLepovs xpo^oUj Off els tov TrapcXrfKvooTa 
 Kai, ivecrTara koI /LteXXoi/ra Tep-vea-oai 
 7r4<j)vK€v. Even in passages where it 
 seems at first sight to have the sense 
 'impending, soon to come,' as in i Cor. 
 vii. 26 Sia TTiv ivco-TCoaav dvdynrjp, 
 2 Thess. ii. 2 eveo-TrjKev ^ V^^P^i ^^^ 
 
 proper meaning is more appropriate. 
 
 KaTO. TO deXrjfia] '&?/ t^ ^^ of God^ 
 
 and not by our own merits. St Paul 
 is still insisting on the dispensation of 
 grace impugned by the false teachers. 
 Compare tov Kokia-avTos^ ver. 6. 
 
 TOV Gcou Ka\ iraTpos 7;/xmi/] Comp. 
 Phil. iv. 20. Does tJ/iawi/ refer to GeoO 
 as well as irarpos, 'Our God and Fa- 
 ther'? On the whole this seems pro- 
 bable ; for the article, not being neces- 
 sary before Qeov, seems to be added 
 to bind the two clauses together and 
 connect both with rifiatv. The same 
 construction is justified in the case of 
 the similar expression, 6 Qeos Koi iraTrip 
 ^Iria-ov Xpta-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. 
 III. p. 233. In ver. i the word ' Fa- 
 ther ' refers especially though not 
 solely to Christ, in ver. 4 to mankind, 
 while in ver. 3 it seems to be used 
 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. 
 
1.6] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 75 
 
 ^Qaviuid^a) on ovtw^ Ta-^eo)^ fieTaTiQeo'de diro tov 
 KaXecapTO^ vfjLa^ ev ^apiTi \pLcrTOv eis erepop evay- 
 
 17 86§a] Hhe glory, which is pre-emi- 
 nently such, the glory which belongs 
 to him': comp. Joh. xvii. 5. The 
 article is almost imiversally found 
 with bo^a in these doxologies. Con- 
 trast with this the absence of the arti- 
 cle in Rom. ii. 10, i Cor. xi. 15. It is 
 probable therefore that we should 
 supply cVrti; in such cases rather than 
 co-rco. It is an affirmation rather than 
 a wish. Glory is the essential attri- 
 bute of God. See i Pet. iv. 11 w 
 
 ia-TLv rj bo^a Koi to Kparos, and the 
 
 doxology added to the Lord's prayer, 
 Matt. vi. 13. 
 
 cis rovs almvas rav alcovcav] ''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 — 9. An indignant expression of 
 surprise takes the place of the usual 
 thanksgiving for the faith of his con- 
 verts. This is the sole instance where 
 St Paul omits to express his thank- 
 fulness in addressing any church. See 
 the introduction, p. 64. 
 
 * I marvel that ye are so ready to 
 revolt from God who called you, so 
 reckless in abandoning the dispensa- 
 tion of grace for a different gospel. 
 A different gospel, did I say? Nay, 
 it is not another. There cannot be 
 two gospels. Only certain men are 
 shaking your allegiance, attempting to 
 pervert the Gospel of Christ. A vain 
 attempt, for the Gospel perverted is 
 no Gospel at all. Yea, though we 
 ourselves or an angel from heaven 
 (were it possible) should preach to 
 you any other gospel than that which 
 we have preached hitherto, let him 
 be accursed. I have said this before, 
 and I repeat it now. If any man 
 preaches to you any other gospel than 
 that which ye were taught by us, let 
 him be accursed.' 
 
 6. ouTo)s raxeti)?] ^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,'z.^. quick- 
 ly after the opportunity is offered, a 
 sense which the present tense (/xerart- 
 Beo-Bi) would facilitate. See i Tim. 
 V. 22 x^lpas Ta)(€a>s jiTj^evl eTTtrt^et, 
 2 Thess. ii. 2 els t6 firj Tax€<os <raXev- 
 drjuai. In this case there will be no 
 reference to any independent point of 
 time. 
 
 lieTarlBea-Be] 'are turning rene- 
 gades ' ; the middle voice, as may be 
 seen from the passages quoted below. 
 Merart^eo-^ac is used (i) of desertion 
 or revolt, i.e. of military or political 
 defection, as in Polyb. xxvi. 2. 6 to- 
 X^o>s Koi Tovs TToXLTevofxevovs p-era- 
 di(rSat Trpos ttjv 'Pcofxaiayv alpeaiv, and 
 frequently (2) of a change in religion, 
 philosophy, or morals, i Kings xxi. 
 25 0)? fX€TedrjK€V avTOv 'lefa/3eX 7; yvv^ 
 
 avToit, lambL Protrept. c. 17 fiera- 
 Oea-Bac aTTO tov OTrX^aTOis koi aKoXda-- 
 Ta>s exovTOs jSt'ou eyrl tov Koa-fj.L<i>s. Lio- 
 nysius of Heraclea, who from being a 
 Stoic became an Epicurean, was called 
 fxeTaOefievos, 'tumcoat' {avTtKpvs diro- 
 dvs TOV T^s dpcTrjs ;)^i'r(5z'a avBiva fierrjfjL- 
 
 ^ida-aTo Athen. vii. p. 281 d). The 
 word is frequently used however of 
 * conversion ' in a good sense, as in 
 Justin Apol. II. pp. 83 B, 91 D, etc. 
 
 TOV Kokeo-avTos vjias iv X'^P^'^*] * Him 
 who called you in graced 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 0eoi), see the note on i. 15. 
 
76 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [1.7 
 
 yeXioVy ^o ovk eariv aWo^ el fxri Tive'5 eiciv oi Tapac- 
 (TOVTes vjua^ Kal deXovres lULeraa-rpe^ai to evayyeXioi/ 
 
 XpLo-Tov] is generally omitted in the 
 Latin authorities, while some others 
 read ^Itjo-ov Xpio-roO, Xpia-Tov 'Irjo-ovj 
 and even Qeov. All these may possi- 
 bly have been glosses to explain tov 
 KaXeaavTos. Certainly the passage 
 seems to gain in force by the omission. 
 The implied antithesis between the 
 true gospel of grace and the false gos- 
 pel of works thus stands out in bolder 
 relief: comp. Ephes. ii. 8 ttj ^aptTt eWe 
 (Tea-anTfievoL It is found however in 
 the best mss, and is supported by such 
 passages as Acts xv, ii, dia rrjs x^P^~ 
 Tos TOV Kvpiov 'lijaov Trio-Tevofjiev cr(o- 
 3f}uai. If retained, it must be taken 
 after x^P'-'^h ^^^ ^o^ with rov Kokea-av- 
 Tos as in the Peshito, for d KoXia-as 
 in St Paul's language is always the 
 Father. 
 
 6, 7* ^^s €Tcpoy €vayy. k.t.X.] ^to Cb 
 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 
 gospel at all.' The relative o cannot 
 without harshness be referred to any- 
 thing else but erepov evayyeXLOv. 
 
 erepov] implies a difference of kind, 
 which is not involved in aXKo. The 
 primary distinction between the words 
 appears to be, that aXkos is another 
 as 'one besides,' ercpos another as 
 ' one of two,' The fundamental sense 
 of erepos is most dearly marked in its 
 compounds, as eTepu^Bdkfios, ' 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 crepos gets to signify 'unlike, 
 opposite,' as Xen. Cyrop. viii. 3. 8 
 
 ^v fjLov KaTi]yoprj<r7]S ela-avdcs orav 
 
 ^LOKovaj €T€p(a p.OL XPWV SiaKoi/ft), I.e. 
 ' changed,' where aXX© could not stand- 
 in Exod. i. 8 dvea-TT] 5e ^aaiXevs erepos 
 en AiyvTTTovj it is a translation of 
 K'ln 'novus'; and the idea of differ- 
 ence is frequently prominent in the 
 word as used in the lxx. Thus while 
 aXkos is generally confined to a nega- 
 tion of identity, eVepos 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' aWop' rj dXkolov' rj iv toIv dvolv' 
 rj dpicTTepoVj viov, BevTcpov. 
 
 7, €1 prj TLves, K.T.X.] ' Only in this 
 sense is it another gospel, in that it 
 is an attempt to pervert the one true 
 Gospel.' El p.j? 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 dXXd ; see the 
 note on i. 19. Here the following 6e- 
 Xoi/rey, which is slightly emphatic ('at- 
 tempting to, though without success '), 
 justifies the exception taken by el p.rj. 
 
 TLvis €L(TLV ol Tapd(r<TOVT€S^ a SOmC- 
 
 what unusual construction for ot ra- 
 pd<Tcrova-iv. It occurs however even in 
 classical writers, e.g. Soph. CEd. CoL 
 1023 dXXoi yap ol a-TTevdovres^ Lysias 
 pro Arist. ton. § 57 etVl be nves ol 
 TTpoavaXla-KouTes (the latter passage is 
 quoted with others by Winer, § sviii. 
 p. 136), and more commonly in the 
 New Testament, e.g. Col. ii. 8 /3Xe- 
 Trere /xt; tls eWat o truXaycwyaJv, Luke 
 xviii. 9. See the note on iii. 21. For 
 Tipes applied by St Paul to his adver- 
 saries, see ii. 12, i Cor. iv. 18, 2 Cor. 
 iii. I, X. 2. Other interpretations of 
 this clause have been proposed, all 
 of which seem to do violence either to 
 the sense or the grammar. 
 
I. 8, 9] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 77 
 
 Tov XptG-TOV, ^dWa Kal edv rifJiei^ tj ayye\o£ ip ov- 
 pavov evayyeXi^rjTai [ly/xli/^ Trap' o ev^yyeKiad^eda 
 vfXLi/y dvadejjia eo'Tco, ^w^ TrpoeipriKafxev Kal dpTi TraXiv 
 
 rapao-o-oiTf ff] not ' troubling your 
 minds,' but 'raising seditions among 
 you, shaking your allegiance/ a con- 
 tinuation of the metaphor of /ierart- 
 
 Oea-Be. The phrase raparTeiv TT}v Tvokiv 
 
 is commonly used of factions, e.g. Ari- 
 stoph. Eq. 863, See the note on v. 10. 
 /Aera(rrpe-v//'at] properly, 'to reverse, 
 to chang^e to the opposite/ and so 
 stronger than Stuo-7-pei^at, which is sim- 
 ply 'to distort,' 'wrench': comp. Arist. 
 hihet. 1. 1 5 >cat TO TOV ^€vo(f>dvovs fJ^eTa- 
 o-Tpexj/avTa KJ^aTeov k.t.X. What was 
 
 the idea prominent in the Apostle's 
 mind when he called this heresy a 
 'reversal' of the Gospel may be ga- 
 thered from iii. 3. 
 
 TOV Xpia-Tov] On the genitive see 
 the notes on i Thess. ii. 2. 
 
 8, 9. The difference of moods in 
 these two verses is to be noticed. In 
 the former, a pure hypothesis is put 
 forward, in itself highly improbable 
 {evayyrjXi^eTai) : in the latter, a fact 
 which had actually occurred, and was 
 occurring (cOayyeXtferat). 
 
 Koi idv] preserves its proper sense 
 of 'etiamsi,' as distinguished from eav 
 Kal 'etsi.' See Hermann Viger p. 
 832, Jelf Gramm. § 861. In other 
 words, it introduces a highly impro- 
 bable supposition. With this passage 
 contrast the meaning of €av koX as it 
 occurs in vi. i, lav koI 7rpoXr}fi<l>67J. 
 
 TJjLteis] *w?^.' 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 Tv^ith 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. 
 
 v^uv] is doubtful, being found both 
 before and after evayyeXi^TjTat in dif- 
 ferent texts, and in some omitted en- 
 tirely. 
 
 Trap' o] On the interpretation of 
 these words a controversy on * tradi- 
 tion' has been made to hinge, Pro- 
 testant writers advocating the sense 
 of 'besides' for jrapd, Roman Catho- 
 lics that of 'contrary to.' The context 
 is the best guide to the meaning of 
 the preposition. St Paul is here as- 
 serting the oneness, the integrity of 
 his Gospel. It will not brook any 
 rival. It will not suffer any foreign 
 admixture. The idea of 'contrariety' 
 therefore is alien to the general bear- 
 ing of the passage, though independ- 
 ently of the context the preposition 
 might well have this meaning. 
 
 dvadep-a] is the common (Hellen- 
 istic), dvd6r)ixa 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~ 
 6Tjp.a getting to signify 'devoted' in 
 a good, and avdO^p-a in a bad sense. 
 See Trench, N. T. Synon. § v. p. 14; 
 Eritzsche 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 JVords, 
 p. 156; see also M. Miiller's Science 
 of Language, 2nd ser. p. 262 sq. 
 Such divergences of meaning are 
 generally to be traced to the different 
 sources from which the varying forms 
 are derived. In the present instance 
 the distinction seems to have arisen 
 from the fact that the sense 'an ac- 
 cm'sed thing' would be derived chiefly 
 through the Hellenist writers of the 
 Lxx, the sense 'an offering' mostly 
 
78 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [L lo 
 
 Xeycoy el Tis vjua^ evayyeXi^eraL 'Trap 6 7rape\apeT€y 
 
 dvddefxa ecrrw. ^°dpTi ydp dpdpcoTTOV^ ireido) t] 
 
 TOP 
 
 through classical authors. The dis- 
 tinction of meaning however is only 
 general, not universal. Pseudo- Justin, 
 QucBst et resp. 121 (p. 190, Otto), 
 assigns both meanings to avddefia, 
 as Theodoret (on Rom. ix. 3) does to 
 dpd6r}^a. ^AvdOrj^a 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 dpdde^a here 
 means * excommunicated' or 'accurs- 
 ed'; i.e. whether it refers to eccle- 
 siastical censure or spiritual condi- 
 tion. The latter alone seems tenable; 
 for (i) it is the lxx. translation of the 
 Hebrew D"in, e.g. Josh. vii. i, 12. 
 This word is used in the Old Testa- 
 ment of a person or thing set apart 
 and devoted to destruction, because 
 hateful to God. Hence in a spiritual 
 application it denotes the state of 
 one who is alienated from God by 
 sin. But on the other hand it seems 
 never to signify '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- 
 defia, dvaOefjuaTiCeiv, where they occur 
 in the New Testament, and in some, 
 as Rom. ix. 3, i Cor. xiii. 3, it is ob- 
 viously excluded. Here, for instance, 
 it is inconsistent with the ayyeXos i^ 
 ovpavov. In course of time dvddefxa, 
 like the corresponding Q"in, 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 
 dvd6efia earo) by dWorpios eaTco tov 
 KOivov (Tafiaros ttjs eKKkrjcrLas. 
 
 9. (OS 7rpo€tpT]Kafi€V^ ^CtS we 
 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 (Xeyco) where St Paul is writing 
 in his own person, and the plural 
 {irpoeip^Kan^v) where he is speaking 
 of the joint labours of himself and his 
 colleagues, is to be observed. See the 
 note on jj/iely ver. 8. 
 
 KoX apTL TrdXiv] ^so now again^ 
 ciprt here denotes strictly present, as 
 opposed to past time — a late use of the 
 word. See Lobeck Phryn. p. 18 sq. 
 
 TvdXiv] 'again,^ is not to be referred, 
 as it is taken by some, to the preced- 
 ing verse, in the sense 'I repeat what 
 I have just said.' Against this inter- 
 pretation two objections lie: (i) St 
 Paul in that case would have used the 
 singular irpoeipr^Ka (which indeed is 
 found in some texts), as throughout 
 the epistle he writes in his own per- 
 son alone ; and (2) The words koX 'dpn 
 mark some greater distinction of time 
 than this interpretation would allow. 
 
 vp,ds e^ayyeXtferat] In classical Wri- 
 ters this verb takes only a dative of 
 the person, in later Greek it has in- 
 differently a dative or an accusative. 
 See Lobeck Phryn. p. 266 sq. and 
 EUicott on I Thess. iii. 6. 
 
 10. 'Let him be accursed, I say. 
 What, does my boldness startle you 1 
 Is this, I ask, the language of a time- 
 server? Will any say now that, care- 
 less of winning the favour of God, I 
 seek to conciliate men, to ingratiate 
 myself with men? If I had been con- 
 tent thus to compromise, I should 
 have been spared all the sufferings, 
 as I should have been denied all the 
 privileges, of a servant of Christ.' 
 
 apTL ydp'] What is the opposition 
 implied in this note? It can scarcely 
 be referred, as some refer it, to the 
 
Lii] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 79 
 
 Qeov ; fj ^tjTcS dvdpcoTroi^ dpeaKeiv ; €i €ti dvdpcoTroi^ 
 
 tip€<rKO]/y \pl(TTOV SovXo^ OVK CLV f]/JitJV. 
 
 ^^rvcopl^o) Se vjuuv, dde\(poiy to evayyeXiov ro €v- 
 
 II. yvtapi^u) ydp. 
 
 time before his conversion. * Concili- 
 ation' is no fit term to apply to the 
 fierce bigotry of Saul, the persecutor 
 of the Church of Christ. The errors 
 of his early career are the offspring 
 of blind zeal, and not of worldly 
 policy (i Tim. i. 13). The explana- 
 tion is doubtless to be found in the 
 charges of inconsistency brought a- 
 gainst him by the Judaizers. They 
 had misrepresented certain acts of 
 his past life, and branded him as a 
 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 apri has therefore no -connexion 
 with the apTL 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.' 
 
 dvBpcoTTOvs 7reida> ^ rbv Seov] ''do T 
 conciliate^ make friends of men or of 
 Qod?^ Though the idea of persuasion 
 is not strictly applicable in the case 
 of God (comp. 2 Cor. v. 11, dvOpcoirovs 
 ireldo^ev^ Oeco 5e 7recf)av€p<op.e6a)j yet 
 Tret'^o) is fitly extended to the second 
 clause in reference to the language of 
 his enemies. *You charge me with a 
 policy of conciliation. Yes; I concili- 
 ate God.' * De humano usu sumptum 
 est,' says Jerome. On the article 
 Bengel pointedly remarks : * dvBpa- 
 TTovs, homines; hoc sine articulo: at 
 mox rov Seoy, Deum cum articulo. 
 Dei solius halDcnda est ratio.' See 
 also the note on iv. 31. 
 
 avSpdnois dpea-KeLv] So I Thess. ii. 4 : 
 
 comp. dvOpcoTrdpeo-Koif Ephes. vi. 6, CoL 
 iii. 22 (with the note). 
 
 eVt] ' stUi: After what ? ' After all 
 that has befallen me: after all the 
 experiences I have had.' Compare the 
 ert of V. II. 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 d in the received 
 text is one of the many attempts of 
 transcribers to smooth down the rug- 
 gedness of St Paul's style. 
 
 'K.ptarov hovkos ovk av ^p.r}v\ ^I 
 should not have been a servant of 
 Christy' perhaps with an indirect re- 
 ference to the marks of persecution 
 which he bore on his body {to. a-Tiy- 
 ixara tov 'It^o-ou, vi. 1 7); 'I should 
 not have been branded as His slave, 
 I should not have suffered for Him.' 
 Comp. V. II, 'If I yet preach cir- 
 cumcision, why am I yet persecuted?' 
 
 II, 12. 'I assure you, brethren, 
 the Gospel you were taught by me 
 is not of human devising. I did not 
 myself receive it from man, but from 
 Jesus Christ. I did not learn it, as 
 one learns a lesson, by painful study. 
 It flashed upon me, as a revelation 
 from Jesus Christ' 
 
 II. TvmpL^o) viMv] '/ declare to 
 you^ introduces some statement on 
 which the Apostle lays special em- 
 phasis, I Cor. xii. 3, XV. i, 2 Cor. viii. 
 I. (Compare the similar phrase, *I 
 would not have you ignorant.') Both 
 this phrase and the following, Kara 
 avdpMTTov^ are confined to the epistles 
 of this chronological group. 
 
 The best authorities are nearly 
 equally divided between fie and ydp. 
 
8o 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [I. 12, 13 
 
 ayyeXiadei/ vtt ejuov^ oti ovk ecTTiv Kara dvdpwirov. 
 "oi/Se yap iyco Trapd dvdpwTcov 7rape\af3op avro ovre 
 e^ihd'xdnvy dWd hi dTVOKaXv^eco^ 'lr]<TOV XptcTTOv. 
 ^^}]Kov(raT€ yap Trjv efxtjp dva(TTpo(pYiv irOTe ev to) iov- 
 
 12. 0^5^ ^StSax^'?^* 
 
 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 fie may possibly have been sub- 
 stituted for yap here, because it is 
 found with yvcdpl^Kn {-(op.€v) in i Cor. 
 XV. I, 2 Cor. viii. i. 
 
 €a-Tiv\ 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 av6pa>7rov] 'after any human 
 fashion or standard.' See on iii. 15. 
 
 12, ovbe yap iya] 'For tO gO a 
 step farther back, neither did / Tny- 
 self receive it from man.' The force 
 of the particle ovbk is best sought for 
 in the context. OvSe eyw napeXa^ov 
 answers to to evayyeXto-Biv vtt e/zoO 
 OVK €(rTLV, as Trapa avdpaTTOV answers 
 to Kara avdpcoTTov. 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. 
 
 irapa avdpcoirov irapeXa^oii] The idea 
 in the preposition is sufficiently wide 
 to include both the otto and dia of 
 ver. I. I do not think the distinction 
 given by Winer § xlvii. p. 463, and 
 others, between \ap.^aveiv irapa Kvpiov 
 and \ap.^dv€LP diro Kvpiov (l Gor. xi. 
 23), as denoting respectively direct 
 and indirect communication, can be 
 insisted upon. It is true, that while 
 diro contemplates only the giver, napd 
 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 napa will be used in prefer- 
 ence to aTTo, be the communication 
 direct or indirect; so Phil. iv. 18 5e- 
 ^dp.€vos wapa "ETraffypobiTov to. Trap 
 vfiav comp. Plat. Symp, 202 e. The 
 verb irapaXap^^dvetv may be used either 
 of the ultimate receiver or of any in- 
 termediate agent, provided that the 
 idea of transmission be retained; i.e. 
 it may be either (i) to receive as 
 transmitted to oneself, 2 Thess. iii. 6, 
 or (2) to receive so as to transmit to 
 others. In this latter sense it is used 
 of the Apostles, who receiving the 
 Gospel directly from the Lord passed 
 it to others. See i Cor. xi. 23, xv. i, 
 
 3, and compare irapayyekia. 
 
 ovT€ edibdxdrjv] The authorities being 
 nearly equally divided between oure 
 and ovSe, I have with some hesitation 
 retained the former in the text, as 
 being, the less regular collocation {ov- 
 5e. . .ourc), and therefore more likely to 
 be altered. In this case another ovre 
 is to be understood before irapeXapov, 
 the de of ovde having reference to the 
 former sentence. See Winer § Iv. 6, 
 p. 617, and esp. A. Buttmann p. 315. 
 
 edibdxOrjv is added to explain and 
 enforce Trapa dvOpcoTrov napeXa^ov, and 
 thus to bring out the contrast with 
 fit* diroKaXvylreois : ' I received it not by 
 instruction from man but by remla- 
 tion from Christ.' For a somewhat 
 similar contrast see Cic. pro Mil. c. 
 
 4, 'Est enim hsec, judices, non scripta 
 sed nata lex; quam non didicimus, 
 accepimus, legimus, verum ex na- 
 tura ipsa arripuimus, hausimus, ex- 
 pressimus.' 
 
 13, 14. 'My early education is a 
 
1.14] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 caicTfAWy OTL Kad' virepfioXriv e^iwKOV Trju iicKXrjo-iai/ tov 
 Seov Kai eTTopQovv avTrjV^ ^^kcu irpoeKOirTOv ev ra 'Yov- 
 oaicr^w virep ttoWov^ (rvvf]XtKiwTa^ ev tw yevet /mov^ 
 TrepiacoTepco^ ^rjXcoTf]^ vTrdp^o)}/ twv waTpiKcop fxov 
 
 proof that I did not receive the Gos- 
 pel from man. I was brought up in 
 a rigid school of ritualism, directly- 
 opposed to the liberty of the Gospel. 
 I was from age and temper a staunch 
 adherent of the principles of that 
 school. Acting upon them, I relent- 
 lessly persecuted the Christian bro- 
 therhood. No human agency there- 
 fore could have brought about the 
 change. It required a direct interpo- 
 sition from God.' 
 
 13. ^Kovaare] ^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 xsii. 2 — 2ij xxvi. 4 — 23, i Cor. 
 XV. 8 — 10 : comp. Phil. iii. 6, i Tim. i. 
 
 13. The A. v., *ye have heard,' gives 
 a wrong meaning. 
 
 dva(7Tpo<pr}v Trore] for the more usual 
 iroTe dvacrTpo(l)^v, QB ver. 23 o di^KCOV 
 
 T]fj.ds TTOTe. Similar displacements of 
 words, which would ordinarily come 
 between the article and substantive, 
 are frequent in the New Testament. 
 See on i Thess. i. i ; and Winer § xx. 
 p. 169 sq. 
 
 louSaiV/iw] 'observance of Jewish 
 rites.' The word does not in itself 
 imply any disparagement. Comp. 2 
 Mace. ii. 21 toIs vnep tov 'louSato-juoO 
 (jaXoTLficos dvdpayaO^a-acriv, xiv. 3^ 
 (rafia kol "^ux^^ vnep tov ^lovddiap.ov 
 7rapa^€^\T]fi€Vos, and 'lovdat^etv Gal. ii. 
 
 14. Though perhaps originally coin- 
 ed by the heathen and, as used by 
 them, conveying some shadow of con- 
 tempt, it would, when neutralised 
 among the Jews themselves, lose this 
 idea and even become a title of ho- 
 nour. The case of XpLo-riavosj likewise 
 a term of reproach in the first in- 
 stance, is a parallel. 
 
 GAL. 
 
 iiropOovv /c.r.X.] '/ devastated the 
 Church, as Acts ix. 21 ovx ovtos 
 
 eaTLV 6 7rop6rf(ras ev 'lepov<jakrip. tovs 
 €TriKa\ovfj,ei/ovs k.t.X. Compare iXv- 
 fjiaiveTo TTjv iKKKrjo-lau, ActS viii. 3. 
 
 14. avvr/XiKicoTas] ^qfmy own age^ 
 who embraced the religion of their 
 fathers with all the ardour of youthful 
 patriotism. The Attics use the simple 
 form jyXtKiGJTT/?, while the compound 
 belongs to the later dialect. Com- 
 pare the similar instances of TroXlTrjs 
 
 {(TVfJL7ro\LT7]S, EphCS. il. 1 9), <j}v\eT1]S 
 
 (a-viJL<pv\€TT]s, I Thess. ii. 14), etc. In 
 this class of words the later language 
 aims at greater definiteness. The rule 
 however is not absolute, but only ex- 
 presses a general tendency. See Lo- 
 beck Phryn. pp. 172, 471, 
 
 ev T« y€V€L fiov] * 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' 
 {o-vyyevels). Comp. also Rom. ix. 3 
 VTrep TOiV dBfX(f>av fiov t^v (Tvyyevmv 
 fxav KaTo. o-dpKa. 
 
 7TepL(j(T0Tip(jis ^rjkGirr}^ VTrap^o)!'] The 
 
 adverb wepLo-a-oTepcos, which is fre- 
 quent in St Paul, seems always to re- 
 tain its comparative force. Here it 
 is explained by virep ttoXXovs. For 
 ^rfKcdTris VTrapx^^^ COmp. Acts xxi. 20 
 TTOVTes ^T)X(OTai tov vofiov VTrdp^ovcTLV. 
 St Paul seems to have belonged to 
 the extreme party of the Pharisees 
 (Acts xxii. 3, xxiii. 7, xxvi. 5, Phil. iii. 
 5, 6), whose pride it was to call them- 
 selves * zealots of the law, zealots of 
 God.* To this party also had be- 
 longed Simon, one of the Twelve, 
 thence surnamed the zealot, fT/Xcoxj?? 
 or Kavavaios, i.e. \^^\>. A portion of 
 
 6 
 
82 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [I. 15, 16 
 
 Trapa^oo-ewv. ^^ore Se evdoKfjcev 6 d(j)opicras fxe €k koi- 
 \ia9 fXfjrpo^ julov kul KaXeca^ ^la rfj^ x^P^^^^ avrov 
 ^^ dTTOKaXyy^ai t6v vlov avTOV ev efiol iva evayyeXi- 
 
 these extreme partizans, forming into 
 a separate sect under Judas of Gali- 
 lee, took the name of 'zealots' par 
 excellence^ and distinguished them- 
 selves by their furious opposition to 
 the Romans : Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 
 I. I, 6. See Ewald Oesch. des Volkes 
 Isr. y. p. 25 sq., p. 322, vi. p. 340. 
 
 Totv TraTpiKmv fiov TrapaBoaeatv] ^ of 
 the traditions handed down from 
 myfathersJ It is doubtful whether 
 the law of Moses is included in this 
 expression. In Josephus ra eV irapa- 
 hofrecas rav ivaripaiv {Antiq. xiii. lO. 6), 
 7; irarpcpa TrapaSoixt? (ib. 16. 2), are the 
 Pharisaic traditions, as distinguished 
 from the written law. See also Matth. 
 XT. 2, 3, 6, Mark vii. 3, 5, 8, 9, 13. 
 These passages seem to show that the 
 word TrapadoaiSj 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. 
 
 1 5 — 17. ' Then came my conversion. 
 It was the work of God's grace. It 
 was foreordained, before I had any 
 separate existence. It was not there- 
 fore due to any merits of my own, it 
 did not spring from any principles of 
 my own. The revelation of His Son 
 in me, the call to preach to the Gen- 
 tiles, were acts of His good pleasure. 
 Thus converted, I took no counsel of 
 human advisers. I did not betake 
 myself to the elder Apostles, as I 
 might naturally have done. I se- 
 cluded myself in Arabia, and, when I 
 emerged from my retirement, instead 
 of going to Jerusalem, I returned to 
 Damascus.' 
 
 15. o d<j>opl(Tas] ^who set me a- 
 part, devoted me to a special pur- 
 
 pose': Rom. i. I d<j)o)pi(TiMhos els ev- 
 ayyekiov eeov. See also Acts xiii. 2 
 
 dcfyoplaare 8j] /iot k.tX The words o 
 Geoff 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, i Thess. v. 24. 
 Observe how words are accumu- 
 lated to teU upon the one point on 
 which he is insisting — the sole agency 
 of God as distinct from his own efforts : 
 evdoKrjo-ev, d^optVaff, e/c KOtXtas p,7jTpos 
 p,ov, KaXecras, xap'TOS avrov. 
 
 €K KoLXias fx-qrpoi fiov] 'from before 
 my birthf before I had any impulses, 
 any principles of my own.' For the 
 expression see Judges xvi. 17 ayios 
 
 ©eoO eyto elfii UTrb KOiXlas prjrpos fiovy 
 Is. xliv. 2, 24, xlix. Ij 5 o TrKdcras /xe 
 €K Koikias dovXov iavra. Psalm Ixx. 6 
 6K KoiXlas fXT)Tp6s fiov (TV {xov et (TKeTra- 
 a-Tijs, 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. 
 
 KoXeo-as 5ta rrjs x^P'''^'^^ 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 (o d(j)opL(Tas jue k.t.X.); 
 Secondly, the conversion and call to 
 the Apostleship, which took place on 
 the way to Damascus, Acts ix. 3 sq. 
 {KaXiaas Sta rfji ^P-piTos aurou); and 
 Thirdly^ the entering upon his min- 
 istry in fulfilment of this call, Acts ix. 
 20 sq., xiii. 2, 3 {dnoKaXv-^ai ev efioi 
 Iva evayyeXi^coixai). 
 
 The distinction of these three stages 
 seems well marked ; and if so, this de- 
 
1. 17, 18] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 83 
 
 ^M/nat avTOP ev Toh e6ve(Tiv, evdeco^ ov TrpoaaveQefXYiv 
 (TapKi Kat alfxaTiy ^^oJSe dvriXQov eh 'lepocroXvfxa 
 TTjods Tov^ irpo ifxov ctTrocrToXov^y dWa dirtiXdov ei^ 
 'Apafiiai/y kul irdXiv v7reo'Tp€\lra eU AafxaaKOV ^ eir- 
 
 17. oi)5^ &.ir^\$ov eh 'lep. 
 
 termines the meaning of ev i^oi. It 
 does not speak of a revelation made 
 inwardly to himself^ but of a revela- 
 tion made through Mtyi to others. 
 The preposition iv is used in prefer- 
 ence to bia, 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 cSo- 
 ^a^ov iv €fiol TOP 0edv, I Tim. i. 1 6 
 6ta ToiiTO r}\er}6r}v %va ev efxol Trpcorco 
 evdei^TjTaL Xpiaros ^Irjaovs rrjv a-naa-av 
 fiaKpodvfXLau irpos VTroTviraxjiv rav fxeX- 
 
 \6vT<0V 7n(TT€V€iV K.T.X., 2 Cor. xill. 3 
 
 Tov ev e/xoi \aXovvTOs XpttrroO, Phil, 
 i. 30. The rendering of eV efiol 
 'within me,' i.e. *in my heart,' seems 
 neither to suit the context so well, 
 nor to be so natural in itself. 
 
 evBeas ov Trpoaavedefirjv k,t.\.^ ''forth- 
 with^ histead of conferring with flesh 
 and blood, etc, I departed to Arabia.' 
 On dvaTi6e<r6ai See the note ii. 2. In 
 the double compound Trpoo-avaTideaBai 
 the idea of comfnunication 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) Trpoa-avadeaSai 
 oveipoKptTT), Died. Sic. xvii. 116 tols 
 p-avTeai Trpotravadifievos nepl tov aij- 
 fielov. Comp. Lucian Jup. Trag. § i 
 (11. p. 642) ep.oi TTpoaavadoVj Xd^e fie 
 crvfx^ovXov TTovcov. See the note ii. 6. 
 
 For o-apKi Ka\ atfjiaTL compare our 
 Lord's words to St Peter, Matt. xvi. 
 17 * Flesh and blood did not reveal it 
 unto thee.' 
 
 17. dvTjXBov} '/ came up,' This 
 
 verb and dvapaiveiv are used especially 
 of visiting Jerusalem, situated in the 
 high lands of Palestine, as Karepx^- 
 o-6at, Kara^atvetv, are of leaving it. See 
 Luke s. 30, Acts xi. 27, xii. 19, xv. i, 
 2, xxi. 15, XXV. I, 6, 7, and especially 
 Acts xviii. 22, xxiv. i. In the two 
 
 last passages dvaQaivetv and KarajSal- 
 
 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 dirrjKOov has great claims to a 
 place in the text. Both words occur 
 in the contest 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 dTrrjkdov twice 
 consecutively, as the repetition makes 
 the sentence run awkwardly ; though 
 in Rom. viii. 15, i Cor. ii. 13, Heb. xii. 
 18, 22, something of the kind occurs. 
 
 rovs TVpo efiov djroaTokovs] ' 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 Hom. xvi. 7, otnves elo-iv 
 eTTLonjiioi, iv rots aTrooroXots ot kol TTpo 
 ifiov yeyovav ev Xptorw, where how- 
 ever the construction is doubtful. 
 
 els Aafjaa-Kov] A danger which 
 threatened St Paul's life on this occa- 
 sion seems to have left a deep impres- 
 sion on his mind, and is mentioned by 
 him in another epistle, nearly contem- 
 poraneous with this, 2 Cor. xi. 32. 
 
 18 — 24. 'Not till three years were 
 past did I go up to Jerusalem. My 
 object in doing so was to confer with 
 Cephas. But I did not remain with 
 
 6—2 
 
84 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [L 19 
 
 eiTa fxeTCi erri rpla dvnXQov eU 'lepocoXufxa l(rTO- 
 pfjo-at Kr](paVy Kal eTrefxetva irpo^ avTOV nfxepa^ deKU- 
 irevTe* ^^eTepov Ze twp diroo'ToXcop ovk ecBou, ei ^y] 
 
 18. /ieri Tpia. irTj. 
 
 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 Judsea. They 
 had only heard that their former per- 
 secutor was now preaching the very 
 faith which before he had attempted 
 to destroy : and they glorified God for 
 my conversion.' 
 
 18. eTTeira fiera errj rpla] 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.' 
 
 'lepoo-oXvjLta] is generally a neuter 
 plural. In Matt. ii. 3 however we 
 have Tvaaa 'Icpoa-okvua. See A. Butt- 
 mann Gramm. p. 16. On the forms 
 'lepo(r6\vp,a and 'Upovo-akfjfji see the 
 note iv. 26. 
 
 la-ToprjaaL Krj<j)dv] Ho visit Cephas* 
 la-Topfjcrai, 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. i. 8 dvrjp 
 d>v eyat Kar iKa.vov la-roprjo-a tov iroke- 
 p,oUj and Clem. Horn. viii. i, etc. St 
 Peter is mentioned by St Paul only in 
 this epistle and i Corinthians. Kt/- 
 <^ay is the right reading here, though 
 there is respectable authority for lie- 
 Tpov. If the existing authorities are 
 to be trusted, St Paul seems to iiave 
 used the Aramaic and Greek names 
 
 indifferently. Allowance ought to be 
 made however for the tendency to sub- 
 stitute the more usual IleVpos for the 
 less common Kr](f}as, e.g. here and ii. 
 9, II, 14. In the Peshito Version 
 Cephas^ as the Aramaic name, is not 
 unnaturally adopted throughout this 
 epistle. 
 
 deKajrivTe] A later form for the 
 more classical ircvT^KalbeKa. This and 
 the analogous forms of numerals occur 
 frequently in the MSS of Greek au- 
 thors of the post- classical age, but in 
 many cases are doubtless due to the 
 transcribers writing out the words at 
 length, where they had only the nume- 
 ral letters before them. The frequent 
 occurrence of these forms however in 
 the Tabulce Heracleenses is a decisive 
 testimony to their use, at least in some 
 dialects, much before the Christian 
 era. They are found often in the 
 
 LXX. 
 
 St Paul's visit on this occasion was 
 abruptly terminated. He left on ac- 
 count of a plot against his life (Acts 
 ix. 29) and in pursuance of a vision 
 (Acts xxii. 17 — 21). 
 
 19. et fXTj 'la/ca)/3oj/] 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 d p,r} retains 
 its eicceptive 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 Pritzsche on Kom. m. 
 p. 195. But on the other hand the 
 sense of erepov naturally links it with 
 
I. 20 — 22] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 8S 
 
 'laKw/Bou TOP d^e\(poi/ tov Kvpiov. ^°a de ypdcpco vfjuv, 
 iSoi) evwTTLOv TOV Qeov OTL ov ^l/^evhofxai. ^^eTveiTa rjXdou 
 et^ Ta KXijuaTu Trj^ ^vpia^ Kai Trj^ KtXtKtas^ ^^rj/Jir]P Se 
 
 €1 fxrj, from which it cannot be sepa- 
 rated without harshness, and ercpov 
 carries tSv aTroo-ToXav 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. Idov ivcoTTiov TOV GfoO] A form 
 of asseveration equivalent to *I call 
 you to witness/ and so followed by 
 ort. See 2 Tim. ii. 14, iv. i Sta/xapru- 
 
 peaSat ivcoTrtov roii Oeov, For Idov else- 
 where in the New Testament is an in- 
 terjection or adverb, never a verb, so 
 that there is an objection to making it 
 govern ort here. Perhaps however 
 the occurrence of ifie ort 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 I Thess. v. 27. 
 
 21. In the corresponding narrative 
 of St Luke it is related that the bre- 
 thren at Jerusalem, discovering the 
 plot against St Paul's life, *took him 
 down to Csesarea 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 (si. 25 — 30). 
 The Ceesarea mentioned there is 
 doubtless Stratonis, and not Philippic 
 as some maintain. Not only was this 
 the more probable route for him to 
 take, but St Luke's language requires 
 
 it; for (l) The words Korriyayov, i^air- 
 
 eoreiXav, imply a seaport and an em- 
 barkation: and (2) Csesarea, without 
 any addition to distinguish it, is always 
 the principal city of the name. It 
 appears therefore that St Luke repre- 
 sents St Paul as sailing from Csesarea 
 on his way to Tarsus; and comparing 
 this account with the notice here, we 
 must suppose either (i) That St Paul 
 did not go direct to Tarsus but visited 
 Syria on the way; or (2) That he 
 visited Syria from Tarsus, and after 
 preaching there returned again to 
 Tarsus where he was found by Barna- 
 bas; St Luke having, on either of 
 these hypotheses, omitted to record 
 this visit to Syria ; or (3) That St Paul's 
 words here 'Syria and Cilicia' are not 
 intended to describe the order in 
 which he visited the two countries. 
 This last is the most probable suppo- 
 sition. Cilicia has geographically a 
 greater affinity with Syria than with 
 Asia Minor. See Conybeare and 
 Howson, I. p. 130. The less important 
 country is here named after the more 
 important. 'Cilicia,' says Ewald, 'was 
 constantly little better than an appen- 
 dage of Syria,' Gesch. des V. Isr. vi. 
 p. 406. At this time however it was 
 under a separate administration. The 
 words TO. Kkifiara seem to show that 
 * Syria and Cilicia' are here men- 
 tioned under one general expression, 
 and not as two distinct districts. 
 
 TO. KklfxaTo] Rom. XV. 23, 2 Cor. 
 xi. 10. A comparatively late word, 
 see Lobeck Parol, p. 418. It is found 
 in Pseudo-Aristot. de Mundo c. x, and 
 several times in Polybius. 
 
 22. ^{xrjv dyvoovfiej/os K.T.X.] ' / 
 remained personally unknown.^ A 
 strong form of the imperfect, as aKov- 
 oireff ^<Tav 'they kept hearing' (ver, 
 23): see Winer, § xly. 5, p, 437 sq. 
 
S6 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [I. 23, 24 
 
 d'yvoovfjievo'5 Tip irpoawTTvp Tocis eKKXrjcrlat^ Tvj^ 'lovSata^ 
 Tah ev\pt<TTipy ^^fxopou^e uKOvopTes tjcav oti 'O diwKO)}/ 
 ijfj.a^ TTore pvp evayyeXl^sTat Trji/ Trlcmv f]V ttotb eirop- 
 Oeiy ^"^Kai eSo^a^O}/ ev efxot top Qeov. 
 
 TOLs iKfckijo-iaLs K.r.X.] * unknown to 
 the churches of Judced' 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 Csesarea, and there em- 
 barking he left the shores of Pales- 
 tine. The other churches of Judsea 
 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. siii. 24. The addition 
 rais iv XpiarS was necessary when 
 speaking of the Christian brother- 
 hoods of Judsea ; for the unconverted 
 Jewish communities might still be 
 called Hhe Churches of Judsea.' See 
 the note on i Thess. ii. 14, tSv ck- 
 KkijariaiV tov Qeov rwv ovcai/ iv rfj 
 ^lovdaia iv 'KptcrTa 'Itjo-qv. 
 
 23. oVi] introduces an abrupt change 
 from the oblique to the direct mode 
 ofspeaking, e.g. Acts xiv. 22, xxiii. 22. 
 
 So it is used frequently in introducing 
 a quotation, e.g. Gal. iii. 10. 
 
 *0 StwKO)!/ T^fxas TTore] ^ Our per- 
 secutor of former times'') 6 Blcokcov 
 being used as a substantive, i.e. with- 
 out reference to time, as Matt, xxvii. 
 40 Karakvcov tov vaov. see Winer, 
 § xlv. 7, p. 444. On the position of 
 TTore, see the note on ver. 13. 
 
 rT)v TTt'o-rti'] 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. 
 For the various senses of ttlo-tis, see 
 the notes on iii. 23, vi. 10, and the 
 detached note on the term * faith.' 
 
 24. iv i^oi\ See the note ver. 16, 
 and comp. Is. xlix. 3 fiouXos- p^ov el 
 
 (TV ^lo-pariX KOL iv col bo^acrdrj<Top.ai. 
 
 '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. ^7 
 
 St PauVs sojourn in Arabia. 
 
 A veil of thick darkness hangs over St Paul's visit to Arabia. Of Obscurity 
 the scenes among which he moved, of the thoughts and occupations which of the in- 
 engaged him while there, of all the circumstances of a crisis which must ^^ ^^ * 
 have shaped the whole tenour of his after life, absolutely nothing is known. 
 * Immediately,' says St Paul, ' I went away into Arabia.' The historian 
 passes over the incident without a mention. It is a mysterious pause, 
 a moment of suspense in the Apostle's history, a breathless calm which 
 ushers in the tumultuous storm of his active missionary life. 
 
 Yet it may be useful to review the speculations to which this incident 
 has given rise, even though we cannot hope to arrive at any definite 
 result; for, if such a review bears no other fruit, it will at least bring 
 out more clearly the significance of the incident itself. 
 
 Of the place of the Apostle's sojourn various opinions have been held. Conjee- 
 Arabia is a vague term, and affords scope for much conjecture. txrces as to 
 I. The Arabic translator i, whose language gives him a fictitious claim (\^^\ 
 to a hearing on such a point, renders the passage ' Immediately I went ka. 
 to El Belka.' In like manner in Gal. iv. 25 he translates, ' This Hagar is 
 Mount Sinai in El Belka, and is contiguous to Jerusalem.' Now the only 
 district, so far as I can discover, which bears or has borne the name of 
 El Belka, is the region lying to the east and north-east of the Dead Sea 2. 
 If so, how are we to account for this translation of *Apa/3ia 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 u-wo-tolx^I 
 in the second passage, which he renders 'is contiguous to 2,' 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 1 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 1 At all events the tradition 
 here preserved about St Paul, if it be a tradition, is of little worth, as 
 the translator seems to have lived at a comparatively late date*. 
 
 1 The Arabic version of the Poly- sq., Stanley's Sinai avd Palestine pp. 
 glotts,whichwas made directly from the 95, 319. 
 
 Greek. The translator not unfrequently ^ For this rendering however he 
 
 gives geographical comments. See Hug might plead the authority of several 
 
 Einleit. § cix, i. p. 431, The other ancient commentators. See the notes 
 
 Arabic version, the Erpenian, translated on iv. 25. 
 
 from the Syriac, retains 'Arabia.' ^ Hug 1. c. states that the trans- 
 
 2 See Burckhardt Trav. in Syria lator has unexpectedly revealed his 
 App. in, Hitter Erdkunde xii. p. 426 country by his rendering of Acts ii. 10, 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 (2) The 
 country 
 near Da- 
 mascus. 
 
 (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 Syrophcenicia^.' Thus 
 no very distant journey would be necessary to reach Arabia. A retire- 
 ment in the immediate neighbourhood of Damascus would suffice, and such 
 a visit, especially if it were brief, might well be passed over by the histo- 
 rian as a merely temporary interruption of the Apostle's long residence in 
 that city, which was unknown to him, or which knowing, he did not care to 
 record. Into these wild regions then, beyond the sway of Roman dominion, 
 beyond the reach of civilization, far away from all his old haunts and asso- 
 ciations, it is thought that the Apostle plunged himself in the first tumult 
 of his newly-acquired experiences^. 
 
 This explanation however is open to objection. It gives to 'Arabia* 
 an extension, which at all events seems not to have been common, and 
 which even the passage of Justin shows to have required some sort of 
 justification. It separates the Arabia of the first chapter from the Arabia 
 of the fourth. And lastly, it deprives this visit of a significance which, 
 on a more probable hypothesis, it possesses in relation to this crisis of 
 St Paul's hfe. 
 
 3, For if we suppose that the Apostle at this critical moment betook 
 himself to the Sinaitic peninsula, the scene of the giving of the law, then 
 his visit to Arabia becomes full of meaning. He was attracted thither 
 by a spirit akin to that which formerly had driven Elijah to the same 
 region^. Standing on the threshold of the new covenant, he was anxious 
 to look upon the birthplace of the old : that dwelling for a while in 
 seclusion in the presence of ' the mount that burned with fire,' he might 
 ponder over the transient glories of the 'ministration of death,' and 
 apprehend its real purpose in relation to the more glorious covenant which 
 
 Tct fiipy} TT)s Al^vtjs TTJs Kard. KvprjVTjp, 
 *and the territories of Africa which 
 is our country.^ There can scarcely be 
 
 a doubt however that here Uj j^j ' oi^r 
 
 country ' is a corrupt reading of \ju i»i 
 
 'Cyrene,' the change involving only a. 
 slight alteration in one letter. See 
 Lagarde de N. T. ad vers. Orient. Jidem 
 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. c. Tryph. p. 305 a. See also 
 other authorities in Conybeare and 
 Howson, I. p. 117, 118. TertuUian {adv. 
 Jud. c. 9 and adv. Marc. in. 13) ob- 
 viously copies Justin and must not be 
 considered an independent authority. 
 The words of Justin el Kal vvv irpoavev^- 
 
 firjrat r^ livpo^oLvlKTi XeyopL^vrj seem tO 
 refer to the arrangement of these pro- 
 vinces by Hadrian, See Becker and 
 Msivq}i3i;rdit Horn. Alterth. iii. i, p. 195 
 sqq. and comp. [Bardesanes] de Fato, 
 in Cureton's Spicil. Syr. p. 30. On 
 the limits of Arabia see also Ephr. Syr. 
 Op. Sijr. I. p. 464 sq. 
 
 ^ See the instructive passage in 
 Ewald, Gesch. des Volkeslsr. vi. p. 398. 
 Ewald however, though he takes St 
 Paul into this region, guards against 
 the objections which I have alleged in 
 the test, by supposing him to travel as 
 far as Sinai also (p. 400). 
 
 3 I Kings xix. 8—18. It is worth 
 noticing that this region is connected 
 with Damascus in the history of Elijah 
 as well as of St Paul; 'Go return on 
 thy way to the wilderness of Damascus.' 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 89 
 
 was now to supplant it. Here, surrounded by the children of the desert, 
 
 the descendants of Hagar the bondwoman, he read the true meaning 
 
 and power of the law \ In the rugged and barren region, whence it issued, Siguifi- 
 
 he saw a fit type of that bleak desolation which it created and was in- J^?*^® ^^ 
 
 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 receive fresh 'visions and revelations of the Lord/ Thus in 
 
 the wilderness of Sinai, as on the Mount of the transfiguration, the three 
 
 dispensations met in one. Here Moses had received the tables of the 
 
 law amid fire and tempest and thick darkness. Here again Elijah, the 
 
 typical prophet, listened to the voice of God, and sped forth refreshed 
 
 on his mission of righteousness. And here lastly, in the fulness of time, 
 
 St Paul, the greatest preacher of Him of whom both the law and the 
 
 prophets spoke, was strengthened and sanctified for his great work, was 
 
 taught the breadth as well as the depth of the riches of God's wisdom, 
 
 and transformed from the champion of a bigoted and narrow tradition into 
 
 the large-hearted Apostle of the Gentiles 2. 
 
 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 *^^^* 
 here states to have been three years. The notices of time in St Luke 
 are vague, but not contradictory to this statement^. From Damascus St 
 Paul tells us he went away into Arabia, whence he returned to Damascus. 
 St Luke represents him as preaching actively in this city after his con- 
 version, not mentioning and apparently not aware of any interruption, 
 though his narrative is not inconsistent with such. It seems probable then 
 that St Paul's visit to Arabia took place early in this period before he 
 
 ^ A stronger argument for St Paul's Acts ix. 43, xviii. 18, sxvii. 7. Cer- 
 
 visit to Sinai might be drawn from his tainly the idea connected with Uavbs 
 
 reference to Hagar, the supposed Ara- in his language is that of largeness ra- 
 
 bie 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 K\av6fios). In 
 
 where but on the spot : comp. Stanley the lxx it is frequently employed to 
 
 Sinai and Palestine p. 50. But the translate HEJ' 'mighty,' e.g. Ruth i. 20, 
 
 reading and the interpretation alike are 21. Again the wide use of the Hebrew 
 
 highly doubtful. See the notes there. D''D^ which St Luke is copying, allows 
 
 2 The significance of Sinai, as the of almost any extension of time. Hence 
 
 holy place of inspiration, will be felt iroXKal ruiipai. in the lxx denotes any 
 
 by readers of Tancred. indefinite period however long; Gen. 
 
 ^ The notices of time in the narra- xxxvii. 34, 2 Sam. xiv. 2, i Kings iii. 
 
 tive of the Acts are these: He remain- n ('a long life'). Even Demosthenes, 
 
 ed with the disciples in Damascus some de Cor. p. 258, can speak of the inter- 
 
 days (rjfi^pas Tivaij and straightway (ei)- vai between the battles of Haliartus and 
 
 64(jjs) he began to preach {iKi^pvaaev)... Corinth as ouTroXXai^yu^pat, though they 
 
 and Saul was the more strengthened. . . were fought in different years and many 
 
 and when many days {7}fi4paL iKaval) important occurrences happened in the 
 
 were accompHshing (^irX-qpowro) the mean time. 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). "S/Mipai iKaval such as might be expected from the 
 
 is an indefinite period in St Luke, which circumstances of the two writers, 
 may vary according to circumstances ; 
 
90 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 commenced his active labom-s^. 'Immediately^^ he says, * instead of con- 
 ferring with flesh and blood, I went into Arabia.' The silence of the 
 historian is beat 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 pxu:- 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 hurrying 
 forth into the wilds of Arabia, burning to impart to others the glad tidings 
 which had so suddenly burst upon himself. * See how fervent was his soul,' 
 exclaims Chrysostom, ' he was eager to occupy lands yet untilled ; he forth- 
 with attacked a barbarous and savage people, choosing a life of conflict and 
 much toil^.' This comment strikes a false note. Ear different at such a 
 crisis must have been the spirit of him, whose life henceforth was at least 
 as conspicuous for patient wisdom and large sympathies, as for intense 
 self-devotion. He retired for a while, we may suppose, that 
 'Separate from the world, his breast 
 
 Might duly take and strongly keep 
 The print of Heaven 3.' 
 And what place more fit for this retirement than that holy ground, 
 * Where all around, on mountain, sand, and sky, 
 God's chariot wheels have left distinctest trace^'? 
 
 ^ It must in this case be placed be- nemetsanguinem,' explaining it,* id est 
 fore the notice of his active preaching, ad circumcisionem, id est ad Judais- 
 ix. 20 Kal €v64o}$, k.t.X. Some have mum.' Jerome supposes that St Paul 
 put it later and seen an indirect allusion preached in Arabia, but that his preach- 
 to it in the expression /xSXkov ivedv- ing was unsuccessful. His comment is 
 vafxouTo, ver. 22; but there is no trace curious. Why, he asks, is this visit to 
 of a chronological notice in these Arabia, of which we know no thing, which 
 words, and such an allusion is scarcely seems to have ended in nothing, record- 
 natural, ed at all? It is an allegory from which 
 
 2 Similarly also Victorinus, Hilary, wemustextract a deep meaning. Arabia 
 
 Theodore Mops, ,Theodoret,Primasius, is the Old Testament. In the law and 
 
 and the (Ecumenian commentator. the prophets St Paul sought Christ, and 
 
 Some of the Latin fathers might have having found Him there, he returned to 
 
 been helped to this view by a curious Damascus, 'hoc est ad sanguinem et 
 
 blunder arising out of the Latin trans- passionemChristi.' So fortified, he went 
 
 lation ' non acquievi carni et sanguini, ' to Jerusalem , * locum visionis et pacis.' 
 
 'I did not rest in flesh and blood,' which This interpretation is doubtless bor- 
 
 Yictorinus explains, 'Omnino laboravi rowed from Origen. 
 
 carnaliter,' adding * Caro enim et san- ^ Christian Year^ x^th Sunday after 
 
 guishomoexteriortotusest.' Tertullian Trinity, said of Moses, 
 
 however, de Eesurr. Cam. c. 50, quotes * Christian Year, gth Sunday after 
 
 the passage, 'Statimnonretuleritadcar- Trinity, said of Elijah. 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 91 
 
 ;Si^ 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 ®^®^,^^qI 
 of the Acts^ Whatever difficulties seem to stand in the way of our iden- p^^^ ^^^ 
 tifying them, the fact that in each narrative this is stated to have been gt Luke 
 St Paul's first appearance in Jerusalem since his conversion and to have 
 followed after a sojourn in Damascus, must be considered conclusive. Nor 
 indeed is there any inconsistency in the two narratives. Though they con- 
 tain but few incidents in common, they for the most part run parallel with 
 each other; and even in particulars in which there is no coincidence, there 
 is at least no direct contradiction. On the other hand the aspect of events but under 
 presented in the two accounts is confessedly different. And this will different 
 almost always be the case in two independent narratives. In the case of ^^P®^*^ 
 St Paul and St Luke this divergence is due to two causes : 
 
 First. The difierent position of the two writers, the one deriving his (i) Their 
 information at second-hand, the other an eyewitness and an actor in the respective 
 scenes which he describes. In such cases the one narrator will present Positions. 
 rather the external view of events, while the other dwells on their inner 
 history, on those relations especially which have influenced his own charac- 
 ter and subsequent actions: the former will frequently give broad and 
 general statements of facts, where the latter is precise and definite. 
 
 Secondly. The different objects of the two writers. The one sets (2) Their 
 himself to give a continuous historical account; the other introduces inci- difference 
 dents by way of allusion rather than of narrative, singling out those espe- °* ^^^' 
 cially which bear on the subject in hand. In the particular instance before 
 us, it is important to observe this divergence of purpose. St Luke dwells 
 on the 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 ; 
 
 I. 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 (i)'*^t^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 in hand, his obligations to 
 
 1 ix. 26 — 30. Compare St Paul's later salem, Acts xsii. 17 — 31, 
 reference to this residence at Jeru- 
 
92 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 the Apostles of the Circumcision. In all that relates to that subject he is 
 precise and definite, where the author of the Acts is vague and general. 
 He states the exact time of his sojourn, fifteen days. He mentions by 
 name the members of the apostolate whom alone he saw — Peter in whose 
 house he resided, and James to whom as head of the Chm-ch of Jerusalem 
 he would naturally pay a visit. This is suflScient to explain the account of 
 his 'going in and out' with the Apostles in the Acts, though the language 
 of the historian is not what would have been used by one so accurately 
 informed as the Apostle himself. It is probable that the other Apostles 
 were absent on some mission, similar to that of Peter to Lydda and Joppa 
 which is recorded just after (ix. 32 — 43); for there were at this time num- 
 berless churches scattered throughout 'Judaea and Galilee and Samaria' 
 (ix. 31), which needed supervision. 
 (i) with 2. St Paul's intercourse with the Jewish Church at large. At first 
 
 the Jewish sight there appears to be a wide diff'erence between the two accounts. St 
 Chris- Luke tells of his attempting to 'join himself to the disciples/ of his 'going 
 in and out,' of his 'speaking boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus and 
 disputing,' while St Paul himself states that 'he was unknown by face unto 
 the churches of Judsea.' Yet on examining the narratives more closely 
 this discrepancy is reduced to very narrow limits. St Luke confines his 
 sojourn especially to Jerusalem, and his preaching to a small section of un- 
 believers, not the genuine Jews but the Hellenists ^ He relates moreover 
 that St Paul's visit terminated abruptly^, owing to a plot against his life, 
 and that he was hurried off to Csesarea, whence he forthwith embarked. 
 To a majority therefore of the Christians at Jerusalem he might, and to 
 the Churches of Judsea 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. 
 
 tians. 
 
 The name and office of an Apostle. 
 
 Meaning 
 of the 
 term in 
 classical 
 writers. 
 
 The word oTroo-roXo? in the first instance is an adjective signifying 
 'despatched' or 'sent forth.' Applied to a person, it denotes more than 
 ayyeXos. The 'Apostle' is not only the messenger, but the delegate of the 
 person who sends him. He is entrusted with a mission, has powers con- 
 ferred upon him^ Beyond this, the classical usage of the term gives no 
 
 1 ix. 28. The restrictions iv [or eis] 
 ^l€pov(ra\T}fi and -n-pos rotjs 'EXXTjcitTTcts 
 are the more noticeable, in that they 
 interfere with the leading feature of St 
 Luke's narrative, the publicity of Saul's 
 conversion. 
 
 2 ix. 2g. Compare Acts xxii. 18, 
 'Make haste and get thee quickly out 
 of Jerusalem.' 
 
 ^ It occurs of a person in Herod, i. 
 21, V. 38. With this exception, no in- 
 stances are given in the Lexicons of its 
 use by classical authors even of a late 
 date with any other but the Attic mean- 
 ing ; nor have I succeeded in finding any 
 myself, though Hesychius explains d7r6- 
 aroXos' o-TparTjybs Ka,rk irXovv Tre/iTro- 
 ^ievos. 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 its use 
 the use of the term among the Jews. It occurs but once in the lxx, in among the 
 I Kings xiv. 6, as a translation of m^, where it has the general sense of 
 a messenger, though with reference to a commission from God^. With the 
 later Jews however, and it would appear also with the Jews of the Chris- 
 tian era, the word was in common use. It was the title borne by those 
 who were despatched from the mother city by the rulers of the race on any 
 foreign mission 2, especially such as were charged with collecting the tribute 
 paid to the temple service^. After the destruction of Jerusalem the 'Apo- 
 stles' formed a sort of council about the Jewish patriarch, assisting him in 
 his deliberations at home, and executing his orders abroad^. Thus in 
 
 the 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 Karr}- 
 Xeip, vi. 6; TTTijpea-daL, Phil. i. 28; 707- 
 yva-fMos, Phil. ii. 14. 
 
 ^ It was also used by Symmachus to 
 translate y^ in Is. xviii. 2 : see below. 
 The word diroaToXr} occurs in a few pas- 
 sages in the lsx, and dTroariWo) is 
 the common translation of rh^. Justin 
 therefore [Dial. c. Tryph. c. 75, p. 300 d) 
 is so far justified in saying tlaat the pro- 
 phets are called apostles, Kal dyyeXoi Kal 
 dird^ToXoL Tov Qeov Xiyovrai ol di.-yyO\,- 
 Xeiv rb. irap^ avrov a.Tro(jreKK6fxevoi. irpo- 
 <p7p-ai..,'Kiy€i. yap iKei 6 'Htra/as ciTro- 
 crreiXdp pt-e. The Syriac renders dird- 
 (TToXos by the word corresponding to 
 the Hebrew. 
 
 2 Such for instance as the bearers of 
 the instructions contemplated in Acts 
 sxviii. 21, oi^Te ypap^fiara irepl <fqv 
 ide^dfieOa dirb ttjs 'lovdaias oihe irapa- 
 y€v6p.ev6$ tls tGjv dSeXcpihv dwriyyeLXev , 
 Eusebius [Montf. Coll. Nov. n. 425), 
 evidently thinking of this passage, 
 says : diroa-TdXovs 8^ elcr^ri vvv iOos 
 iarlv ^lovdaioLS dvo^d^av roi>s iyK^KXta 
 ypdfMfiaTa irapd tGjv dpx^vrwv a^roiv 
 iiriKofxt^op-^vovs. The passage in Isaiah 
 xviii. I, 2, which is read in the lxx, 
 
 0^al...6 diroo-r^XXojv h daXda-a-r} SpLTjpa 
 Kal eTTtffroXas ^i^Xiuas eirdvui rod vdaros, 
 and in which for 6fj,7}pa Symmachus 
 had diroffTdXovs, 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, irope^o-ovTai yap 
 dyyeXoL KOu<poL irpos '4dvos k.t.X., the 
 true Apostles were referred to in con- 
 trast with the false. See Procopius in 
 Esaiam, I.e. and Eusebius, I.e. TheLsx 
 version is entirely wrong and the com- 
 ment worthless in itself, but it affords 
 a valuable illustration of St Paul's refer- 
 ences to the 'false apostles,' and espe- 
 cially to the commendatory letters, 2 
 Cor. iii. i. See also Jerome, Comm. ad 
 Gal. i. I, 'Usque hodie a patriarchis 
 Judseormn apostolos mitti etc.* 
 
 3 See Cod. Theodos. xvi. Tit. viii. 14, 
 ' Super stitionis indignte est, nt archi- 
 synagogi sive presbyteri Jud^orum vel 
 quos ipsi apostolos vocant, qui ad exi- 
 gendum aurum atque argeutum a pa- 
 triarcha certo tempore diriguntur etc., ' 
 with the learned comment of J. Gotho- 
 fred. The collection of this tribute 
 was called diroaToXq, Julian Epist. 25 
 TTjv Xeyofx^UTjP Trap' vpiiv atrodToX^v koj- 
 XvdTJpai. 
 
 ^ See the important passage in Epi- 
 phanius, Hceres. xxx. p. 128, tu>j/ Trap' 
 avTOLS d^toypLariKoiv dvSp<ov ivaplBpuos rjv. 
 elal 8^ ovTOL {xeTo, rbv TraTpt.dpXflv diro- 
 
94 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 Mistake of 
 restricting 
 the title 
 to the 
 Twelve, 
 
 Its use 
 in the 
 Gospels 
 does not 
 favour 
 this. 
 
 designating His immediate and most favoured disciples 'Apostles/ our 
 Lord was not introducing a new term^ but adopting one which from its 
 current usage would suggest to His hearers the idea of a highly responsible 
 mission 2. 
 
 At the first institution of the office the Apostles were twelve in number. 
 According to the prevaihng view this limit was strictly observed, an excep- 
 tion however being made in the case of St Paul, Nay so far has the idea 
 of this restriction of number been carried by some, that they hold the elec- 
 tion of Matthias to have been a hasty and ill-advised act, and to have been 
 subsequently reversed by an interposition of God, St Paul being substituted 
 in his place 3. It is needless to say that the narrative of St Luke does not 
 betray the faintest trace of such a reversal. And with regard to the general 
 question, it will I think appear, that neither the Canonical Scriptures nor 
 the early Christian writings afford sufficient ground for any such limitation 
 of the apostolate. 
 
 In the Gospels the word 'Apostle' is of comparatively rare occurrence. 
 Those, whom it is customary with us to designate especially 'the Apostles,' 
 are most often entitled either generally 'the disciples' or more definitely 
 'the Twelve.' Where the word does occur, it is not so used as to lend any 
 countenance to the idea that it is in any way restricted to the Twelve. 
 In St Matthew it is found once only, and there it is carefully defined, 'the 
 twelve Apostles' (x. 2). In St Mark again it occurs in one passage alone, 
 where it has a special reference to the act of sending them forth (vi. 30, 
 oi diroa-TokoLj compare aTroo-HXketv, ver. 7). In St John likewise it appears 
 once only, and there in its general sense of a messenger, a delegate, 
 without any direct reference to the Twelve (xiii. 16). St Luke uses the 
 word more frequently, and indeed states explicitly that our Lord gave this 
 name to the Twelve*, and in his Gospel it is a common designation for 
 them. But, if we are disposed to infer from this that the title was in any 
 way restricted to them, we are checked by remembering that the same 
 evangelist elsewhere extends it to others— not to Paul only, but to Bar- 
 nabas also^ 
 
 (TToXot KoKo'ufxevoL, Trpoaedpe^rovat 5k r^ 
 iraTptdpxiJj f.T.X. ; and p. 134, ctu/a/S^- 
 ^7}K€...y^pas tQ 'IwtTTjTTy t^s diroffTokrj^ 
 bovvai T^v ^TTLKapiriav' koI fier^ iino-TO- 
 \c2v ovTos ctTroiTrAXcTat eU riiv KtXt/cai' 
 yyjv, K.T,\. 
 
 ^ There is no direct evidence indeed 
 that the term was in use among the 
 Jews before the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem : but it is highly improbable that 
 they should have adopted it from the 
 Christians, if it had not been current 
 among them before; and moreover 
 Christian writers speak of this Jewish 
 apostolate, as an old institution which 
 still Ungered on. 
 
 2 Our Lord Himself is so styled Hebr. 
 iii. I, 'The apostle and high priest 
 
 of our profession ' ; the best comment 
 on which expression is Joh. xvii. 18; 
 ' As thou hast sent [awSa-reLKas) me into 
 the world, even so have I also sent (ctTT- 
 ^tTTeiXa) them into the world.' Comp. 
 Justin Apol. I. c. 63, pp. 95 D, 96 C. 
 
 ^ See Schaff History of the Apo- 
 stolic Church, 11. p. 194. 
 
 ^ Luke vi. 13 iKXe^d/xevos ctTr' au- 
 riav d<I}deKa ovs Kal diroiXToXovs (hvofia- 
 ffev. 
 
 ^ Acta ziv. 4, 14. The word dtro- 
 ffroKos occurs 79 times in the New Tes- 
 tament, and of these 68 instances are 
 in St Luke and St Paul. wrroffToKii 
 occurs four times only, thrice in St 
 Paul and once in St Luke. 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 95 
 
 In the account of the foundation of the apostolate then, and in the 
 language used in the Gospels of the Twelve, there is no hint that the 
 number was intended to be so limited. It is true that twelve is a typical Twelve a 
 number, but so is seven also. And if the first creation of the diaconate *ypi<i^l 
 was not intended to be final as regards numbers, neither is there any 
 reason to assume this of the first creation of the apostolate. The qualifica- 
 tion for and the nature of the office in the latter case necessarily imposed 
 a severer limit than in the former, but otherwise they stand on the same 
 footing with respect to an increase in their numbers. The Twelve were 
 primarily the Apostles of the Circumcision, the representatives of the twelve 
 tribes^ The extension of the Church to the Gentiles might be accompanied 
 by an extension of the apostolate. How far this extension was carried, it 
 may be a question to consider; but the case of St Paul clearly shows that 
 the original number was broken in upon. In the figurative language of the 
 Apocalypse indeed the typical number twelve still remains^. But this is 
 only in accordance with the whole imagery of the book, which is essentially 
 Jewish. The Church there bears the name of Jerusalem. The elect are 
 sealed from the twelve tribes, twelve thousand from each. It would be as 
 unreasonable to interpret the restriction literally in the one case, as in the 
 other. The * twelve Apostles of the Lamb' in the figurative language 
 of St John represent the apostolate, perhaps the general body of Chris- 
 tian pastors, as the elect of the twelve tribes represent the elect of 
 Christendom. 
 
 And as a matter of fact we do not find the term Apostle restricted Other 
 to the Twelve with only the exception of St Paul^. St Paul himself seems Apostles 
 in one passage to distinguish between ' the Twelve' and ' all the Apostles,' as twelve ^ 
 if the latter were the more comprehensive term (i Cor. xv. 5, 7). It 
 appears both there and in other places* that James the Lord's brother 
 
 1 Matth. xix. 28, Luke xxii. 30 : generally supposed. 
 
 comp. Barnab. § 8 ouo-ti' Se/caSiJo e/s ^ap- * In i Cor. sv. 7, 'After that he 
 
 Tiiptoj' Twp <pv\(2v 6tl dcKadijo ai 0vXai was seen of James, then of all the apo- 
 
 ToO To-paiJX. See Justin DiaZ. c. Tryph. sties,' St Paul certainly appears to in- 
 
 43, 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 13 
 
 from the twelve tribes: Hippol. Hcer. apparently so entitled. In i Cor. ix. 5, 
 
 V. 8, p. log- C)s Kal ol XoLTTol ctTTOtrroXoi Kal ol d5€X(f)ol 
 
 2 Eev. xxi. 14 'And the walls of toO Ki/p£ou /eai Kt^^S?, 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 XoiTroi 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. StiUit is a question 
 23 aTToo-ToXoi €KK\7}aLi!}p) and Epaphro- which of the * brethren of the Lord' are 
 ditus (Phil. ii. 25 ^fiwv d^ ajroa-ToXos). 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. 
 
 Barnabas. 
 
 is styled an Apostle. On the most natural interpretation of a passage in 
 the Epistle to the Romans, Andronicus and Junias, two Christians other- 
 wise unknown to us, are called distinguished members of the apostolate, 
 language which indirectly implies a very considerable extension of the 
 term^. In i Thess. ii. 6 again, where in reference to his visit to Thessalonica 
 he speaks of the disinterested labours of himself and his colleagues, 
 adding * though we might have been burthensome to you, being Apostles 
 of Christ,' it is probable that under this term he includes Silvanus, who 
 had laboured with him in Thessalonica and whose name appears in the 
 superscription of the letter 2. 
 
 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 
 q^uestioned : his words are, Aiad^x^raL 
 8^ TTjv iKK\r)(riav fiera tCov aTTOffroKoJV 
 6 a5eX06s rov Kvpiov Tti/fw/3os (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. 
 
 ^ Bom. xvi. 7 'Aairdaaa-Oe 'kvbpo- 
 vtKov Kal 'lovviav roi/s (rvyyevGLS fM>v Kal 
 (TUj/aLXf^aX^rovs fJ.ov, otrLvh elffiv iirl- 
 <T7)fM0t if tOls diroa-ToXois, ot Kal irph i/j.ou 
 yiyovav iv XptoTtfS. Except to escape 
 the difficulty involved in such an ex- 
 tension of the apostolate, I do not 
 think the words otrtvh elaiv iirL<nifJioi 
 iv TOLs aTToo-ToXois would have been 
 generally rendered, ' who are highly es- 
 teemed by the Apostles.' The Greek 
 fathers took the more natural interpre- 
 tation. Origen says, 'Possibile est et 
 illud inteUegi quod fortassis ex illis sep- 
 tuaginta duobus qui et ipsi apostoli 
 nominati sunt, fuerint:' Chrysostom 
 still more decisively, to dTroffrSXovs elpat 
 fj.4ya' TO 5^ iv to6tol^ iTno"^fj.ous eXvai, 
 ivvorfdov ifKUov iyKibfitoVf and similarly 
 Theodoret. In this case ^lowtav (or 
 ^lovvcdv) is probably a man's name, 
 Junias contractedfrom JunianuB, as itis 
 taken by Origen {on Rom. xvi. 21, T. iv. 
 p. 582 D, and especially on xvi. 39, ib. 
 p. 686 e) and by several modern critics. 
 Chrysostom however, in spite of his 
 interpretation, considers that it is a 
 woman's name: ^a^al, iroaTj r^s 7UJ'at- 
 
 Kos TauTTjs if (pLKocro^ia, (hs Kal ttjs tQv 
 dTTOffToXcoif d^LiodTJvat TrpoaTjyopias. 
 
 2 Not Timothy, though Timothy 
 also had been with him at Thessalonica, 
 and his name, like that of Silvanus, 
 is joined to the Apostle's own in the 
 opening salutation. But Timothy is 
 distinctly excluded from the apostolate 
 in 2 Cor. i. i. Col. i. i, '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. i 'Paul and 
 Timotheus, servants of Jesus Christ.' 
 
 In I Cor. iv. 9, *I think that Glod 
 hath set forth us the Apostles last etc.,' 
 he might seem to include Apollos, who 
 is mentioned just before, ver. 6. But 
 Apollos ia distinctly excluded from the 
 apostolate by one who was a contem- 
 porary and probably knew him. Cle- 
 ment of Eome, § 47, speaking of the 
 dissensions of the Corinthians in St 
 Paul's time, says, Trpotre/cX^T/Te dwo- 
 (TToKots /j.€fj.apTvp7)/j,4vois (i. e. St Peter 
 and St Paul) kuI dvSpl dedoKtfia(rfxiv(i3 
 irap^ avToh (Apollos). If therefore there 
 is a reference in i 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 Apostles, see 
 below, p. 98. 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 97 
 
 epistles holds similar language. In the Galatian letter he speaks of Bar- 
 nabas as associated with himself in the Apostleship of the Gentiles (ii. 9) ; 
 in the First to the Corinthians he claims, for his fellow-labourer all the 
 privileges of an Apostle, as one who hke himself holds the office of an 
 Apostle and is doing the work of an Apostle (ix. 5, 6). If therefore St Paul 
 has held a larger place than Barnabas in the gratitude and veneration of 
 the Church of all ages, this is due not to any superiority of rank or office, 
 but to the ascendancy of his personal gifts, a more intense energy and self- 
 devotion, wider and deeper sympathies, a firmer intellectual grasp, a larger 
 measure of the Spirit of Christ^. 
 
 It may be added also, that only by such an extension of the office could 
 any footing be found for the pretensions of the false apostles (2 Cor. xi, 13, 
 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 ? 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 1 What position did it confer ? What were the duties at- 
 tached to it ? 
 
 The facts gathered from the I^ew 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 Jlrst order in the Church (i Cor. xii. Eankofan 
 28, 29, Ephes. iv. 11). They are sometimes mentioned in connexion with Apostle. 
 the prophets of the Old dispensation'', sometimes with the prophets of the 
 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 (i Cor. ix. i, 2) where St Paul is main- Tests of 
 taining his authority against gainsayers and advancing proofs of his Apo- Apostle- 
 stleship, he asks * Have I not seen the Lord Jesus Christ 1 Are not ye our ^^P* 
 work in the Lord V It would appear then ; 
 
 First, that the having seen Christ was a necessary condition of the (i) Quali- 
 
 ^ In the printed texts of Clem, Rec. abbas ' in two places. 
 i. 60 Barnabas is identified with Mat- 2 Luke xi. 49, 2 Pet. iii. 2, and so 
 thias, and thus made an Apostle, with- perh. Eev, xviii. 20: comp. Polyc. § 6. 
 out extending the number beyond ^ jjphes. ii. 20. iii. 5. That the 'pro- 
 twelve; 'Post quern Barnabas qui et phets' in these passages are to be so 
 Matthias qui in locum Judse subroga- understood, appears (i) from the order, 
 tus est apostolus.' But the correct the Apostles being named before the 
 readmg is doubtless 'Barsabas,' which' prophets; (2) from the expression in 
 is found in the ms in Trinity College Ephes. iii. 5, c^s vvv dTre/caXii^^i? roTs 
 Library at Cambridge, as well as in ayiots diroffTSXois a<rrov Kal Trpo^^rats. 
 several mentioned by Coteher. Thus It is in this same epistle also (iv. 11) 
 the account is a confused version of that the prophets are directly men- 
 the incident in the Acts. The Syriac tioned as the next order to the Apostles 
 translation strangely enough has 'Bar- in the Christian Church. 
 
 GAL. 
 
 7 
 
98 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 fication for 
 the office. 
 
 To be a 
 witness of 
 the resur- 
 rection. 
 
 Apollos 
 and Timo- 
 thy not 
 qualified. 
 
 The out- 
 ward com- 
 mission 
 how given. 
 
 apostolic office. It may be urged indeed that St Paul is here taking 
 the ground of his Judaizing opponents, who affected to lay great stress 
 on personal intercourse with the Lord, and argues that even on their own 
 showing he is not wanting in the qualifications for the Apostleship. This 
 is true. But independently of St Paul's language here, there is every 
 reason for assuming that this was an indispensable condition (Luke xxiv. 
 48, Acts i. 8). An Apostle must necessarily have been an eye-witness of 
 the resurrection. He must be able to testify from direct knowledge to 
 this fundamental fact of the faith. The two candidates for the vacant 
 place of Judas were selected because they possessed this qualification 
 of personal intercourse with the Saviour, and it is directly stated that the 
 appointment is made in order to furnish *a witness of His resurrection' 
 (Acts i. 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 earUest 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 quahfied. Silas also, who was a leading 
 man in the Church of Jerusalem (Acts xv. 22), might well have enjoyed this 
 privilege. 
 
 On the other hand, it is not probable that this qualification was pos- 
 sessed either by Apollos or by Timothy, who were both comparatively late 
 converts, and lived far away from the scenes of our Lord's ministry, the 
 one at Alexandria (Acts xviii. 24), the other at Lystra (Acts xvi. i, 2). 
 And to these, as has been pointed out, the name of an Apostle is indirectly 
 denied, though from their prominent position in the Church and the energy 
 and success of their missionary labours, they of all men, after St Paul and 
 the Twelve, might seem to lay claim to this honourable title. 
 
 But though it was necessary that an Apostle should have been an eye- 
 witness of the Lord's resurrection, it does not follow that the actual call to 
 the Apostleship should come from an outward personal communication with 
 our Lord, in the manner in which the Twelve were called. With Matthias 
 it certainly was not so. The commission in his case was received through 
 the medium of the Church. Even St Paul himself seems to have been 
 invested vrith 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 ° ^^, , 
 his Apostleship (i Cor. ix. 2). In another passage he speaks in like manner 
 of his having wrought the signs of an Apostle among them (2 Cor. xii. 12). 
 The signs, which he contemplates in these passages, our modem conceptions 
 would lead us to separate into two classes. The one of these includes 
 moral and spiritual gifts— patience, self-denial, effective preaching; the 
 other comprises such powers as we call supernatural, ^ signs, wonders, and 
 mighty deeds.' St Paul himself however does not so distinguish them, but 
 with more of reverence regards them rather as different manifestations of 
 * one and the self-same Spirit.' 
 
 But essential as was the possession of these gifts of the Spirit to esta- 
 blish the claims of an Apostle, they seem to have been possessed at least in 
 some degree by all the higher ministers of the Church, and therefore do 
 not afford any distinctive test, by which we are enabled to fix the limits of 
 the Apostleship. 
 
 Such then is the evidence yielded by the notices in the New Testament 
 — evidence which, if somewhat vague in itself, is sufficient to discountenance 
 the limitation of the Apostolate in the manner generally conceived. 
 
 And such for the most part is the tendency of the notices found in the Wide use 
 Christian writers of the ages immediately following. They use the term °^ *^^ 
 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- 4-^°^*°-^° 
 selves as distinct from the Apostles^. Several of them include St Paul by ' 
 
 name in the Apostolate. Clement moreover speaks of the Apostles as 
 having been sent forth by Christ himself (§ 42), and in another passage he 
 obviously excludes ApoUos from the number^. More important however, 
 as showing the elasticity of the term, is a passage in Hermas, where he 
 represents the 'Apostles and teachers' under one head as forty in num- 
 ber 3, selecting this doubtless as a typical number in accordance with the 
 figurative character of his vf ork. 
 
 Writers of the subsequent ages are more obviously lax in their use of and sue- 
 the title. At a very early date we find it applied to the Seventy, without *^^®^g 
 however placing them on the same level with the Twelve. This application ^^^ ^^^' 
 
 ^ Clem. § 4a, Ignat. Rom. § 4, Po- ^ hermas Sim. is. 15, 16: comp. 
 
 lye. § 6, Barnab. §§ 5, 8, Ep. ad Diogn. Vis. iii. 5, Sim. ix. 25. The data with 
 
 § 1 1. regard to the age of Hermas are (i) that 
 
 ^§47. See above, note 2, p. g6. Eu- he was a contemporary of Clement (Fis. 
 sebius, iii. 39, infers that Papias distin- ii. 4) ; and (2) that his work was written 
 guished Aristion and John the Presby- while his brother Pius was bishop of 
 ter, who had been personal disciples of Borne (circ. 140), Fragm. Murat. in 
 the Lord, from the Apostles. This may Routh Rel, Sacr. i. p. 396. He cannot 
 be so; but from his language as quoted therefore have been the Hermas men- 
 it can only be safely gathered that he tioned by St Paul (Rom. xvi. 14), aa 
 distinguished them from the Twelve. several ancient writers suppose. 
 
 7—2 
 
100 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 still recog- 
 nising 
 Twelve as 
 typical. 
 
 occurs even in Irenseus and Tertullian^, the earliest extant writers who 
 dwell on this or kindred subjects. About the same time Clement of Alex- 
 andria not only calls Bai-nabas an Apostle, but confers the title on Clement 
 of Home also^. PhiUp the Evangelist is so styled occasionally; but in 
 some instances at least he has been confused with Philip, one of the 
 Twelve^. Origen discusses the term as capable of a very wide application*; 
 and Eusebius, accounting for St Paul's expression (i Cor. xv. 7), speaks of 
 'numberless apostles' besides the Twelve^ 
 
 Nor will it weigh as an argument on the other side, that many writers 
 speak of the Twelve as the founders of the Church, or argue on the typical 
 significance of this number in the Apostolate^: for some of those, who hold 
 this language most strongly, elsewhere use the term Apostle in a very 
 extended application ; and the rest either distinctly acknowledge the Apo- 
 stolic office of St Paul, or indirectly recognise his authority by quoting from 
 his writings or endorsing his teaching. 
 
 1 Iren. ii. 21. i ; Tertull. adv. Marc. 
 iv. 24, 'Adlegit et alios septuaginta 
 apostolos super duodecim,' referring for 
 an illustration of the numbers to Exod. 
 XV. 27, 'And they came to Elim, where 
 were twelve wells of water, and three- 
 score and ten palm-trees.' See also 
 Origen quoted above, p. g6. In the 
 Gospel the Seventy are not indeed called 
 'Apostles,' but the verb diroa-TiWeLv is 
 applied to them, and they are spoken of 
 as 'seventy ot/iers' (Luke x. i), 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, 'Addteus the Apostle 
 one of the seventy-two Apostles.* 
 
 2 For Barnabas see Strom, ii. p. 
 445, 447 (ed. Potter) ; for Clement of 
 Rome, Strom, iv. p. 609. Elsewhere 
 Clement calls Barnabas dTroo-ToXtxis, 
 adding that he was one of the Seventy, 
 Strom, ii. p. 489. 
 
 ^ See ColossianSj p. 45 sq. In the 
 Apost. Const, (vi. 7) he is called ^CKltt- 
 TTOS d avfawdcrroXos 7}(iCJv. 
 
 ^ Origen in Joann. Tom, iv. p. 430, 
 ed. Delarue. 
 
 ^ H. E. i. 12 eW ujs Trapi to^tovs, 
 Karh /Mt/Miitrtv tujv BdideKa irXeiffTUiv 6(T(t}v 
 v7rap^(ivT(i)v 6.irO(Tr6\o}v, olos Kal aiiris 
 d IlaOXos i^Uj irpodridj^ffL X^ywv "Eiretra 
 iiitpdr] TOis ct TTOffToXots Tracrt. Comp. 
 Theodoret on i Cor. xii. 28. There is 
 however no authority for the statement 
 of the latter, i Tim. iii. 1 , that the order 
 
 afterwards called bishops were formerly 
 called apostles. See PhilippianSy p. 
 193 sq. 
 
 Certain early commentators on 
 Isaiah xvii. 6 saw a reference to fourteen 
 Apostles, making up the number by in- 
 cluding Paul and Barnabas, or Paul 
 and James the Lord's brother : see Eu- 
 seb. in Is. xvii. 6, and Hieron. in Is. 
 IV. pp, 194, 280, ed. Vallarsi. The 
 Apost. Const, (viii. 46) recognise thir- 
 teen, including St Paul and excluding 
 St James. Of really early writings the 
 Clementine Homilies and Recognitions 
 alone seem to restrict the number to 
 twelve. This restriction served the 
 purpose of the writers, enabling them 
 to exclude St Paul. At the same time 
 the exclusion of St James is compen- 
 sated by assigning to him the title of 
 'bishop of bishops.' 
 
 ^ Bamab. § 8, referred to above, p. 
 95, note i: Justin, Dial. p. 260 c: comp. 
 Apol. I, p. 78 A, dirb ycip 'lepovo-aKrjfi 
 djfdpes SeKaSiJo rbv dpiOfibv e^rjXdov eU t6v 
 Koa-fiov: Iren. iv. 21. 3, ' dodecastylum 
 firmamentum Ecclesise,' 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. in Clem. Alex. p. 975 
 (Potter). In Clem. Horn. ii. 23 the 
 Apostles are compared to the twelve 
 months of the year: comp. Clem, 
 Recogn. iv. 35, 36. 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. lOI 
 
 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. 
 
 [11. I, 2 
 
 II. ^''ETreiToc Sid SeKaTeorcdpwi/ eTwv iraXtv dve(3rju 
 ek 'lepocoXv/iia jxeTd Bapi/dfiuj avvTrapaXajicov kuI Tl- 
 dve^f]v Ze KUTd diroKaXvyp^tVy Kal dvedefxriv avTo7^ 
 
 11. 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 GentileSj 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.' 
 
 hih d€KaT€a-(rapcov cVwi'] Are the 
 fourteen years to be counted from St 
 Paul's conversion, or from the visit to 
 JerTisalem 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 Sia S. irau^ in 
 preference to /xera fi. en], 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 TrdXtv dvi^rjv, 'again 
 1 went up/ refer us back to the former 
 visit, as the date from which the time 
 is reckoned. As the latter visit (sup- 
 posing it to be the same with that of 
 Acts XV.) is calculated independently 
 to have taken place about a.d. 51, the 
 date of the first visit will according 
 to this view be thrown back to about 
 A.D. 38, and that of the conversion 
 to about A.D. 36, the Jewish mode 
 of reckoning being adopted. For 8td, 
 'after the lapse of,' see Acts xxiv. 17, 
 and Winer, § xlvii. p. 475. 
 
 Koi Tltop] 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 j just as on the 
 return of the mission the Apostles of 
 the Circumcision sent back Judas and 
 Silas to represent the Jewish believers, 
 Acts XV. 27. The incident would pre- 
 sent itself all the more vividly to St 
 Paul's mind, inasmuch as Titus was 
 much in his thoughts, if not actually 
 in his company, at the time when this 
 epistle was written. See 2 Cor. ii. 13, 
 vii. 6, 13 — 15, viii- 16, 23, xii. 18. 
 
 Kara aTToicaXvylfiv] 'hy revelation.^ 
 In St Luke's narrative (Acts xv. 2) he 
 is said to have been sent by the 
 Church at Antioch. The revelation 
 either prompted or confirmed the de- 
 cision of the Church. See the detached 
 note, p. 125. 
 
 2. 'Arrived at Jerusalem, I set 
 forth the principles of the Gospel, 
 as I had preached it and still preach 
 it to the Gentiles — the doctrine of 
 grace, the freedom from the ceremo- 
 nial law. This explanation I gave in 
 a private conference with the leading 
 Apostles of the Circumcision. In all 
 this I had one object in view; that 
 the Gospel might have free course 
 among the Gentiles, that my past and 
 present labours might not be thwarted 
 by opposition or misunderstanding.' 
 
 dv€6iyLr}v\ The middle dvaTidca-Bai 
 has the sense 'to relate with a view 
 to consulting,' *to refer,' as 2 Mace. iii. 
 9; see also Acts xxv. 14, r© ^ao-iKel 
 ai'cdeTO ra Kara tov Uavkov, where the 
 idea of consultation is brought out 
 very clearly in the context, vv. 20, 26. 
 'Inter conferentes,' says Jerome here, 
 * sequahtas est ; inter docentem et 
 discentem minor est ille, qui discit.' 
 See the notes on irpoa-avarlOea-daL, i. 1 6, 
 
 ii. 6. 
 
11.21 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 103 
 
 TO evayyeXiov o Krjpv(r<T(o ev toIs edvecriVy kut iSiav 
 Se ToT^ SoKOvcLP, fxf] TTOJs eU Kevov Tpe^t^ h ehpufxov. 
 
 o K-qpva-o-ay] ^I pveach^ not eKrjpva- 
 
 (Tovj * I preached/ for his Gospel had 
 not changed. See the note on ovk ecmvj 
 i. II. 
 
 KCT I8lav Se rots boKoxxrivl ^hut in 
 private to thoae of repute.' The fore- 
 going avrols is best referred to the 
 Christians of Jerusalem generally, as 
 implied from *Iepoo-oXu;ia(ver. i). 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 sv. 6sqq.) 
 and seems to be alluded to in the Acts, 
 though not very distinctly,in the words 
 (xv. 4), *They declared what things 
 God had done with them.' The pri- 
 vate consultation was a wise pre- 
 caution to avoid misunderstanding: 
 the public conference was a matter of 
 necessity to obtain a recognition of 
 the freedom of the Gentile Churches. 
 
 rots doKovo-Lv] Hhe men of repute, of 
 position? See Eur. Hec. 294 Xoyos 
 yap %K T ddo^ovvra>v Icou ko-k rmv doicovv- 
 T(ov, with Pflugk's note ; Heracl. 897 
 evTvyiav IbeaBat ravTrdpos ov doKovvratv, 
 Herodian vi. i ttjs avyKkrfTov ^ovXrjs 
 Toiis ^oKovvras K.ai -^XiKia cre^i/orarous 
 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 (i) to the 
 repetition of the word SoKovvres, (2) to 
 the addition of o-tvXol elvai, ehai rt, the 
 latter especially, and (3) to the contrast 
 implied in the whole passage, between 
 the estimation in which they were 
 held and the actual services they ren- 
 dered to him. On the other hand, 
 it will be seen (i) 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 toi? doKoixnv see the 
 note on ver. 6. 
 
 ^^ TTdis els K€vov rp4x^ K.T.X.] lest I 
 might be running, or had run, to no 
 purpose.' The kindred passage I Thess. 
 ii. 5, p.^7ro3S eirelpacrev Vfxds 6 iretpaicov 
 Kai els K€VOV yivrjTai 6 kottos rjfjiwv, seems 
 
 to show that Tpex<o is here the sub- 
 junctive rather than the indicative, this 
 being moreover the more likely mood 
 in itself. See the note there. The use 
 of the subjunctive (rpe'xa)) here, rather 
 than the optative {rpexoifjn), is in ac- 
 cordance with the spirit of the later 
 Greek, which prefers the more direct 
 mode of speech in all such cases. In 
 the New Testament the optative seems 
 never to occur with particles of design 
 etc. ; see Winer § xli. p. 360. In the 
 second clause the change of mood from 
 the subjunctive {rpexoi) to the indi- 
 cative (edpap^ov) is rendered necessary 
 bythe change of tense, since the conse- 
 quences of the past were no longer 
 contingent but inevitable : comp. iv. 11 . 
 
 Tp€X(^] is a reference to St Paul's 
 favourite metaphor of the stadium ; see 
 V. 7 and the note there. For the ex- 
 pression els K€vov Tpexetv 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 ? 
 So Tertullian takes it, adv. Marc. i. 20, 
 V. 3, and esp. iv. 2. This is perhaps 
 the prim,a facie sense of the passage, 
 slightly favoured by oOSeV irpoaave- 
 0€VTo, ver. 6. But on the other hand 
 such an admission would be so entirely 
 
I04 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [11.3 
 
 ^dW ovSe TfTOs 6 <Tvv ejJLol '^EWriv wV rtvayKaadn 
 
 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 (/xt/ttcds) as he felt, but 
 alsOj.if there were any lack of unanim- 
 ity, win them over to his views. 
 
 3. St Paul is here distracted be- 
 tween the fear of saying too much and 
 the fear of saying too little. He must 
 maintain his own independence, and 
 yet he must not compromise the 
 position of the Twelve. How can he 
 justify himself without seeming to 
 condemn them? There is need of 
 plain speaking and there is need of 
 reserve. In this conflict of opposing 
 aims and feelings the sense of the 
 passage is well-nigh lost. The mean- 
 ing of individual expressions is ob- 
 scure. The thread of the sentence is 
 broken, picked up, and again broken. 
 From this shipwreck of grammar it is 
 even difficult to extricate the main in- 
 cident, on which the whole controversy 
 hinges. "Was Titus circumcised or was 
 he not ? This is not only a reasonable 
 question, but aquestion which thought- 
 ful writers have answered in different 
 ways. On the whole, the following rea- 
 sons seem to decide for the negative, 
 (i) 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 01 
 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 
 WOrdST^i^a-yKao-^r;, and r^t^TTorayJ, 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 ; and the latter, 
 that the Apostle in yielding was not 
 doing homage to superior authority. 
 (3) Taking into account the narra- 
 tive in the Acts, both the occasion 
 and the person were most inopportune 
 for such a concession. There was an 
 agitation among the Judaizers to 
 force the rite of circumcision on the 
 Gentile converts. Paul and Barnabas 
 had gone up from Antioch in order to 
 protect them from this imposition. 
 They were accompanied by certain 
 representatives of the Gentile Church, 
 of whom Titus was one. No act could 
 be conceived more fatal to the inter- 
 ests of St Paul's clients at such a mo- 
 ment, or less likely to have been per- 
 mitted by him. Accordingly the vast 
 majority of early writers take the view 
 that Titus was not circumcised, even 
 though in many instances they adopted 
 a reading (the omission of oh ovbe in 
 ver. 5) most unfavourable to this con- 
 clusion. See p. 122. 
 
 St Paul is here indirectly meeting a 
 charge brought against him. Shortly 
 before he visited Galatia the first time, 
 he had caused Timothy to be circum- 
 cised (Acts xvi. 3). This fact, which 
 can scarcely have been unknown to 
 the Galatians, for Timothy accompa- 
 nied him on his visit, may have afforded 
 a handle to the calumnies of his ene- 
 mies. There was a time, they said, 
 
11.4] EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 105 
 
 TrepLTiJLi^drjvar ^hta Se tov^ TrapeicaKTOvs ^evdadeX- 
 
 when he himself insisted on circumci- 
 sion. Comp. V. II and the note on 
 i. 10. By stating how he acted in 
 the case of Titus, who was truly a 
 Gentile, he rebuffs this assertion. 
 
 3 — 5. ' But while I held confer- 
 ences with the Apostles of the Cir- 
 cumcision, I did not yield to the cla- 
 mours of the disciples of the Circum- 
 cision. An incident which occurred 
 will show this. Titus, as a Gentile 
 who was intimately acquainted with 
 me, was singled out as a mark for 
 their bigotry. An attempt was made 
 to have him circumcised. Concession 
 was even urged upon me in high quar- 
 ters, as a measure of prudence to dis- 
 arm opposition. The agitators, who 
 headed the movement, were no true 
 brethren, no loyal soldiers of Christ. 
 They were spies who had made their 
 way into the camp of the Gospel 
 under false colours and were striving 
 to undermine our liberty in Christ, to 
 reduce us again to a state of bondage. 
 I did not for a moment yield to this 
 pressure. I would not so compromise 
 the integrity of the Gospel, the free- 
 dom of the Gentile Churches.' 
 
 3. ovde TiVos-] 'not even Titus^ 
 Why 'not even'? Is it (i) 'not even 
 Titus, who as myfellow-labourer would 
 be brought constantly in contact with 
 the Jews, and therefore might well 
 have adopted a conciliatory attitude 
 towards them' ? Compare the case of 
 Timothy, Acts xvi. 3, 'Him would 
 Paul have go forth with him, and 
 took and circumcised him on account 
 of the Jews, etc' In this case o o-vv 
 ifiol 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. 
 
 "eWtjv Sv] * 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 vahdity of 
 the Mosaic lawin circumcising Timothy 
 (Acts xvi. I, 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 "eXXt^v all idea of nationality is 
 lost: comp. Mark vli. 26 ''EXKr]v\s 2u- 
 po(f)oiviKicr(ra (or "Svpa ^oLviKurca) roJ 
 yevei. Thus the Peshito sacrificing 
 the letter to the spirit frequently 
 translates "EWijv *an Aramaean,' e.g. 
 here and iii. 28. SGeColossians,ip.^go. 
 
 TJvayKaadrj] ^was GOTYipelled^ though 
 the pressure was extreme. This pres- 
 sure doubtless came from the more 
 bigoted Judaizers, the converted Pha- 
 risees mentioned in Acts xv. 5. 
 
 4. What part was taken in the dis- 
 pute by the Apostles of the Circum- 
 cision? This question, which forces 
 itself upon us at this stage of St 
 Paul's narrative, is not easily answer- 
 ed. On the whole it seems probable 
 that they recommended St Paul to 
 yield the point, as a charitable con- 
 cession to the prejudices of the Jew- 
 ish converts : but convinced at length 
 by his representations, that such a 
 concession at such a time would be 
 fatal, they withdrew their counsel 
 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. 
 
 [11. 5 
 
 (pov^, oWtve^ 7rap€L(rfj\6ov KaTaaKowfja'aL Tf]v iXevdepiav 
 (Tovo'iv, ^oh ovhe Trpos wpap ei^afxev Tt} vTroTayrj^ \va 
 
 feeliug, 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. 
 
 hia be rovs TrapeiaaKTOvs /c.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 bta tovs Trap. i/^evS. 
 compare Acts xvi. 3 TrepieVe/iev avrov 
 dia Tovs'lovbalovg. 
 
 Of other possible explanations two 
 deserve to be considered; (i) That 
 there is an ellipsis of ovk -qvayKdaBi] 
 7r€ptTijir]6^vaL or ov TrepteTfMijSr} after dia 
 TOVS irapeior. -^evdad. 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 dia tovs Trapsta: 
 "^evbaB. ovbe npos Spav ei^afiev, the ois 
 being redundant. See the note, ver. 6. 
 So Winer, § Ixiii. p. 711 sq. But as 
 
 Titus would not have been circum- 
 cised under any circumstances, the 
 refusal to yield could scarcely be at- 
 tributed to the pressure from the 
 false brethren. If either of these 
 explanations were adopted, St Paul's 
 meaning must be: 'To the scruples 
 of the weaker brethren I would have 
 conceded the point, but the teaching 
 of the false brethren made conces- 
 sion impossible.* So in fact Augus- 
 tine takes it, de Mendac. § 8 (vi. p. 
 424, ed. Ben.). 
 
 Trapeia-aKTovs, TrapeLo-fjXSop] The me- 
 taphor is that of spies or traitors in- 
 troducing themselves by stealth into 
 the enemy's camp, as in Jude 4 Trap- 
 ei(rebv(rav yap tlv€S avOpcuTVOi. See 
 Plut. Popl. 1 7 CTTi^ovXeixov be tov 
 Hopalvav dveXelv TrapenrrjXOev els to 
 OTpaTorreboVy Polyb. i. 7. 3, ii. 55. 3. 
 For Trapeio-ayeiv see 2 Pet. ii. I. The 
 adjective occurs in Strabo, xvii. p. 
 794 TrapelaaKTOs eTriKXrjBels IlToXejLtatoff. 
 The camp thus stealthily entered is 
 the Christian Church, Pharisees at 
 heart, these traitors assume the name 
 and garb of believers. 
 
 KaTaa-KOTTTja-aL] ' to act as spies on^ 
 KaTacrKoirelv generally signifies ' to ex- 
 amine carefully,' the form KUTaa-Ko- 
 TTeveiv being most frequently used 
 where the uotion of treachery is pro- 
 minent. For instances of the sense 
 in the text however see 2 Sam. x. 3, 
 I Chron. six. 3. 
 
 KaTabov\(jd<jova-iv\ 'reduce to abject 
 slavery.' The reading of the received 
 text, KarabovXao-oiVTatj is a correction 
 of some classicist, introduced for two 
 reasons: (i) To substitute the middle 
 voice, which is more common in clas- 
 sical writers; the transcriber not see- 
 ing that the sense here requires the 
 active; 'enslave not to themselves, 
 but to an external power, the law of 
 
11. 6] EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 107 
 
 i] dXrideia tov evayyeXiov Ziafxelvn irpo^ vfxa^' ^ 
 0€ Twv ho 
 
 KOVVTwv etvai tc 
 
 airo 
 OTTOioi TTore Yiaavy ovZev 
 
 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, § xli. 
 p. 360 sq. This, though not a classical 
 usage, is justified by similar con- 
 stmctions of oTrms, o^pa, in classical 
 writers. 
 
 5. oh ovbk K.r.X.] Ho whovn we^ 
 Paul and Barnabas, who were sent to 
 Jerusalem to plead the cause of the 
 Gentile Christians, ^yielded no not for 
 an hourJ For the omission of ols 
 ouSe in some texts see the detached 
 note, p. 122. 
 
 rfi virorayril ^ hy the 5M&m*mow which 
 was required of us,' or possibly 'the 
 submission with which we are taunted,' 
 as in 2 Cor. i. 17 ^r)Ti apa rfj ika(i>pla 
 expr)<Tafxr]v', 
 
 r) akrjOeia tov evayyikiov] Hhe truth 
 
 of t7w Gospel,'' i.e. the Gospel in its in- 
 tegi-ity. 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. 
 
 biaficlvT] TTpos vfj-as] ^nfiay abide with 
 you! the Gentile Churches. See the 
 introduction, p. 26. The idea oifirm 
 possession is enforced by the com- 
 pound verb, by the past tense, and by 
 the preposition. 
 
 6 — 9. 'The elder Apostles, I say, 
 who are so highly esteemed, whose 
 authority you so exclusively uphold — 
 for myself, I care not that they once 
 knew Christ in the flesh: God does 
 not so judge men ; He measures them 
 not by the outward advantages they 
 have had, not by the rank they hold, 
 but by what they are, by what they 
 think and do — well, these highly es- 
 
 teemed leaders taught me nothing 
 new; they had no fault to find with 
 me. On the contrary, they received 
 me as their equal, they recognised 
 my mission. They saw that God had 
 entrusted to me the duty of preaching 
 to the Uncircumcision, as He had 
 entrusted to Peter that of preach- 
 ing to the Circumcision. This was 
 manifest from the results. My Apo- 
 stleship had been sealed by my work. 
 God had wrought by me among the 
 Gentiles, not less than He had 
 wrought by Peter among the Jews. 
 This token of His grace bestowed 
 upon me was fully recognised by 
 James and Cephas and John, who are 
 held in such high esteem, as pillars of 
 the Church. They welcomed myself 
 and Barnabas as fellow-labourers, and 
 exchanged pledges of friendship with 
 us. It was agreed that we should go 
 to the Gentiles and they to the Jews.' 
 
 Much force is lost in the A. V. by 
 translating ol 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 
 aU four places. Of the older English 
 Versions, Tyndale's alone translates 
 by a present in this verse, and the 
 Genevan in verse 9. 
 
 tSv doKovvTcov 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 
 iau dok^a-L tl eiuat firjdev ovreSj JEuthyd. 
 303 C ruv iroXKav dvOpanav koX tcov 
 
loS EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. [11. 7, 8 
 
 ^OL cia<p€p€iy TTpoa-tOTTOv 0605 dvdpcoTTOV ov Xafji^dver 
 efiot yap ol Sokovpt€9 ovdev irpoa-avedevTO^ '^dWd 
 TOvvavTLOv l^ovre^ oti 7r€7ri(rTeviuiai to evayyeXiov 
 Tf]^ aKpo^va'TLa's kuOw^ Herpo^ rfj^ TrepiTOfxfi^y ^6 ydp 
 
 (Tefjivav 8^ Kai BoKOVprtttv rt eluai ovbep 
 vfilv fJtiXei, Gorg. 472 a ivlore yap av 
 Koi Karayj/'cv^o^apTvpTjdci.r] ris vtto ttoX- 
 \av KOL SoKovvrcdv eivai tl, and passages 
 from later writers quoted in Wetstein : 
 
 COmp. Gal. vi. 3 et yap SoKel tls eival ri 
 
 [xrjbev wV,and Ignat.Po^. 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 ol virepXiav aTrdo-roXot of 2 Cor. xi. 5) 
 
 xii. II. 
 
 OTToloi TTore -^crav] Does OTTOiot ttotc 
 here mean 'qualescunque,' or has ttotc 
 its proper temporal sense 'in times 
 past' ? In a classical writer we should 
 decide for the former: in St Paul the 
 latter seems more probable, as ttotc 
 never occurs with the meaning ^ cun- 
 que' in the New Testament, and ac- 
 cordingly it is rendered in the Latin 
 versions ' aliquandc' 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 Tct Kara 7rp6o'a>7rov ^XcTrere. 
 
 TTpoo-coTTov \afjL^dv€Lv] A trauslatlon 
 of the Hebrew d''JD fc^E^j which signi- 
 fies properly ' to accept the face ' 
 (Gesenius Thes. p. 916, s. v. XCJ^J), or 
 perhaps better, 'to raise the face' of 
 another (opposed to d^JQ 7''Bn 'to 
 make the countenance fall,' e.g. Job 
 xxix. 24; comp. Gen. iv. 5), and hence 
 
 'to receive kindly,' Ho 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 
 TTpoo-coTTov as 'a mask,' so that Trpocrco- 
 TTov \afx^dv€tv 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, 
 7rpoa'(ii7ro\T)ij,7rTr]S,'irpo(r(07ro\r}fnrTelv,Qtc. 
 which appear to occur there for the 
 first time. 
 
 Geoff avSpcDTTov'] The natural order is 
 altered for two reasons; (i) To give 
 Geoff an emphatic position, and (2) To 
 keep the contrasted words Geos dv- 
 dpmTTov together. 
 
 ip.oX ydp K.T.X.] The sentence, which 
 was begun in aTro Sc tSv boKovvTa>v 
 dval Tt 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 ottoloi ttotc 
 ^aav ovbiv p.01 5ta0epet, 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 § Isiii. 
 p. 71 1 sq. But the interposition of the 
 words TTpoo". G. dv6p. ov \afi^. is an 
 objection to this construction. 
 
 TTpoo-aveSevTo] ^communicated,^ see 
 the note on i. 16. lipoo-avariO^aOai is 
 *to communicate, to impart,' whether 
 for the purpose of giving or of obtain- 
 
11.9] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 109 
 
 €i/€pyf](ra£ Ylerpcp ei^ dTrocTToXrjv Trj^ TrepiTOfjifj^ evnp'y^- 
 (rev Kal efxot eU Ta edprjy ^kul jvovTe^ Trju x^P^^ '^'^^ 
 ooQeLcdv fxoi, 'laKco/io^ kui Kf](J)ds Kal 'Icodvprj^, ol 
 doKovvT€£ (TTvXoi elpui, Se^ids edcoKup ifxol Kal Bapvdfia 
 
 ing instruction. In this passage the 
 former meaning prevails, in i. 16 the 
 latter. The context here decides its 
 sense: *they imparted no fresh know- 
 ledge to me, they saw nothing defect- 
 ive or incorrect in my teaching ; but 
 on the contrary, they heartily recog- 
 nised my mission.' 
 
 7. ireTrioTevfjLai to euayy.] '' I haV6 
 teen entrusted with the Gospel,^ a 
 common construction in St Paul : see 
 the note on i Thess. ii. 4. The perfect 
 here, implying a permanent commis- 
 sion, contrasts with the aorist in 
 Rom. iii. 2 itria-TevBria-av to. \6yta tov 
 Geoti. 
 
 TO evayy. ttjs d/cpo/Suorta?] denotes 
 
 a distinction of sphere and not a dif- 
 ference of type : see Tertul. Prasscr. 
 Hmr. 23 ' Inter se distributionem 
 officii ordinaverunt, non separationem 
 evangelii, nee ut aliud alter sed ut 
 aliis alter prsedicarent.' 
 
 8. o iuepy^aas IleTpa] ' He that 
 worked for Peter J For the omis- 
 sion of o Geos comp. i. 6, 1 5 ; for eVep- 
 yeij/ see the note on i Thess. ii. 13. 
 The dative Xlerpo) ought probably to be 
 translated *for Peter,' not 'in Peter'; 
 
 comp. Prov. XXxi. 12 ivepyei yap tS 
 dvdpl {yvvr} dvbpeta) els ayaBa rravTa tov 
 ^iov. As ivcpyciv is an inseparable 
 compound, it is doubtful whether the 
 preposition could govern XleVpfi), and 
 accordingly the construction elsewhere 
 is ivepyelv ev tlvi. Gomp. Acta Paul. 
 
 et Thecl, § 40 yap (ToX o-wepyqtras 
 €is TO evayyeXiov KOLfiol (rvpi]pyrj(rev cis 
 TO Xovaaa-dai, 
 
 9. Of the two words IbovTcs and 
 yvovT€s, 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. 
 
 'laKcopos Kal K.r](j)as Kal 'icodvprjs^ The 
 best supported and doubtless the right 
 reading. The variation HeTpos /cat 
 'laKto/Soff Kal ^laavvrjs arose from the 
 desire of maintaining the precedence 
 of St Peter. On the other hand the 
 correct text presents two coincidences 
 with the narrative of the Acts, which 
 deserve notice. First, In i. 19 James 
 is styled the Lord's brother, while here 
 and in ver. 1 2 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 Alphseus 
 though an Apostle not holding any very 
 prominent rank. Secondly. The re- 
 lative positions here assigned to Peter 
 and James accord exactly with the 
 account in the Acts. When St Paul 
 is speaking of the missionary office of 
 the Church at large, St Peter holds 
 the foremost place (ver. 7, 8) ; when 
 he refers to a special act of the Church 
 of Jerusalem, St James is mentioned 
 first (ver. 9). See Acts xil 17, xv. 13, 
 xxi. 18. 
 
 o-Tvkoi\ ^ pillars.^ A natural meta- 
 phor occurring now and then in clas- 
 sical writers (e.g. Eur. Iph. T. 57 
 fTTvKoL yap o'lKOiV elaX TraiSes apaeves, 
 and iBsch. Agarn. 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 eiTTa crTvkovs 
 virdp^avTas Koa-fia, said of the patri- 
 archs. So in Clem. Rom. § 5 the Apo- 
 stles Peter and Paul are called oi fii- 
 yio-TOt Kol BiKatoTaTOL (TTvXoL ; comp, 
 Iren. iv. 21. 3. In this metaphor the 
 
no EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. [11. lo 
 
 TOfxriv' ^^/JLOPOV Twv TTTuyxoiv iva [jLvtjiuiOvevtofxePy 6 kul 
 io'TTOvSaa'a uvto tovto Trotfja'ai. 
 
 Church is regarded as the house or 
 temple of God; as Rev. iii. 12 Troirjo-oa 
 avTov (TTvXov iv TO) vaw rov ©eoO juou : 
 comp. I Tim. iii. 15. The accent of 
 cTTvkos is doubtful. On the one hand 
 the V is universally long in poetry even 
 of a late date (See Rost u. Palm, 
 Griech. Wbrterb. s. v., and comp. 
 Orac. Sib. iii. 250, 251). On the 
 other, the authority of the oldest ac- 
 cents in the mss, and the quantity of 
 the Latin * stylus/ are in favour of 
 oTvkos. The latter not improbably 
 represents the common pronunciation 
 of the Apostolic age. See Lipsius 
 Gramm. Unters, p. 43. 
 
 fiestas ebtiiKav] '' gave pledges.^ The 
 outward gesture is lost sight of in this 
 expression, as appears from the fact 
 that the plural fiestas bovvai, fiestas 
 Xafi^aveiVj 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 (Ezr. x. 19, and 
 perhaps 2 Kings x. 1 5 ; see below on 
 KOLvavias), 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,' 
 Died. xvi. 43 eWt de ?; tt'kttls avrq jSe- 
 paLoraTT] irapa tols Uepa-ais, 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 fxiyiarov irapa Tracri 
 TOLS iKeivji ^appdpoLS irapabeiyixa tov 
 Bapaelv tols 6iil\ovo-lv, 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. Andb. ii. 4- i Se- 
 ^las irapa ^aa-ikecos (jyepovres, Ages. 3. 
 4 ; comp. Tacit. Hist. i. 54, ii. 8. 
 
 KOLvcovlas] ' of fellowship f not a su- 
 perfluous addition, for *to give the 
 hand' (H^ tHJ) 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. 
 
 ha Tz/ieiff] The ellipsis of the verb 
 occurs in St Paul under various con- 
 ditions. A foregoing Iva is one of 
 these; see i Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. viii. 13, 
 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 Judsea. Inde- 
 pendently of their request, it was my 
 own earnest desire.' 
 
 fjLovov] ' only they asked us': comp. 
 Ignat. JRom. 5 fiovov Iva 'lija-ov Xpia-rov 
 eVtru;^Q). For similar instances of an 
 ellipsis after fiovov, see vi. 12, 2 Thess. 
 ii. 7 fiovov 6 KaT€x<^v apTt etos eV fieo-ov 
 yevTjraL. 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; (i) on his second joui'ney 
 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, i Cor. 
 xvi. 3, 2 Cor. ix. i sq,, Acts xxiv. 17, 
 shortly after this letter was written. 
 These facts throw light on the incident 
 
11.11,12] EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 III 
 
 Ore §e rjXdep Kt]([>a^ eU 'KvTiO')(eLav, kutcc Trpoc- 
 
 (jottov avTio avTecTYiVy on KUTeyvwcrfxevo^ r\v. 
 
 Trpo 
 
 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 KOI eaTTovdacra k.tA.] ' 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, i Cor. xvi. 3. See the 
 introduction, pp. 25, 55. 
 
 The transition from the plural {fivrj- 
 fiovevcDfiev) to the singular (ia-Trovdao-a) 
 is significant. Before St Paul had any 
 opportunity of fulfilling this request, 
 he had parted from Barnabas; Acts 
 XV. 39. 
 
 avTo TovTo] is best taken in apposi- 
 tion with 0, see Winer § xxiii, p. i84sq.; 
 a construction not without example in 
 classical Greek, but more frequent in 
 the Lxx and New Testament, inas- 
 much as it reproduces the common 
 Hebrew idiom: comp. Mark vii. 25, 
 Acts XV. 17, 1 Pet. ii. 24. 
 
 II. '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. I openly rebuked the 
 leading Apostle of the Circumcision, 
 for his conduct condemned itself. He 
 had been accustomed to mix freely 
 with the Gentiles, eating at the same 
 table with them. But certain persons 
 arrived from James, and he timidly 
 withdrew himself. He had not cou- 
 rage to face the displeasure of the 
 Jewish converts. The rest were car- 
 ried away by his example. Even Bar- 
 nabas, my colleague, and fellow- 
 apostle of the Gentiles, went astray.' 
 
 "Ore 5e] 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 inconsist- 
 ency. But in fact there is scarcely 
 an alternative. An earlier residence 
 at Antioch (Acts xiii. i — 3) is out of 
 the question, for St 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. iii. p. 70, ed. Ben. 
 
 KaT€yv(o(Tyi.€vos\ not 'reprehensible,' 
 but ' condemned.' His conduct carried 
 its own condemnation with it, as St 
 Paul shows vv. 15 sq. : comp. Rom. 
 xiv. 23 6 diaKpcvofievos, iav (fioyrjy Ka- 
 TaKeKptraif Joh. iii. 18 o firj TTKTrevoDV 
 rj8r} KCKpiTatj Barnab. 10 KeKpifievoi 
 
 TJSrj T« Oavdrco, Joseph. B. J', ii. 8. 6 
 tJBt) yap KareyvcSa-daL 0acrt k.t.\. The 
 condemnation is not the verdict of 
 the bystanders, but the verdict of the 
 act itself. 
 
 This passage was made the ground 
 of an attack on St Paul in an Ebionite 
 fiction of the second century, where 
 St Peter says to Simon Magus (whose 
 name is iised as a mask for St Paul), 
 * Thou hast withstood me to the face 
 .. .If thou callest me condemned, thou 
 accusest God who revealed Christ to 
 me.' See the whole passage Clem. 
 Bom. xvii. 19 : comp. p. 61, and the 
 notes on ii. 13, iv. 16, 24. 
 
112 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. [II. 13 
 
 Tov yap eXOeiv TLva<s diro 'Iukw/Sov /uteTa twv edvcov 
 (Twrjardte}/' ore Se tiXdov, vireo'TeXKev kul dipwpi^ev 
 iavTov, (^o^ovfxevo'5 Tom bk TrepiTopii]^, ^^kul crvi/vrr- 
 €KpL6rja-ap avrS [/cai] ol Xoittol 'lovdaioi, cicrre kul 
 
 12. fire 5^ Tj'KOev. 
 
 12. cKdelv Tivas airo 'laKco/Sov] ^cer- 
 tain came from Jam>esJ 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, Tives €^ Tjixoiv e^eXdovT^s erdpa^av 
 Vfias...ols ov bi€<rT€iKdfjLeBa, and XV. I 
 Tives KareXdovTes QTro rrjs ^lovbaias* The 
 terms on which St James stood with 
 believers of this stamp may be ga- 
 thered from the language in Acts xxi. 
 20 sq. 
 
 o-vvrjo-dLev] The Judaizers who trou- 
 bled the Church at this time are de- 
 scribed, Acts XV. 5, as converts be- 
 longing to the sect of the Pharisees. 
 The prohibition against eating meat 
 with the impure was one of the lead- 
 ing principles of this sect, Luke xv. 2. 
 As the agape was the recognised bond 
 of brotherhood in the infant Church, 
 this separation struck at the very root 
 of Christian life. St Peter's vision 
 (see especially Acts x. 27, xi. 3) had 
 taught him the worthlessneas of these 
 narrow traditions. He had no scru- 
 ples about living idviKws. And when 
 in this instance he separated himself 
 from the Gentiles, he practically dis- 
 sembled his convictions. 
 
 oT€ 5e ^X6op] ''hut when they came! 
 The reading r\XB^v yields no good 
 sense, whether we refer it to St 
 James with Origen (c. Cels. ii. i eX- 
 60VTOS 'laKa^ov) or to St Peter with 
 other writers. I have given it a place 
 nevertheless, as an alternative read- 
 ing, on account of the weight of au- 
 
 thority in its favour : for though it 
 can scarcely have been the word in- 
 tended by St Paul, it may possibly be 
 due to an error of the original amanu- 
 ensis. For a similar instance of a 
 manifestly false reading highly sup- 
 ported and perhaps to be explained 
 in this way, see Phil. ii. i et ns cnrXdy- 
 Xva KCLi olKTLpfioL 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 ^XSev, ver. 11, is 
 the probable cause of the mistake. 
 
 vTria-TeXXev kol d(papL^€v] ^gradually 
 withdrew and separated him,self^ 
 Both verbs govern kavr'ov : compare 
 Polyb. vii. 17. I virea-reiXav iavTOvs 
 VTTO Tiva TTpoTTeTTTaKvlav 6(ppvv. The 
 words describe forcibly the cautious 
 withdrawal of- a timid person who 
 shrinks from observation, vTrioreXXev 
 denoting the partial, d(fia>pi^cv the 
 complete and final separation. The 
 word uTTocrrcXXeti' 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 
 miUtary rather than from nautical 
 matters. Comp. a-TeXXeo-dai, 2 Thess. 
 iii. 6. 
 
 Toifs cK ir€pLTop.iJ5^ not * Jews' but 
 ' converts frofn Judaism,' for this 
 seems to be the force of the preposi- 
 tion : Acts X. 45, xi. 2, Col, iv. 11, 
 Tit. 1. 10. 
 
 13. ol Xoittol *IouSatot] i.e. the rest 
 of the Jewish converts resident at 
 Antioch, who, like St Peter, had 
 mixed freely with the Gentiles until 
 
11. 14] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 113 
 
 ore eiSop on ovk dp6o7rodov(riv irpo^ Tnv dXrideiau rod 
 evayjeXtoVy etirov tco Kr]<pa efxirpoaQev 7ravT0)V Ei (xv 
 
 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 vnoKpta-Ls, 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 viroKpta-Ls is not 
 a false motive entertained, but a false 
 impression produced. The writer of 
 the epistle prefixed to the Clement- 
 ines, doubtless alluding to this pas- 
 sage, speaks of some who misrepre- 
 sented Peter, as though he believed 
 that the law was abolished, 'but did 
 not preach it openly'; Up. Petr. § 2. 
 See on ver. 11. 
 
 Kol Bapi/a/3a?] ^even Barnabas my 
 own friend and colleague, who so 
 lately had gone up to protect the in- 
 terests of the Gentiles against the 
 pressure of the Pharisaic brethren.' 
 It is not impossible that this inci- 
 dentj by producing a temporary feeling 
 of distrust, may have prepared the 
 way for the dissension between Paul 
 and Barnabas which shortly after- 
 wards led to their separation: Acts 
 XV. 39. 
 
 From this time forward they never 
 again appear associated together. 
 But on the other hand, whenever St 
 Paul mentions Barnabas, his words 
 imply sympathy and respect. This 
 feeling underlies the language of his 
 complaint here, ^even Barnabas.' In 
 I Cor. ix. 6 also he connects Bar- 
 nabas with himself, as one vvho had 
 laboured in the same disinterested 
 spirit and had the same claims upon 
 the Gentile converts. Lastly in Col. 
 iv. 10 he commends Mark to the 
 Colossian Church, as being the, cousin 
 of Barnabas. 
 
 a-vpainjx^r) avrau rfi viroKpiaci] ^was 
 
 GAL. 
 
 carried away with their dissimula- 
 tion,' as the A. V. rightly. Their 
 dissimulation was as a flood which 
 swept every thing away with it. 
 Comp. 2 Pet. iii. 1 7 Iva {jltj rj rcSv a^eV- 
 fitav TrKavrj (rvvaTraxdevTes eKTrecTTjTe 
 /c.r.X., Zosimus Hist. v. 6 koX avrrj 5e tJ 
 ^TrapTJ) ouvaTTJ^yeTO rjj KOLvjj ttjs EXXa- 
 5o$ d\<oa-€i. In all these passages the 
 dative seems to be governed by the 
 preposition, and cannot without harsh- 
 ness be taken as the instrumental 
 case. 
 
 14, 15. 'Seeing that they had left 
 the straight path and abandoned the 
 true principles of the Gospel, I re- 
 monstrated with Cephas publicly. 
 Thou thyself, though born and bred a 
 Jew, dost nevertheless lay aside Jew- 
 ish customs and hvest as the Gentiles. 
 On what plea then dost thou constrain 
 the Gentiles to adopt the institutions 
 of the Jews]' 
 
 14. OVK OpdoTToBovCTLV TTpOS K.T.X.] 
 
 i.e. *they diverge from the straight 
 path of the Gospel truth.' The word 
 opdoTTobelv appears not to occur else- 
 where, except in later ecclesiastical 
 writers, where its use may be traced to 
 this passage of St Paul. Its classical 
 equivalent is evOvTropelv. The prepo- 
 sition TTpbs here denotes not the goal to 
 be attained, but the line of direction to 
 be observed : see Winer § xlix. p. 505. 
 
 Eor ?J akrjBeLa tov evayyeXiov see the 
 
 note on ii. 5. 
 
 eiTTov] 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 
 
114 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [11. 15, 16 
 
 TO, edvn dvayKa^ei^ '\ovldL(^eiv \ ^^fxeh (pvcet 'lov^aToi 
 Kal ovK i^ edvwv dfxapTwXoiy ^^eldore^ Se on ov SiKcit- 
 ovrai dpOpcoTTO^ i^ epyo)}/ vofioVy edv fxn ^f-cc Triarew^ 
 
 blended together that they cannot be 
 separated without violence. The use 
 of the word a/iaprcoXot, 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 Avith the after comment 
 of the narrator, see John i. 15 — 18, 
 where the testimony of the Baptist 
 loses itself in the thoughts of the 
 Evangehst, and Acts i. 16 — 21, where 
 St Peter's allusion to the death of 
 Judas is interwoven with the after 
 explanations of St Luke. 
 
 'lovSaToff vTTCLpxoiv] almost equiva- 
 lent to <^u(ret ''lovhaloi below; see i. 
 14. In such cases virapxGJv implies a 
 contrast between the original and the 
 after state, e.g. in Phil. ii. 6. Here it 
 is very emphatic*; 'If you, horn mid 
 tred a Jew, discard Jewish customs, 
 how unreasonable to impose them on 
 Gentiles.' 
 
 cBplkSs Cijs] i-e. mis freely with 
 the Gentiles and thus of necessity 
 disregard the Jewish law of meats. 
 The present tense describes St Peter's 
 general principles, as acted upon long 
 before at Csesarea (Acts x. 28), and 
 just lately at Antioch (ver. 12), though 
 at the exact moment when St Paul 
 was speaking, he was living ^lovbaUSs 
 and not idviKas. 
 
 ovx 'louSatKcoff] The best mss agree 
 in reading the aspirated form ovX' 
 For other examples of anomalous 
 aspirates in the Greek Testament see 
 
 Winer § v. p. 48, and comp. the note 
 on Phil. ii. 23 a^t'Sta. In this parti- 
 cular instance the aspirate may per- 
 haps be accounted for by the yh with 
 which the Hebrew word (D^lin^) re- 
 presented by 'lovSatot commences. 
 
 avayKa^ELs] 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. 
 
 'louSat'feir] Ho adopt Jewish cus- 
 toms,' opposed to idvLKas f^f which in 
 connexion with 'lovbalos virapx^v is e- 
 quivalentto lK\r)vl^eis;com^. Esth. viii. 
 17 Kal TToXXoi rav iBvojv irepicrefXOvTQ 
 Koi ''lovhai^ov Sia top (f>6^ov rav^lovhai- 
 (OV, Plut. Vlt. Cic. 7 evoxos tS ^lovbat- 
 (cip. Seethenoteon'louSatV/ioff, i. 13. 
 
 15, 16. 'Only consider our own case. 
 We were born to all the privileges of 
 the Israelite race: we were not 5m- 
 7iers, as we proudly call the Gentiles. 
 What then? We saw that the ob- 
 servance of law would not justify any 
 man, that faith in Jesus Christ was 
 the only means of justification. There- 
 fore we turned to a belief in Christ. 
 Thus our Christian profession is itself 
 an acknowledgment that such obser- 
 vances are worthless and void, be- 
 cause, as the Scripture declares, no 
 flesh can be justified by works of law.' 
 Of many constructions proposed, 
 the simplest and best is to under- 
 stand the substantive verb in ver. 1 5, 
 'We (are) Jews by birth etc' The 
 de of ver. 16, which is omitted in the 
 received text, is certainly genuine. 
 
 15. (j>v<7€i 'louSatot^ ^ Jews by 
 hirih, not only not Gentiles, but not 
 even proselytes. We inherited the 
 Jewish religion. Everything was done 
 for us, which race could do.' See 
 especially Phil. iii. 4, 5. 
 
II. i6] EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. US 
 
 'I>7a'ou ^picTTOVj Kai i^juel^ eh XpicTTOi/ 'Ir]orovp eTrto'Tev- 
 crafxevy 'Iva ZiKaiwQwiJiev e/c Trio'Teo)^ ^ptcTTOu Kal ovk 
 €^ epycoi/ j/ofJLOVy on e^ epycoi/ vofxov oy AiKAiooGHcejAi 
 
 16. Sict, Triarcojs XptcToO ^iTjffov. 
 
 i^ iOvav] Not *of Gentile descent/ 
 but 'taken from, belonging to the 
 Gentiles'; comp. Acts xv. 23. 
 
 aixapTOikoL] ^ sinners^ The "word 
 was almost a synonyme for 'dBv-q in 
 the religious phraseology of the Jews. 
 See I Mace. ii. 44, Clem. Horn. xi. 16 
 ovTccis (Off ov^i. 'lovdatos, dfiaprcokos 
 K.T.X. ; and compare Luke vi. 32, 33 
 with Matt. V. 47, and especially I\Iatt. 
 xxvi. 45 with Luke xviii. 32. Here 
 afiaprcaXol is used in preference to 
 eBvrjj not without a shade of irony, as 
 better enforcing St Paul's argument. 
 See the note on ver. 17. 
 
 1 6. eav ^^] retains its proper 
 meaning, but refers only to ov SiKat- 
 ovraij 'He is not justified from works 
 of law, he is not justified except 
 through faith.' See the note on i. 19. 
 
 Koi ?j/xet?] ' we ourselves,^ notwith- 
 standing our privileges of race. Com- 
 pare Kai avroij ver. 1 7. 
 
 €7rL(rT€V(Tafj.€if] ' became believers.^ 
 See the note on 2 Thess. i. 10. The 
 phrase Trio-reveiv c'ls or eVt rtva is pe- 
 culiarly Christian; see Winer § xxxi. 
 p. 267. The constructions of the 
 LXX are ttio-tcvclv tlvI, rarely incrreveiv 
 iirt TivL or eV Tivi, and' once only eni 
 
 Tiva^ Wisd. xii. 2 TTLO-reveiv eVt Qeov. 
 
 The phrasOj which occurs in the re- 
 vised Nicene and other creeds, tti- 
 (TT€v€tv els €KK\r}crLavy 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 Tnarevetv els should 
 be reserved for belief in God or in 
 Christ. See the passages in Suicer 
 Thesaur. s. v. Tria-Teveiv, and Pearson 
 On the Creed Art. ix. 
 
 cK TTta-reo)? XpitrroO] It seems al- 
 most impossible to trace the subtle 
 
 process which has led to the change 
 of prepositions here. In Rom. iii. -^p^ 
 on the other hand, an explanation is 
 challenged by the direct opposition of 
 CK TTiG-Teoys and dia ttjs Trtareajs. Both 
 prepositions are used elsewhere by 
 St Paul with dLKaiovu, btKaLoo-vvr}, in- 
 differently; though where very great 
 precision is aimed at, he seems for an 
 obvious reason to prefer Sia, as in 
 Ephes. ii. 8, 9, Phil. iii. 9 p,r} ex^iv 
 
 ip-T^v biKaiocrvvqv ttjv e/c vofi-ov aWa 
 Trjv 8ta 7ri(TT€a}S XpLcrrov k.t.X., which 
 
 words present an exact parallel to the 
 former part of this verse, ovk i | epycdv 
 v6p.oVj eav pj} bia TricrTecos ^Irjorov Xpt- 
 arov. Faith is strictly speaking only 
 the TneanSj not the source of justifi- 
 cation. The one preposition (Sm) 
 excludes this latter notion, while the 
 other (ck) might imply it. Besides 
 these we meet also with eVl Trio-ret 
 (Phil, iii. 9), but never bia ttIo-tlu, 
 * propter fidem,' which would involve 
 a doctrinal error. Compare the care- 
 ful language in the Latin of our Arti- 
 cle xi, 'j90r fidem, non propter opera.' 
 
 oTi] is the best supported, and 
 doubtless the correct reading. The 
 reading of the received text fitori has 
 probably been imported fi^om the pa- 
 rallel passage, Kom. iii, 20. 
 
 on. i^ epycov k.t.X.] A quotation 
 from the Old Testament, as appears 
 from the Hebraism ov Traa-a, 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 StKotta^Tjo-erat 
 ivcaniov fxov ttos fair. For nas faJi/, a 
 
 8—2 
 
ii6 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATTANS. 
 
 [II. 17 
 
 evpidrjfxev Kai avTOi dfjiapTwXoi, apa Xpia-Tos dfxapTias 
 
 very common Hebrew synonyme, -nao-a 
 a-ap^ ("it^D-^D) is substituted by St 
 Paul. In Kom. iii. 20 the passage is 
 quoted in the same form as here. In 
 both instances St Paul adds e| epyau 
 vofiov as a comment of his own, to de- 
 scribe the condition of the people 
 whom the Psalmist addressed. In 
 the context of the passage in the Ro- 
 mans (iii. 19) this comment is justified 
 by his explanation, that 'whatever is 
 stated in the law applies to those 
 under the law.' 
 
 For ov TToo-a see Winer § xxvi. 
 p. 214 sq 
 
 17, i8, 19. 'Thus to be justified in 
 Christ, it was necessary to sink to the 
 level of Gentiles, to become '■sinners'' 
 in fact. But are we not thus making 
 Christ a minister of sin? Away with 
 the profane thought. No ! the guilt is 
 not in abandoning the law, but in seek- 
 ing it again when abandoned. Thus, 
 and thus alone, we convict ourselves 
 of transgression. On the other hand, 
 in abandoning the law we did but 
 follow the promptings of the law it- 
 self Only by dying to the law could 
 we live unto God.' 
 
 17. Among a vast number of inter- 
 pretations which have been given of 
 this verse, the following alone deserve 
 consideration. 
 
 First; "We may regard Xpio-ros 
 afj-apTias 8iaKovos as a conclusion 
 logically inferred from the premisses, 
 supposing them to be granted ; * If in 
 order to be justified in Christ it was 
 necessary to abandon the law, and if 
 the abandonment of the law is sinful, 
 then Christ is made a minister of 
 sin.' In this case apa is preferable to 
 2.pa. 
 
 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: (i) It is an attempt of the 
 Judaizing objector to show that the 
 abandonment of the law was wrong, 
 inasmuch as it led to so false an infer- 
 ence: 'To abandon the law is to com- 
 mit sin ; it must therefore be wrong 
 to abandon the law in order to be jus- 
 tified in Christ, for this is to make 
 Christ a minister of sin': or (2) It is 
 an argument on the part of St Paul to 
 show that to abandon the law is not 
 to commit sin; * It cannot be 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 dp.apTco\oL ('sinners' from 
 a Jewish point of view), which it had 
 in ver. 15, and is more consistent with 
 the indicative cvpeOijpiev, 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 
 
 Secondlij; We may regard Xpia-ros 
 afxapTLas diaKovos as an illogical con- 
 clusion deduced from premisses in 
 themselves conrect; '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 
 
II. i8, 19] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, 
 
 117 
 
 oiaKOi/o^ '^ fjLYl yevoiTO* ^^ el yap d KureXvcra Tavra 
 TcaXiv OLKoSo/JicOy 7rapa(3aTr]u ijuavTOU crvvLG-Tavoy* ^^iyw 
 
 minister of sin?' This interpretation 
 best developes the subtle irony of 
 aiiapTcdkoL ; *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 evpidrjfiev, and with St Paul's 
 usage of jut) yevoLTo which elsewhere 
 in argumentative passages always ne- 
 gatives a false but plausible inference 
 from premisses taken as granted. And 
 lastly, it paves the way for the words 
 Sia vojxov fofxc^ dniOavov which follow. 
 In this case apa is to be preferred to 
 apa, because it at once introduces the 
 inference as a questionable one. It 
 may be added also in favour of apa, 
 that elsewhere /x?) yevoiro follows an 
 interrogation. 'Apa expresses bewil- 
 derment as to a possible conclusion. 
 Any attempt further to define its 
 meaning seems not to be justified 
 either by the context here, or by its 
 usage elsewhere. 'Apa hesitates, while 
 apa concludes. 
 
 €vpe$7][xev] involves more or less 
 prominently the idea of a surprise: 
 comp. Rom. vii. 10, 2 Cor. xi. 12, xii. 
 20. Its frequent use however must 
 be traced to the influence of the Ara- 
 maic dialect : see Cureton Corp. Ign. 
 p. 271. ^ ^ 
 
 ap-aprias diaKovos] while yet He is 
 biKaio(Tvvr]s diaKovos, thus making a 
 direct contradiction in terms. 
 
 jLt^ yepoiTo] 'Nay, verily,' 'Away with 
 the thought.' This is one out of 
 several lxx renderings of the Hebrew 
 n7*'7n (*ad profana' and so *absit,' see 
 Gesenius Thes. p. 478). Auother ren- 
 dering of the same is tXeas (sc. 6 Qeos) 
 which occurs Matt. xvi. 22 IXeas o-ot 
 Kvpie, 'far be it from thee, Lord'; see 
 Glass. Phil. Sacr. p. 538. Mj) yivoiTo 
 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 {ravTa). The dif- 
 ficulty however is to trace the con- 
 nexion involved in yap. 
 
 With the interpretation of ver. 17 
 adopted above, it seems simplest to 
 attach yap to /xi) yevoiro^ ^ Nay verily, 
 for, so far from Christ being a minis- 
 ter of sin, there is no sin at all in 
 abandoning the law : it is only con- 
 verted into a sin by returning to the 
 law again.' For this use of yap after 
 firj yevotro comp. Rom. ix. 14, 1 5, xi. I. 
 Trapa^dr-qv ip^avrov (ivvia-rdvai] *' 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 dp-apraXos. Having passed 
 on from this to dp^aprla, St Paul at 
 length throws off the studied ambi- 
 guity of dp^apTcoXog (' a non-observer of 
 the law,' and 'a sinner') by substitut- 
 ing the plain term irapa^aTq^. 
 
 efjLavTov a-vpiaTavo) is opposed to 
 XpioToff dp.apTLas diaKovos^ though from 
 its position ifiavrov cannot be very 
 emphatic. 
 
 o-vvLtjrdvai] ' / prove,' like a-v/JilBt^d- 
 
 ftu, as Rom. iii. 5, v. 8 ; comp. 2 Cor. 
 iii. I. 
 
 19. Establishing the statement of 
 the foregoing verse : * For in aban- 
 doning the law, I did but follow the 
 leading of the law itself.' 
 
 iyco] 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 eya is 
 explained by the following verse, f© 
 
 Se ovKin iyco k.tX. 
 
Il8 :EPISTLE to the GALATIANS. [IL20 
 
 yap dca vojuov vojxw aTvedavoVy 'Iva Qew ^f/Vw '^°XpL(rTw 
 (Tvi/eaTavpcojUiar ^(o Se ovKen iyw, ^rj Se ev i/jtoi Xptcr- 
 
 tia vofJLOv i/d/xo) drreBavov] In what 
 sense can one be said through laio 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 
 difiFerent ways to be iraihaycoyos els 
 Xpia-Tov. "We may regard 
 
 1. Its ecojiomical purpose. ' The 
 law bore on its face the marks of its 
 transitory character. Its prophecies 
 foretold Christ. Its sacrifices and 
 other typical rites foreshadowed 
 Christ. It was therefore an act of 
 obedience to the law, when Christ 
 came, to take Him as my master in 
 place of the law.' This interpretation 
 however, though quite in character 
 with St Paul's teaching elsewhere, does 
 not suit the present passage; For (i) 
 The vrritten law — the Old Testament 
 ■ — is always 6 v6fj.os. At least it seems 
 never to be quoted otherwise. 'Nofios 
 without the article is 'law' considered 
 as a principle, exemplified no doubt 
 chiefly and signally in the Mosaic law, 
 but very much wider than this in its 
 application. In explaining this pas- 
 sage therefore, we must seek for some 
 element in the Mosaic law which it 
 had in common with law generally, 
 instead of dwelling on its special cha- 
 racteristics, as a prophetic and typical 
 dispensation. Moreover, (2) the in- 
 terpretation thus elicited makes the 
 words dia vofiov vofia 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 h4\ievev. 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 (i Cor. 
 XV. s6). 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. T. 20 — viii. 11. Thus then they 
 pass through three stages, (i) Prior to 
 the law— sinful, but ignorant of sin ; 
 (2) Under the law — sinful, and con- 
 scious of sin, yearning after better 
 things; (3) Free from the law — free 
 and justified in Christ. This sequence 
 is clearly stated Rom. v. 20. The se- 
 cond stage {dia vofiov) is a necessary 
 preparation for the third (vofia aTre- 
 Savov). * Proinde,' says Luther on iii. 
 19 (the edition of 15 19), 'ut remissio 
 propter salutem, ita prsevaricatio 
 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. i, 
 and the note on iv. 11. 
 
 vofito OLTTedavov] * / died to lawl 
 For the dative comp. Rom. vi. 2, 1 1 
 (t^ dfiapTLo), and for the idea of 'dying 
 to the law' Rom. vii. i — 6, esp. ver. 4 
 
 KOL vfish edauarcod-qreTa vofxcp, and ver. 
 6 KaTr}pyT]dr}fiev QTro tov vofiov dnoda- 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 119 
 
 II. 20] 
 
 TO^' 6 §6 i^vp tw ev aapKiy eV TriCTec ^u r^ toO viov 
 Tov Qeou Tov dya7rf](TavT0^ fxe ical jrapadoi/ro^ eavTOV 
 
 20. T^ TOV 6eoO Kal 'K-pLtrrov tov dyaT'qcravTos. 
 
 vovTes iv a KaTGixoixeOa (literally, " we 
 were nullified, i.e. discharged, by- 
 death from the law in which we were 
 held'). 
 
 20, 21. '"With Christ I have been 
 crucified at once to the law and to sin. 
 Henceforth I live a new life — yet not 
 I, but Christ liveth it in me. This 
 new life is not a rule of carnal ordi- 
 nances; it is spiritual, and its motive 
 principle is faith in the Son of God 
 who manifested His love for me by 
 dying for my sake. I cannot then 
 despise God's grace. I cannot stultify 
 Christ's death by clinging still to a 
 justification based upon law.' 
 
 20. An expansion of the idea in 
 the last verse. 
 
 "K-pia-ra (rvvea-ravpcoixaLJ 'J have 
 teen 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 
 cnicified 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 riiiipa in I Thess. v. 2 — 8. 
 
 For the idea of dying with Christ 
 etc., see Rom. vi. 6 6 iraXaths rjfiajv 
 audpcoTTos crvvG(rTavpcc>$r} : comp. Gal. V. 
 24, vi. 14, Rom. vi. 8, Col. ii. 20, arro- 
 Oaveiv <tvv Xpto-rw, and Rom. vi. 4, Col. 
 
 ii. I2f (rvvTa(l>fjvai. Comp. Ignat. i2o?w. 
 § 7 ^i^os epcos ia-Tavpoarai. The cor- 
 relative idea of rising and reigning 
 with Christ is equally common in St 
 Paul. 
 
 ^c5 be ovKiri eya] 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 iyu> 
 ver. 19. 
 
 o §€ vvv (m\ Not exactly rjV vvv ^(a 
 ^£07Jr/, but o limits and quaUfies the 
 idea of life : ^So far as I now live in 
 the flesh, it is a life of faith' : comp. 
 
 Rom. vi. 10 o yap aniOavev, rrj apapria 
 aTredavev i<paTra^, be ^fj, ^rj tS Oea, 
 Plut. Mor. p. 100 P o KaBevbova-L^ tov 
 (TcopaTOS VTTVos eVrl koX dvd7rav(rts. 
 
 vvv] ^now\- his new life in Christ, 
 as opposed to his old life before his 
 conversion; not his present life on 
 earth, as opposed to his future life in 
 heaven ; for such a contrast is quite 
 foreign to this passage. 
 
 iif TTta-Tei] Hn faith/ the atmosphere 
 as it were which he breathes in this 
 his new spiritual life. 
 
 The variation of reading here is per- 
 plexing. For TOV vlov TOV Oeov may be 
 pleaded the great preponderance of 
 the older authorities : for tov Oeov koX 
 XpLo-Tov, the testimony of a few ancient 
 copies, and the difficulty of conceiving 
 its substitution for the other simpler 
 reading. 
 
 pe...€pov] * loved me, gave himself 
 for m^.' 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 dBerS k.t.X.] ^I do not set 
 at noiMfht the grace of God. Setting 
 
I20 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [11. 21 
 
 virep efxov, "^ovk ddeTw Trjv X^P^^ '^^^ Qeov' et yap 
 Sta vo/uLOv ZiKaioirvvYiy dpa XpKTTO^ Zwpeav aTredavev. 
 
 at nought I call it : for, if righteous- 
 ness might be obtained through law, 
 then Christ's death were superfluous.' 
 For aOerca 'to nullify' see Luke vii. 30, 
 I Cor. i. 19: its exact sense here is 
 fixed by dapeav dneOavev. 'The grace 
 of God ' is manifested in Christ's 
 death. The connexion of yap is with 
 the idea of d^ercS, and may be ex- 
 
 plained by a supplied clause, as above. 
 Bcopedv] not *in vain,' but 'uselessly, 
 without sufficient cause,' or, as we 
 might say, 'gratuitously,' John xv. 25 
 €fiLa-r}adv p,€ tcopcdv (Ps. xxxiv. 1 9); 
 COmp. XiXS of Ps. xxxiv. 7 dapeav 
 €Kpv^dv [xot dia(j>Bopdv, Hebr. DJHj 
 where Symmachus had dvaiTtas; Ec- 
 clus. XX. 23. 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 121 
 
 Vai'ious Readings in ii. 5. 
 
 The reading which is given in the text, oh ovbe rrpos mpau, .is doubtless 
 correct. Two variations however occur, which deserve notice. 
 
 I. The omission of ovSi. (0 The 
 
 The negative is found in all the Greek uncial ms3 {i.e. in ^^ABCEF ^^^^Yf^ 
 GKLP) except D, in which however it is inserted by a later hand, and j^ogttexts. 
 apparently in all or nearly all the Greek cursive mss. It is expressly 
 mentioned by the Ambrosian Hilary ^ and by Jerome^, as the reading of 
 the Greek copies. It is found also in the Gothic, Memphitic, Thebaic, both 
 Syriac and other versions, and was unquestionably the original reading of 
 the Vulgate, as it appears in all the best manuscripts of this version. It 
 was read moreover by Marcion^, Bphraem Syrus, Epiphanius^ Chrysostom, 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, the Pseudo- Ignatius 5, and perhaps also 
 by Origen^, among the Greeks; and by Ambrose^, Augustine s, 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 Irenseus^, 
 by Tertulliani**, Victorinus, the Ambrosian Hilary, Pelagius (in his com- 
 mentary), and apparently Sulpicius Severus^. "We have it moreover on the 
 authority of Jerome^, of Primasius^^^ and of Sedulius^^, that the negative 
 was not found in the Latin copies, and the same is implied by the language 
 of the Ambrosian Hilary. 
 
 In the face of this testimony, the statement of Victorinus, that it was Omitted in 
 omitted 'in plurimis codicibus et Latinis et Grwcis,^ is not worthy of credit, some few. 
 He may indeed have found the omission in some Greek ms or other, but 
 even this is doubtful. No stress can be laid on the casual statement of a 
 writer so loose and so ignorant of Greek. 
 
 It appears from these facts that the omission is due to some Western Omission 
 MS or MSS alone. The author of the Old Latin version used one of these. *P*^?^J'** 
 And to the Old Latin version all or nearly all the existing authorities for l„+jjj 
 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 
 
 ^ ad loc. 'Grseci e contra dicunt: ^ ad loc. and Epist. Ixxxii. (11, p, 
 
 Nee ad horam cessimus, et hoc aiunt 194, ed. Bened.). 
 
 convenixe causae etc' ^ Iran. iii. 13. 3. 
 
 2 ad loc. *juxta Grsecoa codices est ^** adv. Marc. v. 3. 
 
 legendum: Quibus neque, etc.* ^^ Dial. iii. 13, p. 219 b (Migne). 
 
 * Tertull. adv. Marc. v. 3. ^^ ad loc. 'hoc esse quod in codici- 
 
 * Hceres. p. 112 and p. 814. bus legitur Latinis : Quibus ad horam 
 c Ep. ad Tars. § 2. etc' 
 
 ^ Grig. c. Gels. vii. 31 (i. p. 709, ^^ atZ Zoc. ' Latinus habet, Quibus ad 
 
 Delarue) oiiS^Trore iu xcip^ i-n-oTer ay- horam cessimus.' Primasius does not 
 
 fxhoi dudpihirots ths KpeirT(av yevdfievo^f himself omit it, as represented in Tisch. 
 
 where the conjecture oiid^ irpbs ojpav is ^* Magn. Bihl. Vet. Pair. v. 498, 
 
 possibly correct. *Male in Latinis codicibus legitur, Qui- 
 
 ' .E^is*. 37" bus ad horam cessimus.' 
 
122 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 Tertul- 
 lian's 
 
 charge 
 against 
 Marcion. 
 
 Omission 
 how ac- 
 coimted 
 for. 
 
 MS can be substantiated. Irenseus is also to be accounted for, but in this 
 case the omission may perhaps be ascribed not to the author himself, but 
 to his translator. 
 
 A correction however would appear to have been made in that re- 
 cension which was circulated in North Italy, for the negative is found both 
 in Ambrose and in Augustine, the former of whom used the 'Itala' as a 
 matter of course, and the latter by choice ^ 
 
 TertuUian indeed accuses Marcion of interpolating the negative; but 
 no weight attaches to his assertion. The African father, not finding it 
 in his own Latin copy and finding it in Marcion's recension, caught at what 
 appeared the simplest way of accounting for the variation. He would not 
 stop to consider whether his own copy was correct. It was enough for him 
 that the text with the negative was more favourable to Marcion's peculiar 
 views than without it. TertuUian makes no appeal to mss or external 
 authority of any kind. He argues solely on grounds of internal evidence. 
 
 The omission in the first instance is not easily accounted for. It may 
 have been an oversight. Or possibly the Latin translator, or the tran- 
 scriber of the MSS which he used, intentionally left it out, thinking, as some 
 later critics thought, that the sense of the passage or the veracity of the 
 Apostle required the omission. At all events the expedient of dropping 
 the negative, as a means of simplifying the sense, is characteristic of the 
 Latin copies. For other instances in St Paul see Gal. v. 8, Rom. v. 14, 
 I Cor. V. 6, [Col. ii. 18]: comp. Joh. vi. 64, ix. 272. 
 
 The omission once made, arguments were not wanting to support it. 
 TertuUian found that the negative vitiated the sense of the passage. 
 He objected to it moreover as at variance with history, which showed that 
 St Paul did yield on occasions, in circumcising Timothy for instance, and in 
 paying the expenses of those who had taken Nazarite vows. The same 
 arguments are brought forward by Victorinus and the Ambrosian Hilary^ 
 "With much greater justice Jerome maintains that it is required for the 
 sense. But feeble as were his reasons, doubtless the authority of TertuUian, 
 and the prejudice thus raised against this as the reading of Marcion, 
 were fatal to its reception with many who otherwise would have conformed 
 to the Greek test. 
 
 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 ovdi might have been expected to decide for or against the 
 circumcision of Titus. This however is not the case. The Latin Fathers, 
 who left out the negative, generally maintained that he was not circum- 
 cised'*. Several modern critics, who retain it, hold that he was, 
 
 2. The omission of oh. 
 
 ^ De Doctr. Christ. C. 15. 
 
 2 For these references I am indebted 
 to Eeiohe Comm. Crit, 11. p. 15. 
 
 3 'LittersB enim hoc indicant quia 
 cessit, et historia factum exclamat.' 
 The passage is based on TertuUian. 
 
 "* So Victorinus and the Ambrosian 
 
 Hilary. This is also the opinion of Ter- 
 tuUian (adv. Blare. -v. 3), if I understand 
 himrightly:thoughBaur,PawZusp.i22, 
 interprets him differently. The only 
 exception that I have remarked is Pe- 
 lagius, who however has not the same 
 reading in the test aa in the notes. 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 123 
 
 The relative is omitted in some few texts which retain ov^e, and (2) The 
 retained in some few which want oJSe; but for the most part the two are 3^^^^*^^®- 
 omitted or retained together. Here again the Greek texts are as unani- 
 mous as in the former case. The obvious motive of this omission is the 
 improvement of the grammar by the removal of a redundant word. 
 
 This assumed necessity of altering the text somehow, in order to 
 correct the grammar, may have been the first step towards the more 
 important omission of the negative. 
 
 The later visit of St Paul to Jerusalem. 
 
 The later of the two visits to Jerusalem mentioned in the Epistle has The same 
 from the earliest times been identified with the visit recorded in Acts xv. . .^ *^® 
 This view is taken by Irenseus^, the first writer who alludes to the subject; ^g^g ^-^^ 
 and though it has not escaped unchallenged either in ancient ^ or modern 
 days, the arguments in its favour are sufficiently strong to resist the pres- 
 sure of objections to which it is fairly exposed^. 
 
 I. In support of this view may be urged the positive argument from Argu- 
 the striking coincidence of circumstances, and the negative argument from ^^^*3 m 
 the difficulty of finding any equally probable solution, or indeed any pro- ^j^g ^^^^ 
 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 CQ^^gj. 
 important features. The geography is the same. In both narratives the dence of 
 communications take place between Jerusalem and Antioch : in both the circum- 
 head-quarters of the false brethren are at the former place, their machiua- stances. 
 tions are carried on in the latter : in both the Gentile Apostles go up to 
 Jerusalem apparently from Antioch, and return thence to Antioch again. 
 The time is the same, or at least not inconsistent. St Paul places the event 
 15 or 16 years after his conversion: St Luke's narrative implies that they 
 
 1 Iren. iii. 13. 3 'Si quis igitur di- visits of the Acts. 
 
 ligenter ex Actibus Apostolorum scru- ^ The view adopted is that of most 
 
 tetur tempus de quo scriptum est, recent critics. It is well maintained by 
 
 Ascendi Hierosolymam, propter prtedic- Schott, De Wette, Conybeare and How- 
 
 tam qusestionem, inveniet eos, qui prse- son, Jowett, and others. The argu- 
 
 dicti sunt a Paulo, annos concurrentes meuts in favour of the second visit of 
 
 etc' So also apparently Tertullian, the Acts are best stated by Fritzsche 
 
 adv. Marc. v. 2, 3. Opusc. p. 223 sq. The fourth visit of 
 
 2 This visit is placed after the third the Acts finds its ablest champion in 
 in the Acts by Chrysostom, but not Wieseler, Galat. p. 553 sq. The fifth 
 further defined. It is identified with visit has been abandoned by modern 
 the fifth by Epiphanius Hceres. sxviii. critics, as the epistle was clearly writ- 
 4, p. 112. The Chron. Pasch. (i. p. 435 ten before that time. Some few, e.g. 
 sq. ed. Dind.) places it after the inci- Paley Horce Paulince ch. v. no. 10, 
 dents of Acts xiii. i — 3, and before suppose this to be a journey to Jerusa- 
 those of Acts xv, thus apparently inter- lem omitted in the Acts. 
 
 polating it between the second and third 
 
124 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 (ii) Nega- 
 tive, 
 
 Difficulty 
 of other 
 solutions. 
 
 took place about the year 5 1 \ 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^ avriov) are men- 
 tioned by St Luke; Titus, a Gentile, is named by St Paul. The subject of 
 dispute is the same; the circumcision of the Gentile converts. The cha- 
 racter of the conference is in general the same ; a prolonged and hard- 
 fought contest^. The result is the same; the exemption of the Gentiles 
 from the enactments of the law, and the recognition of the Apostolic com- 
 mission of Paul and Barnabas by the leaders of the Jewish Church. 
 
 A combination of circumstances so striking is not likely to have oc- 
 curred twice within a few years. 
 
 (ii) Nor indeed can this visit be identified with any other recorded in 
 St. Luke. It has been taken by some for instance for the second visit of 
 the Acts. To this supposition the date alone is fatal. The second visit of 
 the Acts synchronizes, or nearly so^, with the persecution and death of 
 Herod, which latter event happened in the year 44. But at least 12 or 13, 
 probably 15 or 16 years, had elapsed since St Paul's conversion, before he 
 paid the visit in question. And no system of chronology at all probable 
 will admit of so early a date for his conversion as would thus be required. 
 But again, according to the narrative of the Acts St Paul's Apostolic mis- 
 sion commenced after the second visit*, whereas the account in the Epistle 
 
 ^ This is calculated by a back reck- 
 oning of the time spent from the Apo- 
 stolic Council to the appointment of 
 Festus, the date of which is fixed inde- 
 pendently at A.r. 60; see Wieseler 
 Chronol. p. 66 sq. 
 
 2 St Luke's notices are, xv. 2 -yevo- 
 pAvri'5 ardcTeoJS Kal ^r}Tr}(rEws o^K d\l- 
 777s Tip llavXii) Kal Tip Bapvd^g, irpos 
 avTo6s, at Antioch; xv. 5 i^aviaTTjaajf 
 34 Tives, at Jerusalem before the con- 
 gress; XV. 7 TToWri^ 5k (Tvv^rjT'^aeojs ye- 
 vofiivTjs, at Jerusalem at the congress. 
 
 2 The order of events in St Luke's 
 narrative is as follows; (i) the notice of 
 St Paul's setting out from Antioch for 
 Jerusalem, xi. 30; (2) the persecution 
 of Herod, the death of James, and the 
 imprisonment and escape of Peter, xii. 
 I— 19; (3) the death of Herod, and 
 the spread of the word, xii. 20 — 24 ; 
 (4) St Paul's business at Jerusalem and 
 his departure thence, xii. 25. The nar- 
 rative itself suggests the motive of this 
 
 order, which is not directly chronolo- 
 gical. Having mentioned in (i) St 
 Paul's mission to Jerusalem, the writer 
 is led in (2) to describe the condition 
 of the Church there, /car' ^kclvov rbv 
 KaipSf. This obliges him to pass on to 
 (3) in order to show that God defeated 
 the purposes of man, the persecutor 
 dying ignominiously, and thepersecuted 
 Chm'ch continuing to flourish. He then 
 resumes the subject of (r) in (4). Thus 
 it may be assumed, I think, that the 
 Church was suffering from Herod's 
 persecutions when St Paul arrived, but 
 not that Herod was already dead. In 
 other words, the chronological order 
 was probably (2), (i), (4), (3). 
 
 ^ His career as an Apostle com- 
 mences with Acts xiii. He had before 
 this held a subordinate place, and his 
 preaching had been confined to Damas- 
 cus (ix. 22), Jerusalem (ix. 28), and the 
 neighbourhood of Tarsus and Antioch 
 (ix. 30, xi. 25 sq. ; oomp. also Gal. i, 21). 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 1 25 
 
 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 — t\\Q fourth for instance. It is perhaps a sufficient answer 
 to such a solution, that St Paul's connexion with Barnabas seems to have 
 ceased before. A more fatal difficulty still would be his silence respecting 
 the third visit, so marked with incidents, and so pregnant with consequences 
 bearing directly on the subject of which he is treating. 
 
 II. On the other hand the identification adopted involves various diffi- Objections 
 culties, which however, when weighed, do not seem sufficient to turn the answered, 
 scale. These difficulties are of two classes : 
 
 (i) Discrepancies appearing to exist between the two narratives. (i) Discre- 
 
 On the whole however the circumstances of the writers and the different pancies, 
 purposes of the narrators seem sufficient to explain the divergences, real 
 or apparent, in the two accounts : and the remarks made in comparing the 
 two records of the former visit apply with even more force to this (see 
 p. 91). The alleged discrepancies are these : 
 
 (a) In the Acts St Paul is represented as sent to Jerusalem by the (a)- Motive 
 Christians of Antioch to settle some disputes which had arisen there : in ?^ *^® 
 the Epistle he states that he went up by revelation. Here however there ^Q^^i'^^sy. 
 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 Ceesarea, 
 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' 
 
 (/3) 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 {atreKvo-av). So they 
 being sent forth by the Holy Ghost {iKirefKpSevres vtto tov dyiov irvev- 
 
 ^aros) etc' 
 
 (y) Acts XV. 28, ' It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.' 
 {b) St Paul speaks of his communications as made to the Apostles in (^>) Cha- 
 
 private : St Luke's narrative describes a general congress of the Church. yacter of 
 The divergence is due to the different aims of the two writers. St Paul ferences. 
 
 is dwelling on what he owed or did not owe to the Twelve. St Luke de- 
 
126 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 (c) Eela- 
 tions of 
 St Paul 
 ■with the 
 Twelve. 
 
 scribes the results as affecting the interests of the Church at large. St Paul 
 mentions or rather alludes to the private history which led to the public 
 transactions, the secret springs, as it were, which set the machinery in 
 motion. This history can have been but partially known to St Luke, nor 
 did it lie within his province to recoi-d 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, dveOifirjv avTo7s, Kar Ib'tav Se toIs BoK.ov<riv, implies 
 something besides the private conference; the transactions themselves — 
 the dispute about Titus for instance — involved more or less of publicity: 
 the purpose sought to be attained could scarcely be effected in any other 
 way : and the fragmentary character of the Apostle's account leaves ample 
 space for the insertion of other incidents besides those given. On the other 
 hand St Luke alludes in a general way to conferences and discussions pre- 
 ceding the congress (xv. 4, 5, 6): and the speeches there delivered, the 
 measures there proposed, are plainly the result of much wise forethought 
 and patient deliberation on the part of the Apostles. 
 
 (c) Again, it is said, the account of St Luke leaves the impression of 
 perfect and unbroken harmony between St Paul and the Twelve; while 
 St Paul's narrative betrays, or seems to betray, signs of dissatisfaction 
 with their counsels. In the Acts the leading Apostles of the Circumcision 
 stand forth as the champions of Gentile liberty : the writer of the Epistle 
 on the other hand implies or appears to imply, that they owed to himself 
 and Barnabas alone their emancipation from the bondage sought to be 
 imposed upon them. 
 
 But here again the difficulty diminishes, when we try to picture to our- 
 selves what was hkely to have been the course of events. The articles of 
 the so-called Apostolic Council were ' Articles of Peace.' To infringe no 
 principle and yet to quiet opposition, to concede as much as would satisfy 
 the one party and not enough to press heavily on the other — this was the 
 object to be attained. Thus the result was a compromise. Long discus- 
 sions, many misgivings, some differences of opinion, must have arisen on a 
 question so delicate and yet so momentous ; and though the unanimity of 
 the final decision was indeed the prompting of the Holy Ghost, it would be 
 not less contrary to all analogies of the Apostolic history, than to all human 
 experience, to suppose that no error or weakness or prejudice had revealed 
 itself in the process. It would seem moreover, that by the time the con- 
 gress met, St Paul's work was already done. His large experience gained 
 in contact with the Gentile Churches had told upon the Twelve. If they 
 hesitated at first, as they may have done, they hesitated now no longer. 
 Opinions in favour of hberal measures towards the Gentiles would come 
 with more force from the leading Apostles of the Circumcision. His own 
 voice raised in their cause might only inflame the passions of the bigoted 
 and prejudice the result. So we find that when the council meets, Paul 
 and Barnabas confine themselves to narrating the success of their labours 
 among the Gentiles. As regards the matter under dispute they are en- 
 tirely passive. 
 
 (ii) More startling at first sight than these apparent discrepancies 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 12/ 
 
 are the direct omissions of St Paul, on the supposition that he is speaking 
 of the visit of Acts xv. 
 
 (a) Above all, how comes it, that while enumerating his visits to Jeru- {a) 2nd 
 salem, St Paul should mention the first and third, and pass over the second ^^^^^ *^ 
 recorded in the Acts? Jerusalem. 
 
 The answer is to be sought in the circumstances under which that visit 
 was paid. The storm of persecution had broken over the Church of Jeru- 
 salem. One leading Apostle had been put to death; another rescued by 
 a miracle had fled for his life. At this season of terror and confusion Paul 
 and Barnabas arrived. It is probable that every Christian of rank had 
 retired from the city. No mention is made of the Twelve; the saluta- 
 tions of the Gentile Apostles are received by Hhe Elders.' They arrived 
 charged with alms for the relief of the poor brethren of Judsea. Having 
 deposited these in trustworthy hands, they would depart with all convenient 
 speed. Any lengthened stay might endanger their lives. Nor indeed was 
 there any motive for remaining. Even had St Paul purposed holding con- 
 ferences with the Apostles or the Church of the Circumcision, at this 
 moment of dire distress it would have been impossible^ Of this visit then, 
 so brief and so hurried, he makes no mention here. His object is not to 
 enumerate his journeys to Jerusalem, but to define his relations with the 
 Twelve ; and on these relations it had no bearing. 
 
 (6) The omission of all mention of the Apostolic decree is a less con- (b) The 
 siderable difficulty. The purport of the decree itself, and the form of Apostolic 
 opposition which St Paul encountered in Galatia, sufficiently explain his <^®°^^^- 
 silence I 
 
 (i) The provisions of this decree seem to have been, as I have already 
 mentioned, 'Articles of Peace.' The Apostolic letter was only addressed to 
 the Gentile brethren *in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia' (sv. 23), that is, to 
 the churches more directly in communication with Palestine, and therefore 
 materially afiected 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 
 
 ^ St Luke dismisses this visit in a remain at Jerusalem. It is mentioned 
 
 very few words ; si. 30 diroffrdXavTes by Apollonius (circ. a.d. 200, ap. Eu- 
 
 TTpb^ roiis Trpea^vripovs dia x"p6? Bap- seb.H.E. v. 18, cjs ix irapaSoVeaij), and 
 
 vd^a Kal SaiJXou, sii. 25 Bapvd^as dk by Clem. Alex. Strom, vi, p. 762, ed. 
 
 Kttt SauXos vHa-rpe^av ^^ 'lepoi^uaXTi/i, Potter. The latter gives, as his author- 
 
 TrXifpiiaavres r7]v oiaKovlav, avfiTrapoKa- ity, the Prcedicatio Petri, and quotes 
 
 ^6vTes Kal 'lu)dvv7]v rov iiriKk-qdivra the words ^lerk SwdeKa ^tij i^^XBere els 
 
 MdpKov. It seems probable then that t6v k6<jplov. This carries the tradition 
 
 all the Apostles, perhaps even James, back to an early date. On the sequence 
 
 were away. Of Peter this is all but of events in this portion of the Acts 
 
 directly stated, xii. 17. This inference see above, p. 124, note 3. 
 accords with an ancient tradition, that 2 p^iey has some good remarks on 
 
 twelve years was the limit of time pre- this decree, Hor. Paul, eh. v. § n 
 scribed by our Lord for the Apostles to 
 
128 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 prejudice (Acts xvi. 4). But in the brotherhoods afterwai-ds formed and 
 lying beyond the reach of such influences, no notice was taken of it. 
 St Paul's instructions for instance to the Corinthians and to the Romans^ 
 entirely ignore one of its provisions, the prohibition against eating meats 
 offered to idols. He speaks of this as a matter of indifference in itself, 
 only important as it affected each man's conscience. 
 
 (2) The object of the decree was to relieve the Gentile Christians 
 from the burden of Jewish observances. It said, 'Concede so much and 
 we will protect you from any further exactions.' The Galatians sought no 
 such protection. They were willing recipients of Judaic rites; and 
 St Paul's object was to show them, not that they need not submit to these 
 burdens against their will, but that they were wrong and sinful in sub- 
 mitting to them. 
 
 (3) The power of the Apostles of the Circumcision, and the prece- 
 dence of the mother Church, had been unduly and exclusively exalted by 
 the Judaizers in Galatia at the expense of St Paul's authority. The Epistle 
 to the Galatians is from beginning to end a protest against these exagge- 
 rated claims. He refuses to acknowledge any human interference, he takes 
 his stand throughout upon his direct commission from the Lord. By ap- 
 pealing to a decree of a Council held at Jerusalem for sanction on a point 
 on which his own decision as an Apostle was final, he would have made the 
 very concession which his enemies insisted upon 2. 
 
 Patristic accounts of the collision at Antioch. 
 
 The inei- The conduct of St Peter at Antioch has been a great stumblingblock 
 
 dent is ex- "both in ancient and modern times. It has been thought strange that the 
 
 St^Peler's^ very Apostle, to whom was specially vouchsafed the revelation that there is 
 
 character, nothing common or unclean, and who only a short time before this meeting 
 
 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 I Cor. X. 27 sq., Eom. siv. 1 sq. portant recent works wiU be given in 
 This qtiestion will be considered more the notes to the dissertation on ' St 
 at length in the dissertation on 'St Paul and the Three.' Since the ist 
 Paul and the Three.' edition of this volume was published I 
 
 2 The accounts of this crisis in the have read the articles of Eeuss, La 
 Apostolic history given by Neander Conference deJerusalemymtheNouvelle 
 PJlanz. I. p. 205 sq., and de Pressens6 Hevue de Theologie, xii. p. 324, sni. p. 
 Trois Premiers Sieclesyixe B^rie, i. p. 62. Though they contain many things 
 457 sq., seem to me on the whole with which I cannot agree, I gladly 
 among the most truthful, preserving recognise the spirit of fairness in which 
 a just mean between exaggerations on they are written. 
 
 either side. Other references to im- 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 1 29 
 
 It is at least no surprise, that he who at one moment declared himself 
 ready to lay down his life for his Lord's sake and even drew his sword in 
 defence of his Master, and the next betrayed Him with a thrice repeated 
 denial, should have acted in this case, as we infer he acted from the 
 combined accounts of St Luke and St Paul. There is the same impulsive 
 courage followed by the same shrinking timidity. And though St PauFs 
 narrative stops short of the last scene in this drama, it would not be rash 
 to conclude that it ended as the other had ended, that the revulsion of 
 feeling was as sudden and complete, and that again he went out and wept 
 bitterly, having denied his Lord in the person of these Gentile converts. 
 
 The history of the patristic intei-pretations of this passage is painfully Becomes a 
 instructive. The orthodox fathers of the early Church were sore pressed controver- 
 both by heretics and unbelievers. On the one hand Bbionite writers, like ^^^« ^®^" 
 the author of the Clementines, made it a ground for a personal attack on 
 St PauP. On the other, extreme Gnostics such as Marcion used it to 
 prove the direct antagonism of Christianity to Judaism as represented by 
 the opposition of the Gentile to the Jewish Apostle^. And lastly. Por- 
 phyry and other writers availed themselves of the incident as an engine of 
 assault on Christianity itself, impugning the characters of both Apostles in 
 language which the fathers describe as coarse and blasphemous^. How 
 were these diverse attacks to be met? Tertullian, arguing against the 
 Marcionites, resisted all temptations to wrest the plain meaning of the 
 passage^. Cyprian and Ambrose moreover took it in its obvious sense^. 
 The same is done also by the commentators Victorinus aud Hilary. But 
 the majority of early writers fell into the snare. Two disingenuous explar Solutions 
 nations were put forward to meet the attacks of heretics and unbelievers ; pi^oposed 
 each originating, it would appear, in one of the great fathers of Alexandria, ^ 
 and dividing between them the allegiance of subsequent writers. 
 
 I. Clement of Alexandria maintained that the Cephas here mentioned (i) Cle- 
 was not the Apostle Peter, but one of the seventy disciples bearing the °^6^*- 
 same name. Though the passage itself absolutely excludes such a view, it 
 nevertheless found several adherents, and is mentioned by Eusebius^ with- 
 
 1 See above, p. 61, and the notes ii. thage too (held under Cyprian), 'Zosx- 
 II, 13. mus a Tharassa dixit: Kevelatlone 
 
 2 Tertull. adv. Marc. i. 20, v. 3, de facta veritatis cedat error veritati, quia 
 Prcescr. c. 23: comp. Iren. iii. 12. 15. et Petrus, qui prius circumcidebat, 
 
 3 See asp. Hieron. in Ep, ad Gal. cessit Paulo veritatem prsedicanti'; 
 prcsf. (vii. p. 371, ed. Vallarsi) 'Vo- Concil. Carthag. Ivi, Cypriani Op. p. 
 lens et illi maculam erroris inurere et 239, ed. Fell. 
 
 huic procacitatis, et in commune ficti ^ Euseb. H.E. i. 12, referring to the 
 
 dogmatis accusare mendacium, dum 5th book of Clement's Hypotyposeis. 
 
 inter se ecclesiarum principes discre- The amount of support that this view 
 
 pent,' and p. 410. obtained may be gathered from Hieron. 
 
 * See the passages of Tertullian re- Op. vii. p. 408 ^Sunt qui Cepham...non 
 
 ferred to, note 2. putent Apostolum Petrum etc.,' Chry- 
 
 5 Augustin. ap. Hieron. Op. i. sost. Op. iii. p. 374 ttws ow rtz/^s r^i; 
 
 Epist. cxvi. The passage in Cyprian, ^-/jttio-lv TavTTjv 'i\v<Tav^ Gregor. Magn. 
 
 to which Augustine appears to refer, is in Ezech. Lib. 11. H. 6 'Sunt veronon- 
 
 in Epist. Ixsi. At the Council of Car- nulli qui etc' Jerome, Chrysostom, 
 
 GAL. 
 
 9 
 
130 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 out condemnation. Even in modern times it has been revived^, but has 
 not been received with any favour. 
 (ii) Origen. 2. Origen started the theory^ that the dispute between Peter and Paul 
 was simulated; in other words, being of one mind in the matter, they 
 got up this scene that St Paul might the more effectually condemn the 
 Judaizers through the chief of the Apostles, who, acknowledging the justice 
 of the rebuke, set them an example of submission. Thus he in fact sub- 
 stituted the much graver charge of dishonesty against both Apostles, in 
 order to exculpate the one from the comparatively venial offence of moral 
 cowardice and inconsistency. Nevertheless this view commended itself to 
 a large number of subsequent writers, and for some time may be said to 
 have reigned supreme^. It was enforced with much perverse ingenuity and 
 
 and Gregory all show from St Paul's 
 contest 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 hie time. 
 (Ecumenius however, or a commenta- 
 tor in the CEcumenian Catena, favours 
 this view, which he incorrectly attri- 
 butes to Eusebius. On the authority 
 of Clement it became customary to in- 
 sert the name Cephas in the lists of the 
 seventy disciples, e.g. those ascribed to 
 Hippolytus (ed. Fabricius, i app. p. 42) 
 andtoDorotheusTyrius (printed in Din- 
 dorf's Ghron. Pasch. n. p. 120), and that 
 ottheGhron, Pasch. (i.p. 400, ed. Dind.). 
 
 Other attempts also were made in 
 the same direction. In the Armenian 
 Calendar Cephas is called a disciple of 
 St Paul: Sept. 25, 'Apollo et Cephse 
 discipulorum PauH,' Assemann. Bihl. 
 Orient, in. p. 648, In the Apostolic 
 Constitutions of the Egyptian Church 
 he is represented as one of the Twelve, 
 but distinguished from Peter (ed. Tat- 
 tam, p. 2). 
 
 ^ By the Jesuit Harduin. See Har- 
 duini Op. Sel. (Amst. 1709) p. 930. The 
 treatise is entitled ' Cepham a Paulo 
 reprehensum Petrum non esse,' a 
 strange specimen of criticism. It pro- 
 voked replies from Boileau, Disquisit, 
 Theolog. in Galat. ii. 10, Paris, 1713; 
 Calmet, Disseri. ni. p. 519, Paris,i72o; 
 Deyling, 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. 
 
 2 Hieron. Epist. cxii (i. p. 740) 
 ' Hanc explanationem quam primus Ori- 
 genes in decimo Stromateon libro ubi 
 epistolam Pauli ad Galatas interpreta- 
 tur, et cseteri deinceps interpretes sunt 
 secuti, etc. ' In an extant work however 
 (c. Gels. ii. i), where Origen alludes to 
 the incident, there is no trace of this 
 interpretation. 
 
 ' See Hieron. 1. c. In this letter, 
 addressed to Augustine, be defends him- 
 self by appealing to the authority of 
 previous writers. He also quotes the 
 passage in his preface to the G^latians, 
 where he mentions that in writing his 
 commentary he has made use, besides 
 Origen, of Didymus of Alexandria, of 
 the Laodicene (i.e. ApoUinaris), of one 
 Alexander, 'an ancient heretic' (see 
 Cave, Hist. Lit. i. p. loi), of Eusebius 
 of Emesa, and of Theodore of Heraclea. 
 Augustine in reply (Hieron. Op, Epist. 
 cxvi, p. 775) understands him to say 
 that the view of Origen was held by all 
 these writers, whom he confesses him- 
 self never to have read. In the case of 
 Jerome's master Didymus however this 
 seems questionable ; for in two passages 
 in his extant works he speaks of St 
 Peter's conduct as an instance of hu- 
 man infirmity, de THn. ii. 13, p. 168, 
 iii. 19, p. 387. Another of Jerome's 
 masters also, Gregory Nazianzen, had 
 taken the honest view, attributing St 
 Peter's error however not to cowardice 
 but to mistaken policy, Carm. 11. p. 
 522, ed. CaiUau, ws avvrpdirei^os ov 
 koKCjs TJv ^dueffiVj d Koi t68^ wer' c&^eXi/- 
 <T€Lv rbv \6yotf. Unless his text is here 
 mutilated, Gregory's memory has failed 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 131 
 
 misapplied eloquence by Chrysostom in his exposition of this epistle, and Chryso- 
 in a separate homily devoted specially to the subjects And about the stem, 
 same time that these discourses were delivered, it found another independ- 
 ent 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, Contro- 
 which became famous in the history of the Church 2. Augustine wrote to ^^^^y of 
 remonstrate with Jerome. To admit that the two leading Apostles con- g^^^ ^^_ 
 spired to act a lie, he represented, was in fact to undermine the whole gustine. 
 authority of Scripture. He therefore entreated Jerome, like Stesichorus 
 of old, to sing a palinode, adding that the truth of Christendom is incom- 
 parably more beautiful than the Helen of Greece, for offending whom the 
 heathen poet had been struck blind 2. Jerome replied by another classical 
 allusion. Let Augustine beware of provoking a contest, so he hinted, in 
 which the crushing blows of aged Entellus, if once provoked, might prove 
 more than a match for the youth and nimbleness of Dares*. In the cor- 
 respondence which ensued Augustine had much the best of his adversary 
 both in argument and in temper. It closes with a letter from Augustine 
 in which he exposes Jerome's subterfuges and demolishes his appeal to 
 authority^ The glory of Augustine's victory however is somewhat tar- 
 nished by a feeble attack made at the same time on those noble labours in 
 Biblical criticism which have earned for Jerome the gratitude of after ages. 
 To this letter of Augustine Jerome seems to have made no reply. His 
 pride had been deeply wounded by the successful assaults of a younger 
 rival, as he regarded Augustine : and a direct confession of wrong could 
 only be expected from a nature more frank and chivalrous than Jerome's. 
 But at a later date he tacitly adopted Augustine's view, and whether from 
 accident or design, in the same writing, though on a different topic, made 
 honourable mention of his former opponent^. With this sequel the whole 
 
 him as to the particular act which of Augustine. The references here given 
 
 called forth St Paul's rebuke. are to Vallarsi's edition of Jerome. 
 
 Still there was doubtless a vast array Owing to the extraordinary delay and 
 
 of authorities on Jerome's side. He consequent complication in the corre- 
 
 ehallenges Augustine to produce a sin- spondence, it is not easy to determine 
 
 gle writer in his favour. Augustine in the order of the letters, and in this 
 
 reply can only name Cyprian and Am- respect none of the editions which I 
 
 brose. have consulted seem altogether satis- 
 
 1 The Latin title of this homily is factory. Augustine discusses the pas- 
 'In iUud, in faciem Petro restiti' (iii. sage again more briefly, de Mendacio, 
 p. 362, ed. Ben.). The opinion of Chry- § 8, vi. p. 424. 
 
 Bostom is alluded to by Jerome, Epist. s Hieron. Op. r, Ep. Ixvii. 
 
 cxii, and by Augustine in reply, Hie- ^ lb. Ep. cii. See Augustine's re- 
 
 ron. Op. Epist. cxvi. ply^ Ep. ex. 
 
 2 An account of this controversy is ^ lb. Ep. cxvi. 
 
 given in Mohler, Gesammelte Schriften, e Hieron. c. Pelag. i. 22 (11. p. 718), 
 
 p. I sq. For a summary of the points This treatise (iii. 19, ib. p. 804) ends 
 
 of dispute, see the commentary of Tho- with an honourable mention of Augus- 
 
 mas Aquinas on this epistle. The cor- tine, who had written against the same 
 
 respondence itself may be found in any heresy which Jerome is combating. It 
 
 edition of the works either of Jerome or is just possible that Jerome, while 
 
 Q — 2 
 
132 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 controversy, as well in the nature of the dispute itself, as in the courageous 
 rebuke of the younger father and the humble penitence of the elder, has 
 seemed to some to reflect the original dispute of the Apostles at Antioch, 
 and thus to be a striking illustration of and comment on the text out of 
 which it arose ^. 
 Later The great name of Augustine seems to have swayed later writers to- 
 
 writers. wards the reasonable view of the incident, and from this time forward the 
 forced explanation of Origen finds but little support^. Theodore of Mopsu- 
 estia indeed, a contemporary of the two Latin fathers, does not pretend 
 to arbitrate between their opinions, and perhaps not more than this was to 
 be expected from the friend of Chrysostom. And by Greek commentators 
 even of a later date the false interpretation is once and again revived ^- 
 But in the West the influence of Augustine was more powerful; and it 
 is much to the credit of writers of the Latin Church, that even when 
 directly interested in maintaining the supremacy of St Peter, they for the 
 most part reject this perverted account of the passage, content to draw 
 from it the higher lesson of the paramount claims of truth over respect 
 for rank and office, and to dwell on St Peter's conduct as a noble example 
 of humility in submitting to rebuke from an inferior in age and standing*. 
 
 writing this, had in mind the tribute of 
 respect paid to St Paul in 2 Pet. iii. 15. 
 Other passages in which Jerome has 
 been thought tacitly to surrender his 
 former view are, adv, Jovin. i. 15 (11. 
 p. 264), c. Rujin. iii. 2 (11. p. 532), 
 Gomm. inPhilem. (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 Ocea- 
 nus, August. Epist. clxxx (i. p. 634, 
 ed. Ben.). 
 
 1 e.g. Mohler Gesamm. Sehr. 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 
 
 JE^iecTt. xlviii. 35 (11. p. xo46,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. 11. 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). 
 
 ^ It is maintained by one of the 
 commentators in the (Ecumenian Ca- 
 tena and by Theophylact. Both these 
 writers would derive their opinions 
 from Chrysostom rather than from 
 Jerome. 
 
 ^ See especially Gregor. Magn. in 
 Ezech. Lib. 11. 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 11. p. 
 772). 
 
III. I] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 133 
 
 III. ^'Q di/6f]T0L TaXaTati tU vjma^ i(3d(rKav€Vy oh 
 KaT 6(p6a\fjLOv^ 'Irjo-om XptCTTO^ 7rpoeypd(prj ecTavpu}- 
 
 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 ? ye sense- 
 less Gauls, what bewitchment is this? 
 I placarded Christ crucified before 
 your eyes. You sufiered them to wan- 
 der from this gracious proclamation 
 of your King. They rested on the 
 withering eye of the sorcerer. They 
 yielded to the fascination and were 
 riveted there. And the life of your 
 souls has been drained out of you by 
 that envious gaze.' 
 
 i^acTKavGv] ^fascinated youl St 
 Paul's metaphor is derived from the 
 popular belief in the power of the evil 
 eye. Comp. Ignat. Romn. § 3 ovhk-^ 
 TTore i^acKavare ovheva (or ovbevl), 
 Wisd. iv. 12 ^ao-Kavta yap <pavX6rT]Tos 
 d^avpoL TO. KoXa, and see especially 
 the discussion in Plutarch, Symp. v. 
 7, p. 680 C irepl Tap KaTa^ao-Kalveiv 
 \eyofxevQiv kol ^daKavov e^^tv 6c}>0a\fjL6v 
 efiTrea-QVTos Xoyov k.t.X. If the deri- 
 vation of ^aaKalveiv now generally 
 adopted (see Benfey Wurzel. 11. p. 
 104), from /3af(a, /3ao-KQ) {(f)daKco)j 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 (Sta 
 
 (jiaecou, Kaiuova-av Tzetz.) is an evidence. 
 See Bacon's Essays ix. This belief is 
 not confined to the East or to ancient 
 times, but is common in some coun- 
 tries of Europe even now. In parts 
 of Italy the power 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 Realworterh. s. v. 
 Zauherei, and in an article by O. 
 Jahn, uber den Aherglauhen des bo- 
 sen Blicks etc. in the Verhandl. der 
 Sachs. Gesellsch. 1855, p. 31. The 
 word ^ao-Kaiveiv then in this passage 
 involves two ideas; (i) The baleful 
 influence on the recipient, and (2) 
 The envious spirit of the agent. This 
 latter idea is very prominent in the 
 Hebrew j**!? y"l ('envious' or 'covet- 
 ous,' e.g. Prov. xxiii. 6, Tobit iv. 16, 
 Ecclus. xiv. 10, and compare the o0- 
 OaKjjLos TTovrjpbs 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 ^aa-Kalvciv signifies 
 directly Ho 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 ^aa-Kavla (Stort TToWrjv e^ov- 
 (Tiv evTrddeiav kol Tpoirov rfjs (jiva-easj 
 Alex. Aphrod. Prdbl. 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. 
 
 i^d(TKav€v (for which some copies 
 read i^da-Kqvev) Is probably the first 
 aorist with a ; see Ignat. 1. c. On 
 
134 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [III. 2 
 
 juei/os ; ^TOVTO ixovov 6e\(jo fxaOeiv dcj) vfX(Si/y e^ ep- 
 yoiv vofxov TO TTvevfJia eXd^ere rj e^ aKofj^ TTfo-rews ; 
 
 forms in ij and a, see Buttmann Ausf, 
 Sprachl. § lor. 4, A. Buttmann p. 35, 
 and Lobeck Phryn. p. 25, Parol. 
 p. 22. 
 
 The words rg oKriSda firi ireidca-BaL 
 of the received text have no place 
 here, but are added from v. 7. 
 
 ols Kar 6<i>6a\iiovs\ ^before whose 
 eyes': comp. Arist. Ean. 626 tva o-oX 
 Kar 6(p6aKfjLovs Xey?/' ^^^^ expression 
 is slightly stronger than irpo 6<p6aK- 
 juo)!/, as bringing out the idea of a 
 cof^ronting. 
 
 As the blighting influence passed 
 from the eye of the bewitcher, so also 
 was the eye of the recipient the most 
 direct channel of communication: see 
 esp. Alexand. Aphrod. Prohl. Phys. 
 li. 53 cS(r7re/> Imbr) rtva Kal ((>Bopo7roiov 
 aKTiva i^iaa-LV aivo rijs Koprjs avrav Koi 
 avTT) elo-ioi/o-a dia rav 6<l>6aXixav tov 
 
 <j>60V0VpL€V0V Tp€^€t TrjV "^VX^V KOi TTjP 
 
 4>va-iv K.T.X, Heliod. ^th. iii. 7 8m 
 Ta>v oKJidakfiatv to, irdQr) reus i//'v;^ats' 
 ela-To^cvovrai (these references I owe 
 to Jahn, p. 2)3)) ^^<i comp. Ecclus. 
 
 XVni. 18 boCTLS ^a(TKaVOV iKTT)K€l 6(}>6aX- 
 
 pLovs, 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.' 
 
 irpocypaxlir}] ' wos posted up, pla- 
 carded.' The verb irpoypaxfieiv is ca- 
 pable of two meanings; (i) *To write 
 beforehand/ as Kom. xv. 4 otra yap 
 7rpO€ypd(jyr) els rrjv rfp-eripav Sidaa-KaKlav 
 iypdcjiT}. This sense however is ex- 
 cluded here, as the words Kar 6(f)6aX- 
 fiovs forbid the supposition that the 
 Apostle is here speaking of the pre- 
 dictions of the Old Testament, even 
 if such a sense were otherwise likely. 
 (2) *To write up in public, to placard.' 
 It is the common word to describe 
 
 all public notices or proclamations, 
 e.g. Arist. Av. 450 o n av 7rpoypd(j)ai~ 
 p,€v iv Tois TTivaKiois : comp. Justm 
 Apol. ii. p. 52 B iav be vjxcls tovto 
 7rpoypdyj/r}Te, ^pels Tols iraa-i ^avepov 
 
 TToirjo-op^ev. These would sometimes 
 be notices of a trial or condemnation ; 
 comp. Jude 4 01 ndXaL irpoyeypapp-hot 
 €is TOVTO TO Kpt'/Ao, wlth Dcmosth. p. 
 1 151 Tovs irpyrdveis Trpoypdcftetv avT(o 
 Tr}V Kpiatv €7rX dvo ^p.4pas, Plut. Camill. 
 9 Tr]S 8iK7)s 'TTpoyeypajxp.hrjs '. 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 {(Saa-icdvLOV or irpo^aorKdviov, 
 Epist. Jer. 69) against aU Judaic sor- 
 ceries. The compound verb trpoypd- 
 (j)€tv seems never to be used of painf- 
 i7ig, as some take it here. 
 
 iv vpiv is omitted after npoeypdcjir} 
 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 ols KaT 6<f)6aXpovSi and to be 
 taken with irpoeypd(f>7}. 
 
 2j 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 f To what purpose then did ye 
 suffer persecution from these carnal 
 teachers of the law? Will ye now 
 
111.3,4] EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 135 
 
 ^ oi/Tws dv6f]T0L icre ; evap^dfxevot TrvevfixaTi vvv 
 aapKL eTTiTeXela'de ; ^TOcravTa eTrddere eiKri ; el *ye 
 
 stultify your past sufferings ? I can- 
 not believe that ye will/ 
 
 2. cLKoijs] in itself may mean either 
 
 * a hearing ' or *a report.' For the latter 
 sense see Rom. x. i6, quoted from 
 the Lss of Is. liii. i. The former 
 meaning however is more probable 
 here, as presenting a better contrast 
 to cpycov which requires some word 
 expressing the part taken by the Ga- 
 latians themselves :comp. iThess.ii. 13. 
 
 TTLa-Tcais'] ' which comes of faith^ 
 the subjective genitive. The parallel- 
 ism of Rom. X. 17, apa Tj irla-Tis i^ 
 OLKorjs, rj 8e aKorj dia pijfiaTOS, is only 
 apparent. A true parallel is the phrase 
 viraKorj Trtorecos, Rom. i. 5, xvi. 26. At 
 all events Trtorew? cannot be consi- 
 dered equivalent to ttjs iria-Teas (see 
 on i. 23), taken as an objective geni- 
 tive, with the sense 'listening to the 
 doctrines of the faith.' 
 
 3. ovTws] refers to what follows: 
 
 * How senseless to reverse the natural 
 order of things ! ' 
 
 evap^aficvoL eVtreXeto-^e] These WOrds 
 
 occur together 2 Cor. viii. 6, Phil. i. 6. 
 Both of them, the former especially, 
 are employed of religious ceremonials, 
 and it is possible that the idea of a 
 sacrifice may underlie their use here. 
 For ivapx^a-Qat of the initiatory rites 
 see Pollux viii. 83, and comp. e.g. 
 Eur. Iph. Aul. 1471 ; for ^Tnrekiiv 
 Herod, ii. 63 {dva-las, evx(oXds), iv. 186 
 {vrja-reias kol opras). 
 
 eTTLTeXeia-de is perhaps the middle 
 voice rather than the passive, as in 
 Clem. Rom. § 55 iroWalywalKes ev8vv- 
 apcodeXo'aL. . .iTreTeXiiravTO TroWadvdpcta, 
 and frequently in classical writers, 
 e.g. Plat. Phil. 27 c kolXXlov av koI ttjv 
 Kpi(rtp €7nT€X€craLp.€6a. 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- TO(TavTa eTrdBere et/c?);] 'did y& 
 suffer so much in vain?\ referring 
 to the persecutions endured by them. 
 For similar appeals to sufferings un- 
 dergone see Gal. v. 11, i Cor. xv. 32, 
 and comp. i Thess. ii. 14. The history 
 indeed says nothing of persecutions in 
 Galatia, but then it is equally silent 
 on all that relates to the condition of 
 the Galatian Churches : and while the 
 converts to the faith in Pisidia and 
 Lycaonia on the one side (Acts xiv, 
 2) 5) 19, 22), and in proconsular Asia 
 on the other (2 Cor. i. 8, Acts xix. 23 
 sq.), were exposed to suffering, it is 
 improbable that the Galatians alone 
 should have escaped. If we suppose, 
 as is most likely, that the Jews were 
 the chief instigators in these per- 
 secutions, St Paul's appeal becomes 
 doubly significant. 
 
 On the other hand, eTrdOere has 
 been interpreted in a good sense, as 
 if referring to the spiritual blessings 
 of the Galatians : but irda-x^i'V seems 
 never to be so used in the New Testa- 
 ment; and indeed such a rendering 
 would be harsh anywhere, unless the 
 sense were clearly defined by the con- 
 text, as it is for instance in Jos. Ant. 
 iii. 15. I Tov Beov v7rop.vrj(rai p.€v o(ra 
 7raB6vT€s i^ avTov kol Trr}XLKa>v evepye- 
 (na>v fxeraXa^ovTes k.t.X. 
 
 ehrj'] 'in vain^ 'You despise that 
 liberty in Christ for which you then 
 suffered ; you listen to those teachers, 
 whom you then resisted even to per- 
 secution.' 
 
 et ye Koi etV^j Hf it be really in 
 vain.^ It is hard to believe this ; the 
 Apostle hopes better things of his 
 converts. Et ye leaves a loophole for 
 doubt, and kol widens this, implying 
 an unwilhngness to believe on the part 
 of the speaker. Hermann's distinction 
 {ad Viger. p, 834) that etye assumes 
 the truth of a proposition while ewrep 
 leaves it doubtful, requires modifying 
 
1 3*5 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [III. 5-7 
 
 Kai eiKi], ^o ovv eTri'Xpprj'yayv vijIv to Trvevjua Kai evep- 
 ydov Sui/a/x€i9 eV v/ulIv, e^ epywv vofxov rj i^ dKofj's 
 7riO"T€W9 ; ^Ka6(i)9 'ABpAAM In I CTeyceN tco ©eo) kai 
 
 eAoriC0H AYTCO €IC AlKAIOCYNHN. 
 
 ^ytvcoCKeTe apa 
 
 before it is applied to the New Testa- 
 ment, where ctTrep is, if anything, more 
 directly affirmative than etye. The 
 alternative rendering, *If it is only in 
 vain and not worse than in vain,' 
 seems harsh and improbable. 
 
 5. The question asked in ver. 2 in- 
 volved the contrast of faith and works. 
 This contrast suggests two other 
 thoughts ; (i) 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' 
 
 o eVixopT^ywi/] ''He that supplieth 
 hountiftdb/ ; comp. Phil. i. 19 eVtxo- 
 prjyias tov Trvevfiaros 'lT](rov Xptorou. 
 Even the simple word implies more 
 or less of liberality^ and the com- 
 pound iiTLxopriyfiv expresses this idea 
 more strongly. See 2 Pet. i. 5 eVtxo- 
 prjyqcraTe iv rfj ttIo-tcl Vfioav Trjv dpcTT]v, 
 and compare the use of the substan- 
 tive eiTLxopijyTjua in Athen. iv. p. 140 
 €7raiKKa pev Xeyerat ravraj ovra olov 
 iTnxopTjyrjpaTa tov crvvTCTaypevov rols 
 ^etStVat? diKkov, i.e. the luxuries, the 
 superfluities of the meal. 
 
 iv€pyS>v bvvdp,€LS iv vplv"] Comp. 
 I Cor. xii. 10 ivepyripara bvvdp^iov 
 (with w. 28, 29), Matt. xiv. 2 ai bwd- 
 peis €V€pyova-tv iv avr^ (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. i Cor. 
 xii. 6 o 5e avTos Qeos 6 ivepyav ra 
 irdvra iv iraa-Lv. 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 
 I Cor. xii. 10, and the general use of 
 bvvdpcLs, point rather to the former. 
 It is important to notice how here, as 
 in the Epistle to the Corinthians, St 
 Paul assumes the possession of these 
 extraordinary powers by his converts 
 as an acknowledged fact. 
 
 The verb which disappears in the 
 ellipsis is to be supplied from the 
 foregoing participles ; * does He do so 
 from works etc.,' as in 2 Cor. iii. 11, 
 Kom. 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 hseretica industria 
 eraserit, mentiouem scilicet Abrahse,' 
 and Hieron. ad loc. 
 
 Kadas] The answer to the question 
 asked in the former verse is assumed, 
 'Surely of faith: and so it was with 
 Abraham.' KaOo^s, though not a good 
 Attic word, is common in later Greek; 
 see Lobeck Phryn. p. 425. 
 
 ^A^paap €7rLo-Tevo-€V k.t.X.] from the 
 Lxx of Gen. xv. 6. The Hebrew has 
 in the second clause HpHV 1? nSK^rfl 
 *and (He) imputed it to him (for) 
 righteousness.' It is quoted as in the 
 Lxx also in Rom. iv. 3, James ii. 23, 
 Clem. Rom. § 10, Justin Dial. c. Tryph. 
 § 119. The passage is cited also in 
 Barnab. § 13, but too loosely and with 
 too obvious an infusion of St Paul's 
 language to allow of any inference as 
 to the text used by the writer. 
 
 On the use made of this passage 
 by Jewish writers and on the faith of 
 Abraham see p. 158 sq. 
 
III. 8-10] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 137 
 
 OTL ol e/c 7ri<TT€a)^y ovtoi vloi €L<rLV 'AfipadjuL, ^Trpo'i- 
 Sovaa ^e ri ypacbri . OTi e/c TricTTeto^ SiKaioT Ta edvr] 6 
 Qeosy TTpoevrjyyeXio'aTO tw 'A/SpaajUL oti eNeyAorH- 
 
 ' WOTTe OL €K 
 
 GhicONTAI eN col HANTA TA €0NH. 
 
 TTicrrews euXoyovvTut orvv tw irKTTio 'Afipaa/m, ^°bcroL 
 
 7. Qvroi elffiv viol 'A^padfi. 
 
 7. The promise to Abraham, which 
 in the passage of Genesis introduces 
 the words just quoted, is the link of 
 connexion with what follows. 
 
 7, 8, 9. 'An offspring, countless as 
 the stars, was promised to Abraham. 
 Abraham believed, aod his faith was 
 accepted as righteousness. Who then 
 are these promised sons of Abraham ? 
 Those surely who inherit Abraham's 
 faith. Hence the declaration of the 
 scripture that all the Gentiles should 
 be blessed in him. These are the 
 words of foresight discerning that God 
 justifies the Gentiles by faith; for 
 so only could they be blessed in Abra- 
 ham. We conclude therefore that the 
 faithful and the faithful alone share 
 the blessing with him.' 
 
 ytvco'o-Kere] ^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 yiv(o(rK€Lv (Ho perceive' rather 
 than *to know' ; see the note iv. 8, 9) ; 
 
 COmp. I John ii. 29 iav dBrjre oTi 81- 
 Kaios ecTTLV, yivco(rK€T€ OTI iras 6 Trotav 
 Tr]v biKaioa"uvr}v i^ avTov yeyevvTjrai. On 
 the other hand, for the imperative see 
 Heb. xiii. 23. 
 
 ol eK TTLo-recos] *they whose starting- 
 point, whose fundamental principle is 
 faith.' Comp. Rom. ii. 8 ol e| ipLdelasj 
 Rom. iv. 14 ot eK vofxov. 
 
 8. 7} 7pa<^7j] Hhe scripture^ per- 
 sonified. This instance stands by itself 
 in the New Testament, the personifi- 
 cation elsewhere not going beyond 
 
 Xeyct or clTrev^ or such expressions as 
 a-vveK\€i(T€v, ver. 22. The attributing 
 'sight' to the sacred writings is how- 
 ever found in a not uncommon Jewish 
 formula of reference nxi HD, ^Quid 
 vidit?' see Schottgen here. On the 
 meaning of ypafprj, ' a passage of Scrip- 
 ture,' see the note iii. 22. 
 
 diKaiol] The tense denotes the cer- 
 tainty of God's dealings, the sure ac- 
 complishment of His purpose, as if it 
 were actually present : see on i Thess. 
 V, 2, and Winer § xi. 2, p. 280. 
 
 TTpoevTjyyeXlo-aTo] The promise to 
 Abraham was an anticipation of the 
 Gospel, not only as announcing the 
 Messiah, but also as involving the 
 doctrine of righteousness by faith. 
 
 ivevKoyrjQrjo-QVTai K.r.X.] A fusion 
 
 of the two passages, Gen. xii. 3 kol 
 \iv\ev\oyr)drj<TOVTai iv <to\ Trcurat al ^u- 
 \a\ rfjs yrjsy and Gen. xviii. 18 koX 
 ev€v\oyr]6T](rovTai iv avrcd {^A{3paafj.) 
 
 TTQVTa TO. €0vr} TTis y^Sy lu both of whlch 
 the Lxx agrees with the Hebrew. 
 Comp. Clem. Rom. § xo. 
 
 iv o-ot] Hn thee^ as their spiritual 
 progenitor. 
 
 10, II, 12. Having shown by po- 
 sitive proof that justification is of 
 faith, he strengthens his position by 
 the negative argument derived from 
 the impossibility of maintaining its 
 opposite, justification by law. This 
 negative argument is twofold : First, 
 It is impossible to fulfil the require- 
 ments of the law, and the non-fulfil- 
 ment lays us under a curse (ver. 10): 
 Secondly, Supposing the fulfilment 
 possible, still the spirit of the law is 
 antagonistic to faith, which is else- 
 
138 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. [III. 11 
 
 yap e^ epycov vofxov ela-iv, vtto KUTapav ei(riv, ye- 
 
 ypuTTTai yap otl eniKATAp<\TOc hac, oc oyk Im- 
 
 MfcNei HACIN TOIC ferpAMMeNOIC eN TO) BiBAi'o) 
 TOY NOMOY, TOY nOIHCAl AYTA. " OTl ^6 €V VOfXCO 
 
 ovSek ZiKaiovTai wapa tco Qew BfjXoPy otl 6 A i k a i o c 
 
 where spoken of as the source of life 
 (w. II, 12). 
 
 lOj II. 'On the other hand all who 
 depend on works of law are under a 
 curse. This the Scripture itself de- 
 clares. It utters an anathema against 
 all who fail to fidfil every single ordi- 
 nance contained in the book of the law. 
 Again the same truth, that the law does 
 not justify in the sight of God, appears 
 from another Scripture which declares 
 that the just shaU live by faith.' 
 
 10. o(rot e^ epyoiv vofxav ela-iu] ^ those 
 who are of works of lawj whose cha- 
 racter is founded on works of law. 
 
 €7nKaTdpaT0£ k.tX] 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, iiriKarapaTos 
 iras avdpcoTros os ovk efifxeuec iv Tracriv 
 rois^oyois Tov vop-ov rovrov tov iroifjo'ai 
 avTovs. For Totff XoyoiS" tov vofMov tov- 
 TOV a slight modification is introduced 
 by St Paul, that the sentence may ex- 
 plain itself. The words ttos-, naa-iv, 
 are absent in the Hebrew, though the 
 former is found in the Peshito, and 
 the latter in the Samar. Pentat. Je- 
 rome in this passage, referring to 
 the Samaritan reading, attributes the 
 omission to a wilful corruption of the 
 text on the part of the Jews, 'ne vi- 
 derentur esse sub maledicto.' The 
 charge is of course unfounded, but it is 
 an interesting notice of the state of the 
 text in hia day. Justin, Dial. § 95, 
 p. 322 0, quotes the passage exactly in 
 the words of St Paul, though differing 
 from Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, and Sa- 
 maritan texts, and applies it in the 
 same way : see above, p. 60, and the 
 
 note on ver. 13. 
 
 II. The same proposition proved 
 in another way; 8e, *Then again.' 
 
 o dUaLos 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), n^n^ "imiDXn p'^^'^J 
 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 
 iav v7ro(TreO\.r}TaLj ovk evdoKel q '^vxtj 
 fiov iv aUTQ), ode dticaLos fJ-ov €k TrtVrcoJS" 
 (or eK TTLO-Tecos fJLOv) fjyorerat : see below, 
 p. 156. The author of the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews, who gives both clauses 
 of the verse, though reversing the or- 
 der, quotes from the lxx (see JBleek, 
 Heb. 1. c). 
 
 It will thus be seen that in the first 
 clause of the verse, the lxx, though it 
 makes excellent sense, diflFers widely 
 from the Hebrew. In the second 
 clause again the Hebrew word njlOX 
 is not directly * faith,' meaning 'trust, 
 behef,' but 'steadfastness, faithful- 
 ness.' The context however justifies 
 TTiVrts-, 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 5 6, note 4. Targum 
 Jon. has tintOE^Ip, '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- 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 139 
 
 HI. 12, 13] 
 
 €K TTICTeOOC ZHCeTAT "o 8e VOfJLO^ OVK eCTLV €/C 
 
 TTLO'TeW^y dW 6 nOlHCAC AYTA ZHCeTAI 6N AYToTc. 
 
 ^^XpLCTTO^ Yifxa^ e^fiyopacrev e/c t?}s KaTapa^ tov i^Ofxov, 
 yepo/mei/o^ VTrep ^fxav Karapa, otl yeypaiTTai e n 1- 
 
 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. 4ij in which context (ver. 39, iv 
 Tovra Tras 6 7ria'T€vcov diKacovTai) there 
 is perhaps a tacit allusion to the words 
 o dUaios K.T.X. quoted here. 
 
 12. 'Faith is not the starting-point 
 of the law. The law does not take 
 faith as its fundamental principle. On 
 the other hand, it rigidly enforces the 
 performance of all its enactments.' 
 
 o 7roiT]a-as k.tX.] 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 avra is 
 explained by the words which in the 
 original text precede the passage 
 quoted, Travra to. Trpoo-Toyfiard fxov kol 
 •jTCLvra TO. Kplixard p.ov, and with which 
 St Paul assumes a familiarity in his 
 readers. 
 
 13. 'Christ ransomed us from this 
 curse pronounced by the law, Himself 
 taking our place and becoming a curse 
 for our sakes : for so says the Scrip- 
 ture, Cursed is every one that hang- 
 eth on the gibbet.' 
 
 iJjLtas] The Apostle is here thinking 
 of the dehverance of himself and the 
 Jewish race : see to. eOprj, ver. 14. 
 
 i^Tjyopaa-ev] This verb has two 
 meanings, (i) 'To redeem, ransom/ 
 especially from slavery: this is its 
 general signification: see the refer- 
 ences in Dindorf 's Steph. Thes. (2) ' To 
 buy up/ as Polyb. iii. 42. 2, a some- 
 what exceptional sense. The former 
 meaning is required here and iv. 5 : 
 the latter seems best suited to Ephes. 
 
 V. 16, Col. iv. 5) ^0'' Kaipov i^ayopa- 
 
 Karapa] as 2 Cor. V. 21 rov pLrj yvovra 
 dfJiapTLav VTvkp ■^p.atv dp,apTiav i'iToir)(T€V : 
 comp. Prot&c. Jac. § 3, where Anna, 
 complaining of her barrenness says, 
 Kordpa eyev^drjv eyai €v<07riov rav vISp 
 *Ia-paT]X. 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 OTTO TOV aifiaros tov Trjs afxapTiaSy 
 and iv. 29 CTrid^a-ei ttjv x^^P^ avTov 
 6771 TTju Ke<f>aXrjp tov dfiapTij fxaTos 
 avTov, In Hebrew nSDn is both a 
 'sin' and a * sin-offering.' Counter- 
 parts to these types of the Great 
 Sacrifice are found also among hea- 
 then nations, e.g. the Athenians, Arist. 
 Man. ''j-^% Lysias Andoc. p. io8 0ap- 
 fxaKop aTroTrefjLTrGiv koi oKirqpiov dirdK- 
 XdTTecrdatj and especially the Egyp- 
 tians, Herod, ii. 39 Ke^aXrj fie KelpTj 
 (i.e. of the victim) TroXXd KaTaprj- 
 o-dp.€VOL (f)ipova-L...KaTap4opTaL 8e 
 Tade XeyovTes T^crt K€(j>aX7Jo-ij el ti p,iX~ 
 
 Xoi -q (T<f)l(rL Tols BvOVO'L r] AtyUTTTQ) TTJ 
 
 o-upairda-j} KaKov yeveaSaL, els K€(f)aXriv 
 TavTTjp Tpaireadat. 
 
 yeypaTTTai] in Deut. xxi. 23, where 
 the LXX runs KeKaT7}pap.€vos vito Qeov 
 Tras Kp€p.dp.€vos iTri ^vKov. The passage 
 is quoted by Justin, Dial, p. 323 c, 
 
I40 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [III. 14 
 Lva eis 
 
 KATAp(\TOc nAC d KpGMAMeNOc en"i lyAOY, ^"^ 
 
 14. ^y 'I7;a'o0 'KpicT^. 
 
 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 Karapa. But He was in 
 no literal sense Karaparos vtto Qeov, 
 and St Paul instinctively omits those 
 words which do not strictly apply, and 
 which, if added, would have required 
 some qualification. 
 
 14. 'Thus the law, the great bar- 
 rier which excluded the Gentiles, is 
 done away in Christ. By its removal 
 the Gentiles are put on a level with us 
 Jews; and, so united, we and they 
 alike receive the promise in the gift 
 of the Spirit through our faith.' The 
 sequence of thought here is exactly 
 the same as in Ephes. ii. 14 — 18: see 
 also Gal. iv. 5. 
 
 As regards the construction, either 
 (i) 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 cva is attached to 
 the first, expressing the moral de- 
 pendence of the one on the other. The 
 passage from the Ephesians already 
 I'eferred to favours the latter. 
 
 TT^v iivayyckiav 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 iTvayyekia not vttoo-x^o-ls^ *pol- 
 licitum' not ^promissum,' a gift gra- 
 ciously bestowed and not a pledge 
 obtained by negotiation. Indeed the 
 substantive enayyeXla is scarcely ever 
 used (Acts xxiii. 21 is an excep- 
 tion) of anything else but the divine 
 
 promise. The phrase Xafz^dveiv rrju 
 eTrayycXiav 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 eirt- 
 Tvyxa^etv rrjs eTvayyiKlas Heb. vi. 15, 
 7r€pL[i€V€tv TTjv eTTayyeXlav, Acts i. 4* 
 
 With this use of iirayyeXla, compare 
 that of eXTTiff, TTia-TLSj 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'1 
 The form of expression denotes unity. 
 It must have its fulfilment in some 
 07ie person. This person is Christ. 
 Thus it was unfulfilled when the law 
 came. Between the giving of the 
 promise then and the fulfilment of 
 it, the law intervened. And coming 
 many hundred years after, it was 
 plainly distinct from the promise, it 
 did not interpret the terms of the 
 promise. Thus the law cannot set 
 aside the promise. Yet this would 
 be done in effect, if the inheritance 
 could only be obtained by obedience 
 to the law; since the promise itself 
 imposed no such condition,' 
 
 15. ' Pi.be\(f)oiy Brethren.'' There is 
 a touch of tenderness in the appeal 
 here, as if to make amends for the 
 severity of the foregoing rebuke, iii, 
 I sq. : comp. iv. 31, vi. i. 
 
 Kara avOpairou Xeyco] '/ speak after 
 the manner of m,en, I argue from 
 the practice of men'; see Rom. iii. 5, 
 I Cor. ix. 8, and Rom. vi. 19 dv6pa~ 
 
III. 15] EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 141 
 
 'Ifjcrov, iva tyiv eTrayyeXiap rod Trpevfxaro^ \a(iw^ev 
 hia Trj^ TTLCTTea}^, 
 
 ^^ASe\d)0i5 Kara dvOpwTrop Xeyco. o/jlco^ dvQpooTTOV 
 KeKvpcofxevrjv dLa6f]Kf]V ovdek ddeTel rj eTTiZiaTaao'erai, 
 
 TTivov Xeyo). Comp. also I Cor. iii. 3 
 Kara avOpcoTrov TreptTraretre, Gal. i. II, 
 I Cor. XV. 32 el Kara avSpajwov idijpio- 
 fidxqa-a K.T.X., 'If from nothing more 
 than worldly motives I fought with 
 beasts etc.,' where the false interpre- 
 tation of Kara avQpaircov, ^metaphori- 
 cally/ has been supported by the mis- 
 taken analogy of the passage in our 
 text. For the usage of Kara avdpoa- 
 1T0V in profane authors see the quo- 
 tations in Wetstein on -Rom. iii. 5. 
 
 o/xwff dv6pa7vov\ The force is well 
 given in the A. V., 'though it be but 
 a man's covenant,' i.e. Kaiwep dvOpaiirov 
 ovcrav, ofi<os k.t.X.; comp. I Cor. siv. 7 
 o/AGOff TO ayj/'vxo- (payprjv fitSoyra, Paiisan. 
 i. 28. I KvXtova. . .dveSecrav rvpavviha 
 ofxms ^ovXeva-apTa. In classical writers 
 this displacement of ofxco^, so as to 
 connect it with the word or clause to 
 which it applies, appears to occur 
 chiefly, if not solely, with participles, 
 and not as here and i Cor. xiv. 7. 
 
 The argument is here an a fortiori 
 argument, as those of our Lord drawn 
 from the affection of a human father 
 (Luke xi. 11 sq.) and from the com- 
 pHance of a human judge (Luke xviii. 
 I sq.). See esp. Heb. vi. 16. The 
 a fortiori character of the reasoning 
 however is dismissed in the single 
 word ofxas, except so far as it is 
 picked up again in tov Beov (ver. 17), 
 and does not reappear, as some have 
 thought, in 6s co-tlv Xpto-ros. 
 
 bi.a6riK7)v\ ^a covenant.^ This word 
 (frequently in the plural dLadrjKai) in 
 classical writers almost always signi- 
 fies *a will, a testament.' There are 
 some few exceptions, however, e.g. 
 
 Arist. Av. 439 rjv p.ri hadavrai y otSe 
 
 bcadi^KTjv efjLoL On the other hand in 
 the Lxx it is as universally used of 
 a covenant (most frequently as a trans- 
 
 lation of nn:!), whether as a stipula- 
 tion between two - parties {awOrjKr}, 
 'a covenant' in the strict sense) or 
 as an engagement on the part of one. 
 Nor in the New Testa ment is it 
 ever found in any other sense, with 
 one exception. Even in this excep- 
 tional case, Heb. ix. 15 — 17, the sa- 
 cred writer starts from the sense of a 
 'covenant,' and glides into that of a 
 * testament,' to which he is led by two 
 points of analogy, (i) the inheritance 
 conferred by the covenant, and (2) the 
 death of the person making it. 'The 
 disposition in this case,' he says in 
 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. 
 § II, p. 228 B. Owing partly to the 
 passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 and partly to the influence of the Latin 
 version, which ordinarily rendered the 
 word by Hestamentum' (as here), the 
 idea of a testament connected itself 
 inseparably with biaOrjK-q. 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. ad/-. Marc. 
 iv. I, and comp. Kaye's Tertullian 
 p, 299. The LXX translators and the 
 New Testament writers probably pre- 
 ferred diadi^KT] to a-vvOrjKrj when speak- 
 ing of the divine dispensation, be- 
 cause the former term, like eVayye- 
 Xto, better expresses the free grace 
 of God. The later Greek translators 
 frequently substituted a-vvB-qK-q, where 
 the LXX has ha6i]K% sometimes per- 
 haps not without a polemical aim. 
 
142 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, [III. i6 
 
 ^ TO) de 'Afipaafx eppedrjcraj/ al eTrayyeXiai, k a 1 t a> 
 c n e p M A T I avTOV, ov Xeyei kaI toTc cnepMAciN a5s 
 
 ddcTet] Comp. Philo Fragm. ii. p. 
 
 675 M aKka oTi tJ hia6i)KJt\ dBereiTaL. 
 
 eVtSmrao-o-erat] ''adds fresh clauses! 
 Virtually the doctrine of the Judaizers 
 was the annulling of the promise (d^e- 
 Tr\(Tis) ; apparently it was but the im- 
 posing new conditions {eTrididTa^cs). 
 On either showing it was a violation 
 of the covenant. The meaning of im- 
 diaTda-a-ea-dai is partially illustrated by 
 eiridLadjJKr], which signifies 'a second 
 will/ Joseph. B. J. ii. 2. 3 d^tav ttjs 
 
 iTribiaOrjKrjs rrjv btadrjKqv civai KvptonTe- 
 
 pav, and § 6, Ant. xvii. 9. 4. 
 
 16. ippiSrja-av] For the form see 
 Lobeck Phryn. p. 447, Buttmann 
 Aiisf. Sprachl. 11. p. 165. 
 
 iitayyeklai] The plural, for the pro- 
 mise was several times repeated to 
 Abraham : comp. Rom. ix. 4, and esp. 
 Clem. Rom. § 10, A question has 
 been raised as to the particular pas- 
 sage to which St Paul refers. In an- 
 swering this question it should be 
 observed, (i) That the words must be 
 spoken to Abraham himself, and not to 
 one of the later patriarchs ; (2) That koI 
 must be part of the quotation. These 
 considerations restrict the reference 
 to Gen. xiii. 15, xvii. 8, either of which 
 passages satisfies these conditions. It 
 is true that in both alike the inherit- 
 ance spoken of refers primarily to 
 the possession of the land of Canaan, 
 but the spiritual application here is 
 only in accordance with the general 
 analogy of New Testament interpreta- 
 tion. See above on ver, 11. 
 
 Qv \eyet] seems to be used imper- 
 sonally, like the Attic ^t/o-I in quoting 
 legal documents, the nominative be- 
 ing lost sight of. If so, we need not 
 enquire whether 6 Behs or 7; ypa^trj is 
 to be understood. Comp. Xeyet, Rom. 
 XV. 10, Ephes. iv. 8, v. 14 ; and (pijcrlvj 
 I Cor. vi. 16, 2 Cor. x. 10 (v. 1.). 
 
 Ka\ rots (TTripixaa-iv k.t.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 
 yiT (the word here rendered cnrepfjia) 
 is only used to signify * grain ' or *crops,' 
 e.g. I Sam. viii. 15, the sacred writer 
 could not under any circumstances 
 have said 'seeds as of many.* Nor is 
 it a complete answer to this objection 
 that the same word in Ohaldee is 
 several times used in the plural in the 
 sense which it has here; Gen. x. 18, 
 Josh. vii. 14, Jer. xxxiii. 34. But the 
 very expression in St Paul, which starts 
 the objection, supphes the answer also. 
 It is quite as unnatural to use the 
 Greek crrrepfiaTa with this meaning, as 
 to use the Hebrew D''l?"lT. No doubt 
 by a forced and exceptional usage 
 (TirepfxaTa might be so employed, as 
 in Plato Legg. ix. 853 avQptoTroi re 
 KCLi dv6pa>7ra>v (TTrep/iacrA vop.o6GTOvfj.eVj 
 4 Mace. § 17 oj T^v 'A^papiaioiv (Tirep- 
 p.dra>v aTToyovoi Traibes *l(rparj\'iTaij but 
 SO might the corresponding word in 
 almost any language. This fact points 
 to St PauFs meaning. He is not lay- 
 ing stress on the particular word used, 
 but on the fact that a singular noun 
 of some kind, a collective term, is 
 employed, where to. rsKva or ot diro- 
 yovoi for instance might have been 
 substituted. Avoiding the technical 
 terms of grammar, he could not ex- 
 press his meaning more simply than 
 by the opposition, 'not to thy seeds, 
 but to thy seed.^ A plural substan- 
 tive would be inconsistent with the 
 interpretation given; the singular col- 
 lective noun, if it admits of plurality 
 (as it is interpreted by St Paul him- 
 self, Rom. iv. 18, ix. 7), at the same 
 time involves the idea of unity. 
 
 The question therefore is no longer 
 one of grammatical accuracy, but of 
 theological interpretation. Is this a 
 
III. 17] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 143 
 
 eTTi TToWtoVy d\K oJs ed)' evo^ k a 1 tco c n e p m a t i' coy, 
 KeKvpcofxevrjv vtto tov Qeov 6 fxera TeTpaKoaia Kal 
 
 legitimate sense to assign to the seed 
 of Abraham ? Doubtless by the seed 
 of Abraham was meant in the first 
 instance the Jewish people, as by the 
 inheritance was meant the land of 
 Canaan; but in accordance with the 
 analogy of Old Testament types and 
 symbols, the term involves two second- 
 ary meanings. First; "With a true spi- 
 ritual instinct, though the conception 
 embodied itself at times in strangely 
 grotesque and artificial forms, even 
 the rabbinical writers saw that *the 
 Christ' was the true seed of Abra- 
 ham. In Him the race was summed 
 up, as it were. In Him it fulfilled 
 its purpose and became a blessing to 
 the whole earth. Without Him its 
 separate existence as a peculiar peo- 
 ple had no meaning. Thus He was 
 not only the representative, but the 
 embodiment of the race. In this way 
 the people of Israel is the type of 
 Christ; and in the New Testament 
 parallels are sought in the career of 
 the one to the life of the other. (See 
 especially the application of Hosea 
 xi. I 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, Eom. 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. 
 
 eVi TToXXcSi'] See "Winer § xlvii. p. 393. 
 
 OS iariv XptcrTos] For the attrac- 
 tion see Winer § xxiv. p. 206 sq. 
 
 17. TovTo be \eyco] *Now what I 
 mean, what I vpish to say, is this.' 
 The inference has been hitherto only 
 hinted at indirectly; it is now stated 
 plainly. Comp. i Cor. i. 12 Xeyo Se 
 
 TOVTOj OTl ^KaO-TOS K,T.X. lU botll paS- 
 
 sages the A. V. gives a wrong turn to 
 the expression, translating it, Hhis I 
 say.' See also [Clem. Rom.] ii. §§ 2, 8, 1 2. 
 
 7rpoK€Kvpcii^evj]v] The Confirmation 
 spoken of is not an act separate in 
 time and subsequent to the covenant 
 itself. The idea present to St Paid's 
 mind is explained by Heb. vi. 17, 18. 
 
 els XpKTTov found in the received 
 text after tov GeoG must be struck 
 out as a gloss. The balance of autho- 
 rity is decidedly against it. 
 
 TerpaKoa-ia k.t.\.^ 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, tJ Se /car- 
 
144 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [III. 1 8 
 
 TpiaKOVTa eTt] yeyoi/co^ po/jlo'S ovk aKvpoi eis to KaT- 
 
 i8 
 
 apyfjcat tyiv eTTwyyeXiav. "^""et yap e/c i/o^ov t] 
 KXf^povojJiia^ ouKert ip eirayyeXia^' tw he 'Appaafx 
 
 OLKT}(Tts Twv vlufv 'iff-poijX ^v KaTaKr)(rav 
 iv yfj Alyvirra kol iv yfj Xavaav err} 
 TcrpaKocria rpiaKovra Ttivre (the last 
 word however being erased). The 
 Alex. MS reads irapoUTja-is, napo^Kija-av, 
 adds after Xavaav the words avrol kol 
 ol TTorepep avrav, SO as to bring out the 
 revised chronology more clearly, and 
 omits Trevre. The Samar. Pent, takes 
 the same view, agreeing in its reading 
 vrith 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 A7it. ii. 15. 2, by the 
 Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, and sub- 
 stantially by the Book of Jubilees 
 (Ewald Jahrh. in. p. Tj). On the other 
 hand in St Stephen's speech (Acts vii. 
 6), and in Philo {Quis rer, div. her. § 54, 
 p. 511 m), Gen. XV, 13 is referred to, 
 which extends the sojourn in Egypt 
 over 400 years ; and this is the chrono- 
 logy adopted in other passages of Jose- 
 phus {Ant ii. 9. i^ B. J, v. 9. 4), who 
 is thus inconsistent with himself. The 
 Lxx translators may have inserted the 
 explanatory clause on grounds of inter- 
 nal criticism, or in deference to chrono- 
 logical records to which they had ac- 
 cess in Egypt. The 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. et yap K.r.X.] 'To abrogate and 
 annul the promise I say, for this is 
 the effect of making the inheritance 
 dependent on law.' The yap justifies 
 the expressions 'abrogate,' 'annul,' of 
 the previous verses. No/ios and eVay- 
 y^Xla are used without the article, as 
 describing two opposing principles. 
 
 ovKCTi] is here logical, 'this being 
 once granted, it is not etc.,' as Rom. 
 vii. 17, xi. 6. "Ert is so used fre- 
 quently. 
 
 Kcx^picrTai'\ '•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 ? Tes : but its very purpose, its 
 whole character and history, betray 
 its inferiority to the dispensation of 
 grace. In four points this inferiority 
 is seen. First; Instead of justifying 
 it condemns, instead of giving life it 
 kiDs : 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.' 
 
 19. Tt ovv 6 voiios-] ^what then is the 
 law?\ as I Cor. iii. 5 ri ovv iarh 
 *A7roXk(os; tl Se eVrtv HavXos; the cor- 
 rect reading. Comp. also Rom. iii. i, 
 
 TCdv •jrapaj3d(r€a>v X^P"'] How is this 
 to be interpreted? Is it (i) 'To check 
 transgressions'? comp. Clem. Horn. xi. 
 
 16 TrapaTTTrnfiOLTav X^^P'^ V Tt/xwpm eWe- 
 
 Tot; or is it rather (2) 'To create trans- 
 gressions'? for 'where there is no law 
 there is no transgression' (Rom. iv. 1 5). 
 Thus law reveals (Rom. iii. 20), pro- 
 vokes (Rom. vii. 7, 1 3), multiplies (Rom. 
 V. 20) sin or transgression. The use 
 of x^P*"^ (comp. I Joh. iii. 12) is suffi- 
 
III. 19] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 14s 
 
 Bi €7rayyeXia£ Ke'^^upia'Tai 6 Geo?, ^^tl ovv 6 vofxo'5\ 
 Twv 7rapa/3d(rea)U X^P^^ TrpoaeTedrj ^ ^XP^^ ^^ eXdrj 
 TO (TTrep/uia w eTrriyyeXTaLy dtarayek St dyyeXwv ev 
 
 ciently wide to admit either meaning. 
 But the latter is to be preferred here ; 
 for (i) The language of the Epistle to 
 the Romans shows this to be St Paul's 
 leading conception of the purposes 
 and functions of the law ; and (2) This 
 sense seems to be required by the 
 expressions in the context, 'able to 
 give life' (ver. 21), * included all imder 
 sin' (ver. 22). Comp. ii. 19. 
 
 Trpoa-^TiBri] This reading, which is 
 much better supported than ireOr), 
 expresses more strongly the adven- 
 titious character of the law ; comp. 
 eViStarao-o-erat ver. 1 5, and Rom. v. 20 
 vo\i.os de TrapeKTrjXSev ha TrXeovdo-rj 
 TO 7rapa7TT(ofia. 
 
 TKOtj] For the omission of av see 
 A. Buttmann § 33, p. 198 ; for the con- 
 junctive, the note on rpexo) ii. 2. 
 
 TO <T7Tip(xa K.T.X] Hke Seed to whom 
 theprotnise has been givem^ i.e. Christ. 
 eTTTiyyeXTat is probably a passive, as 
 2 Mace. iv. 27. 
 
 Siarayet? hi ayyeXwv] ''Ordered, Or 
 
 administered hy the mediutn of 
 angels.^ The first mention of angels 
 in connexion with the giving of the 
 law is in the benediction of Moses, 
 
 Deut. xxxiii. 2 tnp nin"iD nnxi, 
 
 literally, 'and He came from (amidst) 
 myriads of hohness,' 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 ^^\> 
 with the L\x; but though the paral- 
 lelism gains by this, the sense thus 
 assigned to nnil is unsupported: 
 and Ewald, Gesch. des V. Isr. 11. 257, 
 still further changes DIlD") into nn^^D. 
 The Lxx render the words trvv fivpcao-i 
 Kdbi]Sj but introduce the angels in 
 the following clause €k B^^lcov avrov 
 ayyfXot p-fT avTov, where they must 
 
 GAL. 
 
 have had a difierent reading from our 
 present Hebrew text (see Gesen. Thes. 
 p. 358). Aquila, Symmachus, the Tar- 
 gums, and Jewish expositors generally, 
 agree in thecommonrenderingof 1133^ 
 ^np. Other allusions in the New 
 Testament to the angels as adminis- 
 tering the law are Acts vii. 53 eXa- 
 
 /3€T6 Tov vofiov cls SiOTayaff ayyekoiV 
 
 (comp. vv. 35, 38), Heb. ii. 2. See 
 also Joseph. Ant. xv. 5. 3 ^ftc5i/ fie to 
 KaXkia-Ta Tav doyp^arcov koX Ta ocnca- 
 TaTa Tcov ev toIs v6p.0LS bi dyyeXoiv 
 irapa tov Qeov fiadovTaVj Philo de 
 
 Somn. p. 642 M, and the Book of Ju- 
 bilees c. I (Ewald's Jahrh. 11. p. 233, 
 III. p. 74). The angels who assisted 
 in the giving of the law hold a very 
 important place in the later rabbinical 
 speculations. See the interpretation 
 of Deut. xxxiii. 2 in the Jerusalem 
 Targum, and the passages cited by 
 Gfrorer Jahrh. des Heils i. p. 226, 
 P- 357 sq., and by Wetstein here. 
 The theology of the schools having 
 thus enlarged upon the casual notices 
 in the Old Testament, a prominence 
 was given to the mediation of angels, 
 which would render St Paul's allusion 
 the more significant. 
 
 In St Stephen's speech (Acts vii. 53), 
 as in the passage of Josephus, the 
 angels are mentioned to glorify the 
 law, being opposed to mere human mi- 
 nisters. Here the motive is difierent. 
 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 {hi dyyikwv). St 
 Paul's contrast here between the di- 
 rectness of the one ministration and 
 the indirectness of the otlier has a 
 parallel in 2 Cor. iii. 12 sq. 
 
 10 
 
146 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. [III. 20, 21 
 
 X^^P^ im^alrov ^°6 Se fxeairt]^ ev6*i ovk ecTiUy 6 Se 
 0605 eh ear IV. ^^6 ovv po/jlo^ kutcc twv eTrayye- 
 
 iv x^''p'^'\ -^ Hebraism or Arama- 
 ism, nearly equivalent to bia : comp. 
 Acts vii. 35. It is a frequent lxx trans- 
 lation of T*l, occurring especially in 
 the expression iv xf^pi Mwuo^, e.g. 
 Num. iv. 37, 41, 45, etc. In Syriac we 
 meet with such phrases as {>jo5 i * *^ 
 (i.e. iv x^'P* TTViviiaros, Acts iv. 25, 
 Pesh.), "j^n iVn vm ^ > r-> (i.e. cV x^tpi 
 
 iria-recos, Hab. ii. 4, Hesapl.). 
 
 /Lteo-iTov] The mediator is Moses. 
 This is his common title in Jewish 
 writers. In the apocryphal dva^aa-is 
 or dvoKTjyjns Moses says to Joshua irpo- 
 cdeda-aro fie 6 Qeos irpo Kara^okrjs Koa- 
 fjLOV elvai fie rfjs biaBrjKT)^ avTov fxeo-i- 
 rrjv, Fabric. Cod. Pseud. V. T. i. p. 845. 
 See the rabbinical passages in Wet- 
 stein, and Philo Vit Mays. iii. 19, 
 p. 160 M Ota fJLeaiTrjs Koi diaXkaKT^s. 
 There would appear to be an allusion 
 to this recognised title of Moses also 
 in Heb. viii. 6 (comp. ix. 15, xii. 24), 
 where our Lord is styled 'a mediator 
 of a better covenant.' Though the 
 word itself does not occur in the Mo- 
 saic narrative, the mediatorial func- 
 tions of Moses appear clearly, e.g. 
 Exod. XX. 19, and Deut. v, 2, 5, Ku'- 
 pios 6 Beds vficdv biiOero irpbs vfjids dta- 
 Br)K-qv...Kdyai eia-riJKeiP dva fxecrov Kvpiov 
 KoX vfiav K.r.X. The reference in St 
 Paul seems to be to the first giving 
 of the law : if extended to its after 
 administration, the fiea-tTrjs would then 
 be the high priest; see Philo Mon. 
 ii, 12, p. 230 M fxeBbpLOV dfiCJiOLV iva dta 
 fxia-ov TLVos avOpatiroi IXdcTKcoprai, Qeov : 
 but this extension does not seem to 
 be contemplated here. 
 
 On the other hand Origan (rv. p. 692, 
 ed. Delarue), misled by i Tim. ii. 5, un- 
 derstood the mediator of Christ, and, 
 as usual, carried a vast number of 
 later commentators with liim. Thus 
 it is taken by Victorinus, Hilary, Je- 
 rome, Augustine, and Chrysostom. So 
 
 also Concil. Antioch. (Routh Rel.Sacr. 
 III. 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. 
 Hwr. vii. 31, p. 254. Basil however 
 clearly showed that Moses was meant, 
 referring to Exod. xx. 19, de Spir. 
 Sand. xiv. 33 (m. p. 27, Gamier), and 
 it was perhaps owing to his influence 
 that the correct interpretation was 
 reinstated. So Theodore Mops. , Theo- 
 doret, Gennadius; and comp. Bidym. in 
 Ps. pp. 1571, 1665 (Migne). Pela^us 
 gives the alternative. 
 
 It will be seen that St Paul's argu- 
 ment here rests in effect on our Lord's 
 divinity as its foundation. Otherwise 
 He would have been a mediator in 
 the same sense in which Moses was a 
 mediator. In another and a higher 
 sense St Paul himself so speaks of our 
 Lord (i Tim. ii. 5). 
 
 20. The number of interpretations 
 of this passage is said to mount up 
 to 250 or 300. Many of these arise 
 out of an error as to the mediator, 
 many more disregard the context, 
 and not a few are quite arbitrary. 
 Without attempting to discuss others 
 which are not open to any of these 
 objections, I shall give that which 
 appears to me the most probable. 
 The meaning of the first clause seems 
 tolerably clear, and the range of pos- 
 sibility with regard to the second is 
 not very great. 
 
 o de iie<TiT7)S ivos ovk ecrriv] ^no mB- 
 diator can be a mediator of one,* 
 The very idea of mediation supposes 
 two persons at least, between whom 
 the mediation is carried on. The law 
 then is of the nature of a contract 
 between two parties, God on the one 
 hand, and the Jewish people on the 
 other. It is only valid so long as 
 both parties fulfil the terms of the 
 contract. It is therefore contingent 
 
III. 22] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 147 
 
 Xiwv [tov Qeov^ ; jurj yevoiTO, el yap iSodtj vo/ulos 
 o ovvajjievo^ ^cooTTOifjo'aLj bvTw^ €k j/o/jlov [aV] rfp vi 
 CLKaioG-vvr]' ^*a\A.a crvveKXenrev ri ypacj)rj to, iravra 
 
 and not absolute. The definite article 
 with ii€o-LTr)s expresses the idea, the 
 specific type, as 2 Cor. xii. 12 to. o-t}- 
 ^ela TOV aTrocrroXoVj Joh. x. II o TrotfiTjv 
 6 Kokos: see Winer § xviii. p. 132. 
 
 o §e Geoff els ea-riv] ""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 nothing 
 of the nature of a stipulation. The 
 giver is everything, the recipient no- 
 thing. Thus the primary sense of 
 *one' here is numerical. The further 
 idea of unchangeableness may per- 
 haps be suggested ; but if so, it is 
 rather accidental than inherent. On 
 the other hand this proposition is 
 quite unconnected with the funda- 
 mental statement of the Mosaic law, 
 * The Lord thy God is one God,' though 
 resembling it in form. 
 
 21. 'Thus the law differs widely 
 from the promise. But does this dif- 
 ference imply antagonism ? Did the 
 law interfere with the promise ? Far 
 otherwise. Indeed we might imagine 
 such a law, that it would take the 
 place of the promise, would justify 
 and give life. This was not the effect 
 of the law of Moses.' 
 
 Tcou enayyeXiSv] The plural. See the 
 note on ver. 16. 
 
 vofxos 6 Svvdfievos] 'a law, such as 
 could] For the position of the arti- 
 cle see note i. 7, andcomp. Actsiv. 12. 
 
 fcooTTot^o-at] 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.' 
 
 (rvv€KK€L(T€u T^ ypacf)!]] Thc 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 genei'al tenour of Scrip- 
 ture than to any special text. But 
 the following facts seem to show that 
 the singular ypa(f>r} in the N.T. always 
 means a particular passage of Scrip- 
 ture; (i) where the reference is clearly 
 to the sacred writings as a whole, as 
 in the expressions, ' searching the 
 scriptures,' 'learned in the scriptures,' 
 etc., the plural ypa<f}aL is universally 
 found, e.g. Acts xvii. 11, xviii. 24, 28. 
 (2) We meet with such expressions 
 as 'another scripture' (Joh. xix. 37), 
 'this scripture' (Luke iv. 21), 'every 
 scripture' (2 Tim. iii. 16). (3) 'H 
 
 10 — 2 
 
148 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [III. 23, 24 
 
 VTTO dfxapTiav^ \va 7^ eTrayyeXia eK 7ri(rTew^ 'Irjaov 
 XptcTTOv Sodfj ToT'i TTtcTTevovo'Lv, ^^TTpo Tov he iXdsTv 
 TY]v TTLcrTiv, viTo vojxov iippovpovjULeda avvKXeiofJievoL eis 
 Tr]v jueWova'ap ttlo'tiv d7roKa\v(p6fj}/at, 
 
 ware o vo- 
 
 fxos 7raihaywy6'5 nfjiiov yeyovev eU Xpicroi^y \va e/c 
 
 ypa<f>ri is most frequently used in in- 
 troducing a particular quotation, and 
 in the very few instances where the 
 quotation is not actually given, it is 
 for the most part easy to fix the pas- 
 sage referred to. These instances are 
 Joh. ii. 22 (Ps. xvi. 10 ; see Acts ii. 
 27), Joh. xvii. 12 (Ps. xli, 10; see 
 Joh. xiii. 18), Joh. xix. 28 (Ps. Ixix. 
 22), Joh. XX. 9 (Ps. xvi. lo). The 
 biblical usage is followed also by the 
 earliest fathers. The transition from 
 the 'Scriptures' to the 'Scripture' is 
 analogous to the transition from to. 
 /St^Xt'a to the* Bible/ 
 
 o-vv€K\ci(r€v VTTO ajLtapTiav] i.e. Sub- 
 jected to the dominion of sin without 
 means of escape, a pregnant expres- 
 sion: COmp. Rom. xi. 32 aweKXcta-ev 
 yap 6 Qeos roifs iravras els OLTreldeiav Iva 
 TOvs Tvdvras iXe-qa-rj. The WOrd (TvyKXei- 
 
 €Lv seems never to mean simply Ho 
 include.' The A. V. has the more 
 correct but somewhat ambiguous ren- 
 dering 'conclude' here. ^vyKXeUiv els is 
 a common construction ; see Fritzsche 
 Bom. II. p. 545. 
 
 ra Travra] The neuter is naturally 
 used where the most comprehensive 
 term is wanted: comp. i Cor. i. 27, 
 Col. i. 20, Ephes. i. 10. 
 
 iva] The consciousness of sin is a 
 necessary step towards justification. 
 See note ii. 19, and comp. Rom. I.e. 
 
 €K TTtWeos' K. T. X.] Not a mcrc tauto- 
 logy after toIs iria-revova-Lv. St Paul's 
 opponents agreed with him that only 
 a believer could obtain the promise. 
 They differed in holding that he ob- 
 tained it not by his faith but by his 
 works. 
 
 23 — 25. 'Before the dispensation 
 of faith came, we were carefully 
 
 guarded, that we might be ready for 
 it, when at length it was revealed. 
 Thus we see that the law was our 
 tutor, who watched over us as chil- 
 dren till we should attain our man- 
 hood in Christ and be justified by 
 faith. But, when this new dispensa- 
 tion came, we were liberated from the 
 restraints of the law.' 
 
 23. itppovpovfieBa (rvvKkeioficvoL] 
 ''Were shut up and kept in ward^ \ 
 comp. Wisd. xvii. 15 e0povpfi7-o ctV 
 Tr)v da-iSTjpov cipKr^v KaraKXeitrBe is, 
 Plut. de Def. Orac. p. 426 b ov8e 
 
 (fypovpetv (TvyKXeLO-avTas ttj vXt}. 
 
 The use of Trio-rts in these verses 
 (vv. 22, 23, 25) links together its ex- 
 treme senses, passing from the one to 
 the other, (i) Faith, the subjective 
 state of the Christian, (2) T/te faith, 
 the Gospel, the objective teaching, the 
 system of which 'faith' is the leading 
 feature. See the note i. 23, and p. 1 57. 
 
 24. TraLdaycoyof] Comp. I Cor. iv. 1 5. 
 The psedagogus 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 dLbatTKaXosj 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 ; 2e avrbu 
 
 eSa-tv ap-)(€Lv (reavTOv, rj ovde tovto eiri- 
 rp€7Tov(Ti (Tot; Ilais" yap, e^??, eTrtrpe- 
 TTovG-iv; *AXX' dpx^i TLS crov; "Ode irai- 
 baycoyos, '4(f)rj. Mcoi/ SoOXo? wV; *AXXa 
 TL fxiju ; Tj^erepos ye, e^?/. 'H fieti^oV, rjv 
 fi iyco, ekevBepov ovra vno hovKov dp^e- 
 (rBai' TL de iroiavav ovtos 6 Tratfiaycoyos 
 crov ap^ei; "Aycop d^irov, e(j>T}j els StSacr- 
 
 KOXOV. MatV fMTJ KoX OVTOL (TOV dp^OVO-LV, 
 
III. 25—27] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 149 
 
 ovKeTL VTTO TTat^wycoyoi/ ecjULeu 
 
 a6 
 
 TfJ£ TTLG'Tetd^ 
 
 7rai/T€? 
 
 yap 
 
 VIOL 
 
 Qeov ecTTe Sid Trjs 7ri(rTe(o^ ev XptcrTw Irjcov' ^'^bcroi 
 yap et9 XpKrrop ijSaTTTicrdrjTe, Xpicrov eveZva'ao'de, 
 
 ot bihaa-KoKoi; UavToys SjJttov. Ila/XTroX- 
 Aouff apa (TOi dea-TToras koI ap^ovras eKau 
 6 TtaTTjp €(pL(TTr}(nu. On the 'psedago- 
 gus' see Becker and Marquardt Rom. 
 Alt. V. r, p. 114, and Smith's* 7)^c^. of 
 Antiq. s. v. As well in his inferior 
 rank, as in his recognised duty of en- 
 forcing disciphnp, this person was a fit 
 emblem of the Mosaic law. The rabbin- 
 ical writers naturalised the word rrat- 
 fiaywyoff, J131S (see Schottgen here), 
 and in the Jerusalem Targuni it is 
 used to translate P^ (A. V. 'a nurs- 
 ing father') Numb. xi. 12. 
 
 The tempting explanation of tvaiba- 
 ycoyos eh XpLarov, 'one to conduct US 
 to the school of Christ,' ought pro- 
 bably to be abandoned. Even if this 
 sense did not require Trpos Xptarov or 
 els XpLfTTov, the context is unfavour- 
 able to it. There is no reference here 
 to our Lord as a teacher. ' Christ ' 
 represents the freedom of mature age, 
 for which the constraints of childhood 
 are a preparation ; compare Ephes. iv. 
 13 els avdpa reXeiov ('full grown'), ds 
 fiirpov -^XiKtas rov liKTfpmfxaTOS tov 
 Xpto-Tov. The metaphor of the paeda- 
 gogus seems to have grown out of 
 e(f>povpovneBa and thus the main idea 
 is that of strict supervision. The ttui- 
 Saycoyo? had the whole moral direction 
 of the child, so that Traidayayta became 
 equivalent to 'moral training,' and the 
 idea conveyed by the term need not 
 be restricted to any one function. 
 Compare PhitNum. 15 ck 5e TOLavTrjs 
 Traibayoiyias TTpbs to 6a.ov ovTms 1] ttoKis 
 eyeyofet x^''P°V^V^ k.t.X., and Liban. IV. 
 437 ed. Reiske (quoted in Wetstein) 
 
 irpaiTQV p.€V vo/io) Tratbayfoyrio-ofjicv avrcov 
 rrjv 7rpoaip€(rLV, ws av rrjv diro tov vofxov 
 ^TjfjLLav duadvofievai (T(i><^povelv dvayKO- 
 ^cavTat. 
 25, 26. ifxixev, i(TT€] See a similar 
 
 instance of the interchange of the first 
 and second persons in i Thess. v. 5 
 •KOVTes yap Vfiel^s viol (Jxdtos eore kol 
 vloL rjpiipas* ovK ea-p-ep vvktos ovde (TKo- 
 rovs. 
 
 26. TrdvTcs yap k.t.X.] ^foT ye all 
 are sons of God by your faith^ sons of 
 God in Christ Jesus.' The stress of 
 the sentence lies on iravr^s and viol', 
 ^ally Jews and Gentiles alike, those 
 under the law and those without the 
 law; '■sons'' (vioi), claiming therefore 
 the privileges, the liberty of sons, so 
 that the rigorous supervision of the 
 tutor (iratdaycoyos) ceases when you 
 cease to be children (iraldes). 
 
 vlo\ 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 guile- 
 lessness and love, e.g. i Joh. iii. i, 2, 
 10. In accordance with this distinc- 
 tion St Paul uses vlo\ as well as reKi/a, 
 St John TeKva only. 
 
 eV Xpta-Tm 'irja-ov] The context shows 
 that these words must be separated 
 from dia T^s TTiaTecos. They are thrown 
 to the eiid 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,^r all 
 ye, who were baptized into Christ, did 
 put on Chrisf : yap introduces the 
 explanation of the foregoing eV XpKrra 
 'lr}o-ov. 
 
 evedvaao-de] The metaphor has been 
 supposed to be taken from the white 
 garments in which the newly baptized 
 were clothed; see Bingham Christ. 
 Antiq. xi. 11, § i. It is scarcely pro- 
 bable however that the ceremonial of 
 
ISO EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. [111.28,29 
 
 * ovK evi 'lovhaio^ ovhe *'EAA^i/, ovk evi SovXo^ ovSe 
 ekevdepo^, ovk evi apcrev Kai 6fj\v* Trdvre^ yap vfxei^ 
 eh ecTTe ev ^pitrrw 'Irjaov. ^^el de vfxeh XpiCTOv, 
 
 awavres yap v/jlcls. 
 
 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 (aiV^^^w;!/), xxix. 14 {^inaio- 
 (Tvvqv), xxxix. 19 {(po^ov), Ps. xxxiv. 26 
 {ala-)(VVT]v Kal €VTp07n]v), xcii. I (evTrpi- 
 TTCLaif, dvvafj.Lv\ clii. I, etc, ; COmp. iyicofx- 
 (Sovcrdai I Pet. V. 5. See also Schott- 
 gen on Rom. xiii. 14. On the other 
 hand in the context of the passage of 
 Justin quoted below (ver. 28) there is 
 apparently an allusion to the baptismal 
 robes. 
 
 28, 29. ' In Christ ye are all sons, 
 all free. Every barrier is swept away. 
 No special claims, no special disabili- 
 ties exist in Him, none can exist. The 
 conventional distinctions of religious 
 caste or of social rank, even the natu- 
 ral distinction of sex, are banished 
 hence. One heart beats in all : one 
 mind guides all : one life is lived by 
 all. Ye are aU one nfian^ for ye are 
 members of Christ. And as members 
 of Christ ye are Abraham's seed, 
 ye claim the inheritance by virtue of 
 a promise, which no law can set aside.' 
 
 OVK eVi] Hhere is no room for, no 
 place for, negativing not the fact 
 only, but the possibility, as James i. 17 
 Trap w OVK eVt TrapaXXay/J. The right 
 account of evt seems to be given by 
 Winer § xiv. p. 96. It is not a con- 
 traction of eVeo-Tt, but the preposition 
 eV, ivij strengthened by a more vigor- 
 ous accent, like eVt, Trapa, and used 
 with an ellipsis of the substantive verb. 
 
 "EXXt;!/] See the note ii. 3. 
 
 iipa-ev Kfxi 6f[Kv\ 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 apa-ev kol 
 6fj\v €TroLT)(r€v avTovsj and if so, this 
 clause will form a climax: 'even the 
 primeval distinction of sex has ceased.' 
 Comp. CoL iii. 11. 
 
 Either on this passage, or on some 
 unrecorded saying of our Lord similar 
 in import (comp. Luke xx. 35), may 
 have been founded the mystical lan- 
 guage attributed to our Lord in the 
 apocryphal Gospel of the Egyptians 
 (Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. p. 553, ed. 
 Potter). Being asked by Salome when 
 His kingdom should come. He is re- 
 ported to have answered, * When the 
 two shall be one, and the male with 
 the female, neither male nor female.' 
 These obscure words were much dis- 
 cussed in early times and diversely in- 
 terpreted, e.g. by the Ophites (Hippol. 
 ITcBr. v. 7), by the Pseudo-Clement 
 of Rome (Epist. 2, § 12), by Cassianus 
 (Clem. Alex. 1. c.), and by Theodotus 
 (Clem. Alex. p. 985). Comp. also the 
 remarks of Clement of Alexandria 
 himself, pp. 532, 539 sq., besides the 
 passage first cited. See the note on 
 Clem.Rom. I.e. For another coincidence 
 of St Paul's language with a saying 
 attributed to our Lord, but not found 
 in the Gospels, see i Thess. v. 21. 
 
 els io-re] ^ are one man.^ Comp. 
 Ephes. ii. 15 tovs 8vo ktlo-tj ev iavra els 
 eva Kawov avOpmTTov, and Justin Dial. 
 § 116, p. 344 B ovTcas T]fiets oi dia tov 
 ^Iqa-QV oPofxaTos ms els avOptarros Tncrrev- 
 O'avres . . .TO. pvTrapa lp,aTia a.nr)p.<ptea-- 
 p.€voi K.T.X.j which seems to be a re- 
 miniscence of this passage of St Paul. 
 The neuter ei/, found in some texts, 
 destroys the point of the expression, 
 the oneness as a conscious agent, 
 
 29. Xpia-Tov] ' are part of Christ, 
 are members of Christ,' not merely 
 
III. 29] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 ISI 
 
 apa Tov 'A(3paaiui (TTrepjuLa icre^ kut eTrayyeXiav 
 KXripovofxoL. 
 
 *are the property of Christ, are serv- 
 ants of Christ.' The argument turns 
 on the entire identity of the Christian 
 brotherhood with Christ. 
 
 apa TOV ^A^padfi] Hhen 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 iirayyeXiav] emphatic; * heirs 
 indeed, but heirs by promise, not by 
 law.' See ver. 18. 
 
152 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. 
 
 Ambignity The words of the original are '•1?n DTIPK nbhp O, 'for (the) curse of 
 
 of the Q-od (is) he that is hanged/ The ambiguity arises out of the construction 
 Hsbrew t 1 l 
 
 of CnPN, since the case attached to T07p may denote either the person 
 
 who pronounces the curse, as Judges ix. 57 (Dnv n?7p) and 2 Sam. xvi. 12 
 
 {)rh7p in the Q'ri), or the person against whom the curse is pronounced, as 
 
 Gen. xxvii. 13 C]Tmp); 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) Lsx and i. * He that is hanged is accursed in the sight of God.' This is the 
 St Paul, rendering of the lxx, K^KaT-qpaiiivos vno rov GeoG, adopted in substance, it 
 would appear, by St Paul ; and seems to have obtained the suffrages of 
 most recent commentators whatever their opinions. It is certainly sup- 
 ported by a more exact parallel (Judges ix. 57) than the alternative render- 
 ing, and seems to suit the context better, for the sense will then be, ' Do 
 not let the body hang after sunset ; for the hanging body (of a malefactor) 
 defiles the land, since the curse of God rests upon it.' 
 (ii) Judaic 2. The other rendering is, * He that hangeth is a contempt of, a 
 writers. reproach or insult to God.' This seems to have been the popular Jewish 
 interpretation (shared therefore by Jewish Christians) at all events from 
 the second century of the Christian era. The passage was so taken by 
 the Jewish or Ebionite translators, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus^. 
 It is explained in this way in the ancient Jewish commentary on Deutero- 
 nomy, Siphri'^j and in the so-called Targum of Jonathan^. This rendering 
 appeared also in the Ebionite Gospel^. And in one of the earliest Chris- 
 tian apologies, a Jewish interlocutor brought forward this text, quoting it 
 in the form, * He that hangeth is a reviling of God^.' It is found more- 
 
 ^ Aquila and Theodotion rendered ^ At least so I understand the Ian- 
 it Kardpa Qeov Kpefidfjievos; see Field's guageof Jeronie,l.c., 'HfficverbaEbion 
 Hexapla i. p. 304. The rendering ille hsaresiarches semichristianus et se- 
 of Symmachus, as given in Latin by mijudseus ita interpretatus est, iiri i}^pts 
 Jerome, was, 'quia propter blasphemiam Beov 6 Kpefidfievos, id est, quia injuria 
 Dei suspeusus est.' Dei eat suspensus.' 
 
 2 'Qua de causa iste suspenditur? ^ Hieron. l.c., ' Memini me in alter- 
 Quia maledixit nomini (Dei) ' : see Ugo- catione lasonis et Papisci quse Grasco 
 lin. TJies. xv. p. 766. sermone conscripta est xta reperisse, 
 
 3 UIT'VD? Kn?X Dip NHiyp XoiSopfaGeoO 6 Kpe/xd/Acpos, idest, *male- 
 "laJ, 'it is contempt before God to dictio Dei qui appensus est.' See be- 
 hang a man.' low, p. 153, note 5. 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. I S3 
 
 over in the Peshito Syriac^. The same also would seera to be the interpre- 
 tation adopted in the older Targum^, where the passage runs, ' Since for 
 what he sinned before God he was hanged/ but the paraphrastic freedom 
 of this rendering leaves room for some doubt. Though these writers differ 
 widely from each other as to the meaning to be put upon the words, they 
 agree in their rendering so far as to take D*n7K as the object, not the sub- 
 ject, of nS'pp. 
 
 It may be conjectured that this rendering obtained currency at first 
 owing to the untoward circumstances of the times, Jewish patriots were 
 impaled or crucified as rebels by their masters whether Syrians or Romans. 
 The thought was intolerable that the curse of God should attach to these. 
 The spirit of the passage indeed implies nothing of this kind, but the 
 letter was all powerful in the schools of the day : and a rendering, which 
 not only warded off the reproach but even, if dexterously used, turned it 
 against the persecutor, would be gladly welcomed 3. An interpretation 
 started in this way would at length become traditional*. 
 
 But it was especially in controversies with the Christians, as I have*rhe text 
 mentioned, that the Jews availed themselves of this passage. In whatever ^^^^ ^y 
 way interpreted, it would seem to them equally available for their purpose. ^^^iiisT^ 
 The * offence of the cross' took its stand upon the letter of the lawgiver's chris- 
 language, and counted its position impregnable. Again and again doubt- tians, 
 less, as he argued in the synagogues, St Paul must have had these words 
 cast in his teeth, * accursed of God,' or * an insult to God,' or * a blasphemer 
 of God, is he that is hanged on the tree.' More than once the early 
 Christian apologists meet and refute this inference, when writing against 
 the Jews. This is the case with Ariston of Pella^, with Justin Martyr^, 
 VTith TertuUian^. In Jerome's time the same argument was brought by 
 the Jews against the leading fact on which the faith of a Christian rests^; 
 and later literature shows that Christ crucified did not cease to be ' to the 
 Jews a stumblingblock.' 
 
 * 'Because whosoever blasphemeth pretation of a learned rabbi of our own 
 
 God shall be hanged.' time: *L'impiccato ^(produce) impreca- 
 
 2 So it may be inferred from a com- zione contro Dio (eio6 : il lasciare il ca- 
 parison with the translations of Sym- davere esposto lungo tempo alia pub- 
 machus, of the Peshito, and of the blica vista non pu6 che irritare gli 
 Ebionite Gospel. Otherwise the same animi, e indurli ad esecrare i giudici e 
 meaning might be got from the other le leggi) : e (oltracci6) non devi rendere 
 rendering, 'accursed of God,' and so 'a impura la tua terra etc.,' Luzzatto II 
 sinner in the sight of God.' PentateucOj Trieste 1858. 
 
 s Thus the Targum of Pseudo-Jona- ^ In the 'Dispute of Jason and Pa- 
 
 than, after rendering the passage as piscus'; see above, p. 152, note 5, and 
 
 given above, p. 152, note 3, adds 'unless Eouth Rel. Sacr. i. p. 95. 
 
 his sins have occasioned it to him.' It ® Dial. c. Tryph. c. 96, p. 333 c, 
 
 is possible however that this is aimed ^ Adv. Judceos § 10. 
 
 at Christianity. At all events it pre- ^ Hieron. 1. c. So too in the work 
 
 sents a curious contrast to the inter- of Evagrius (c. 430 a.d., see Gennad. 
 
 pretation of the older Targum. Vir. III. 50) entitled AUercatio inter 
 
 ^ See the passages quoted in Schott- TheophilumChristianumetSimonemJu- 
 
 gen here. The following is the inter- dceum, Migne's Pair. Lat. xx. p. 1 1 74 b. 
 
154 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 and ap- 
 plied to 
 death by 
 cruci- 
 fixion. 
 
 The passage in Deuteronomy, it is true, does not refer directly to cruci- 
 fixion as a means of execution, but to impaling bodies after death. It has 
 been said indeed that Philo^ speaks of the impalement there mentioned as 
 a mode of putting to death, but this seems to be a mistake. Philo says, 
 that Moses would have put such malefactors to death ten thousand times 
 over if it were possible, but not being able to kill them more than once, he 
 adds another penalty, ordering murderers to be gibbeted (rtfj-wpiav aXKrjv 
 TrpocrfitaTarrerat KeXeumi/ roi/s dvekovras dpacKoXoTTL^ea-dat). Nor, SO far aS 1 
 am aware, is there any evidence to show that the Jews at the time of the 
 Christian era interpreted the passage of death by crucifixion. Crucifixion 
 was not a Jewish punishment. The evangelist (Joh. xviii. 32) sees a pro- 
 vidence in the delivering over of our Lord to the Romans to be put to 
 death, so that He might die in the manner He himself had foretold. It 
 had been employed occasionally in seasons of tumult by their own princes^, 
 but was regarded as an act of great atrocity. Even the Roman looked 
 upon crucifixion with abhorrence?. To the Jew it was especially hateful, 
 bwing 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 (3?1{) which is used in several places in the 
 Peshito Syriac to describe the crucifixion of our Lord (e.g. Gal. iii. i). 
 Hence also later Jews, speaking of Jesus, called Him by the same name of 
 reproach CIT'n, 'the gibbeted one'), which they found in the original text 
 of the lawgiver^. It was not that they mistook the meaning of the word, 
 but that they considered the two punishments essentially the same. No 
 Jew would have questioned the propriety of St Paul's application of the 
 text to our Lord. The curse pronounced in the law was interpreted and 
 strengthened by the national sentiment- 
 
 The words denoting 'Faith! 
 
 Active and The Hebrew nJllOX, the Greek iria-TLs, the Latin ' fides,* and the English 
 passive * faith,' hover between two meanings; trustfulness, the frame of mind. 
 ^^^^^S?^ which relies on another ; and trustworthiness, the frame of mind which 
 can be relied upon. Not only are the two connected together grammati- 
 
 of Faith 
 
 1 de Spec. Leg. % 28, n. p. 324 m. 
 
 ^ Joseph. Ant. xiii. 14. 2, referred 
 to in Winer Realw. s. v. Kreuzigung. 
 On this question see Carpzov Appar. 
 Crit. p. 591. I have not seen the trea- 
 tise of Bornitius mentioned by Winer, 
 Diss, de cruce numEhT(BOT. suppl.fuerit, 
 Wittenb. 1644. Those who maintain 
 that crucifixion was a Jewish punish- 
 
 ment rely mainly on this passage of 
 Galatians: seeLange Ohs. Sacr. p. 163 
 sq. 
 
 3 Cic. Verr. v. 64 * crudelissimum 
 teterrimumque supplicium.' 
 
 ^ Eisenmenger'a li^ntd. Judenth. i, 
 pp. 88 sq., 287, 496. On the Greek 
 terms (rravpovVf ffKoXoiri^eLv, etc., see 
 LipsiuB de Cruce i. 4 sq. (pp. n. p. 769). 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. ISS 
 
 cally, as active and passive ^ senses of the same word, or logically, as sub- 
 ject and object of the same act; but there is a close moral affinity between 
 them. Fidelity, constancy, firmness, confidence, reliance, trust, belief — 
 these are the links which connect the two extremes, the passive with the 
 active meaning of 'faith.' Owing to these combined causes, the two senses 
 will at times be so blended together that they can only be separated by 
 some arbitrary distinction. "Wlien the members of the Christian brother- sometimes 
 hood, for instance, are called Hhe faithful/ ol Trioroi, what is meant by combined. 
 this ? Does it imply their constancy, their trustworthiness, or their faith, 
 their belief? In all such cases it is better to accept the latitude, and 
 even the vagueness, of a word or phrase, than to attempt a rigid definition, 
 which after all can be only artificial. And indeed the loss in grammatical 
 precision is often more than compensated by the gain in theological 
 depth. In the case of 'the faithful' for instance, does not the one quality 
 of heart carry the other with it, so that they who are trustful are trusty 
 also^; they who have faith in God are stedfast and immovable in the path 
 of duty ? 
 
 The history of the terms for 'faith' in the three sacred languages of 
 Christian theology is instructive from more points of view than one. 
 
 I. The Hebrew word signifying 'to believe, to trust,' is the Hiphil pDKn. i. Hebrew. 
 The Kal pX would mean ' to strengthen, support, hold up,' but is only found "^r^^?: 
 in the active participle, used as a substantive with the special sense, 'one 
 who supports, nurses, trains a child' (TratSayoj-yos, see note, Gal. iii. 24), and 
 in the passive participle 'firm, trustworthy.' The Niphal accordingly' 
 meanSj 'to be firm, lasting, constant, trusty'; while the Hiphil ptDNn, 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, 
 1 or ^), and is rendered Trtorevo) 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 HJIDN, 'firmness, constancy, trust- 
 worthiness.' This word is rendered in the lxx most frequently by dXj/- 
 Beia, okqQivos (twenty-four times), or by tt'kttis, ina-Tos, diiSTTLaros (twenty 
 times); once it is translated ia-r-qpiyixivos (Exod. xvii. 12), once ttKovtos 
 (Ps. xxxvi. 3, where Symm. had hiriveK^s, Aq. tt'kttiv). It will thus b6 seen 
 that n^lDS properly represents the passive sense of ttlo-tisj as indeed the 
 form of the word shows. But it will at times approach near to the active 
 sense ; for constancy under temptation or danger with an Israelite could 
 only spring from reliance on Jehovah. And something of this transitional 
 or double sense it has in the passage of Habakkuk ii. 4^. The lati- 
 tude of the LXX translation, Tr/o-riff, 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 nJIDK can scarcely be said ever to 
 have the sense 'belief, trust,' though sometimes approaching towards it. 
 
 1 Throughout this note I have used would of course change places. 
 
 the terms 'active' and 'passive' in ^ 'Qui fortis est, idem est fidens,' 
 
 reference to the act of believing. If says Oicero, Tiisc. iii, 7. 
 
 referred to the act of persuading they ^ See the note on Gal. iii. 11. 
 
IS6 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 Ai-amaic. 
 
 ii. Greek. 
 
 Tri<rTt$. 
 
 Classical 
 
 writers. 
 
 Old Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 The influence of the Greek rendering however doubtless reacted upon the 
 original, and in the rabbinical Hebrew it seems decidedly to have adopted 
 this meaning (see Buxtorf Lex. Rabbin, s. v.). The Aramaic dialects did 
 something towards fixing this sense by an active form, derived from the 
 same root I^N, but from the conjugation Aphel (corresponding to the 
 Hebrew HiphiV). Thus in the Chaldee of the Targum of Jonathan, the 
 word denoting the faith of Abraham, Gen. xv. 6, is Nn1JD^'^, and the 
 Syriac renders TriWts in the New Testament by the same word (Z.QJLLD-»01. 
 
 2. Unlike the Hebrew, the Greek word seems to have started from 
 the active meaning. In its earliest use it is opposed to 'distrust'; Hesiod 
 Op. 342 TTtOTCts S' ap rot o/io)? Koi omKTrlai wk€<rav avhpas (comp. Theogn. 
 83 1 TrlaTCL xPW^r' dircoXea dTria-TiT} 6' ea-daxra) ; and this is perhaps the sense 
 most favoured by analogy^. But even if it had not originally the passive 
 sense of faith side by side with the active, it soon acquired this meaning also, 
 e.g. ^sch, FragTn. 276 ovk dvdpos opKot TTLaTLs dXV opK(ov dvrip : and Tria-Tts 
 became a common technical term for a 'proof.' The transition was aided 
 by the indefiniteness of the grammatical form, and such phrases as ttlo-tiv 
 ex^iv Tivos 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 Tria-rus has both meanings, 'trusty,' as Hom. 11. xvi. 
 147 TTLo-TOTaroi Be ol €(tk€, and 'trustful,' as ^sch. Prom. 917 roh Tredapa-iots 
 KTVTTois TTio-Tos. So also airKTros means both 'incredulous' (Hom. Od. xiv. 
 150), and 'incredible' (^sch. Prom. 832). 
 
 With this latitude of use these words passed into the language of 
 theology. In the Old Testament, there being no Hebrew eqiuvalent to the 
 active meaning^, mo-Tts has always the passive sense, 'fidelity,' 'constancy^/ 
 unless the passage in Habakkuk be regarded as an exception^. So again 
 there is no clear instance of ttlo-tos with any but the passive sense. 
 
 ^ Compare Xtjo-tls, fiv-fja-TLSt Buttm. 
 Atisf. Sprachl. § 119. 24. 
 
 2 As illustrating this fact, it is worth 
 noticing that the word 'faith' occurs 
 only twice in the Authorised Version 
 of the Old Testament, Deut, xxxii. 20 
 ('children in whom is no faith,' (pX^ 
 where it is plainly passive), and Hab. ii. 
 4; see note 4. 
 
 3 Besides HJIDN, it occurs as a ren- 
 dering of JIDK, r\:D^, nOK, and once 
 as a paraphrase of mjy?, Prov. xv. 28. 
 In all these words the passive sense is 
 evident. 
 
 ^ ii. 4. The original reading of the 
 Lxx is not clear. In the Vat. and Sin. 
 Mss it is 6 5^ dlKaios €k iriaredis fiov, in 
 the Ales, and others 5^ UKa.Lbs fiov iK 
 iriffrem. In Hebr. i. 38 too (though 
 not without various readings) ixov fol- 
 lows SUatos. Comp. also Clem. Alex. 
 
 Strom, ii. p. 432, Potter. "With these 
 data it is difficult to decide between 
 two solutions; either (i) It may be in- 
 ferred from the varying position of iiov 
 that the word had no place in the ori- 
 ginal text of the lxx; in this case St 
 Paul (Gal. iii. 11, Bom. i. 17) may have 
 quoted directly from the lxx; or (2) 'E/c 
 Trftrrews iiov was the original reading, 
 afterwards altered into ixov iK irlffrews to 
 remove any ambiguity as to the sense. 
 In this latter case the lxx translators 
 must have read ^HDIDfe^n 'my faith ' (for 
 in31t)Xl 'his faith,' the present He- 
 brew text), and perhaps intended their 
 rendering ^k irLa-Tedjs fJLov to be under- 
 stood, by faith in me' (see however 
 Eom. iii. 3 ttjv ttIutlv tov Qeov). 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 57 
 
 The usage of the Apocrypha is chiefly valuable as showing how difficult Apocry- 
 it is to discriminate the two meanings, where thei:e is no Hebrew original P^* 
 to act as a check, and how easily the one runs into the other; e.g. Ecclus. 
 xlvi. 15 cV TTtcrret avTOv -qKpi^d<T6T] irpoCJy-qTrjs kol iyvaxrdT) iv irliXTeL avrov 
 TTKTTos opaorecdSf I Macc. li. ^2 'AjSpaajLt ovxi iv ireipaafim evpeBr] ttlo-tos koX 
 iXoylo-Orj avra els ^tKaioa-vvqv ; Ecclus. xlix, lO iXyrpcdoraro avrovs iv ttlo-tcl 
 iXTTidos. 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 ttIotlsj 'faith,' 'belief,' had a 
 recognised value as a theological term. 
 
 In the New Testament niaTis is found in both its passive and its active New Tes- 
 sense. On the one hand it is used for constancy, trustworthiness^ whether tanient. 
 of the immutable purpose of God, Uom. iii. 3 rrjv Trtcmv rov Qeov Karap- 
 y-qaei^ or of good faith, honesty, uprightness in men, Matt, xxiii. 23 a<^rjKar€ 
 TO. ^apvTepa tov vofiovy rrjv Kpldiv Koi to eXeos Ka\ Trjv ttIcttlv (see the note on 
 Gal. V. 22). On the other hand, as 'faith,' 'belief,' it assumes in the teach- 
 ing of our Lord, enforced and explained by St Paul, the foremost place in 
 the phraseology of Christian doctrine. From this latter sense are derived 
 all those shades of meaning by which it passes from the abstract to the 
 concrete; from faith, the subjective state, to the faith, the object of faith, 
 the Gospel, and sometimes, it would appear, the embodhuent of faith, the 
 Church (see Gal. i. 23, iii. 22 — 26, vi. 10). 
 
 All other senses however are exceptional, and Trio-Tis, as a Christian 
 virtue, certainly has the active meaning, 'trust,' 'belief.' But the use of 
 the adjective ol ttio-toI for the Christian brotherhood cannot be assigned TriffTos. 
 rigidly either to the one meaning or the other. Sometimes the context 
 requires the active, as Joh. xx. 27 /mj yivov aTriaros dWa ttio-tos (comp. 
 Gal. iii. 9), sometimes the passive, as Apoc. ii. 10 ylvov tvio-tos a^pt Oavdrov. 
 But when there is no context to serve as a guide, who shall say in which of 
 the two senses the word is usedl For the one it may be urged that the 
 passive sense of ttio-tos is in other connexions by far the most common, 
 even in the New Testament ; for the other, that its opposite aina-Tos 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 wi'iters have 
 used with this meaning only or with that a term whose very comprehensive- 
 ness was in itself a valuable lesson^? 
 
 application of the passage (supposing 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. ii,andonHab. supported either by the contest or by 
 
 ii. 4, Op. VI. p. 608 sq. (ed. Yall.). confijnned usage, this essay seems to 
 
 1 The dif&culty of exact definition me to be highly valuable. The use of 
 
 in similar cases is pointed out in a sug- ol TrtaTol is an illustration of this diffi- 
 
 gestive essay in Jowett's Epistles of St culty. The expression to euayyiXiov 
 
 Paul II. ^.joi (2nd ed.). With Prof. tou XpttrroO is another. What is meant 
 
 Jowett'sapplicationsof 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, 
 
IS8 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 iii. Latin. 3. It has been seen that the meaning of the Greek TriVrts was reflected 
 ^^^^' on its Hebrew original. Not less was this meaning infused into its Latin 
 
 rendering. The verb Trto-reuco was naturally translated by 'credo/ but this 
 root supplied no substantive corresponding to Trla-Tis, no adjective (for 
 *credulus' was stamped with a bad meaning) corresponding to tthttos. 
 Words were therefore borrowed from another source, 'fides/ 'fidelis.' Now 
 * fides,' as it appears in classical writers up to the time when it is adopted 
 into Christian literature, is not so much 'belief, trust,' as 'fidelity, trust- 
 worthiness, credit.* Its connexion in some expressions however led the 
 way toward this active meaning, at the very threshold of which it had 
 already arrived ^ In the absence therefore of any exact Latin equivalent 
 to the active sense oi nta-rLs^ 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 Trtaroi 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 TriVrts, ttlo-toIj 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. 
 
 Eesulta of From the investigation just concluded it appears that the term 'Faith' 
 the fore- can scarcely be said to occur at all in the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old 
 
 or the Gospel which belongs to Christ? 
 or rather, does it not combine all these 
 meanings in itself? 
 
 1 Instances of such expressions are, 
 'facere fidem alicui/ ' habere fidem ali- 
 cui' ; comp. Ter. Heaut. iii. 3. 10 'Mihi 
 fides apud hunc est me nihil facturum.' 
 The trueWorthiness, demonstrability, 
 proof of the object, transferred to the 
 subject,becomes'assurance,conviction,' 
 and so Cicero Parad. 9, in reference to 
 arguments in public speaking says, 
 'fides est firma opinio.' See the whole 
 passage. This sense of ' conviction ' is, 
 I believe, the nearest approach to the 
 Christian use of the term. It never, 
 so far as I am aware, signifies trustful- 
 ness, confidence, as a quality inherent 
 or abiding in a person. To assert a 
 negative however is always dangerous, 
 and possibly wider knowledge or re- 
 
 search would prove this position un- 
 tenable. At all events the ordinary 
 sense of 'fides' in classical writers is 
 ' trustworthiness, credit, fidelity to en- 
 gagements.' 
 
 2 The Latin language indeed offered 
 two words of a directly active meaning, 
 ' fidentia ' and ' fiducia ' ; but the former 
 of these seems never to have obtained 
 a firm footing in the language (see Cic. 
 de Inv. ii. 163, 165, Tusc. iv. 80), and 
 the signification of both alike was too 
 pronounced for the sense required. 
 * Fidentia ' does not occur at all in the 
 Latin translations (if the Concordance 
 to the Vulgate is sufficient evidence) ; 
 'fiducia' is not uncommon, frequently 
 as a rendering of irappTjo-ia^ less often 
 of 7re7roW?;(rts, ^dtpcos, but never of iri- 
 (TTts. Fides, fiducia, occur together in 
 Senec. Ep. 94. 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 1 59 
 
 Testament. It is indeed a characteristic token of the difference between going iu- 
 the two covenants, that under the Law the ''fear of the Lord' holds very J^^stiga- 
 much the same place as 'faith in God,' '■faith in Christ/ under the Gospel. 
 Awe is the prominent idea in the earlier dispensation, trust in the later. 
 At the same time, though the word itself is not found in the Old Testament, 
 the idea is not absent ; for indeed a trust in the Infinite and Unseen, sub- 
 ordinating thereto all interests that are finite and transitory, is the very 
 essence of the higher spiritual life. 
 
 In Abraham, the father of the chosen race, this attitude of trustfulness Lesson of 
 was most marked. By faith he left home and kindred, and settled in a Abra- 
 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^. 
 Thus this one word ' faith' sums up the lesson of his whole life. And when, 
 during the long silence of prophecy which separated the close of the 
 Jewish from the birth of the Christian Scriptures, the Hebrews were led 
 to reflect and comment on the records of their race, this feature of their 
 great forefather's character did not escape notice. The two languages, 
 which having supplanted the Hebrew, had now become the vehicles of 
 theological teaching, both supplied words to express their meaning. In 
 the Greek ttIo-tisj in the Aramaic fc^nUDTl, the hitherto missing term was 
 first found. 
 
 As early as the First Book of Maccabees attention is directed to this 
 lesson ; ' Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was im- 
 puted unto him for righteousness^ ?' Here however it is touched upon very 
 lightly. But there is, I think, sufficient evidence to show that at the time becomes 
 of the Christian era the passage in Genesis relating to Abraham's faith had a thesis 
 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 the Kabbinical or 
 Jewish proper, under which term we may include the teaching of the 
 Babylonian dispersion as well as of Palestine, for there does not seem to 
 have been any marked difference between the two. 
 
 Of the Alexandrian School indeed Philo is almost the sole surviving (i) Alex- 
 representative, but he represents it so fully as to leave little to be desired, audrian 
 In Philo's writings the life and character of Abraham are again and again J^^^'ism. 
 commented upon^ The passage of Genesis (xv. 6), doubly familiar to us 
 from the appHcations in the New Testament, is quoted or referred to at 
 
 ^ Acts vii. 1 — 5, Eom. iv. i6 — 22, the direct subject of comiaeut in the 
 
 Heb. xi. 8 — 12, 17 — 19. works of Philo entitled De Migrat. 
 
 2 I Mace, ii. 52. Other less distinct Abrah. i. p. 436 (Mangey), De Ahrah. 
 references in the Apocrypha to the 11. p. i, Q'"'^^^- "* ^^^- P- 167 (Aucher), 
 faith of Abraham are 2 Mace. i. -z, Ec- besides being discussed in scattered 
 clus. xliv. 19 — 21. In both passages passages, especially in Quis Rer. Div. 
 TTto-rds occurs, but not wicrTLS. Mer. i. p. 473, De Mutat. Norn. i. p. 
 
 3 The history of Abraham is made 578. 
 
i6o 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 Philo's least ten tiniest Once or twice Philo, like St Paul, comments on the 
 comments second clause of the verse, the imputation of righteousness to Abraham, but 
 ^■y^ g^ ' for the most part the coincidence is confined to the remarks on Abraham's 
 faith. Sometimes indeed faith is deposed from its sovereign throne by 
 being co-ordinated with piety^, or by being regarded as the reward^ rather 
 than the source of a godly life. But far more generally it reigns supreme 
 in his theology. It is ' the most perfect of virtues*/ * the queen of virtues^.' 
 It is * the only sure and infallible good, the solace of life, the fulfilment of 
 worthy hopes, barren of evil and fertile in good, the repudiation of the 
 powers of evil, the confession of piety, the inheritance of happiness, the 
 entire amelioration of the soul, which leans for support on Him who is the 
 cause of all things, who is able to do all things, and willeth to do those 
 which are most excellent "^.^ They that ^preserve it sacred and inviolate' 
 have * dedicated to God their soul, their senses, their reason V Such was 
 the faith of Abraham, a ' most stedfast and unwavering faith,' in the pos- 
 session of which he was Hhrice blessed indeed^.' 
 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, 
 aUeeOT^ it is necessary to remember the general bearing of the history of Abraham 
 in his system. To him it was not a history, but an allegory ; or, if a 
 history as well, it was as such of infinitely little importance. The three 
 patriarchs represent the human soul united to God by three different 
 means, Abraham by instruction, Isaac by nature, Jacob by ascetic disci- 
 pline^. Abraham therefore is the type of fitSao-KoXtK^ aper?;, he is the man 
 who arrives at the knowledge of the true God by teaching (xii. 6)^''. And 
 Hismigra- this is the meaning of his successive migrations, from Chaldsea to Charran, 
 tions. from Charran to the promised land^^. For Chaldsea, the abode of astrology, 
 
 represents his uninstructed state, when he worships the stars of heaven 
 and sets the material universe in the place of the great First Cause. By 
 the divine monition he departs thence to Charran. What then is Charran 1 
 
 ^ Leg. Alleg. i. p. 132, Quod Deus trts, cuSaLfiovias kKtjpos, nor is it easy to 
 
 Imm. I. p. 273, de Migr. Abr. 1. p. 443, find an adequate English rendering for 
 
 Quis Rer. Div. Her. i. pp. 485, 486, de them. 
 
 Mut. Norn. I. pp. 605, 606, 611, de Abr. ^ Quis Rer. Div. Her. i. p. 487. 
 
 n. p. 39, de Prcem. et PoRn. 11, p. 413, ^ de Prcem. et Po&n. 11. p. 413 6.k\l- 
 
 de Nob. II. p. 442. vovs koX /3e/3ator(ir7?s irlo-Teois /c.t.X, , 
 
 2 de Migr. Abr. 1. p. 456 Hs odv ij comp. de Nob. n. p. 442. 
 
 /c6XXa (i.e. which unites him to God) ; ^ Aidao-KoKLa, ^litrts, aff/cT/ffts, de 3Iut. 
 
 ris; e^tr^jQeta S^ttou Kal iriffris. Nom. 1. p. 580, de Abr. I. p. g,de Prcsm. 
 
 ^ de Prcem. et Pcen. 11. p. 412 ^k tij- et Pcen. i. p. 412. 
 
 0OU fxedopfji,i<7d/jL€vos TTp^s &X'^$€Lapj didaK- ^'^ The change of name from Abram 
 
 TiKTi xp'/o'^/if^'os Apery trpds TeKdujcnv to Abraham betolsens this progress, de 
 
 adXov alpelraL TT]v irpos rov GeoV iriffriv. Cherub. I. p. 139, de Mut. Nom. i. p. 
 
 * Quis Rer. Div. Her. i. p. 485 t^v 588, de Abr. 11. p. 13, Qucest. in Gen. 
 
 TeXeiordrTjv dperQv iriffriv. P- 213 (Auoher). 
 
 " de Abr. 11. p. 39 ttjv ^aaiKida rdv ^^ On the meaning of ChaMsea and 
 
 dpcrojv. Charran see de Migr. Abr. i. p. 463 sq., 
 
 ^ de Abr. I.e. I am not sure that I de Somn. i. p. 626 sq., de Abr. 11. p. n 
 
 have caught the meaning of the words, sq., de Nob. 11. p. 441, Qucest. in Gen, 
 
 KaKodaifiopLas diroyvwaL^, etffe^das yvd- p. 167 (Aucher). 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. l6l 
 
 The name itself, signifying *a cave/ supplies the answer: the senses are 
 denoted thereby^. He must submit to be instructed by these, and thus to 
 learn by observation the true relations and bearings of the material world. 
 This however is only a half-way house on his journey towards his destined 
 goal. From Charran he must go forward to the land of promise ; from the 
 observation on the senses he must advance to the knowledge of the one 
 true invisible God. And the rest of the story must be similarly explained. 
 For what is meant by his leaving home and kindred? Surely nothing else 
 but his detaching himself from the influence of the senses, from the domi- 
 nation of external things^. What again by the inheritance and the seed 
 promised to him 1 The great nation, the numerous progeny, are the count- His race 
 less virtues which this frame of mind engenders^: the inheritance is the andmhe- 
 rich possession of wisdom, the lordship of the spirit over the domain of the 
 senses^ And are not its very boundaries significant? The region com- 
 prises all that lies between the river of Egypt on the one hand, the symbol 
 of material, and the river Euphrates on the other, the symbol of spiritual 
 blessings ^ 
 
 If as full a record had been preserved of the Rabbinical Schools of (ii) Eab- 
 Palestine and Babylonia during the Apostolic age, we should probably binical Ju- 
 have found that an equally prominent place was assigned to the faith of 
 Abraham in their teaching also. The interpretation put upon the passage, 
 and the lessons deduced from it, would indeed be widely different ; but the 
 importance of the text itself must have been felt even more strongly where 
 the national feeling was more intense. The promise to Abraham, the 
 charter of their existence as a people, was all important to them, and its 
 conditions would be minutely and carefully scanned. 
 
 In the fourth Book of Esdras, one of the very few Jewish writings which 4 Esdras. 
 can be attributed with any confidence to the Apostolic 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)^ 
 
 There is however other evidence besides. For though the extant works 
 of Rabbinical Judaism are, as written documents and in their present form, 
 for the most part the productions of a later age, there can be little doubt 
 that they embody more ancient traditions, and therefore reflect fairly, 
 though with some exceptions, the Jewish teaching at the Christian era. 
 Thus the importance then attached to faith, and the significance assigned 
 
 1 de Migr. Abr. 1. u. p. 465 Tpthyk-q ^ Quis Rer. Div. Her.i,p. ^S^jQucest, 
 TO TTJs al(TB7}<Teb3s x^p^ov, eomp. de Somn. in Gen. p. 216 (Aucher). 
 
 1. c. ^ Qucest. in Gen, p. 188 (Aucher). 
 
 2 de Migr. Abr. i. p. 437. ^ The references are taken from the 
 ^ ib. p. 444, comp. Qucest. in Gen. text as printed in Gfrorer's Prophet. 
 
 pp. in, 229 (Aucher). Vet. Pseitdepigr. 
 
 GAL. 1 1 
 
1 62 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 to Abraham's example, may be inferred from the following passage in the 
 Mechilta. Mechilta on Exodus xiv. 31^: 'Great is faith, whereby Israel believed on 
 Him that spake and the world was. For as a reward for Israel's having 
 believed in the Lord, the Holy Spirit dwelt on them... In like manner 
 thou findest that Abraham our father inherited this world and the world 
 to come solely by the merit of faith whereby he believed in the Lord ; for 
 it is said, and he believed in the Lord, and He counted it to him for right- 
 'eousn6ss..-^M:i\ Nehemiah says : He that taketh unto himself one precept 
 in firm faith, on him the Holy Spirit dwelleth; for so we find in the case of 
 our fathers, that, as a reward for their believing on the Lord, they were 
 deemed worthy that the Holy Spirit should dwell on them... So Abraham 
 solely for the merit of faith, whereby he believed in the Lord, inherited 
 this world and the other... Only as a reward for their faith were the Israel- 
 ites redeemed out of Egypt, for it is said. And the people believed. ■ . What is 
 the cause of David's joy (in Ps. xci. i)? It is the reward of faith, whereby 
 our fathers believed... So Jeremiah (v. 3), Lord, thine eyes look upon 
 faith, and Habakkuk (ii. 4), The righteous liceth of his faith... Greai is 
 faith'; with more to the same effect. This passage should be taken in 
 Siphri, 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. i), Hear the word of 
 the Lord etc^ Gfrorer, to whom I am indebted for these passages, illus- 
 trates their bearing by reference to the opinions of later Jewish doctors 
 who maintain that *as soon as a man has mastered the thirteen heads of 
 the faith, firmly believing therein, he is to be loved and forgiven and 
 treated in all respects as a brother, and though he may have sinned in 
 every possible way, he is indeed an erring Israelite, and is punished accord- 
 ingly, but still he inherits eternal life^.' 
 Coinci- It were unwise to overlook the coincidences of language and thought 
 
 dances and which the contemporaneous teaching of the Jews occasionally presents to 
 diverg- ^jjg Apostolic writings. The glory of the scriptural revelation does not 
 ^^^^ ' pale because we find in the best thoughts of men 'broken lights' of its 
 own fuller splendour. Yet on the other hand the resemblance must not be 
 exaggerated. It is possible to repeat the same words and yet to attach 
 to them an entirely different meaning: it is possible even to maintain the 
 same precept, and yet by placing it in another connexion to lead it to an 
 opposite practical issue. In the case before us the divergences are quite 
 as striking as the coincidences. 
 
 ^ Ugolin. The^. xiv. p. loi. 
 
 In marked contrast to these earlier 
 comments is the treatment of the text, 
 Gen. XV. 6, bysome later Jewish writers. 
 Anxious, it would appear, to cut the 
 ground from under St Paul's infer- 
 ence of 'righteousness by faith,' they 
 interpreted the latter clause, 'And 
 Abraham counted on God's righteous- 
 ness,' i.e. on His strict fulfilment of 
 
 His promise. See the references in 
 Beer's Lehen Abrahams p. 147 ; comp. 
 p. 33. Such a rendering is as harsh 
 in itseK, as it is devoid of traditional 
 support. 
 
 2 Ugolin. Thes. xv. p. 554. 
 
 ^ Abarbanel Rosh Amanah p. 5 a, 
 Maimonides on Mishna Sanhedr. p. 
 121 a, referred to in Gtr Qier Jahi-Jt. des 
 Heils II. p. 162. 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 1 63 
 
 If we look only to the individual man, faith with Philo is substantially ^* J^l, 
 the same as faith with St Paul. The lessons drawn from the history of ^^ ^' 
 
 Abraham by the Alexandrian Jew and the Christian Apostle differ very 
 slightly. Faith is the postponement of all present aims and desires, the 
 sacrifice of all material interests, to the Infinite and Unseen. But the 
 philosopher of Alexandria saw no historical bearing in the career of 
 Abraham. As he was severed from the heart of the nation, so the pulses 
 of the national life had ceased to beat in him. The idea of a chosen people 
 retained scarcely the faintest hold on his thoughts. Hence the only lesson 
 which he drew from the patriarch's life had reference to himself. Abraham 
 was but a type, a symbol of the individual man. The promises made to 
 him, the rich inheritance, the numerous progeny, had no fulfilment except 
 in the growth of his own character. The Alexandrian Jew, like the 
 heathen philosopher, was exclusive, isolated, selfish. With him the theo- 
 cracy of the Old Testament was emptied of all its meaning : the covenant 
 was a matter between God and his own spirit. The idea of a Church did 
 not enter into his reckoning. He appreciated the significance of Abraham's 
 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 ^^^ Juda- 
 Syrians and Romans had served only to develope and strengthen the ^ 
 national feeling. 'We are Abraham's sons, we have Abraham to our 
 father': such was their religious war-cry, fuU of meaning to every true 
 Israelite. It was a protest against selfish isolation. It spoke of a 
 corporate life, of national hopes and interests, of an outward community, 
 a common brotherhood, ruled by the same laws and animated by the same 
 feelings. In other words, it kept alive the idea of a Church. This was the 
 point of contact between St Paul's teaching and Rabbinical Judaism. But 
 their agreement does not go much beyond this. With them indeed he 
 upheld the faith of Abraham as an example to Abraham's descendants. 
 But, while they interpreted it as a rigorous observance of outward ordi- 
 nances, he understood by it a spiritual state, a steadfast reliance on the 
 unseen God. With them too he clung to the fulfilment of the promise, he 
 cherished fondly the privileges of a son of Abraham. But to him the link 
 of brotherhood was no longer the same blood, but the same spirit : they 
 only were Abraham's sons who inherited Abraham's faith. 
 
 Thus the coincidences and contrasts of St Paul's doctrine of faith and Summary. 
 of his apphcation 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 nients in 
 conception, it would be necessary to take into account the atoning death ^* P^-.^'s 
 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 
 
 II — 2 
 
1 64 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIAKS. 
 
 Compari- 
 son of St 
 Paul and 
 St James, 
 
 illustrated 
 by the 
 facts col- 
 lected. 
 
 direct bearing on the leason 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 perhapsrefer our Lord's words (John viii. 56), 'Your father Abraham 
 rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.' But however this 
 may be, St Paul makes no such application of Abraham's example. He 
 does not once allude to the Christ, as the object of the patriarch's faith. 
 
 To return once again to the passages from Jewish writers ah'eady 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 {x<^p'-s) works of law,' says 
 St Paul (Rom. iii. 28). 'A man is justified of works and not of faith only,' 
 are the words of St James (ii. 24). Now, so long as our range of view is 
 confined to the Apostolic writings, it seems scarcely possible to resist the 
 impression that St James is attacking the teaching, if not of St Paul him- 
 self, at least of those who exaggerated and perverted it. But when we 
 realize 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 difi'erent 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 feehng, against the 
 Pharisaic spirit which rested satisfied with a barren orthodoxy fruitless in 
 works of charity. Whether this is the true bearing of the Epistle of St 
 James or not, must be determined by a close examination of its contents. 
 But inasmuch as the circles of labour of the two Apostles were not likely 
 to intersect, we have at least a. prima facie reason for seeking the objects 
 of St James's rebuke elsewhere than in the disciples of St Paul, and the 
 facts collected above destroy the force of any argument founded on the 
 mere coincidence of the examples chosen^. 
 
 ^ This view of the Epistle of St diraTare iavTods Kal aXXot rivis {j/uv 
 
 SfjioLOL (i.e. Judaizing Christians) itarct 
 TOVTOf ot \iyov(TLv 6tlj kolv afxafynakol Ctn 
 deov bk yivuxTKovaiVf ov fxi) XoylffrjTat 
 avToTs K^ptos a/xaprlav : 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. ' 
 
 James is taken by Michaelis (vi. p. 302, 
 Marsh's 2nd ed.). It is also adopted by 
 Neander : see especially his Pfianzung 
 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 o-dx ws ijf/.eis 
 
IV. I] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 i6s 
 
 IV. 'Ae7a) Se, e(p' oaop ;)^|OoVoj/ 6 KktipovofJLO^ j/riTno^ 
 
 IV. 1—7. In the former para- 
 graph St Paul starting from the figure 
 of the psedagogus had been led to 
 speak of the sonship of the faithful in 
 Christ. The opening verses of this 
 chapter are an expansion of the same 
 image. The heir in his nonage re- 
 presents the state of the world before 
 the Gospel. In drawing out the com- 
 parison, St Paul seems to include 
 Gentiles as well as Jews under this 
 * tutelage/ all having more or less 
 been subject to a system of positive 
 ordinances, and so far gone through a 
 disciplinary training. In the image 
 itself however there are two points to 
 be cleared up. 
 
 First. Is the father of the heir re- 
 presented as dead or living? On the 
 one hand individual expressions point 
 to the decease of the father ; a very 
 unnatural meaning must otherwise be 
 forced upon the words, 'heir,' 'guar- 
 dian,' 'lord of all.' On the other 
 hand the metaphor in its application 
 refers to a living Father. The latter 
 consideration must yield to the former. 
 The point of the comparison lies not 
 in the circumstances of the father, 
 but of the son. AH metaphors must 
 cease to apply at some point, and the 
 death of tlie father is the limit here 
 imposed by the nature of the ease. 
 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. pantos, irpo- 
 Oeo-fiia), 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 oui' simpler 
 modern practice, than with Roman 
 law, which in this respect was artificial 
 and elaborate. 
 
 ' I described the law as our tutor. 
 I spoke of our release from its re- 
 straints. Let me explain my meaning 
 more fully. An heir during his mi- 
 nority is treated as a servant. Not- 
 withstanding his expectations as the 
 future lord of the property, he is sub- 
 ject to the control of guardians and 
 stewards, until the time of release 
 named in his father's will anives. In 
 like manner mankind itself was a 
 minor before Christ's coming. It was 
 subject, like a child, to the discipline 
 of external ordinances . At length 
 when the time was fully arrived, God 
 sent His own Son into the world, born 
 of a woman as we are, subject to law 
 as we are, that He might redeem and 
 liberate those who are so subject, and 
 that we all might receive our destined 
 adoption as sons. Of this sonship 
 God has given us a token. He sent 
 forth into our hearts the Spirit of 
 His Son, which witnesses in us and 
 cries to Him as to a Father. Plainly 
 then, thou art no more a servant, but 
 a son ; and, as a son, thou art also 
 an heir, through the goodness of 
 God.' 
 
 I. Xeyo) 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 tovto de Xeyo), GaL 
 iii. 17 (with the note), i Cor. i. 12. 
 
 yr/TTios] ^an infant.^ As this does 
 not appear to have been a technical 
 term in Greek, or at least in Attic 
 law (where the distinction is between 
 irdis and avrjp), it probably represents 
 the Latin 'iufaus.' If so, its use here, 
 though sufficiently exact for the pur- 
 poses of the comparison, is not tech- 
 nically precise. The 'infantia' of a 
 
1 66 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [IV. 2 
 
 ecTLVy ovhkv Stadyepei hov\ov Kupio^ TvavToyv mu, *aAAa 
 
 VTTO iTTlTpOTTOV^ icTTlP Kol OLKOVOflOVi CLXP^ *^^^ TTpodeO'- 
 
 Roman child ended with his seventh 
 year, after which he was competent to 
 perform certain legal acts, but he 
 was not entirely emancipated from a 
 state of tutelage till he entered on 
 his twenty-fifth year, having passed 
 through several intermediate stages. 
 See Savigny Rom, Becht iii. p. 25 
 sq. NT^TTtos seems to be here ^ a 
 minor' in any stage of his minority. 
 The word is opposed to avrip, i Cor. 
 xiii. 1 1, Ephes. iv. 13, 14 : comp. Dion. 
 Hal. iv. 9, Gruter Inscr. p. 682. 9. 
 See Philo Leg. ad CaL 4, 11. p. 549 
 
 VrjTTLOV €71 OVra KOfXlbfj KOL XPTlC^^"^^ 
 
 €7rtTp6ir<ov KoX Bt^aaKokav kol naida- 
 
 ovbh dLa(ft4pet SovXou] The minor 
 was legally in much the same position 
 as the slave. He could not perform 
 any act, except through his legal re- 
 presentative. This responsible per- 
 son, the guardian in the case of the 
 minor, the master in the case of the 
 slave, who represented him to the 
 state, and whose sanction was neces- 
 sary for the validity of any contract 
 undertaken on his behalf, was termed 
 in Attic law Kvpios, Meier Att. Proc. 
 p. 450. Prospectively however, though 
 not actually, the minor was Kvptos Trdv- 
 TOiv, which the slave was not. 
 
 2. eTTLTpOTTOVS KOL OlKOVOp-OVs] ^ COU- 
 
 trollers of his person and property.^ 
 The language is intended, as the plurals 
 show, to be as comprehensive as pos- 
 sible. It is therefore vain to search 
 for the exact technical term in Roman 
 law corresponding to each word. The 
 Latin fathers translate them various- 
 ly; 'curatores et actores' Vict^ Hil., 
 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 inirpoTroi are 
 the boy's legal representatives, his 
 
 guardians (whether 'curatores' or 
 ' tutores ' in Roman law) ; the oIkovo- 
 fioL, stewards or baihfifs appointed to 
 manage his household or property. 
 The word eVtVpoTros- elsewhere in the 
 New Testament, Matt. xx. 8, Luke 
 viii. 3, is 'a steward.' Adopted into 
 the Rabbinical language (D1D'nD''aK) 
 it has a comprehensive meaning, sig- 
 nifying sometimes a guardian, some- 
 times a steward : see Schottgen here 
 and on Luke viii, 3. 
 
 TTJs Trpodcaixias] SC. i^p-epas, ^the day 
 appointed beforehand,' 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 iraTpos- 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 Gains (i. § 55). It would 
 appear however, that by Roman law 
 some discretion was left to the father, 
 at all events in certain cases ; see Gains 
 § 1 36 ' Si cui testamento tutor sub con- 
 dicio7ie aut ex die certo datus sit': 
 comp. Justiniaa's Instit. i. xiv. 3; and 
 probably moreesactinformation would 
 show that the law was not so rigorous 
 as is often assumed. Considering then 
 (i) That though the term of guardian- 
 ship was not generally settled by the 
 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. 7)/xetff] 'w?e,' Jews and Gentiles 
 
IV. 3, 4] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 167 
 
 fxia^ Tov TTarpo^, ^ovtco£ kul i^/uLel^y ore rifxei/ vyi'^-lol, 
 VTTO TO. aTOL')(^eia rod Koorfxov Y]fxev BeSovXw/xeuor "^bre 
 
 alike, as appears from the whole con- 
 text. See the note on ver. 11. 
 
 TO. o-TOLxela] Hhe elements y (yc\gm2i)\j 
 'the letters of the alpliabet,' 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; (i) '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 ra ovpa- 
 via o-Toix€ia, Dial. p. 285 0. They were 
 probably so called chronologically, as 
 the elements of time (Theoph. adAut, 
 i, 4 tjXlos kol (rekrjvT) koi aarepes aroc- 
 X^^^ auroO eltrlvj els (rrjfiela kol cls Kai- 
 povs Koi els rjfxepas koX els iviavTOvs ye- 
 yovoTo) : (2) ' The alphabet of learning, 
 rudimentaryinBtruction;'asHeb.v. 12. 
 
 The former sense is commonly a- 
 dopted by the fathers, who for the 
 most part explain it of the observance 
 of days and seasons, regulated by the 
 heavenly bodies. So Hilar., Pelag., 
 Chrysost., Theod. Mops., Theodoret; 
 comp. Ep. ad Diog. § 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 
 iqpeXs, which must include Jews. The 
 agreement in favour of this sense of 
 (TToix^'ia may, I think, be attributed 
 to the influence of a passage in the 
 Prcedicatio Petri, quoted in Clem. 
 Alex. Strom, vi. (p. 760, Potter), Orig. 
 in loann. iv. 22 (rv. 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 ayyi- 
 \ois Kcu apxo.yyeKois^ firjvi kol a-eXijvfj. 
 
 At all events I can scarcely doubt 
 that this interpretation of oT-otx^ia 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,Prima8ius) 
 adopt the other sense, 'elementary 
 teaching.' This is probably the correct 
 interpretation, both as simpler in itself 
 and as suiting the context better. St 
 Paul seems to be dwelling still on the 
 rudimentary character of the law, as 
 fitted for an earlier stage in the world's 
 history. The expression occurs again 
 in reference to formal ordinances. Col. 
 ii. 8 Kara ttjv napaboa-LV ratv av~ 
 6pcd7r(ov Kara ra crroi;^6ta tov KoafioV} 
 and ii. 20 el aTreSavere uvv Xpta-r&i otto 
 Twv CTTOix^iaiV TOV Koa-fiov, TL (OS ^avres 
 ep Koa-fxtp 8oy p,aTi^ea-$e ; In these 
 passages the words of the context 
 which are emphasized seem to show 
 that a Tnode of instruction is signified 
 
 by TO. GTOlX^la TOV k6<T}XQV. 
 
 TOV KQ(Tp.ov^ ^of the world^ i.e. hav- 
 ing reference to material and ni)t to 
 spiritual things, formal and sensuous. 
 The force of tov Koo-fiov is best ex- 
 plained by the parallel passages already 
 cited. Col. ii. 8, 20. See below, vi. 14. 
 
 4. TO TrKripcofia tov xpoi'ov] The 
 ideas involved in this expression may 
 be gathered from the context. It was 
 'the fulness of time.' First; In refer- 
 ence to the G-iver. The moment had 
 arrived which God had ordained from 
 the begitming and foretold by His pro- 
 phets for Messiah's coming. This is 
 implied in the comparison -q TrpoOea-jxia 
 tov TraTpos. /Secondly; In reference 
 to the recipient. The Gospel was 
 withheld until the world had arrived 
 at mature age : law had worked out its 
 educational purpose and now was su- 
 
i68 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [IV. 5 
 
 oe rjXuev to TrXYipcofxa tov ^(^povoVy epa7re<TTeiKev 6 ©eo? 
 TOP VLov avTOVy yevofxevov e/c yvvaiKO'i^ yevofxevov vtto 
 vofiovy ^\va Tovs VTTO vofjiov i^ayopdo-riy 'Iva Trjv vlode- 
 
 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 
 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. 
 
 7r\i]p(ofia]' the complement^ On this 
 word see ColossianSy p. 257 sq. 
 
 €^a7rea-T€L\ev] ''He sent forth from 
 Him,self, as His representative': ^ex 
 caelo a sese,' says BengeL This word 
 assumes the pre-existence of the Son, 
 but must not be pressed to imply also 
 the unity with the Father, for it is 
 commonly used in later Greek in 
 speaking of any mission. 
 
 yevofi^vov ck yvvaiKos] i. 0. taking up- 
 on Himself our human nature ; comp. 
 Job xiv. I, Matt. xi. ii. 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. 
 
 yipofxevov vrro voixop] not top uofiov ; 
 
 for, though Chnst was bom under 
 the Mosaic law, the application of the 
 principle is much wider. See the note 
 on the next verse. 
 
 5. The two clauses correspond to 
 those of the foregoing verse in an in- 
 verted order by the grammatical figure 
 called chiasm; ^The Son of God was 
 born a man, that in Him all men might 
 become sons of God ; He was bom 
 subject to law, that those subject to 
 law might be rescued from bondage.' 
 At the same time the figure is not 
 arbitrarily employed here, but the in- 
 version arises out of the necessary se- 
 quence. The abolition of the law, the 
 rescue from bondage, was a prior con- 
 dition of the universal sonship of the 
 faithful. See the note on iii. 14. 
 
 TOVS VTTO VOfJLOv] agaiu not TOV VOfXOV. 
 
 St Paul refers primarily to the Mosaic 
 law, as at once the highest and most 
 rigorous form of law, but extends the 
 application to all those subject to any 
 system of positive ordinances. We seem 
 to have the same extension, starting 
 from the law of Moses, in i Cor. ix. 20, 
 €ycv6fxr)V rots *Iovdaiois as ^lovdalos . • . 
 
 TOls VTTO VOflOV 0)9 VTTO VOfjLOV. 
 
 e^ayopaarrj] See the note on iii. 13. 
 
 tva, tva] For the repetition of tva, 
 and for the general connexion of 
 thought, see the note iii. 14. In this 
 passage it is perhaps best to take the 
 two as independent of each other, in- 
 asmuch as the two clauses to which 
 they respectively refer are likewise in- 
 dependent. Comp. Ephes. v. 26, 27. 
 
 Trip vlodea-iap] not 'the sonship,' but 
 'the adoption as sons.' Ylodeo-ia seems 
 never to have the former sense; see 
 Fritzsche on Horn. viii. 1 5. Potentially 
 indeed men were sons before Christ's 
 coming (ver. i), but actually they were 
 only slaves (ver. 3). His coming con- 
 ferred upon them the privileges of 
 sons : * Adoptionem propterea dicit,' 
 
IV. 6, 7] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 169 
 
 (Tiav dTToXd^wfjiev, ^ori Se ecrre vlol^ e^aTrecTeiXei/ 6 
 Qeo^ TO TTvevfia tov viov avTov eis Ta? KapSias y^/uLcoVy 
 Kpd^ou 'A/3/3a 6 Trarrip. '^wcTe ovk€tl ei Soi/Aos, dWa 
 
 says Augustine with true apprecia- 
 tion, 'ut distinete intelligamus unicum 
 Dei filium.' We are sons by grace; 
 He is so by nature. 
 
 d7ro\d^o>fi€u] The exact sense of the 
 preposition will depend on the mean- 
 ing assigned to vlodea-iau. If vio6ca-la 
 be taken as adoption, diroXdfBafiev 
 must signify ' receive as destined for, 
 as promised to us,' or, as Augustine 
 says, *nec dixit accipiamus^ sed reci- 
 piamus, ut significaret hoc nos ami- 
 sisse in Adam, ex quo mortales su- 
 mus.' At all events it cannot be 
 equivalent to \a^m^€v. 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. oTi eVre vtot] ^because ye are 
 sonsJ The presence of the Spirit is 
 thus a witness of their sonship. The 
 force of this clause is best explained 
 by the parallel passage, Rom. viii. 15, 
 16. St Paul seems here to be dwelUng 
 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, sv. 8. 
 
 Kpa^ov] The word denotes earnest 
 and importunate prayer, as in Is. xix. 
 20 : comp. James v. 4. 
 
 'Ai3/3a d irarrip] Abba is the Aramaic 
 equivalent to the Greek irarrip. The 
 combination of the two words seems 
 to have been a liturgical formula. It 
 occurs in Mark xiv. 36 in the mouth 
 of our Lord, and also in Rom. viii. 15, 
 in a passage closely resembling this. 
 The origin of this formula may be 
 explained in two ways. First, It ori- 
 ginated with the Hellenistic Jews who 
 would naturally adhere with fondness 
 to the original word consecrated in 
 their prayers by long usage, and add 
 to it the equivalent in the Greek lan- 
 
 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 Schottgen, 11. p. 252: e.g. a woman 
 entreating a judge addresses him HD 
 *^''^, the second word being Kvpte, the 
 Greek equivalent to the Aramaic """ID 
 'my Lord.' For other examples see 
 Rev. ix. II ('AttoXXijcoi', A/3a55(ai/),xii.9, 
 XX. 2 (^aravas, Aid^oXos). Whichever 
 explanation be adopted, this phrase is 
 a speaking testimony to that fusion of 
 Jew and Greek which prepared the 
 way for the preaching of the Gospel 
 to the heathen. Accordingly St Paul 
 in both passages seems to dwell on it 
 with peculiar emphasis, as a type of 
 the union of Jew and Gentile in Christ : 
 comp. iii. 28. 
 
 A)3/3a] In Chaldee X|N, in Syriac 
 |.^(. In the latter dialect it is said 
 to have been pronounced with a dou- 
 ble b when applied to a spiritual father, 
 with a single b when used in its first 
 sense: see Bernstein's Lecc. s. v. and 
 comp. Hoffmann, Gratnin. Syr. i. i, 
 § 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 'Aj3/3a 6 iraTTjp can only repeat 
 the word, ^Father our Father I in all 
 
I/O 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [IV. 8, 9 
 
 vlo^' ei Be vio'Sy Kal KXf^povofxo^ Zia Qeov. ^dWa TOTe 
 ^ev ovK eihore^ Oeoi/ eSovXevcaTe to?? (pvcei jmri ovatv 
 deoh' ^vvv he 'yvovTe^ GeoV, fxaXKov he yvwirQevre^ 
 
 three passages where the expression 
 occurs. 
 
 o irarrip] The nomiuative with the 
 article is here used for an emphatic 
 vocative, as e.g. Luke viii. 54 rj Trais, 
 eyetpe. See Winer, § xxix. p. 227. 
 This is a Hebraism ; comp. Gesen. 
 Heb. Ch^mnm. § 107. 
 
 7. c^orre] Hherefore^ 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.' 
 
 ovKiri et] * 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' (dn-oXajSw/ier', ver. 5); 
 next, ' you, my Galatian converts ' 
 (eVre, ver. 6); lastly , 'each individual 
 man who hears my words' (et, ver. 7). 
 
 el 5e VLos^ KCLi KKt)pov6yi.os\ Comp. 
 Rom. viii. ly el Se reVya, kclI Kkrjpovofxoi. 
 It has been made a question whether 
 StPaulis here drawing his illustrations 
 from Jewish or from Roman law. In 
 answer to this it is perhaps sufficient 
 to say, that so far as he has in view 
 any special form of law, he would 
 naturally refer to the Roman, as most 
 familiar to his readers. And indeed 
 the Roman law of inheritance supplied 
 a much truer illustration of the privi- 
 leges of the Christian, than the Jewish. 
 By Roman law all the children, whe- 
 ther sons or daughters, inherited alike 
 (comp. iii. 28 ovk evi ^paev koI dijXv); 
 by Jewish, the sons inherited un- 
 equally, and except in default of male 
 heirs the daughters were excluded ; 
 Michaelis Laws of Moses in. 3, § i. 
 See a paper of C. F. A. Fritzsche in 
 Fritzsch. Opusc. i. p. 143. 
 6ta GeoO] ^heir not by virtue of 
 
 birth, or through merits of your own, 
 but through God who adopted you.' 
 For 6ia see the note on i. i. This is 
 doubtless the right reading, having 
 the preponderance of authority in its 
 favour. All other variations, includ- 
 ing that of the received text, KX-qpovo- 
 fios Qeov dia XpifTTov, are apparently 
 substitutions of a common expression 
 for one which is unusual and startling. 
 8 — II. 'Nevertheless, in an unfilial 
 spirit, ye have subjected yourselves 
 again to bondage, ye would fain submit 
 anew to a weak and beggarly discipline 
 of restraint. And how much less par- 
 donable is this now ! For then ye were 
 idolaters from ignorance of God, but 
 now ye have known God, or rather 
 have been known of Him. Ye are scru- 
 pulous in your observance of months 
 and seasons and years. Ye terrify 
 me, lest all the toil which I have ex- 
 pended on you should be found vain.' 
 aXKa\ ^yet still, in spite of your 
 sonship,' referring not to ehovkevtrare 
 with which it stands in close proxi- 
 mity, bnt to the more remote iiri- 
 tTTp€<l}€T€ (ver. 9); comp. Rom. vi. 17 
 X^pt-s 5e T<5 Oew, on ^re bovXoi, virr)- 
 Koixrare de ck Kapblas k.t.X. The inter- 
 vening words (ver. 8) are inserted to 
 prepare the way for ttoKlv. 
 
 t6t€ fiev OVK elboTes] 'Then it was 
 through ignorance of God that ye were 
 subject etc.'; a partial excuse for their 
 former bondage. For the expression 
 elbivai Oeov see I Thess. iv. 5, 2 Thess. 
 i. 8. 
 
 rot? ^ucret fxrj ov(nv deols] ^to those 
 who hy nature were not gods,' i.e. fj.fj 
 oZaiv Oeols fiXXa daLfxovtots ; COmp. I Cor. 
 x. 20 a 6vova-Lv Ija. eOvrj], baip^oviois kolX 
 ov GecS 6vov<TLv. This is the correct 
 order. On the other hand in the read- 
 ing of the received text, rots p-rj (j^vaei 
 ov<Tiv Oeols, the negative affects (pvo-ei; 
 i.e. fxrj <j)v(r€i dXka Xoyo), 'not by na- 
 
IV. 10] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 171 
 
 VTTO QeoVy 7ra)9 e7ncrTpe<p€Te iraXiv eTVi to. daSet^fj 
 Kal TTTco^d (TTOf^eta, oh irdXiv dvcodev SovXevetv de- 
 Aere ; ^^rjfxepa's irapaTYipeio'de Kai juifjva^ Kai Katpov^ 
 
 ture, but by repute' ; comp. i Cor. viii. 
 5 €La-iu XeyofjLGvoL 6eoi. 
 
 9. yvovTcs'] ^Immng disceritcd, re- 
 cognised,^ to be distinguished from 
 the preceding cl^iorcs. See i Joh. ii. 
 29 eav eldfjre on diKaLos ia-riv, yLVco- 
 (TKere on koI wai k.t.X., John sxi. 
 17, Ephes. V. 5, I Cor. ii. 11 : comp. 
 Gal. ii. 7, 9. While olda 'I know^ re- 
 fers to the knowledge of facts abso- 
 lutely, yLvwo-KQ) * I recognise ' being 
 relative, gives prominence either to 
 the attainme?it or the inanifestatlon 
 of the knowledge. Thus yivaxTKeiv 
 will be used in preference to eldeuai; 
 (i) where there is reference to some 
 earlier state of ignorance, or to some 
 prior facts on which the knowledge 
 is based ; (2) where the ideas of 
 'thoroughness, familiarity,' or of 'ap- 
 probation,' are involved : these ideas 
 arising out of the stress which yLV(S- 
 (TKeiv 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. 
 
 yvaxrOevres vtto Geov] added to ob- 
 viate any false inference, as though 
 the reconciliation with God were at- 
 tributable to a man's own effort. See 
 I Cor. viii. 2 et ns doKel iypcoKivai rt, 
 ouTTO) eypca KaBws Set yvSvat' el be ns 
 dyarra tov Qeov, ovtos eyvacrrat vtt av~ 
 Tov: comp. I Cor. siii. 12. God knows 
 man, but man knows not God or 
 knows Him but imperfectly. See also 
 
 I Joh. iv. 10 ov)( on Tj/Aety tjyaTT^a-afiev 
 TOV Qeov^ dXk' on avros -qydivqrrev rjixas. 
 
 TTWff eVto-rp£<^erc] The Apostle's ea- 
 gerness to remonstrate leads him to in- 
 terrupt by an interrogation the natu- 
 ral flow of the sentence as marked out 
 by the foregoing words. A present 
 tense is used, for the change was still 
 going on ; comp. 1. 6 fieTanSeo-de. 
 
 da-QevT} Koi 7rr(B;^a] ^weak, for they 
 have no power to rescue man from con- 
 demnation ; ' beggarly J for they bring 
 no rich endowment of spiritual trea- 
 sures. For da-QevTf see Rom. viii. 3 to 
 dhvvaTov TOV vofxov (comp. Gal. iii. 21), 
 Heb. vii. 18 to do-deves Kal dva><p€Xes. 
 
 irdXiv avcoBev] a strong expression to 
 describe the completeness of their 
 
 lo. i]fjL€pas K.T.\.] Comp. Col. ii. 16 
 €V fxip€i eopTTJs rj vovfxr^v'ias rj (ra^^drcov, 
 which passage explains the expres- 
 sions here, stopping short however of 
 iviavToi The Tjjxipai are the days re- 
 curring weekly, the sabbaths: y.r}ves, 
 the monthly celebrations, the new 
 moons: Kctpoi, the annual festivals, as 
 the passover, pentecost, etc. ; iviavTol, 
 the sacred years, as the sabbatical 
 year and the year of jubilee. Comp. 
 Judith viii. 6 x^P'-^ Trpoa-a^pdroiv Ka\ 
 (ra^^aTCOV kol irpovovfjLTjvmv kol vovfxr]- 
 vtatv Kal eopTt^v Kal ;^ap/xo(7Ui/©i' o'lkov 
 'l(7pa7;X, Philo de Sept. p. 286 M Iva ttjv 
 e^dofidda TLixT](T7j koto. TrdvTas ^poi'ous' 
 Tjp.epuiv KoX fXTjumv Kai eviavTSv k.t.X. 
 
 For firjves in the sense it has here 
 
 comp. Is. Ixvi. 23 KOL €(TTai flTjV eK fJLT]- 
 
 vos Kal cra^^aTou ck (ra^^aTov. On this 
 use of Katpos for an annually recurring 
 season see Moeris p. 214 (Bekker), 
 "Qpa cTovs, ^Attlkol' Katpos erous, "EX- 
 Xrjves: and Hesychius, "flpa erouff* /cat- 
 pos €Tovs' TO eap Kal to 6epos. 
 
 iviavTot] It has been calculated 
 (Wieseler,OAro?i./S'?/wc)^5.p.2o4sq.and 
 here) that the year from autumn 54 to 
 autumn 55 was a sabbatical year; and 
 an inference has been drawn from this 
 as to the date of the epistle. The 
 enumeration however seems to be 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- 
 
172 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. [IV. ii 
 
 Kai iptavTOvs ; " (hofiovfjiai vfxa^, fxt] ttcos eiKfj kskO' 
 
 gen, c. Uels. viu. 21 — 23. 
 
 irapaT-qp^la-dc] ''ye minutely ^ scru- 
 pulously observe,^ literally 'ye go along 
 with and observe': comp. Ps. cxxix. 3 
 iav avofxlas TraparTjpTJa-jjSy Joseph. Ant, 
 111. 5' 5 TcapaTrjpeiv ras e^dojJLddaSj 
 Clem. Horn. six. 22 d/xeXiJo-an-es rj\v 
 TraparrfpTja-Lv. In this last passage, 
 which enjoins the observance of days 
 {€7TiTT}prj<TLpoi jj/iepai), there isapparent- 
 ly an attack on St Paul; see above, 
 p. 61. There seems to be no authority 
 for assigning to iraparripelv the sense 
 ' wrongly observe/ nor is the analogy 
 of such words as TrapaKoveiv suflSciently 
 close to bear it out. Here the middle 
 voice still further enforces the idea 
 of interested, assiduous observance ; 
 comp. Luke xiv. i. 
 
 1 1. KCKOTTiaKa] the indicative mood, 
 because the speaker suspects that what 
 he fears has actually happened. Herm. 
 on Soph. Aj. 272 says, ^p,ri ean veren- 
 tis quidem est sed indicantis simul 
 putare se ita esse ut veretur.' See 
 Winer § Ivi. p. 631 sq. 
 
 In the above passage St Paul ex- 
 pressively describes the Mosaic law, 
 as a rudimentary teaching, the alpha- 
 bet, as it were, of moral and spiritual 
 instruction. The child must be taught 
 by definite rules, learnt by rote. The 
 chosen race, like the individual man, 
 has had its period of childhood. Dur- 
 ing this period, the mode of instruc- 
 tion was tempered to its undeveloped 
 capacities. It was subject to a disci- 
 pline of absolute precepts, of external 
 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 lawwhich 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' 
 (i 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, Kom. 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 
 
IV. 12, 13] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 17, 
 
 1 Lveo've ws eyw, on Kayw w^ vjuet^y aoeACpot, 
 Seojuat vjucov ovdev fme ^BiKr}(TaTe' ^^ oidaTe Se otl Bl 
 
 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-Toix^'i^a, 'elementary 
 systems of training.' They had at least 
 this in common, that as ritual systems 
 they were made up of precepts and 
 ordinances, and thus were represent- 
 atives of * law' as opposed to 'grace,' 
 'promise,' that is, as opposed to the 
 Gospel. Doubtless in this respect 
 even the highest form of heathen reli- 
 gion was much lower and less efficient 
 than the Mosaic ritual. But still in 
 an imperfect way they might do the 
 same work: they might act as a 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 8t 
 Paul seems to consider them, we get 
 as the component parts of each : Ju- 
 
 daism; (i) The spiritual — absolutely 
 good, absorbed in the Gospel ; (2) 
 The ritualistic — relatively good, o-tol- 
 Xela: HEATHENISM; (i) The ritualis- 
 tic — relatively good, o-roixela ; (2) 
 The spiritual — absolutely bad, anta- 
 gonistic to the Gospel. 
 
 If this explanation of St Paul's mean- 
 ing be correct, it will appear on the 
 one hand that his teaching has nothing 
 in common with Goethe's classifica- 
 tion, when he placed Judaism at the 
 head of Ethnic religions. On the other 
 hand it will explain the intense hatred 
 with which the Judaizers, wholly un- 
 able to rise above the level of their 
 sectarian prejudices and take a com- 
 prehensive view of God's providence, 
 regarded the name and teaching of 
 St Paul. 
 
 12 — 16. 'By our common sympa- 
 thies, as brethren I appeal to you. I 
 laid aside the privileges, the preju- 
 dices of 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. JSTay, ye 
 remember, when detained by sickness 
 I preached the Gospel to you, what a 
 hearty welcome ye gave me. My in- 
 firmity might well have tempted you 
 to reject my message. It was far 
 otherwise. Ye did not spurn me, did 
 not loathe me; but received me as an 
 angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself. 
 And what has now become of your 
 felicitations? Are they scattered to 
 the winds? Yet ye did felicitate 
 yourselves then. Yea, I bear you 
 witness, such was your gratitude, ye 
 would have plucked out your very 
 eyes and have given them to me. 
 What then ? Have I made you my 
 enemies by telling the truth?' 
 
 12. Tivea-$€ (OS iyd k.t.X.] Of the 
 
174 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. [IV. H 
 
 dcrdeveiap ttj^ (rapKO^ evrjyyeXto'aiixrjv vfXiv to irpOTepov^ 
 
 14 
 
 KUL Tov ireipacTfjiOV vfjiwv ev Tt] <rapKi jjlov ovk 
 
 ej-ov- 
 
 meaning of the first clause there can 
 be but httle doubt; 'Free yourself 
 from the bondage of ordinances, as I 
 am free.' Of the second two inter- 
 pretations deserve to be considered ; 
 (i) 'For I was once in bondage as 
 
 ye are now/ i.e. Kayat rjfi-qv'lovdaios 
 cos vfiels vvv 'louSatfere. So Eusebius 
 (of Emesa?), Chrysostom, Jerome, and 
 apparently Pseudo- Justin Orat ad 
 Graec. § 5 ; see p. 60 note i : (2) 'For 
 I abandoned my legal ground of right- 
 eousnessj I became a Gentile like you,' 
 i.e. Kaya ly^VQ\i.y]v "'&Xt]v co? u/xets 
 ^re "EXXt^i/cs- ; corap. 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, eye- 
 vojLtTjj', not ri\Lr]v. 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 hved as a Gentile that I might 
 preach to you Gentiles. Will you then 
 abandon me when I have abandoned 
 all for you?' This sense is well adapt- 
 ed both to the tender appeal ' bre- 
 thren, I beseech you,' and to the eager 
 explanation which follows ' ye did 
 me no wrong.' For the expression 
 comp. Ter. Eun. i. 2. 115 'mens fac 
 sis postremo animus, quando ego sum 
 tuus.' 
 
 ovhkv jLte T/SiKTjo-are] 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 hi 
 aaSeveiav. 
 
 13. o'lbare S4] 'on the contrary ye 
 know^ 
 
 hi aa-6kv€iav rrjs aapKOs] ^on account 
 of an infirmity in my fleshJ 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 ovbiv fie jJStKTJo-are. For the 
 expression compare Thucyd. vi. 102 
 avTov be tov kvkXov [alpflv] NtKias die- 
 KcoXvcreu' ervx^ yap iv avT(^ 5t* acrSivei- 
 av VTToXe'keLfip^evos. Alluding to this 
 afterwards in an impassioned appeal, 
 Nicias might well have said, Si* da-Be- 
 v€Lav eiToiXTa tov kvicXov. At all events 
 this is the only rendering of the words 
 which the grammar admits. No in- 
 stance has been produced, until a 
 much later date, which would at all 
 justify our explaining St' doSeveiaVj as 
 
 if it were St' da-deveias or ev do-Oeveia, 
 
 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 ve$tra?J Of the 
 Greek fathers, Chrysost., Theodoret, 
 and Theod. Mops, slur over the pre- 
 position, interpreting the passage 
 however in a way more consonant with 
 the sense ev dadeveia. Photius {1 ap, 
 (Ecum.) is the first, so far as I have 
 noticed, who boldly gives the ungram- 
 matical rendering fxerh. da-deveias* 
 TO TTporepov^ ^on the Jvrm,er of my 
 
IV. 15] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 175 
 
 devno'ccTe ovZe e^eTTTVcare^ dXXa oJ? ayyeXov Qeov 
 e^e^aade ^e, cJ? XptCTTOi/ 'lf}(rovi/. ^^ttov ovv 6 fxaKupKr- 
 
 tLs odv 6 fiaKapLo-fws. 
 
 15- 
 
 two visits.^ To TTpoTepov, which de- 
 rives a certain emphasis from the 
 article, cannot be simply equivalent 
 to TToXai, 'some time ago/ It may 
 mean either (i) 'formerly/ with a di- 
 rect and emphatic reference to some 
 later point of time ; comp. Joh. vi. 62, 
 ix. 8, I Tim. i. 13, or (2) 'on the for- 
 mer of two occasions.' In the present 
 passage it is difficult to explain the 
 emphasis, if we assign the first of 
 these two meanings to it, so that we 
 have to fall back upon the second as 
 the probable interpretation. The ex- 
 pression therefore seems to justify the 
 assumption of two visits to Galatia 
 before this letter was written; see pp. 
 
 I4« Tov Treipao-^ov vn&v k.t.X.] ^your 
 temptation which was in my fleshy 
 i.e. St Paul's bodily ailment, which 
 was a trial to the Galatians and which 
 might have led them to reject his 
 preaching. n6tpao-;i6ff, like the corre- 
 sponding EngUsh word 'temptation,' 
 is employed here by a laxity of usage 
 common in all languages for ' the thing 
 which tempts or tries.' On this con- 
 crete sense of substantives in -/xo's, see 
 Buttm. Atisf. Sprachl. §119. 23. anm. 
 II. The apparent harshness of the 
 expression here, 'your temptation ye 
 did not despise nor loathe,' is ex- 
 plained and in some degree relieved 
 by the position of tov Treipao-fMov v/xav 
 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 eV 
 Tfj aapKi fxov have given to 7retpa<Tp.6v. 
 
 For vfiav some texts have /xou tov, 
 the received reading, others simply 
 TOV. Considering however that the 
 
 weight of authority is strongly in fa- 
 vour of vp.^v (see below, p. 186, note i) 
 and that the transcribers were under 
 every temptation to soften a liarsh 
 and at first sight unintelligible phrase 
 by altering or omitting the pronoun, 
 this reading ought certainly to be re- 
 tained. On the other hand, suppos- 
 ing fiov to be the original reading, 
 some have accounted for the variation 
 vp.av (Reiche, Comm. 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 tov, it seems to be 
 merely the insertion of a classicist. 
 
 ovK i^ovB^vrjO-aTe ovbe i^eTTTvaaTe] 
 
 'ye did not treat with contemptuous 
 indifference or with active loathing.' 
 As anroTTTveLv is more usual than Sk- 
 TTTveiv in this metaphorical sense, the 
 latter seems to be preferred here for 
 the sake of the alliteration. 
 
 15- '^ov ovv 6 fj,aKapLo-fx6s u/zc5i/;] 
 The reading of the received text differs 
 from this in two points: (i) It inserts 
 ^v 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 tIs 
 for TTov. On this point there is more 
 difficulty. The weight of direct evi- 
 dence is certainly in favour of ttov, 
 but on the other hand it is more pro- 
 bable that TTOV should have been sub- 
 stituted for tIs than conversely; espe- 
 cially as several Greek commentators 
 (Theod. Mops., Theodoret, Severianus) 
 who read tis explain it by nov. 
 
 If the reading tU be adopted, the 
 choice seems to lie between two out 
 of many interpretations which have 
 been proposed: (i) 'How hollow, how 
 meaningless was your rejoicing' (un- 
 derstanding ^v); (2) 'What has be- 
 
176 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. [IV. i6, 17 
 
 ^os vfiwi/ ; /jLaprvpcS yap v/uuv on, el SvuaToi/, TOi)s 
 6(p6a\iuov<5 vfjiwv €^opv^ai/T€^ eZtoKUTe fxoi, ^^uxrre i^-- 
 6po^ vfxcdv yeyopa dXrjdevayp vfjuv ; ^'^ Zrj\ov(np v/mcis ov 
 
 come of your rejoicing? where has it 
 vanished?' (understanding ea-Tiv). In 
 the latter sense it would coincide in 
 meaning with ttov ovp 6 iiaKapia-fios, 
 which can only be taken in one way. 
 This interpretation seems more natu- 
 ral than the former. 
 
 o ^aKopto-fibs v/xeSi'] ^youT felicita- 
 tion of yourselves^ *your happiness in 
 my teaching/ as the sense seems to re- 
 quire. v\i5iv is probably the subjective 
 genitive, though the Galatians were at 
 the same time also the object of the 
 p,aKapi(rfi6s. 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 fiaKapto-fios would 
 ill express their welcoming of him; 
 not the latter, for St Paul is dwelling 
 on the change of feeling which t?iey 
 themselves had undergone. For fiaKa- 
 pia-fios, 'beatitude,' see Rom. iv. 6, 
 9, and Clem. Rom. § 50. 
 
 fiapTvpa] '/ bear witness^ see the 
 note on i Thess. ii. 12. 
 
 d dvvarov k.tX] Hf 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 koX tovs 6cf>BaKfiovs com- 
 pare the Old Testament phrase to 
 *keep as the apple of one's eye' (e.g. 
 Ps. xvii. 8), and the references in 
 Wetstein. See below, p. 191, note. 
 
 edcoKare] 'ye had given.' The sup- 
 pression of the condition expresses 
 more vividly their readiness ; see Wi- 
 ner § xlii. p. 32 1 . The insertion of av in 
 the received test enfeebles the sense. 
 
 16. wo-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?' 
 
 ex^pos vnav] 'your enemyJ It 
 was a term by which the Judaizers of 
 a later age, and perhaps even at this 
 time, designated St Paul ; GleTn. Horn. 
 £^. Peir. § 2 roO ly^Bpov avBpamov 
 avofjLov TLva KoiX <f>\vapaB7] irpoa-qKO- 
 fievoL dtdaa-KoXlav, Clem. Rec. i. 70 : 
 see p. 61. This quotation suggests 
 that avofios was another of these hos- 
 tile names which he is parrying in i 
 Cor. ix. 21 jtxi) (ui/ avofjLOs Qeov. 
 
 aXrjdevMv] probably referring to 
 some warnings given during his se- 
 cond visit. See the introduction 
 p. 25. Compare the proverb, Ter. 
 Andr. i. i. 41, 'obsequium amicos, 
 Veritas odium parit.' 
 
 17. From speaking of the former 
 interchange of affection between him- 
 self and his Galatian converts, he goes 
 on to contrast their relations with the 
 false teachers: 'I once held the first 
 place in your hearts. Now you look 
 upon me as an enemy. Others have 
 supplanted me. Only enquire into 
 their aims. True, they pay court to 
 you : but how hollow, how insincere is 
 their interest in you ! Their desire is 
 to shut you out from Christ. Thus 
 you will be driven to pay court to 
 them.' 
 
 ZrjKova-Lv] Hhey pay court to^ As 
 ^r\Kovv 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 Ho busy oneself about, take in- 
 terest in,' a sense which lies close to 
 the original meaning of f^Aoy, if cor- 
 rectly derived from few. See 2 Oor. 
 
 xi 2, ^T/Xffl yap vfias Geov Cv^to: SO 
 
 also Plut. Mor. p. 448 h vtto xp^Us to 
 TTpcoTov firovTai KOI CriXovaiVj va-Tepoif fie 
 
IV. i8, 19] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 177 
 
 Ka\(Ss, dWa eKKXeicaL v/ma^ QeXovo'LVy tva avTOvs ^rj' 
 XovTe. ^^KaXou Se ^r}Xov(r6at ev kuXm Trai/TOTEy Kal 
 fJLYi ixovov ev TftJ irapeival jue Trpo's Vfxd^y ^^reKvia julov^ ovs 
 
 19. T^KVa /J.OV. 
 
 KoX (t>L\ov(rtv: I Cor. xii. 31, xiv. i^ 39, 
 Ezek. xxxix. 25. 
 
 aXKa] is connected not with (rfKov- 
 a-Lv, but with ov KoKas : comp. iEsch, 
 Bum. 458 €(P3lO' ovtos ov Ka\ms, fio~ 
 Xoov is oiKoVy dWd viv Ke\aLv6(f)pa>v e/ii) 
 fJ'^Trjp KareKTa. 
 
 eKKkelo-ai vfia?] Ho 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 KaTr]py^6T}T€ a.7ro tov Xpio-TOVj rijs 
 XapiTos iienea-aTc, The reading T^/iay, 
 though it gives a good sense, is almost 
 destitute of authority. 
 
 tpa avTovs ^rjXovTe] ^tJiat, having no 
 refuge elsewhere, you may pay court 
 to them! For the present indicative 
 after Iva comp. i Cor. iv. 6 Xva firj 
 (l>vaiovo-6€ : a usage quite unclassical, 
 but often found in later writers ; see 
 Winer § xli. p. 362. The future in- 
 dicative with Lva is comparatively com- 
 mon, as e.g. ii. 4. The attempt to 
 give ha with the indicative a local 
 sense (quo in statu), as opposed to a 
 ^nal (e.g. Fritzsche on Matth. p. 836 
 sq.), may mislead^ as seeming to as- 
 sume that there is an essential differ- 
 ence between the local and the final 
 tpa. The Jinal sense is derived from 
 the local, the relation of cause and 
 effect in all languages being expressed 
 by words originally denoting relations 
 in space. Thus the difference of mean- 
 ing between tva Troielre and lva iroirJTe 
 is not in the adverb, which is of con- 
 stant value, but in the moods. 
 
 ^rjXovTe fie ra KpeiTTO} ;;^aj[)io"/ia7'a is 
 interpolated here in many copies from 
 I Cor. xii. 31 ; comp. iii. i, note. 
 
 GAL. 
 
 18. KaXov 8i (rjKovo-Qai k.t.X] The 
 number of possible explanations is 
 limited by two considerations : (1) 
 That (rjkovv 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 (ri- 
 Xova-Oai must be passive and not mid- 
 dle; a transitive sense of (TJkova-Oai, 
 even if it were supported by usage 
 elsewhere, being inexplicable here in 
 the immediate neighbourhood of the 
 active ^ijXovv. 
 
 With these limitations only two 
 interpretations present themselves, 
 which deserve to be 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.' ^^- 
 condly ; *I do not complain that they 
 desire your attentions, or you theirs. 
 These things are good in themselves. 
 I myself &m 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 turo given to /xj) fiovov ev rw 
 Trapelval yxe. 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 CrjXova-de, found in the 
 two best Mss, is in itself but another 
 
 12 
 
178 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. [IV. 20 
 
 ttolKlv whlvw jULe-^pt^ ov (ixopcpwdfj ^pio'Tos ev vjuui/^ ^°y]6e- 
 Xov Se irapeivai irpo^ v/jlS's apn kul dWa^at i-yji/ (po)vr]v 
 fJiOVy OTL dTropov/JiaL ev Vfxiv^ 
 
 way of writing the infinitive fT/XoOo-^atj 
 the sounds e and at 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 jjlov be made 
 the beginning of a new sentence. The 
 connexion of thought seems to be as 
 follows: 'I have a right to ask for 
 constancy in your affections. I have a 
 greater claim on you than these new 
 teachers. They speak but as strangers 
 to strangers; I as a mother to her 
 children with whom she has travailed.' 
 Comp. I Cor. iv. 14, * Though ye have 
 ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have 
 ye not many fathers.' 
 
 reKvia fjLov] 'my little children,' a 
 mode of address common in St John, 
 but not found elsewhere in St Paul. 
 This however is no argument for the 
 reading rcKca in preference to reKvia, 
 for St Paul does not elsewhere use the 
 vocatives tckvu, tckvov, except in Bphes. 
 vi. I, Col. iii. 20, where he Could not 
 possibly have had TCKvia, and in i Tim. 
 i. 18, 2 Tim. ii. i, where tckvIov would 
 have been inappropriate. Here the 
 diminutive, expressing both the ten- 
 derness of the Apostle and the feeble- 
 ness of his converts, is more forcible. 
 It is a term at once of affection and 
 rebuke. The reading rcKva however 
 is very highly supported and may per- 
 haps be correct. 
 
 naXiv mdivca] '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 {iraktyyeve- 
 o-ia) as opposed to the old birth in 
 the flesh. 
 
 fxop(j)a67J iv vixlv] 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 }xop^(o6fi ev 
 vfuv have been otherwise explained as 
 a different application of the former 
 metaphor, the Apostle's converts being 
 put no longer in the place of the child, 
 but of the mother. Such inversions 
 of a metaphor are characteristic of St 
 Paul (see the notes i Thess. 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. I §§ 40, 41, especially the 
 words ol nXelovs dvefirjTpovvTO Koi 
 
 dveKvto-KOVTO K.T.X. 
 
 20. TJSeXov de k,t.\.] 'but, speaking 
 of my presence, / would I had been 
 present with you now.' The 8e catches 
 up the passing thought of irapeivai 
 (v. 1 8), before it escapes; comp. i 
 Cor. i. 16 i^cLTTriaa 5e Koi rov Srecfiavd 
 oikov. The connexion of this clause 
 with the previous Trapelvai requires 
 that the sentence should be continu- 
 ous, and that there should be no full 
 stop after rrpbs vfids (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 TCKvia fioVy ^dcXov fie. 
 
 jjOeXov as T]vxop.rjv Rom. ix. 3, ejSou- 
 
 Xo/xT/v Acts XXV. 22. The thing is 
 
IV. 21,22] EPISTLE TO THE QALATIANS. 179 
 
 ^^Aeyere fxoiy ol vtto vofxov deXovre^ eivaiy rov vo- 
 /J.OV ovK UKOvere'^ ^'^yeypuTTTai yap otl 'A/Spaajj, Svo 
 viov^ eo";^ei/, eva e/c Trjs TraiSiarKri^ Kat eva e/c r?;? iXev- 
 
 spoken of in itself, prior to and inde- 
 pendently of any conditions which 
 might aflfect its possibility ; see Winer 
 § xli. p. 352, and the note Philem. 13. 
 
 aprt] See the note i. 9. 
 
 aWa^at rrfv (j)(t}VT]V /Ltou] not *t0 mo- 
 dify my language from time to time 
 as occasion demands,' for this is more 
 than the phrase will bear, but 'to 
 change my present tone.' The change 
 meant is surely from severity to gen- 
 tleness, and not from less to greater 
 severity, as it has often been taken. 
 His anxiety to mitigate the effects of 
 his written rebuke has an exact paral- 
 lel in his dealings with the Corinth- 
 ian offender ; see esp. 2 Cor. ii. 5 sq. 
 
 airopovixai iv viiiv] */ am perplexed 
 about you, I am at a loss how to deal 
 with you' : comp. 2 Cor. vii. 16 Bappa> 
 iv vfxlv. The idea of inward question- 
 ing is expressed more strongly by dno- 
 peladat than by a.7rope7v. It is proba- 
 bly a middle rather than a passive; 
 though dirope'Lv is found as a transitive 
 verb in Clem. Horn. i. 1 1 diropclv avrov 
 TreipajJLevoL ds ^dp^apov riva 8aip.ovSv- 
 ra, if the text be not corrupt. 
 
 21 — 28. *Te who vaunt your sub- 
 mission to law, listen while I read 
 you a lesson out of the law. The 
 Scripture says that Abraham had two 
 sons, the one the child of the bond- 
 woman, the other the child of the 
 free. The child of the bondwoman, 
 we are there told, came into the world 
 in the common course of nature : the 
 child of the free was born in fulfilment 
 of a promise. These things may be 
 treated as an allegory. The two 
 mothers represent two covenants. 
 The one, Hagar, is the covenant given 
 from Mount Sinai, whose children are 
 born into slavery (for Sinai is in Ara- 
 bia, the land of Hagar and the Haga- 
 rens), and this covenant corresponds 
 
 to the earthly Jerusalem, which is in 
 bondage with her children. The other 
 answers to the heavenly Jerusalem, 
 which is free — I mean the Church of 
 Christ, our common mother. In her 
 progeny is fulfilled the prophetic say- 
 ing, which bids the barren and for- 
 saken wife rejoice, because her off- 
 spring shall be far more numerous 
 than her rival's, who claims the hus- 
 band for herself.' 
 
 21. ol viro vofjLov K.T.X.] *ye, who 
 would be subject to law, who must 
 needs submit to bondage in some way 
 or other.' Observe here again tlie 
 distinction between v6p.os and 6 i/o/ao?, 
 and see the notes on ii. 19, iv. 4, 5. 
 
 Tov vofxov] ' the law,' when referring 
 to the written word, either comprises 
 the whole of the Old Testament writ- 
 ings (e.g. Rom. iii. 19), or is restricted 
 to the Pentateuch (e.g. Rom. iii. 21, 
 Luke xxiv. 44). 
 
 OVK aKoverc] ^ tcill ye not listen to?' 
 Matt. X. 14, xiii. 13, Luke xvi. 29. 
 The other interpretation, 'Is not the 
 law constantly read to you?' (comp. 
 Acts XV. 21, 2 Cor. iii 14), is less pro- 
 bable, because less simple. The va- 
 rious reading afayti/coo-KeTe, which has 
 respectable authority, is evidently a 
 gloss on this latter sense assigned to 
 the word. 
 
 22. yi-ypai7Tai\ ^it is Stated in the 
 5cr^)9^wr65J'introducingageneralrefer- 
 ence, and not a direct quotation ; as in 
 I Cor. XV. 45. See Genesis xvi, xxi. 
 
 TTjs ttqiSiVkt/s"] ^ihe bondinaid' ; 
 
 comp. Gen. xvi. I rfv be avTjj iraibio-K-q 
 AiyvTTTLa, T) ovofxa "Ayap. The word 
 seems to have exclusively the sense of 
 a servant in the New Testament and 
 later Greek ; not so in classical wi-i- 
 ters. See Lobeck Phryn. p. 239 Trat- 
 ^iaKT]' TOVTO inl rrjs Bcpairaivqs ol vvv 
 TtOiaa-iv^ ol S* dpxcuoL eVi rrjs vedvidos. 
 
 12 — 2 
 
i8o 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [IV. 23, 24 
 
 yeyeuvrjTaij 6 Se e/c Tfj's eXevdepa^ ^ia r^e eTrayyeXia^. 
 aTLva ecrriv dWtjyopovimeva, avTUi yap eicnv ovo 
 
 a4 
 
 23. d\Xd] 'butj' i.e. although sons 
 of the same father. The opposition 
 implied in dWa is illustrated by Rom. 
 IX. 7 ouS' on eiciv o-nepfjLa 'A^paafi^ 
 navres T€Kva, and ix. lo i^ ivos kolttju 
 
 €-)(OV(Ta. 
 
 Kara (xdpKa] 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. 
 
 yey ivvrjrai] the perfect, 'is recorded 
 as born,' 'is born, as we read': comp. 
 I Tim. ii. 14 ;; 5e yvvr) e^airarrfBela-a 
 iv TrapajBdaei yeyovev. 
 
 24. driva] 'now all these things^j 
 not simply a '-which. particular things,' 
 but driva 'which class of things': 
 comp. Col. iL 23 drivd iariv Xoyov 
 fiev exovra cro(f)tasj i.e. precepts of this 
 sort (with the note). 
 
 dW7}yopovp.€va] The word has two 
 senses: (i) 'To speak in an allegory,' 
 e.g. Joseph. Ant. procem. 4 ra fxev 
 alptTTOfiipov Tov vop^odeTov deltas to. fie 
 dWrjyopovvTos ic.t.\.; (2) 'To treat or 
 interpret as an allegory,' e.g. Philo 
 de Vit. Cont. § 3, 11. p. 475 M ivrvyxd- 
 vovTcs yap rocs lepols ypap.p.ao'i (fnXofTO- 
 cjiovo-i TT)V TrdrpLov (j)i\o(TO(j)tav dXXrjyo- 
 povvTfs, eTreibi) cvpL^oKa ra ttjs prjrrjs 
 epp.T)veLas vojii^ovai (j)V(Te(os diroK^Kpvp.- 
 fX€vr)s iv VTTOVoiats SrjXovfievrjs, ClBm., 
 
 Horn. vi. 18, 20, and frequently: comp. 
 Plut. Op. Mor. p. 363 D coo-Trep^EXXT^r/cs 
 ILpQVOV dWrjyopova-i tov Xpovov 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 crvva-Toix^l 
 ver. 25, and see the remarks p, 198. 
 
 St Paul uses dXKrjyopia here much 
 in the same sense as he uses tvttos 
 I Cor. X. 1 1 TavTa fie TvirtKcos (Tvve- 
 ^aiv€v, not denying the historical 
 truth of the narrative, but super- 
 posing a secondary meaning. By a 
 stricter definition dW-qyopia and tv- 
 ttos were distinguished as denoting 
 the former a fictitious, the latter a 
 true narrative. See the definition of 
 aXXT/yopta, Heracl. Alleg. Horn. 5 o 
 oKXa /lei/ dyopcvwv Tpoiros CTcpa Se ojv 
 Xeyet (njp^alvav. Hence the jealousy of 
 the Antiochene fathers (Chrysostom, 
 Severianus, Theod. Mops.) in ex- 
 plaining that St Paul uses the word 
 KaTaxprjo-TiKt^s here and does not 
 deny the historical truth of the narra- 
 tive. 
 
 The author of the Clem. Horn. (ii. 
 22) indirectly attacks this allegory: 
 see the introduction, p. 61. 
 
 avTai yap K.r.X.] \for these women 
 are (represent) two covenants.^ Eto-lv 
 *are' not actually, but mystically or 
 typically ; Matt. xiii. 39, xxvi. 26 — 
 28, I Cor. X. 4. The article before bvo 
 must be omitted. 
 
 p,La p.€v] ' one of thetn, which was 
 given from Mount Sinai^ tearing 
 children unto bondage.^ The true 
 antithesis would have been cTipa 6e, 
 but it melts away in the general fu- 
 sion of the sentence, vv. 25, 26. For 
 yevvcoa-a used of a mother, see Luke 
 i. 13: it occurs so in Xen. de Rep. 
 Lac. i. 3, and occasionally elsewhere, 
 especially in later writers. 
 
 ^rt?] 'inasmuch as she.' fj would 
 simply declare the fact, ^tls places it 
 in dependence on the context. 
 
 25. TO yap 2ii/a K.r.X.] 'for Sinai 
 is a mountain in Arabia/ i.e. in the 
 land of bondsmen, themselves de- 
 
IV. 25] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 l8l 
 
 dtadrJKaty fxia jueu (xtto opovs ^ivUy ek SovXetav yepi/wcra, 
 ilTt^ iarip " Ay ap' ^^to yap ^iva opo^ earlv ev rij 'A- 
 pafila' crvvo'TOL'x^eT he Trj vvv 'lepovo'a\r]jUL, SovXevet yap 
 
 scended from Hagar. The stress lies 
 on eV TTJ *Apa/3ia, not On opos, which 
 is unemphatic; or perhaps we should 
 render the words, ' Mount Sinai is in 
 Arabia' (comp. Athan. de Deer. 7, 
 I. p. 168, for TO 2ti/a opos), as this gives 
 a better sense. The Arabians are 
 called 'sons of Hagar,' Baruch iii. 23: 
 see Ewald Gesch. des V. Isr. i.p. 418. 
 St Paul's language here is further 
 illustrated by the prominence given 
 to Hagar in the national legends of 
 the Arabs, where she is represented 
 as the lawful wife of Abraham: see 
 d'Herbelot B'tbl. Or. s. v. Hagiar. 
 The word is preserved also in the 
 name of several Arab tribes, e.g. 
 the Hagarenes or Hagarites of the 
 Old Testament (Ps. Ixxxiii. 7, D^l^H, 
 'Ayapr;i/ot; and I Chron. y. 19, D\S'''lJnj 
 'Ayapatoi, comp. ver. 10), and the 
 'Aypaiot of heathen writers (Eratosth. 
 in Strabo xvi. p. 767), if these be not 
 the same. A place on the Persian 
 gulf is still so called. It is to the 
 Sinaitic peninsula apparently that Ha- 
 gar flees (Gen. xvi. 7, 14), and pos- 
 sibly some portion of it may have 
 borne her name in St Paul's time ; 
 see below, p. 197. 
 
 The clause to yap St^a k.t.X, is par- 
 enthetical, and the nominative to a-w- 
 o-roix^L is pta diaSrjKT]. 
 
 For the various readings in this 
 passage and for different interpreta- 
 tions of the word ' Hagar,' see the de- 
 tached notes p. 192 sq. 
 
 (rvva-Toix^t] ^answers to'; hterally, 
 * belongs to the same row or column 
 with.* In military language o-vo-Toixla 
 denotes a^/e, as a-v(vyia does a rank 
 of soldiers ; comp. Poly b. x . 2 1 . 7. The 
 use of this word here is best illus- 
 trated by the Pythagorean o-uo-rotxtat 
 of opposing principles (Arist. Eth. N. 
 i. 6, Metaph. i. 5), which stood thus ; 
 
 Good, 
 
 Bad, 
 
 Finite, 
 
 Infinite, 
 
 One, 
 
 Many, 
 
 Permanent, 
 
 Changing 
 
 etc. 
 
 etc. 
 
 Similar also were the o-va-Toixlat- 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 a-v(TToixiai thus ; 
 
 Hagar, the bond- 
 woman. 
 
 Ishinael,the child 
 after the flesh. 
 
 The old covenant. 
 
 The earthly Jeru- 
 salem, 
 etc. 
 
 Sarah, the free- 
 woman. 
 
 Isaac, the child of 
 promise. 
 
 The new covenant. 
 
 The heavenly Je- 
 rusalem, 
 etc. 
 
 The old covenant is thus (nicrTotxos'mth. 
 the earthly Jerusalem, but olvt'lo-tolxos 
 to the heavenly. It is not improbable 
 that St Paul is alluding to some mode 
 of representation common with Jewish 
 teachers to exhibit this and similar 
 allegories. Strangely enough the fa- 
 thers with but few exceptions translate 
 o-vva-TOLx^'i 'borders upon,' 'is con- 
 tiguous to,' which is scarcely true 
 even in the most forced sense of con- 
 tiguity. 
 
 Tji VVV 'lepovo-oXrJp] The metropolis 
 of the Jews is taken to represent the 
 whole race. 
 
 fiouXevet yap k.t.X.] ^is in spiritual 
 honddge with her children/ just as 
 Hagar was in social bondage with her 
 child Ishmael. For rcSv T€Kva>v avTrjs 
 see Matt, xxiii. 37. 
 
 26. TJ dvco 'lepovo-oXT/p] St Paul here 
 uses an expression familiar to rab- 
 binical teachers, but detaches it from 
 
I82 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [IV. 26, 27 
 
 fxeTa Twv TeKvtov avTrj^* "^^y] Ze avo) lepovcraXrj/j. iXev- 
 6epa icTTLP, f]Tc^ ecTTLi/ /mrjTrjp v/ulvoj/, ^'^yeypaTrrat jctp, 
 eY(J)pANeHTi creipA h oy ti'ktoyca, pfiSoN Kd,\ B6hcon 
 
 those sensuous and material concep- 
 tions with which they invested it. See 
 the treatise de Hieros. Ccelest. in 
 Schottgen's Hor. Hebr. i. p. 1205. 
 "With them it is an actual city, the 
 exact counterpart of the earthly Jeru- 
 salem in its topography and its furni- 
 ture : with him it is a symbol or image, 
 representing that spiritual city of 
 which the Christian is even now a 
 denizen (Phil. iii. 20). See Heb. xii. 
 22 'l€povo-aXr}^ iTTOvpdvLos, Rev. iii. 
 12, xxi. 2 KaivT) 'lepova-aXijfi: comp. 
 Test. mi. Pair. Dan 5, Clem. Eec. 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 'lepova-aXrjfi here 
 for the typical city, as elsewhere in 
 this epistle (i. 17, 18, ii. i)he employs 
 the Grsecised form 'Upocrokv^afor the 
 actual city. ^'UpovcraX^fi. est appellatio 
 Hebraica, originaria et sanctior: 'le- 
 poaoXvixa, deinceps obvia, Grseca, ma- 
 gis politica,' says Bengel on Rev. xxi. 2, 
 accounting for the usage of St John 
 ('in evangelio 'lepoo-oXu/za, in apoca- 
 lypsi lepouo-aXi/jLi'), and referring to 
 this passage in illustration. In his 
 other epistles St Paul has always 
 
 'Upovo-aXrjfjL; Rom. XV. 19, 25, 26, 31, 
 I Cor. xvi. 3. 
 
 lxT]Tr}p tJ/xwi/] ^the mother of us 
 Christians.' St Paul's expression was 
 borrowed and adapted by Polycarp 
 § 3 T'?!' boSeio-av vfjuv tt'kttlv ^tis ia-ri 
 P-rjvqp TTCLVTcov 7;/xc5i/. From a confusion 
 of this loose quotation with the original 
 text, the word Travrav was early inter- 
 polated in St Paul; e.g. in Iren. (in- 
 terp.) T. 35. 2. This at all events is not 
 an improbable account of the origin of 
 the received reading Travrav ^/xwi/ ; or 
 perhaps ttcivtcov crept in from Rom. iv. 
 16 6$ €<TTLV 7rarr)p iravTOiV T^jiav, 
 
 27. St Paul here illustrates the 
 allegory by reference to a passage in 
 Isaiah liv. i. This passage in its con- 
 text is a song of triumph anticipating 
 the deliverance of God's afflicted people 
 Israel from a foreign yoke. Sion has 
 been deserted by her Lord (xlix, 14), 
 and is mourning in her widowhood : 
 she will be restored to favour and 
 become the mother of a large and 
 prosperous people. The image of con- 
 jugal union, as representing the rela- 
 tion of Jehovah to His people, is 
 drawn out at some length in the con- 
 text, see esp. liv. 5, 6. In order more- 
 over fully to understand St Paul's ap- 
 plication here, it must be remembered 
 that in another part of the same pro- 
 phecy (li. 2) God's dealings with Abra- 
 ham and Sarah are pointed to as a 
 type of His dealings with their de- 
 scendants. Accordingly Jewish wri- 
 ters connected li. 2 with liv. i ; 'Steri- 
 litas Abrahse et Sarse figura fuit steri- 
 litatis Sion,' Ir Gibhorim fol. 49. 2, 
 quoted in Schottgen. Here then Sarah 
 = the chosen people = the Church of 
 Christ. 
 
 yeypairrai ydp'\ from the Lxx where 
 some few texts add kol repirov after 
 ^oTja-ov with the Hebrew. It is quoted 
 as St Paul quotes it in Pseudo-Clem. 
 
IV. 28, 29] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 i83 
 
 H OyK OiAl'NOYCA; OTI noAAA TA TCKNA THC epHMoy 
 
 maAAon h THC exoycHc ton ANApA. ^^ vfJLeh Se, ddeX- 
 (poi, Kara 'la'auK eTrayyeXia^ tbkvu ecTe. *^aAA' 
 
 ■28. i}fJ>€'cs 84 — T^Kva iafi^y. 
 
 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. 
 lOj 13; comp. Semisch Just. Mart. 
 I. p. 258 sq. (Eng. Tr.). The Hebrew 
 differs somewhat, as do the other 
 Greek versions (see Jerome and Pro- 
 copius in Is. 1. c). Tap links the quo- 
 tation with fi^Tijp -qixSv. 
 
 TToXXa TO. T€Kva fxaXkov ^] for the 
 usual Greek irXeiova rj, the Hebrew 
 idiom (|D D"*!"!), which has no com- 
 parative, being followed. 
 
 TTJs ixov(j7)s TOP avdpa] in St Pauls 
 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. 
 
 t; trreZpa] 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 dypLeXatos, Kom. xi. 17. 
 
 28 sq. 'So, brethren, you as Chris- 
 tians are children of a promise, like 
 Isaac. Nor does the allegory end 
 here. Just as Ishmael the child born 
 after the flesh insulted Isaac the child 
 born after the Spirit, so is it now. 
 But the end shall be the same now, 
 as then. In the language of the 
 Scripture, the bondwoman and her 
 offspring shall be cast out of the 
 father's house. The child of the slave 
 cannot share the inheritance with the 
 child of the free. Remember there- 
 fore, brethren, that you are not chil- 
 dren of any slave, but of the free and 
 wedded wife. 1 speak of that free- 
 
 dom, whereunto we all are emanci- 
 pated in Christ. Remember this, and 
 act upon it. Firmly resist aU pressure, 
 and do not again bow your necks 
 under the yoke of slavery.' 
 
 28. vfjL€ts de] resuming the main 
 subject, ver. 27 being in a manner 
 parenthetical. 
 
 Kara 'icraa/c] 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 o-ap/ca, but, like Isaac, 
 i^ eTrayyeklas. 
 
 The reading T}p.^ls...€a-fxev^ for vpLeis 
 ...eVre, IS Very highly supported, but 
 perhaps was a transcriber's correction 
 to conform to ver. 26, 31. The direct 
 appeal of u/xels is more forcible, and 
 the change of persons is characteristic 
 of St Paul; see the note ver. 7. 
 
 29. idimKev tov k.t.X.] The He- 
 brew test, Gen. xxi. 9, has simply 
 'laughing' (pnVD). This single word 
 the LXX expands into irai^ovTa fxera 
 'lo-aoK TOV vlov avrrjs. From this it 
 may be conjectured that the verse 
 originally ended [pn'^^2 r\222] pnVD 
 (comp. Gen. xxxix. 14, 17), the words 
 in brackets having dropped out owing 
 to the homoeoteleuton. At all events 
 the word seems to mean 'mocking, 
 jeering'; 'Lusio ilia illusio erat,' says 
 Augustine pertinently (Serm. 3). The 
 anger of Sarah, taken in connexion 
 with the occasion, a festival in honour 
 of the weaning of Isaac, seems to re- 
 quire it. Such also would appear to 
 be the force of the rendering in the 
 older Targum, "[TiD. On the other 
 hand the Book of Jubilees paraphrases 
 the passage, '"When Sarah saw that 
 Ishmael was merry and danced and 
 that Abraham also rejoiced greatly 
 thereat, she was jealous etc' (Bwald's 
 
1 84 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [IV. 30 
 
 wCTrep Tore 6 kuto. adpKu y€i/pr]6ek e^io)Kev tov Kara 
 TTvevixa^ ovrws Kal vvv. ^^dWa ri Xeyei y\ ypa(pr] ; 
 IkBaAs thn haiAickhn kai ton y'on aythc" oy rd.p 
 
 MH KAHpONOMHCei O Y'OC THC nAlAl'cKHC META TOY 
 
 Jahrb. ni. p. 13). But beyond the text 
 itself two circumstances must be taken 
 into account as affecting St Paul's 
 application of it. (i) This incident 
 which is so lightly sketched in the 
 original narrative had been drawn out 
 in detail in later traditions, and thus 
 a prominence was given to it, which 
 would add force to the Apostle's allu- 
 sion, without his endorsing these tra- 
 ditions himself. For the rabbinical 
 accounts of Ishmael's insolence to his 
 brother see Beer Lehen 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. Isxsiii. 
 7, I Chron. v. 10, 19) on the Israelites 
 were the antitype to Ishmael's mock- 
 ery of Isaac. Thus in Ishmael the 
 Apostle may have indirectly contem- 
 plated Ishmael's progeny ; and he 
 would therefore be appeaUng 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. A7it. XV. 5. I. 
 
 ovTcos KoX viij/] '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 aHke were *bom after 
 the flesh,' for both alike claimed to in- 
 herit the covenant by the performance 
 of certain material carnal ordinances. 
 
 30, 7) ypa(j)rj] Gen. xxi. 10, taken 
 from the lxx which again is a close 
 translation of the Hebrew. At the 
 end of the quotation however St Paul 
 has substituted ttjs Traidla-Krjs fi€Ta tov 
 vloi) TTJs ikevBcpas for the LXX Tr}s nai- 
 8l(tkt}S TavTi]s fiera tov vtov fiov 'icraaK, 
 
 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 fiT} KXr/poro/iT^cret] ^ shall in no 
 wise inherif ; comp. Job. viii. 35 6 
 
 dovXos ov p,€V€l €V Trj OtKLO, €15 TOV olaVO 
 
 k.tX. The Law and the Gospel can- 
 not co-exist ; the Law must disappear 
 before the Gospel. It is scarcely pos- 
 sible to estimate the strength of con- 
 viction and depth of prophetic insight 
 which this declaration implies. The 
 Apostle thus confidently sounds the 
 death-knell of Judaism at a time when 
 one-half of Christendom clung to the 
 Mosaic law with a jealous affection 
 little short of frenzy, and while the 
 Judaic party seemed to be growing in 
 influence and was strong enough, even 
 in the Gentile churches of his own 
 founding, to undermine liis influence 
 and endanger his life. The truth 
 which to us appears a truism must 
 then have been regarded as a paradox. 
 KKrjpopofii] (ret should probably be read, 
 not KX-qpovofx-qo-fjj as being better sup- 
 ported here and in the lxx ; comp. Wi- 
 ner § Ivi. p. 635 , and A. Buttmann p. i S^. 
 31. di6] '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 8co is 
 probably correct. Some copies have 
 
IV. 3h V. I] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 I8S 
 
 Yiof THc eAeyeepAc. ^^ g^J^ dd€\(poi, OVK icr^iv 
 TratSiaKf]^ TeKva, aXKa rfj^ eXevOepas [V] ^t»7 eXevde- 
 pia ^ f]jua^ Xpto"T6^ nXevOepwa-ev. a'Tt]KeTe ovv Kat fxrj 
 TToXiv ^vyw SovXeia^ eve^eo-de, 
 
 iv. 31, V. I. T7]s ^\€v04pas. TJ iXevdepiq, i}fj,as k.t.'K. 
 
 T;)U€tff bcj others T^/ieis ovv^ others apa or 
 apa ovvj and one at least entirely omits 
 the connecting particle. The difficulty 
 in dto was evidently felt, but sufficient 
 allowance was not made for St Paul's 
 freedom in the employment of con- 
 necting particles. 
 
 ov 'n-atdia-KTjs aXXa k.t.X.] Observe 
 the omission of the article before 
 7rai8i<TKr}s ', 'not of any bondwoman' 
 whether Judaism or some form of hea- 
 thenism, for there are many (see the 
 note iv. 11), 'but of llie freewoman, 
 the lawful spouse, the Church of Christ, 
 which is one.' See on i. 10 dvOp(6~ 
 TTOvs Treido) rj tov QeoVj 
 
 V. I. T§ iX^vQepia rj K.r.X.] If this 
 reading be adopted (see the detached 
 note, p. 200), the words are best taken 
 with the preceding sentence. They 
 may then be connected either (i)with 
 T€Kva eo-fiev ttjs eXsvOipaSj 'we are SOUS 
 of the free by virtue of the freedom 
 which Christ has given us ' ; or (2) with 
 rfjs ikevOepas alone, ' of her who is free 
 with that freedom which Christ etc' 
 The latter is perhaps the simpler con- 
 struction. In either case tjj iXevOepla 
 k.tX. serves the purpose of an explan- 
 atory note. 
 
 If on the other hand we read rfj 
 
 eXevOepla-qiiasXpLa-Tos^kevOepaxTeVjthG 
 force of this detached sentence will 
 be, 'Did Christ liberate us that wo 
 might be slaves? no, but that we 
 might be free.' Compare v. 13 iir' 
 cXevdepla eKkri&riTCy and especially John 
 
 viii. 36 eav ovv 6 vlos vfias eXevdepaa-rjj 
 
 ovras eXcvdepoc eVeo-^e. The abrupt- 
 ness of the sentence, introduced with- 
 out a connecting particle, has a fair 
 parallel in Ephes. ii. 5 xap'Tt eo-re <re- 
 (T<t>(rix€uor. but the dative, ^ with' or 
 ' in ' or ' for freedom,' is awkward, in 
 whatever way it is taken ; see A. Butt- 
 mann p. 155. 
 
 o-TriK€T€] ^ stand Jtrrrij stand up- 
 right, do not bow your necks to the 
 yoke of slavery'; comp. 2 Thess. ii. 15 
 apa ovpf aScX^ot, o-r-qKere k.t.X. The 
 form aT^K(a appears not to occur ear- 
 lier than the New Testament, where 
 with one exception (Mark xi. 27) it is 
 found only in St Paul. 
 
 TrdXti/] ' 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 TcSs €7rLo-Tpicf)€Te TrdXtv, 7rd- 
 Xiv dvaSev dovXevetv ^eXere. For the 
 force of these expressions see the in- 
 troduction, p. 30, and the note on iv. 1 1. 
 
1 86 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 Refer- 
 ences to 
 his in- 
 firmity. 
 
 Different 
 accounts. 
 
 i. A bodily 
 complaint 
 (tradition). 
 
 St PauVs infirmity in the flesh. 
 
 In the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (xii. 7) St Paul, after speaking 
 of the abundant revelations vouchsafed to him, adds that *a thorn' or 
 rather 'a stake' was 'given him in his flesh, a messenger of Satan sent to 
 buffet him,' and thus to check the growth of spiritual pride. In the Epistle 
 to the Galatians again (iv. 13, 14) he reminds his converts how he had 
 ' preached to them through infirmity of the flesh,' commending them at the 
 same time because they ' did not despise nor loathe their temptation in his 
 flesh, but received him as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.' 
 
 In the latter passage there is a variation of reading, which has some 
 bearing on the interpretation. For ' 'iny temptation,' which stands in the 
 received text, the correct reading seems certainly to be ' your temptation,' 
 as I have quoted it^ 
 
 These passages so closely resemble each other that it is not unnatural to 
 suppose the allusion to be the same in both. If so, the subject seems to 
 have been especially present to St Paul's thoughts at the season when these 
 two epistles were written ; for they were written about the same time. 
 
 What then was this 'stake in the flesh,' this * infirmity of the flesh,' 
 which made so deep an impression on his mind ? 
 
 Diverse answers have been given to this question^, shaped in many 
 instances by the circumstances of the interpreters themselves, who saw in 
 the Apostle's temptation a more or less perfect reflexion of the trials which 
 beset their own lives. How far such subjective feelings have influenced 
 the progress of interpretation, will appear from the following list of conjec- 
 tures, which I have thrown into a rough chronological order. 
 
 I. It was some bodily ailment. This, which is the natural account of 
 the incident, is also the first in point of time. A very early tradition 
 defined the complaint ; * per dolorem, ut aiunt, auriculae vel capitis,' says 
 Tertullian de Pudic. § 13. And this statement is copied or confirmed by 
 Jerome (Gal. 1. c), * Tradunt eum gravissimum capitis dolorem ssepe per- 
 pessum.' Tlie headache is mentioned also by Pelagius and Primasius (both 
 
 ^ Of the three readings, rbv iretpaa- 
 fj.6v fxov TOP h, rov tretpacffwv tov iv 
 (omitting juof), and to;' irupaafj.ov vfiQv 
 iv (omitting rbv), I have no hesitation 
 in preferring the last; for (i) it is the 
 most difficult of the three; (2) it ac- 
 counts for the remaining two (see the 
 note on the passage) ; and (3) it has far 
 higher support than the others in the 
 ancient copies. The Thebaic Version 
 reads rbv weipaa/xdu /jlov, as I have as- 
 certained (see Scrivener's Introduc- 
 tion, p. 351, ed. 2). Eusebius of 
 Emesa here (Cramer's Catena, p. 65) 
 
 and Origen on Ephes. iii. 14 (Cramer's 
 Catena, p. 158) have a mixed reading t6v 
 ireipaa-fidu v(xCbv tov iv k.t.X. Eusebius 
 is overlooked by Tisehendorf. 
 
 2 A long list of references to writers 
 who have discussed this question is 
 given in "Wolf Cur. Philol. on 2 Cor. 
 xii. 7. I have to acknowledge my ob- 
 ligations chiefly to Calov. Bibl. Illnstr. 
 on 2 Cor. I.e., and Stanley's Corinth- 
 iansy p. 563 sq. (anded.). I have had no 
 opportunity of using Bertholdt Opttsc. 
 134 sq., to which I find frequent 
 references in recent commentaries. 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. I §7 
 
 on 2 Cor. 1. c). Others seem to have followed a different tradition as to 
 the complaint in question^; but in some form or other illness was the 
 solution which suggested itself to the earliest writers. This appears to 
 be the idea of Irenseus, the first writer who alludes to the subject, and 
 of Victorinus, the first extant commentator on the Epistle to the Gala- 
 tians 2. 
 
 2. 'ISTay, not so,' argued Chrysostom (2 Cor., Gal.), as others probably ii. Perse- 
 had argued before him ; * it cannot have been a headache, it cannot have cution 
 been any physical malady. God would not have delivered over the body of iwg^^ ^' 
 His chosen servant to the power of the devil to be tortured in this way. 
 The Apostle is surely speaking of opposition encountered, of suffering 
 endured from his enemies.' And so for a time, and with a certain class of 
 expositors, the thorn in the flesh assumed the form of persecution, whether 
 from the direct opponents of the Gospel or from the Judaizers within the 
 pale of the Church. This interpretation again was perhaps not uninflu- 
 enced by the circumstances of the times. At all events it would find a 
 ready welcome, when the memory of the Diocletian persecution was fresh 
 and when the Church was torn asunder by internal feuds. It appears at 
 least as early as the middle of the fourth century in Eusebius of Emesa 
 (Cramer's Catena, Gal. 1. c.) among the Greek, and the Ambrosian Hilary 
 (2 Cor., Gal.) among the Latin fathers. It is adopted also by Augustine 
 (Gal), by Theodore of Mopsuestia (Gal), by Theodoret (2 Cor., Gal.), by 
 Photius {'iap. (Emm., 2 Cor., Gal.), and by Theophylact (2 Cor., Gal.)^ 
 Thus it is especially the interpretation of the Greek commentators, though 
 not confined to them. 
 
 But in spite of such strong advocacy, this account of St Paul's thorn in 
 the flesh at all events cannot be correct. The passages, which allude to it, 
 point clearly to something inseparable from the Apostle, to some affliction 
 which he himself looked upon and which was looked upon by others as part 
 of himself. Any calamity overtaking him from without fails to explain 
 the intense personal feeling with which his language is charged. 
 
 The state of opinion on this subject at the close of the fourth century Jerome. 
 
 1 An ancient writer (Cotel. Mon._ by understanding of St Paul the mala- 
 Eccles. 1. p. 253) says rpixQv iTroLTja-d- dies which Nicetas (see below, note 3} 
 fieda rriv d(paip€(nv avva<p4\o)/jL£v aOrais attributes to Gregory Nazianzeu. Aqui- 
 Kal Toi>s iv ry K€(f>a\^ <rK6\o7ras' KofjLd- nas mentions the opinion, 'quod fuitve- 
 aavTES yap oOrot iirnrXiov Tjfxds bbwCj^i' hementer afflictus dolors iliaco' (colic), 
 rb fj^kv ykp TpixojfJ-ct TjfiQp riv 6 /card rbv but I have not noticed it in any earlier 
 ^iov K6a-f/.os, TLfial, 56^aL, xpV^^<^v kt'^- writer. On the whole the tradition of 
 treis, K.T.X., on which the editor (p. 756) the headache [Ke^dXaXyla) is fairly con- 
 absurdly enough remarks, 'ex toto stant. 
 
 contestu suspicari datur a nostro per ^ Iren. v. 3. i, but his language is 
 
 (TKfiXoTra am'maZtfuirtqusB caput pungunt obscure. Victorinus says, *infirmus 
 
 intellecta esse.' The context, if I mis- carne,' but this again is not free from 
 
 take not, fails to bear out this remark, ambiguity. 
 
 but Cotelier's conjectural interpretation ^ It was so taken apparently also 
 
 is treated as a fact by recent writers, by Greg. Naz. Oraf.xx. {de laud. Basil.) 
 
 and so this is added to the list of tra- ad fin. (see the note of Nicetas), and 
 
 ditional accounts of St Paul's com- by Basil, JJe^.jp'us. Tract, ad fin. (11. p. 
 
 plaint. The list is stiU further swelled 400, Garnier). 
 
Io» EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 may be inferred froxn 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 him^ 
 iii. Carnal 3. ' No/ thought the monks and ascetics of a somewhat later date, 
 t A°^^r*^^ ^ ^^^ persecution. It was surely something which we can realise, something 
 ^ '' which we have experienced in ourselves. Must he not have felt those 
 
 same carnal longings, by which we have been dogged in our solitude, and 
 which rise up hydra-like with seven-fold force as we smite them down ? 
 From these Paul thrice entreated the Lord to be delivered, as we have 
 entreated Him ; and was only answered, as we have been answered, by the 
 indirect assurance, My grace is sufficient for thee.' This interpretation 
 does not appear in a very tangible form before the sixth century, but earlier 
 writers had used language which prepared the way for it I Throughout 
 the middle ages it seems to have been very generally received ; and 
 Roman Catholic writers have for the most part adopted it. So it is 
 taken by Aquinas, Bellarmine (de Monach. c. 30), Corn, a Lapide^, and 
 Estius. Luther is probably correct when he attributes the prevalence of 
 this interpretation to the influence of the Latin version, which renders (tk6- 
 Xot//- rji o-apKL by ' stimulus carnis.' 
 
 This account again of St Paul's thorn in the flesh may confidently be 
 set aside. In such a temptation he could not have 'gloried'; nor would 
 this struggle, hidden as it must have been in his own heart, have exposed 
 him to the contempt of others. But indeed from painful trials of this kind 
 we have his own assurance that he was free : ' I would,' he says, * that all 
 men were even as myself (i Cor. vii. 7). *Ah no,' said Luther, 'he was 
 too hard pressed by the devil to think of such things.' 
 iv. Spiri- 4. And in turn Luther propounded his own view of the thorn in the 
 
 ^ Ephraem Syrus (on Gal. iv. 18), a interpretation, 'naturalem infirmita- 
 
 little earlier than Jerome, says 'Either tem'; Primasiusmore definitely, though 
 
 disease of his limbs or temptation from etill only as an alternative explanation, 
 
 his enemies.' 'alii dicunt titillatione carnis stimula- 
 
 2 Jerome Epist. xxii (ad Eustoch.) tum.' Gregory the Great, Mor. viii. 
 § 5, says: 'Si apostolus vas electionis c. 29, writes, 'Sic Paulus ad tertium 
 et separatus in evangelium Christi ob cselum raptus ducitur, paradisi pene- 
 carnis aculeos et incentiva vitiorum trans secreta considerat, et tamen ad 
 reprimit corpus suum, etc.,' quoting semetipsum rediens contra carnis bel- 
 Rom. vii. 24, but he makes no refer- lum laborat, legem aliam in membris 
 ence to either of the passages in St Paul sustinet.' Comp. also x. 10. And thus, 
 which, relate to his ' thorn in the flesh,' as time went on, this opinion gained 
 and in § 31 of the same letter he says, strength, till at length it assumed the 
 *Si aliquis te afflixerit dolor, legito, coarsest and most revolting form. 
 datus est mihi stimulus carnis viete,' evi- ^ Corn, a Lapide on 2 Cor. xii. 7 
 dently explaining it of some hodilypain. 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 hbidinis ten- 
 need not necessarily refer to this kind tationem stimulum carnis vocant : vox 
 of temptation. Pelagius gives, as one autem populi est vox del.' 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 1 89 
 
 flesh. He complained that the older churchmen were unable from their tual trials 
 position to appreciate St Paul's meaning, and thus he consciously threw (^^fo^^- 
 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 spiritval trials were intended, 
 faint-hearted ness in his ministerial duties, temptations to despair or to 
 doubt, blasphemous suggestions of the deviU. This view naturally com- 
 mends itself to the leaders of a new form of religious belief, owing to the 
 difficulties of their position ; and spiritual temptation was the account of 
 St Paul's trial in which the reformers generally acquiesced. From them 
 it found its way into Protestant writers of a later date, subject however 
 to some modifications which adapted it to the more equable temper and 
 the more settled opinions of their own day. 
 
 Lastly, having thus travelled round the entire circle of possible inter- Recent 
 pretation, criticism has returned to the point from which it started, critics. 
 Bodily ailment of some kiod has been felt by most recent writers to be the 
 only solution which meets all the conditions of the question. 
 
 These conditions are as follows : (i) The Apostle speaks of physical pain Conditions 
 of a very acute kind ; for nothing less can be implied by his metaphor of o^ the pro- 
 a stake driven through his flesh I (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 
 his hearers. (5) In the meanness of his personal presence, of which he was 
 
 ^ In his shorter and earlier com- a-K6\of: see the notes of Meyer and 
 mentary ontheGalatians(i5i9)Luther Stanley on 2 Cor. xii. 7. Robertson, 
 explains it of ' persecution '; in his later Lectures onthe Corinthians Hx,lx, speaks 
 and fuller work (1535) he combines spi- of the thorn as peculiarly suggestive of 
 ritual temptations with persecution ; some 'secret sorrow'; for *a thorn is a 
 and lastly in the Table-talk he drops small invisible cause of suffering,' The 
 persecution and speaks of spiritual trials Greek word however suggests no such 
 only, xxiv. § 7 (vol. sxii. p. 1092 of idea; nor is it consistent with the fear 
 the Halle edition). This last passage of contempt or loathing expressed in the 
 forms a striking contrast to the Ian- Galatian Epistle. This slight blemish, 
 guage of a Lapide quoted in the last occurring where it does, may well be 
 note. ' Those were high spiritual temp- overlooked in the latest utterance of 
 tations,' says Luther, * which no papist one who spoke from deep personal ex- 
 has understood,' with more in the same perience, having himself maintained a 
 strain. Thus each of these writers hard struggle against 'fightings without' 
 makes his own interpretation in a man- and 'fears within,' and 'borne about 
 ner a test of orthodoxy. Other refer- inthebody the dying of the Lord Jesus.' 
 ences in Luther's works to the 'thorn The lesson of St Paul's sufferings is 
 in the flesh' are, vol. viii. p. 959, xi. nowhere more powerfully brought out 
 p. 1437, XII. p. 561. than in this exposition of the thorn in 
 
 2 This seems to be the meaning of the flesh. 
 
1 90 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 Parallel 
 of King 
 Alfred. 
 
 so acutely sensible (2 Cor. x. 10), we may perhaps trace the permanent 
 effects of his painM 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 ThessalonianSj that he had 
 desired to visit them more than once, but * Satan had hindered him ' 
 (i Thess. ii. 18), an expression which may perhaps be connected with the 
 'messenger of Satan, the thorn in the flesh' in one of the passages under 
 consideration; and writing afterwards to the Corinthians of this same 
 period of his life, he reminds them that he came among them ' in infirmity 
 and in fear and in much trembling' (i Cor. ii. 3). Lastly, from the twin 
 references to his malady, in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians and in 
 the Epistle to the Galatians, it may be inferred that he had a fresh attack 
 about the years 57, 58, when these letters were written, and to this he may 
 allude in part when he speaks in the former of these epistles of having 
 'despaired even of life,' of having 'had the sentence of death in himself 
 (2 Cor. i. 8, 9). 
 
 The life of the greatest and best of English kings presents so close a 
 parallel to the Apostle's thorn in the flesh, that I cannot forbear quoting 
 the passage at length, though the illustration is not my own^, 
 
 " It was in the midst of these rejoicings (on the occasion of his marriage) 
 that Alfred was suddenly attacked by an illness, the sight of which struck 
 dumb the loud joy of the guests, and for which neither they nor all the 
 physicians of the day could account. ..Others thought it was the unexpected 
 return of a painful malady to which he had been subject at an early age. 
 
 " We are informed what the malady really was in an account which is 
 not quite clear.. .On passing from childhood to youth. ..he begged for some 
 protection against his passions, for some corporal suffering which might arm 
 him against temptation, so that his spirit might be enabled to raise him 
 above the weakness of the flesh. On this, we are told, heaven sent him his 
 illness, which Asser describes as a kind of eruption. For many years it 
 caused him the most horrible torture, which was so intense that he himself 
 began to despair oj his life. One day,.. the royal youth... prostrated him- 
 self in silent devotion and prayed to God for pity. For fear of being ren- 
 dered by his bodily infirmities, or perhaps by leprosy or blindness, incapable 
 of exercising the royal power or despicable in the sight of the world, had 
 long obtained possession of his soul and induced him to pray for his deli- 
 mrance from such a plague. Every other lighter trial he was willing to 
 undergo, provided it only spared him for what he was accustomed to look 
 on as his destined, 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.). The value of the il- 
 
 lustration is diminished by the suspi- 
 cion attaching to the so-called Asser. 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. IQI 
 
 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 hy 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 Lije of Alfred, pp. 122 — 125 (Eng. Transl). 
 
 In the mystery which hangs over the whole subject, in its physical 
 symptoms, and in its influence on his own character and feelings, Alfred's 
 malady is a most striking counterpart to the infirmity of St Paul ; and the 
 coincidence is the less open to suspicion, since neither Asser, who is the 
 original authority for the fact, nor Pauli, whose account I have quoted, 
 seems to have been struck by the parallel. 
 
 Unless then we accept the earliest tradition of this infirmity, and Conclu- 
 assume that the Apostle suffered from acute pain in the head (an account sion. 
 which considering his nervous sensibility is perhaps sufficient to explain the 
 feeling of humihation and the fear of contempt which his malady inspired), 
 we should be tempted by the closeness of the parallel to conjecture that it 
 was of the nature of epilepsy. Recent criticism has offered other conjec- 
 tures in abundance. Of these, the view that it was a complaint in the eyes 
 deserves especially to be mentioned, as having been supported by the most 
 ingenious advocacy and found the largest number of adherents : but it does 
 not, I think, sufficiently recognise the conditions of the problem, as stated 
 above ; while the direct arguments, on which it is founded, seem to melt 
 away under the light of careful examination^. 
 
 ^ It is put forward in a lively and eyes.' (2) The expression TnjX/zca ypdix- 
 interesting paper in Dr J. Brown's /iara (vi. u) is thought to be illus- 
 HoTcB Subsecivce. But the foundation trated by this view of St Paul's corn- 
 on which this opinion is built seems to plaint, as though his defective eyesight 
 me scarcely strong enough to bear it ; explained the allusion to the size of the 
 for (i) The stress of the argument rests letters, or the lengtho/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,' which lends some temporary blindness which seized the 
 countenance to the idea that St Paul Apostle on the way to Damascus ; and 
 intended to say they would have re- that thus his thorn in the flesh was 
 placed his eyes with their own, if it eminently fitted to be a check on spiri- 
 could have been done : but the Greek tual pride produced by his * visions and 
 is Toiis 6<pdd\fiods vfiQv, where -Ofiiav is revelations/ But the narrative of the 
 as unemphatic as possible, so that the Acts implies, if it does not state, that 
 meaning is not 'your eyes,' but 'your this bHndness was completely healed- 
 
192 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 Varia- 
 tiona. 
 
 Beading 
 adopted. 
 
 The various readings in iv. 25. 
 
 The following are the variations of text, which the opening clause of 
 this verse presents. 
 
 (i) TO yap 2iva opos eVrtV. So it is read in NGFG, 17 ; in the Old Latin 
 (f.g.), Vulgate, ^thiopic, and Armenian Versions; in Origen^, Epi- 
 phanius^, Cyril ^^ and Damascene; in Victorinus, the Ambrosian 
 Hilary (^ Sina autem mens,' 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 mens Sina est/ The 
 MS K after ea-rh adds Svj in which respect it stands alone (except 
 apparently the Memphitic Version) ; and Epiphanius transposes 2«/a 
 and opos. 
 
 (ii) TO " Ay ap 2ti/a opos ia-Tiv. So the Memphitic Version as read by 
 Boetticher ; but "Wilkins inserts a be. 
 
 (iii) TO de'^Ayap ^iva opos ioriv. Such is the reading of ABDE, -^y, 73, 
 80, lectionary 40. 
 
 (iv) TO yap "Ayap 2tm opos iaTiv. 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 (Ecumenian Catena. This also is appa- 
 rently the reading of Ephraem Syrus. 
 
 (v) TO yap "hyap I'pos ecrriv found only in the Latin of D and E^. 
 
 It wiU thus be seen that the strongest, because the most varied, testi- 
 mony is in favour of the first of these readings. And there is also this 
 weighty argument on the same side, that supposing it to have been the 
 
 and the passage in 2 Corinthians refers 
 to incidents which occurred only four- 
 teen years before the letter was written, 
 and therefore much later than the Apo- 
 stle's conversion. (4) To the arguments 
 already considered, some have added 
 the expression drevi^eLt/, ' to look stead- 
 fastly/ twice used of St Paul (Acta 
 siii. 9, sziii. i), as indicating a de- 
 fective vision ; but, not to mention that 
 the word occurs frequently in the Acts 
 of others besides St Paul, this ' stead- 
 fast gaze * would seem, if anything, to 
 imply a powerful eye. Thus it may be 
 connected with the tradition or fiction, 
 dating at least from the second century, 
 that St Paul was ciJj'o^pus (Acta Paul, 
 et Thecl. § 3). The overhanging brows 
 and piercing glance make up at least a 
 consistent and characteristic portrait of 
 the Apostle, if not a true likeness. On 
 
 the other hand it is possible that he suf- 
 fered from weak eyes, and this may ac- 
 count for the incident of Acts sxiii. 5 ; 
 hut it is not implied in Gal. iv. 15, and 
 does not explain the strong expressions 
 used of his ' stake in the flesh,' though 
 perhaps it might be one of the conse- 
 quences of that infirmity. St Paul's 
 language implies some more sinking 
 complaint. 
 
 ^ In Cant. ii. (m. p. 52, ed. Delarue), 
 extant only in a Latin translation. 
 
 ^ H<sres. p. 695. 
 
 3 Glaphyr. i. p. 75 (ed. Auberti). 
 Cyril is said in other passages to read 
 TO 8k''Ayap and to y<ip''Ayap, but I am 
 unable to verify the statement. 
 
 * The Ambrosian Hilary (in his 
 commentary) is also quoted in favour 
 of this reading, but his words do not 
 bear out the inference. 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 193 
 
 original reading we have on the whole a more probable explanation of the 
 variations in the text, than on any other hypothesis. By the negligence or 
 confusion of a scribe to "Ayap might easily be substituted for to yap, the 
 word "Ayap occurring in the immediate contexts As a next step a con- 
 necting particle must be supplied; and Be or yap was inserted according to 
 the caprice or judgment of the transcriber, thus producing the second and 
 third readings. Lastly, the word Sti/a, now rendered superfluous, was 
 expelled to relieve the passage, and hence arose the fourth variation, 
 which indeed is too feebly supported to deserve consideration. The reading 
 which I am here advocating is adopted by the two great masters of textual 
 criticism, Bentley^ and Lachmann. 
 
 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 to 5e "Ayap o-vo-tolx^l ttj vvv 'lepova-dKijfjiy but it seems sim- 
 pler, if any such solution be adopted, to erase the whole clause to yap 
 
 ep Tfi 'Apa^la. This hypothesis derives some colour from the fact that 
 there is a slight variation of reading in the connecting particles of the 
 following clauses, as if the connexion had been disturbed by the insertion 
 of the gloss. 
 
 The meaning of Eagar in iv. 25. 
 
 If the word Hagar be omitted, the passage is capable of a very easy Probable 
 and natural interpretation; 'Sinai,' St Paul argues, 'is situated in Arabia, interpre- 
 the coimtry of Hagar's descendants, the land of bondslaves.' And such (g °^°> 
 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 ij "Ayapj the woman Hagar, but 
 TO "Ayap, the thing Hagar, the Hagar of the allegory, the Hagar which is 
 under discussion^. 
 
 ^ The commentary of Theodore tide, to have been transferred from the 
 
 Mopg. on this passage shows how easily margin to the text. 
 
 "Ayap might be foisted in. The Greek 2 Xn his text of the epistle as given 
 
 text of this writer (in Cramer's Catena) in Bentleii Grit. Sacr. p. 108. This text 
 
 has dXX' "Ayap ^ re ^prjfios irao-a k.t.X., is much later than his 'Epistola ad 
 
 which makes no sense. The Latin Millium' (lb. p. 45), in which he starts 
 
 translation runs 'sed et solitude oninis,' the hypothesis of a gloss. This hjrpo- 
 
 which doubtless represents the original thesis was adopted by Mill and others, 
 
 reading, dXXii Kal 97 re ^prjfios irao-a. ^ to denotes that ' Hagar ' is regarded 
 
 Windischmanu's conjecture to account not as a person, but as an object of 
 
 for the insertion of "Ayap in the text of thought or of speech. For this use of 
 
 St Paul is more ingenious than pro- the neuter article see "Winer § xviii. 
 
 bable. He supposes a critical note, p. 135, A. Buttmann p. 84. It need 
 
 d. ydp (i.e. d\\of ydp), marking a not necessarily mean 'the tfjord Hagar'; 
 
 various reading in the connecting par- compare for instance Ephes. iv. 9 ro 5^ 
 
 GAL. 1 3 
 
194 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 Such substantially was the interpretation put upon the passage by some 
 of the ablest among the Greek commentators. 'The law was given in the 
 very place,' says Theodore of Mopsuestia (the sense is somewhat distorted 
 through the medium of a bad Latin translation), 'which belongs to that 
 race whence Hagar also was.' 'About that mountain/ says Theodoret, 'are 
 the tents of the descendants of Hagar (to rrjs "Ayap i(rKi]v<oTai yeVos).' 
 'The Saracens/ remarks a third writer, perhaps Severianus^, 'the descend- 
 ants of Ishmael, dwell in the desert which reaches as far as Mount Sinai.' 
 Similarly Ephraem Syrus; 'For this Hagar is Mount Sinai which is in the 
 land of the Arabs, and it is a type of (a likeness to) Jerusalem, for it is in 
 subjection and bondage with its sons under the Romans.' 
 
 This however is not the interpretation generally adopted by those who 
 retain the received reading. They suppose the Apostle to be calling atten- 
 tion not to the locality of Sinai but to the meaning of the word Hagar: 
 Hagar 'The word Hagar in the language of the Arabians denotes Mount Sinai.' 
 taken for fpj^-g interpretation, which prevails widely, is put in its most attractive form 
 Sinai ^^ Dean Stanley. 'There is another traveller through Arabia/ he writes, 
 
 'at this time, on whose visit to Mount Sinai we should look with still 
 greater interest. I went info 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 difl5cult to resist the thought, that he too 
 may have stood upon the rocks of Sinai, and heard from Arab lips the often 
 repeated "Hagar/' "rock," suggesting the double meaning to which that text 
 alludes*-^.' ^Hagar^' in Arabic means 'a rock,' or rather 'a stone'; and it 
 is maintained that this Arabic word 'Hagar' was a common local name for 
 Sinai, or at all events was appropriated to it in some special way. 
 Objections Independently of any questions that may rise on the interpretation, 
 to this. J have endeavoured to show that 'Hagar' ought to be expelled from the 
 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. 
 
 dv^^T} tL icTTLv; where to is the state- rather *(77iajar'). The Arabic alphabet 
 
 ment, for the preceding word was not i, < , . , , ♦ r, 
 
 d.4^V^hutdva^ds. TheAmbrosianHi- ^^^ *^° ^^^^^''' Z. ^^^ V ^ ^^^^^^ 
 
 lary (after the middle of the fourth ^"^^ ^ harsher sound, correepondmg to 
 
 century) explains it 'causam Agar': a ^^^ ^^^ Hebrew guttural n (Chetla). 
 
 very early example of the sense which ^he initial letter of 'Hagar/ 'a stone,' 
 
 this word bears in the Bomance Ian- '^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ of t^^ese, a soft guttural 
 
 guages, 'cosa,' 'chose.' ^^' ^^^ not a simple aspirate. The 
 
 1 In Cramer's Catena. It is ano- gecond letter of the word is tt, corre- 
 nymous (dWos^^dXcp 0'7crM but m the ^ing to the Hebrew J, ouV G, but 
 
 inmiediate neighbourhood there is a ^^^^^^ pronounced by the Arabs 
 
 note assigned to Severianus. ^^jtly like the EngUsh J, as we pro- 
 
 ^ Sinat and Palestine p. 50; see „„„„„„ u ■ ™ t i, n • xi.- i. 
 
 , „ r- ij J nounce it m gem. I shall m this note 
 
 above, p. 89. 
 
 ' J^i^ pronounced 'CAa^ar' (or ™«"* Z ^^ ^^' ^ ^^ ^' ^°*1> '° 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 195 
 
 I. The evidence on which the assumed fact rests is both deficient (i) Incon- 
 
 in amount and suspicious in character. Not more than two independent elusive 
 
 ■ Gvidencs 
 
 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 Chryso- 
 this epistle writes somewhat obscurely; 'Hagar was the name of the etom. 
 bondmaid; and Mount Sinai is so interpreted in their native tongue (ro 
 fie 2ti/a opos ovrm fiedepfn^veveTai r^ iinx'^p'^^ avrmv yXdrrj)) '/ and afterwards 
 he speaks of the mountain as 'bearing the same name with the bondmaid 
 (6fx<ouvfj.ov rfj hovkjiy To the same effect writes Theophylact, who is often a 
 mere echo of Chrysostom, as do one or two anonymous commentators in 
 the (Ecumenian Catena, without doubt deriving their information from 
 the same source^. 
 
 (ii) The Bohemian traveller Harant, who visited Sinai in the year Harant. 
 1598, says: 'The Arabian and Mauritanian heathen call Mount Sinai Agar 
 or TurV Though, for anything that is found in the context, this might 
 have been written without a thought of the passage of St Paul, yet I think 
 it hardly probable. Luther, following Erasmus, had maintained this inter- Their 
 pretation ; and from the enormous popularity of his commentaries on the s*^*^- 
 Galatians, it is likely that they were known to Harant, who himself ulti- accounted 
 mately became a protestant. If so, he did not necessarily derive his inform- for. 
 ation from the Arabs on the spot, but may have accepted without ques- 
 tion the popular statement, as more recent travellers have done. 
 
 In later works of travel I have not found any direct personal testimony 
 to this assumed fact. If there be any, it will from the nature of the case 
 require careful sifting. The word 'Hagar' (C^a^ar) meaning *a rock,' or 
 *a stone,' must be heard again and again from native lips in this wild 
 region^; and a traveller, once possessed of the idea, might easily elicit the 
 word from his Arab guide by a leading question, and on the strength of an 
 
 ^ Chrysostom's interpretation of the work was written in Bohemian, but 
 
 passage in St Paul may perhaps under- translated into German by his brother 
 
 lie the account of the word *Hagar' and published by his nephew (see Bal- 
 
 given in Bar Bahlul's Syriac Lexicon, binus Bohem. Doct. 11. p. 104). [A 
 
 1. 5'- P friend, who has consulted the Bohemian 
 
 ^^^ ^^ Mt^Ji ^'\^ original, informs me that TTfiisseTifter^ is 
 
 1a Ij" lo ♦ U TTi* a miswriting of the name of a traveller 
 
 •j^ Hp^Ji • Urf" ^ whom Harant quotes, and that Tucla is 
 
 extract, which is taken from the ms there written TwrZa. ] I give the passage 
 
 in the Cambridge University Library, of Barbosa to which Harant refers, as it 
 
 I owe to the kindness of E. L, Bensly, stands in the copies which I have con- 
 
 Esq., of Gains College. suited. The title is Primo volume delle 
 
 2 Harant's authority is generally Navigationi e Viaggi (Yenet. 1550 and 
 
 quoted at secondhand through Bii- 1554); Lihro di Odoardo Barbessa or 
 
 sching' 8 Erdbeschr. 1. i.p. 603 (Hamb. Barbosa, p. 313 (323), *passato il detto 
 
 1792). In Harant's work itself, Der monte Sinai, il quale i Mori dimandano 
 
 Christliche Ulysses (Nurnb. 1678), the Turla.' 
 
 passage runs: ' Den Berg Synai nennen 3 The index to Bitter's Erdkunde, 
 
 die Arabische und Mauritanische Hey- Sinai etc. 11. p. 1331, s. v. 'Hadschar,' 
 
 den Agar oder Tur: Weissenberg, wie 'Hadjar,' etc., names several 'stones' 
 
 auch Tucla, wie Odoardo Barbosa neV on and about Sinai; 'Hadschar Elma,' 
 
 summ. deV Ind, Orient, hezeuget.^ The 'Hadsjar rakk^be,' 'Hadj Musa,' etc. 
 
 13—2 
 
196 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 (2) False 
 etymo- 
 logy- 
 
 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. ISfor 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 uncommon \) he compressed the geography of the whole region 
 and assigned this name to Mount Sinai itself, imagining that he had thus 
 found the key to St Paul's meaning 2. It is at least worthy of notice that 
 no mention whatever of this assumed fact, or the interpretation based on 
 it, is made either by his friend Theodore of Mopsuestia, or by Theodoret 
 the pupil of Theodore, both natives of Antioch, and both acquainted with 
 his work. Probably they were better informed on the subject, and for 
 this reason tacitly abandoned Chrysostom's explanation. 
 
 2. But supposing it were proved that Sinai were so called by the 
 Arabs, this word ^Ghstgax^ is not written or pronounced in the same way as 
 the proper name * Hagar/ and etymologically the two are entirely distinct. 
 The proper name 'Hagar,' with the simple aspirate ("Ijn, in Arabic y&.t&)> 
 signifies 'a wanderer or fugitive,' being connected with the Arabic *Hegira' 
 
 ^ Older critics, as Bochart and others 
 (le Moyne Var. Sacr. p. 834, Pfeifier 
 Op. I. p. 504), assert that Petra itself 
 bears the name Hagar (Ch&g&r) in 
 Arabic writers, just as in Greek it is 
 called U^Tpa, and in Hebrew V^D, 
 words having the same meaning * rock.' 
 This statement however is founded on 
 a twofold error ; (i) The vocalisation of 
 the proper name referred to is not 
 'C/ia^ar,' but 'Ghigi'; and (2) The 
 place which bears this name ' El Ghigx ' 
 in Arabic writers is not Petra itself, 
 but a station several days south of 
 Petra on the pilgrims' route between 
 Damascus and Mecca. See Ewald 
 PauVus p. 493 sq., Eobinson's Palestine 
 etc. II. p. 522. There is no evidence 
 that Petra itself was so called. 
 
 There is a place K"l3n, *C?iagra,' 
 mentioned four times in the Targum of 
 Onkelos, Gen. xvi. 7, 14, xx. i, Exod. 
 XV. 22. In the second passage it is 
 substituted for ' Bered,' in the remain- 
 ing three for * Shur,' of the original 
 text. It must therefore have lain 
 somewhere at the south of Palestine in 
 
 the desert on the way to Egypt. In 
 Gen. xvi. 7 it occurs in connexion with 
 the flight of Hagar. 
 
 1 venture to conjecture that there 
 was also a, place 'Hagar' (whether 
 
 i£Sl>- or -^l&) ^ 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 ^eOepfnjveuerai. Ac- 
 cording to Fiirst Concord, and Rehr. 
 Handb. s. v., '•J''D signifies 'rocky,' so 
 that interpreted in Arabic it would be 
 
 wcrtg!.^^ and to this identity of meaning 
 
 in ' Sinai' and 'Hagar' he supposes 
 Chrysostom to allude. But even if the 
 account which Etirst gives of the word 
 ^J^D were altogether satisfactory, it 
 would still remain in the highest degree 
 improbable that Chrysostom should be 
 acquainted with an etymology so ab- 
 struse. 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 197 
 
 the familiar term for the flight of Mahomet (compare also the Hebrew 
 Tia and ")V). Thus it has nothing in common with ^Gh^gBx,' *a stone' 
 
 (jsrisw), which if it occurred in Hebrew would be written 13n. It is true 
 that the gutturals are closely allied, and were sometimes confounded^; 
 and this circumstance would deserve to be considered, if the supposed 
 name for Sinai were supported by sufficient testimony: but where this is 
 wanting, the false etymology throws an additional obstacle, to say the least, 
 in the way of our accepting the explanation in question. Nor will it appear 
 very probable that St Paul should have set aside the true derivation, when 
 it is given and allegorized by his contemporary Philo^. 
 
 It seems much more probable indeed, if St Paul is alluding to any local 
 name of Sinai, that he should have regarded the true etymology, and that 
 the name in question was not "iJn *rock/ but "i3n 'wanderer/ This latter 
 name was at least not uncommon among the Arab tribes ; and it is far from 
 unlikely, though direct evidence is wanting, that a settlement of these 
 'wanderers/ these children of ^Hagar,' occupied the country about Sinai 
 in St Paul's day and gave it their name for the time. 
 
 3. But lastly, is it probable, supposing this to have been St Paul's (3) St 
 meaning, that he would have expressed himself as he has done? If in 
 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 
 
 , Paul's 
 
 ^ The close alliance between the 
 gutturals is shown, (i) By their inter- 
 change in the same language in differ- 
 ent words connected or identical in 
 meaning and obviously derived from 
 the same root, e. g. lilD and "IPID, 
 "in^ and "inV; (2) By their interchange 
 in different languages of the Semitic 
 family, e.g. Heb. HT^ and Syr. o^V^ 
 (Hoffmann, Gramm. Syr, p. 123), or in 
 different dialects of the same language, 
 e. g. in the Aramaic dialects the Syriac 
 jjl-- compared with the Chaldee ]nJ 
 
 (see Gesen. Thes. p. 359, Fiirst Aram. 
 Idiome § 45); (3) By the confusion of 
 sound in the same language or dialect, 
 e.g. a Judfean in the story professes 
 himself unable to distinguish between 
 nDN, 'alamb,'n^y,'wool,' "lDn,'wine,' 
 and "ibn, ' an ass,' as pronounced by a 
 Galilean, when the latter wants to make 
 a purchase; see Fiirst, ih. § 15. There 
 was the same confusion also in the Sa- 
 maritan pronimciation of the gutturals; 
 Gesen. Lehrgeb. § 32. i. On the rela- 
 
 tion of the gutturals to each other, see 
 Ewald, Ausf. Lehrb. d. Heb. Spr. § 39 
 sq. 
 
 Assemani indeed {Bibl. Or. m. 2, 
 P- 753) gives an instance of the inter- 
 change of the gutturals He and Cheth 
 in this very word Hagar : ' Hagar 
 . m, Arabibus ^^r^a. Hagiar, hoc est, 
 
 Petra; Ptolemaeo Agra, unde Agraai 
 populi Arabiae juxta sinum Persicum, 
 etc' But is there not a misprint or an 
 error here? Was this place ever written 
 in Arabic otherwise than with a simple 
 aspirate as in Syriac? At all events 
 Winer (Realw. s.v. Hagariter) is wrong 
 in understanding Assemani's remark of 
 the station between Damascus and 
 Mecca (seep. 196, note i), and has been 
 blindly followed by others. 
 
 2 irapolKTjffLS, Leg. Alleg. i. p. 135 m, 
 Sacr. Ab. et Ga. 1. p. 1 70 {irapotKel (ro<pLg., 
 oi) KaroLKEi). Another derivation of 
 Hagar, or rather a play upon the word, 
 was ^IHS Kn, 'here is thy wages'; see 
 Beer Leben Abraham^s p. 148. 
 
iqS epistle to the galatians. 
 
 possibly understand, knowing nothing of Arabic, that he meant to say, 
 *this word Hagar in the Arabic tongue stands for Mount Sinai'? Even if 
 it be granted that his readers were acquainted with the fact which was the 
 key to his meaning, is iv rfj 'Apa^la at all a likely expression to be used by 
 any writer for eV rfj 'ApafiiKfj yXaaar) or 'Apa/StoTi, unless it were made 
 intelligible by the context? Yet this is the meaning generally assigned to 
 iv TJi 'Apa/3ta 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 
 test loses any support which it may seem to draw from this identity, 
 assumed as a fact. 
 
 Philo's allegory of Hagar and Sarah^, 
 
 In giving an allegorical meaning to 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 day 2. But, however this may be, 
 it is more than once so applied in the extant works of Philo. I have 
 already pointed out the contrast presented by his treatment of the history 
 of Abraham in general to the lessons which it suggests to the Apostle of 
 the Gentiles. This contrast extends to the application of the allegorical 
 method to this portion of the sacred narrative. Philo's allegory is as 
 follows. 
 Philo's Abraham — the human soul progressing towards the knowledge of God 
 
 allegory, — unites himself first with Sarah and then with Hagar. These two aUiances 
 stand in direct opposition the one to the other^. Sarah, the princess — for 
 such is the interpretation of the word* — is divine wisdom. To her there- 
 fore Abraham is bidden to listen in all that she says. On the other hand 
 Hagar, whose name signifies 'sojourning' (TrapotKT/o-is), and points therefore 
 to something transient and unsatisfying, is a preparatory or intermediate 
 
 1 For Philo's allegory of Hagar and -^ In some passages Philo still further 
 Sarah, see esp. de Congr. Queer. 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. Norn. i. p. 590, 
 592, and QucBst. 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 '2,6.pa. 
 Alleg. I. p. 135, de Cherub, i. p. 139 sq., (^"ItJ') is Apx^ p.ov, her after-name Sappa 
 de Prof. 1. p. 546, de Abr. 11. p. 52, (mfeJ') is &pxovffa (see Hieron. Qucest. 
 de Somn. i. p. 656. in Gen.^ in. p. 331). Thus they are 
 
 2 See the notes on ffwffTotx^t and related to each other as the special to 
 6X\7)yopo>!/fieva. the general, as the finite and perishable 
 
 3 de Abr. 11. p. 15 havrnbraToi Bk to the infinite and imperishable. 
 AWiJAois d<Tlv oi XexdipTGS yd/xoi. 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 199 
 
 training — the instruction of the schools — secular learning, as it might be 
 termed in modern phrase ^. Hence she is fitly described as an Egyptian, 
 as Sarah's handmaid. Abraham's alliance with Sarah is at first premature. 
 He is not sufficiently advanced in his moral and spiritual development to 
 profit thereby. As yet he begets no son by her. She therefore directs him 
 to go in to her handmaid, to apply himself to the learning of the schools. 
 This inferior alliance proves fruitfiil at once. At a later date and after this 
 preliminary training he again unites himself to Sarah ; and this time his 
 union with divine wisdom is fertile. Not only does Sarah bear him a son, 
 but she is pointed out as the mother of a countless offspring^ Thus is 
 realised the strange paradox that *the barren woman is most fruitful.' 
 Thus in the progress of the human soul are verified the words of the 
 prophet, spoken in an allegory, that 'the desolate hath many children 3.' 
 
 But the allegory does not end here. The contrast between the mothers 
 is reproduced in the contrast between the sons. Isaac represents the 
 wisdom of the wise man, Ishmael the sophistry of the sophist*. Sophistry 
 must in the end give place to wisdom. The son of the bondwoman must be 
 cast out and flee before the son of the princess^. 
 
 Such is the ingenious application of Philo — most like and yet most compared 
 unlike that of Sfc Paul. They both allegorize, and in so doing they touch ^^''^j^* 
 upon the same points in the narrative, they use the same text by way of ^^ ^' 
 illustration. Yet in their whole tone and method they stand in direct con- 
 trast, and their results have nothing in common. Philo is, as usual, wholly 
 unhistorical. "With St Paul on the other hand Hagar's career is an alle- 
 gory, because it is a history. The symbol and the thing symbolized are 
 the same in kind. The simple passage of patriarchal life represents in 
 miniature the workings of God's providence hereafter to be exhibited in 
 grander proportions in the history of the Christian Church. The Christian 
 
 ^ i) fiiff'T} Kot ^/cii/cXios iratbeia is they are present to his mind. 
 
 Philo's favourite phrase, e.g. de Cherub. ^ de Sobr. i. p. 394 (ro<piav (xkv 'IcradK, 
 
 I. p. 139. (Totpia-relav dk'IfffiarjX KeKXripwraL: comp. 
 
 ^ de Congr. Qumr. Erud. Gr. i. p. 519 de Cherub, i. p. 140, and other passages 
 TwuT'qv Mwutr^s, TO irapado^SraTovy koI referred to in p. 198, note i. The 
 (TTeipav 6Lwo<paivei Kot iroXvyovooTdTTjv : names give Philo some trouble. Isaac 
 comp. de Mut. Nom. i. pp. 599, 600, of course signifies 'laughter,' betoken- 
 where he adds Kara to g.86fJLevov g.<rfia ing the joy which comes of divine wis- 
 uTTo T7}s x^p'^o^ "Awqs Tf <pT}(TLv , Sreiptt dom; see, besides the passages just re- 
 ircKev ^TTTb, 7} 5^ ttoXXt? iv t^kvols ijcd^- ferred to, Leg. Alleg. i. p. 131, Quod 
 vf){TG (i Sam. ii. 5). Bet. Pot. 1. pp. 203, 215. Ishmael he 
 
 3 de Execr. 11. p. 434 ^ 7ap ^pr}fA0Sj contrasts with Israel, the one signifying 
 
 y (pTjalv TTpocp'^TTjs, edTeKv6s re Kai iro- the hearing God, the other the seeing 
 
 XiJTrats, Sirep Uyiov Kai iirl ipvxv^ dWrj- God (bx H^") E^''K, 'vir videns deum'; 
 
 yopeiraL (Is. liv. i). The coincidence comp, Hieron. in Gen. m. 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 olkov to opaa-is, as the faUaoious to 
 
 the Pentateuch in seeking subjects for the infallible, as the o-o^iLaTvs to the 
 
 allegorical interpretation. There is in- (ro06y, de Prof. i. p. 577, de Mut. Nom. 
 
 deed no mention of Sarah and Hagar i. p. 609. 
 
 here, but it appears, both from the con- s de Cherub, i, p. 140- 
 text and from parallel passages, that 
 
200 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 Bearing 
 on Inspi- 
 ration. 
 
 Apostle and the philosophic Jew move in parallel lines, as it were, keeping 
 side by side and yet never once crossing each other's path. 
 
 And there is still another point in which the contrast between the two 
 is great. With Philo the allegory is the whole substance of his teaching ; 
 with St Paul it is but an accessory. He uses it rather as an illustration 
 than an argument, as a means of representing in a lively form the lessons 
 before enforced on other grounds. It is, to use Luther's comparison, the 
 painting which decorates the house already built. 
 
 At the same time we need not fear to allow that St Paul's mode of 
 teaching here is coloured by his early education in the rabbinical schools. 
 It were as unreasonable to stake the Apostle's inspiration on the turn of a 
 metaphor or the character of an illustration or the form of an argument, as 
 on purity of diction. No one now thinks of maintaining that the language 
 of the inspired writers reaches the classical standard of correctness and 
 elegance, though at one time it was held almost a heresy to deny this. ^ A 
 treasure contained in earthen vessels,' 'strength made perfect in weakness,' 
 * rudeness in speech, yet not in knowledge,' such is the far nobler concep- 
 tion of inspired teaching, which we may gather from the Apostle's own 
 language. And this language we should do well to bear in mind. But on 
 the other hand it were mere dogmatism to set up the intellectual standard 
 of our own age or country as an infallible rule. The power of allegory 
 has been differently felt in different ages, as it is differently felt at any one 
 time by diverse nations. Analogy, allegory, metaphor — by what bound- 
 aries are these separated the one from the other ? What is true or false, 
 correct or incorrect, as an analogy or an allegory ? What argumentative 
 force 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. i. 
 
 (i) Posi- 
 tion of 
 ofiv. 
 
 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 ovv. 
 
 (i) It stands after or^Kere in NABCFGP and a few of the better cur- 
 sive Mss; in f, g, the Vulgate, Gothic, Memphitic, Thebaic i, ^thiopic, 
 Armenian, and perhaps the Peshito Syriac^ versions ; in Origen 3, 
 Basin, and CyriP; in Yictorinus, Augustine, and others. The Mem- 
 phitic version also inserts yap with rji iXevdepla. 
 
 1 I have ascertained this from the 
 MS belonging to Lord Crawford and 
 Balcarres. 
 
 2 This is doubtful, the order of the 
 words being altered in this version. 
 
 ^ in Exod, H. 3 (11. p. 139), in Jud. 
 H. 9 (11. p. 477), both estant only in 
 Latin, 
 
 ^ Mor. 14 (11. p. 247, Gamier), ac- 
 cording to some of the best mss. In 
 the printed editions however it stands 
 after iXevdeplg.. In the de Bapt. (11. 
 p. 641, Garnier), a treatise ascribed to 
 Basil but of doubtful authorship, its 
 place is after o-T^Kere. 
 
 5 Glaphyr. i. p. 75. 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 20I 
 
 (ii) Its position is after iXevOepia in C (by a third hand) KL and very 
 many cursive mss, in Marcus Monachus^, Damascene, Theophylact, 
 and CEcumenius. 
 (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 ttj yap ikevOepia k.t.\. 
 
 In Asterius^ ovv is absent after ikevOepiaj but, as the context is 
 wanting, it is impossible to say whether it occurred after a-rrjKeTc or 
 not. 
 Thus it will be seen that the balance of authority is decidedly in favour 
 of placing ovv after o-TiJKeTe; 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 r^ ikevBepia. 
 
 2. The position of i^fjLas. It is found, (i) Posi- 
 (i) Before Xpio-rhs in NABDEFGP and some cursive mss, in Origen tio^ o^ 
 
 (Latin translation), Theodore of Mopsuestia (Latin translation), and '^^^^' 
 Cyrils 
 
 (ii) After Xpio-ros in CKL and many cursive mss, and in Chrysostom, 
 Theodoret, Asterius, Marcus Monachus, and Damascene. 
 
 (iii) After iqXeudepaxrev in Theophylact. 
 
 The versions and the Latin fathers vary, the majority placing it after 
 Xptaros; 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 (Xpiorbs ijfias being perhaps the more natural order), 
 so that one authority in favour of ^/ifis Xptoroy is of more weight than a 
 number against it. The order tJ/aos Xpca-ros may therefore be retained with 
 confidence. 
 
 3. Besides these, there still remains a third and more important variation. (3) The 
 (i) T^ iXevOepLO. ff is read in D (by the correction of later hands*) relative. 
 
 EKL and the great majority of cursives, in both Syriac versions, in 
 Basil, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia (Latin), Theodoret (twice), 
 Cyril, Asterius, Marcus Monachus, Theophylact, and CEcumenius. The 
 -^thiopic has 'quia Christus nos Uberavit; et state igitur.' 
 
 (ii) rfj ikcvBepla alone is found in NABCDP and a few cursive mss, in 
 the Thebaic and Memphitic versions, and in Damascene and others. 
 
 (iii) § iXevBepLo. in FG, in the old Latin, Vulgate, and Gothic versions, 
 in Marcion (or rather Tertullian^), Origen (Latin translation^), in Vic- 
 torinus, Augustine, Jerome, and others. 
 
 1 Gallandi viii. p. 47. tereaque D** addidit signa quibus 7} xs 
 
 2 In Ps. V. Horn. 5, Cotel. Mon. ante Tjfxas ponendum esse significaret, 
 Eccl. u, p. 46. Bed videntur ea signa rursus deleta 
 
 3 The Latin ol D has * qua libertate esse.' Tischendorf Cod. Clarom. 
 nostra.' It has been suggested to me ^ adv. Marc. v. 4. 
 
 that tra was originally a direction to ® in Gen, H. 7 (11. p. 78), in Cant, 
 
 transpose *noa.' i. 6 (in. p. 52). 
 
 4 « p** et O*** praeposuerunt rj, pr^e- 
 
202 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 Thus our choice seems to lie between (i) and (iij, 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 rfi i^evBepla without § is so difficult as to be almost 
 unintelligible. At a certain point Bengel's rule, 'proclivi scriptioni prsestat 
 ardua,' attains its maximum value ; beyond this point it ceases to apply. 
 And in the present instance it is difficult to give an interpretation to the 
 words which is not either meaningless or ungrammaticaL 
 
 Secondly. Supposing ttj eXcvdepia rj to have been the original reading, 
 the omission of ^ in some texts admits of a very simple explanation. 
 Standing immediately before ij/ias (which in its proper position, as we have 
 seen, precedes Xpto-ro?) it would easily drop out through the carelessness of 
 transcribers. In this case too the transposition Xptoroff tJ/aS? for iJ/iSs 
 Xpta-ros was probably made for the sake of euphony to avoid the juxta- 
 position of ^ Tafias which came together in the original text. 
 
 At the same time the testimony in favour of ttj eXevdepla 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, § ikevSepiUj found chiefly in the Latin copies, is not 
 very easily accounted for, but was perhaps substituted for tJ iXevdepla § 
 as a more elegant expression or as a retranslation from the loose Latin 
 rendering 'qua libertate.' 
 
 The words being thus determined, the punctuation is best decided by 
 the position of the connecting particle, and the sentence will run, rrjs 
 iXevOepas rj iXevBepLO. 17 tJ/xS? Xpto-ros ^XevBepaaev. SnyKcre ovv k.tX. 
 
V. 2, 3] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 203 
 
 a»'T 
 
 ISe eyoi YlavXo^ Xeyta vjuui/, OTty iav Trepirefj.vno'Q^y 
 XptcTTO^ vfxa^ ov^ev a)(p€\t](reL' ^ fxapTvpofxai he TrdXiv 
 TTavTi di/dpcoTTw TTepLTe/jLi/oiiXevcOy OTi 6(pei\eTri^ ecTTtv 
 
 2 — 6. 'Let there be no misunder- 
 standing. I Paul myself declare to 
 you that if you submit to circumcision, 
 you forfeit all advantage from Christ. 
 I have said it once, and I repeat it 
 again with a solemn protest. Every 
 man, who is circumcised, by that very 
 act places himself under the law; he 
 binds himself to fulfil every single 
 requirement of the law. You hava 
 no-part^±a^jGhris.tj y ou are outcast s 
 fro m th^ .coY enant of grace, you who 
 seek justification in obedience to law. 
 There is a great gulf between you 
 and us. We, the true disciples of 
 Christ, hope to be justified of faith, 
 not of works, in the Spirit, not in the 
 flesh.' 
 
 2. At this point St Paul assumes 
 a 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 
 tSe. According to the ancient gram- 
 marians, the pronunciation of common 
 dialect was tfie, XajSe, of the Attic Ibi, 
 Xa/3e. See Winer § vi. p. 55 sq. 
 
 iyaiHavkosI What is the exactforce 
 of this? Is it (i) An assertion of 
 authority ? * I Paul, who received a 
 direct commission from Christ, who 
 have done and sufiered so much for 
 the Gospel and for you, who have so 
 strong a claim on your hearing'? Or 
 is it rather (2) An indirect refutation 
 of calumnies? 'I Paul, who have my- 
 self preached circumcision forsooth, 
 who say smooth things to please men, 
 who season my doctrine to the tastes 
 of my hearers'? For the latter sense, 
 see 2 Cor. s. i, where the words avTos hk 
 eyw IlauXoff 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 Bphes, iii. i. 
 The two ideas are not incompatible ; 
 they are equally prominent elsewhere 
 in this epistle, and may both have 
 been present to St Paul's mind, when 
 he thus asserts himself so strongly. 
 
 7r€pLT€fjLvr}(rd€] ^suffer yourselves to 
 be circumcised^' see the note on nepi- 
 Tefivofiep^ ver. 3. 
 
 3. Tlie 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.' 
 
 fiapTvpofxai Se ttoKiv] 'Christ benefit 
 you? nay, I protest againJ The 
 adversative sense of Se is to be ex- 
 plained by the idea of cScpcXria-ct. nd- 
 Xlv refers to the preceding Xeya; 'I 
 have said it, and I repeat it with pro- 
 testation.' 
 
 fjuiprvpoiMai] ^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 fiap- 
 TvpS, 'I bear witness.' See the notes 
 on I Thess. ii. 12. For the dative 
 dvdp(07r(o compare Acts xs. 26. This 
 use of the dative is a remnant of the 
 fuller construction fxapTvpea-dal tlvI ti 
 (Judith vii. 28 fiaprvpofieda v^7v rov 
 ovpavov Koi Trfv yrjv), the accusative 
 being suppressed and the verb used 
 absolutely without reference to the 
 person of the witness. 
 
 7r€piT€p.voii€vco] ' wko Under QOBs cir- 
 cumcision,^ as TrepiTefxvrja-de ver. 2, 
 and ol irepiTepLvo^evoi vi. 13 (the better 
 reading). In all these cases the pre- 
 sent tense is more appropriate than 
 
204 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [V. 4-6 
 
 oAoi/ Tov vofjiov TTOtfjcai. ^KaTripyf]6r}Te diro XptarTOVy 
 oWive^ €v vofxo) ^iKatovarOe, Ttj^ ^(^apiTO^ i^eTrecuTe. 
 ^T^fxei's yap TrvevfxaTi €k Trio'Tews iXTrtSa ^iKatoavvrj^ 
 dTreKde^o/uLeda' ^ev yap XpicrTw [^lr](rov~\ ovTe TrepiTOfxt] 
 
 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 he circumcised^ be- 
 ing free agents. 
 
 4, KaTJ]pyi]6T)T€ e^eTTeo-are] 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 eav fiij tls 
 
 fieivrj iv e^oij e^X'qdrj e^co tos to KKrjfiaj 
 
 Rev. X. 7 : comp, Winer § xl. p. 345. 
 
 KaT7}py^6r)T€ airo Xpio-Tov] a pregnant 
 expression for KaTrjpyijOrjTe koI ix'^p't'O'- 
 6r)T€ diro Xpio-rovj 'Ye are nothing as 
 regards Christ, ye are entirely sepa- 
 rate from Him'; as Rom. vii. 2, 6; 
 comp. 2 Cor. xi. 3 <t)Bapfi ra vorjfiara 
 Vfimv aTTO Trjs dirkorqTOSj Col. ii. 20. 
 
 oiTives biKaiQV(T6e\ 'all ye who seek 
 your justification.^ See on nepLTCfivo- 
 fiiva, ver. 3. 
 
 eleTreVare] ''are driven forth, are 
 banished with Hagar your mother': 
 see iv. 30 eVjSaXe T^v Traibia-K7)v. The 
 words iKTrlirreiv and eKpdXKecv are cor- 
 relatives in this sense; e.g. Thucyd. 
 vi. 4 VTTO 2a/xtQ)i' KOL aWcov ^l(£iva>v eK~ 
 'iri'irTov(TiP...TOvs Se 2ap.Lovs ^Ava^Ckas 
 'Prjyivcov rvpavvos ov iroXka va-repov 
 CK^aXav K.r.X. For the form e^eire- 
 o-are see Lobeck Phryn. p. 724, Wi- 
 ner § xiii. p. 86. 
 
 5. rjp.€Ls yap'\ for we, who are in 
 union with Christ, we who cling to the 
 covenant of grace.' yap introduces an 
 argument from the opposite, as in 
 iii. 10. 
 
 irveviiari] 'spiritually,^ or 'by the 
 Spirits It is almost always difficult 
 and sometimes, as here, impossible to 
 say when nvevfia 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. 
 
 eXTTt'Sa] here used in a concrete 
 sense, Hhe thing hoped for'; comp. 
 
 Col. i. 5 T^V iXTTlda TYjV dirOK€Lfl€V7IP VfJUV, 
 
 Tit. ii. 13 TTpodhexofxevoi rr}v fiaKapiav 
 eXirlba, Heb. vi. 18 ; and see the note 
 on eVayyeXia, iii. 14. 
 
 aTreKhexofieSa} ' wait eagerly,^ or 
 perhaps 'patiently ' ; used especially 
 in speaking of the future redemption ; 
 comp. Rom. viii. 19, 23, 25, i Cor. i. 7, 
 Phil. iii. 20. Compare the dno in diro- 
 KapaboKia, and see a paper by C. F. A. 
 Fritzsche in Fritzsch. Optisc. p. 156. 
 
 6. yap'] explaining the emphatic 
 TTV€vp,aTi €K irltTT^cos wMch has gouc 
 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 
 I Cor. vii. 18 — 20, Gal. vi. 15). The 
 false sentiment which attends it, the 
 glorying in the flesh, makes the differ- 
 ence, and calls down the rebuke. 
 
 TTta-rts K.r.X.] 'In his stat totus 
 Christianismus,' says Bengel. 
 
 iv€pyovfj.€vr}] ^Working'; the middle 
 voice according to the general usage 
 of St Paul. The Spirit of God or the 
 Spirit of Evil ivepyel ; the human agent 
 or the human mind epepyelraL : see the 
 note on i Thess. ii. 13. On the other 
 hand ivepyeia-Bat is never passive in 
 St Paul (as it seems to be taken here 
 by Tertullian adv. Marc, v. 4, * di- 
 
V. 7, 8] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 205 
 
 TL ia")(yei ovTe aKpofSviTTiay dWd TricTTL^ hi dyccTrris 
 evepyovfievri, 
 
 Treidecdai ; ^t] 7reL(TfxovYi ovk eK tov kuXovvtos v/jlSs, 
 
 cendo per dilectionem perfici'), and 
 therefore this passage does not ex- 
 press the doctrine of * fides caritate 
 forniata/ 
 
 These words fit' dydirrjs ivepyovfxevr] 
 bridge over the gulf which seems to 
 separate the language of St Paul and 
 St James, Both assert a principle 
 of practical energy, as opposed to a 
 barren, inactive theory. 
 
 Observe in these verses the con- 
 nexion between the triad of Christian 
 graces. The same sequence — faith, 
 love, hope — underlies St Paul's lan- 
 guage here, which appears on the sur- 
 face in I Thess. i. 3, Col. i. 4, 5. See 
 the note on the former of these two 
 passages. 
 
 7 — II. *Ye were running a gal- 
 lant race. Who has checked you in 
 your mid career? Whence this dis- 
 loyalty to the truth ? 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! Nay, we shall work 
 together henceforth! there is no dif- 
 ference between us now ! I have 
 ceased to preach the Cross of Christ ! 
 The stumblingblock in the way of the 
 Gospel is removed ! ' 
 
 7. 'ETpcxere KaXws] * Ye were run- 
 
 ning bravely,^ again a reference to 
 St Paul's favourite metaphor of the 
 stadium. See ii. 2, i Cor. ix. 24 — 27, 
 Phil. iii. 14, 2 Tim. iv. 7. 
 
 €veKoyj/€v] 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 TTpoK^reiv, Ho clear a way/ *to 
 act as pioneer'; comp. Greg. Naz. Or. 
 xiv. 31 (l p. 279 ed. Ben.) jj KUKias 
 eyKOTTTOfieuTjs dvo-TraBela t^v Trovrjpav rj 
 dperijs 68o7rotovp.evr}S eviradela rcoy /3eX- 
 Ttovcov. Hence it originally took a 
 dative of the person, e.g. Polyb. xxiv. 
 I. 12, but the metaphor being subse- 
 quently lost sight of, the dative was 
 replaced by an accusative, as always 
 in the New Testament, e.g. Acts xxiv. 
 4, I Thess. ii. 18. Compare the pas- 
 sive, Rom. XV. 22, I Pet. iii. 7. See 
 the note on ([yBovovvTes, ver. 26. 
 
 The testimony in favour of tveKoyjrcv 
 is overwhelming. Otherwise the re- 
 ceived reading dveKo-^ev suits the 
 metaphor of the stadium better; for 
 dvaKoTTTetv *to beat back' would apply 
 to the pa^bovxoi (Thuc. v. 50) who 
 kept the course : comp. Lucian Nigr. 
 
 § 35 (l- P- 77) ^i^TTLTrTOV T€ KOt dvCKO- 
 
 TTTOfi-qv, PolyC. § 5 dvaKOTTTca-dai dno 
 T^v eTTiOvfiiav, The word eyKOTrretv 
 seems to have given offence to tran- 
 scribers : in I Thess. ii. 18, as here, dva- 
 KoTrreiv stands as a various reading; in 
 Acts xxiv, 4, I Pet. iii. 7, iKKOTrreiv. 
 
 8. TreLo-fxojnj] with a faint reference 
 to the preceding TreiBeo-Bat; ' You have 
 refused to obey the truth, you have 
 rendered another obedience which is 
 not of God.' TTCLo-fjiovij (Ignat. Rom. 3, 
 Justin. ApoL i. c. 53, p. 17 e; comp. 
 7rKr}(rfjLov% Col. ii. 23), hke the English 
 'persuasion,' may be either active or 
 
206 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [V.9-11 
 
 ^ fXLKpd ^vjuLT} 6\o}/ TO (jyvpajuia ^u/uol. ^°€yu> TreTroiua 
 ek vjUiSs iv Kvpio), on ovdev aWo (ppovrjcreTe' 6 Se 
 Tapda-o'wv v/ma^ fiaorTacret to Kpl/Jia, octtl^ eav rj. ^^eya 
 
 passive ; ' the act of persuading,' re- 
 ferring to the false teachers ; or Hhe 
 state of one persuaded/ referring to 
 the Galatians themselves. The latter 
 is perhaps simpler. 
 
 Tov KoXovvTos] 1.0. God, as always in 
 St Paul ; see Usteri Paul. Lehrhegr. 
 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 I Thess. v. 24, and comp. Winer 
 § xlv. p. 444. 
 
 9. This proverb is quoted also in 
 I Cor. V, 6. Comp. Hosea vii. 4. 
 
 Does it apply here (1) To the doc- 
 trine? *If you begin by observing 
 the law in a few points, you will end 
 by selling yourselves wholly to it' 
 (comp. V. 3) ; or (2) To the persons ? 
 * Though the Judaizers may be but few 
 now, the infection will spread to the 
 whole body.' The latter is far more 
 probable : for the prominent idea in 
 the context is that of a small and com- 
 pact body disturbing the peace of the 
 Church; and the metaphor is thus ap- 
 plied also in i Cor. v. 7, where again 
 it refers to the contagious example of 
 a few evil-doers. 
 
 The leaven of Scripture is always a 
 symbol of evil, with the single 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 i Cor. v. 6. Heathen nations 
 also regarded leaven as unholy. Plu- 
 tarch, Qumst. Rom. 109 (p. 289 e), in 
 answer to the question why the Fla- 
 men Dialis was not allowed to touch 
 leaven, explains it, r) ^vfir) koI yiyovcv 
 cV <l)6opas avTT} Kal (fydelpci to (j)vpaiJia 
 pLtyuvfievT}. See Trench On the Para- 
 bles, p. III. 
 
 For the expression (vfiovp to cj^vpa- 
 fxa see Exod. xii. 34. 
 
 10. eyo)] emphatic, '/, who know 
 you so well, who remember your for- 
 mer zeal': iv. 14, 15. 
 
 7T€7rotda] still dwelling on the same 
 word, Treidea-daL iru(Tiiovri ; see "Winer 
 § Ixviii. p. 793 sq. 
 
 cis vp,as\ Hn regard to you^ ; see 
 Winer § xlix. p. 496 : comp. 2 Cor. viii. 
 22 TreTTOtBrio-ei ttoXX^ tjj ds vfias, 2 Cor. 
 ii. 3 TTGiroLOats eVl rravTas vfias otl K.r.X., 
 2 Thess. iii. 4 TreTroi^a/Aey fV Kuptw e0' 
 vjias oTi K.T.\. As in the passage last 
 cited, iv KvpL(a here denotes not the 
 object of the writer's confidence, but 
 the sphere in which it is exercised. 
 
 ov8ev aXKo (ppovrja-eTe] ^none other- 
 wise minded,^ either (i) 'than I bid 
 you/ for though no direct command 
 immediately precedes these words, 
 there is one implied; or, as seems 
 more probable, (2) 'than ye were be- 
 fore this disorder broke out'; see 
 iTpex^Te KoKoiS, ver. y. 
 
 Tapaaa-oiv] ^raises seditions^ excites 
 tumults among you/ the metaphor be- 
 ing continued in ava(TTaTovvT€s ver. 12. 
 See the note on i. 7. 
 
 ^aarTacrei] ^ shall hear as a burden; 
 it shall press grievously on him': see 
 vi. 2, 5. 
 
 KpLp,a] On the accent of this word, 
 which is KpXp.a in classical writers, see 
 Lobeck Parol, p. 418, Fritzsche Rom. 
 I. p. 96, Lipsius Gram,. Unters. p. 40. 
 Compare the note on arvKoi, ii. 9. 
 
 o(TTis iav ^] i.e. * whatever may be 
 his position in the Church, however he 
 may vaunt his personal intercourse 
 with the Lord.' See 2 Cor. x. 7, 
 
 II. 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 /, who have incurred the 
 deadly hatred of the Judaizers, who 
 am exposed to continual persecution 
 
V. 12] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 207 
 
 oe, ddeXcpoly el TrepiTOfXYiv en Kt^pvcrcrwy tl en StajKOfxat ; 
 apa KUTripyfjTai to (TKavhaXov tov CTavpov' ^^6(be\ou 
 Kai aTTOKoyf/'OPTaL ol dvatTTUTOVVTe^ vfjid^. 
 
 from them, do /preach circumcision f 
 ert Kr}pv<r<r<o'] For an explanation 
 of this eVi, see the notei. 10. Perhaps 
 however it should, be explained rather 
 by the form which the slander of his 
 enemies would take ; 'You 5i^^Z preach 
 circumcision, though you have become 
 a Christian: why should not we con- 
 tinue to do the same V 
 
 TL eVt] The second eVt is probably 
 argumentative, 'this being the case,' 
 as in Rom. iii. 7, ix. 19. 
 
 apa] ' so it appears ! ' apa introduces 
 a false statement or inference also 
 in I Cor. v. lo, xv. 14, 15, 18, 2 Cor. i. 
 17. It is here ironical ; 'So I have 
 adopted their mode of justification ; 
 
 1 am silent about the Cross of Christ! 
 no one takes offence at my preaching 
 now; all goes on pleasantly enough!' 
 The a-Tavpos 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. i Cor. i. 23. 
 
 a-KavbaXou] almost confined, it would 
 appear, to biblical and ecclesiastical 
 Greek. o-Kavbak7]3pov 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 /SXeVerf t^v Kararopjiv' Ty/xeiff yap 
 i(rp,€v -q 7repiT0{Mrjj where the same idea 
 appears, clothed in similar language. 
 
 o^eXoi^] Comp. I Cor. iv. 8, 2 Cor. 
 xi. I, in both of which passages the 
 irony is plain. In this construction 
 with the indicative, which appears 
 only in later writers, the original 
 meaning of oipeXov is lost sight of, and 
 it is treated as a mere particle ; see 
 Winer § xli. p. 377, A. Buttmann 
 § 139, 10, p. 185. 
 
 dTTOKo-sp-ovraL] 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 aTroKoyjrovTai by all the Greek com- 
 mentators, I believe, without excep- 
 tion (the Latin fathers, who read ' ab- 
 scindantnr' in their text, had more 
 latitude), and seems alone tenable. 
 See for instance airoK€KQjxp.ivosj Deut. 
 xxiii. I, and indeed diroKoiTTeaQai 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 TrepLTifiveiv and diroKOTTTeLv see Dion 
 Cassius Ixxix. 1 1 (quoted by Bentley 
 Crit. Sacr. p. 48), and compare Died. 
 Sic. iii. 31. The remonstrance is 
 doubly significant as addressed to Ga- 
 latians, for Pessinus one of their chief 
 towns was the home of the worship of 
 Cybele in honour of whom these muti- 
 lations were practised: comp. Justin 
 Apol. i. p. 70 E aTroKoirrovTal rives Kai 
 els fiTjTepa deav to. fMV(TT7)pia dva(}>epova-i. 
 See also [Bardesanes] de Fato § 20, in 
 Cureton's Spic. Syr. p. 32. Thus by 
 * glorying in the flesh' the Galatians 
 were returning in a very marked way 
 
208 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [V. 13, 14 
 
 *^*Y^ei9 yap iir i\ev6epia iK\i^6r]T€, dd€\(j)oi' fxo- 
 vov fxri Tfjv eXevQepiav eU dcpopfxriP rtj (rapKi, dWa Sta 
 Trjs dydirrj^ BovXevere d\\f]\oc^. '"^d yap Tras i/ojulos 
 €v evL \oy(jo TreTrXtjpcoTaiy ev tw Ar^TTHceic ton 
 
 to the bondage of their former hea- 
 thenism. See iv. 9, v. i. 
 
 dvao-TaTovvTis] Stronger than Tapaa-- 
 <rovT€s ; * They not only incite you to 
 sedition, but they overthrow the whole 
 framework of your heavenly polity.' 
 For dvaa-rarovv, a word unknown to 
 classical writers, who would use dva~ 
 a-TOTovs TTocelv instead, see Acts xvii. 6, 
 xxi. 38. * Well does he say dvaa-Tarovv- 
 T€s,' remarks Chrysostom, 'for aban- 
 doning their country and their freedom 
 and their kindred in heaven, they com- 
 pelled them to seek a foreign and a 
 strange land ; banishing them from the 
 heavenly Jerusalem and the free, and 
 forcing them to wander about as cap- 
 tives and aliens.' 
 
 13. This is the justification of the 
 indignant scorn poured on their of- 
 fence : ' They are defeating the very 
 purpose of your calling : ye were called 
 not for bondage, but for liberty.' 
 
 eV iXevdepia] For KaXelv eVt see 
 I Thess. iv. 7 : comp. Ephes. ii. 10, and 
 Winer § xlviii. p. 492. 
 
 fiopov /it;] Here he suddenly checks 
 himself, to avoid misunderstanding; 
 ' Liberty and not licence.' It may be 
 that here, as in the Corinthian Church, 
 a party opposed to the Judaizers had 
 shown a tendency to Antinomian ex- 
 cess. At all events, such an outburst 
 was ever to be dreaded in a body of 
 converted heathens, whether as a pro- 
 test against or a rebound from the 
 strict formalism which the Judaic 
 party sought to impose on the Church; 
 and in this case the passionate tem- 
 perament of a Celtic people would 
 increase the Apostle's uneasiness. 
 Comp. Kom. vi. i sq., Phil. iii. 13 sq. 
 (notes). 
 
 p,6vov jLtjJ K.T.X.] ^only turn not pour 
 liberty.' Some mss supply fioJre, which 
 
 is perhaps a retranslation from 'detis' 
 of the Latin versions. For similar in- 
 stances of ellipsis see the notes ii. 9, 10. 
 The omission of the verb after the 
 prohibitive n^ is common in animated 
 passages in classical writers : e.g. Arist. 
 Ach. 345 dWa fXT) jiot 7rp6(f)a(Ttv. See 
 the instances in Jelf s Gramm. § 897. 
 Comp. Matt. XXVi. 5 /x^ eV rrj eoprff. 
 
 d4iopyLTiv\ The word is pecidiar to 
 St Paul among the New Testament 
 writers, occurring Rom. vii. 8, 11, 
 2 Cor. V. 12, xi. 12 (twice), i Tim. v. 14. 
 
 bia Trjs dydirrjs fiouXeuere] Both dyd- 
 
 TTTjs and SovXevGTe 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 licence.' A similar contrast be- 
 tween true and false servitude ap- 
 pears in I Pet. ii. 16 ms iXevBepoi KOL 
 [XT) COS iiriKoKvp.p.a exovres Trjs KOKias 
 T^v ikcvdeplav, dXX' cos- Qeov dovXoi. 
 
 14. *Te profess yourselves anxious 
 to fulfil the law ; I show you a simple 
 and comprehensive way of fulfilling it.' 
 See vi. 2. The idea of completeness 
 is brought out by an accumulation of 
 separate expressions, 'the entire law,' 
 ' a single precept,' 'is fulfilled already.' 
 
 o iras vofjios] ' the entire lawJ The 
 idea of totality is expressed more 
 strongly by the exceptional position of 
 the article instead of the more usual 
 order 7ra? vofxos ; comp. i Tim. i. 16 
 Tr}V diraa-av fiaKpoBvfxiav, Plat. Gorg. p. 
 470 B iv rouTO) tJ Tratra evdaifiovia ifTrlv, 
 Ignat. Magn, i rrfv irao-av inrjp^iav. 
 
 7re7rX7/p(OT-ai] ^ is summarily ful- 
 filled.' For the force of the perfect 
 see Winer § xl, p. 341, A. Buttmann 
 p. 172. TertuUian {adv. Marc. p. 4) 
 
"V. 15—17] EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 209 
 
 hAhcion coy o^c ceAYTON. ^^€1 Se dWr]\ov£ SaKi/ere 
 Kai KaTecQiere^ /3\e7rere juri vir dWrjXwv di/aXcodtJTe. 
 
 ^^Aey CO Se, TrvevfxaTi TrepiTraTeiTe, kul eTndvfxiav 
 (rapKo^ ov fiYi reXecTfjTe. '^>7 yap crap^ eTrtdvfxei Kara 
 
 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 irk-qpovrat in the received text 
 enfeebles the sense. The meaning of 
 irkrjpQvv here is not to *sum up, com- 
 prehend/ but 'to perform, complete/ 
 as appears from the parallel passage, 
 Rom. xiii. 8 6 dyaTrSv rov erepov, vofMOv 
 Tr€7r\^pcoKev *, SO that ev ivi \6yo3, 'in 
 
 one maxim or precept/ means *in the 
 observance of one maxim or precept.' 
 
 €v rft>] probably neuter, in apposi- 
 tion to the sentence ; comp. E-om. xiii. 
 9, 10. See above on iv. 25, 
 
 Tov ttXtjo-lov] In the original text 
 (Lev. xix. 18) the word 'neighbour' 
 is apparently restricted to the Jewish 
 people: 'Thou shalt not bear any 
 grudge against the children of thy 
 people, but thou shalt love thy neigh- 
 bour as thyself.* From the question 
 of the lawyer (Luke x. 29) it may be 
 inferred that the meaning of this 
 term was a common theme for discus- 
 sion. Our Lord extends and spiri- 
 tualises its meaning ; and in this com- 
 prehensive sense, as applying to the 
 universal brotherhood of men, St Paul 
 here uses it. See Tholuck Bergpre- 
 digt, V. 43. 
 
 o-eavTov] The received text has iav- 
 t6v, 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 iavrod for 
 the first and second persons. The case 
 however with respect to the New Tes- 
 tament seems to stand thus ; that 
 whereas (i) in the plural we always 
 
 find iavTav etc., never -qp-av avrSv, 
 
 vp.<ov avrSu etc., as mere reflexives, 
 yet (2) in the singular there is not one 
 decisive instance of eavroO in the first 
 
 GAL. 
 
 or second person; the authority of 
 the best mss being mostly against it. 
 See A. Buttmann p. 99; and for the 
 testimony of the mss in this text (Lev. 
 xix. 18) as quoted in the N. T.j Tischen- 
 dorf on Rom. xiii. 9. 
 
 15. ^XeVerf 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 mainsubject again in ver. 
 16. See the introduction, p. ^;^, 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 Jlesh there is not only 
 no alliance; there is an interminable, 
 deadly feud. (You feel these antago- 
 nistic forces working in you: you 
 would fain follow the guidance*of your 
 conscience, and you are dragged back 
 by an opposing power.) And if you a- 
 dopt the rule of the Spirit, you thereby 
 renounce your allegiance to the lawJ 
 j In this passage the Spirit is doubly 
 I contrasted, first, with the Jlesh, 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. 
 
 16. 7rv€vp.aTL] the dative of the rule 
 or direction : see the notes v. 25, vi. 16. 
 
 ov p,Ti rcXeVr/re] ^ye shcdl in no wise 
 fulfil.^ A strong form of the future 
 especially frequent in later Greek; 
 see Lobeck Phryn, p. 724. 
 
 H 
 
2IO 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [V. 1 8 
 
 Tou TTvevfiaTO^, TO Se Trvevjxa KUTa Trj^ aapKO^* tuvtu 
 yap dXKr{KoL^ avTiKeirai^ iva /uLt], a eav deXfjrey tuvtu 
 TTOifJTe, *^€f Se TTvevfxaTL ayeade, ovk ecrre vtto pojuloi/. 
 
 17. TO be TTvevfia] 'but the Spirit 
 striyes, fights against the fleshJ As 
 iwidyficlv cannot apply to the Spirit, 
 some other verb must be supplied in 
 the second clause. Throughout this 
 passage the irvevfia is evidently the 
 Divine Spirit; for the human spirit in 
 itself and unaided does not stand in 
 direct antagonism to the flesh. See 
 Miiller's Doctrine of Sin i. p. 354 sq. 
 
 ravTa yap K.r.X.] A parenthetical 
 clause, suggested by what has gone 
 before, but not bearing on the main 
 argument. It is an appeal to their 
 own consciousness; ^Have you not evi- 
 dence of these two opposing principles 
 in your own hearts ? How otherwise 
 do you not always obey the dictates of 
 your conscience'/' 
 
 iva] here seems to denote simply 
 the result^ whereas in classical writers 
 it always expresses the purpose. For 
 this late use of the word see the note 
 on I Thess. v. 4. 
 
 a iav SeXrjre] The parallel passage, 
 Kom. vii. 15, 16, determines the mean- 
 ing of BeXcLp here. It denotes the 
 promptings of the conscience; 'video 
 meliora proboque.' 
 
 18. TTvevfiarL ayecrSe] Comp. Kom. 
 yiii. 14 ouot yap TTV^vfian Qcov ayovrai. 
 
 oO/ceVreiJTroi'o/iovJ'Touhave 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 vo/xD) rw aiTciXovvTi 8ovXois, Truevfxari 
 fie rw ayovTL T€Kva Bcoii. For vofios 
 without the article, see iii. 18, iv. 4, 5. 
 
 19. 'Would you ascertain whether 
 you are walking by the Spirit? Then 
 apply the plain practical test.' 
 
 a.Ttva'] 'such 05 are,' not 5, * which 
 are ' ; the list not being exhaustive, but 
 giving instances only. See on iv. 24. 
 
 Though no systematic classification 
 
 is to be looked for in the catalogue 
 which follows, yet a partial and uncon- 
 scious arrangement may perhaps be 
 discerned. The sins here mentioned 
 seem to fall into four classes : (i) Sen- 
 sual passions, 'fornication, unclean- 
 ness, licentiousness ' ; (2) Unlawful 
 dealings in things spiritual, 'idolatry, 
 witchcraft'; (3) Violations of brotherly 
 love, 'enmities. ..murders'; (4) Intern^ 
 perate excesses, 'drunkenness, revel- 
 lings.' From early habit and constant 
 association a Gentile Church would be 
 peculiarly exposed to sins of the first 
 two classes. The third would be a 
 probable consequence of their religious 
 dissensions, inflaming the excitable 
 temperament of a Celtic people. The 
 fourth seems to be thrown in to give 
 a sort of completeness to the list, though 
 not unfitly addressed to a nation whose 
 Gallic descent perhaps disposed them 
 too easily to these excesses; see the 
 introduction p. 13. 
 
 TTopma K.r.X.] The same three words 
 occur together in a different order 
 2 Cor. xii. 21. The order here is per- 
 haps the more natural ; ivopvela a spe- 
 cial form of impurity, aKaSapo-la un- 
 cleanness in whatever guise, do-eXyeia 
 an open and reckless contempt of pro- 
 priety. 
 
 aKadapa-la] Comp. Rom. i. 24. There 
 is no sufficient groimd for assigning to 
 this word the sense 'covetousness'; 
 see the note on i Thess. ii. 3. 
 
 do-eXyeiaY wantonness.^ A man may 
 be aKadapTos and hide his sin ; he does 
 not become da-eXyr}s until he shocks 
 public decency. In classical Greek the 
 word d(T€\y€La generally signifies in- 
 solence or violence towards another, as 
 it is defined in Bekker's Anecd. p. 45 1, 
 7} /xer eirrjpcao'p.ov Ka\ Opaavrrfros ^la. 
 In the later language, in the New Tes- 
 tament for instance, the prominent 
 
211 
 
 V. 19, 20] EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 ^^(pavepa Be icTiv tcl epya Trjs (rapKO^, ctTiva i(TTiv 
 TTopveiay d-Kadapcria, dcreXyeLa, ^^elBcoXoXaTpeiay <pap- 
 jULUKela, e^Qpai, epis, ^^Aos, dvfxoly eptdeiaiy Bi'^ocTTaa'tai, 
 
 10, ^Q po.it ^pets. 
 
 idea is sensuality, according to the 
 loose definition in Etym. Magn. eVot- 
 fioTTjs TTpos Traa-av -qBovTjv : comp. Polyb. 
 xxxvii. 2 ttoXKti 8e tls aa-fkycia Ka\ Trepi 
 Tas (TOifiaTiKas i7ri6vp,Las avr^ (rvve^TjKO- 
 Xovdci. Thus it has much the same 
 range of meaning as vppLs. 
 
 2o. In spiritual things two sins are 
 named ; elbcoKoKarpela the open recog- 
 nition of false gods, and (papp^aiceia the 
 secret tampering with the powers of 
 evil. 
 
 (papixaKeld] not * poisoning' here, but 
 ^sorcery, witchcrafts^ as its association 
 with 'idolatry' shows: comp. Rev. xxi. 
 8 <papfj,aKOLs Kol elbcoKoXdrpaLs. On the 
 different kinds of (jyapp-aKeia see espe- 
 cially Plato Legg. xi. pp. 932, 933: 
 comp. Philo de Migr. Abr. p. 449 m 
 ^ OTj;^ opas Tovs erraoiboifs Kal (jyapfia- 
 Kevras avrttroc^icrreuoiras' tS Beta Xoyo), 
 QuodDet.Pot.p. igSUrovs iv AlyvTrra 
 T<» crto/Ltart o-o<l>i(rTas ovs (ftapfiaKeas ovo- 
 /xaffi, Tlaito Symp. p. 203 D deipos yorjs 
 
 KOL CJ)app,aK€VS KOL (TOfpLCTTTJs. ThiS iS a 
 
 common sense of (papiiaKcvs, <j)app.aKeia, 
 in the lxx. It is a striking coincidence, 
 if nothing more, that <l>app.aK€iai 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. i. p. 209. For the 
 prevalence of yorirda in Asia Minor 
 see Greg. Naz. Orat, iv. 31 (i. p. 91); 
 comp. 2 Tim. iii. 13. 
 
 20, 21. exOpai K.T.X.] A principle 
 of order may be observed in the enu- 
 meration which follows; (i) €xOpai.,a. 
 general expression opposed to dyairT], 
 breaches of charity in feeling or in act : 
 from this point onward the terms are 
 in an ascending scale : (2), (3) epts 
 'strife,' not necessarily implying self- 
 interest; Cv^os 'rivalry,' in which the 
 idea of self-assertion is prominent: 
 
 (4), (5) 6vfxo\ 'wraths,' a more passion- 
 ate form of epLs'j ipiSelai, 'factious ca- 
 bals,' a stronger development of f^Xos : 
 (6), (7) hostility has reached the point 
 where the contending parties separate ; 
 such separation is either temporary 
 {Sixoa-Tao-lai 'divisions'), or permanent 
 (alpeo-eis 'sects, heresies'): (S) (ftBovoij 
 a grosser breach of charity than any 
 hitherto mentioned, the wish to de- 
 prive another of what he has; (9) 
 (ftovot, the extreme form which hatred 
 can take, the deprivation of life. 
 
 The first four words epis ^^Xor Ovjxol 
 epLdelai occur in the same order 2 Cor. 
 xii. 20: comp. Rom. xiii. 13. 
 
 fjjXoff] ^emulation, rivalry/ not ne- 
 cessarily, like <l)66vos, 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, ^17X0? falls in 
 the scale of Christian ethics (see Clem. 
 Rom. §§ 4 — 6), while TairGivor-qs for in- 
 stance rises. 
 
 BvixoC] ''outbursts oj wraths On 
 Qvp.os in its relation to opy?;, as the 
 outward manifestation to the inward 
 feeling, see Trench, N, T. Syn. § xxxvii. 
 p. 123. The plural is frequent even 
 in classical writers: see Lobeck on 
 Soph. Aj. 716. 
 
 ipidciat\ ^caballingsJ Derived from 
 €pi6os, the word signifies properly 
 'working for hire'; hence it gets to 
 mean ' the canvassing of hired parti- 
 zans' (Suidas, ipiQ^vecrdai opoiov ian 
 TM deKOL^ea-dai, Kal yap ^ epiOeia ^IprjTai 
 diro TTjs Tov fiLo-Oov d6a-€(os) and hence 
 more generally 'factiousness'; comp. 
 Arist. Polit. v. [viii.] 3, /xera/3aXXouo-t 
 S* at TToXtretat Kal avev a-Taa-eois Sm re 
 ras epiBeias cotrTrep iv'Jipala' e^ alperav 
 yap bia tovto iTToirja-av KXrjpoiTdsj on 
 
 14 — 2 
 
212 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [V. 21, 22 
 
 alpecrei^, "^^(pdovoi, [<p6voi\y fxedat, Kwfxoiy Kal ra bfxoia 
 TOi/TOfs* a TrpoXeyci) vfxtv kuOws [/c«i] TrpoeiTTOv^ on oi 
 TO. TOtavra 7rpd(r(Tovre^ /BacrtXelap Qeov ov KXnpovofxri- 
 (Tova-tv. ^^6 Se Kapiro^ tov Tri/eyjuaro? eo'Tiv dyaTrrj, 
 
 Dion Cass. Ixv. 3 fxidai re Koi KafjLOL. 
 
 a TTpoXeyft) k.tX.'] For the construc- 
 tion comp. Joh. viii. 54 ov vfiels Xeyerc 
 
 OTl Geoff 1JfJl,aV i(TTLV. 
 
 TTpoeiirov] probably on the occasion 
 of his second visit. See i. 9, iv. 13, 16, 
 and the introduction p. 25. 
 
 ^auikeiav k.t.X.] Comp. I Cor. vi. 9, 
 10, XV. 50. 
 
 22. d 8e KapTToff] The Apostle had 
 before mentioned the works of the 
 flesh ; he here speaks of ihe 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, ii,Rom. vi. 21); 
 and St PauFs 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 like the first, exhibits the 
 principles which guide a Christian's 
 conduct, 'honesty, gentleness, temper- 
 ance.' 
 
 ayaivr) K.r.X.] The fabric is built up, 
 story upon story. Love is the foun- 
 dation, joy the superstructure, peace 
 the crown of all. 
 
 fxaKpoSvfxia k.t.X.] This triad is again 
 arranged in an ascending scale ; fxaKpo- 
 Svfxia is passive, * patient endurance 
 under injuries inflicted by others ' ; 
 
 ypovvTo Tovs epiBevofievovs. Thus it has 
 no connexion with epis, unless indeed 
 both are to be referred ultimately to 
 the same root epa> epSo), as is maintain- 
 ed by Lobeck Pathol, p. 365. Comp. 
 Fritzsche Rom. 1. p. 143. For iptOeta 
 following upon f^Xos see James iii. 14, 
 el be f^Xov jriKpov e^ere kol epiOetav, and 
 ib. ver. 16. 
 
 alpeaets] A more aggravated form 
 of bLxo(TTa(Tiai,when the divisions have 
 developed into distinct and organized 
 parties : comp. i Cor, xi. 1 8 aKovco <tx '*■ o"- 
 p,aTa iv vpXv vTrdpxetv koi fxepos rt 
 TTtoreija), del yap Kal alpeo-eis iv vp.lv 
 ehat, and the remarks of TertuUian de 
 Preiser. Hmr. § 5, thereon. 
 
 21. ^Q6voi\ On the distinction of 
 f^Xoff the desire to be as well off as 
 another, and (j>d6vo£ the desire to de- 
 prive another of what he has, see 
 Aristotle Bhet. ii. 9, 10, 11, who says, 
 Bl6 Ka\ iirieiKes iariv o f^Xos Kai iiri- 
 eiK^v, TO Be (l>6ovelv (fiavXov Kal <Pav- 
 X(i)i/. Compare Trench N. T. Syn. 
 § xxvi. p. 82, and to the references 
 there given add iEsch. Agam. 939 d 
 d' dfpSovrjros y ovk ijrl^TJXos TrcXet, and 
 Thucyd. ii. 64. 
 
 (j>6vot] is omitted by some editors 
 with a few of the most ancient texts, 
 as an interpolation from Rom. 1. 29, 
 where <f>d6vov (j>6vov occur together. 
 The fact however of the same alli- 
 teration occurring in another epistle 
 written about the same time is ra- 
 ther in its favour, and the omission in 
 some texts may be due to the careless- 
 ness of a copyist transcribing words 
 so closely resembling each other. The 
 reading must therefore remain doubt- 
 ful. Comp, Eur. Troad. 763 (j>06vov 
 cjiovov T€. For the paronomasia see 
 "Winer § Ixviii. p. 658. 
 /Ae^at, K(D/io(] as Rom. xiii. 13 ; comp. 
 
V. 23, 24] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 213 
 
 X<^P^y elpfjpfjy jULaKpodv/JLLa, 'Xprjo-TOTfj^y d*yadu3(TVvny TTiV- 
 
 Ti' 
 
 33 « 
 
 Kara twv tolovtcop ovk 
 
 irpavTY]^, eyKpareia . 
 ecriv vofio^, ^^01 Se rod XpKrTOv 'Irjcov Trjv aapKa 
 ioTTavpaxTav (tvv to7^ Tradtjfxao'ii/ Kal Tah eTriOvfJiiai^, 
 
 Xprjo-Torr^Sy neutral^ 'a kindly disposi- 
 tion towards one's neighbours ' not ne- 
 cessarily taking a practical form ; aya- 
 $Q3(ruvriy active^ 'goodness, beneficence' 
 as an energetic principle. For the 
 first two words compare i Cor. xiii. 4 
 ij dycLTrr] yLaKpoOvfieX ;;^p7;a'reverai. The 
 second is distinguished from the third 
 as the ^6os from the ivepyeia; xPW''^ 
 T7JS is potential ayaBoao-vv-q, dyadaxrvvrj 
 
 is energizing xpwtott)^. They might 
 be translated by 'benignitas' and *bo- 
 nitas' respectively, as Jerome renders 
 them here, or by 'benevolentia' and 
 'beneficentia.' Other distinctions 
 which have been given of these words 
 are discussed in Trench's N. T. Syn. 
 § Ixiii. p. 218 sq. 
 
 tt'kttls] 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, xsiii. 23, 
 Tit. ii. 10 ; comp. Rom. iii. 3. See above, 
 p. 157. Possibly however it may here 
 signify 'trustfulness, reliance,' in one's 
 dealings with others; comp. i Cor. 
 xiii. 7 ^ dyairq , . .Trdvra 7rt<TT€vet. 
 
 23. TTpaiJi-T/ff] 'meekness^ is joined 
 with irlaris (used apparently in the 
 same sense as here) in Ecclus. xlv. 4 
 eV TTtOTCt Kcu irpavTTjTL avTov ^yiaaev (sc. 
 Ma>vo-fjv). On the meaning of irpaijTrjs 
 see Trench N. T. Syn. §§ xiii, xliii. 
 p. 140 sq. ; and on the varying forms 
 
 TTpdoS (-OTT^ff), TTpavS {~VT1]s)y LobcCk 
 
 Phryn. p. 403, Lipsius €h'am. Unters. 
 p. 7. The forms in v are the best sup- 
 ported in the New Testament: see 
 A* Buttmann pp. 23, 24. 
 
 Kara Tav TOiovrcav k.t.\^ ''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 elbm tovto, on BiKalco 
 
 vojxos ov K€LTaij avop.ots oe Kat avvTroraK- 
 rois K.rX 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. o( Be Tov Xpicrrou 'irjcrov] ^now 
 they that are of Christ JesttsJ Seve- 
 ral of the Greek fathers strangely con- 
 nected TOV XpHTTOV with TT)V (TCLpKay 
 
 Hhese persons have crucified the flesh 
 of Christ,'explaining it in various ways ; 
 see e.g. Clem. Alex. Fragm. 1015 (Pot- 
 ter). Origen however, who so took it, 
 seems not to have had 5e in his text, 
 and therefore made o? a relative agree- 
 ing with Tav ToiovTcovj which he took as 
 masculine. See Jerome's note here. 
 
 'l-qa-ov^ which is struck out in the re- 
 ceived text, ought probably to be re- 
 tained. It is found in several of the 
 oldest texts, and the omission in others 
 is easily accounted for by the unusual 
 order 6 Xpio-ros 'irjo-ovs. This order 
 occurs also in Ephes. iii. i, 1 1, Col. ii. 6, 
 but in both passages with some varia- 
 tion of reading. 
 
 io-ravpaa-av] 'crucified.^ The aorist 
 is to be explained either (i) By refer- 
 ence to the time of their becoming 
 members of Christ in baptism, as Rom. 
 
 VI. 6 o TToXaios rjp,wv avOpanros o-vve- 
 
 (TTavpuiO-q', 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, Karqp- 
 
 yqdrjTC. 
 
 Tols iraOrfpLaa-iv k.t.X.] Hhe affections 
 and the Imts'; comp. Col. iii. 5, i Thess. 
 iv. 5, and see TreuchiV". T. Syn. § Ixxxvii. 
 p. 305- The two words are chiefly 
 distinguished as presenting vice on 
 its passive and its active side respect- 
 ively. Comp. Joseph. [?] Mace. § 3. At 
 the same time Tra^rJ/iara perhaps re- 
 tains something of the meaning which 
 
214 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [V. 25, 26 
 
 aO. 
 
 *^ei ^wjuev irvevixaTiy TrvevfxaTi kul aroix^fxev. ^^fxt] 
 ^ivwfjieda Kevodo^oiy dWrjAov^ TrpOKaXovfxevoi^ dWriXov^ 
 (pdovovvre^. 
 
 26. aW'jJXots <pdoPouvT€s. 
 
 it has in Greek philosophy; and, if so, 
 it is more comprehensive than €7n6v- 
 fjLtai', see for instance Arist. Bth. Nic, 
 ii. 4 Xeyo) fie irdOr} fxev eiriOvfilav 
 6pyr}v (fio^ov Opda-os k.t.X. 
 
 25. 'You have crucified your old 
 selves : you are dead to the flesh and 
 you live to the Spirit. Therefore con- 
 form your conduct to your new life/ 
 See Gal. ii. 19, 20, and especially Rom. 
 vi. 2 — 14, where the same thoughts are 
 expanded. 
 
 The *life to the Spirit/ of which the 
 Apostle here speaks, is an ideal rather 
 than an actual life; it denotes a 
 state which the Galatians were put 
 in the way of attaining rather than 
 one which they had already attained. 
 Otherwise the injunction 'walk also by 
 the Spirit* were superfluous. Comp. 
 Col. iii. I, Bphes. 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. 
 
 €i C^fjLcv TTvevfiaTi] ''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, 
 Tj) dfiapTLO. dnodavelvj ver. 1 1 vcKpovs fiev 
 Trj afiapTia ^Svras fie rw Oem ; Comp. 
 also Rom. xiv. 6, 8, Kvpia fto/iei/, Kvpla 
 d7ToBvr}<TKOp,ev, 2 Cor. v. 15. 
 
 TTvevfiaTi Koi CTOix^fiev] ^let US dlso 
 
 walk hy the Spirit.^ The dative with 
 (TToix^lVi TrepiiraTclp, etc., marks the 
 line or direction; as Polyb. xxviii. 
 5, 6 ^ovX6p.€VOL (TToix^iv ttj ttjs (Tuy/cXj^- 
 rov TTpoBeo-cL. Comp. Fritzsche Rom. 
 in. p. 142, and A. Buttmann p. 160. 
 See above v. 16 (with the note), vi. i6. 
 
 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. 
 
 yiv<6fi€da] not afjL€v. This vainglory- 
 ing was a departure from their spirit- 
 ual standard. 
 
 K€v68o^oi] ^vainglorious^ So Kevo- 
 fio|ia, Phil. ii. 3, and occasionally in 
 Polybius and later writers. In Wisd. 
 siv. 14 Kevodo^la seems to mean rather 
 'vain opinion/ 'folly.' 
 
 wpoKoKov p,€voi\ 'provoking, challeng- 
 ing to conibatJ Both this word and 
 <j)dov€Xv are dwa^ Xeyo/xei/a in the New 
 Testament. In the lxx (j^Bovelv oc- 
 curs once only, Tob. iv. 16; irpoKokd- 
 (T0aL never. 
 
 dWijXovs (pdovovvres] 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 (pBovelv with an accusative 
 of the person. It seems to be one out 
 of many instances of the tendency of 
 later Greek to produce uniformity by 
 substituting the more usual case of 
 the object for the less usual; see the 
 note on eyKoirreiv ver. 7. Comp. also 
 Heb. viii. 8 fj,efx(j>6p,€vos avro-us (the cor- 
 rect reading). So too Trokefielv takes 
 an accusative, e.g. Ignat. Trail. 4. 
 
 VI. I — 5. 'As brethren, I appeal to 
 you. Act in a brotherly spirit. I 
 have just charged you to shun vain- 
 glory, to shun provocation and envy. 
 I ask you now to do more than this. 
 I ask you to be gentle even to those 
 whose guilt is flagrant. Do any of 
 you profess to be spiritually-minded ? 
 Then correct the ofi'ender in a spirit 
 of tenderness. Correct and reinstate 
 him. Remember your own weakness ; 
 reflect that you too may be tempted 
 
VI. i] EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 215 
 
 VI. 'ABeXcboiy eav Kal 7rpo\f]fx<p6rj ai/dpcoTro^ ev tlvl 
 TrapaTrTw/jiaTL, v/ulsT^ ol irvevfxaTiKol KarapTt^ere tov 
 TOLOVTOV ev irvevfxaTi TrpavTtjTO^, (tkottoov aeavTov fxtj 
 
 some day, and may stand in need of 
 like forgiveness. Have sympathy one 
 with another. Lend a ready hand in 
 bearing your neighbours' burdens. So 
 doing you will fulfil the most perfect of 
 all laws — the law of Christ. But if 
 any one asserts his superiority, if any 
 one exalts himself above others, he is 
 nothing worth, he is a vain self-de- 
 ceiver. Nay rather let each man test 
 his own work. If this stands the test, 
 then his boast will be his own, it will 
 not depend on comparison with others. 
 Each of us has his own duties, his own 
 responsibilities. Each of us must carry 
 his own load.' 
 
 I. d5eX(^ot] ^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. 
 
 iav Kai] See the note on i. 8. 
 
 irpoXTjiJLffydfi] ^be surprised, detected 
 in the act of committing any sin,' so 
 that his guilt is placed beyond a doubt. 
 For this sense of irpoXafi^dveiVj Ho 
 take by surprise, to overpower before 
 
 one can escape,' see "Wisd. xvii. 16 
 7rpo\T)ijL(l)9eis rrjv 8v(rd\vKT0V e/xevev 
 dpdyKTjv : comp. KaT€\r}}x(\)6r), Joh. viii. 4* 
 The word cannot here mean 'be be- 
 trayed into sin,' for neither wiU the 
 preposition iv admit this meaning, nor 
 is it well suited to the context. 
 
 vjLtftff 01 TTi'ev/LtartKot] 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 7;/xeiff OL bvvaroL In this 
 case there would be a slight shade of 
 irony in TrvcvfiaTiKoL 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. Eor ol irvcv- 
 fxaTLKoi, see I Cor. ii. 13, 15, iii. i. 
 
 KaTapTL^ere] ^correct, restore.^ The 
 idea of punishment is quite subordi- 
 nate to that of amendment in KarapTL- 
 ^€T€, which on this account is preferred 
 here to KoXafere or even vovdcTelTe 
 though the latter occurs in a similar 
 passage, 2 Thess. iii. is m as ixQpov 
 
 riyeia-Qc oKkd vovOeTelre cos d8eX<p6v, On 
 
 KarapTiCetv see the note i Thess. iii. 10. 
 It is used especially as a surgical term, 
 of setting a bone or joint; see the 
 passages in Wetstem on Matt. iv. 21. 
 €V 7rP€vp.aTi irpavTijTos^ Comp. i Cor. 
 V. 21 €V dydwrj irv^p^ari re TVpavrqTos, 
 
2l6 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [YI. 2—4 
 
 ovTO)^ dvaTrXrjpcocreTe top vojjlov tov XptcTTOv. ^ei yap 
 ooK€L Ti9 eival Ti fXfjSev wv^ (ppevaTraTa eavrop' ^ro Be 
 
 2, oirojs dvaTrXfipibiXaTe. 
 
 Gentleness is a characteristic of true 
 spirituality. By their conduct towards 
 wrong-doers their claim to the title of 
 TTvcvfiariKol would be tested. 
 
 o-kottSu] The transition from the 
 plural to the singular gives the charge 
 a direct personal application; 'each 
 one of you individually.' Compare the 
 KoX (TVy 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 laWj let it be the 
 law of Christ.' The Apostle seems to 
 have used both ^dprj and vofMov (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 (popri- 
 fere Toiis duBpfoTTOvs (^opTia bvajBaa-- 
 TaKTOy Acts XV. 10 eiTtQeivai ^vyov ov 
 ovTG ol irarepes i^fxav ovre -qfiels l<rxv- 
 o-ajxev ^a(TTa(rai, ver. 28 p-rj^eu irkeov 
 eTrtTtdea-Oai vplv fidpos. For the *law 
 of Christ,' always in contrast to the 
 law of Moses, see i Cor. ix. 21 ewofios 
 Xptaroif, Rom. iii. 27 ^ta iroiov v6p.ov'j 
 rwv epycov; ov^ij akXa Sia vofxov nio-- 
 refuff, viii. 2 6 v6p.os tov nvevfjLaTOS rrjs 
 (airjs K.T.\.; comp. James i. 25, ii. 12. 
 
 aXKi]K(ov TO. ^dprj K.r.X.] Comp. Matt, 
 viii. 17, Rom. xv. I rd d(TOep^p,aTa rmv 
 dhvvdT(ov iBaa-rd^ctv, Ignat. Polyc. I. 
 TrdpTas ^da-ra^e tas ce o Kvpios", and 
 again ttolvtchv rds v6<tovs /Sao-rafe, 
 Epist. ad Diogn. § 10 oa-ns to tov 
 ttXtjo-lov dvabex^rai ^dpos. Here the po- 
 sition of dXktfkaiv is emphatic: 'These 
 are the burdens I would have you bear 
 — not the vexatious ritual of the law, 
 but your neighbour's errors and weak- 
 nesses, his sorrows and sufferings.' 
 
 ai/a7rX7;pci)o-ere] '"ye Will rigorously 
 fulfil^' the idea of completeness being 
 
 contained in the preposition. It is 
 difiBcult to decide here between the 
 readings dvairK-qpfoa-eTe and dvaK\rip(o- 
 o-aTe, the external authority for either 
 being nearly balanced. On the whole 
 the preference may perhaps be given 
 to dva7rXr}p(D(r€Te 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- 
 TrkrjpcocraTe makes excellent sense; the 
 past tense, so far from being an ob- 
 jection, is its strongest recommenda- 
 tion; for this tense marks the com- 
 pleteness of the act, and thus adds 
 to the force of the preposition, ' fulfil 
 the law then and there.^ See the 
 passages in Winer § xliii. p. 393. 
 
 TOV Xpio-Tov] is added in a manner 
 Tvapd TTpoo-boKiav', * the law not of Moses 
 but of Christ.' 
 
 3. These words are connected with 
 the first verse of the chapter, the 
 second being an amplification of and 
 inference from the first. 
 
 cl yap SoKft Tts K.r.X.] Comp. Plat. 
 Apol. p. 41 E ^ai/ boKa(ri Ti elvai fxrjdev 
 
 ovT€5, Arrian Epict. ii. 24 boKOiv fi4v 
 TLS fivai mv 5' ouSci?: and for ovbkv 
 ehatj see I Cor. xiii. 2, 2 Cor. xii. 11. 
 
 p,r}8€v wV] %eing 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 i Cor. 
 iii. 7, XV. 9, 10, 2 Cor. iii. 5. 
 
 0pe^a7rara] ^deceives by his fancies^ 
 comp. Tit. i. 10 p.aTai6k&yoi Koi (jipeva- 
 
 Trarat. More is implied by this word 
 
VI. 5] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 217 
 
 epyov iavTOv BoKifjia^eTO} e/caaro?, Kai tot€ ek eavTOV 
 fxovov TO Kav)(^r}fxa e^ei^ Kat ovk eU tov erepov ^eKa- 
 (TTO^ yap TO i^LOV (hopTiov jSao'Tao'ei, 
 
 than by dirarav for it brings out the 
 idea oi subjective Juncies and thus en- 
 forces the previous SokcT. It was pos- 
 sibly coined by St Paul, for it seems 
 not to be found in any earlier writer, 
 and at a later date occurs chiefly, if 
 not solely, in ecclesiastical authors. 
 
 4. TO de epyov eavrov] * Ms own 
 
 work'; epyov J emphatic by its positiouj 
 stands in contrast to fio/cet and <^p€va- 
 Trara ; and this contrast is enhanced 
 by the addition of eavrov. 
 
 8oKtfjLa^4T(o] Het him test, examine' ; 
 see the notes on i Thess. ii. 4, v. 21. 
 
 TO Kavxi^p-a] ' his ground for boast- 
 ing'; Kavxnp-a is the matter of Kavxn- 
 o-is; compare Rom. iii. 27 with iv. 2, 
 
 and 2 Cor. i. 12 t; yap Kav;^7/fr£s rip.mv 
 avTTj earlv k.t.X. with i. 14 on Kav-)(7)pLa 
 vfjiSv ecr/xeV. 
 
 eh eavrov k.t.X.] Hn himself and not 
 by comparison with others.^ ' Probi- 
 tas in re, non in collatione,' says Cas- 
 talio. For the preposition compare 
 
 Ephes. iii. 16 KparataOrivai els rov eVo) 
 avOpcoTTov, Rom. iv. 20, XV. 2, xvi. 6, 
 etc.: Winer § xlix. p. 496.^ 
 
 TOV erepov'] ^his neighbour.' For the 
 article compare Rom. ii. i, xiii. 8, 
 I Cor. vi. I, X. 24, 29. 
 
 5, Having started from the pre- 
 cept 'bear one another's loads,' the 
 Apostle has worked round to an appa- 
 rently contradictory statement 'each 
 man must bear his own burden.' This 
 expression of complementary truths 
 under antagonistic forms is character- 
 istic of St Paul. For instances of 
 similar paradoxes of expression see 
 Phil. ii. 12, 13 *work out your own 
 salvation, for it is God that worketh 
 in you,' or 2 Cor. xii. 10 *when I am 
 weak, then I am strong.' Compare 
 also his language in speaking of the 
 law, Romans vi, vii. 
 
 TO 'Ibiov <jiopriov'] It is diflacult to 
 
 establish any precise distinction be- 
 tween (popTLov here and ^aptj, ver. 2. 
 This much difference however there 
 seems to be, that the latter suggests 
 the idea of an adventitious and op- 
 pressive burden, which is not neces- 
 sarily implied in the former; so that 
 ^dpr} points to a load of which a man 
 may fairly rid himself when occasion 
 serves, (/>opTioi/ to a load which he is 
 expected to bear. Thus (poprlov is a 
 common term for a man's pack, e.g. 
 Xen. Mem,, iii. 13. 6. Here it is per- 
 haps an application of the common 
 metaphorof Christian warfare in which 
 each soldier bears his own kit {(pop- 
 rt'oi'), as each is supplied with his own 
 provisions (e(/)oSia, Clem. Rom. 2), and 
 each receives his proper pay {6-^wvia 
 I Cor, ix. 7, Ignat. Pol. 6). The soldier 
 of Christ sets out on his march 'Non 
 secus ac patriis acer Romanus in armis 
 Injusto sub fasce viam cum carpit.' If 
 so, ^ao-rd^etv rb tdtov (popriov refers 
 rather to the discharge of the obhga- 
 tions themselves than to the punish- 
 ment undergone for their neglect. 
 
 /Sacrracrei] ' is appointed to bear, 
 must bear.' Each man has certain 
 responsibilities imposed on him indi- 
 vidually, which he cannot throw off. 
 For the future tense see ii. 16, Winer 
 § xl. p. 296. 
 
 6. * I spoke of bearing one another's 
 burdens. There is one special appli- 
 cation I would make of this rule. Pro- 
 vide for the temporal wants of your 
 teachers in Christ.' Ae arrests a for- 
 mer topic before it passes out of sight ; 
 see the note iv. 20. Otherwise it might 
 be taken as qualifying the clause which 
 immediately precedes : ' Each man 
 must bear his own burden ; but this 
 law does not exempt you from support- 
 ing your spiritual teachers.' Such a 
 turn of the sentence however, inas- 
 
2l8 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. [VI. 6, 7 
 
 KoivcovetTco Se 6 KUTfi'x^ovfxevo^ tov Xoyov tw Kaxfi- 
 XOvvTi ev Traciv dyadoh, '^ jurj TrXaj/acrde, ©eos ov juvKrrj- 
 pt^erar o yap iaj/ G'Trelpt} dvdpcoTroSy tovto Kac 6epl(ret^ 
 
 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 fie. 
 
 6. KoivtoveLT<o] ^let him impart io'; 
 literally Met him go shares with.' The 
 word is properly intransitive and 
 equivalent to kolvwvos dvai 'to be a 
 partner with.' It may be construed 
 with all three cases: (i) The genitive 
 of the thing which is participated in : 
 once only in the New Testament, 
 Heb. ii. 14 K€k.olv(ov7)K€v atfiaros kol crap- 
 Kos; comp. Prov. i. 11, 2 Mace. xiv. 25. 
 In this case the verb may denote 
 either the person who gives or the 
 person who receives. (2) The accusa- 
 tive of the thing imparted, as Msch. 
 C. Ctes, p. 63 ol dirobo^cvoi Kat Kara- 
 KOLV<ovrj(TavTes TO T^y TToXetDff la")(vpaj 
 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 imphed in 
 Koivcivos, and expresses the person or 
 thing with which the other makes 
 common cause. He who Koiv<i>viX in 
 this case may be either the receiver, as 
 HiOm. XV. 27 Tols TTvevp.aTiKois avTmv €Koi- 
 vavrjo-av ra edinj, OV the givcr, as Rom. 
 xii. I ^ TOLS xpet'cttf TOfV ayi<ov koivwvovv- 
 res. Here the latter is intended. 
 
 KaTTjxovfievos] instructed.' The word 
 in this sense is not peculiar to biblical 
 Greek. KaryjxTja-Ls 'oral instruction' 
 occurs as early as Hippocrates p. 28. 
 25 Karrjxvf^tos tSttoretoi/, and probably 
 Karrjxelv * 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 aTroaroXos, p. 92 
 note 3. 
 
 ip7ra(Ti.vdyaBois]Hn all good things.' 
 
 The obligation of the hearers of the 
 word to support the ministers of the 
 word is again and again insisted upon 
 by St Paul, though he seldom asserted 
 his own claims ; see i Thess. ii. 6, 9, 
 2 Cor. xi. 7 sq., Phil. iv. 10 sq., 
 I Tim. V. 17, 18, and especially i Cor. 
 ix. II. The resemblance of language 
 in this last passage leaves no doubt 
 that St Paul is here speaking of im- 
 parting temporal goods. The meta- 
 phor of sowing and reaping both there 
 and in the very close parallel, 2 Cor. 
 ix. 6, has reference to liberality in 
 almsgiving. The more general sense 
 which has been assigned to this pas- 
 sage, Met 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 dyadols, 'temporal blessings/ see 
 Luke i. S3, ^ii. 18, 19, xvi. 25, Com- 
 pare Barnabas § 19 Kotvcovija-eis iv 
 Tratrt rcS 7rKr)(rLov cov. 
 
 7, 8.* *What? you hold back? Nay, 
 do not deceive yourselves. Tour 
 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 fjLVKT7)pt.(€TaL] Hs uot mocked.' 
 MvKTrjpi^cLVj which is properly *to turn 
 up the nose at,' *to treat with con- 
 tempt,' involves as a secondary mean- 
 ing the idea of contradicting one's 
 language by one's gesture or look, 
 and so implies an outward avowal of 
 
VI. 8, 9] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 219 
 
 8;^, 
 
 OTi o (TTreipwy ei^ rtjp aapKa eavTOv ek Ttj^ crapKo^ 
 deplcrei d)6opdvy 6 Be cxTreipwv ek to irvevfxa e/c tov 
 TTvev/maTO^ depio'eL ^coriv alwviov* ^to Se KaXov ttol- 
 
 respect neutralised by an indirect ex- 
 pression of contempt. In other words 
 it conveys the idea of irony ^ whether 
 this irony be dissembled or not. Thus 
 fivKT^p is frequently connected with 
 elpaveiaj as in Lucian Prom. c. i ; 
 compare Pollux ii. 78 koI tov e'lpavd 
 riP€s fivKTTJpa KoXova-L. In writers on 
 rhetoric p.vKn]pL(Tfi6s is ordinarily 
 treated as a species of dpavda ; see 
 for instance four different treatises on 
 'tropes' in the Rhet. Grcec. iii. pp. 
 205, 213, 235, 254 (ed. Spengel). 
 Similarly Quintilian, viii. 6, 59, well 
 defines it, * dissimulatus quidam sed 
 non latens risus/ Such is the force of 
 pvKTTjpL^eTaL in this passage : ' you 
 cannot with impunity turn your pro- 
 fessions to contempt, you cannot with 
 God indulge in a postica sanna.^ 
 
 o yap iav k.tX^ A common proverb 
 not only in the Bible (Job iv. 8), but 
 elsewhere; e.g. Cic. de Or at. ii. 65 
 *ut sementem feceris, ita metes,' and 
 Gorgiasin Axi^t. Rhet. iii. 3 a-v U ravra 
 al<TXpSs p.ev eaireipas KaKws de iQepicras 
 (see Plato Phcedr. 260 0, 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 (i Cor. xvi. i). "We may there- 
 fore conjecture that niggardliness was 
 a besetting sin with them (see p. 14); 
 that they had not heartily responded 
 to the call; and that St Paul takes 
 this opportunity of rebuking their 
 backwardness, in passing from the ob- 
 ligation of supporting their ministers 
 to a general censure of illiberality. 
 See p. 55. 
 
 8. The former verse speaks of the 
 kind of seed sown (o iav crirelpT}). 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 cast (etV), 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. 
 
 eauTov] which disturbs the equi- 
 librium of the clauses, is added to 
 bring out the idea of selfishness. 
 
 (j>dopdv] ' 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 o-n-f tperat 
 iv (fiOopa, Col. ii. 22 a ccttiv ndvra els 
 (fidopav T7} diroxpw^'- The metaphor 
 suggests that 4>6opav 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 fw?) alwvios 
 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 /1J7 iyKaKrjo-r^re 
 KoKoTToiovvres. The word KaXoitoieXv 
 includes dyaQoTroietv and more, for 
 while TO. dyada are beneficent actions, 
 kind services, etc., things good in their 
 results, ra KoKa are right actions, such 
 as are beautiful in themselves, things 
 absolutely good. In this passage, as 
 in 2 Thess. I c, the antithesis of Ka\ov 
 and KaKQv seems to be intended, though 
 it can scarcely be translated into Eng- 
 lish ; 'in well doing let us not show an 
 ill heart' 
 
220 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [VI. 10 
 
 ovvTe^ fxtj eyKaKbifiev* Kaipto yap idio) deptcofxeu fxrj 
 eKXvofxevoi. ^^apa ovv cos Kaipov e^of^^Vy ipya^cofxeOa 
 
 cyKaKS^ev] ^turn cowards, lose 
 heart'; iyKaKeiv Or evKaKGLv is the cor- 
 rect word in the New Testament, not 
 iKKaKslv. It is read persistently in a 
 few of the best mss, though in all 
 six passages where it occurs cKKaKelv 
 is found as a various reading; see the 
 note on 2 Thess. iii. 13. 
 
 Kaipa tfiio)] ^at its proper season,' 
 i.e. the regular time for harvest ; comp. 
 I Tim. ii. 6, vi. 15, Tit. i. 3. 
 
 fjLT) iKKvofxeuoi] Hf we faint not^ as 
 husbandmen overcome with heat and 
 fatigue. Comp. James v. 7. For eV- 
 Xuco-^ai compare i Mace. iii. 17, Matt. 
 XV. 32, Mark viii. 3. On the synonymes 
 here used Bengel remarks : * eKKaKelv 
 [rather iyKaKelu] est in vellej eKXveo-Oai 
 est in posse.' To this it may be added 
 that €KK.v€G-6ai is a consequence of iy- 
 KaKciv ; the prostration of the powers 
 following on the submission of the will. 
 
 10. ojj Katpoi' exo/iei/] ''as we find 
 a seasonable time, as opportunity pre- 
 sents.' The Katpos here answers to the 
 Kaipos of the former verse. There is 
 a time for sowing as there is a time 
 for harvest. 'Gy is perhaps best trans- 
 lated as above. There is however no 
 objection to rendering it ^ while we 
 have time'; comp. Joh. xii. 35 ws to 
 <f)as exere (as it is read in the best 
 Mss), Ignat. Smyrn. 9 cos %ti Kaipbv 
 exop-ev, [Clem. Rom.] ii. 8 tos ovt/ io-pev 
 eVi yrjs, ih. § 9 o)ff Kaipov 'ixop.€v. The 
 distinction is introduced by transla- 
 tion ; the original cus covers both 
 meanings. 
 
 Tov£ oiK€Lovs k.tX.] ' the memhevs of 
 the household, of the faith': compare 
 Ephes. ii. 19 crwiroXlrai t(ov ayicav koX 
 oLKcioi rov eeou. Similarly the Church 
 is elsewhere spoken of as the house of 
 God, I Tim. iii. 15, i Pet.iv. 17; comp. 
 I Pet. ii. 5j Heb. iii. 6. We need not 
 therefore hesitate to assign this mean- 
 ing to otKetot here. Comp. Clem. Rec, 
 
 p. 45, 1. 31 (Syr.). In this case r^? 7rt- 
 oTcffls will probably be nearly equiva- 
 lent to Tov evayyeKlov ; see above, p. 
 157. On the other hand, otVcio? twos 
 is not an uncommon phrase in profane 
 writers for * acquainted with' e.g. <^t- 
 \oa-o(f)ias, yetay pa<j>Las, oXiyapxtaSj tv- 
 pavvihos, Tpv(l>r}s; 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 
 the final benediction (2 Thess. iii. 1 7, 18), 
 with perhaps a single sentence of ex- 
 hortation, as ' If any one love not the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, etc' (i Cor. xvi. 
 21 — 24), or * Remember my bonds' 
 (Col. iv. 18). In the present case he 
 writes a whole paragraph, summing 
 up the main lessons of the epistle in 
 terse eager disjointed sentences. He 
 writes it too in large bold characters, 
 that his handwriting may reflect the 
 energy and determination of his soul 
 (see above, p. 65). To this feature 
 he calls attention in the words which 
 follow. 
 
 "Idere K.r.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 ypap.- 
 paTa sometimes signifies 'a letter' 
 (Acts xxviii. 21, 1 Mace. v. 10, comp. 
 Ignat. Polyc. 7, Clem. Horn. xii. 10), 
 and therefore TnjKUa ypdppaTa might 
 mean 'how long a letter'; but on the 
 other hand, it seems equally clear that 
 
VI.ii] EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 221 
 
 TO dyadov tt^oos TraWas, fxaXiCTTa Se tt^os tovs oiKeiov? 
 
 ypdfifxa<TLV ypaipetv 'to write With let- 
 ters^ cannot be used for ypajxiiara 
 ypd(f>€iv '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? Boes he, as Ohryso- 
 stom and others have supposed, point 
 to the rude ill-formed characters in 
 which the letter was written, as though 
 he gloried in his imperfect knowledge 
 of Greek ? But where is there any 
 mention of rudeness of form ? and is 
 it at all probable that St Paul who 
 had received a careful education at 
 Jerusalem and at Tarsus, the great 
 centres of Jewish and of Greek learn- 
 ing, should have betrayed this child- 
 like ignorance and even gloried in it ? 
 Or again does he, as others imagine, 
 refer to the physical difficulties under 
 which he was labouring, the irregu- 
 larity of the handwriting being ex- 
 plained by his defective eyesight or 
 by his bodily suffering] But here 
 again tttjXlkois 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 ayap fj,€i^o(rLv i^pria-aro 
 ypafjifxaa-LV €iJL<Paiv(ov ort ovre avTos ipv- 
 Opta ovT€ apvclraL ra Xeyofxeva. 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. 
 
 vfiiv] Its right place is after 7n7Xi- 
 Kois, though a few mss have transposed 
 the words. Standing therefore in this 
 position, it cannot well be taken with 
 eypa^jroj '1 write' or 'I wrote to you'; 
 but is connected rather with irTjkiKOis, 
 
 which it emphasizes, 'how large, mark 
 you'; see e.g. Plat. Thecet p. 143 e 
 CLKovcrai irdvv a^tov ouo vp/lv Ta>v ttoKi- 
 
 T(iiV p.€ipaKL<0 €VT€TVXr}Ka. 
 
 eypa^a] '/ write,^ the epistolary 
 aorist, conveniently translated by a 
 present. According to the view here 
 adopted, it marks the point at which 
 St Paul takes the pen into his own 
 hand. For other instances of this 
 epistolary eypa\\ra see Philem. 19, 21, 
 I Pet. V. 12, I Joh. ii. 14, 21, 26, v. 13; 
 comp. iir^a-TeiXaj Heb. xiii. 22. The 
 objection, that the aorist cannot be 
 so used except at the close of a letter 
 and in reference to what goes before, 
 seems to be groundless ; for (i) it fails 
 to recognise the significance of the 
 epistolary aorist, the explanation of 
 the past tense being that events are 
 referred to the time at which the letter 
 is received : (2) There are clear in- 
 stances of the past tense used as here, 
 e.g. in Mart. Polyc. § i iypdy\tap.ev 
 vfuvj afieXc^oi, rd Kara tovs p-apTvp^aav- 
 ray, these words occurring immedi- 
 ately after the opening salutation; 
 comp. e7re/n//"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 €ypayj/-a 
 in no way prejudices the question 
 whether the whole letter or the last 
 paragraph only was written by St 
 Paul. 
 
 12, 13. 'Certain men have an ob- 
 ject in displaying their zeal for carnal 
 ordinances. 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- 
 
222 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [VI. 12, 13 
 
 %eijO(. ^^oo-ot diXovcrip ev7rpo(r(07rfj(raL iu capKi^ ovtol 
 dvayKa^ova-iv vfxa^ TrepiTefxyecQai^ jjlovov \va tm CTavpip 
 Tov XpiiTTOv fXYi SiwKcovTai, ^^ovSe yap ot irepiTe^vo- 
 fievoL avTOi vofxov (pvXdo'O'Ovo'tu, dWa deXovciv vfias 
 
 sistency. They advocate circumcision, 
 and yet they themselves neglect the 
 ordinances of the law. They would 
 make capital out of your compliance ; 
 they would fain boast of having won 
 you over to these carnal rites.' 
 
 It was not against bigotry alone 
 that St Paul had to contend ; his op- 
 ponents were selfish and worldly also ; 
 they could not face the obloquy to 
 which their abandonment of the Mo- 
 saic ordinances would expose them; 
 they were not bold enough to defy the 
 prejudices of their unconverted fellow- 
 countrymen. And so they attempted 
 to keep on good terms with them by 
 imposing circumcision on the Gentile 
 converts also, and thus getting the 
 credit of zeal for the law. Even the 
 profession of Jesus as Messiah by the 
 Christians was a less formidable obsta- 
 cle to their intercourse with the Jews 
 than their abandonment of the law. 
 
 12. evTrpoa-ayirrjo-ai K.r.X.] Ho show 
 fair in the fleshy i.e. 'to make a pre- 
 tentious display of their religion in 
 outward ordinances.' The emphasis 
 seems to lie as much on euTrpoo-wTr^o-at 
 as on eV a-apKLj 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, otrives e^ojBev fpatvovTai 
 (opaloi (Matt, xxiii. 27). The adjec- 
 tive euTTpdo-wTTos is not uncommon in 
 classical Greek, and generally has this 
 sense, 'specious, plausible,' e.g. De- 
 mosth. p. 277 \6yovs evTrpoo-coirovs Koi 
 fivdovs (TvvOeis koi bte^^kQcov. The verb 
 €VTTpo(T(07ri(iiv{T) occursiu Symmachus, 
 Ps. cxli. 6. 
 
 €v o-apKi\ Hn the flesh,'' i.e. in ex- 
 ternal rites. It has been taken by 
 some as equivalent to <rapKCK.o\ oires-, 
 
 but, besides that this interpretation 
 is harsh in itself, eV o-apKi here cannot 
 well be separated from eV rj vp.€r4pa 
 a-apKL of the following verse. 
 
 p.6i/ov Lva] seemingly elliptical ; ' only 
 (their object in doing so is) that they 
 may not etc' See the note on ii. 10. 
 
 rm crraupw rov Xptoroi}] 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. 
 
 ^KDKoiVTai] The reading dicoKovrai, 
 however well supported, can only be 
 regarded as a careless way of writing 
 BiatMovTat. In the same way in ver. 9 
 many texts read ipyaCofxeBa for ipya- 
 f<B/xe^a; compare Rom, v. i, exofxev 
 and €)(Gip.€v. 
 
 13, ovbe yap k.tX.] ^ for even the 
 advocates of circumcision themselves 
 do not keep the lavs! The allusion 
 here is not to the iTnpossihility 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 olaserve it rigor- 
 ously. 
 
 01 Treptre/zi/o/iecot] ' the circumcision 
 party, the advocates of circumcision.' 
 See the apt quotation from the apo- 
 cryphal book Act. Petr. et Paul. § 63 
 (p. 28, ed. Tisch.), where Simon says 
 of the two Apostles, ovtol ot irepi- 
 Tejxvojxcvot Tvavovpyoi claiVj to which 
 St Paul replies Trpb tov TJfias einyvavai 
 
VI. 14, IS] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 223 
 
 TrepLTefJLvecrdaLy \va ev tPi vjieTepa aapKi Kavxn<^(^^"^^^' 
 ^^i/ixoi Se fxri yevoiTO Kav')(^a(r6aL, el /nrj ev tw (rravpo) 
 Tov Kvpiov fjfjiwv 'Irjo'ov XpLO-rov^ St ov e^oi Kocrfxo^ i~ 
 CTTavpayTat Kayco KOcr/JiM. ^^ovre yap Trepirofxt] ti icTiv 
 
 rqv aX-qdetav crapKos €(rxoiX£v ireptrofirjv' 
 ore Be e<f)dvrf ij aX^Beta, €V rj Kapblas 
 TTeptTOiXTj Ka\ 7reptT€ixv6{M€6a Ka\ 7re- 
 pLT€ixvop,€p: and compare the some- 
 what similar classical usage in the ex- 
 pression oi peovres Plat. Thewt p. 1 8 1 A. 
 See the note i. 23. If this interpre- 
 tation be correct, the present tense 
 leaves the question open whether the 
 agitators were converted Jews or con- 
 verted proselytes. The former is more 
 probable ; for proselytes would not be 
 so dependent on the good opinion of 
 the unconverted Jews. The balance 
 of authority is perhaps in favour of 
 reading 7r€ptTefMv6p.€voi rather than 
 7r€ptT€Tp,rjp.€voiy 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 nepLTenvofievoi, as probably 
 the original reading, of which irepirc- 
 Tp,rjiJL€voi is so obvious a correction. 
 
 ponov] *They are no rigorous ob- 
 servers of laWj regarded as a prin- 
 ciple. On the absence of the article, 
 see the references in the note on 
 V. 18. 
 
 vfiaSf vfierepa] opposed to auroi; 
 * Indifferent themselveSj they make 
 capital out of you.^ 
 
 iv TTj vp,€T€pa K.T.X.] 1.0. that they 
 may vaunt your submission to this 
 carnal rite and so gain credit with the 
 Jews for proselytizing. Comp. Phil, 
 iii 3 Kav)^co{j.€voi iv 'Kpto'T^ ^hja-ov Koi 
 QVK iv aapKL TTCiroiBoTes. 
 
 1 4. * 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.' 
 
 pjri yivoLTo] with the infinitive. This 
 is the common construction in the Lxx, 
 Gen. xliv. 7, i7, Josh. xxii. 29, xxiv. 16, 
 I Kings xxi. 3, i Mace. ix. 10, xiii. 5. 
 
 iv T« (TTavp^l 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. 
 
 bi ov] probably refers to a-ravpov ; 
 ' 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 Xpta-ra, we 
 should have expected rather iv d or 
 (Tvv a. For the same image as here 
 compare Col. ii. 14 avro ^pKcv ck toi 
 p.i(Tov 7rpo(r7)\coaas avro ra (rravpS (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 
 ord inances ? ' This koo-/xos-, the material 
 universe, is the sphere of external or- 
 dinances. 
 
 Some texts insert the article before 
 KocTfxos and K6(Tfji<^ — before either or 
 both. It should be expunged in both 
 places with the best mss. The sen- 
 tence thus gains in terseness. 
 
 15. This verse has been variously 
 lengthened out and interpolated from 
 the parallel passage, v. 6. Some of 
 these interpolations have very consi- 
 derable MS authority. The reading 
 
224 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [VL16 
 
 Kai ocroL TW 
 
 ovT€ cLKpo^vcTTta, dWct Kaiurj ktIctl^. 
 
 Kuvovi TOVTo) a'TOL')(Yi<TOV(nVf elpf]vri eir' avTOv^ kui eAeos, 
 
 adopted is the shortest form, and 
 doubtless represents the genuine text. 
 
 ouVe yap K.r.X.] In this annihilation 
 of the world all external distinctions 
 have ceased to be. This sentence oc- 
 curs again, v. 6 and i 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. Mthiop, p. 24) to 
 be a quotation from the 'Kevelation 
 of Moses.' A sentiment however, 
 which is the very foundation of St 
 Paul's teaching, was most unlikely to 
 have been expressed in any earlier 
 Jewish writing; and, if it really oc- 
 curred in the apocryphal work in ques- 
 tion, this work must have been either 
 written or interpolated after St Paul's 
 time; see Liicke Offenh. d. Johann. 
 I. p. 232. Cedrenus {Hist. Comp. p. 4) 
 states that the Revelation of Moses 
 was identified by some persons {<l>a(Ti 
 Tti/eff) with the 'Little Genesis.' This 
 latter title is another name for the 
 Book of Jubilees, which of late years 
 has been discovered in an ^Ethiopic 
 translation. In the Book of Jubilees 
 however the words in question do not 
 occur; see Ewald's Jahrh. iii. p. 74. 
 
 KaivT) ktIo-lsY a new creature.^ Com- 
 pare the parallel passage, 2 Cor. v. 17 
 6t rtff cV XptiTTf^ Kaivrj kt'ktis. This 
 phrase Kaivrj ktl{tl£, ^t^^^ nn^, is a 
 common expression in Jewish writers 
 for one brought to the knowledge of 
 the true God. See the passages in 
 Schottgen i, p. 704. The idea of spi- 
 ritual enlightenment as a creating 
 anew appears also in ivaKiyyevea-ia 're- 
 generation'; see also Ephes. iv. 24 
 Kaivov avOpayirov KTio-Qevra) COmp. 
 Ephes. ii. 10, 15, Col. iii. 10; and 2 
 Cor. iv. 16, avaKaivovaQai. 
 
 16. *0n all those who shall guide 
 their steps by this rule may peace and 
 
 mercy abide; for they are the true 
 Israel of God.' 
 
 o(tol\ 'as many as; no matter 
 whether they are of the circumcision 
 or of the uncircumcision.' 
 
 <TToixrio-ovcnv] * shall walk.^ This 
 reading is to be preferred to <ttoi- 
 Xova-LViboth as having somewhat higher 
 support and as being slightly more 
 difficult. It is at the same time more 
 expressive as implying the continu- 
 ance of this order. Compare ii. 16, 
 Rom. iii. 30, and see Winer § xl. p. 350. 
 
 TO) Kavovi roivTO)] %y this linc^ cor- 
 responding to the meaning of ^rroix^Xv. 
 Kavav is the carpenter's or surveyor's 
 line by which a direction is taken. In 
 2 Cor. X. 13, 16, it is used metaphori- 
 cally, where the image is taken from 
 surveying and mapping out a district, 
 so as to assign to different persons 
 their respective parcels of ground. 
 For the several senses through which 
 this word has passed, and for its eccle- 
 siastical meaning especially, see West- 
 cott On the Canon, App. a, p. 541 sq. 
 On the dative see the notes, v. 16^ 25 ; 
 comp. Phil. iii. 16 tm avra (TToix^lv, 
 where Kavovi is interpolated in some 
 texts from this passage. 
 
 Ka\ €itI tov 'la-parjX k.t.X.] ^yea upon 
 the Israel of GodJ 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. § xsxix. p. 129 sq., and compare 
 Ephes. ii. 12 aifqXkoTpKap.hot TTJs TToXt- 
 T€Las TOV 'lo-parjXj Rom. ix. 4 otrives 
 elatv ^l(jparjKXrai, cop rj vioBeaia k.tX. 
 (comp. 2 Cor. xi. 22, Phil. iii. 5), John i. 
 48 tfie ak7)6^s ^lo-parjXiTrjs, Compared 
 with ver. 50 a-v ^aa-iX^vs £itov 'icrpoT/X. 
 St Paul is perhaps referring here to 
 the benediction dpTJv-q eVl tov 'la-parjX, 
 which closes Psalms csxv, cxxviii, and 
 must have been a familiar sound in 
 the ears of all devout Israelites. 
 
 The 'Israel of God' is in implied 
 
VI. 17] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 225 
 
 Kai em t6i/ 'IcparjX tov Qeov» ^'^tov Xoittov kottov^ 
 fJLOi fxfjdek 7rape)(^eTa}' eyco yap tu (TTtyixara tov '\ricrov 
 eV Tw crw/jLari fxov fiao'Ta^co. 
 
 contrast to the ' Israel after the flesh' 
 (i Cor. X. 18); comp. Rom. ix. 6 ov 
 yap irdvTes ol i^ *I(rpar]X ovtoc 'ifrpai^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 koI is epexegetic, i.e. it intro- 
 duces the same thing under a new 
 aspect, as in Heb. xi. 17, etc.; see 
 Winer § liii. p. 545 sq. 
 
 17. St Paul closes the epistle, as he 
 had begun it, with an uncompromising 
 assertion of his office : ' Henceforth let 
 no man question my authority : let no 
 man thwart or annoy me. Jesus is my 
 Master, my Protector. His brand is 
 stamped on my body. I bear this badge 
 of an honourable servitude.' 
 
 TOV XotTToO] ' henceforth^ differs from 
 TO XoiTToz/, as ^in the time to come' 
 from ' throughout the time to come.' 
 Compare wktos and vvKTa. In the 
 New Testament it occurs only here 
 and Ephes. vi. 10, where however the 
 received reading is to \olit6v. 
 
 TO. o-riy^ara] ' the hrands, i. e, the 
 marks of ownership branded on his 
 body. These o-TiyfxaTa were used ; (i) 
 In the case of domestic slaves. With 
 these however branding was not usual, 
 at leastamong the Greeks and Romans, 
 except to mark such as had attempted 
 to escape or had otherwise miscon- 
 ducted themselves, hence called crrty- 
 jLtariat, 'literati' (see the ample collec- 
 tion of passages in Wetstein), and such 
 brands were held a badge of disgrace ; 
 
 Pseudo-Phocyl. 212 o-Tt'y/itara fxr} ypd- 
 ■yjrr)S iTrovctdl^aiU BepaTrovTO, Senec. de 
 Bene/, iv. 37, 38. (2) Slaves attached 
 to some temple {Up6dov\oL) or persons 
 devoted to the service of some deity 
 were so branded: Herod, ii. 113 oreo) 
 dvOpwiTiov i7ri^ak7}Tat arlyixaTa Ipdj 
 
 GAL. 
 
 icovTov StSouff r(5 ^eoJ, ovk e^eort tov- 
 Tov a\lra(rdai, Lucian de Bea Syr. § 
 59 (TTt^ovTai 6c irdvTes ol fxev ey Kapirovs 
 ol Se €s avx^vas ; Philo de Mon. 11. p. 
 221 M : comp. 3 Mace. 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 Deyling Obs. Sacra nr. p. 
 427. The metaphor here is most 
 appropriate, if referred to the second 
 of these classes. Such a practice at 
 all events cannot have been unknown 
 in a country which was the home of 
 the worship of Oybele. A Upos 8ovXos 
 is mentioned in a Galatian inscription, 
 Texier Asie Mineure i. p. 135. 
 
 The brands of which the Apostle 
 speaks were doubtless the permanent 
 marks which he bore of persecution 
 undergone in the service of Christ: 
 
 comp. 2 Cor. iv. 10 tt)v veKpcDo-iv tov 
 'It^o-oO Iv t^ o-mfxaTL TreptcfiepouTeS) 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. 
 
 IS 
 
226 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 [VI. i8 
 
 i8 <i 
 
 'H x^P^^ '^^^ Kvpiov i^fxwv 'Irjcrov XptaTov jmera 
 Tov TTpevjULaro^ vfxcovy dBe\(j)oi, dfxrjv. 
 
 'Irja-oii] So it is read in the majority 
 of the older mss. All other variations, 
 including the received reading tov kv- 
 plov 'lT)(rov, are inferior, for the personal 
 name of the owner alone is wanted. 
 
 /Sao-T-afft)] St Chrysostom has pro- 
 bably caught the right idea, ovk direv 
 Gx<^ dWa /Satrrafo), Sairrep tls iin rpo- 
 
 iraiois fieya tppovwp. Compare the use 
 
 of TrepKJiepovTes in 2 Cor. iv. lo already 
 
 quoted. For /3ao-rafo) see Acts ix. 15. 
 
 18. fMCTo. TOV TTvevfiaTos vfiav] * toith 
 
 your spirit*; perhaps in reference to 
 the carnal religion of the Galatians, as 
 Chrysostom suggests. This allusion 
 however must not be pressed, for the 
 same form of benediction occurs in 
 Philem. 25, 2 Tim. iv. 22. 
 
 a5eX0oi] * 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 epistolse severitas. ' 
 See the note on vi. r. 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 227 
 
 The Patristic Commentaries on this Epistle. 
 
 The patristic commentaries on the Galatians, extant either whole or in part, 
 are perhaps more numerous than on any other of St Paul's Epistles. The 
 earlier of these have for the most part an independent value ; the later 
 are mere collections or digests of the labours of preceding writers and have 
 no claim to originality. In the list which follows an asterisk is prefixed to 
 the name of the author in cases where fragments only remain. 
 
 In drawing up this account I have had occasion to refer frequently to Books of 
 Cave's Script. Eccles. Hist. Liter. (Oxen. 1740), to Fabricius's Bibliotheca ^^^®^®^^^- 
 GrcBca (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 Prindpaux Commentateurs du N. T. 
 (1693), Rosenmiiller's Historia Interpretationis Lihrorwm Sacrorum 
 (1795— 1 814), and a treatise by J. F. S. Augustin in Nosselt's Opusc. iii. 
 p. 321 sq. 
 
 I. Earlier Commentaries. i.Eaeliei 
 
 COMMEN- 
 
 (a) Greek and Syrian Fathers. tabibs. 
 
 (i) *Origenes (t 253). The recently discovered list of Origen's works (a) Greek 
 drawn up by Jerome mentions fifteen books on the Epistle to the Galatians, ^V^ ^2/- 
 besides seven homilies on the same (Redepenning in Niedner's Zeitschr. Orig'en 
 185 1, pp. jy, 78); while the same Jerome in the preface to his Commen- 
 tary (vii. p. 370, ed. Yall.) says of this father, 'Scripsit ille vir in epistolam 
 Pauli ad Galatas quinque propria volumina et decimum Stromatum suorum 
 librum commatico super explanatione ejus sermone complevit: tractatus 
 quoque varies et excerpta quse 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 Strus (f 378), the deacon of Edessa. An Armenian Ephraem 
 version of a commentary on the Scriptures, including St Paul's Epistles, Syrus. 
 
 15—2 
 
228 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 School of 
 Arrtioch. 
 
 Eusebius 
 of Emisa. 
 
 Chryso- 
 stom. 
 
 purporting to be by this author, was published at Venice in 1836^. If this 
 work be genuine, it ought to be of some value for the text at all events, if 
 not for the interpretation. On this writer see Cave i. p. 235, Fabricius viii. 
 p. 217, Schrockh xv. p. 527; and the article by E. Rodiger in Herzog's 
 Real-Encyclopaedie, with the references there given. Lagarde {Apost. 
 Const, p. vi) very decidedly maintains the genuineness of these Armenian 
 works; and Rodiger seems also to take this view. In the few passages 
 which I have had the opportunity of testing, both the readings and the in- 
 terpretation are favourable to their genuineness^. 
 
 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, iii. p. 497 sq. 
 (Eng. trans.), Reuss Gesch. d. Heil Schr. § 518 (3te ausg.), Kihn Die 
 Bedeutung der Antioch. Schide (1867), Th. Forster Chrysostom u. sein 
 Verhdltniss zur Antiochenischen Schule (1869). 
 
 (iii) * Eusebius Emisenus (f 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 Ubri decern' 
 {de Vir. Illustr. c. 91). Eusebius enjoyed a great reputation with his con- 
 temporaries, and these scanty fragments seem to indicate an acute and 
 careful expositor. His writings are the subject of monographs by Augusti 
 Eusehii Emeseni Opusc. Grcec. etc. 1829, and by Thilo Ueher die Schriften 
 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 (f 407). This father's commentary on the 
 Galatians differs from his expositions of other parts of the New Testament, 
 in that it is not divided into separate discourses, nor 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 
 
 ^ Zenker Bihl. Orient, also men- 
 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 Armenica 
 versione nunc primum latinitate dona- 
 tum. But it is not included in a re- 
 cent catalogue of the works printed 
 
 at the Armenian press at Venice, and 
 though advertised, seems never to hd-ve 
 appeared. 
 
 2 Through the kindness of Dr Eieu 
 of the British Museum I have been 
 able in some important passages to 
 give the readings and interpretations 
 of Ephraem in my commentary. 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 229 
 
 it would seem from its character to have been intended for oral delivery. 
 It is an eloquent popular exposition, based on fine scholarship. The date is 
 uncertain, except that it was written at Antioch, i. e. before A. d. 398, when 
 St Chrysoatom 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 esaravit librum,' 
 Hieron. Epist. cxii. See above p. 132). 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. ^^^' 
 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, 'jo, 82, 93, and one at 
 least in the CEcumenian commentary (Gal. i. 13). Like most writers of the 
 Grseco-Syrian School he maintained the literal meaning of Scripture against 
 the allegorists. See Cave i. 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 of Mopsu- 
 St Paul's Epistles; see Bbed Jesu's Catalogue in Assemann. Bibl. Orient. 
 III. p. 32. Several fragments of these in the original are preserved in the 
 Catena^, and have been collected and edited by O. F. Fritzsche Theod. 
 Mops. Co-mment. in N. T. (1847). This editor had before written a mono- 
 graph De Theodori Mopsuesteni Vita et iScriptis {iS;^6). Fritzsche's mono- 
 graph and collection of fragments are reprinted in the edition of Theodore's 
 works in Migne's Patrol. Grcec. 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 Babanus Maurus (Migne's Patrol. Lai. cxii), where they are incor- 
 porated nearly entire under the name of Ambrose ; and a few years since 
 Dom Pitra, Spicil. Solesm. i. p. 49 sq. (1852), printed the expositions of 
 the Galatians, Ephesians, and Philemon complete, and supplied the omis- 
 sions and corrected the errors in the extracts on the remaining epistles in 
 Babanus, ascribing the work however to Hilary of Poitiers. 
 
 In the Corbey ms which he used, these commentaries of Theodore on 
 the shorter epistles were attached to the exposition of the Ambrosiaster or 
 pseudo-Ambrose (who seems to have been one Hilary : see below, p. 232) 
 on Romans and Corinthians, and the two together were entitled Expositio 
 Sancti Amhrosii in Epistolas B. Pauli. This circumstance accoimts for 
 their being assigned to St Ambrose in Babanus, as it also suggested the 
 
 1 The fragments assigned to Tbeo- are none of his, but belong to Theo- 
 dore in Mai Nov, Pair. Bihl. vii. i . p. 408 doret. 
 
230 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 conjecture of Dom Pitra, that the great Hilary was their author. The true 
 authorship was ascertained by the Rev. F. J. A. Hort^ from a comparison 
 with the Greek fragments of Theodore, and pointed out by him in the 
 Journ. of Clas, and Sacr. Phil. iv. p. 302 (Camb. 1859). Though much 
 marred by an indifferent Latin translator^, this commentary is inferior in 
 importance to the works of Jerome and Chrysostom alone among the 
 patristic expositions now extant. Theodore 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 iii. p. 250 sq., Schrockh xv. p. 197 sq. 
 Theo- (vii) Theodobetus (f about 458), bishop of Cyrus, a native of Antioch 
 
 doret. ^^^ ^ 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 xviii. 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 
 apologizes for attempting to interpi'et St Paul after two such men (^era 
 Tov buva Koi rov bfiva) 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 (Ke(t)aKaf,a) and 
 verses (o-tixoi), writing a general preface and arguments to the several epi- 
 
 ^ Whilst the first edition of this a matter of conjecture, 
 work was going through the press, my 2 Thus for instance he makes Theo- 
 attention was directed by Dr Hort to dore fall into the common error of 
 anarticlebyJ.L. Jacobi in the Detttscfte interpreting o-uptrrotx^^ Gal. iv. 25, *is 
 Zeitschr. f. Christl. Wissensch. Aug. contiguous to' ('affinis/ 'confinis'); 
 1854, in which, unknown to him, his but the context, as well as the Greek 
 conclusions had been anticipated. A fragment which has iaoSwafxe'i, shows 
 more recent writer (Eeinkens Hilarius that the blunder is the translator's own. 
 von Poitiers, Schaffhausen 1864) states ^ The first volume of a very careful 
 fairly the objections to Dom Pitra's edition of these Commentaries has re- 
 view, but is apparently ignorant that cently appeared, by the Bev. H. B, 
 the question of authorship is no longer Swete, Cambridge, 1880. 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 231 
 
 sties, and marking and enumerating the scriptural quotations. The divisions 
 into chapters and the headings of the chapters he borrowed from some 
 earlier writer (Zacagni, p. 528), probably the same whose date is given as 
 A.D. 396 (lb. 536). Mill conjectures this person to have been Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia; Proleg. pp. Ixxxvi, Ixxxvii. Reasons however have been as- 
 signed for thinking that Euthalius in this work was largely indebted to a 
 much earlier critic, Pamphilus the martyr (f 309) : see Tregelles in Hornets 
 Introduction, p, 27. On the stichometry of Euthalius see Mill Proleg. p. xc, 
 Scrivener's Introduction^ pp. 49, 58, and especially Tregelles, 1. c. Though 
 not a commentary, the work is sufficiently important in its bearing on the 
 criticism of St Paul's Epistles to deserve a place here. It was first printed 
 entire in Zacagni's Collect. Mon, Vet, i. p. 402 sq., and may be found in 
 Gallandi x. p. 197 sq. 
 
 (ix) *Gennadius (t 471), patriarch of Constantinople. A few extracts Genna- 
 in the printed editions of the (Ecumenian Catena bear the name of Gen- *^^^^- 
 nadius, and the number might be increased by consulting 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 r, 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 (tabout 89 1 ), 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 (Ecu- 
 menian Catena, taken it would appear from a Commentary on St Paul's 
 Epistles no longer extant. Cave indeed asserts (n. 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. I. 30), which is incorrectly labelled with the name of Photius, proves — 
 as far at least as relates to the Epistle to the Galatians — to contain a col- 
 lection of notes identical with that of the (Ecumenian Catena. It is accu- 
 rately described in the new Catalogue. These fragments of Photius do not 
 contribute much that is new to the criticism of St Paul, but they are an 
 additional testimony to the extensive learning and intellectual vigour of the 
 writer. 
 
 (b) Latin Fathers. (b) Latin. 
 
 Victori- 
 (i) C. Marius Victoeinus (about 360), an African, surnamed the Phi- nus. 
 
 losopher, converted to Christianity in old age, taught rhetoric at Rome 
 when Jerome was a boy. He wrote commentaries apparently on all St 
 Paul's Epistles (Hieron. de Vir. Illustr. loi, prcef. 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. m. 2, p. i (1828), 
 and may be found in Migne Pair. Lat. vin. p, 1145. It is difficult to 
 understand the reputation which Victorinus had for eloquence. His work 
 on the Galatians is obscure, confused, and as an exposition almost worthless, 
 
232 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 but it now and then preserves a curious fact (e.g. about the Symmachians, 
 p. 1 6) and is interesting as the earliest extant commentary on this epistle. 
 There is a lacuna from v. i8 to the end of the chapter. On this writer see 
 Mai's Preface, p. x. sq. and the article in Smith's Diet, of Biography, 
 
 Hilary. (ii) Ambrosiaster, so called because his commentary was wrongly 
 
 ascribed to St Ambrose and is commonly printed with the works of that 
 father: see the Benedictine Edition, ii. App. p. 20 sq. It is however 
 quoted by Augustine icont. Duos 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 i Tim. iii. 15) who was bishop of Rome from 
 366 to 384. 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 in. 
 p. 589 sq. I have generally quoted this commentator as the Ambrosian 
 Hilary, or as Hilary simply. 
 
 Jerome. (iii) Eusebius Sophronitjs HrERONYMtis. His ' Gommentarii in Epi- 
 
 stolam ad Galatas^ (vii. p. 367 ed. Vallarsi) 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 viii. p. 589), Eusebius of Emisa, and Theodorus 
 of Heraclea (t about 355; see Fabricius ix. p. 319). Of these writers he 
 speaks loosely as having left 'nonnullos commentariolos,' which were not 
 without their value. All these he read and digested before commencing 
 his own work. Though abounding in fanciful and perverse interpretations, 
 violations of good taste and good feeling, faults of all kinds, this is never- 
 theless the most valuable of all the patristic commentaries on the Epistle 
 to the Galatians : for the faults are more than redeemed by extensive learn- 
 ing, acute criticism, and lively and vigorous exposition. 
 
 Augustine. (iv) Aurelius AugustinuS; ^Expositio Epistolce ad Galatas,' written 
 about 394 and apparently without consulting previous commentators (see 
 p. 130, note 3)j of whom he shows no knowledge. The great excellences of 
 Augustine as an 'Interpreter of Scripture' are sufficiently vindicated by 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 233 
 
 Archbishop Trench (in his introduction to the 'Exposition of the Sermon 
 on the Mount') against the attacks of writers who had too little sympathy 
 with his tone of mind to appreciate his merits : but spiritual insight, though 
 a far diviner gift than the critical faculty, will not supply its place. In this 
 faculty Augustine was wanting, and owing to this defect, as a continuous 
 expositor he is disappointing. "With great thoughts here and there, his 
 commentary on the Galatians is inferior as a whole to several of the patristic 
 expositions. 
 
 (v) Pelagius the great heresiarch wrote his commentaries on the Pelagiua. 
 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 epistles^. In its pre- 
 sent form then this commentary is mutilated. The notes are pointed and 
 good, but meagre. The high estimation in which they were held, in spite 
 of the cloud which hnng 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 xiv. p. 338 sq., and Rosenmiiller iii. p. 503 sq. 
 
 (vi) Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus (f after 562). ' Gompleoc^iones in Casaiodo- 
 Epistolas Apostolorum, in Acta, et in Apocalypsin, first brought to light ^^^' 
 and published by Scipio Maff'ei in 1721. It was reprinted by Chandler (1722 
 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 
 I Job. V. 7. See Schrockh xvi. p. 153, Rosenmiiller v. p. 412 sq. 
 
 2. Secondary Commentaries, excerpts, compilations, and collections of 2. Lateb 
 variorum notes, mostly of a later date, Commen- 
 
 TAEIES. 
 
 (a) Greek Writers. ( . ^^^^^^ 
 
 These are compiled from the Greek fathers already mentioned, but 
 especially from Chrysostom. 
 
 1 Migne's Patrol. Lat. lxx. p. 11 19 what apparently he regards as another 
 
 sq. The identity of the work of which work the description of which would 
 
 Cassiodorus speaks with this conmien- 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 Pauh, qui a nonnuUis beati 
 
 author, though protesting against as- Hieronymi adnotationes brevissimas 
 
 signing it to Gelasius. On the other dicitur continere, quern vobis pariter 
 
 hand Cassiodorus a little later mentions Christo largiente dereliqui.' 
 
234 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 Damas- 
 cene. 
 
 Cramer's 
 Catena. 
 
 CEcume- 
 niu3. 
 
 Theophy- 
 
 lact. 
 
 (b) Latin. 
 
 Primasius, 
 
 (i) Joannes Damascenus (about 750). A commentary on St PauFs 
 Epistles, being an epitome of Chrysostom (see Fabricius ix. p. 281, 
 Schrockh xx. p. 207), printed in Jo. Damasc. Op. ir. p. i 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. 228, 229) 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 veri- 
 fication ought probably to be assigned to either Eusebius or Severianus. 
 
 (iii) (Ecitmenius (loth century), bishop of Tricca in Thessaly. The 
 work which bears his name is a catena on the Acts and Epistles, to which 
 he is one of the less important contributors. See especially Simon p. 458, 
 and comp. Fabricius viii. p. 693, Kosenmiiller 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 (Ecumenius was also 
 the compiler of the Catena, adding to it a few notes of his own. The affirm- 
 ative is maintained by Hentenius in the preface to his edition (Paris, 1630); 
 the negative by J. F. S. Augustin de Cat, Pair. Grcec. p. 366. There are 
 considerable variations in the different mss of this work ; see Fabricius 
 1. c. p. 696, and Cramer's Catena p. 411. The names on the margin of the 
 printed editions in the portion relating to the Galatians are Photius (ap- 
 parently by far the largest contributor), Joannes (i. e. Chrysostom), Genna- 
 dius, Severianus, Theodoret, Cyril, and (Ecumenius. The mss in some 
 instances supply names to extracts which in the printed editions are 
 anonymous. The few extracts from Cyril do not appear to be taken from a 
 commentary on this epistle. 
 
 (iv) Theophtlactus (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 vii. p. 591. 
 
 To these should be added the commentary of Etjthtmitts Zigabentjs 
 (about mo), which is said to exist in MS, but has never been printed. 
 
 (b) Latin Writers. 
 
 These are derived from the four Latin commentators, Hilary (Ambro- 
 siaster), Jerome, Augustine, and Pelagius, directly or indirectly. 
 
 (i) pRiMASitrs (about 550), bishop of Adrumetum in Africa, vn-ote 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 successftd of these secondary 
 commentaries. The editio princeps is by Gagn6e (Lyons, 1537). This work 
 is printed also in the Magn. Bihl. Vet. Pair. vi. 2, p. 18 sq. and in Migne's 
 
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 235 
 
 Patrol. Lot. Lxvni. p. 415. See Rosenmliller v. p. 12, Cave r. 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 Biblical 
 few years. The interest in Biblical studies was evidently very keen at this ^^^^"^S- 
 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 Constantino ; the second upon the consolidation 
 and extension of Western ChristeniJom 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 X). * In omnes S. Fault Seduliua. 
 Epistolas Collectaneum^ compiled from the Latin fathers, a direct refer- 
 ence being occasionally given. This writer, whenever he lived, is certainly 
 to be distinguished from Sedulius the Christian poet of the sth century, 
 with whom he has been confused. See Cave 11. p. 15, Simon p. 379. This 
 commentary is printed in Magn. Bibl. Vet. Patr. v. i, p. 438, and in 
 Migne's Patrol. Lat. cm. p. 181. 
 
 (iii) Claudius Taurinensis (f 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. Pair. ix. p. 66, 
 Migne's Patrol. Lat oiv. p. 838), but other portions exist or did exist 
 in MS, and references are made to them in Simon p. 353 sq., where the 
 fullest accoimt of this writer will be found. See also Schrockh xxiu. 
 p. 281, Cave IT. p. 16. 
 
 (iv) Florus LuQDUioiNSis, surnamed 'Magister' (f after 852). A Florus. 
 commentary on St Paul's Epistles, being a catena from the works of 
 Augustine. The portion relating to the Galatians is not taken from 
 
236 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 Rabanus 
 Maurus. 
 
 Glossa 
 ordinaria. 
 
 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 Mabillon Vet. Anal. pp. 18, 488 (1723). On this work see Simon 
 p. 339, Cave II. p. 24. It is printed in Migne's Patrol. Lot. oxix. p. 363. 
 
 (v) RABAiJUS Maurus (f 856), archbishop of Mentz. Unarrationum 
 in Epistolas B. Pauli lihri triginta, a catena from the fathers, the names 
 being given. The commentary on the Galatians in this collection is made 
 up of large extracts from Jerome, Augustine, and the pseudo-Ambrose 
 (see above p. 229), with one or two passages from extraneous writers, 
 e.g. Gregory the Great. In Migne's Patrol. Lat. cxi, cxii. 
 
 (vi) Walafredus Strabo or Strabus (f 849), a disciple of Rabanus, is 
 the reputed author of the Glossa Ordinaria on the Scriptures, compiled 
 from the fathers and especially from the catena of his master. It was 
 the standard commentary during the middle ages and had an immense 
 reputation. See Rosenmiiller v. p. 135, and especially Simon p. 377. 
 Printed in Migne's Patrol. Lat. cxrv. p. 570. 
 
 (vii) Haymo, bishop of Halberstadt (f 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 xxiii. p. 283, 
 Simon p. 365. Printed in Migne's Patrol. Lat. oxvii. p. 669. 
 
 Later commentaries still, differing little in character from those just 
 enumerated and for the most part equally unoriginal, are those of Atto 
 Vercellensis (t about 960), Migne's Patrol. Lat. cxxxiv. p. 491 ; see 
 Schrockh xxiii. p. 302 : of Lanfranc (f 1089), an interlinear gloss and 
 commentary, Migne cl. p. 259; see Simon p. 385, Schrockh xxiy. p. 334; 
 the authorship however has been questioned: of Bruno Carthusianus 
 (t iioi), the founder of the order, Migne cliii. p. 281 ; see Simon p. 387 : 
 and of Heryeus Dolensis (about 1130), Migne CLxxxi. p. 1129; see Cave 
 II. pp. 187, 213, Simon p. 386. The authorship of the last-mentioned work 
 is doubtful ; it has been wrongly assigned to Anselm of Canterbury, but 
 there is some authority for attributing it to his namesake of Laon. 
 
DISSEETATIONS. 
 
I. 
 
 WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 
 
 II. 
 
 THE BRETHEEN OF THE LORD. 
 
 III. 
 
 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
I. 
 
 WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 
 
 FOLLOWIISTG the universal tradition of ancient writers, I have 
 hitherto assumed that the remarkable people who settled in 
 the heart of Asia Minor were members of the great Celtic family 
 and brothers of the Gauls occupying the region west of the Rhine. 
 And this tradition is confirmed in a striking way by the character 
 
 and temperament of the Asiatic nation, A Teutonic origin how- Teutonic 
 
 theory. 
 ever has been claimed for them by several writers, more especially 
 
 commentators on this epistle ; and this claim it will be necessary 
 
 now to consider. 
 
 How or when this theory arose I do not know: but it seems, in 
 
 some form or another, to have been held as early as the beginning 
 
 of the sixteenth century; for Luther takes occasion by it to read Luther's 
 
 rebuke, 
 his countrymen a wholesome lesson. * Some think/ he says, 'that 
 
 we Germans are descended from the Galatians. ^Neither is this divi- 
 nation perhaps untrue, for we Germans are not much unlike them 
 in temper. Ajid I also am constrained to wish there were in my 
 countrymen more steadfastness and constancy : for in all things we 
 do, at the first brunt we be very hot, but when the heat of our first 
 afiections is burnt out, anon we become more slack, and look, with 
 what rashness we begin things, with the same we throw them aside 
 again and neglect them^'; and he goes on to reproach them with 
 their waning interest in the cause of the Reformation, Doubtless 
 the rebuke was well deserved; but Luther did injustice to his 
 
 ^ Luther's later commentary on Gal. i. 6. 
 
240 
 
 WEEE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 
 
 French 
 and Ger- 
 man wri- 
 ters. 
 
 Tesfiunony 
 of Greeks 
 and Ro- 
 
 countrymen in representing this as a special failing of the Teutonic 
 race. The Roman historians at all events favourably contrast the 
 constancy of the Germans with the fickleness of the Gauls. 
 
 More recently a skirmishing battle has been fought over the 
 carcase of this extinct nation, as if it were a point of national honour 
 to claim possession. ' For ourselves/ says a French traveller, ' we 
 cannot remember without a sentiment of national pride, that the 
 Gauls penetrated to the very centre of Asia Minor, established them- 
 selves there, and left in that country imperishable monuments of 
 themselves. If the name of Franks is the general term by which 
 Eastern nations designate the inhabitants of Europe, it is because 
 our ancestors have influenced in a remarkable manner the destinies 
 of the East from the earliest ages of our history \' Contrast with 
 this the language held by German commentators. ^Thus,' says 
 Wieseler, after summing up the arguments in favour of his view, ' it 
 can scarcely be doubtful that the Galatians are indeed the first 
 German people to whom the Word of the Cross was preached^.' 
 * The Epistle to the Galatians,' writes Olshausen, ' is addressed to 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 
 the ancients the case was difierent. In their eyes Gauls and Germans 
 alike were savage and lawless tribes, living in the far !N"orth beyond 
 the pale of civilisation, and speaking an unknown language. The 
 contrast to Greeks and Romans, which they observed in both alike, 
 obscured the minor differences between one barbarian and another. 
 As time opened out new channels of communication, they became 
 more and more alive to the distinction between the two races ^. In 
 
 1 Texier in the Revue des deux 
 Mondes, 1841, iv, p. 575. 
 
 2 Galater p. 528. 
 
 3 The authorities wUl be found in 
 Diefenbach's Celtica 11. They are very 
 
 fairly and clearly stated also in Braudes 
 EeltenundGermanen (Leiipz. iSe,"]). See 
 especially his summary, p. ix. The only 
 really important exception among an- 
 cient authors is Dion Cassius, who 
 
WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OE, TEUTONS? H^ 
 
 Csesar the line of separation is rougMy traced : in Tacitus it is gene- 
 rally sharp and well-defined. But without doubt the two were some- 
 times confused ; and this fact alone rescues the theory of the Teutonic 
 origin of the Galatians from the imputation of a mere idle paradox. 
 
 Still historical scepticism must have some limit; and it would 
 require a vast mass of evidence on the other side to overcome the 
 very strong presumption from the agreement of ancient authorities, 
 both Greek and E-oman. Classical writers uniformly regard the 
 ruthless hordes who poured into Italy and sacked Rome, the sacrile- 
 gious invaders who attacked the temple at Delphi, and the warlike 
 immigrants who settled in the heart of Asia Minor, as belonging to 
 one and the same race, as Gauls sprung from that Celtic nation Force of 
 whose proper home was north of the Alps and west of the Rhine, dence. 
 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 aflini- 
 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 widespread race had played so important a part 
 in the history of the world for some centuries, when civilised nations 
 had been brought into close contact with them in the far East and 
 West and at different points along a line extending with some inter- 
 ruptions across the whole of Europe and even into Asia, when the 
 study of their language and manners had long been within the reach 
 of the curious, so vital an error should still have held its ground. All 
 ethnology would become hopeless, if testimony so strong were lightly 
 set aside. There must have been many who for purposes of com- 
 merce or from love of travel or in discharge of some official duty or 
 
 persistently makes the Ehine the boun- Germans of the ancients (the inhabit- 
 
 dary-line between the Gauls on the ants of Gaul as well as of Germany) 
 
 left bank, and the Celts on the right were Teutonic in the language of 
 
 bank. See Brandes p. 202. Thus he modern ethnography (see esp. p. 157) ; 
 
 identifies the Celts with the Germans, on the other, Mone, Celtische For- 
 
 and distinguishes them from the Gauls. schungen (1857), is of opinion that 
 
 Extreme paradoses have been held by Germany as well as Gaul was of old 
 
 some recent writers. On the one hand occupied by races which we should call 
 
 Holtzmann, Kelten und Germanen Celtic. 
 (1855), maintains that the Celts and 
 
 GAL. 16 
 
242 WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 
 
 through missionary zeal had visited both the mother country of the 
 Gauls and their Asiatic settlement, and had seen in the language 
 and physiognomy and national character of these distanb peoples 
 many striking features which betokened identity of race. 
 Jerome's The testimony of one of these witnesses is especially valuable, 
 
 the Gala- Jerome, who writes at the close of the fourth century, had spent 
 lans. some time both in Gaul proper and in Galatia\ He had thus ample 
 
 opportunities of ascertaining the facts. He was moreover eminently 
 qualified by his critical ability and linguistic attainments for forming 
 an opinion. In the preface to his Commentary on the Galatians^ he 
 expresses himself to the following effect; ' Yarro 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 
 Galatse were so called from the whiteness of their complexion (ydXa), 
 described by Virgil {jEn. viii. 660), Turn laetea colla awro innec- 
 tuntur, informing us also that a horde of these Gauls arrived in 
 Asia Minor, and there settled among the Greeks, whence the country 
 was called Gallo-Grsecia and afterwards Galatia. No wonder, adds 
 Jerome, after illustrating this incident by other migrations between 
 the East and the West, that the Galatians are called fools and slow 
 of understanding^, when Hilary, the Rhone of Latin eloquence, 
 himself a Gaul and a native of Poitiers, calls the Gauls stupid (indo- 
 ciles). It is true that Gaul produces orators, but then Aquitania 
 boasts a Greek origin, and the Galatians are not descended from 
 these but from the fiercer Gaulish tribes (de ferocioribus Gallis sint 
 profecti).' Though betraying the weakness common to all ancient 
 
 ^ Jerome mentions his visit to Ga- seen Ancyra the capital of Galatia. 
 
 latia (totius Galatise iter), and his 2 jj_ p_ ^^^^ 
 
 sojourn in Gaul (Rheni semibarbarse ^ j^ jg scarcely necessary to say that 
 
 ripaB) in the same letter (Epist iii, i. Jerome here misses the point of St 
 
 pp. 10, 12). While in Gaul, he appears Paul's rebuke. The Galatians were 
 
 to have stayed some time ' apud Tre- intellectually quick enough (see p. 15, 
 
 veros' {Epist. v, i. p. 15). Elsewhere note i). The 'folly' with which they 
 
 he tells us that he paid this visit to are charged arose not from obtuseness 
 
 Gaul when a very young man (adolea- but from fickleness and levity ; the 
 
 centulus, adv. Jovin. ii. 7, 11. p. 335). very versatility of tbeir intellect was 
 
 Lastly, in his commentary on this their snare. The passage of Hilary to 
 
 epistle (vii. p. 430), he mentions having which Jerome refers is not extant. 
 
WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 243 
 
 writers when speculating on questions of philologyj this passage 
 taken in connexion with its contest implies a very considerable 
 knowledge of facts ; and if Jerome agreed with the universal tradi- 
 tion in assuming the Galatians to be genuine Gauls, I can hardly 
 doubt that they were so. 
 
 But beyond the testimony borne to Jerome's personal knowledge Its 
 
 indirect 
 and conviction, this passage suggests another very important con- value. 
 
 sideration. The influence of the Christian Church must have been 
 largely instrumental in spreading information of this kind. The 
 E-oman official was under no obligation to learn the language of the 
 people whom he governed ; but the Christian missionary could not 
 hope for success unless he were able to converse freely with his 
 hearers. In this way the practical study of languages was promoted 
 by the spread of the gospel far more than it had ever been by the 
 growth of the Roman empire \ At the same time the feeling of 
 brotherhood inspired by Christianity surmounted the barriers of race 
 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 syTnpathetic intercourse kept up between churches 
 as far apart as those of Asia and Gaul. These communications could 
 scarcely have failed to clear up the error as to the origin of the 
 Galatian people, if any error existed. 
 
 But great reliance has been placed by those who advocate the The Gala- 
 Teutonic descent of the Galatians on the words with which Jerome spoke the 
 concludes the passage above quoted; 'Besides the Greek/ he says, g^ge-^+v, 
 
 * which is spoken throughout the East, the Galatians use as their *^® '^^^~ 
 ^ ° veri, 
 
 native tongue a language almost identical with that of the Treveri ; 
 
 for any corruption they may have introduced need not be taken into 
 
 account^.' The Treveri, it is affirmed, were Germans and spoke a 
 
 German tongue ^ 
 
 1 *The science of language,' says C}n:iBtia.n Chmch' {Science of Language , 
 
 Prof. Max Miiiler, 'owes more than ist series, p. 121). 
 
 its first impulse to Christianity. The ^ gee above, p. 12, note 2. Thecor- 
 
 pioneers of our science were those very rect form is Treveri, not Treviri: see 
 
 apostles who were commanded to go Gliick Die bei Ccesar vorhommenden 
 
 into all the world and preach the Gospel Keltischen Namen (1857), p. 155. 
 
 to every creature ; and their true sue- ^ Even Niebuhr, who maintained 
 
 cessors, the missionaries of the whole the Celtic origin of the Galatians, con- 
 
 16 — 2 
 
244 
 
 WEEE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 
 
 This question is not free from difficulty. The fact that German 
 is now spoken and has been spoken for many centuries in the district 
 corresponding to the ancient Treveri (Treves) is in itself a 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 in one passage says that 
 they, like the Nervii, eagerly affected a German origin, but he 
 expresses no opinion of his own ; and by distinguishing certain races 
 whom he mentions immediately after as ' unquestionably Germans,' 
 he evidently throws some doubt on the validity of their claims ^ 
 Elsewhere he speaks of them plainly as Belgians and Gauls ^. The 
 testimony of Caesar leans the same way, though here again there is 
 some indistinctness ; ' Being harassed by constant wars, owing to 
 their proximity to Germany, they did not differ much in their 
 warlike habits from the Germans^'; but he too expressly calls them 
 Gauls or Belgians elsewhere*. 
 
 sidered that German was the language 
 of the Treveri, and accounted for Je- 
 rome's statement by supposing him to 
 have heard some Germans who had 
 recently settled in Galatia {Vortrdge 
 uber Mom. Gesch. ii. p. i8i). This 
 view is opposed by Dr Latham {Ger- 
 mania of Tacitus, p. 98, comp. p. 
 cxlv), who upholds the testimony of 
 Jerome. In a later work (Prichard's 
 Celtic Nations, p. 106 sq.) he somewhat 
 impugns that testimony, suggesting 
 that Jerome was mistaken, and start- 
 ing the theory that the Galatians were 
 neither Gauls nor Germans, but Sla- 
 vonians. 
 
 1 Tac. Germ. 28 ' Treveri et Nervii 
 circa adfectationem Germanic£e origi- 
 nis ultro ambitiosi sunt, tamquam per 
 hanc gloriam sanguinis a similitudine 
 et inertia Gailorum separentur. Ipsam 
 Bheni ripam hand dubie Germanorum 
 populi colunt, Yangiones, Triboci, 
 Nemetes.' Strabo (iv. p. 194) says 
 TpTjovtpois 8^ (Turexets l^epovtot Kal tovto 
 VepfiavLKbv '46vos. If koL tovto here 
 refers to TpT^ouZjoois, which however is 
 very questionable (see Ukert 11. -i, p. 
 
 361, note 65), it would seem that 
 Strabo did not care to dispute their 
 claims. 
 
 ^ ^7ire.i.43,44,iii. 44,H'isf. iv. 71, 73. 
 
 3 Bell. Gall. viii. 25 ' Treveros quo- 
 rum civitas propter Germanise vicinita- 
 tem quotidianis exercitata beUis cultu 
 et feritate non multum a Germanis 
 differebat.' 
 
 ^ Bell. Gall. ii. 4, 24, v. 3, 45, vi. 
 2j 7, 8, vii. 63. So too Mela iii. 2 
 calls them 'clarissimiBelgarum.' Dion 
 Cassius in like manner, sxxix. 47, xl. 
 31, Ii. 20, separates them from his 
 KeXroi (i.e. Germans). See Diefenb. 
 Gelt. II. p. 10 sq. In some of these 
 passages they (as well as the Nervii) 
 are spoken of as Gauls, in others as 
 Belgians. This latter designation can- 
 not be regarded as conclusive, inas- 
 much as some writers have maintain- 
 ed that the Belgians were themselves 
 a German race. The evidence how- 
 ever is irresistibly strong in favour of 
 their Gallic parentage. The facts of 
 the case seem to be as follows 5 
 (i) The names of places and, what is 
 more important, of persons among the 
 
WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 
 
 245 
 
 And this is fully borne out by the less questionable evidence 
 
 supplied by the names of places and of persons among the Treveri, 
 
 which equally with other Belgian names betoken their Celtic origin. 
 
 The country of the Treveri indeed has long been occupied by but sub- 
 ^ . . . •! J.1 sequently 
 
 cL German-speaking population, but history is not silent as to the replaced 
 
 change. About the close of the third century a colony of Franks q^j.^^^^^ 
 settled in the waste lands of the Nervii and Treveri \ This was settlers, 
 somewhat more than half a century before Jerome visited the place. 
 The old Celtic language cannot have died out in so short a time. 
 Gradually it was displaced by the German of the Frankish immi- 
 grants, reinforced by fresh hordes of their fellow-countrymen ; but in 
 the cities especially, where the remnants of the old population were 
 gathered together, it would still continue to be the vulgar tongue ; 
 and Jerome's acquaintance with the inhabitants would naturally be 
 confined for the most part to the towns ^. 
 
 Belgffi are Celtic. Thus we find proper 
 names having well-known Celtic ter- 
 minations, and occaaionally even iden- 
 tical with the names of Gallic places 
 and heroes : see Zeuss Die Deutschen 
 etc. p. 189. This is true even of the 
 Treveri, e.g. Cingetorix (Bell Gall. 
 V. 3) compared with Yercingetorix [ih. 
 vii. 4) ; see Brandes, p. 84. (2) C^sar 
 relates that the maritime parts of 
 Britain were peopled by the Belgce 
 (v. 12, comp. ii. 4), and the British 
 on the sea-coasts were certainly Celts. 
 These facts seem decisive. On the 
 other hand (3) Csesar speaks of a 
 difference of language between the 
 three divisions of Gaul, the Belgas, the 
 Aquitani, and the Celtsa {'hi omnes 
 lingua institutis legibus inter ae diffe- 
 runt,' i. i), but this is most naturally 
 explained of various dialects of the 
 same language, as in. fact Strabo re- 
 presents it (who however excepts the 
 Aquitani), ofxoyXusrTovs 5' 0^ navras, 
 dW ivLovs fiifcpov TrapaWaTTOpras rais 
 7Xc<Jrrais, iv. p. 176. (4) Csesar relates 
 'plerosque Belgas esse ortos ab Ger- 
 manis ' (ii. 4, comp. Tac. Germ. 2) ; 
 but this very expression implies that 
 the staple of the population was Celtic, 
 and it becomes simply a question to 
 
 what extent they were leavened by 
 the infusion of a German element. 
 The statement of this question by 
 Brandes, p. 80 sq., seems very fair and 
 reasonable. 
 
 Of the two great branches of the 
 Celtic family philologers for the most 
 part assign the ancient Belgffi to the 
 Cymric (see Diefenbach n. p. 58 sq., 
 Thierry i. p. 153, 4me ed., Brandes 
 p. 85 sq.), and as the tradition seems 
 to connect the Galatians with the 
 Belg£e, we may, in the absence of any 
 direct evidence, look for their modern 
 affinities rather in the Welsh than in 
 the Irish or the Gael. A careful ex- 
 amination of local words and names 
 iu Galatia might even now clear up 
 some difficulties. 
 
 1 Eumen. Paneg. Constantio Gees. c. 
 II, 'Tuo, Masimiane Auguste, nutu 
 Nerviormn et Treverorum arva jaeentia 
 lastus postliminio restitutus et receptus 
 in leges Francus excoluit,' Paneg. Vet, 
 p. 207 Gruter; comp. ih. Paneg. Con- 
 stantino Aug. cc. 5, 6, Gruter p. 181, 
 See Brandes pp. 243, 267, Gibbon's De- 
 cline and Fall c. xiii; comp. ih. 0. xix. 
 
 2 Perrot [De la Disparition de la 
 JLangue Gauloise en Galatie, p. 180 sq. 
 in the Revue Celtique, no. 2, Aout 
 
246 
 
 WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 
 
 Evidence 
 afforded 
 by the 
 Galatian 
 language. 
 
 (i) Termi- 
 nations of 
 proper 
 names of 
 places 
 
 and per- 
 sons. 
 
 But the evidence for the Celtic parentage of the Galatians is not 
 confined to the testimony of ancient writers, however well informed. 
 The Galatian language itself is a witness free from all suspicion of 
 ignorance or perjury. And considering that a mere handful of 
 words, chiefly proper names, has alone survived, the evidence thence 
 derived is far fuller than might have been anticipated \ 
 
 (i) Several Galatian names of places and persons exhibit Celtic 
 terminations. These are as follows : 
 
 Of places : 
 
 -BRiGA. Eccobriga (Itin. Ant p. 203, ed. Wess., Tab. FeuL); 
 Ipetobrigen (Itin. Hieros. p. 574). It signifies 'a hill'; see Zeuss 
 Gt. Celt. p. 1 01, Gltick p. 126. 
 
 -lACUM. Rosologiacum (Itin. Ant. p. 143); Acitorihiacum (Tab. 
 Pent.)) Teutobodiaci (PKn. v. 42); Timoniacenses (? Plin. v. 42). 
 On this very common Celtic termination see Zeuss G. G. p. 772. 
 
 Of persons : 
 
 -GNATUS. Eposognatus (Polyb. xxii. 20): compare Critognatus, 
 Boduognatus (Caesar), and several Celtic names in inscriptions 3 
 (gnathj 'consuetus'; Zeuss G. G. p. 82, and compare ib. p. 19). 
 
 -MARUS. Combolomarus (Liv. xxxviii. 19); Chiomara (Polyb. 
 xxii. 21); compare Yirdumarus, Indutiomarus (Csesar), and other 
 names in Gallic inscriptions; (mar, 'magnus'; see Zeuss G. G. p. 19, 
 Gliick p. 77). 
 
 -ORius. Acichorius (Pans. x. 19. 4); Orestorius (Paus. x. 22. 2); 
 Oomontorius (Polyb. iv, 46. 3); see Zeuss G. C. p. 741. 
 
 -Rix. Adiatorix^ (Cic. Fam. ii. 12, Strabo xii. p. 534); Albiorix, 
 
 1870) seeks to invalidate Jerome's tes- 
 timony altogether, but his arguments 
 do not seem to me to be substantial. 
 He believes that Celtic language had 
 died out in Galatia itself some centu- 
 ries before ; and he therefore supposes 
 that this father thoughtlessly copies a 
 statement of some earlier writer, and 
 applies it to his own time, regardless 
 of the anachronism. Jerome's asser- 
 tion however has every appearance of 
 being founded on personal knowledge. 
 ^ The account which follows perhaps 
 
 needs some apology from one who has 
 no pretensions to Celtic scholarship and 
 may possibly betray great ignorance. 
 But the investigation could not well be 
 avoided, while the facts seemed to lie 
 very much on the surface. At all events 
 the general results will not, I think, be 
 invalidated by any inaccuracy or weak- 
 ness that there may be in the details. 
 
 ^ The first element in this word also 
 occurs in several Celtic names, Adia- 
 tunnus, Adiatumarus, etc., Gliick p. i. 
 
WEKE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 247 
 
 Ateporix (Boeckh Inscr. 4039); a very common Celtic termination, 
 e.g. Dumnorix, Ambiorix, Yercingetorix, etc.; ('rex/ 'princeps/ 
 Zeuss G. C. p. 25, where instances are given). 
 
 -TARUS, -torus; Bogodiatorus (Strabo xii. p. 567); Brogitanis 
 (Cic. Harusp. Besp. 28); Deiotarus (Cic. pro Reg. Deiot., comp. 
 Boeckh Inscr. 4072). See Zeuss 6^. G. p. 823. 
 
 (2) But it is not only in the terminations that the Celtic origin (?) Gala- 
 of the language is seen. It appears unmistakeably also in a. large names and 
 proportion of the Galatian names and words which have been pre- 
 served. 
 
 Strabo tells us (xii. p. c;67) that the gi^eat council of the Galatian Dryn^me- 
 ^ ^ ^ '' ^ ^ turn, 
 
 people met at a place called Dryn^metum (ApvvatfxeTov). 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 Yernemetis voluit vocitare vetustas, 
 
 Quod qixa^i /anuTTh ingens Gallica lingua refert^; 
 
 in another Yernemetum also in Britain [Ithi, Ant. p. 479); and in 
 
 several other names : comp. Diefenb. Celt i. p. 83, 11. p. 329, Zeuss 
 
 G. (7. pp. II, 186, Gltick p. 75. The first syllable of Drynsemetum 
 
 again represents the Celtic (Welsh) derw^ 'quercus,' whence Druid 
 
 {^ deTwydd''\ Derwent, etc.: see Zeuss G. C. pp. 8, 16, and Diefenb. 
 
 I. p. 160. Thus * Drynsemetum ' is the 'oak-shrine' or the 'grove 
 
 temple/ recalling a characteristic feature of the old Celtic worship 
 
 which prevailed in Britain and Gaul. 
 
 Again the names of several of the Galatian chieftains betray Galatian 
 -._._. . . chieftains, 
 
 their Celtic extraction. The leader of the expedition against Greece, 
 
 of which the Galatian immigration was an ofishoot, bears the same 
 
 name with the Gaulish captain who sacked Rome ; he too, like his 
 
 predecessor, is a Brennus — no proper name but a good Celtic word 
 
 signifying a * prince' or 'chieftain' (Thierry Hist, des Gaul. i. p. 160, 
 
 Zeuss G. C. p. loi). A second name assigned to this same king was 
 
 ^ Venant. Fortun. i. 9. 
 
248 
 
 WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OK TEUTONS? 
 
 and 
 others. 
 
 Galatiaii 
 tribes. 
 
 Prausus, 'the terrible' (Strab. iv. p. 187; see Thierry i. p. 218, and 
 especially Diefenb, 11. p. 252). Again, another commander in this 
 expedition is called Cerethrius, 'the famous, the glorious' (Pausan. 
 X. 19. 4; certli, 'celebrated,' certhrwyz^ 'glory'; Thierry i, p. 219, 
 from Owen's Welsh Diet.). Bolgius again (Pausan. ih.), also written 
 Belgius (Justin, xxiv. 5 ), presents the same Celtic root which appears 
 in 'Belgse' (comp. Diefenb. i. p. 200, 11. pp. 61 sq., 267). The 
 name of Acichorixjs too (Pausan. 1. c.) or Cichorius (Diod. xxii. 
 fragm.), who is associated with Brennus in the command, taken as 
 a Celtic word, describes his office (cyc^wiawr^ ' colleague,' Thierry 
 I. p. 225). 
 
 Among later Galatian names of persons we meet with G^zato- 
 DIASTUS (Boeckh Inscr. 4039), doubtless to be connected with the 
 'Gesatse' of whom we read among the western Gauls, and whose 
 name, signifying ' warriors,' is derived from the Gallic word gesum, 
 'a spear' (Cses. £. G. iii. 4; comp. Serv. in Yirg. jEn, viii, 662, 
 Diefenb. i. p. 126); and Brogoris (Boeckh Inscr. 4118), the root of 
 which appears in Brogitarus, AUobroges, etc.; Zeuss G. G, p. 106; 
 Gliick p, 27. Again the name Bituitus, Bitovitus, or Bitoetus, 
 seems to occur both in Asiatic (Appian Mithr. iii) and in Euro- 
 pean Gaul (ib. Gelt. 12, Liv. Epit. Ixi); 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 God. Inscr. Rom. Rhen. no. 440). 
 
 Again, of the three tribes which composed the Galatian people 
 two at least proclaim their Celtic descent in their names. The 
 TECTOSAGiE 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 sq.). Similarly both the component parts of Tolistobogii, 
 the name of the second of these tribes, claim a Celtic affinity. The 
 word is variously written, but its original Celtic form would seem to 
 
WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? ^49 
 
 be represented by Tolosatobogii. Tolosa was a common Gallic name 
 for places (Diefenb. ii. p. 339), and has survived both in the French 
 Toulouse and in the Spanish Tolosa. It is connected moreover with 
 the name and history of the other Galatian tribe already discussed. 
 * Tolosa Tectosagum' is especially mentioned (Mela ii. 5; comp. Plin. 
 iii. 5); and according to the ancient legend a portion of the Tecto- 
 sages returning from the Delphic expedition 'to their ancient country 
 Tolosa/ and being afflicted by a pestilence, bethought them of 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. 
 Exc. I, p. 133, ed. L. Dind.). The riddle of this legend I shall not 
 attempt to read; I simply quote it to show the connexion of the Gallic 
 Tolosa with the Asiatic settlement. Indeed this name occurs in 
 Galatia itself under the form Tolosocorium {Tab, Peut.)^ and ToAaora 
 ■}(Oipiov (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. i. p. 256, Zeuss G. C. p. 28), but these are obscure and 
 far from convincing ^ 
 
 Of Galatian words besides proper names very few indeed have Other 
 been recorded. The explanations given of these may be found in -^ords. 
 Diefenbach (see his references 11. p. 251). Among others which are 
 less patent, one is certainly a good Celtic word /ActpKa, mentioned 
 
 1 Diefenbach, Celt. 11. p. 248, quotes sent some variations, there seems to be 
 
 Solinus (c. 42) as mentioning a Galatian no authority for Ambiani. 
 
 tribe * Ambiani/ this being the ancient I notice also that the names of seve- 
 
 Gaulish name for the modern 'Amiens.* ral Galatian places begin -with Reg-, as 
 
 But there seems to be an accidental Reganagalla, Regemnezus, Regemau- 
 
 error here. In the most recent and recimn, Regetmoeata, Regomori; see 
 
 most critical edition of Solinus (c. 41, Wemsdorff pp. 2.^,2, 3. This may be 
 
 ed. Mommsen, 1864) the word is * Am- the same word which appears in many 
 
 bitoti'; and in the corresponding pas- GalUc names, as Rigodulum, Rigoma- 
 
 sage of Pliny (v. 42), from which Soli- gus, etc.; see Diefenbach i. p. 53, n. 
 
 nus borrowed, Sillig reads 'Ambitouti.' p. 331, Meuss G. G. p. 25. 
 Though the mss in both authors pre- 
 
^SO WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 
 
 byPausanias (x. 19) as the name for a horse among the Gauls of the 
 Delphic expedition (Diefenb. i. p. 67). 
 Result. In gathering together the evidence in favour of the Celtic extrac- 
 
 tion of the Galatians as afforded by their language I have omitted 
 many questionable affinities ; and even of those which are given some 
 perhaps will appear uncertain. But taken as a whole the evidence, 
 if I mistake not, places the result beyond a doubt; and the few 
 
 Supposed German etymologies real or imagined, which have been alleged on 
 
 German 
 
 affinities, 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 
 
 how to be names might perhaps have been accepted. But with the vast mass 
 explained. « . , 
 
 or evidence on the other side, it becomes a question whether some 
 
 more satisfactory account cannot be given of them. Thus Lutarius 
 
 (or Luturius) is said to be the same name with the Frankish Lothaire 
 
 and the Saxon Luther^ and therefore Teutonic (see Graff Althochd. 
 
 Sprachsch. iv. p. 555) ; but among the Gallic chieftains one Lucterius 
 
 is mentioned (Cassar B. G. vii. etc.), and the identity of the names 
 
 Lutarius and Lucterius is at least not improbable (Diefenb. 11. p. 253; 
 
 Zeuss, (x. 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, i. see Diefenb. 11. p, 254), and 
 
 there seems to be no reason for assigning a Teutonic parentage to 
 
 this word. In the name Teutobodiaci indeed the first component 
 
 seems very plainly to mean ' German ' : but, even granting that this 
 
 is not one of those very specious but very deceptive affinities which 
 
 are the snares of comparative philology, the word need not imply 
 
 that the tribe itself was Teutonic. If the second component is 
 
 rightly taken to denote victory ('buad,' 'buaid,' comp. Boadicea, 
 
 Bodiocasses, Bodiontici, Bodicus, etc.; see Zeusa G. C. p. 27, GlUck 
 
WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? 2^1 
 
 p. 53), then the Teutobodiaci were not necessarily Teutons any more 
 
 than Thessalonica was Thessalian. The remaining word Germano- 
 
 polis seems in its very form to betray its later origin^ or at all events 
 
 to mark some exceptional occupants other than the main population 
 
 of the country. 
 
 It is quite possible indeed, as Thierry supposes (i. p. 225), that A possible 
 
 German 
 swept away with the hordes of Gaulish invaders a small body of element. 
 
 Germans also settled in Asia Minor, and this may be the true 
 
 account of the names Lutarius and Teutobodiaci. We know that of 
 
 all the Gauls the Belgians were most mixed up with the Germans^ 
 
 and it is with the Belgian members of the Celtic family especially 
 
 that the Gauls of the Asiatic settlement seem to be connected. 
 
 But the evidence is scarcely strong enough to bear the strain of the 
 
 German theory, even when pared down to these very meagre 
 
 dimensions. Beyond this we cannot go without doing violence to 
 
 history. 
 
 There is every reason then for believing that the Galatian Conclu- 
 
 settlers were genuine Celts, and of the two main subdivisions 
 
 into which modern philologers have divided the Celtic race, they 
 
 seem rather to have belonged to the Cymric, of which the Welsh are 
 
 the living representatives. Thus in the age when St Paul preached, 
 
 a native of Galatia spoke a language essentially the same with that 
 
 which was current in the southern part of Britain. And if — to 
 
 indulge a passing fancy — we picture to ourselves one of his Asiatic 
 
 converts visiting the far West to barter the hair cloths of his native 
 
 country for the useful metal which was the special product of this 
 
 island, we can imagine that finding a medium of communication in a 
 
 common language he may have sown the first seeds of the Gospel and 
 
 laid the foundations of the earliest Church in Britain. 
 
II. 
 
 Two rival 
 theoriea. 
 
 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORDi. 
 
 'Y'N the early ages of the Church two conflicting opinions were held 
 -^ regarding the relationship of those who in the Gospels and Apo- 
 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'sBnfi/e2'uj(?(?7zerIJrw- 
 der Jesu in unserem Kanon (1775), in 
 which the Helvidian hypothesis is put 
 forward. Since then it has formed the 
 subject of numberless monographs, dis- 
 sertations, and incidental comments. 
 The most important later works, with 
 which I am acquainted, are those of 
 Blom, DeroTs d5eX^ots etraTs aSeX- 
 <pals Tov 'Kvpiov (Leydeu, 1839); of 
 Schaf, Das Verhaltniss des Jakohus Bru- 
 ders des Herm zu Jakohus Alphdi (Ber- 
 lin, 1842) ; and of Mill, The accounts of 
 our Lord's Brethren in the New Testa- 
 ment vindicated etc. (Cambridge, 1843). 
 The two former adopt the Helvidian 
 view ; the last is written in support of 
 St Jerome's hypothesis. Blom gives 
 the most satisfactory statement which 
 I have seen of the patristic authorities, 
 and Schaf discusses the Scriptural argu- 
 ments most carefully. I am also largely 
 indebted to the ability and learning of 
 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 
 Sohne Zeheddi Vettern des Heim (1840, 
 p. 648), and Ueher die BrUder des Herm, 
 etc. (1842, p. 71). In preparing for 
 the second 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 
 AmsLndjRecherches surVEpitredeJude, 
 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 ; (i) 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 rk fiio-a in literature 
 and theology, as well as in politics, uV 
 diJL<poTipuiv TJ on ov ^vpijyojpi^ovTO tj 
 (jyQovi^ TOV irepie'lvaL diGrpdelpoVTO. I Sup- 
 pose it was because he considered it idle 
 to discussa 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. 
 
THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD, 253 
 
 these brethren were in fact sons o£ Joseph by a former wife, before 
 he espoused the Yirgin; and that they are therefore called the 
 Lord's brethren only in the same way in which Joseph is called His 
 father, having really no claim to this title but being so designated 
 by an exceptional use of the term adapted to the exceptional fact of 
 the miraculous incarnation. On the other hand certain persons 
 argued that the obvious meaning of the term was the correct 
 meaning, and that these brethren were the Lord's brethren as truly 
 as Mary was the Lord's mother, being her sons by her husband 
 Joseph. The former of these views was held by the vast majority of 
 orthodox believers and by not a few heretics; the latter was the 
 opinion of a father of the Church here and there to whom it occurred 
 as the natural inference from the language of Scripture, as Tertullian 
 for instance, and of certain sects and individuals who set themselves 
 against the incipient worship of the Virgin or the one-sided as- 
 ceticism of the day, and to whom therefore it was a very serviceable 
 weapon of controversy. 
 
 Such was the state of opinion, when towards the close of the A third 
 fourth century Jerome struck out a novel hypothesis. One Helvi- ea°by"^ 
 dius, who lived in Rome, had attacked the prevailing view of the "^^^o^^- 
 superiority of virgin over married life, and in doing so had laid 
 great stress on the example of the Lord's mother who had borne 
 children to her husband. In or about the year 383 Jerome, then 
 a young man, at the instigation of *the brethren' wrote a treatise in 
 reply to Helvidius, in which he put forward his own view\ He 
 maintained that the Lord's brethren were His cousins after the flesh, 
 being sons of Mary the wife of Alphseus and sister of the Virgin. 
 Thus, as he boasted, he asserted the virginity not of Mary only but 
 of Joseph also. 
 
 These three accounts are all of sufficient importance either from Names 
 their real merits or from their wide popularity to deserve con- to^th^^^ 
 sideration, and I shall therefore investigate their several claims. As *^^- 
 it will be convenient to have some short mode of designation, I shall 
 
 1 Adv, Helvidium de Perpetua Virginitate B, Marice, ii. p. 206 (ed. ValL). 
 Comp. Comvient. ad Gal. i. ip. 
 
254 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 
 
 call them respectively the Epipham,ian^ the ffelvidicm, 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 
 
 Arbitrary built upon arbitrary assumptions or improbable combinations of 
 
 assiimp- 
 
 tions known facts, and from their artificial character have failed to secure 
 
 any wide acceptance. It is assumed for instance, that two persons 
 of the same name, James the son of Alphseus and James the Lord's 
 brother, were leading members of the Church of Jerusalem, though 
 history points to one only^; or that James the Lord's brother men- 
 tioned in St Paul's Epistles is not the same James whose name 
 occurs among the Lord's brethren in the Gospels, the relationship 
 intended by the term ''brother' being different in the two cases ^; or 
 that * brethren' stands for * foster-brethren,' Joseph having under- 
 taken the charge of his brother Clopas' children after their father's 
 death ^; or that the Lord's brethren had a double parentage, a legal 
 as well as an actual father, Joseph having raised seed to his deceased 
 brother Clopas by his widow according to the levirate law*; or 
 lastly, that the cousins of Jesus were rewarded with the title of 
 His brethren, because they were His steadfast disciples, while His 
 own brothers opposed Him^. 
 to "be set All such assumptions it will be necessary to set aside. In them- 
 
 selves indeed they can neither be proved nor disproved. But it is 
 safer to aim at the most probable deduction from known facts than 
 to build up a theory on an imaginary foundation. And, where 
 the question is so intricate in itself, there is little temptation to 
 
 ^ e. g. Wieseler TJeher die Briider the son of Alphteus the successor of the 
 
 etc., I.e., p. 80 sq. According to this Lord's brother. 
 
 writertheJamesof Gal. ii. 9andof the ^ The writers mentioned in Schaf, 
 
 Acts is the son of Alphaeus, not the p. 11. 
 
 Lord's brother, and therefore different * Lange in Herzog's Real-Encycl. in 
 
 from the James of i. 19. See his notes the article * Jakobua im N.T.' 
 on Gal. i. 19, ii. 9. An ancient writer, ^ Theophylact; see below, p. 290. 
 
 the pseudo-Dorotheus (see below, p. '^ Eenan Vie de J4sus p. 24. But in 
 
 286, note), had represented two of the Saint Paul p. 285 he inclines to the 
 
 name as bishops of Jerusalem, making Epiphanian view. 
 
THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 255 
 
 introduce fresh difiB.culties by giving way to the license of con- 
 jecture. 
 
 To confine ourselves then to the three accounts which have the Relation of 
 
 the three 
 greatest claim to a hearing. It will be seen that the hypothesis accounts. 
 
 which I have called the Epiphanian holds a middle place between 
 the remaining two. With the Helvidian it assigns an intelligible 
 sense to the term ' brethren ' : with the Hieronymian it preserves 
 the perpetual virginity of the Lord's mother. Whether or not, while 
 uniting in itself the features which have recommended each of these 
 to acceptance, it unites also their difficulties, will be considered in 
 the sequel. 
 
 From a critical point of view however, apart from their bearing 
 on Christian doctrine and feeling, the Helvidian and Epiphanian 
 theories hang very closely together, while the Hieronymian stands 
 apart. As well on account of this isolation, as also from the fact 
 which I have hitherto assumed but which I shall endeavour to prove 
 hereafter, that it was the latest born of the three, it will be con- 
 venient to consider the last-mentioned theory first. 
 
 St Jerome then states his view in the treatise against Helvidius Jerome's 
 
 statement, 
 somewhat as follows : 
 
 The list of the Twelve Apostles contains two of the name of The son of 
 James, the son of Zebedee and the son of Alphseus. But elsewhere the Lord's 
 we read of a James the Lord's brother. What account are we to ^° ^^* 
 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 1 And how moreover can we account for St Paul's lansruaere 
 ' Other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother ' 
 (Gal. i. 19) ^ Clearly therefore James the son of Alphseus and James 
 the Lord's brother are the same person. 
 
 And the Gospel narrative explains this identity. Among the the Vir- 
 Lord's brethren occur the names of James and Joseph. Now it is beinp^his^'^ 
 stated elsewhere that Mary the mother of James the less and of ™°*^^^* 
 
256 
 
 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 
 
 Meaning 
 of the term 
 Brethren. 
 
 Jerome's 
 theory 
 supple- 
 mented. 
 
 Alphseus 
 the same 
 with Clo- 
 pas. 
 
 Joseph (or Joses) was present at the crucifixion (Matt, xxvii. 56, 
 Mark xv. 40). This Mary therefore must have been the wife of 
 Alpliseus, 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. 
 
 But, if His cousin, how is he called His brother 1 The following 
 is the explanation. The term 'brethren' is used in four different 
 senses in Holy Scripture : it denotes either (i) actual brotherhood 
 or (2) common nationality, or (3) kinsmanship, or (4) friendship 
 and sympathy. These different senses St Jerome expresses by the 
 four words * natura, gente, cognatione, affectu.' In the case of the 
 Lord's brethren the third of these senses is to be adopted : brother- 
 hood here denotes mere relationship, just as Abraham calls his 
 nephew Lot brother (Gen. xiii. 8), and as Laban uses the same term 
 of Jacob his sister's son (Gen. xxix. 15). 
 
 So far St Jerome, who started the theory. But, as worked out 
 by other writers and as generally stated, it involves two particulars 
 besides. 
 
 (i) The identity of Alphceus and Clopas. These two words, 
 it is said, are different renderings of the same Aramaic name '•D^n 
 or 1 * ^V ty (Chalphai), the form Clopas being pecuHar to St John, 
 the more completely grecized Alphseus taking its place in the other 
 Evangelists. The Aramaic guttural Chethj 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 Clopa3 (or Cleophse, as he writes it) : it may be, he suggests, 
 
 1 This illustration is taken from Mill, p. 236. 
 
THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 257 
 
 after her father or from her family surname ('gentilitate familise') 
 
 or for some other reason \ In his treatise on Hebrew names too 
 
 he gives an account of the word Alphseus which is scarcely consistent 
 
 with this identity ^ Neither have I found any traces of it in any of 
 
 his other works, though he refers several times to the subject. In 
 
 Augustine again, who adopts Jerome's hypothesis and his manner 
 
 of stating it, it does not anywhere appear, so far as I know. It 
 
 occurs first, I believe, in Chrysostom who incidentally speaks of 
 
 James the Lord's brother as ' son of Clopas,' and after him in Theo- 
 
 doret who is more explicit (both on Gal. i. 19)®. To a Syrian Greek, 
 
 who, even if he were unable to read the Peshito version, must at all 
 
 events have known that Chalphai was the Aramaean rendering or 
 
 rather the Aramsean original of 'AX^atos, it might not unnaturally 
 
 occur to graft this identification on the original theory of Jerome. 
 
 (ii) The identity of Judas the Apostle cmd Judas the hordes Jude the 
 
 Lord's bro- 
 hrother. In St Luke's catalogues of the Twelve (Luke vL 16, Acts ther one 
 
 i. 13) the name * Judas of James' ('WSa? 'laKoj^ov) occurs. Now ij^Q^yg 
 we find a Judas also among the four brethren of the Lord (Matt, 
 xiii. 55, Mark vi. 3) ; and the writer of the epistle, who was doubt- 
 less the Judas last mentioned, styles himself ' the brother of James * 
 (Jude i). This coincidence suggests that the ellipsis in 'Judas of 
 James ' should be supplied by brother as in the English version, 
 not by son which would be the more obvious word. Thus Judas 
 the Lord's brother, like James, is made one of the Twelve. I do not 
 know when the Hieronymian theory received this fresh accession, 
 but, though the gain is considerable in apparent strength at least, 
 it does not appear, so far as I have noticed, to have occurred to 
 Jerome himself. 
 
 And some have gone a step farther. We find not only a James and per- 
 haps Si- 
 and a Judas among the Lord's brethren, but also a Symeon or mon also. 
 
 ^ adv. Helvid. § 15, 11. p. 219. the derivation with a Cket\ which is 
 
 2 'Alphceus, fugitivus [C|7n ; the required in order to identify • Alphseus ' 
 
 Greek of Origen was doubtless ot'xVe- with 'Clopas.' Indeed, as he incor- 
 
 vos, see p. 626], sed melius millesimus rectly wrote Cleopas (or Cleophas) for 
 
 [^?K] vel doctus [^?X]'; in. p. 89: Clopas with the Latin version, this 
 
 and again, 'Alphceiis, millesimus, sive identification was not likely to occur 
 
 super OS [HD^V?] ab ore non ab osse.' to him. 
 
 ib. p. 98. Thus he deliberately rejects ^ See below, p. 289. 
 
 GAL. 17 
 
2S8 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 
 
 Simon. "Now it is remarkable that these three names occur together 
 in St Luke's list of the Twelve: James (the son) of Alphseus, 
 Simon called Zelotes, and Judas (the brother) of James. In the 
 lists of the other Evangelists too these three persons are kept 
 together, though the order is different and Judas appears under 
 another name, Lebbseus or Thaddseus. Can this have been a mere 
 accident ? Would the name of a stranger have been inserted by St 
 Luke between two brothers'? Is it not therefore highly probable 
 that this Simon also was one of the Lord's brethren^ And thus 
 three out of the four are included among the Twelve \ 
 
 Without these additions the theory is incomplete ; and indeed 
 
 they have been so generally regarded as part of it, that advocates and 
 
 opponents alike have forgotten or overlooked the fact that Jerome 
 
 himself nowhere advances them. I shall then consider the theory 
 
 as involving these two points ; for indeed it would never have won 
 
 its way to such general acceptance, unless presented in this complete 
 
 form, where its chief recommendation is that it combines a great 
 
 variety of facts and brings out many striking coincidences. 
 
 Jerome But before criticizing the theory itself, let me prepare the way 
 
 "^^^ by divesting it of all fictitious advantages and placing it in its true 
 
 light. The two points to which attention may be directed, as having 
 
 been generally overlooked, are these : 
 
 (i) claims (i) Jerome clai/ms no traditional support for his theory. This 
 
 tional ^s ^ remarkable feature in his treatise against Helvidius. He 
 
 sanction argues the question solely on critical and theological grounds. His 
 
 theory, opponent had claimed the sanction of two older writers, TertuUian 
 
 and Victoriaus of Pettaw. Jerome in reply is obliged to concede 
 
 him Tertullian, whose authority he invalidates as 'not a member 
 
 of the Church,' but denies him Yictorinus. Can it be doubted that 
 
 if he could have produced any names on his own side he would 
 
 only too gladly have done so ? When for instance he is maintaining 
 
 ^ It is found in Sophronius (?), who 958. Compare the pseudo-Hippolytus 
 
 however confuses him with Jude; 'Si- (i. App. p. 30, ed. Fabric). Perhaps 
 
 mon CanansBus cognomento Judaa, fra- the earliest genuine writing in which it 
 
 ter Jacobi episcopi, qui et successit illi occurs is Isidor, Hispal. de Vit. et Ob. 
 
 in episcopatum etc.'; Hieron. O2?. ii.p. Sanct. c. 81. See Mill p. 248. 
 
THE BRETHREN OE THE LORD. 259 
 
 the virginity of the Lord's mother, a feature possessed by his theory 
 in common with the Epiphanian, he is at no loss for authorities : 
 Ignatius, Polycarp, Iren£eus, Justin, and many other * eloquent 
 apostolic men ' occur to him at once^ . But in support of his own 
 account of the relationship he cannot, or at least does not, name 
 a single writer; he simply offers it as a critical deduction from the 
 statements of Scripture^. Again in his later writings, when he 
 refers to the subject, his tone is the same : * Some suppose them to 
 have been sons of Joseph : it is my opinion, / have maintained in 
 my book against Helvidius, that they were the children of Mary 
 the Virgin's sister^.' And the whole tenor of patristic evidence, 
 as I shall hope to show, is in accordance with this tone. No de- 
 cisive instance can be produced of a writer holding Jerome's view, 
 before it was propounded by Jerome himself. 
 
 (2) Jerome does not hold his theory staunchly cmd consistently, (ii) and 
 The references to the subject in his works taken in chronological told it con- 
 order will speak for themselves. The theory is first propounded, s^s*®^W» 
 as we saw, in the treatise against Helvidius written about 383, 
 when he was a young man. Even here his main point is the 
 perpetual virginity of the Lord's mother, to which his own special 
 solution is quite subordinate : he speaks of himself as not caring to 
 fight hard ('contentiosum funem non traho') for the identity of 
 Mary of Cleophas with Mary the mother of James and Joses, though 
 this is the pivot of his theory. And, as time advances, he seems 
 to hold to his hypothesis more and more loosely. In his com- 
 mentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (i. 19) written about 387 
 he speaks very vaguely : he remembers, he says, having when at 
 Rome written a treatise on the subject, with which such as it is 
 he ought to be satisfied ('qualiacunque sunt ilia quae scripsimus 
 his contenti esse debemus ') ; after which he goes on inconsistently 
 
 ^ See however below, p. 278, note i. tern mihi videtur Marise sororis matris 
 
 2 He sets aside the appeal to autho- Domini filius'; Comment, in Matth. 
 
 rity thus: 'Vermn nugas terimus, et xii. 49 (vii. p. 86) 'Quidam, fratres 
 
 fonte veritatis omisso opinionum rivu- Domini de alia uxore Joseph filios 
 
 los consectamur, ' adv. Helvid. 17. suspicantur... nos autem, sicut in libro 
 
 3 de Vir. Illustr, 2 'ut nonnulH ex- quern contra Helvidimn scripsimus 
 istimant, Joseph ex alia uxore; ut au- continetur etc' 
 
 17 — 2 
 
26o THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 
 
 but wavers enough, ' Suffice it now to say that James was called the Lord's 
 in his view, 
 
 brother on account of his high character, his incomparable faith, 
 
 and extraordinary wisdom : the other Apostles also are called 
 
 brothers (John xx. 17 ; comp. Ps. xxii. 22), but he preeminently so, 
 
 to whom the Lord at His departure had committed the sons of His 
 
 mother (i.e. the members of the Church of Jerusalem)'; with more 
 
 to the same effect : and he concludes by showing that the term 
 
 Apostle, so far from being confined to the Twelve, has a very wide 
 
 use, adding that it was ' a monstrous error to identify this James 
 
 with the Apostle the brother of John^' In his Catalogue of 
 
 Illustrious Men (a.d. 392) and in his Commentary on St Matthew 
 
 (a.d. 398) he adheres to his earlier opinion, referring in the passages 
 
 already quoted^ to his treatise against Helvidius, and taunting 
 
 those who considered the Lord's brethren to be the sons of Joseph 
 
 by a former wife with * following the ravings of the apocryphal 
 
 writings and inventing a wretched creature (mulierculam) Melcha 
 
 and seems or Escha by name^.' Yet after all in a still later work, the Epistle 
 
 at length 
 
 to aban- to Hedibia (about 406 or 407), enumerating the Maries of the 
 
 Gospels he mentions Mary of Cleophas the maternal aunt of the 
 
 Lord and Mary the mother of James and Joses as distinct persons, 
 
 adding * although others contend that the mother of James and Joses 
 
 ^ *Qiiod autem exceptis duodeoim ^ 'gequentes deliramenta apocry- 
 
 quidamvocenturapostoli,Lllud in causa phorum et quandam Meleham vel Es- 
 
 est, omnes qui Dominmn viderant et chammulierculamconfingentes.'(7omm. 
 
 eum postea praedicabant fuisse aposto- in Matth. 1. u. * Nemo non videt,* 
 
 los appellatos'; and then after giving says Blom, p. 116, 'illud nomen HCi'X 
 
 instances (among others x Cor. xv. 7) [wife, woman] esse mere fictitium, nee 
 
 he adds, ' IFnde vehementer erravit qui minus posterius [prius] HD^D [queen].* 
 
 arbitratus est Jacobmn hunc de evange- (Comp. Julius Africanus in Bouth*s Bel, 
 
 Uoesseapostolumfratrem Johannis;... Sacr. 11. p. 233, 339.) If so, the work 
 
 hie autem Jacobus episcopus Hierosoly- must have been the production of some 
 
 morum primus fuit cognomento Justus Jewish Christian. But Escha is not a 
 
 etc' (vii. p. 396). These are just the very exact representation of HEi'X (I- 
 
 arguments which would be brought shah). On the other hand, making al- 
 
 by one maintaining the Epiphanian ac- lowance for the uncertain vocalisation 
 
 count. Altogether Jerome's language of the Hebrew, the two daughters of 
 
 here is that of a man who has commit- Haran (Gen. xi. 29) bear identically the 
 
 ted himself to a theory of which he has same names : ' the father of Milcah (lxx 
 
 misgivings, and yet from which he is MeX^a) and the father of Iscah (^^D^ 
 
 not bold enough to break loose. lxx 'leo-xa).' Doubtless these names 
 
 2 See p. 258, note 3. were borrowed thence. 
 
THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 26 1 
 
 was His aunt\' Yet this identification, of which he here speaks 
 with such indifference, was the keystone of his own theory. Can 
 it be that by his long residence in Bethlehem, having the Pales- 
 tinian tradition brought more prominently before him, he first re- 
 laxed 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 Objections 
 theory exposes, when examined, many vulnerable parts. rorae's 
 
 (i) The instances alleged notwithstanding, the sense thus as- * ®25^' „ 
 signed to ' brethren ' seems to be unsupported by biblical usage. In the word 
 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 Lord's 
 of the Twelve. This is hardly reconcileable with the place they hold J'^^^hr^^ 
 in the Evangelical narratives, where they appear sometimes as dis- Twelve, 
 tinct from, sometimes as antagonistic to the Twelve. Only a short 
 time before the crucifixion they are disbelievers in the Lord's divine 
 mission (John vii. 5). Is it likely that St John would have made 
 this unqualified statement, if it were true of one only or at most 
 of two out of the four? Jerome sees the difficulty and meets it 
 by saying that James was ' not one of those that disbelieved.' But 
 what if Jude and Simon also belong to the Twelve 1 After the 
 Lord's Ascension, it is true, His brethren appear in company with 
 1 Epist. cxx, 1. p. 836. Comp. Tischendorf s Evang. Apocr. p. 104. 
 
262 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 
 
 the Apostles, and apparently by this time their unbelief has been 
 converted into faith. Yet even on this later occasion, though with 
 the Twelve, they are distinguished from the Twelve ; for the latter 
 are described as assembling in prayer * with the women and Mary 
 the mother of Jesus and [with] His brethren' (Acts L 14). 
 especially And scarcely less consistent is this theory with what we know of 
 
 Jude. James and Jude in particular. James, as the resident bishop or pre- 
 
 siding elder of the mother Church, held a position hardly compatible 
 with the world-wide duties which devolved on the Twelve. It was 
 the essential feature of his office that he should be stationary ; of 
 theirs, that they should move about from place to place. If on the 
 other hand he appears sometimes to be called an Apostle (though 
 not one of the passages alleged is free from ambiguity), this term is 
 by no means confined to the Twelve and might therefore be applied 
 to him in its wider sense, as it is to Barnabas \ Again, Jude on his 
 part seems to disclaim the title of an Apostle (ver. 1 7) ; 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- 
 mth Jo- P^-'^^ ^^ connexion with Joseph His reputed father and Mary His 
 seph and jj^other, never once with Mary of Clopas (the assumed wife of Al- 
 
 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. 
 
 James, as if it implied two only, and even those who impugn his 
 
 theory seem generally to acquiesce in his rendering. But the 
 Greek gives not * James the Less ' but ' James the little ' (o /aikjoos). 
 Is it not most natural then to explain this epithet of his height ^^ 
 ' There were many of the name of James,' says Hegesippus,. and the 
 short stature of one of these might well serve as a distinguishing 
 mark. This interpretation at all events must be regarded as more 
 probable than explaining it either of his comparative youth or of 
 * inferior rank and influence. It will be remembered that there 
 
 1 See above, p. 95. ring to stature, as appears from Plato, 
 
 2 As in Xen. Mem. i. 4. 2 'Aptard- Symp. 173 b; and in Arist. Ran. 708 
 d7)fiov TOP fXLKpov iTTiKoKov/jiepov, refer- KXayivijs 6 fj^tKpos, 
 
THE BRETHEEN OF THE LORD. 263 
 
 is no Scriptural or early sanction for speaking of the son of Zebedee 
 
 as 'James the Great.' 
 
 (5) The manner in which Jude is mentioned in the lists of the (5) The 
 
 mention of 
 Twelve is on this hypothesis full of perplexities. In the first place Judeinthe 
 
 it is necessary to translate 'laKojjSov not ' the son ' but ' the brother Twelve. 
 of James,' though the former is the obvious rendering and is sup- 
 ported by two of the earliest versions, the Peshito Syriac and the 
 Thebaic, while two others, the Old Latin and Memphitic, leave the 
 ellipsis unsupplied and thus preserve the ambiguity of the original. 
 But again, if Judas were the brother of James, would not the 
 Evangelist's words have run more naturally, ' James the son of Al- 
 phseus and Jude his brother,' or 'James and Jude the sons of 
 Alphseus,' as in the case of the other pairs of brothers 1 Then again, 
 if Simon Zelotes is not a brother of James, why is he inserted by St 
 Luke between the two 1 If he also is a brother, why is the designa- 
 tion of brotherhood (la/cw^ou) attached to the name of Judas only 1 
 
 Moreover in the different lists of the three Evangelists the 
 Apostle in question is designated in three different ways. In St 
 Matthew (x. 3) he is called Lebbseus (at least according to a well- 
 supported 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 Iscariot^' Is 
 
 ^ The perplexity is increased by seems no reason for doubting this very 
 the Curetonian Syriac, which for 'lov~ early tradition that he also was a Jude. 
 
 8as oirx 'laKapiiirris reads K'.IOciX. ^* *^e ^^^^ *i^« i* ^ highly impro- 
 
 . ^ bable that St John should have called 
 
 r^iWar^OT, 'Judas Thomas,' i.e. ^-^q g^me Apostle elsewhere Thomas 
 
 'Judas the Twin.' It seems therefore (Joh. xi. 16, xiv. 5, sx. 24 etc.) and here 
 
 that the translator took the person in- Judas, and we may therefore conclude 
 
 tended by St John to be not the Judas that he is speaking of two different per- 
 
 Jacohi in the list of the Twelve, but sons. The name of the other brother 
 
 the Thomas Didymus, for Thomas was is supplied in Clem. Horn. ii. i Trpoah-i 
 
 commonly called Judas in the Syrian S^ Gw/ias koX ''EiXU^epos ol 5i8vfioL. 
 Church; e.g. Euseb. H. £. i. 13 'loiiSas The Thebaic version again for o^x 
 
 6 Kai Qia/ms, and Acta Thorns i 'Ioi53^ 6 'IffKaptbjnjs substitutes 6 Kapavirijs. 
 
 Qwpjq. Ti} KoL AidvfMp {ed. Tisch. p. 190); Similarly in Matth. x. 3 for QaSdacos 
 
 see Assemani Bihl. Orient. ±. pp. 100, some of the most important mss of the 
 
 318, Cureton's Syriac Gospels p. li, Old Latin have * Judas Zelotes'; and in 
 
 Anc. Syr. Documents p. 33. As the Canon of Gelasius Jude the writer 
 
 Thomas (A/5u/aos), 'the Twin,' is pro- of the epistle is so designated. This 
 
 perly a surname, and this Apostle must points to some connexion or confusion 
 
 have had some other name, there with Simon Zelotes. See p. 258, note. 
 
264 
 
 THE BRETHEEN OF THE LORD. 
 
 (6) Punc- 
 tuation of 
 Joh. xix. 
 25- 
 
 it possible, if he were the Lord's brother Judas, he would in all 
 these places have escaped being so designated, when this designation 
 would have fixed the person meant at once *? 
 
 (6) Lastly ; in order to maintain the Hieronymian theory it is 
 necessary to retain the common punctuation of John xix. 25, thus 
 making ' Mary of Clopas ' the Virgin's sister. But it is at least 
 improbable that two sisters should have borne the same name. The 
 case of the Herodian family is scarcely parallel, for Herod was a 
 family name, and it is unlikely that a humble Jewish household 
 should have copied a practice which must lead to so much confusion. 
 Here it is not unlikely that a tradition underlies the Peshito render- 
 ing which inserts a conjunction : * His mother and his mother's 
 sister, and Mary of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene \' The Greek at 
 all events admits, even if it does not favour, this interpretation, for 
 the arrangement of names in couples has a parallel in the lists of 
 the Apostles (e.g. Matt. x. 2 — 4). 
 
 I have shown then, if I mistake not, that St Jerome pleaded 
 no traditional authority for his theory, and that therefore the evi- 
 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 
 
 ^ See Wieseler Die S'ohne Zeheddi 
 etc, p. 672. This writer identifies the 
 sister of the Lord's mother (John xix. 
 25) with Salome (Mark xv. 40, xvi. i), 
 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 peeudo-Pa- 
 pias, p. 273, note; and see the various 
 reading 'Itodwijs for 'laio-?;^ in the list 
 of the Lord's brethren in Matt. xiii. 
 55. But as we are told that there were 
 many other wovien present also (Mark 
 XV. 41, comp. Luke xxiv. to), — one of 
 whom, Joanna, is mentioned byname — 
 
 both these identifications must be con- 
 sidered precarious. It would be strange 
 that no hint should be given in the 
 Gospels of the relationship of the sons 
 of Zebedee to our Lord, if it ex- 
 isted. 
 
 The Jerusalem Syriac lectionary 
 gives the passage John xix. 25 not less 
 than three times. In two of these 
 places (pp. 387, 541, the exception being 
 p. 445) a stop is put after 'His mo- 
 ther's sister,' thus separating the words 
 from 'Mary of Cleophas' and suggest- 
 ing by punctuation the same interpre- 
 tation which the Peshito fixes by 
 inserting a conjunction. 
 
THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 265 
 
 hypothesis which produce the coincidences — which more than coun- 
 terbalances these secondary arguments in its favour, and in fact must 
 lead to its rejection, if any hypothesis less burdened with difficulties 
 can be found. 
 
 Thus, as compared with the Hieronymian view, both the Epi- and re- 
 placed by 
 phanian and the Helvidian have higher claims to acceptance. They one of the 
 
 both assign to the word brethren its natural meaning ; they both ^^q 
 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. 
 
 And moreover they both exhibit a coincidence which deserves A coin- 
 
 cidencG 
 notice. A very short time before the Lord's death His brethren common 
 
 refuse to accept His mission : they are still unbelievers. Immedi- ° ° " 
 ately after His ascension we find them gathered together with the 
 Apostles, evidently recognising Him as their Master. Whence comes 
 this change 1 Surely the crucifixion of one who professed to be the 
 Messiah was not likely to bring it about. He had claimed to be 
 King of Israel and He had been condemned as a malefactor : He 
 had promised His followers a triumph and He had left them per- 
 secution. Would not all this confirm rather than dissipate their 
 former unbelief ? An incidental statement of St Paul explains all ; 
 * Then He was seen of James.' At the time when St Paul wrote, 
 there was but one person eminent enough in the Church to be called 
 James simply without any distinguishing epithet — the Lord's brother, 
 the bishop of Jerusalem. It might therefore reasonably be con- 
 cluded that this James is here meant. And this view is confirmed 
 by an extant fragment of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, 
 the most important of all the apocryphal gospels, which seems to 
 have preserved more than one true tradition, and which expressly 
 relates the appearance of our Lord to His brother James ^ after His 
 ascension. 
 
 This interposition, we may suppose, was the turning-point in 
 the religious life of the Lord's brethren ; the veil was removed at 
 
 ^ See below, p. 274. 
 
266 
 
 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 
 
 Objections 
 to both. 
 
 (i) Repeti- 
 tion of 
 
 Cousin- 
 hood on 
 either 
 mothers' 
 
 once and for ever from their hearts. In this way the antagonistic 
 notices in the Gospels — first the disbelief of the Lord's brethren, 
 and then their assembling together with the Apostles — are linked 
 together ; and harmony is produced out of discord. 
 
 Two objections however are brought against both these theories, 
 which the Hieronymian escapes. 
 
 (i) They both, it is objected, assume the existence of two pairs 
 of cousins bearing the same names, James and Joseph the sons of 
 Alphaeus, and James and Joseph the Lord's brothers. If moreover 
 we accept the statement of Hegesippus ' that James was succeeded 
 in the bishopric of Jerusalem by Symeon son of Clopas, and also 
 admit the identification of Clopas with Alphaeus, we get a third name 
 Symeon or Simeon common to the two families. Let us see what 
 this objection really amounts to. 
 
 It will be seen that the cousinhood of these persons is represented 
 as a cousinhood on the mothers' side, and that it depends on three 
 assumptions: (i) The identification of James the son of Alphseus 
 in the list of the Twelve with James the Little the son of Mary : 
 (2) The identification of 'Mary of Clopas' in St John with Mary 
 the mother of James and Joses in the other Evangelists : (3) The 
 correctness of the received punctuation of John xix. 25, which makes 
 ' Mary of Clopas ' the Virgin's sister. If any one of these be re- 
 jected, this cousinhood falls to the ground. Yet of these three 
 assumptions the second alone can safely be pronounced more likely 
 than not^ (though we are expressly told that *many other women' 
 were present), for it avoids the unnecessary multiplication of Maries. 
 The first must be considered highly doubtful, seeing that James 
 was a very common name ; while the third is most improbable, for it 
 gives two sisters both called Mary — a difficulty far surpassing that 
 of supposing two or even three cousins bearing the same name. On 
 the other hand, if, admitting the second identification and supply- 
 ing the ellipsis in * Mary of Clopas ' by * wife V we combine with it the 
 
 ^ See below, p. 276 sq. 
 
 2 Eusebius however makes *Mary of 
 Clopas ' a different person from Mary 
 the mother of James and Joses ; 
 
 QucBst. ad Marin, ii. 5 (Op. iv. p. 945, 
 Migne). 
 
 ^ As 77 rod KXwTra may mean either 
 the daughter or the wife or the mother 
 
THE BRETHREN OY THE LORD. 
 
 267 
 
 statement of Hegesippus^ that Clopas the father of Symeon was brother 
 of Joseph, we get three cousins, James, Joses, and Symeon, on thevr or fathers' 
 fathers^ side. Yet this result again must be considered on the whole probable, 
 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 question ^ 
 
 of Clopas, this expression has been com- 
 bined with the statement of Hegesippus 
 in various ways. See for instance the 
 apocryphal gospels, Pseudo-Matth. Ev- 
 ang. 52 (ed. Tisch. p. 104), Evang. Inf. 
 Arab, 29 (ib. p. 186), and the marginal 
 note on the Philoxenian version, Joh. 
 xix. 25, besides other references which 
 will be given in the account of the pa- 
 tristic authorities. 
 
 1 The statement of Hegesippus sug- 
 gests a solution which would remove the 
 difficulty. "We might suppose the two 
 Maries to have been called sisters, as 
 having been married to two brothers ; 
 but is there any authority for ascribing 
 to the Jews an extension of the term 
 'sister' which modern usage scarcely 
 sanctions? 
 
 2 Of the three names 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. six. 25), and Cleopas (the 
 disciple journeying to Emmaus, Luke 
 xxiv. 18), it is considered that the two 
 former are probably identical, and the 
 two latter certainly distinct. Both po- 
 sitions maybe 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 Cleophffi) is read in the Pe- 
 shito, Old Latin, Memphitic, Vulgate, 
 and Armenian text of St John. (3) Of 
 these the evidence of the Peshito is par- 
 
 ticularly important in a matter relating 
 to Aramaic names. While for 'AX0cuo$ 
 in all five places it restores what was 
 doubtless the original Aramaic form 
 -«^V T« , Chalphai ; on the other hand, 
 it gives the same word r^L^CLiJLO 
 Kleopha (i.e. KKeoTras) in Luke xxiv. iS 
 and in John xix. 25, if the printed texts 
 may be trusted. The Jerusalem Syriac 
 
 too renders KKtatrds by .fio^ClxLo 
 
 (Kleophas), and'AX^aios by -*t* ^ ^1 tf 
 (Chalphai). (4) The form KKwiras, 
 which St John's text gives, is confirmed 
 by Hegesippus (Euseb.H.jE.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 XaXtpl 
 in fact does occur in i Mace. xi. 70. 
 (5) It is true that KXe67ras is strictly a 
 Greek name contracted from K\e6?ra- 
 TpoSf like 'AvrlTras from 'AvTliraTpos, 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 
 Simon for Symeon, Jason for Jesus; 
 and thus a man, whose real Aramaic 
 name was Clopas, might grecize the 
 word and call himself Cleopas. On 
 these grounds it appears to me that, 
 viewing the question as one of names 
 merely, it is quite as reasonable to 
 identify Clopas with Cleopas as with 
 
268 
 
 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 
 
 The names 
 are com- 
 mon. 
 
 But, whether they were cousins or not, does the fact of two 
 families having two or three names in common constitute any real 
 difficulty 1 Is not this a frequent occurrence among ourselves ? It 
 must be remembered too that the Jewish names in ordinary use at 
 this time were very few, and that these three, James, Joses, and 
 Symeon, were among the most common, being consecrated in the 
 aflfections 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 \ 
 
 Alphffius. But the identification of 
 names does not carry -with it the iden- 
 tification of persons. St Paul's Epa- 
 phras for instance is probably a dif- 
 ferent person from his Epaphroditus. 
 
 A Jewish name 'Alfius' occurs in 
 an inscription alfivs . ivda abcon . 
 ABCOSiNAGOGvs (Inscr. Gudii, p. cclxiii. 
 5), 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 'Alphlus' of 
 Horace {Epod. ii. 67, see Columella i. 
 7. 2), for a fellow-countryman, if his 
 talk were not so pagan. 
 
 ^ I am arguing on the supposition 
 that Joses and Joseph are the same 
 name, but this is at least doubtful. In 
 St Matthew, according to the best au- 
 thorities, the Lord's brother (xiii. 55) is 
 *Iw(r7;0, the son of Mary (xxvii. 56) 
 'Iwc^s. In St Mark on the other hand 
 the latter word is found (the geni- 
 tive being differently written 'Iwtr^ros 
 or 'Iwo-^, though probably Tregelles is 
 right in preferring the former in all 
 three passages), whether referring to 
 the Lord's brother (vi. 3) or to the son 
 of Mary (xv. 40, 47). Thus if existing 
 authorities in the text of St Mark are 
 to be trusted, there is no distinction be- 
 tween the names. Yet I am disposed 
 to think with Wieseler {die S'ohne Zebe- 
 ddi etc. p. 678) that St Matthew's text 
 suggests the real difference, and that 
 the original reading in Mark vi. 3 was 
 'liu(j-ri(f> ; but if so, the corruption was 
 
 very ancient and very general, for 'Iw- 
 o"))0 is found in X alone of the uncial 
 manuscripts. A similar confusion of 
 these names appears in the case of Bar- 
 sabbas, Acts i. 33, 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 the identification of 
 the names Joses and Joseph improbable 
 for two reasons : (i) It seems unlikely 
 that the same name should be repre- 
 sented in Greek by two such divergent 
 forms as 'Iwa^s, making a genitive 
 'Iwcr^ros, and'laja"^0 or 'Iwo")77ros, which 
 perhaps (replaced by a genuine Greek 
 name) became 'Hy^o-tTTTros. (3) The 
 Peshito in the case of the commoner 
 Hebrew or Aramaic names restores the 
 original form in place of the somewhat 
 disfigured Greek equivalent, e. g. Ju- 
 chanon for 'lojdvvris, Zabdai for Ze/3e- 
 daios. Following this rule, it ought, if 
 the names were identical, to have re- 
 stored -^f>n /\ - (Joseph) for the Greek 
 'lojffTiSj in place of which it has r<lfio CLa 
 (Josi, Jausi, or Jusi). In Matt, xxvii. 
 56, Mark xv. 40, the Memphitic Ver- 
 sion separates Mapfa [^ rod] 'Ia/fw/3ov 
 [tov /jLiKpov] and 'Iwa"^[ros] fJ'yjTTjpt 
 making them two different persons. 
 [On the other hand, similar instances 
 of abbreviation, e. g. Ashe for Asher, 
 Jochana for Jochanan, Shabba for 
 Shabbath, are produced; see Delitzsch 
 in Laurent Neutest. Stud. p. 168.] 
 
THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 269 
 
 In the index to Josephus may be counted nineteen Josephs, and 
 twenty-five Simons \ 
 
 And moreover is not the difficulty, if difficulty there be, di- 
 minished rather than increased on the supposition of the cousinhood 
 of these two families 1 The name of a common ancestor or a common 
 relative naturally repeats itself in households connected with each 
 other. And from this point of view it is worthy of notice that the 
 names in question actually occur in the genealogies of our Lord. 
 Joseph's father is Jacob or James in St Matthew (i. 15, 16); and 
 in St Luke's table, .exclusively of our Lord's reputed father, the name 
 Joseph or Joses occurs twice at least ^ in a list of thirty-four direct 
 ancestors. 
 
 (2) When a certain Mary is described as 'the mother of James,* (2) *Mary 
 is it not highly probable that the person intended should be the of James.' 
 most celebrated of the name— James the Just, the bishop of Jeru- 
 salem, the Lord's brother 1 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. i, where it is explained by the 
 fuller description which has gone before ' the mother of James 
 and Joses' (xv. 40); and in Luke xxiv. xo, where no such ex- 
 planation can be given. It would seem then that this Mary and 
 this James, though not the most famous of their respective names 
 and therefore not at once distinguishable when mentioned alone, 
 
 1 The popularity of this name is Possibly *Iw(r^x ^ay be a corruption 
 probably due to Simon Maccabseus. for 'Iwo-i)^ through the confasion of Cl 
 
 2 And perhaps not more thau twice and "], which in their older forms resem- 
 'l(aa-r}(f) (w. 24, 30). In ver. 26 'Icoff-qx ble each other closely; but if so, it is a 
 seems to he the right reading, where corruption not of St Luke's text, but of 
 the received text has ^liixrrjtp ; and in the Hebrew or Aramaic document from 
 ver. 29 'l7)ffov, where it has 'Iwo-^. which the genealogy was derived. 
 
2/0 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 
 
 were yet sufficiently well known to be discriminated from others, 
 
 when their names appeared in conjunction. 
 
 The two The objections then which may be brought against both these 
 
 theories 
 
 compared, theories in common are not very serious ; and up to this point in 
 
 the investigation they present equal claims to acceptance. The next 
 
 step will be to compare them together, in order to decide which of 
 
 the two must yield to the other. 
 
 (i) Eela- I. The Epiphanian view assumes that the Lord's brethren had 
 
 tion of the 
 
 brethren really no relationship with Him ; and so far the Helvidian has 
 
 and Mary. ^^® advantage. But this advantage is rather seeming than real. 
 
 It is very natural that those who called Joseph His father should 
 
 call Joseph's sons His brethren. And it must be remembered that 
 
 this designation is given to Joseph not only by strangers from whom 
 
 at all events the mystery of the Incarnation was veiled, but by 
 
 the Lord's mother herself who knew all (Luke ii. 48). Even the 
 
 Evangelist himself, about whose belief in the miraculous conception 
 
 of Christ there can be no doubt, allows himself to speak of Joseph 
 
 and Mary, ' His father and mother ' as ' His parents \' Nor again is 
 
 it any argument in favour of the Helvidian account as compared 
 
 with the Epiphanian, that the Lord's brethren are found in company 
 
 of Mary rather than of Joseph. Joseph appears in the evangelical 
 
 history for the last time when Jesus is twelve years old (Luke ii. 43) ; 
 
 during the Lord's ministry he is never once seen, though Mary 
 
 comes forward again and again. There can be little doubt therefore 
 
 that he had died meanwhile. 
 
 (2) Virgin- 2, Certain expressions in the evangelical narratives are said to 
 
 Mary. ^Diply that Mary bore other children besides the Lord, and it is 
 
 even asserted that no unprejudiced person could interpret them 
 
 otherwise. The justice of this charge may be fairly questioned. The 
 
 context in each case seems to suggest another explanation of these 
 
 expressions, which does not decide anything one way or the other. 
 
 St Matthew writes that Joseph 'knew not' his wife Hill (ews ov) 
 
 ^ Luke ii. 33 6 iraTrip avrov koI -q have taken offence and substituted 
 lJ.if"nPj ii- 41 J 43 0^ yoveZs avrov^ the * Joseph and Mary,' * Joseph and His 
 correct reading. Later transcribers mother,' in all three places. 
 
THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 2/1 
 
 she brought forth a son ' (i. 25)^ ; while St Luke speaks of her bring- 
 ing forth 'her Jirstborn son ' (ii. 7). St Matthew's expression how- 
 ever, ' till she brought forth/ as appears from the context, is intended 
 simply to show that Jesus was not begotten in the course of nature ; 
 and thus, while it denies any previous intercourse with her husband, 
 it neither asserts nor implies any subsequent intercourse **. Again, 
 the prominent idea conveyed by the term ' firstborn ' to a Jew would 
 be not the birth of other children, but the special consecration of 
 this one. The typical reference in fact is foremost in the mind of 
 St Luke, as he himself explains it, '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 the condition under 
 which in obedience to the law a child was consecrated to G-od. The 
 ' firstborn son ' is in fact the Evangelist's equivalent for the * male 
 that openeth the womb.' 
 
 It may indeed be fairly urged that, if the Evangelists had con- 
 sidered the perpetual virginity of the Lord's mother a matter of such 
 paramount importance as it was held to be in the fourth and follow- 
 ing centuries, they would have avoided expressions which are at least 
 ambiguous and might be taken to imply the contrary ; but these ex- 
 pressions 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 
 
 ^ rbv irpwT&roKov ought to be reject- ^ For parallel instances see Mill, 
 
 ed from St Matthew's text, having p. 304 sq. 
 been interpolated from Luke ii. 7. 
 
272 THE BRETHEEN OF THE LORD. 
 
 appears in fact to be due quite as much to another sentiment which 
 the fathers fantastically expressed by a comparison between the 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 Palestine 
 where there was less disposition than elsewhere to depreciate married 
 life, and prevailed too at a time when extreme ascetic views had not 
 yet mastered the Church at large. 
 
 (3) 9"^, 3- But one obiection has been hurled at the Helvidian theory 
 
 Lord's dy- ^ ^ '^ ; 
 
 ing words, with great force, and as it seems to me with fatal effect, which is 
 
 powerless against the Epiphanian \ Our Lord in His dying moments 
 commended His mother to the keeping of St John ; * Woman, behold 
 thy son.' The injunction was forthwith obeyed, and *from that 
 hour that disciple took her unto his own home' (John xix. 26, 27). 
 Yet according to the Helvidian view she had no less than four 
 sons besides daughters living at the time. Is it conceivable that 
 our Lord would thus have snapped asunder the most sacred ties of 
 natural affection? The difficulty is not met by the fact that her 
 own sons were still unbelievers. This fact would scarcely have been 
 allowed to override the paramount duties of filial piety. But even 
 when so explained, what does this hypothesis, require us to believe ? 
 Though within a few days a special appearance is vouchsafed to one 
 of these brethren, who is destined to rule the mother Church of 
 Jerusalem, and all alike are converted to the faith of Christ; yet 
 she, their mother, living in the same city and joining with them in a 
 common worship (Acts i. 14), is consigned to the care of a stranger 
 of whose house she becomes henceforth the inmate. 
 Conclu- Thus it would appear that, taking the scriptural notices alone, 
 
 the Hieronymian account must be abandoned; while of the re- 
 maining two the balance of the argument is against the Helvidian 
 and in favour of the Epiphanian. To what extent the last-men- 
 
 "' 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. 
 
 sion, 
 
THE BEETHEEN OF THE LOED. 
 
 273 
 
 tioned theory can plead the prestige of tradition, will be seen from 
 the following catena of references to the fathers and other early 
 Christian writings \ 
 
 ^ The testimony of Papias is fre- 
 quently quoted at the head of the pa- 
 tristic authorities, as favouring the view 
 of Jerome. The passage in question is 
 an extract, to which the name of this 
 very ancient writer is prefixed, in a 
 Bodleian ms, no. 2397, of the date 
 1302 or 1303. It is given in Grabe's 
 Spicil. II. p. 34, Eouth's Rel. Sacr. 1. 
 p. 16, and runs as follows: * Maria 
 mater Domini; Maria Cleophse, sive 
 Alphei uxor, qase fuit mater Jacobi 
 episcopi et apostoli et Symonis et 
 Thadeiet cujusdam Joseph: Maria Sa- 
 lome uxor Zebedei mater Joannis evan- 
 gelistEe et Jacobi: Maria Magdalene: 
 istffi quatuor in Evangelio reperiuntur. 
 Jacobus et Judas et Joseph filii erant 
 materterse Domini ; Jacobus quoque et 
 Joannes alterius materterte Domini fue- 
 runt filii. Maria Jacobi minoris et 
 Joseph mater, uxor Alphei, soror fuit 
 Marite 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 Cleoph^ quidam dicunt quod 
 duos viros habuerit. Maria dicitur 
 illuminatrix sive stella maris, genuit 
 enim lumen mundi ; sermone autem 
 Syro Domina nuncupatur, quia genuit 
 Dominum.' Grabe's description 'ad 
 marginem expresse adscriptum lego 
 Papia* is incorrect; the name is not in 
 the margin but over the passage as a 
 title to it. The authenticity of this 
 fragment is accepted by Mill, p. 238, and 
 by Dean Alford on Matth . xiii. 5 5 . Two 
 writers also in Smith's Biblical Diction- 
 ary {s. vv. 'Brother' and 'James'), re- 
 spectively impugning and maintaining 
 the Eieronymian view, refer to it with- 
 out suspicion. It is strange that able 
 and intelUgent critics should not have 
 seen through a fabrication which is so 
 manifestly spurious. Not to mention 
 the difficulties in which we are involved 
 by some of the statements, the following 
 reasons seem conclusive : (i) The last 
 sentence ' Maria dicitur etc. ' is evidently 
 
 GAL. 
 
 very late, and is, as Dr Mill says, ' justly 
 rejected by Grabe. ' Grabe says, 'ad- 
 didit is qui descripsit ex suo' ; but the 
 passage is continuous in the ms, and 
 there is neither more nor less authority 
 for assigning this to Papias than the 
 remainder of the extract. {2) The state- 
 ment about * Maria uxor Alphei' 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. 
 (3) The writings of Papias were in Je- 
 rome's hands, and eager as he was 
 to claim the support of authority, he 
 could not have failed to refer to testi- 
 mony which was so important and 
 which so entirely confixms his view 
 in the most minute points. Nor is it 
 conceivable that a passage like this, 
 coming from so early a writer, should 
 not have impressed itself very strongly 
 on the ecclesiastical tradition of the 
 early centuries, whereas in fact we dis- 
 cover no traces of it.] 
 
 For these reasons the extract seemed 
 to me manifestly spurious ; but I might 
 have saved myself the trouble of ex- 
 amining the Bodleian ms and writing 
 these remarks, if I had known at the 
 time, that the passage was written by a 
 mediseval namesake of the Bishop of 
 Hierapolis, Papias the author of the 
 'Elementarium,' who lived in the nth 
 century. This seems to have been a 
 standard work in its day, and was 
 printed four times in the 15th century 
 under the name of the Lexicon or 
 Vocabulist. I have not had access to 
 a printed copy, but there is a ms of 
 the work (marked Ek. 4. i) in the 
 Cambridge University Library, the 
 knowledge of which I owe to Mr Brad- 
 shaw, the librarian. The variations 
 from the Bodleian extract are unim- 
 portant. It is strange that though 
 Grabe actually mentions the later Pa- 
 pias the author of the Dictionary, and 
 Eouth copies his note, neither the one 
 nor the other got on the right track. 
 
274 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 
 
 Hebrew i. The Gospel according to the Hebrews, one of the earliest 
 
 Gospel. ■ 1 1 1 V 
 
 and most respectable of the apocryphal narratives, related that the 
 
 Lord after His resurrection * went to James and appeared to him ; 
 for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour 
 in which the Lord had drunk the cup (biberat calicem Dominus), 
 till he saw Him risen from the dead.' Jesus therefore ' took bread 
 and blessed it and brake it and gave it to James the Just and said to 
 him, My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of Man has risen from 
 the dead' (Hieron. de Vir. Illustr. 2). I have adopted the reading 
 ' Dominus,' as the Greek translation has Kvpto?, 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 deaths 
 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 
 ^- 3^j 39) ^"^- S^j Ijuke xxii. 42)^; and He is represented as using 
 this metaphor here. If however we retain 'Domini,' it must be 
 allowed that the writer represented James the Lord's brother as 
 present at the last supper, but it does not follow that he regarded 
 him as one of the Twelve, He may have assigned to him a sort of 
 exceptional position such as he holds in the Clementines, apart from 
 and in some respects superior to the Twelve, and thus his presence 
 at this critical time would be accounted for. At all events this pas- 
 sage confirms the tradition that the James mentioned by St Paul 
 (i Cor. XV. 7) was the Lord's brother ; while at the same time it is 
 characteristic of a Judaic writer whose aim it would be to glorify 
 the head of his Church at all hazards, that an appearance, which 
 seems in reality to have been vouchsafed to this James to win him 
 over from his unbelief, should be represented as a reward for his 
 devotion. 
 Gospel of 2. The Gospel according to Peter was highly esteemed by the 
 
 Docetse of the second century. Towards the close of that century, 
 
 I made the discovery while the first as Blom suggests (p. 83): but it is more 
 
 edition of thisworkwas passing through probable that a transcriber of Jerome 
 
 the press [1865]. carelessly wrote down the famUiar 
 
 1 There might possibly have been phrase 'the cup of the Lord.' 
 an ambiguity in the Hebrew original ^ Comp. Mart. Polyc. 14 ev ti^ tto- 
 
 owing to the absence of case-endings, T'qpi(^ tqv Xptorou <xov. 
 
THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 275 
 
 Serapion, bishop of Antioch, found it in circulation at Rhossus a 
 Cilician town, and at first tolerated it : but finding on examination 
 fchat, though it had much in common with the Gospels recognised 
 by the Catholic Church, there were sentiments in it favourable to 
 the heretical views that were secretly gaining ground there, he for- 
 bad its use. In the fragment of Serapion preserved by Eusebius 
 {H. E. Yi. 12)^, from which our information is derived, he speaks of 
 this apocryphal work as if it had been long in circulation, so that 
 its date must be about the middle of the second century at the latest, 
 and probably somewhat earlier. To this gospel Origen refers, as 
 stating that the Lord's brethren were Joseph's sons by a former 
 wife and thus maintaining the virginity of the Lord's mother^. 
 
 3. Protevangelium Jacobi, a purely fictitious but very early Protevan- 
 
 geliuEQ 
 narrative, dating probably not later than the middle of the second and other 
 
 century, represents Joseph as an old man when the Virgin was S?!^"^' 
 espoused to him, having sons of his own (§ 9, ed. Tisch. p. 18) but gospels. 
 no daughters (§ 17, p. 31), and James the writer of the account ap- 
 parently as grown up at the time of Herod's death (§ 25, p. 48). 
 Following in this track, subsequent apocryphal narratives give a 
 similar account with various modifications, in some cases naming 
 Joseph's daughters or his wife. Such are the Pseudo-Matthcei Evang. 
 (§ 32, ed. Tisch. p. 104), Evang. de Nativ. Ma/r. (§ 8, ih. p. m), His- 
 toria Joseph. (§ 2, ib. p. 116), Evang. Thomce (§ 16, p. 147), Evang. 
 Infant, Arab. (§ 35, p. 191), besides the apocryphal Gospels mentioned 
 by Jerome {Gomm. in Matth. T. vii. p. ^6) which were different from 
 any now extant ^ Doubtless these accounts, so far as they step be- 
 yond the incidents narrated in the Canonical Gospels, are pure fabri- 
 cations, but the fabrications would scarcely have taken this form, if 
 the Hieronymian view of the Lord's brethren had been received or 
 even known when they were written. It is to these sources that 
 Jerome refers when he taunts the holders of the Epiphanian view 
 with following ' deliramenta apocryphorum.' 
 
 4. The Earliest Versions, with the exception of the Old Latin Older 
 
 Versions. 
 1 For this fragment see Routh's EeZ. ^ See below, p. 281. 
 
 Sacr. I. p. 452, and Weatcott History ^ As appears from the fact mentioned 
 
 of the Canon, p. 385. by Jerome; see above, p. 260, note 3, 
 
 18—2 
 
276 
 
 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 
 
 Clemen- 
 tine 
 writings. 
 
 gesip- 
 
 pus. 
 
 and Memphitic which translate the Greek literally and preserve the 
 same ambiguities, give renderings of certain passages bearing on the 
 subject, which are opposed to the Hieronymian view. The Curetonian 
 Syriac translates Mapta 'la/cwjSou (Lukexxiv. 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.' One of the 
 old Egyptian versions again, the Thebaic, in John xix. 35 gives 
 * Mary daughter of Clopas,' and in Luke vi. r6. 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 ' (d Xc^^ets 
 aScXf^os Tov Kvpiovj xi. 35), an expression which has been variously 
 interpreted as favouring all three hypotheses (see Blom, p. 88 : Schlie- 
 mann Clement, pp. 8, 213), and is indecisive in itself \ It is more 
 important to observe that in the Epistle of Clement prefixed to this 
 work and belonging to the same cycle of writings James is styled 
 not Apostle, but Bishop of Bishops, and seems to be distinguished 
 from and in some respects exalted above the Twelve. 
 
 6. In the portion of the Clementine Recognitions, which seems 
 to have been founded on the Ascents of James, another very early 
 Ebionite writing", the distinction thus implied in the Homilies is 
 explicitly stated. The Twelve Apostles after disputing severally 
 with Caiaphas give an account of their conference to James the chief 
 of Bishops • while James the son of 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 ' (/Aera to fiapTvpijaai 'laVco/^ov 
 
 ^ The word Xex^eisis most naturally 
 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. 277, 278. 
 2 See the next dissertation. 
 
THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. V7 
 
 rov SiKaiov ojs /cat o Kvptos em tw auTw Aoyojj TraXtv o ck tov Oetov avTOV 
 ^vfxeoyv 6 tou KXo)7ra KaOidTCLTai CTrtir/cOTro?, 6v TTpoiOevro Travre's ovra 
 dveij/Lov TOV Kvpiov B€vT€pov\ Euseb. R. E. iv. 22). If the passage be 
 correctly rendered thus (and this rendering alone seems intelligible^), 
 Hegesippus distinguishes between the relationships of James the 
 Lord's brother and Symeon His cousin. So again, referring appa- 
 rently to this passage, he in another fragment (Euseb. H. E. iii. 32) 
 speaks of * the child of the Lord's paternal uncle, the aforesaid Symeon 
 son of Olopas ' (o Ik. Oetov rov Kvptou o 7rpo€iprjfJiivo<i ^u/Aetov utos KXcoTra), 
 to which Eusebius adds, * for Hegesippus relates that Olopas 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 diro yivov^ tov Kvpiov) grandsons of Judas 
 who was called His brother according to the flesh ' {tov Kara crdpKa 
 Xeyofxivov avTov aSeXc^ov) } Euseb. II. E. iii. 20. In this passage the 
 word ' called ' seems to me to point to the Epiphanian rather than 
 the Helvidian view, the brotherhood of these brethren, like the 
 fatherhood of Joseph, being reputed but not real. In yet another 
 passage (Euseb. II. E. ii. 23) Hegesippus relates that 'the Church was 
 committed in conjunction with the Apostles^ to the charge of (8ta- 
 Se^crat tt^v iKKXyjo-tav /Acrct tiov aVoo-ToAcov) the Lord's brother James, 
 
 ^ For de6T€pov comp. Euseb. H. E. had the author's object been to repre- 
 
 iii- 14- sent Symeon as a brother of James, no 
 
 2 A different meaning however has more circuitous mode could well have 
 
 been assigned to the words : irdXiu and been devised for the purpose of stating 
 
 8eijT€pQv being taken to signify 'another so very simple a fact. Let me add that 
 
 child of his uncle, another cousin,' and Eusebius (I.e.) and Epiphanius [Hceres. 
 
 thus the passage has been represented pp. 636,1039, i046,ed.Petav.) must have 
 
 as favouring the Hieronymian view. So interpreted the words as I have done, 
 
 for instance Mill p. 253, Schaf p. 64. Whether a^rod should be referred to 
 
 On the other hand see Credner Einl. 'Iolkw^ov or to Krjpios is doubtful. If 
 
 P- 575. Neander PJianz. p. 559 (4te to the former, this alone decides the 
 
 aufl.). To this rendering the presence meaning of the passage. This seems the 
 
 of the definite article alone seems fatal more natural reference of the two, but 
 
 (6 iK tov deiov not hepos tQv iK rod ddou) ; the form of expression will admit either, 
 
 but indeed the whole passage appears to » Jerome [de Vir. III. § 2) renders it 
 
 be framed so as to distinguish the rela- 'post apostolos,' as if fxerh rods dtroa-rd- 
 
 tionships of the two persons ; whereas, Xovs ; Eufinua correctly 'eum apostolis.' 
 
278 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 
 
 who has been entitled Just by all from the Lord's time to our own 
 day; for many bore the name of James/ From this last pas- 
 sage however no inference can be safely drawn ; for, supposing the 
 term * Apostles * to be here restricted to the Twelve, the expression 
 fxerd Tcov aVoo-rdXwv may distinguish St James not from but among 
 the Apostles; as in Acts v. 29, 'Peter and the Apostles an- 
 swered.' 
 
 Thus the testimony of Hegesippus seems distinctly opposed to 
 the Hieronymian view, while of the other two it favours the Epi- 
 phanian rather than the Helvidian. If any doubt still remains, the 
 fact that both Eusebius and Epiphanius, who derived their 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. Tertulltan's authority was appealed to by Helvidius, and 
 
 lian. 
 
 Jerome is content to reply that he 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 TertuUian held the Lord's brethren to be sons of Joseph and 
 
 Mary. - This assumption, though probable, is not absolutely certain. 
 
 The point at issue in this passage is not the particular opinion of 
 
 Helvidius respecting the Lord's brethren, but the virginity of the 
 
 Lord's mother. Accordingly in reply Jerome alleges on his own side 
 
 the authority of others^, whose testimony certainly did not go beyond 
 
 ^ ' Numguid non possum tibi totam indeed {Ephes. 19), which is several 
 
 veterum scriptorum seriem commo- times quoted by subsequent writers, 
 
 vera : Ignatium, Polycarpum, Irenseum, he speaks of the virginity of Mary as 
 
 Justinum Martyrem, multosque alios a mystery, but this refers distinctly to 
 
 apostolicos et eloquentes viros ? ' {adv. the time before the birth of our Lord. 
 
 Helvid. 17). I have already (p. 130, To this passage which he elsewhere 
 
 note 3) mentioned an instance of the quotes {Comment, in Matth. T. vii. 
 
 unfair way in which Jerome piles to- p. 12), Jerome is doubtless referring 
 
 gether his authorities. In the present here. 
 
 case we are in a position to test him. In Cowper's Syriac Miscell. p. 61, 
 
 Jerome did not possess any writings of I find an extract, * Justin one of the 
 
 Ignatius which are not extant now; authorswhowerein the daysof Augus- 
 
 and in no place does this apostolic tusandTiberiusandGaiuswrotein the 
 
 father maintain the perpetual virginity third discourse : That Mary the Gali- 
 
 of St Mary. In one remarkable passage lean, who was the mother of Christ who 
 
THE BRETHREN OE THE LORD. 279 
 
 this one point and had no reference to the relationship of the Lord's 
 
 brethren. Thus too the more distinct passages in the extant writings 
 
 of Tertullian relate to the virginity only {de Cam. Christ, c. 23 and 
 
 passim, de Monog. c, 8). Elsewhere however, though he does not 
 
 directly state it, his argument seems to imply that the Lord's brethren 
 
 were His brothers in the same sense in which Mary was His mother 
 
 {adv. Marc. iv. 1 9, de Cam. 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 andria. 
 
 authorship has been questioned but without sufficient reason^) puts 
 
 forward the Epiphanian solution ; ' Jude, who wrote the Catholic 
 
 Epistle, being one of the sons of Joseph and [the Lord's] brother, a Latin 
 
 man of deep piety, though he was aware of his relationship to the ^^S°^ 
 
 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, hut 
 
 brother of James , for this is true ; he was his brother, being 
 
 Joseph's [son]'^ (ed. Potter, p. 1007). This statement is explicit. 
 
 was crucified in Jerusalem, had not been lis purificata doctrina ejus securior 
 with a husband. And Joseph did not possit hauriri.' If ' Jude ' be substi- 
 repudiate her, but Joseph continued in tuted for ' James,' this description ex- 
 holiness without a wife, he and his five actly applies to the Latin notea extant 
 sons by a former wife : and Mary con- under the title Adumhrationes. This 
 tinned without a husband. ' The editor was a very easy slip of the pen , and I can 
 assigns this passage to Justin Martyr; scarcely doubt that these notes are the 
 but not to mention the anachronism, same to which Cassiodorus refers as 
 the whole tenor of the passage and the takenfromtheHypotyposeisof Clement, 
 immediate neighbourhood of similar Dr'Westcott(Ca7io7i, p. 401) has pointed 
 extracts shows that it was intended for out in confirmation of this, that while 
 the testimony (unquestionably spuri- Clement elsewhere directly quotes the 
 ous) of some contemporary heathen Epistle of St Jude, he never refers to 
 writer to the facts of the Gospel. the Epistle of St James. Bunsen has 
 ^ "We read in Cassiodorus {de iTist. included these notes in his collection of 
 Div. Lit. 8), 'In epistolas autem cano- fragments of the Hypotyposeis, Anal. 
 nicas Clemens Alexandrinus presbyter, Anten. 1. p. 325. It should be added 
 qui et Stromateus vocatur, id est, in that the statement about the relation- 
 epistola (-am?) S. Petri prima (-am?) ship of Jude must be Clement's own and 
 S. Johannis prima (-am?) et secunda cannot have been inserted by Cassiodo- 
 (-am?) et Jacobi qugedam Attico sermo- rus, since Cassiodorus in common with 
 ne declaravit. Ubi multa quidem sub- the Latin Church would naturally hold 
 tiliter sed aliqua incaute loquutus est, the Hieronymian hypothesis, 
 quae nos ita transferri fecimus in Lati- ^ *Frater erat ejus [filius] Joseph.* 
 num, ut exclusis quibusdam oSendicu- The insertion of ' filius ' (with Bunsen) is 
 
28o 
 
 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 
 
 Quota- 
 tions in 
 Eusebius. 
 
 On the other hand, owing to an extract preserved in Eusebius, his 
 authority is generally claimed for the Hieronymian view ; ' Clement,' 
 says Eusebius, 'in the sixth book of the Hypotyposeis gives the 
 following account : Peter and James and JoJm^ he tells us, after the 
 resurrection of the Saviour were not ambitious of honour, though 
 the preference shown them by the Lord might have entitled thcTn 
 to it, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem. The same 
 writer too in the seventh book of the same treatise gives this 
 account also of him (James the Lord's brother) ; The Lord after 
 the reswrrection delivered the gnosis to Jatnes the Just^ and John 
 and Peter. These delivered it to the rest of the Apostles ; and the 
 rest of the Apostles to the seventy, of whom, Barnabas was one. 
 Now there are two Jameses, one the Just who was thrown down from 
 the pinnacle (of the temple) and beaten to death with a club by a fuller, 
 and another who was beheaded"^ {H. E. ii. 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. 
 
 necessaryfor the sense, whether Cassio- 
 dorus had it or not. Perhaps the Greek 
 words were abe\(pbs ai/rou tGjv 'Iwa"770, 
 which would account for the omission. 
 ^ Credner, Einl. p. 585, condemns 
 thewordsT^JSiKa/^as spurious. Though 
 it might be inferred from the previous 
 extract given by Eusebius that the son 
 of Zebedee is meant here, I believe 
 nevertheless that they are genuine. 
 For ( I ) They seem to be required as the 
 motive for the explanation which is 
 given afterwards of the different per- 
 sons bearing the name James. (2) It 
 is natural that a special prominence 
 should be given to the same three 
 Apostles of the Circumcision who are 
 mentioned in Gal. ii. 9 as the pillars of 
 Jewish Christendom. {3) Eusebius in- 
 troduces the quotation as relating to 
 James the Just (irepl a^roij), which 
 would not be a very good description 
 if the other James were the prominent 
 person in the passage. {4) I find from 
 Hippolytus that the Ophite account 
 singled out James the Lord's brother 
 as a possessor of the esoteric gnosis, 
 Taurd iariv dir6 ttoWujv Trdvv \6yu3v to. 
 
 Ke^aXaia d (pTjaiv TrapaSediaJKivai Mapt- 
 dfivri rbv 'Iolkio^ov tov Kvpiov tov dSeX^di', 
 Reeves, 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 5^ 
 ^^aXXaY^s ra^Tas rcis iroiKiXas iv riy 
 iiriypacpo/j^vt^ kot AtyvTrrlovs evayyeKl(p 
 K€Lfi4vas ^xoi/ffti', ib. v. 7, p. 98), it is 
 probable that the account of Clement 
 coincided with that of the Ophites. The 
 words Tt^ dLKal(^ are represented in the 
 Syriac translation of Eusebius of which 
 the existing M3 (Brit. Mus. add. 14, 639) 
 belongs to the 6th century. 
 
 I hold TtJ) dLKaiq} therefore to be the 
 genuine words of Clement, but I do not 
 feel so sure that the closing explanation 
 5uo d^ yeyovacrtv 'IctKWjSot k.t.\. is not 
 an addition of Eusebius. This I suppose 
 to be Bunsen'a opinion, for he ends his 
 fragment with the preceding words 
 1. p. 321, 
 
THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 281 
 
 His sole object was to distinguish the son of Zebedee from the Lord's 
 brother; and the son of 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 uncritical in his his- 
 torical notices' such a contradiction would not be surprising^. 
 
 10. Origen (t A.D. 253) declares himself very distinctly in favour 
 of the Epiphanian view, stating that the brethren were sons of 
 Joseph by a deceased wife^ Elsewhere ■* indeed he says that St Paul 
 ' calls this James the Lord^s brother, not so much on account of his 
 kinsmanship or their companionship together, as on account of his 
 character and language,' but this is not inconsistent with the explicit 
 statement already referred to. In one passage he writes at some 
 length on the subject; ' Some persons, on the ground of a tradition in 
 the 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, iii. p. 46 2) ^ This passage 
 
 ^ For instance he distinguished Ce- adrbs iK rod ^lo}(rT](p Tvyx'^^'^^' J^^/J^ 
 
 phas of Grai. ii. 1 1 from Peter (see roiyapovu ixRVf^'^'^'-^'^^ avrov a5eX0of, 
 
 above, p. 129), and represented St Paul viol 'Iwitt;^ 6vTes iK TrporedvqKvlas yvvai- 
 
 as a married man (Euseb. H. E. iii. k6s : Horn, in Luc. 7 (in. p. 940, ed. 
 
 30). Delarue) 'Hi enim filii qui Joseph dice- 
 
 2 On the supposition that Clement bantur non erant orti de Maria, neque 
 held the Hieronymian theory, as he is est uUa scriptura quae ista eommemo- 
 represented even by those who them- ret.' In this latter passage either the 
 selves reject it, the silence of Origen, translator has been confused by the 
 who seems never to have heard of this order in the original or the words in 
 theory, is quite inexplicable. Epipha- the translation itself have been dis- 
 nius moreover, who appears equally placed accidentally, but the meaning 
 ignorant of it, refers to Clement while is clear. 
 
 writing on this very subject [Hceres. p. ^ c. Gels. i. 47 (i. p. 363) ov tou- 
 
 119, Petav.). Indeed Clement would ohTov 5ta to rrpos at/xaros cruyyep^s y rrjv 
 
 then stand quite alone before the age kolj/tjv avrCv dvao-rpocpTjv 6aov did, to 
 
 of Jerome. ^$os Kal tov \6yov. 
 
 3 In Joann. ii. 12 [Catena Corder. ^ Op. in. p. 462 sq. Mill, pp. 261, 
 p. 75) d5e\0oi)s fih o^k elxe (pijacL^ 273, has strangely misunderstood the 
 otfre T-jjs ira.pOiifov TeKoiiffTjs ^Tcpov ov5k purport of this passage. He speaks of 
 
282 
 
 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 
 
 Aposto- 
 lical Con- 
 stitutions. 
 
 Vietor- 
 inus of 
 Pettaw. 
 
 Eusebius 
 of Cassa- 
 rea. 
 
 shows not only that Origen himself favoured the Epiphanian view 
 which elsewhere he has directly maintained, but that he was wholly 
 unaware of the Hieronymian, the only alternative which presented 
 itself being the denial of the perpetual virginity \ 
 
 IT. The Apostolical Constitutions, the main part of which 
 may perhaps be regarded as a work of the third century, though they 
 received considerable additions in later ages, distinguish James the 
 Lord's brother from James the son of Alphfeus, making him, like 
 St Paul, a supernumerary apostle, and thus counting fourteen in all 
 (vi. 12, 13, 14; compare ii. 55, vii. 46, viii. 4). 
 
 12. 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 Yictorinus did little more than repeat the statements of the 
 evangelists respecting the Lord's brethren {adv. Helvid. 17). 
 
 13. Eusebius op C^sarea (f about 340) distinguished James the 
 Lord's brother from the Twelve, representing him as a supernumerary 
 apostle Kke St Paul (Gormrh. in Isai, in Montfaucon's Coll. Nov. Pair. 
 II. p. 422; Hist. Eccl. i. 12; comp. vii. 19). Accordingly in another 
 
 Origen here as * teaching the opinion of 
 his (James the Just) being the son of 
 Joseph, both as the sentiment of a 
 minority among right-minded Chris- 
 tians and as founded on apocryphal 
 traditions ' ; and so considers the note 
 on John ii. 12, already referred to, as 
 ' standing strangely contrasted ' to 
 Origen's statement here. If Dr Mill's 
 attention however had been directed 
 to the last sentence, koX olfiai \6yov 
 ^X^iv K.r.X., which, though most im- 
 portant, he has himself omitted in 
 quoting the passage, he could scarcely 
 have failed to see Origen's real meaning. 
 1 The authority of Hippolytus of 
 Portus, a contemporary of Origen, has 
 sometimes been alleged in favour of 
 Jerome's hypothesis. In the treatise 
 De XII ApostoUs ascribed to this au- 
 thor (ed. Fabric. 1. app. p. 30) it is said 
 of James the son of Alphfeus, Krjpva- 
 <t(j3V iv 'lepovaaX^fA inro 'louSatW Kara- 
 Xevffdels dvaLpeiTai Kul ddTrTerai e/eet irapa 
 rcfj voiif. He is thus confused or iden- 
 
 tified with James the Lord's brother. 
 Butthis blundering treatise was certain- 
 ly not written by the bishop of Portus : 
 see Le Moyne in Fabricius i. p. 84, and 
 Bunsen's Hippol. i. p. 456 (ed. 2). On 
 the other hand in the work De LXX 
 ApostoUs (Fabricius i. app. p. 41), 
 also ascribed to this writer, we find 
 among the 70 the name of 'Id/cojjSos 6 
 d8€\<p66cos eiria-Koiros 'lepoaoKvfiioyj who 
 is thus distinguished from the Twelve. 
 This treatise also is manifestly spuri- 
 ous. Again Nicephorus CaUistus, H. E. 
 ii. 3, cites as from Hippolytus of Portus 
 an elaborate account of our Lord's 
 brethren following the Epiphanian view 
 (Hippol. Op. I. app. 43, ed. Fabric.) ; 
 but this account seems to be drawn 
 either from Hippolytus the Theban, 
 unless as Bunsen {I. c.) supposes this 
 Theban Hippolytus be a mythical per- 
 sonage, or from some forged writings 
 which bore the name of the older Hip- 
 polytus. 
 
THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 283 
 
 passage he explains that this James was called the Lord's brother, 
 because Joseph was his reputed father (Hist. Eccl. ii. i)\ 
 
 14. Cyril of Jerusalem (t 386) comments on the successive Cyril of 
 
 Jerusalem, 
 appearances of our Lord related by St Paul, first to Peter, then to 
 
 the Twelve, then to the ^Ye^ hundred, then to James His own brother, 
 then to Paul His enemy j and his language implies that each appear- 
 ance was a step in advance of the testimony afforded by the former 
 (Catech. xiv. 21, p. 216, ed. Touttee). It may be gathered thence that 
 he distinguished this James from the Twelve. As this however is 
 only an inference from his language, and not a direct statement of his 
 own, too much stress must not be laid on it. In another passage also 
 (Catech. iv. 28, p. 65, kol tols aTroo-roAots koI ^laKwpw rtS ravTTjs rij'S 
 eKKXyjcTLas kiria-Koiria) Cyril seems to make the same distinction, but 
 here again the inference is doubtful. 
 
 15. Hilary of Poitiers (t 368) denounces those who 'claim Hilary of 
 authority for their opinion (against the virginity of the Lord's 
 mother) from the fact of its being recorded that our Lord had several 
 brothers ' ; and adds, ' yet if these had been sons of Mary and not 
 rather sons of Joseph, the offspring of a former marriage, she would 
 
 never at the time of the passion have been transferred to the Apostle 
 John to be his mother' (Comm, in Matth. i. i, p. 671, ed. Bened.). 
 
 ^ 'laKto^ov TOP Tov Kvplov \eybfj.evov roi'ldJaTJtp rod vo/Mti^ofjLipov olovel Trarpos 
 ddeXipov, ort Si) koI ovros rod 'Iwo'iy^ tov Xpio-rou, found in some Mss and in 
 wvdfjLaa-To trais, tov 8^ Xpta-Tov iraTrip fhe Syriac version, and preferred by 
 6 'lw(r^0, (^ (xvrjffTevdda-a ij irapdhos Blom p. 98, and Credner JBinl. p. 585, 
 K.T.X. On the whole this passage seems I cannot but regard as an obvious alter- 
 to be best explained by referring ofiros ation of some early transcriber for the 
 to K6pio$. But this is not necessary; sake of clearness, 
 for dvofid^eo-Oat (or KoKeicrOai) irois tivo^ Compare the expressions in i. 12 eh 
 is a good Greek phrase to denote real SkKoXo^osTiav tpepoixivwv a.8ek(f>u)vr}v^ 
 as well as reputed sonship : as iEsch. and iii. 7x01? Kupiouxp^Mctrffwi/ aSeX- 
 Fragm. 285 a'/5' ^ttt "ATXavTos iraides (pos. He was a reputed brother of the 
 (avofiafffjL^vac, Soph. Track. 1105 <S t^s Lord, because Joseph was His reputed 
 apUfTrjs p-TfTpos (hvQfioLUfxhos, Eur. Elect. father. See also Eusebius On the Star, 
 935 : comp. Ephes. iii. 15 tov iraTipa ' Joseph and Mary and Our Lord with 
 4^od7rd(TairaTpta6j/ofxa^erat. The word them and the five sons of Hannah 
 wvofiao-To cannot at all events, as Mill (Anna) the first wife of Joseph' (p. 17, 
 (p. 272) seems disposed to think, imply Wright's TransL). The account from 
 anydoubtonthepartof Eusebius about which this passage is taken professes 
 the parentage of James, for the whole to be founded on a doouiiient dating 
 drift of the passage is plainly against a.d. 119. 
 this. The other reading, Hn Btj Kal oCroy 
 
284 
 
 Vietor- 
 inus the 
 Philo- 
 sopher. 
 
 Ambrosi- 
 aster. 
 
 Basil. 
 
 Gregory 
 Nyssen. 
 
 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 
 
 Thus he not only adopts the Epiphanian solution, but shows himself 
 entirely ignorant of the Hieronymian. 
 
 i6. ViCTORiNUs THE PHILOSOPHER (about 360) takes et fXYj in 
 Gal. i. 19 as expressing not exception but opposition, and distinctly 
 states that James was not an apostle : ' Cum autem fratrem dixit, 
 apostolum n6gavit.' 
 
 17. The Ambrosian Hilary (about 75) comments on Gal. i. 19 
 as follows ; ' The Lord is called the brother of James and the rest in 
 the same way in which He is also designated the son of Joseph. For 
 some in a fit of madness impiously assert and contend that these were 
 true brothers of the Lord, being sons of Mary, allowing at the same 
 time that Joseph, though not His true father, was so called neverthe- 
 less. For if these were His true brothers, then Joseph will be His 
 true father ; for he who called Joseph His father also called James 
 and the rest His brothers.' Thus his testimony entirely coincides with 
 that of his greater namesake. He sees only the alternative of deny- 
 ing the perpetual virginity as Helvidius did, or accepting the solution 
 of the Protevangelium ; and he unhesitatingly adopts the latter. 
 
 18. Basil the Great (t 379), while allowing that the perpetual 
 virginity is not a necessary article of belief, yet adheres to it himself 
 ' since the lovers of Christ cannot endure to hear that the mother of 
 God ever ceased to be a virgin ' {Hom. in Sand. Christ. Gen. 11. p. 
 600, ed, Garn.)\ As immediately afterwards he refers, in support of 
 his view, to some apocryphal work which related that Zacharias was 
 slain by the Jews for testifying to the virginity of the mother of 
 Jesus (a story which closely resembles the narrative of his death in 
 the Frotevang. §§ 23, 24), it may perhaps be inferred that he accepted 
 that account of the Lord's brethren which ran through these apo- 
 cryphal gospels. 
 
 19. His brother Gregory 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 the other 
 
 ^ This very moderate expression of 
 opinion is marked by the editors with a 
 caute legendum in the margin ; and in 
 Garnier's edition the treatise is con- 
 
 signed to an appendix as of doubtful au- 
 thenticity. The main argument urged 
 against it is the passage here referred 
 to. (See Garnier, 11. prtef. p. xv.) 
 
THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 285 
 
 Evangelists (besides St John) the mother of James and Joses is the 
 onother of God and none elseV 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 Alphceus who was ' great/ because he was in the 
 number of the Twelve Apostles, which the Lord's brother was not 
 {in Christ. Resurr. ii, 0pp. iii. pp. 412, 413, ed. Paris, 1638). 
 
 20. The Antidicomarianites, an obscure Arabian sect in the Antidico- 
 
 marian- 
 latter half of the fourth century, maintained that the Lord's mother ites. 
 
 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 GoUyridians, likewise in 
 
 Arabia, who going to the opposite extreme paid divine honours to 
 
 the Yirgin (Epiphan. Sceres. Ixxviii, Ixxix^). 
 
 21. Epiphanius a native of Palestine became bishop of Con- Epipha- 
 stantia in Cyprus in the year 367. !N"ot very long before Jerome 
 wrote in defence of the perpetual virginity of the Lord's mother 
 against the Helvidians at E-ome, Epiphanius came forward as the 
 champion of the same cause against the Antidicomarianites. He 
 denounced them in an elaborate pastoral letter, in which he explains 
 
 his views at length, and which he has thought fit to incorporate in 
 his subsequently written treatise against Heresies (pp. 1034 — 1057, 
 
 ^ Similarly Ohrysostom, see below, * The names are plainly terms of 
 p. 289, note I. This identification of ridicule invented by their enemies. Au- 
 the Lord's niother with the mother of gustine supposes the ' Antidicoma- 
 James and Joses is adopted and simi- rianitie' of Epiphanius (he writes the 
 larly explained also in one of the apo- word ' Antidicomaritae') to be the same 
 eryphal gospels: HisLJosep/i. 4 (Tisch. as the Helvidians of Jerome {adv. 
 p. 117). Possibly Gregory derived it Hares. 84, viii. p. 24). They held the 
 from some such source. It was also same tenets, it is true, but there 
 part of the Helvidian hypothesis, where seems to have been otherwise no con- 
 it was less out of place, and gave Jerome nexion between the two. Gonsidera- 
 an easy triumph over his adversary tious of time and place alike resist this 
 [adv. Helvid. 12 etc.). It is adopted identification. 
 
 moreover by Cave (Life of St James the Epiphanius had heard that these 
 Less, § 2), who holds that the Lord's opinions, which he held to be deroga- 
 brethren were sons of Joseph, and yet torytotheLord'smother, had been pro- 
 makes James the Lord's brother one mulgated also by the elder Apollinaria 
 of the Twelve, identifying Joseph with or some of his disciples ; but he doubted 
 Alphffius. Fritzsche also identifies about this (p. 1034). The report was 
 these two Maries {Matth. p. 822, Marc. probably circulated by their opponents 
 p. 697). in order to bring discredit upon them. 
 
286 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 
 
 ed. Petav.). He moreover discusses the subject incidentally in other 
 parts of his great work (pp. 115, 119, 432, 636), and it is clear 
 that he had devoted much time and attention to it. His account 
 coincides with that of the apocryphal gospels. Joseph, he states, was 
 eighty years old or more when the Yirgin was espoused to him ; by 
 his former wife he had six children, four sons and two daughters, the 
 names of the daughters were Mary and Salome, for which names by 
 the way he alleges the authority of Scripture (p. 1041) ; his sons, 
 St James especially, were called the Lord's brethren because they 
 were brought up with Jesus ; the mother of the Lord remained for 
 ever a virgin ; as the lioness is said to exhaust her fertility in the 
 production of a single offspring (see Herod, iii. 108), so she who bore 
 the Lion of Judah could not in the nature of things become a mother 
 a second time (pp. 1044, 1045). These particulars with many other 
 besides he gives, quoting as his authority 'the tradition of the Jews' 
 (p. 1039). It is to be observed moreover that, though he thus treats 
 of the subject several times and at great length, he never once alludes 
 to the Hieronymian account ; and yet I can scarcely doubt that one 
 who so highly extolled celibacy would have hailed with delight 
 a solution which, as Jerome boasted, saved the virginity not of Mary 
 only but of Joseph also, for whose honour Epiphanius shows himself 
 very jealous (pp. 1040, 1046, 1047). 
 Helvidius, 22. Somewhere about the year 380 Helvidius, who resided in 
 and Jo^'- ^'^^^j published a treatise in which he maintained that the Lord's 
 manua. brethren were sons of Joseph and Mary. He seems to have suc- 
 ceeded in convincing a considerable number of persons, for contem- 
 porary writers speak of the Helvidians as a party. These views 
 were moreover advocated by BoNOSUS, bishop of Sardica in lilyria, 
 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 E-ome 
 and at Milan (about a.d. 390 ; see Hefele ConcilieTigesch. 11. pp. 47, 
 
 48)'- 
 
 1 The work ascribed to Dorotheus Hist, Lit. i. p. 163); and I have there- 
 Tyrius is obviously spurious (see Cave fore not included his testimony in this 
 
THE BEETHREN OF THE LORD. 287 
 
 In earlier times this account of the Lord's brethren, so far as it Motive of 
 
 . . the Helvi- 
 
 was the badge of a party, seems to have been held m conjunction dians. 
 
 ■with Ebionite views respecting the conception and person of Christ \ 
 
 For, though not necessarily affecting the belief in the miraculous 
 
 Incarnation, it was yet a natural accompaniment of the denial 
 
 thereof. The motive of these latter impugners of the perpetual 
 
 virginity was very different. They endeavoured to stem the current 
 
 which had set strongly in the direction of celibacy ; and, if their 
 
 theory was faulty, they still deserve the sympathy due to men who 
 
 in defiance of public opinion refused to bow their necks to an 
 
 extravagant and tyrannous superstition. 
 
 We have thus arrived at the point of time when Jerome's answer Evidence 
 to Helvidius created a new epoch in the history of this controversy. ^^^^^^^^^ 
 An.d the following inferences are, if I mistake not, fairly deducible 
 from the evidence produced. First : there is not the slightest indi- 
 cation that the Hieronymian solution ever occurred to any individual 
 or sect or church, until it was put forward by Jerome himself. If 
 it had been otherwise, writers like Origen, the two Hilaries, and 
 Epiphanius, who discuss the question, could not have failed to notice 
 it. Secondly : the Epiphanian account has the highest claims to the 
 sanction of tradition, whether the value of this sanction be great 
 or small. Thirdly : this solution seems especially to represent the 
 Palestinian view. 
 
 In the year 382 (or 383) Jerome published his treatise; and the Jerome's 
 effect of it is visible at once. 
 
 Ambrose in the year 392 wrote a work De Institutione Virginis, Ambrose. 
 
 list. The writer distinguishes James stantiate the assertions in the following 
 the Lord's brother and James the son of note of Gibbon, Decline and Fall c. xvi, 
 Alphceus, and makes them successive ' This appellation {'brethren') was at 
 bishops of Jerusalem. See Combefis first understood in the most obvious 
 in Fabricius' Hippol, i, app. p. 36. sense, and it was supposed that the 
 ^ [I fear the statement in the test brothers of Jesus were the lawful issue 
 may leave a false impression. Previous of Joseph and Mary. A devout respect 
 writers had spoken of the Ebionites as for the virginity of the mother of God 
 holding the Helvidian view, and I was suggested to the Gnostics, and after- 
 betrayed into using similar language. wards to the Orthodox Greeks, the ex- 
 But there is, so far as I am aware, no pedient of bestowing a second wife on 
 evidence in favour of this assumption. Joseph, etc.'] 2nd ed. 
 It would be stiU more difficult to sub- 
 
288 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 
 
 in which he especially refutes the impugners of the perpetual virginity 
 of the Lord's mother. In a passage which is perhaps intentionally 
 obscure he speaks to this effect : * The term brothers has a wide 
 application; it is used of members of the same family, the same race, 
 the same country. Witness the Lord's own words / will declare thy 
 name to my brethren (Ps. xxii. 22). St Paul too says : I could wish 
 to he accursed for my brethren (Pom. 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)'.' 
 Prom this I infer that St Ambrose had heard of, though possibly 
 not read, Jerome's tract, in which he discourses on the wide meaning 
 of the term : that, if he had read it, he did not feel inclined to 
 abandon the view with which he was familiar in favour of the 
 novel hypothesis put forward by Jerome : and lastly, that seeing the 
 importance of cooperation against a common enemy he was anxious 
 not to raise dissensions among the champions of the perpetual 
 virginity by the discussion of details. 
 
 Pelaeius. Pelagius, who commented on St Paul a few years after Jerome, 
 
 adopts his theory and even his language, unless his text has been 
 tampered with here (Gal. i. 19). 
 
 Augustine. -^* t^® same time Jerome's hypothesis found a much more weighty 
 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 
 
 1 The passage, which I have thus Quod quidem si quis dihgentius prose- 
 paraphrased, is * Fratres autem gentis, quatur inveniet. Nos ea prosequenda 
 et generis, populi quoque consortium nonputavimus, quoniamfratemumno- 
 nuncuparidocetDominusipae quidicit: men liquet pluribus esse commune' 
 Narraho nomen tuum fratribus meisj (11. p. 260, ed. Ben.). St Ambrose 
 in medio ecclesice laudabo te. Paulus seems to accept so much of Jerome's 
 quoque ait: Optaham ego anathema esse argument as relates to the wide use 
 pro fratribus meis. Potuerunt autem of the terra * brothers' and nothing 
 fratres esse ex Joseph, non ex Maria. more. 
 
THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 289 
 
 by Jerome in the treatise against Helvidius {In Joh. Evdng. x, iii. 
 2. p. 368, ih. xxviii, in. 2. p. 508; Enarr. in Ps. cxsvii, iv. 2. p. 
 1443 'i Gontr. Faust xxii. 35, viii. p. 383 ; comp. Qucest. XYII in 
 Matth., in. 2. p. 285). 
 
 Thus supported, it won its way to general acceptance in the Latin Western 
 Church; and the Western Seuvices recognise only one James besides 
 the son of Zebedee, thus identifying the Lord's brother with the son 
 of Alphseus. 
 
 In the East also it met with a certain amount of success, but this Chryso- 
 
 stom. 
 was only temporary. Chrysostom wrote both before and after Je- 
 rome's treatise had become generally known, and his expositions of 
 the New Testament mark a period of transition. In his Homilies on 
 the earlier books he takes the Epiphanian view : St James, he says, 
 was at one time an unbeliever with the rest of the Lord's brethren 
 (on Matth. i. 25, vii. p. 77 ; John vii. 5, viii. p. 284 ; see also on 
 I Cor. ix. 4, X. p. 181 e) ; the resurrection was the turning-point 
 in their career; they were called the Lord's brethren, as Joseph 
 himself was reputed the husband of Mary (on Matth. i. 25, 1. c.)^ 
 Hitherto he betrays no knowledge of the Hieronymian account. 
 
 ^ A comment attributed to Ohryso- the comments on i Cor. xv. 7 (x. 
 
 atom in Cramer's Catena on i Cor. ix. 355 d), where he evidently regards 
 
 4 — 7, but not found in the Homilies, is James as not one of the Twelve ; on 
 
 still more explicit; 'A5eX^oi>s rod Ku- Matth. x. 2 (vn. pp. 368, 9), where he 
 
 piov \4yeL roi>s vofitad^vra^ dvat avTov makes James the son of Alphaeus a tax- 
 
 dde\<po6s' iweLdijyap ovTos 6 xpV/^^'^'-t'^^ gatherer like Matthew, clearly taking 
 
 Kal ai/Tos Kara tyiv kolvtju 5o|a»' eJirev them to be brothers ; and on Matth. 
 
 avTo6s' Toi)s 5^ vloi>s Toktt/^ \4yetf ot xxvii. 55 {vn. p. 827 A), where, Hke 
 
 d5€\(pol Tov Kvpiov ^xp^M'^'iO'ac did ttjv Gregory Nyssen, he identifies Mapia 
 
 TTpbs rrjv deoTOKOv fivqcrelav tov ^Juxtt}^. 'la/ccii^ou with the Lord's mother. The 
 
 \4y€L S^'ldKin^ov iTriaKOTrov'lepo(r6\^/j,(i3y accounts of Chrysostom's opinion on 
 
 Kal 'lo}(Tyj(p 6p.<J}vvp.ov r<^ Trar^pi Kal S£- this subject given by Blom p. 11 1 sq., 
 
 fiuva Kal 'loiiSa. I give the passage and Mill p. 284 note, are unsatis- 
 
 without attempting to correct the text. factory. 
 
 This note reappears almost word for The Homihes on the Acts also take 
 
 word in the (Ecumenian catena and in the same view (ix. pp. 23 u, 26 a), 
 
 Theophylact. If Chrysostom be not the but though these are generally ascribed 
 
 author, then we gain the testimony of to Chrysostom, their genuineness is 
 
 some other ancient writer on the same very questionable. In another spurious 
 
 side. Compare also the pseudo-Chry- work, Opus imp. in Matth. ^ vi. p. 
 
 Bostom, Op. II. p. 797. clxxiv e, the Hieronymian view ap- 
 
 The passages referred to in the text pears ; * Jacobum Alphsei lapidantes : 
 
 show clearly what was Chrysostom's propter qua omnia Jerusalem de- 
 
 earlier view. To these may be added structa est a Komanis.' 
 
 GAL. 
 
 19 
 
290 THE BEETHREN OF THE LORD. 
 
 But in his exposition o£ the Epistle to the Galatians (i. jg) he not 
 
 only speaks of James the Lord's brother as if he were an apostle 
 
 (which proves nothing), but also calls him the son of Clopas\ Thus 
 
 he would appear meanwhile to have accepted the hypothesis of 
 
 Jerome and to have completed it by the identification of Clopas with 
 
 Theodo- Alphseus. And Theodoret, who for the most part closely follows 
 ret. 
 
 Chrysostom, distinctly repudiates the older view : ' He was not, 
 
 as some have supposed, a son of Joseph, the offspring of a former 
 
 marriage, but was son of Clopas and cousin of the Lord ; for his 
 
 mother was the sister of the Lord's mother. ' 
 
 Cyril of But with these exceptions the Epiphanian view maintained its 
 
 dria. ground in the East. It is found again in Cyril of Alexandria for 
 
 instance (Glaphyr. in Gen. lib. vii. p. 221), and seems to have been 
 
 held by later Greek writers almost, if not quite, universally. In 
 
 Theophy- Theophylact indeed (on Matth. xiii. 55, Gal. i. 19) we find an 
 lact. . 
 
 attempt to unite the two accounts. James, argues the writer, was 
 
 the Lord's reputed brother as the son of Joseph and the Lord's 
 
 cousin as the son of Clopas ; the one was his natural, and the other his 
 
 legal father ; Clopas having died childless, Joseph had raised up seed 
 
 to his brother by his widow according to the law of the levirate^. 
 
 Eastern This novel suggestion however found but little favour, and the East- 
 Ohurches 
 
 ern 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. 
 
 ^ rhv rod KXwTra, oVep Kal 6 Gvayye- exposition however is somewhat con- 
 
 XtcTTT/s ^Xey^v. He is referring, I sup- fused, and it is difficult to resist the 
 
 pose, to the lists of the Apostles which suspicion that it has been interpolated, 
 
 mention James the son of AlphcBus. ^ See the remarks of Mill, p. 22S, 
 See above, p. 267. This portion of his 
 
THE BRETHREN OE THE LORD. 
 
 291 
 
 A. Sons of 
 Joseph and 
 Ma/ry. 
 
 B. Sons of 
 Joseph by a 
 former wife. 
 
 C. Sons of the 
 Yirgin^s sister. 
 
 Tertullian, 
 Helvidius, 
 
 BONOSUS, 
 
 jovinianus (1), 
 AntidicomarianitesJ 
 
 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. 
 
 I 
 
 'Jerome, 
 Pelagius, 
 
 Augustine, 
 [Chrysostom], 
 Theodoret, 
 Western services, 
 Later latin 
 writers. 
 
 "1 
 
 A. or B. 'Brethren^ 
 in a strict sense. 
 James the Just not 
 one of the Twelve. 
 
 I Early versions, 
 Clementine Ho- 
 milies (T)j 
 Ascents of 
 
 JAMES, 
 
 Hegesippus, 
 Apost. constit., 
 Cyril of Jeru- 
 salem (1), 
 
 ViCTORINUS THE 
 
 philosopher. 
 
 >J 
 
 [-Basil, 
 B. or C. Perpetual \ Catholic wri- 
 virginity of Mary. 1 ters gene- 
 
 [ RALLY. 
 
 Uncertain. Hebrew gospel, Yictorinus petavionensis. 
 Levirate. Theo ph ylact. 
 
 19 — 2 
 
III. 
 
 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 Three 
 Apostles 
 alone 
 besides 
 St Paul 
 promi- 
 nent. 
 
 The four 
 meet toge^ 
 ther at a 
 great 
 crisis. 
 
 ^T^HREE and three only of the personal disciples and immediate 
 -^ followers of our Lord hold any prominent place in the Apostolic 
 records — James, Peter, and John; the first the Lord's brother, the 
 two latter the foremost members of the Twelve. Apart from an in- 
 cidental reference to the death of James the son of Zebedee, which is 
 dismissed in a single sentence, the rest of the Twelve are men- 
 tioned by name for the last time on the day of the Lord's Ascension. 
 Thenceforward they disappear wholly from the canonical writings. 
 
 And this silence also extends to the traditions of succeeding ages. 
 We read indeed of St Thomas in India, of St Andrew in Scythia ; 
 but such scanty notices, even if we accept them as trustworthy, show 
 only the more plainly how little the Church could tell of her earliest 
 teachers. Doubtless they laboured zealously and effectively in the 
 spread of the Gospel ; but, so far as we know, they have left no im- 
 press of their individual mind and character on the Church at large. 
 Occupying the foreground, and indeed covering the whole canvas of 
 early ecclesiastical history, appear four figures alone, St Paul and 
 the three Apostles of the Circumcision. 
 
 Once and, it would appear, not more than once, these four great 
 teachers met together face to face. It was the one great crisis in 
 the history of the Church, on the issue of which was staked her 
 future progress and triumph. Was she to open her doors wide and 
 receive all comers, to declare her legitimate boundaries coextensive 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THEEE. 293 
 
 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 1 
 
 Not less important, so far as we can see, was the question at issue, 
 when Paul and Barnabas arrived at Jerusalem to confer with the 
 Apostles of the Circumcision on the subject of the Mosaic ritual 
 which then distracted the youthful Church. It must therefore be 
 an intensely interesting study to watch the attitude of the four 
 great leaders of the Church at this crisis, merely as a historical 
 lesson. But the importance of the subject does not rest here. Ques- Questions 
 tions of much wider interest are suggested by the accounts of this by 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 t How far do the later sects of Ebionites on the one 
 hand and Marcionites on the other, as they appear in direct anta- 
 gonism in the second century, represent opposing principles cherished 
 side by side within the bosom of the Church and sheltering them- 
 selves under the names, or (as some have ventured to say) sanctioned 
 by the authority, of the leading Apostles 1 What in fact is the secret 
 history — if there be any secret history — of the origin of Catholic 
 Christianity 1 
 
 On this battle-field the most important of recent theological con- import- 
 
 troversies has been waged : and it is felt by both sides that the f^^e^ 
 
 Epistle to the Galatians is the true key to the position. In the first ^^^^^^^^^ 
 
 ^ , Epistle, 
 
 place, it is one of the very few documents of the Apostolic ages, 
 
 whose genuineness has not been seriously challenged by the oppo- 
 nents of revelation. Moreover, as the immediate utterance of one 
 who himself took the chief part in the incidents recorded, it cannot 
 be discredited as having passed through a coloured medium or 
 gathered accretions by lapse of time. And lastly, the very form in 
 which the information is conveyed — by partial and broken allusions 
 rather than by direct and continuous statement — raises it beyond 
 the reach of suspicion, even where suspicion is most active. Here 
 at least both combatants can take their stand on common ground. 
 
294 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 Nor need the defenders o£ 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. 
 Apology Thus the attempt to decipher the relations between Jewish and 
 
 essay. Gentile Christianity in the first ages of the Church is directly sug- 
 
 gested by this epistle ; and indeed any commentary would be incom- 
 plete which refused to entertain the problem. This must be my 
 excuse for entering upon a subject, about which so much has been 
 written and which involves so many subsidiary questions. It will 
 be impossible within my limits to discuss all these questions in de- 
 tail. The objections for instance, which have been urged against 
 the genuineness of a large number of the canonical and other early 
 Christian writings, can only be met indirectly. Reasonable men 
 will hardly be attracted towards a theory which can only be built on 
 an area prepared by this wide clearance of received documents. At 
 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. 
 
 Proposed I purpose therefore to sketch in outline the progressive history 
 
 slceiich of 
 
 the rela- ^^ *^G relations between the Jewish and Gentile converts in the 
 
 Jewkh early ages of the Church, as gathered from the Apostolic writings, 
 
 ^ .■■, aided by such scanty information as can be got together from other 
 
 Christ- sources. This will be a fit and indeed a necessary introduction to 
 ians. 
 
 the subject with which the Epistle to the Galatians is more directly 
 
 concerned, the positions occupied by St Paul and the three Apostles 
 
 of the Circumcision respectively. 
 Three This history falls into three periods which mark three distinct 
 
 divisions stages in its progress : (i) The Extension of the Church to the Gen- 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THEEE. 295 
 
 tiles; (2) The Recognition of Gentile Liberty; (3) The Emancipa- of tl^^s 
 tion of the Jewish Churches \ 
 
 I. The Extension of the Chu/rch to the Gentiles. 
 
 It appears from the Apostolic history that the believers in the The early 
 earliest days conformed strictly to Jewish customs in their religious Jerusa- 
 life, retaining the fixed hours of prayer, attending the temple wor- 
 ship and sacrifices, observing the sacred festivals. The Church was 
 still confined to one nation and had not yet broken loose from the 
 national rites and usages. But these swathing bands, which were 
 perhaps needed to support its infancy, would only cripple its later 
 growth, and must be thrown ofi", if it was ever to attain to a healthy 
 maturity. This emancipation then was the great problem which the 
 
 Apostles had to work out. The Master Himself had left no express Our Lord's 
 
 teaching, 
 instructions. He had charged them, it is true, to preach the Gospel 
 
 to all nations, but how this injunction was to be carried out, by what 
 
 changes a national Church must expand into an universal Church, 
 
 they had not been told. He had indeed asserted the sovereignty of 
 
 the spirit over the letter ; He had enunciated the great principle — 
 
 as wide in its application as the law itself — that ' Man was not made 
 
 for the sabbath, but the sabbath for man'; He had pointed to the 
 
 fulfilment of the law in the Gospel. So far He had discredited the 
 
 law, but He had not deposed or abolished it. It was left to the 
 
 Apostles themselves under the guidance of the Spirit, moulded by 
 
 circumstances and moulding them in turn, to work out this great 
 
 change. 
 
 ^ Important works treating of the re- with a noble sacrifice of consistency to 
 
 lation between the Jewish and Gentile truth he has abandoned many of his 
 
 Christians are Lechler's Apostolisches former positions, and placed himself in 
 
 und Nachapostolisches Zeitalter (^te more direct antagonism to the Tiibin- 
 
 aufl.i857),andEitschrs£nfs£e7iw?i^der gen school in which he was educated. 
 
 AltkathoUschen Kirche {^te aufl. 1857). The historical speculations of that 
 
 I am indebted to both these works, but school are developed in Baur's Paulus 
 
 to the latter especially, which is very and Christenthum und die Christliche 
 
 able and suggestive. Eitschl should be Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, in 
 
 read in his second edition, in which Schwegler's Nachapostolisches Zeitalter. 
 
296 ST PAUL AND THE THKEE. 
 
 Jews of And soon enough the pressure of events began to be felt. The 
 
 the Dis- 
 persion, dispersion was the link which connected the Hebrews of Palestine 
 
 with the outer world. Led captive by the power of Greek philosophy 
 
 at Athens and Tarsus and Alexandria, attracted by the fascinations 
 
 of Oriental mysticism in Asia, swept along with the busy whirl of 
 
 I 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 
 gate^ — superstitious devotees who observed the rites without ac- 
 cepting the faith of the Mosaic dispensation — curious lookers-on 
 who interested themselves in the Jewish ritual as they would in 
 the worship of Isis or of Astarte — the most stubborn zealot of the 
 law was linked to the idolatrous heathen whom he abhorred and who 
 despised him in turn. Thus the train was unconsciously laid, when 
 the spark fell from heaven and fired it. 
 
 First day The very baptism of the Christian Church opened the path for its 
 
 of Pente- 
 cost, extension to the Gentile world. On the first day of Pentecost were 
 
 gathered together Hellenist Jews from all the principal centres of the 
 
 dispersion. With them were assembled also numbers of incorporated 
 
 Israelites, proselytes of the covenant. The former of these by contact 
 
 with Gentile thought and life, the latter by the force of early habits 
 
 and associations^, would accept and interpret the new revelation in 
 
 a less rigorous spirit than the Hebrew zealot of Jerusalem. Each 
 
 successive festival must have been followed by similar though less 
 
 striking results. The stream of Hellenists and proselytes, constantly 
 
 ebbing and flowing, must have swept away fragments at least of the 
 
 ^ The distinction between proselytes hardly form a distinct class, are ol a-e- 
 
 of the covenant or of righteousness and ^bjxevot t6v Qeov^ ol eiKre^eis etc. In 
 
 proselytes of the gate is found in the speaking therefore of 'proselytes of the 
 
 Gemara : the former were circumcised, gate ' I ara using a convenient anachro- 
 
 and observed the whole law ; the latter nism. 
 
 acknowledged the God of Israel and ^ 'Trust not a proselyte,' said one 
 conformed to Jewish worship in some of the rabbis, ' till twenty-four genera- 
 respects, but stood without the cove- tions; for he holds his leaven.' Yalkut 
 nant, not having been incorporated by (Shimoni) on Ruthi. ti, 12, § 601. See 
 the initiatory rite. The former alone, also the passages given by Danz in 
 it would appear, are called irpotx-qXvroi Meuschen Test. Illustr. p. 651. 
 in the New Testament; the latter, who 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 297 
 
 new truth, purging it of some local encumbrances which would 
 gather about it in the mother country, and carrying it thus purged to 
 far distant shores. 
 
 Meanwhile at Jerusalem some years passed away before the bar- 
 rier of Judaism was assailed. The Apostles still observed the Mosaic 
 ritual ; they still confined their preaching to Jews by birth, or Jews 
 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 organised ministry was also Appoiut- 
 
 - ment of 
 
 the first step towards the emancipation of the Church. The Jews Hellenist 
 
 of Judsea, 'Hebrews of the Hebrews,' had ever regarded their Hel- 
 lenist brethren with suspicion and distrust ; and this estrangement 
 reproduced itself in the Christian Church. The interests of the 
 Hellenist widows had been neglected in the daily distribution of 
 alms. Hence * arose a murmuring of the Hellenists against the 
 Hebrews (Acts vi. i),' which was met by the appointment of seven 
 persons specially charged with providing for the wants of these neg- 
 lected poor. If the selection was made, as St Luke's language 
 seems to imply, not by the Hellenists themselves but by the Church 
 at large (vi. 2), the concession when granted was carried out in a 
 liberal spirit. All the names of the seven are Greek, pointing to 
 a Hellenist rather than a Hebrew extraction, and one is especially 
 described as a proselyte, being doubtless chosen to represent a hitherto 
 small but growing section of the community. 
 
 By this appointment the Hellenist members obtained a status in Effects 
 the Church ; and the effects of this measure soon became visible, measure 
 Two out of the seven stand prominently forward as the champions 
 of emancipation, Stephen the preacher and martyr of liberty, and 
 Philip the practical worker^ 
 
 ^ In Nicolas, the only one of the that an account so discreditable to one 
 
 remaining five whose name reappears in who in the New Testament is named only 
 
 history, liberty is degraded into licence. in connexion with his appointment to an 
 
 I see no valid reason for doubting the honourable office would have been circu- 
 
 very early tradition that the Nicolaitans lated unless there were some foundation 
 
 (Apoc. ii. 6, 15) derived their name from in fact. At the same time the Nicolai- 
 
 him. If there was a traitor among the tans may have exaggerated and per- 
 
 Twelve, there might weU be a heresi- verted the teaching of Nicolas. Iren- 
 
 arch among the Seven. Nor is it likely ffius (i. 26, 3) and Hippolytus {Hmr. 
 
298 
 
 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 Stephen's 
 
 testimony. 
 
 Indirect 
 
 conse- 
 
 qnences. 
 
 Philip, 
 converts 
 
 Stephen is the acknowledged forerunner of the Apostle of the 
 Gentiles. He was the first to ' look steadfastly to the end of that 
 which is abolished/ to sound the death-knell of the Mosaic ordinances 
 and the temple worship, and to claim for the Gospel unfettered 
 liberty and universal rights. 'This man/ said his accusers, 'ceaseth 
 not to speak words against the holy place and the law ; for we have 
 heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place 
 and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us (vi. 13, 14).' 
 The charge was only false as misrepresenting the spirit which ani- 
 mated his teaching. The accused attempts no denial, but pleads 
 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 efiect of his dying words. A persecution ' arose about 
 Stephen/ The disciples of the mother Church 'were scattered 
 abroad throughout the regions of Judsea and Samaria (viii. i).' Some 
 of the refugees even 'travelled as far as Phenice and Cyprus and 
 Antioch (xi. 19).' This dispersion was, as we shall see, the parent 
 of the first Gentile congregation. The Church of the Gentiles, it 
 may be truly said, was baptized in the blood of Stephen. 
 
 The doctrine, which Stephen preached and for which he died, 
 was carried into practice by Philip. The sacred narrative mentions 
 two incidents in his career, each marking an onward stride in the 
 free development of the Church. It is therefore not without signi- 
 
 vii. 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 
 {Beiu 'irapaxpV<^Qo.L ry (xapKl),^ of which 
 these Nicolaitana 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 Mammsea, 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. 18), but 
 not attributing to him any directly im- 
 moral doctrines. A common inter- 
 pretation, which makes Nicolaus a 
 Greek rendering of Balaam, is not 
 very happy ; for Nt/f(5Xaos does not al- 
 together correspond with any possible 
 derivation of Balaam, least of all with 
 DV )P2 'the destroyer of the people,' 
 generally adopted by those who so ex- 
 plain Nt/coXaos. See below, p. 309, 
 with the notes. 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 299 
 
 ficance that years afterwards we find him styled Hke Evangelist' 
 (xxi. 8), as if he had earned this honourable title by some signal 
 service rendered to the Gospel, 
 
 I. The Samaritan occupied the border land between the Jew (i) The 
 and the Gentile. Theologically, as geographically, he was the con- tans ; 
 necting link between the one and the other. Half Hebrew by race, 
 half Israelite in his acceptance of a portion of the sacred canon, he 
 held an anomalous position, shunning and shunned by the Jew, yet 
 clinging to the same promises and looking forward to the same hopes. 
 With a bold venture of faith Philip offers the Gospel to this mon- 
 grel people. His overtures are welcomed with joy, and ' Samaria 
 receives the word of God.' The sacred historian relates moreover, 
 that his labours were sanctioned by the presence of the chief 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 flesh \ ' ' No Samari- 
 tan shall ever be made a proselyte. They have no share in the resur- I 
 rection of the dead ^ ' In opening her treasures to this hated race, > 
 the Church had surmounted the first barrier of prejudice behind 
 which the exclusiveness of the nation had entrenched itself. To 
 
 1 Mishnah Shehiith -viii. 10. swine's flesh ; andnoCuthsean shall ever 
 
 2 Firhe Rahhi Elieser 38. The pas- be made a proselyte: and they have no 
 sage so well illustrates the statement in share in the resurrection of the dead; 
 the text, that I give it in full: 'Whatdid for it is said (Ezra iv. 3) Ye have nothing 
 EzraandZerubbabelthesonofShealtiel to do with us to build an house unto 
 and Jehoshua the son of Jehozadak? our God, (that is) neither in this world 
 (They went) and they gathered together nor in the future. And that they 
 all the congregation into the temple of should have neither portion nor inhe- 
 the Lord, and they brought 300 priests ritance in Jerusalem, as it is said (Neh. 
 and 300 children and 300 trumpets and ii. 20), But ye had no portion nor right 
 300 scrolls of the law in their hands, nor memorial in Jerusalem. And they 
 and they blew, and the Levites sang communicated the anathema to Israel 
 and played, and they banned the Cuth- which is in Babylon. And they put 
 seaus (Samaritans) by the mystery of upon them anathema upon anathema. 
 the ineffable name and by the writing And king Cyrus also decreed upon them 
 which is written on the tables and by an everlasting anathema as it is said 
 the anathema of the upper (heavenly) (Ezra vi. 12), And the God that has 
 court of justice and by the anathema of caused His name to dwell there etc.* 
 the nether (earthly) court of justice, Severalpassagesbearing on this subject 
 that no one of Israel should eat the are collected in the article ' Samaritan 
 bread of a Cuthsean for ever. Hence Pentateuch,' by Mr E. Deutsch, in 
 they (the elders) said: Whosoever eats Smith's Dictionary of the Bible. 
 
 the bread of a Cuthsean is as if he ate 
 
300 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 be a Samaritan was to have a devil, in the eyes of a rigid Jew 
 
 (John viii. 48, comp. iv. 9). 
 
 (?) The 2. Nor was it long before Philip broke through a second and 
 
 Ethiopian *= ^ * 
 
 eunuch, more formidable line of defence. The blood of the patriarchs, though 
 
 diluted, still flowed in the veins of the Samaritans. His next con- 
 vert had no such claim to respect. A descendant of the accursed 
 race of Ham ^, shut out from the congregation by his physical defect 
 (Deut. xxiii. i), the Ethiopian chamberlain laboured under a two- 
 fold disability. This double line is assailed by the Hellenist 
 I preacher and taken by storm. The desire of the Ethiopian to know 
 \ and to do God's will is held by Philip to be a sufficient claim. He 
 acts boldly and without hesitation. He accosts him, instructs him, 
 baptizes him then and there, 
 Conver- The venture of the subordinate minister however still wanted the 
 
 Cornelius, sanction of the leaders of the Church, At length this sanction was 
 given in a signal way. The Apostles of the Circumcision, even St 
 Peter himself, had failed hitherto to comprehend the wide purpose 
 of God. With their fellow-countrymen they 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, the usual sequence is reversed and 
 the outpouring of the Spirit precedes the rite of baptism (x. 44 — 48). 
 Signifi- The case of Cornelius does not, I think, differ essentially from 
 
 this event. '*^^® ^^^^ ^^ ^^® Ethiopian eunuch. There is no ground for assuming 
 
 ^ Amos ix. 7, 'Are ye not as the children of the Ethiopians unto me, 
 children of Israel?' 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 30I 
 
 that the latter was a proselyte of the covenant. His mutilation 
 excluded him from the congregation by a Mosaic ordinance, and it 
 is an arbitrary conjecture that the definite enactment of the law 
 was overruled by the spiritual promise of the prophet (Is. Ivi. 3 — 5). 
 This liberal interpretation at all events accords little with the narrow 
 and formal spirit of the age. Both converts alike had the inward 
 qualification of * fearing God and working righteousness ' (x. 35) ; both 
 alike were disabled by external circumstances, and the disabilities 
 of the Ethiopian eunuch were even greater than those of the Roman 
 centurion. If so, the significance of the conversion of the latter 
 consists in this, that now in the case of the Gentile, as before in the 
 case of the Samaritan, the principle asserted by the Hellenist Philip 
 is confirmed by the Apostles of the Circumcision in the person of 
 their chief and sealed by the outpouring of the Spirit. 
 
 Meanwhile others were asserting the universality of the Church Preaching 
 elsewhere, if not with the same sanction of authority, at all events tiles at 
 with a larger measure of success. With the dying words of Stephen, ■^^"^°*^' 
 the martyr of Christian liberty, still ringing in their ears, the perse- 
 cuted brethren had fled from Jerusalem and carried the tidings of 
 the Gospel to distant lands. At first they 'preached the word to 
 none but to the Jews only' (xi. 19). At length others bolder than 
 the rest, ' when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Gentiles^, 
 preaching the Lord Jesus.' Probably this was an advance even on 
 the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch and of Cornelius. These 
 two converts at all events recognised the God of the old covenant. 
 Now for the first time, it would seem, the Gospel was offered to 
 heathen idolaters. Here, as before, the innovators were not Hebrews 
 but Hellenists, 'men of Cyprus and Cyrene' (xi. 20). Their suc- 
 cess was signal : crowds flocked to hear them ; and at Antioch The name 
 
 first the brethren were called by a new name — a term of ridicule ■ ^ 
 
 •^ lans. 
 
 and contempt then, now the pride and glory of the civihzed world. 
 Hitherto the believers had been known as ' Galileans ' or ' Naza- 
 renes ' ; now they were called ' Christians.' The transition from 
 
 1 xi. 20. 1 cannot doubt that"E\\i7yas requires it ; but external authority pre- 
 is correct, as the preceding 'lovSaiovs ponderates in favour of 'EXXT/no-Tas. 
 
302 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 a Jewish to a heathen term marks the point of time when the 
 
 Church of the Gentiles first threatens to supersede the Church of 
 
 the Circumcision. 
 
 The first Thus the first stage in the emancipation of the Church was 
 
 step gain- 
 ed, gained. The principle was broadly asserted that the Gospel received 
 
 all comers, asking no questions, allowing no impediments, insisting 
 on no preliminary conditions, if only it were found that the peti- 
 tioner ^feared God and worked righteousness.' 
 
 2. The Recognition of Gentile Liberty. 
 
 It is plain that the principle, which had thus been asserted, 
 involved consequences very much wider than were hitherto clearly 
 foreseen and acknowledged. But between asserting a principle 
 and carrying it out to its legitimate results a long interval must 
 necessarily elapse, for many misgivings have to be dissipated and 
 many impediments to be overcome. 
 Questions So it was with the growth of Gentile Christendom, The Gentiles 
 tied. were no longer refused admission into the Church unless first in- 
 
 corporated with Israel by the initiatory rite. But many questions 
 remained still unsettled. "What was their exact position, when thus 
 received ? 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, 
 
 Saul of At this point in the history of the Church a new character appears 
 
 Tflrsus 
 
 on the scene. The mantle of Stephen has fallen on the persecutor 
 
 of Stephen. Saul has been called to bear the name of Christ to 
 
 the Gentiles. Descended of pure Hebrew ancestry and schooled in 
 
 the law by the most famous of living teachers, born and residing in 
 
 a great university town second to none in its reputation for Greek 
 
 wisdom and learning, inheriting the privileges and the bearing of 
 
 a Roman citizen, he seemed to combine in himself all those varied 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 3^3 
 
 qualifications which would best fit him for this work. These wide 
 experiences, which had lain dormant before, were quickened into 
 thought and Kfe by the lightning flash on the way to Damascus ; 
 and stubborn zeal was melted and fused into large-hearted and com- 
 prehensive charity. From his conversion to the present time we read 
 only of his preaching in the synagogues at Damascus (ix. 20, 22) and 
 to the Hellenists at Jerusalem (ix. 29). But now the moment was 
 ripe, when he must enter upon that wider sphere of action for which 
 he had been specially designed. The Gentile Church, founded on the 
 ' rock, ' must be handed over to the ' wise master-builder ' to enlarge 
 and complete. So at the bidding of the Apostles, Barnabas seeks 
 out Saul in his retirement at Tarsus and brings him to Antioch. goes to 
 Doubtless he seemed to all to be the fittest instrument for carrying 
 out the work so auspiciously begun. 
 
 Meanwhile events at Jerusalem were clearing the way for Circum- 
 
 . stances 
 
 his great work. The star of Jewish Christendom was already on affecting 
 
 the 
 the wane, while the independence of the Gentiles was gradually niother 
 
 asserting itself. Two circumstances especially were instrumental *^hurch. 
 
 in reversing the positions hitherto held by these two branches of 
 
 the Church. 
 
 I. It has been seen that the martyrdom of Stephen marked an (i) With- 
 drawal of 
 epoch in the emancipation of the Church. The martyrdom of James the Apo- 
 
 sties 
 the son of Zebedee is scarcely less important in its influence on her 
 
 progressive career. The former persecution had sown the disciples 
 
 broad-cast over heathen lands ; the latter seems to have been the 
 
 signal for the withdrawal of the Apostles themselves from Jerusalem. 
 
 The twelve years, which according to an old tradition our Lord had 
 
 assigned as the limit of their fixed residence there, had drawn to 
 
 a closed So, consigning the direction of the mother Church to James 
 
 the Lord's brother and the presbytery, they depart thence to enter 
 
 upon a wider field of action. Their withdrawal must have deprived 
 
 the Church of Jerusalem of half her prestige and more than half her 
 
 influence. Henceforth she remained indeed the mother Church of 
 
 the nation, but she was no longer the mother Church of the world. 
 
 ^ See ahove, p. 127, n. 1. 
 
304 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 (aJFamine 2, About the same time another incident also contributed to 
 relieved by 
 
 Gentile lessen her influence. A severe famine devastated Palestine and re- 
 alms. 
 
 duced the Christian population to extreme want. Collections were 
 
 made at Antioch, and relief was sent to the brethren in Judaea. 
 By this exercise of liberality the Gentile Churches were made to 
 feel their own importance : while the recipientSj thus practically 
 confessing their dependence, were deposed from the level of proud 
 isolation which many of them would gladly have maintained. This 
 famine seems to have ranged over many years, or at all events its 
 attacks were several times repeated. Again and again the alms of 
 the Gentile Christians were conveyed by the hands of the Gentile 
 Apostles, and the Churches of Judsea laid themselves under fresh 
 obligations to the heathen converts. 
 New stage Events being thus ripe, Saul still residing at Antioch is set apart 
 Gospel. ^y ^^® Spirit for the Apostleship of the Gentiles to which he had 
 been called years before. 
 
 The Gospel thus enters upon a new career of triumph. The 
 primacy of the Church passes from Peter to Paul — from the Apostle 
 of the Circumcision to the Apostle of the Gentiles. The centre of 
 evangelical work is transferred from Jerusalem to Ajitioch. Paul 
 and Barnabas set forth on their first missionary tour. 
 
 Though they give precedence everywhere to the Jews, their 
 mission is emphatically to the Gentiles. In Cyprus, the first country 
 St Paul's visited, its character is signally manifested in the conversion of 
 sionarv ' *^® Roman proconsul, Sergius Paulus. And soon it becomes evident 
 journey, that the younger Church must supplant the elder. At Antioch in 
 Pisidia matters are brought to a crisis : the Jews reject the ofier 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 oFer rejected by them is welcomed by the heathen. The 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 305 
 
 mission of Paul and Barnabas is successful, but its success is confined 
 
 almost wholly to the Gentiles. They return to Antioch. 
 
 Hitherto no attempt had been made to define the mutual relations The ques- 
 
 . . tion of cir- 
 
 of Jewish and Gentile converts. Ail such questions, it would seem, cumcision 
 
 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 Ajitioch, starting the question in its most trenchant form. They 
 
 desire to impose circumcision on the Gentiles, not only as a condition 
 
 of equality, but as necessary to salvation (xv. i). The imposition of 
 
 this burden is resisted by Paul and Barnabas, who go on a mission 
 
 to Jerusalem to confer with the Apostles and elders. 
 
 I have already given what seems to me the probable account of Accounts 
 the part taken by the leading Apostles in these controversies \ and ference. 
 shall have to return to the subject later. Our difficulty in reading 
 this page of history arises not so much from the absence of light as 
 from the perplexity of cross lights. The narratives of St Luke and 
 St Paul only then cease to conflict, when we take into account the 
 difierent positions of the writers and the different objects they had 
 in view. 
 
 At present we are concerned only with the results of this con- Twofold 
 
 I'PRTll'f'ft 
 
 ference. These are twofold : First, the settlement of the points of 
 dispute between the Jewish and Gentile converts : Secondly, the 
 recognition of the authority and commission of Paul and Barnabas by 
 the Apostles of the Circumcision. It will be necessary, as briefly as 
 possible, to point out the significance of these two conclusions and to 
 examine how far they were recognised and acted upon subsequently. 
 
 I . The arrangement of the disputed points was effected by a The decree 
 mutual compromise. On the one hand it was decided once and for 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.' 
 
 ^ See above, p. 126 sq., and the notes on ii. i — 10. 
 GAL. 20 
 
3o6 
 
 ST PAUL AND THE THEEE. 
 
 Emanci- 
 pating 
 clause. 
 
 Restrict- 
 ive 
 clauses. 
 
 The first of these decisions was a question of principle. If the 
 initiatory rite of the old dispensation were imposed on all members of 
 the Christian Church, this would be in effect to deny that the Gospel 
 was a new covenant ; in other words to deny its essential character \ 
 It was thus the vital point on which the whole controversy turned. 
 And the liberal decision of the council was not only the charter of 
 G-entile freedom but the assertion of the supremacy of the Gospel. 
 
 On the other hand it is not so easy to understand the bearing 
 of the restrictions imposed on the Gentile converts. Their signifi- 
 cance in fact seems to be relative rather than absolute. There were 
 certain practices into which, though most abhorrent to the feelings 
 of their Jewish brethren, the Gentile Christians from early habit and 
 constant association would easily be betrayed. These were of different 
 kinds ; some were grave moral offences, others only violations of time- 
 honoured observances, inwrought in the conscience of the Israelite. 
 After the large concession of principle made to the Gentiles in the 
 matter of circumcision, it was not unreasonable that they should be 
 required in turn to abstain from practices which gave so much 
 offence to the Jews. Hence the prohibitions in question. It is 
 strange indeed that offences so heterogeneous should be thrown to- 
 gether and brought under one prohibition ; but this is perhaps 
 suflaciently explained by supposing the decree framed to meet some 
 definite complaint of the Jewish brethren. If, in the course of the 
 hot dispute which preceded the speeches of the leading Apostles, 
 attention had been specially called by the Pharisaic party to these 
 detested practices, St James would not unnaturally take up the sub- 
 ject and propose to satisfy them by a direct condemnation of the 
 offences in question ^ 
 The decree It would betray great ignorance of human nature to suppose that 
 edbylome. ^ decision thus authoritatively pronounced must have silenced all 
 
 ^ See RitschI, p. 127, 
 
 2 This seems to me much simpler 
 than explaining the clauses as enforc- 
 ing the conditions under which prose- 
 lytes of the gate were received by the 
 Jews. In this latter case iropveta will 
 perhaps refer to unlawful marriage, 
 
 e.g. within the prohibited degrees of 
 kindred (Levit. svii. 18), as it is inter- 
 preted by Ritsohl p. 129 sq., who ably 
 maintains this view. These difficulties 
 of interpretation are to my mind a 
 very strong evidence of the genuine- 
 ness of the decree. 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 30/ 
 
 opposition. If therefore we should £nd its provisions constantly 
 disregarded hereafter, it is no argument against the genuineness of 
 the decree itself. The bigoted minority was little likely to make 
 an absolute surrender of its most stubborn prejudices to any external 
 influence. Many even of those, who at the time were persuaded by 
 the leading Apostles into acquiescence, would find their misgivings 
 return, when they saw that the effect of the decree was to wrest the 
 sceptre from their grasp and place it in the hands of the Gentile 
 Church. 
 
 Even the question of circumcision, on which an absolute decision Circumci- 
 had been pronounced, was revived again and again. Long atter, the insisted 
 Judaizing antagonists of St Paul in Galatia attempted to force this 
 rite on his Gentile converts. Perhaps however they rather evaded 
 than defied the decree. They may for instance have no longer in- 
 sisted upon it as a condition of salvation, but urged it as a title to 
 preference. But however this may be, there is nothing startling 
 in the fact itself. 
 
 But while the emancipating clause of the decree, though express The re- 
 and definite, was thus parried or resisted, the restrictive clauses were clauses 
 with much greater reason interpreted with latitude. The miscella- ?° ^^' 
 neous character of these prohibitions showed that, taken as a whole, eiiforced. 
 they had no binding force independently of the circumstances which 
 dictated them. They were a temporary expedient framed to meet a 
 temporary emergency. Their object was the avoidance of offence in 
 mixed communities of Jew and Gentile converts. Beyond this 
 recognised aim and the general understanding implied therein the 
 limits of their application were not defined. Hence there was room 
 for much latitude in individual cases. St James, as the head of the St James, 
 mother Church where the dif&culties which it was framed to meet 
 were most felt, naturally refers to the decree seven years after 
 as still regulating the intercourse between Jewish and Gentile con- 
 verts (xxi. 25). At Antioch too and in the neighbouring Churches Antioch 
 of Syria and Cilicia, to which alone the Apostolic letter was addressed neieh- 
 
 and on which alone therefore the enactments were directly bind- ^^^^^g 
 
 •^ churehes. 
 
 ing (xv. 23), it was doubtless long observed. The close communica- 
 
 20 — 2 
 
3o8 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 tion between these churches and Jerusalem would at once justify 
 and secure its strict observance. We read also of its being delivered 
 to the brotherhoods of Lycaonia and Pisidia, already founded when 
 the council was held, and near enough to Palestine to feel the pres- 
 sure of Jewish feelings (xvi. 4). But as the circle widens, its influ- 
 ence becomes feebler. In strictly Gentile churches it seems never 
 St Paul to have been enforced. St Paul, writing to the Corinthians, discusses 
 rinthians. two of the four practices which it prohibits without any reference 
 to its enactments. Fornication he condemns absolutely as defiling 
 the body which is the temple of God (i Cor. v. i — 13, vi. 18 — 20). 
 Of eating meats sacrificed to idols he speaks as a thing indifferent 
 in itself, only to be avoided in so far as it implies participation in idol 
 worship or is oflfensive 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 ofiTered in sacrifice, then abstain at all hazards. 
 Lay down this rule, to give no offence either to Jews or Gentiles 
 or to the churches of God ' (i Cor. viii. i — -13, x. 14 — 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 
 St John been foreclosed. Once again we oome across the same topics in 
 Asiatic ^^^ apocalyptic message to the Churches of Pergamos and Thyatira. 
 enure es. pjij^^ same irregularities prevailed here as at Corinth : there was the 
 temptation on the one hand to impure living, on the other to acts of 
 conformity with heathen worship which compromised their allegiance 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 3^9 
 
 to the one true God. Our Lord in St John's vision denounces them 
 through the symbolism of the Old Testament history. In the Church of 
 Pergamos, were certain Nicolaitans * holding the doctrine of Balaam 
 who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of 
 Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication ' (ii. 
 14). At Thyatira the evil had struck its roots deeper. The angel of 
 that Church is rebuked because he * suffers his wife Jezebel who calls 
 herself a prophetess, and she teacheth and seduceth God's servants 
 to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols.' I see no 
 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 likewise \ In the matter of 
 sacrificial meats indeed the condemnation of the latter is more absolute 
 and uncompromising. But this is owing partly to the epigrammatic 
 terseness and symbolic reference of the passage, partly, also, we may 
 suppose, to the more definite form which the evil itself had assumed ^ 
 In both cases the practice was justified by a vaunted knowledge which 
 held itself superior to any such restrictions^. But at Corinth this temper 
 
 ^ Yet the expression oiy ^6XK<a i(p' should maintain, as Baur, Zeller, and 
 
 vfias a\\o ^dpos (ii. 24) looks like a re- Schwegler have done, that the denun- 
 
 ference to the decree. ciations in the Apocalypse are directed 
 
 2 The coincidence of the two Apostles against St Paul himself, 
 estends also to their language, (i) If ^ Comp. Apoc. ii. 24 oVot ovk ^ov<nv 
 St John denounces the offence as a fol- ttjv Sidaxv'^ ra&njv, o'lTives ovk ^yvw- 
 lowing of Balaam, St Paul uses the aaf to, jSa^^a tov ZaTavS,, (vs \^- 
 sameOld Testament illustration, i Cor. yovaiv. The false teachers boasted a 
 X. 7, 8, ' Neither be ye idolaters, as were knowledge of the deep things of God ; 
 some of them ; as it is written, The they possessed only a knowledge of the 
 people sat down to eat and drink, and deep things of Satan. St John's mean- 
 rose up to play : neither let us commit ing is illustrated by a passage in Hip- 
 fornication, as some of them com- polytua [Hceres. v. 6, p. 94) relating 
 mitted, and fell in one day three and to the Ophites, who ofier other striking 
 twenty thousand.' (2) If St John resemblances to the heretics of the 
 speaks of * casting a stumblingblock Apostolic age ; iireKdXeaav iavroi/s ypca- 
 {(TKdvdakov) before the children of Is- (ttlko^s, (pdaKovres fjLdpoLTa ^ddrj yivdi- 
 rael,' the whole purport of St Paul's a-Ketv: see also Iren. ii. 28. 9. St 
 warning is ' to give no offence ' (pLrj Paul's rebuke is very different in form, 
 ffKavBoKi^eLv^ viii. 13, dirp6<7KOTroi ylvetx- but the same in effect. He begins 
 0aL, X. 32). With all these coinci- each time in a strain of noble irony, 
 dences of matter and language, it is ' We all have knowledge ' ; ' I speak as 
 a strange phenomenon that any critic to wise men ' : he appears to concede, 
 
3IO ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 was still immature and under restraint : while in the Asiatic churches 
 it had outgrown shame and broken out into the wildest excesses \ 
 Object of Thus then the decree was neither permanently nor universally 
 
 ments not binding. But there was also another point which admitted much 
 defined. latitude of interpretation. What was understood to be the design of 
 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- 
 terest ; or only to secure a strict neutrality, a condition of mutual 
 toleration*? Were the Gentiles to be welcomed as brothers and 
 admitted at once to all the privileges of sons of Israel : or was the 
 Church hereafter to be composed of two separate nationalities, as it 
 were, equal and independent ; or lastly, were the heathen converts 
 to be recognised indeed, but only as holding a subordinate position 
 like proselytes under the old covenant 1 The first interpretation is 
 alone consistent with the spirit of the Gospel : but either of the 
 others might honestly be maintained without any direct violation of 
 the letter of the decree. The Church of Antioch, influenced doubt- 
 less by St Paul, took the larger and truer view ; Jewish and Gentile 
 converts lived freely together as members of one brotherhood. A 
 portion at least of the Church of Jerusalem, ' certain who came from 
 James,' adopted a narrower interpretation and still clung to the old 
 distinctions, regarding their Gentile brethren as unclean and refusing 
 to eat with them. This was not the Truth of the Gospel, it was not 
 the Spirit of Christ ; but neither was it a direct breach of compact. 
 
 St Paul's 2. Scarcely less important than the settlement of the disputed 
 authority 
 recog- 
 nised, to defer, to sympathize, even to en- against Basilides, and in Justin {Dial. 
 courage : and then he turns round up- 35, p. 253 n) who mentions the Basili- 
 on the laxity of this vaunted wisdom deans among other Gnostic sects as 
 and condemns and crushes it : ' I will ' participating in lawless and godless 
 eat no flesh while the world standeth, rites' : comp. Orac. Sib. ii. 96. Both 
 lest I make my brother to offend ' ; these writers condemn the practice, the 
 * I would not that ye should have fel- latter with great severity. When the 
 lowship with devils.' persecutions began, and the Christians 
 ^ The subject of €l8o)\66vra does not were required to deny their faith by 
 disappear with the apostolic age: it participating in the sacrifices, it be- 
 turns up again for instance in the came a matter of extreme importance 
 middle of the second century, in Agrip- to avoid any act of conformity, how- 
 pa Castor (Euseb. H. E. iv. 7) writing ever slight. 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 311 
 
 points was the other result of these conferences, the recognition of 
 St Paul's office and mission by the Apostles of the Circumcision. 
 This recognition is recorded in similar language in the narrative of 
 the Acts and in the epistle to the Galatians. In the Apostolic cir- 
 cular inserted in the former Paul and Barnabas are commended as 
 ' men who have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ ' (xv. 26). In the conferences, as related in the latter, the 
 three Apostles, James, Peter, and John, seeing that ^ the Gospel of 
 the uncircumcision was committed unto him,' and 'perceiving the 
 grace that was given unto him, gave to him and Barnabas the right 
 hand of fellowship, that they should go unto the heathen' (ii. 7 — 10). 
 
 This ample recognition would doubtless carry weight with a large Continued 
 number of Jewish converts : but no sanction of authority could over- +q g^ p_^j 
 come in others the deep repugnance felt to one who, himself a * Hebrew 
 of the Hebrews,' had systematically opposed the law of Moses and 
 triumphed in his opposition. Henceforth St Paul's career was one 
 life-long conflict with Judaizing antagonists. Setting aside the Epistles 
 to the Thessalonians, which were written too early to be affected by 
 this struggle, all his letters addressed to churches, with but one 
 exception \ refer more or less directly to such opposition. It assumed 
 different forms in different places : in Galatia it was purely Pha- 
 risaic ; in Phrygia and Asia it was strongly tinged with speculative 
 mysticism ; but everywhere and under all circumstances zeal for the 
 law was its ruling passion. The systematic hatred of St Paul is 
 an important fact, which we are too apt to overlook, but without 
 which the whole history of the Apostolic ages will be misread and 
 misunderstood. 
 
 3. The Emancipation of the Jewish Chv/rcJies. 
 
 We have seen hitherto no signs of waning affection for the law ^eal for 
 in the Jewish converts to Christianity as a body. On the contrary *^® ^^^* 
 the danger which threatened it from a quarter so unexpected seems 
 
 1 This exception, the Epistle to the Asiatic churches, in which special re- 
 Ephesians, may be explained by its ferences would be out of place, 
 character as a circular letter to the 
 
312 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 to have fanned their zeal to a red heat. Even in the churches of 
 
 St Paul's own founding his name and authority were not powerful 
 
 enough to check the encroachments of the Judaizing party. Only 
 
 here and there, in mixed communities, the softening influences of 
 
 daily intercourse must have been felt, and the true spirit of the 
 
 Gospel insensibly diflused, 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- Je-^igh converts, lacked these valuable lessons of daily experience, 
 servancem ' '' 
 
 the mother Moreover the law had claims on a Hebrew of Palestine wholly inde- 
 
 Church. . . , . . 
 
 pendent of his religious obligations. To him it was a national insti- 
 tution, as well as a divine covenant. Under the Gospel he might 
 consider his relations to it in this latter character altered, but as 
 embodying the decrees and usages of his country it still demanded 
 his allegiance. To be a good Christian he was not required to be 
 a bad citizen. On these grounds the more enlightened members of 
 the mother church would justify their continued adhesion to the law. 
 Nor is there any reason to suppose that St Paul himself took a dif- 
 ferent view of their obligations. The Apostles of the Circumcision 
 meanwhile, if conscious themselves that the law was fulfilled in the 
 Gospel they strove nevertheless by strict conformity to conciliate 
 the zealots both within and without the Church, were only acting 
 upon St Paul's own maxim, who ' became to the Jews a Jew that he 
 might gain the Jews.' Meanwhile they felt that a catastrophe was 
 impending, that a deliverance was at hand. Though they were left 
 in uncertainty as to the time and manner of this divine event, the 
 mysterious warnings of the Lord had placed the fact itself beyond 
 a doubt. They might well therefore leave all perplexing questions to 
 the solution of time, devoting themselves meanwhile to the practical 
 work which lay at their doors. 
 
 Fall of Je- And soon the catastrophe came which solved the difficult problem. 
 The storm which had long been gathering burst over the devoted 
 
 A.D. 70. city. Jerusalem was razed to the ground, and the Temple- worship 
 ceased, never again to be revived. The Christians foreseeing the 
 calamity had fled before the tempest ; and at Pella, a city of the 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 313 
 
 Decapolis, in the midst of a population chiefly Gentile the Church 
 of the Circumcision was reconstituted. They were warned to flee, 
 said the story, by an oracle^ : but no special message from heaven 
 was needed at this juncture ; the signs of the times, in themselves 
 full of warning, interpreted by the light of the Master's prophecies 
 plainly foretold the approaching doom. Before the crisis came, they 
 had been deprived of the counsel and gmdance of the leading Apostles. 
 Peter had fallen a martyr at Rome; John had retired to A^ia Minor; 
 James the Lord's brother was slain not long before the great cata- 
 strophe; and some thought that the horrors of the Flavian war were 
 the just vengeance of an offended God for the murder of so holy a 
 man^ He was succeeded by his cousin Symeon, the son of Clopas 
 and nephew of Joseph. 
 
 Under these circumstances the Church was reformed at Pella. The 
 
 chuxch 
 Its history in the ages following is a hopeless blank ^ ; and it would ^t Pella. 
 
 be vain to attempt to fill in the picture from conjecture. We cannot 
 
 doubt however that the consequences of the fall of Jerusalem, direct 
 
 or indirect, were very great. In two points especially its effects Effects 
 
 ^ Euseb. H. E. iii. 5 Kard rtva by Celsus (Orig. c. Gels. iv. 52, p. 544, 
 
 Xpvo'fj-bv Toh a-urddi doKifjLoLs di diroKa- Delarue). The shade of doubt which 
 
 XiJi/'ews ^Kdod4vTa K.r.\. rests on the authorship of this dia- 
 
 2 Hegesippus in Euseb. H. E. ii. 23 logue is very slight. Undue weight 
 Kal e{idi/s Oi/eairaa-iapds iroKtopKet a(iTo6s, seems to be attributed to the fact of 
 and the pseudo-Josephus also quoted its being quoted anonymously; e.g. in 
 there, raura 6^ av/M^^^TjKev 'lovdaLois Westcott's Canon, p. 93, Donaldson's 
 /car' iKdUrjcTLV 'Ia«:t6/3ou rou diKatov k.t.\. Christian Literature etc. 11. p. 58. If 
 
 3 The Church of Pella however eon- I am right in conjecturing that the 
 tributed one author at least to the reference to the banishment of the 
 ranks of early Christian literature in Jews was taken from this dialogue, 
 Ariston, the writer of an apology in Eusebius himself directly attributes it 
 the form of a dialogue between Jason to Axiston. The name of the author 
 a Hebrew Christian and Papiscus an however is of little consequence, for the 
 Alexandrian Jew: see Kouth 1. p. 93. work was clearly written by a Hebrew 
 One of his works however was written Cbxistian not later than the middle of 
 after the Bar-cochba rebeUion, to which the second century. Whoever he may 
 it alludes (Euseb. H. E. iv. 6) ; and have been, the writer was no Ebionite, 
 from the purport of the allusion we for he explained Gen. i. i, ' In filio fecit 
 may infer that it was this very dia- Deus ccelum etterram' (Hieron. Qwtssf. 
 logue. The expulsion of the Jews by Eehr. in Gen., in. p. 305, ed. Yall.); 
 Hadrian was a powerful cormnon-place and the fact is important, as this is the 
 in the treatises of the Apologists ; see earhest known expression of Hebrew 
 e.g. Justin Martyr Apol. i. 47. On Christian doctrine after the canonical 
 the other hand it cannot have been writings, except perhaps the Testa- 
 written long after, for it was quoted ments of the Twelve Patriarchs. 
 
314 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 of the would be powerfully felt, in the change of opinion produced within 
 ange. ^^^ Church itself and in the altered relations between the converted 
 and unconverted Jews. 
 (i) The (i) The loss of their great leader at this critical moment was 
 
 its power, 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 sacrihces were transitory shadows, 
 faint emblems of the one Paschal Lamb, slain once and for ever for 
 the sins of the world. In the impossibility of observing the Mosaic 
 ordinances except in part, they must have been led to question the 
 efficacy of the whole. And besides all this, those who had hitherto 
 maintained their allegiance to the law purely as a national institu- 
 tion were by the overthrow of the nation set free henceforth from 
 any such obligation. We need not suppose that these inferences 
 were drawn at once or drawn by all alike ; but slowly and surely 
 the fall of the city must have produced this effect. 
 (2) Jews (2) At the same time it wholly changed their relations with 
 
 Christians their unconverted countrymen. Hitherto they had maintained such 
 
 m an a- ^lose intercourse that in the eyes of the Homan the Christians were 
 gonism. -^ 
 
 9,s one of the many Jewish sects. Henceforth they stood in a posi- 
 tion of direct antagonism. The sayings ascribed to the Jewish rabbis 
 of this period are charged with the bitterest reproaches of the Chris- 
 tians, who are denounced as more dangerous than the heathen, and 
 anathemas against the hated sect were introduced into their daily 
 prayers \ The probable cause of this change is not far to seek. 
 While the catastrophe was still impending, the Christians seem to 
 have stood forward and denounced the national sins which had 
 brought down the chastisement of God on their country. In the 
 traditional notices at least this feature may be discerned. Nor could 
 they fail to conjiect 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 
 
 ^ See especially Graetz Geschichte by this writer, whose account is the 
 
 der Juden iv. p. 112 eq. The antago- more striking as given from a Jewish 
 
 nism between the Jews and Christians point of view, 
 at this period is strongly insisted upon 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. S^S 
 
 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 gensions. 
 of the Circumcision. Questions were asked now, which from their 
 nature could not have been asked before. Difficulties hitherto un- 
 felt seemed to start up on all sides. The relations of the Church to 
 the synagogue, of the Gospel to the law, must now be settled in 
 some way or other. Thus diversities of opinion, which had hitherto 
 been lulled in a broken and fitful slumber, suddenly woke up into 
 dangerous activity. The Apostles, who at an earlier date had 
 moderated extreme tendencies and to whom all would have looked 
 instinctively for counsel and instruction, had passed away from the 
 scene. One personal follower of the Lord however still remained, 
 Symeon the aged bishop, who had succeeded James \ At length Symeon 
 he too was removed. After a long tenure of office he was martyred ciopas. 
 at a very advanced age in the ninth year of Trajan. His death, ^^' 
 according to Hegesippus, was the signal for a shameless outbreak 
 of multitudinous heresies which had hitherto worked underground, 
 the Church having as yet preserved her virgin purity undefiled^. 
 Though this early historian has interwoven many fabulous details 
 in his account, there seems no reason to doubt the truth of the 
 broad statement, confirmed as it is from another source^, that this 
 epoch was the birth-time of many forms of dissent in the Church of 
 the Circumcision. 
 
 How far these dissensions and diversities of opinion had ripened 
 meanwhile into open schism, to what extent the majority still con- 
 formed to the Mosaic ordinances (as for instance in the practice of 
 circumcision and the observance of the sabbath), we have no data to 
 determine. But the work begun by the fall of Jerusalem was only 
 
 ^ Hegesippus in Euseb. H, E. iv. 22. dpa fx^xpi- t^v rSre xp^votv irapBivos kcl- 
 
 This writer also mentions grandsons 6apb, koI abL6.(f>Bopos ^fietvev v, iKK\7}tria, 
 
 of Jude the Lord's brother as ruling ip 0,871X0) irov (tk6t€l (pbiK^vbvrujv ela-^rc 
 
 over the Churches and surviving till rore tCjv, el Kai rives inrripxov, irapa(pdei- 
 
 the time of Trajan; H. E. iii. 32. peiv iirLxeipoiUPTojv k.t.\. : comp. iv. 22. 
 
 2 Euseb. H. E. iii. 32 iinX^yeL ws ^ See below, p. 325, note 5. 
 
3i6 
 
 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 Eetellion 
 of Bar- 
 cochba. 
 A. D. 132— 
 136- 
 
 ^lia Ca- 
 pitolina. 
 
 The 
 church 
 
 at length completed by the advent of another crisis. By this second 
 catastrophe the Church and the law were finally divorced ; and the 
 malcontents who had hitherto remained within the pale of the 
 Church become declared separatists. 
 
 A revolution of the Jews broke out in all the principal centres of 
 the dispersion. The flame thus kindled in the dependencies spread 
 later to the mother country. In Palestine a leader started up, 
 professing himself to be the long promised Messiah, and in reference 
 to the prophecy of Balaam styling himself *Bar-cochba,' 'the son of 
 the Star.' We have the testimony of one who wrote while these 
 scenes of bloodshed were still fresh in men's memories, that the 
 Christians were the chief sufferers from this rebel chieftain ^ Even 
 without such testimony this might have been safely inferred. Their 
 very existence was a protest against his claims : they must be de- 
 nounced and extirpated, if his pretensions were to be made good. 
 The cause of Bar-cochba was taken up as the cause of the whole 
 Jewish nation, and thus the antagonism between Judaism and Chris- 
 tianity was brought to a head. After a desperate struggle the re- 
 bellion was trampled out and the severest vengeance taken on the 
 insurgents. The practice of circumcision and the observance of the 
 sabbath — indeed all the distinguishing marks of Judaism — were 
 visited with the severest penalties. On the other hand the Chris- 
 tians, as the avowed enemies of the rebel chief, seem to have been 
 favourably received. On the ruins of Jerusalem Hadrian had built 
 his new city ^lia Capitolina. Though no Jew was admitted within 
 sight of its walls, the Christians were allowed to settle there freely^. 
 Now for the first time a Gentile bishop was appointed, and the Church 
 of Jerusalem ceased to be the Church of the Circumcision^. 
 
 The account of Eusebius seems to imply that long before this 
 
 ^ Justin Apol. i. 31, p. 72 b, iv t^ 
 vvv yeyevfjfjiApip 'lovdaLK<^ Tro\4fjL(p Bapxw- 
 X^/3as 6 Trjs 'Iov8aiu}v air oar dffeojs ap~ 
 XVy^'^V^ ^pt-o'Tiavods /lovovs e/s TifMOjplas 
 d€Lpas, el fjLTJ dpvoUvro ^Irjcrovv rbv Xpicrbv 
 Kal ^XaacpTjpLoUp, iK^Xevev dirdyeadau 
 
 2 Justin ApoL i. 47, p. 84 b, Dial. 
 iio» P' 337 d; Ariston of Pella in 
 Euseb. H. E. iv. 6; Celsua in Orig. c. 
 
 Gels, viii. 69. 
 
 3 Sulpicius Severus {H. S. ii. 31) 
 speaking of Hadrian's decree says, 
 'Quod quidem Christiante fidei pro- 
 ficiebat, quia turn pene omnes Chris- 
 tum Deum sub legis observatione cre- 
 debant; nimirum id Domino ordinante 
 dispositum, ut legis servitus a libertate 
 fidei atque ecclesiffi tolleretur.' 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THBEE. 
 
 317 
 
 disastrous outbreak of the Jews the main part of the Christians reconsti- 
 tuted. 
 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 city\ If so, we must imagine the Church 
 once more scattered by this second catastrophe, and once more re- 
 formed when the terror was passed. But the Church of -^lia Capito- 
 lina was very differently constituted from the Church of Pella or the 
 Church of Jerusalem ; a large proportion of its members at least 
 were Gentiles^. Of the Christians of the Circumcision not a few 
 doubtless accepted the conqueror's terms, content to live henceforth 
 as Gentiles, and settled down in the new city of Hadrian. But judaizing 
 there were others who clung to the law of their forefathers with a ^®'^*^- 
 stubborn grasp which no force of circumstances could loosen : and 
 henceforward we read of two distinct sects of Judaizing Christians, 
 observing the law with equal rigour but observing it on different 
 grounds ^ 
 
 ^ H. E, iii. 32, 35, iv. 3. Eusebius 
 Beems to narrate all the incidents af- 
 fecting the Church of the Circmncision 
 during this period, as taking place not 
 at Pella but at Jerusalem. 
 
 2 Euseb. H. E, iv. 6 ttjs avTodi ^k- 
 K\r}<Tias 4^ idvQu (rvyKpoT7)6ei(T'r)s, 
 
 3 As early as the middle of the 
 second century Justin Martyr distin- 
 guishes two classes of Judaizers; those 
 who retaining the Mosaic law them- 
 selves did not wish to impose it on 
 their Gentile brethren, and those who 
 insisted upon conformity in all Chris- 
 tians alike as a condition of commu- 
 nion and a means of salvation {Dial. c. 
 Tryph. § 47; see Schliemann Clement. 
 P- 553 sq. )• ^ the next chapter Justin 
 alludes with disapprobation to some 
 Jewish converts who held that our 
 Lord was a mere man; and it seems 
 not unreasonable to connect this opi- 
 nion with the second of the two classes 
 before mentioned. We thus obtain a 
 tolerably clear view of their distinctive 
 tenets. But the first direct and defi- 
 nite account of both sects is given 
 by the fathers of the fourth century 
 
 especially Epiphanius and Jerome, 
 who distinguish them by the respec- 
 tive names of 'Nazarenes' and 'Ebion- 
 ites.' Irenseus (i. 26. 2), TertuUian 
 (de Pressor. 33), and Hippolytus {Hmr. 
 vii. 34, p. 257), contemplate only the 
 second, whom they call Ebionites. 
 The Nazarenes in fact, being for the 
 most part orthodox in their creed 
 and holding communion with Catholic 
 Christians, would not generally be in- 
 eluded in the category of heretics : and 
 moreover, being few in number and 
 living in an obscure region, they would 
 easily escape notice. Origen(c. Oels. 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^LtapoioL d/j,<p6T€poi) 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 otherhandit is very 
 
tenets. 
 
 318 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 Naza- I, The Nazarenes appear at the close of the fourth century as 
 
 renes. 
 
 a small and insignificant sect dwelling beyond the Jordan in Pella 
 
 and the neighbouring places \ Indications of their existence how- 
 ever occur in Justin two centuries and a half earlier; and both their 
 locality and their name carry us back to the primitive ages of Jewish 
 Christianity. Can we doubt that they were the remnant of the 
 fugitive Churchj which refused to return from their exile with the 
 majority to the now Gentile city, some because they were too indo- 
 lent or too satisfied to move, others because the abandonment of the 
 law seemed too heavy a price to pay for Roman forbearance 1 
 Their The account of their tenets is at all events favourable to this 
 
 inference^. They held themselves bound to the Mosaic ordinances, 
 rejecting however all Pharisaic interpretations and additions. Ne- 
 vertheless they did not consider the Gentile Christians under the 
 same obligations or refuse to hold communion with them; and in 
 the like spirit, in this distinguished from all other Judaizing sec- 
 tarians, they fully recognised the work and mission of St PauP. It 
 is stated moreover that they mourned over the unbelief of their 
 fellow-countrymen, praying for and looking forward to the time 
 
 possible that he entirely overlooks the covery of the work of Hippolytus has 
 
 Nazarenes and alludes to some differ- since thrown fresh light on the Essene 
 
 ences of opinion among the Ehionites Ebionites. The portion of Ritschl's 
 
 properly so called ; but in this case it is work (p. 152 sq.) relating to these sects 
 
 not easy to identify his two classes with should be consulted, 
 the Pharisaic and Essene Ebionites of ^ Epiphan. Hceres. xxix. 7; comp. 
 
 whom I shall have to speak later. Euse- Hieron. de Vir. III. § 3. 
 bins, who also describes two classes of ^ See the account in Schliemann, 
 
 Ebionites [H. E. lii. 27), seems to have p. 445 sq., with the authorities there 
 
 taken his account wholly from Irenaius given and compare Eitschl p. 152 sq. 
 and Origen. If, as appears probable, ® Hieron. in Is. ix. i {iv. p. 130), 
 
 both names 'Nazarenes' and 'Ebion- 'Nazarfiei...hunc locum ita explanare 
 
 ites' were originally applied to the conantur: Adveniente Christo et prse- 
 
 whole body of Jewish Christians indis- dicatione illius coruscante prima terra 
 
 criminately, the confusion of Origen Zabulon et terra Nephthali scribarum 
 
 and others is easily explained. In re- et Pharis£eorum est erroribus liberata 
 
 cent times, since Gieseler published his et gravissimum traditionum Judaica- 
 
 treatise Ueber die Nazarder und Ebioni- rum jugum excussit de cervicibus suis. 
 
 ten (Staudlin u. Tzschirner Arehivfilr Postea autem per evangelium apostoli 
 
 Kirchengesch. iv. p. 279 sq,, 1819), the Pauli, qui novissimus apostolorum 
 
 distinction has been generally recog- omnium fuit, ingravata est, id est, 
 
 nised. A succinct and good account of multiplicata prasdicatio ; et in termi- 
 
 these sects of Judaizers will be found in nos gentium et viam universi maris 
 
 Schliemann Clement, p. 449 sq., where Christi evangelium splenduit.' 
 the authorities are given ; but the dis- 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 319 
 
 when they too should be brought to confess Christ. Their doc- 
 trine of the person of Christ has been variously represented ; but this 
 seems at all events clear that, if it fell short of the Catholic standard, 
 it rose above the level of other Judaic sects. The fierce and in- 
 discriminate verdict of Epiphanius indeed pronounces these ISTaza- 
 renes 'Jews and nothing else^ ': but his contemporary Jerome, himself 
 no lenient judge of heresy, whose opinion was founded on personal 
 intercourse, regards them more favourably. In his eyes they seem 
 to be separated from the creeds and usages of Catholic Christendom 
 chiefly by their retention of the Mosaic law. 
 
 Thus they were distinguished from other Judaizing sects by a Their rela- 
 
 , . tion to the 
 loftier conception of the person of Christ and by a frank recognition Twelve. 
 
 of the liberty of the Gentile Churches and the commission of the 
 
 Gentile Apostle. These distinguishing features may be traced to the 
 
 lingering influence of the teaching of the Apostles of the Circumcision. 
 
 To the example of these same Apostles also they might have appealed 
 
 in defending their rigid observance of the Mosaic law. But herein, 
 
 while copying the letter, they did not copy the spirit of their model ; 
 
 for they took no account of altered circumstances. 
 
 Of this type of beKef, if not of this very Nazarene sect, an early Testa- 
 ments of 
 document still extant furnishes an example. The book called the the Twelve 
 
 'Testaments of the twelve Patriarchs^' was certainly written after g^j,^,j^g' 
 
 ^ Hcsres, xxx. 9. ed against Kayser. The whole tone 
 
 2 It is printed in Grabe's Spicil. 88. and colouring of the book however 
 
 Pair. I. p. 145 sq. (ed. 2, 1700), and in seem to show very plainly that the 
 
 Fabricius Cod. Pseudepigr. Vet. Test. 1. writer was a Jewish Christian, and the 
 
 P* 519 sq. (ed. 2, 1723), and has re- opposite view woiild probably never 
 
 cently been edited with an introduc- have been entertained but for the pre- 
 
 tory essay by Sinker (Cambridge, 1869). conceived theory that a believer of the 
 
 Eitschl in his first edition had assigned Circumcision could not have written 
 
 this work to a writer of the Pauline so liberally of the Gentile Christians 
 
 school. His opinion was controverted and so honorably of St Paul. Some 
 
 by Kayser in the Strasshurg. Beitr. z. writers again who have maintained 
 
 den Theol. Wissensch. in. p. 107 (1851), the Judaic authorship (Kayser for in- 
 
 and with characteristic honesty he stance, whose treatise I only know at 
 
 withdrew it in his second edition, at- second hand) have got over this as- 
 
 tributing the work to a Nazarene au- sumed difficulty by rejecting certain 
 
 thor (p. 172 sq.). Meanwhile Ritschl's passages as interpolations. On the 
 
 first view had been adopted in a mo- other hand Ewald pronounces it 'mere 
 
 nograph by Vorstman Disquis. de Test. folly to assert that Benj. u. u (the 
 
 xii. Patr. (Eoterod. 1857), and defend- prophecy about St Paul) was a later 
 
320 
 
 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 Hebrew 
 
 sympa- 
 thies 
 
 the capture of Jerusalem by Titus and probably before the rebellion 
 of Bar-cochba, but may be later \ With some alien features, perhaps 
 stamped upon it by the individual writer, it exhibits generally 
 the characteristics of this Nazarene sect. In this respect at least 
 it offers a remarkable parallel, that to a strong Israelite ' feeling it 
 unites the fullest recognition of the Gentile Churches. Our Lord is 
 represented as the renovator of the law^: the imagery and illustra- 
 tions are all Hebrew : certain virtues are strongly commended and 
 certain vices strongly denounced by a Hebrew standard : many 
 incidents in the lives of the patriarchs are derived from some un- 
 known legendary Hebrew source^. Nay more; the sympathies of 
 the writer are not only Judaic but Levitical. The Messiah is repre- 
 sented as a descendant not of Judah only but of Levi also ; thus he 
 is high priest as well as king*; but his priestly office is higher than 
 his kingly, as Levi is greater than Judah*: the dying patriarchs one 
 
 addition to the work' {Gesch. d. Volks 
 Isr. VII. p. 329), and certainly such 
 arbitrary assumptions would render 
 criticism hopeless. 
 
 Whether Eitschl 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 
 
 •i-^- P- 333)- 
 
 ^ The following dates have been 
 assigned to it by recent critics; a.d. 
 100-F35 (Dorner), 100-120 (Wieseler), 
 133-163 (Eayser), 100-153 (Nitzsch, 
 Liicke), 11 7-193 (Gieseler), 100-200 
 (Hase), about 150 (Beuss), 90-110 (E- 
 wald). These dates except the last are 
 taken from Vorstman p. 19 sq., who 
 himself places it soon after the fall of 
 Jerusalem (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. i, Scorpiace 13), and (aslbe- 
 Ueve) even earlier to Irenseus {Fragm. 
 17, p. 836 sq. Stieren). 
 
 ^ Levi 10 dvaKatvoiroiouvTa rov vofiov 
 iv 5uf ct/Aet {/^l/ia-rov. * The law of God, 
 the law of the Lord,' are constant 
 phrases with this writer; Levi 13, 19, 
 Judas 18, 26, Issach. 5, Zabul. 10, Dan 
 6, Gad 3, Aser 2, 6, y, Joseph 11, Benj. 
 10: see also Nepht. 8. His language in 
 this respect is formed on the model of 
 the Epistle of St James, as Ewald re- 
 marks (p. 329). Thus the Law of God 
 with him ' is one with the revealed will 
 of God, and he never therefore under- 
 stands it in the narrow sense of a Jew 
 or even of an Ebionite.' 
 
 3 See Ewald Gesch. 1. p. 490. 
 
 * Simeon 5, 7, Issach. 5, Dan 5, 
 Nepht. 6, 8, Gad 8, Joseph 19, besides 
 the passages referred to in the next 
 note. 
 
 ^ Reuben 6 irpos rov Kevt iyylaare... 
 a^ros yap eiiKoyf^aei. rov 'Itrpa'^X Kai top 
 lo^8av, Judas 21 Kai vvv r^Kva fiov dya- 
 ir-rja-aTe Tov Aevt...ifiol yd,p ^SwKe Kdptos 
 T7IV ^affCKdav KaKdvt^ ttjv lepareiav Kai 
 i^TT^ra^e ttJi' ^auCKeiav ry lepuxr^py ■ ifxol 
 ^dcjKe T^ ^ttI TTJs yijs KaKdvifi rd iv 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 321 
 
 after another enjoin obedience to Levi : to the Testament of Levi 
 
 are consigned the most important prophecies of all : the character of 
 
 Levi is justified and partially cleansed of the stain which in the Old 
 
 Testament narrative attaches to it^ Yet notwithstanding all this, 
 
 the admission of the Gentiles into the privileges of the covenant united 
 
 is a constant theme of thanksgiving with the writer, who mourns liberal 
 
 over the falling away of the Jews but looks forward to their final ^ 
 
 restitution. And into the mouth of the dying Benjamin he puts 
 
 a prophecy foretelling an illustrious descendant who is to ' arise in 
 
 after days, beloved of the Lord, listening to His voice, enlightening 
 
 all the Gentiles with new knowledge' ; who is to be 'in the synagogues 
 
 of the Gentiles until the completion of the ages, and among their 
 
 rulers as a musical strain in the mouth of all'; who shall 'be written 
 
 in the holy books, he and his work and his word, and shall be the 
 
 elect of God for ever^.' 
 
 2. But besides these ISTazarenes, 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 
 
 tenets. 
 than the ISTazarenes. They were not confined to the neighbourhood 
 
 of Bella or even to Balestine and the surrounding countries, but were 
 found in Borne and probably also in all the great centres of the 
 dispersion^. IS'ot 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 Baul, 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 
 
 ovpavoh, lb. 25 Aeut irpioTos, de^repos tation, Levi 6 'i<j>da.ff£ bh -q opyrj Kvplov 
 
 iydjj Nepht. 5 Aevt iKpdrriae rbv rfkiov iir' avroiis els t4\os, from i Thess. ii. 16. 
 
 /eat 'loiLfdas (pddaas ^irlaae rijv (xeKrivTjv. On the whole however the language in 
 
 ^ Levi 6, 7. the moral and didactic portions takes 
 
 ^ Benj. II. Besides this prophecy its colour from the Epistle of St James, 
 
 the work presents several coincidences and in the prophetic and apocalyptic 
 
 of language with St Paul (see Vorst- from the Eevelation of St John, 
 
 man p. 115 sq.), and at least one quo- ^ Epiphan. Hceres. xxx. 18. 
 
 GAL. 21 
 
322 
 
 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 Eelation 
 to the 
 Judaizers 
 of the 
 apostolic 
 
 Another 
 type of 
 Ebionism, 
 
 derived 
 
 from the 
 Essenes. 
 
 Lord to be a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary, who was 
 justified, as any of themselves might be justified, by his rigorous 
 performance of the law\ 
 
 If the Nazarenes might have claimed some affinity to the 
 Apostles of the Circumcision, the Ebionites were the direct spiritual 
 descendants of those false brethren, the Judaizers of the apostolic 
 age, who first disturbed the peace of the Antiochene Church and then 
 dogged St Paul's footsteps from city to city, everywhere thwarting 
 his efforts and undermining his authority. If Ebionism was not 
 primitive Christianity, neither was it a creation of the second century. 
 As an organization, a distinct sect, it first made itself known, we 
 may suppose, in the reign of Trajan : but as a sentiment, it had 
 been harboured within the Church from the very earliest days. 
 Moderated by the personal influence of the Apostles, soothed by the 
 general practice of their church, not yet forced into declaring 
 themselves by the turn of events, though scarcely tolerant of others 
 these Judaizers were tolerated for a time themselves. The beginning 
 of the second century was a winnowing season in the Church of the 
 Circumcision. 
 
 The form of Ebionism^, which is most prominent in early writers 
 and which I have hitherto had in view, is purely Pharisaic ; but we 
 meet also with another type, agreeing with the former up to a certain 
 point but introducing at the same time a new element, half ascetic, 
 half mystical. 
 
 This foreign element was probably due to Essene influences. The 
 doctrines of the Christian school bear so close a resemblance to the 
 
 ^ For the opinions of these Ebion- 
 ites see the references in Schliemann 
 p. 481 sq,, and add Hippol. H<sr. vii. 
 3 el yap Kal ^epos tls ireTTOii^KeL ret iv 
 vdfii^ TTpoo'Terayfxiva^ 7}V av iKeivos 6 
 'KpLO'Tos' dvvaadaL 8k Kot ^auroi)s ofMoitas 
 TroL7](ravras X/3tcrroi)s yevitrdaL' Kal yap 
 Kal avTdy dfioicos avdpojirov eTvai irdtTLv 
 "KiyovdLv. 
 
 2 The following opinions were shared 
 by all Ebionites alike: (i) The recog- 
 nition of Jesus as Messiah; (2) The 
 denial of His divinity; (3) The uni- 
 versal obligation of the law; (4) The 
 
 rejection and hatred of St Paul. Their 
 differences consisted in (i) Their view 
 of what constituted the law, and (2) 
 Their conception of the Person of 
 Christ ; e. g. whether He was born of 
 a Virgin or in the course of nature; 
 what supernatural endowmenta He 
 had and at what time they were be- 
 stowed on Him, whether at His bii-th 
 or at His baptism, etc. 
 
 The Ebionites of earlier writers, as 
 IrenffiUB and Hippolytus, belong to the 
 Pharisaic type ; while those of Epipha- 
 niuB are strongly Essene. 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 323 
 
 characteristic features of the Jewish sect as to place their parentage 
 almost beyond a doubt ^ : and moreover the head-quarters of these 
 heretics — the countries bordering on the Dead Sea — coincide roughly 
 with the head-quarters of their prototype. This view however does 
 not exclude the working of other influences more directly Gnostic 
 or Oriental : and as this type of Ebionism seems to have passed 
 through different phases at different times, and indeed to have com- 
 prehended several species at the same time, such modifications ought 
 probably to be attributed to forces external to Judaism. Having 
 regard then to its probable origin as well as to its typical character, 
 we can hardly do wrong in adopting the name Essene or Gnostic 
 Ebionism to distinguish it from the common type, Pharisaic Ebion- 
 ism or Ebionism proper. 
 
 If Pharisaic Ebionism was a disease inherent in the Church of 
 the Circumcision from the first, Essene Ebionism seems to have been Its later 
 a later infection caught by external contact. In the Palestinian ' 
 
 Church at all events we see no symptoms of it during the apostolic 
 age. It is a probable conjecture, that after the destruction of 
 Jerusalem the fugitive Christians, living in their retirement in the 
 neighbourhood of the Essene settlements, received large accessions 
 to their numbers from this sect, which thus inoculated the Church 
 with its peculiar views ^ It is at least worthy of notice, that in 
 a religious work emanating from this school of Ebionites the * true 
 Gospel' is reported to have been first propagated 'after the de- 
 struction of the holy place ^.' 
 
 This younger form of Judaic Christianity seems soon to have 
 eclipsed the elder. In the account of Ebionism given by Epiphanius the 
 Pharisaic characteristics are almost entirely absorbed in the Essene. 
 
 ^ See especially the careful investi- on the fulfilment of these prophecies : 
 
 gation of Eitsehl p. 204 sq. comp. also Glem. Recogn, i. 37 (especi- 
 
 2 Ritschl (p, 223), who adopts this ally in the Syriac). 
 
 view, suggests that this sect, which had ^ Clem. Horn. ii. 17 fiera Kaeaipecnv 
 
 stood aloof from the temple-worship tov ayiov tSttov evayy4\Loif 6.\7]$h Kpij(pa 
 
 and abhorred sacrifices, would be led to 6ta7reya0^^yat ds ^iravbpdiauLv tCov iao- 
 
 welcome Christ as the true prophet, fihwv alp^aewv: comp. Glem. Recogn. 
 
 when they saw the fulfihnent of His i. 37, 64, iii. 61 (in the Syriac, as be- 
 
 predictions against the temple. In low, p. 330, note i). See also Epiphan. 
 
 Clem. Horn, iii. 15 great stress is laid Hceres. sxs. 2. 
 
 21 — 2 
 
324 
 
 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 but 
 
 greater 
 literary 
 activity, 
 
 and zeal- 
 ous prose- 
 lytism. 
 
 Book of 
 Elchasai. 
 
 This prominence is probably due in some measure to their greater 
 literary capacity, a remarkable feature doubtless derived from the 
 speculative tendencies and studious habits of the Jewish sect^ to 
 which they traced their parentage. Besides the Clementine writings 
 which we possess whole, and the book of Elchasai of which a few 
 fragmentary notices are preserved, a vast number of works which, 
 though no longer extant, have yet moulded the traditions of the 
 early Church, emanated from these Christian Essenes. Hence doubt- 
 less are derived the ascetic portraits of James the Lord's brother in 
 Hegesippus and of Matthew the Apostle in Clement of Alexandria^, 
 to which the account of St Peter in the extant Clementines presents 
 a close parallel^ 
 
 And with greater literary activity they seem also to have united 
 greater missionary zeal. To this spirit of proselytism we owe much 
 important information relating to the tenets of the sect. 
 
 One of their missionaries early in the third century brought to 
 Rome a sacred book bearing the name of Elchasai or Elxai, whence 
 also the sect were called Elchasaites. This book fell into the hands 
 of Hippolytus the writer on heresies ■*, from whom our knowledge of 
 it is chiefly derived. It professed to have been obtained from the 
 Seres, a Parthian tribe, and to contain a revelation which had been 
 first made in the third year of Trajan (a.d. ioo). These Seres hold 
 the same place in the fictions of Essene Ebionism, as the Hyperbo- 
 reans in Greek legend : they are a mythical race, perfectly pure and 
 therefore perfectly happy, long-lived and free from pain, scrupulous 
 in the performance of all ceremonial rites and thus exempt from the 
 penalties attaching to their neglect ^ Elchasai, an Aramaic word 
 
 1 Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 6. 
 
 2 Pcedag. ii. i (p. 174 Potter), where 
 St Matthew is said to have lived on 
 seeds, berries, and herbs, abstaining 
 from animal food. See Eitsohl p. 224. 
 
 ^ Clem. Horn. xil. 6, comp. viii. 15, 
 XV. 7. 
 
 ^ Hcsres. ix. 13. See a valuable 
 paper on the Elchasaites by Ritschl in 
 Niedner's Zeitschrift rv. p. 573 sq. 
 (1853), the substance of which is given 
 also in the second edition of his Alt- 
 
 kathoUsche Kircfie. Hilgenfeld has 
 edited the fragments of the book of 
 Elsai in his Novum Testamentum extra 
 Canonem Receptum, fasc. in. p. 153 sq. 
 (1866). The use made of it by Epi- 
 phanius is investigated by Lipsius, 
 Quellenkritik des Epiphan. p. 143 sq. 
 ^ Clem. Recogn. viii. 48, ix. 19. 
 Even in classical writers the Seres or 
 Chinese are invested with something 
 of an ideal character: e.g. Plin. vi. 24, 
 Strabo xv. p. 701, Mela iii. 7. But in 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 325 
 
 signifying the 'hidden power V seems to be the name of the divine 
 
 messenger who communicated the revelation, and probably the title 
 
 of the book itself : Hippolytus understands it of the person who 
 
 received the revelation, the founder of the sect. 'Elchasai,' adds this 
 
 father, * delivered it to a certain person called Sobiai.' Here again 
 
 he was led astray by his ignorance of Aramaic : Sobiai is not the 
 
 name of an individual but signifies 'the sworn members V ^o whom 
 
 alone the revelation was to be communicated and who perhaps, 
 
 like their Essene prototypes^, took an oath to divulge it only to the 
 
 brotherhood. I need not follow this strange but instructive notice 
 
 farther. Whether this was the sacred book of the whole sect or of a 
 
 part only, whether the name Elchasaism is coextensive with Essene 
 
 Ebionism or not, it is unimportant for my purpose to enquire. The Its pre- 
 tended 
 pretended era of this revelation is of more consequence. Whether date. 
 
 the book itself was really as early as the reign of Trajan or whether 
 
 the date was part of the dramatic fiction, it is impossible to decide*. 
 
 Even in the latter case, it will still show that according to their own 
 
 tradition this epoch marked some striking development in the 
 
 opinions or history of the sect; and the date given corresponds, it 
 
 will be remembered, very nearly with the epoch mentioned by He- 
 
 gesippus as the birthtime of a numerous brood of heresies ^ 
 
 the passage which most strikingly il- saite missionary Alcibiades made a 
 
 lustrates this fact {Geogr. Grcec. Min. mystery of his teaching, forbidding it 
 
 II. p. 514, ed. Miiller, the name dis- to be divulged except to the faithftil; 
 
 appears when the text is correctly read seeEitschll. c. p. 589. Ewald however 
 
 (*se regentes,' and not 'Serae gentes'). {Gesch. vii. p. 159) derives Sobiai from 
 
 ^ ^03 yn. Epiphanius correctly ex- . »^*^ ^ i. e. ^airriaTaL See also 
 
 plains it duvafiis KeKa\v/jL/M&T], Har. -^ 
 
 xix. -i. See Ritschl 1. c. p. 581, and Chwolson die Ssabier etc. 1. p. m. 
 
 Altkath. Kirche p. 345. Other ex- ® Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 7. 
 
 planations of the word, given in Hil- ^ Hilgenfeld {p. xxi) maintains the . 
 
 genfeld I.e. p. 156, in M. Nicolas SvaTi- early date very positively against 
 
 giles Apocryphes p. 108 (1866), and by Ritschl. Lipsius (1. c.) wiU not pro- 
 
 Geiger Zeitsch. der Deutsch. Morgenl, nounce an opinion. 
 
 Gesellsch. xvin. p. 824 (1864), do not ^ See above, p. 315. In thepassage 
 
 recommend themselves. The name is there quoted Hegesippus speaks of 
 
 differently written in Greek, HX^ao-at, these heresies ' as living undergroimd, 
 
 EX/cctrai and HX^at. The first, which burrowing (0wXeuoj'Taji')'untLl the reign 
 
 is most correct, is found to Hippolytus of Trajan. This agrees with the state- 
 
 who had seen the book. ment in the Homilies (ii. 17) already 
 
 2 From V3Ey. Accordingly Hippo- referred to (p. 323, note 3), that the 
 
 lytus {ix. 17) relates that the Elcha- true Gospel (i.e. Essene Ebionism) was 
 
326 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 Without attempting to discriminate the different forms of doc- 
 trine which this Essene Ebionism comprised in itself — to point out 
 for instance the distinctive features of the book of Elchasai, of the 
 
 Essene Homilies, and of the Recognitions respectively — it will be sufficient 
 Ebionites . j_ .i t-i 
 
 distin- to observe the broad Ime of demarcation which separates the iijssene 
 
 from Pha- ^^^^ *^® Pharisaic type \ Laying almost equal stress with the 
 nsaic, others on the observance of the law as an essential part of Christi- 
 anity, the Essene Ebionites undertook to settle by arbitrary criticism 
 what the law was^. By this capricious process they eliminated from 
 the Old Testament all elements distasteful to them — the doctrine of 
 sacrifices especially, which was abhorrent to Essene principles — cut- 
 ting down the law to their own standard and rejecting the prophets 
 wholly. As a compensation, they introduced certain ritual observ- 
 ances of their own, on which they laid great stress ; more especially 
 lustral washings and abstinence from wine and from animal food. In 
 their Christology also they differed widely from the Pharisaic Ebion- 
 ites, maintaining that the Word or Wisdom of God had been incarnate 
 more than once, and that thus there had been more Ohrists than 
 one, of whom Adam was the first and Jesus the last. Christianity in 
 fact was regarded by them merely as the restoration of the primeval 
 religion : in other words, of pure Mosaism before it had been cor- 
 rupted by foreign accretions. Thus equally with the Pharisaic Ebion- 
 ites they denied the Gospel the character of a new covenant ; and, as 
 a natural consequence, equally with them they rejected the authority 
 and reviled the name of St PauP. 
 and alHed If the Pharisaic Ebionites are the direct lineal descendants of 
 Colossian ^^® 'false brethren' who seduced St Paul's Galatian converts from 
 their allegiance, the Essene Ebionites bear a striking family likeness 
 
 first ^secretly propagated' after the xix, xxx); Hippolytus {Hcsr* ix. 13 — 
 
 destruction of the temple. The opi- 17) and Origen (Euseb. H. E. vi. 38), 
 
 nions which had thus been progressing whose accounts refer especially to the 
 
 stealthily now showed a bold front; book of Elchasai; and the Clementine 
 
 but whether the actual organization writings. 
 
 of the sect or sects took place now or ^ See Golossians p. 372. 
 
 at a still later date (after the rebellion 3 SeeEpiphan. Rcer. xxx. 16, 25, Orig. 
 
 of Bar-cochba), it is impossible to say. ap. Euseb. 1. c. t6u aTrda-roXov riXeov 
 
 1 The chief authorities for the Es- Aderei; besides the passages in the 
 
 sane Ebionites are Epiphanius {Hcer. Clementine writings quoted in the test. 
 
 heretics. 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 327 
 
 to those other Judaizers against whom he raises his voice as endan- 
 gering the safety of the Church at 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 Roman bishop Clement. These are pre- 
 served in two forms : the Homilies, extant in the Greek, apparently 
 an uniform work, which perhaps may be assigned to the middle 
 or latter half of the second century ; and the Recognitions, a composite 
 production probably later than the Homilies, founded, it would 
 appear, partly on them or some earlier work which was the common 
 basis of both and partly on other documents, and known to us through 
 the Latin translation of Rufinus, who avowedly altered his original 
 with great freedom ^ 
 
 In the Homilies Simon Magus is the impersonation of manifold 
 heresy, 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 PauP. Thus St Peter 
 
 Clemen- 
 tine 
 writings. 
 
 Attack on 
 St Paul in 
 the Homi- 
 lies, 
 
 ^ See Golossians p. 73 sq. 
 
 2 The only complete editions of the 
 Homilies are those of Dressel, demen- 
 tis Romani qute feruntur Homilice 
 Viginti (1853), and of Lagarde, Cle- 
 mentina (1865); the end of the 19th 
 and the whole of the 20th homily 
 having been published for the first 
 time by Dressel. The Eecognitions 
 which have been printed several times 
 may be read most conveniently in 
 Gersdorf 's edition (Lips. 1 838). A 
 Syriac version lately published by 
 Lagarde {Glementis Romani Recogniti- 
 ones Syriace, Lips, et Lend. 1861) is 
 made up partly of the Eecognitions (i, 
 ii, iii, iv), and partly of the Homilies 
 (x, xi, sii, xiii, siv, the xth book being 
 imperfect). The older of the two ex- 
 tant MSS of this version was actually 
 written a. n. 411, the year after the 
 death of Eufinus ; 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 Eecognitions, is 
 extremely valuable, for it enables us to 
 
 measure the liberties which Eufinus 
 took with his original. An important 
 instance of his arbitrary treatment will 
 be given below, p. 330, note x. Two 
 abridgments of the Homilies are ex- 
 tant. These have been edited by Dres- 
 sel, Glementinorum Epitovus ducB (Lips. 
 1859), one of them for the first time. 
 Of those monographs which I have read 
 on the relations between the different 
 Clementine writings, the treatise of 
 TJhlhorn, Die Homilien und Recogni- 
 tionen etc. (Gottingen, 1854), seems 
 to me on the whole the most satis- 
 factory. It is dangerous to express an 
 opinion where able critics are so di- 
 vided ; and the remarks in the test are 
 not hazarded without some hesitation. 
 Baur, SchUemann, Schwegler, and 
 Uhlhorn, give the priority to the 
 Homilies, Hilgenfeld and Eitschl to 
 the Eecognitions, Lehmann partly to 
 the one and partly to the other, while 
 Eeuss and others decline to pronounce 
 a decided opinion. 
 
 3 See on this subject Schliemann 
 Clement, pp. 96 sq., 534 eq.: comp. 
 Stanley's Corinthians, p. 366 eq. 
 
328 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 charges his hearers, ' Shun any apostle, or teacher, or prophet, "who 
 does not first compare his preaching with James called the brother 
 of my Lord and entrusted with the care of the Church of the He- 
 brews in Jerusalem, and has not come to you with witnesses* ; lest 
 the wickedness, which contended with the Lord forty days and pre- 
 vailed not, should afterwards fall upon the earth as lightning from 
 heaven and send forth a preacher against you, just as he suborned 
 Simon against us, preaching in the name of our Lord and sowing 
 error under the pretence of truth ; wherefore He that sent us said, 
 Many shall come to me in sheep^s clothing^ InU within they o/re ravening 
 wolves (xi. 35).' The allusions here to St Paul's rejection of 'com- 
 mendatory letters' (2 Cor. iii. i) 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 {d eytvojo-Kero) he would 
 not have been believed, but now being not known (ayvoovfxcuo^) 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 deceiver^ , 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 he can, then why did the 
 Teacher abide and converse with us a whole year when we were awake? 
 And how shall we ever believe thee in this, that He was seen of thee ? 
 Nay, how could He have been seen of thee, when thy thoughts are 
 contrary to His teaching'! If having been seen and instructed of 
 
 ^ Kol fj.€Ta fiapTvpiijv iTpoffGkrfkvBoTa. carried on from th^. former clause ixij 
 It is needless to insert firj with Schlie- irpoTepov duri^aWovra. 
 mann and Schwegler : the negative is 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 329 
 
 Him for a single hour thou wast made an Apostle, then preach His 
 words, expound His teaching, love His Apostles, do not fight against 
 me His companion. For thou hast withstood and opposed me (ivav- 
 TLos dvOio-TrjKois fxotjj 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 1 might not be believed when 
 I told what I had heard myself in person from the Lord, as though 
 forsooth I were condemned (KaTayvoxrOevTos) and thou wert highly re- 
 garded'. Nay, if thou callest me condemned [KaTeyvoxrfxivov), thou 
 accusest God who revealed Christ to me and assailest Him that called 
 me blessed in my revelation^ (xvii. 19).' In this same bitter spirit 
 the writer would rob him of all his missionary triumphs and transfer 
 them to his supposed rival : the Apostleship of the Gentiles, accord- 
 ing to the Homilies, belongs not to St Paul but to St Peter : Barnabas 
 is no more the companion nor Clement the disciple of St Paul but of 
 St Peter ^ 
 
 Again in the letter of Peter to James prefixed to the Homilies, in the 
 emanating from the same school though perhaps not part of the peter 
 work itself J 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 (tov l^Opov dvOp(a7rov dvofiov nva koI 
 (f>\vap(6B7j StSao-KaXtav), complaining also that 'certain persons at- 
 tempted by crafty interpretations to wrest his words to the abolish- 
 ing of the law, pretending that this was his opinion, but that he did 
 not openly preach it,' with more to the same effect (§ 2). 
 
 In the Kecognitions, probably a later patch-work *, the harsher in the 
 features of the Essene-Ebionite doctrine, as it appears in the Homilies, tions 
 are softened down, and these bitter though indirect attacks on St Paul 
 
 1 The existing text has Kal ifiov pios et k.t.X. 
 
 ei/doKLfMovvTos, for which some have pro- ^ See also other references to St 
 
 posed to read kclI ijA) eidoKc/xovvTos. It Paul noted above p. 61. 
 
 is better perhaps to substitute <tov or * Not much earlier than the middle 
 
 o^hafiov for ^/Aou, though neither is a of the third century ; for a portion of 
 
 neat emendation. Some change how- the treatise de Fato, written probably 
 
 ever is absolutely needed. by a disciple of Bardesanes, is worked 
 
 2 TOV iirl airoKokd-^ei fMaKapla-avTds fie. up in the later books; unless indeed this 
 The allusion is to Matt. xvi. 17, fiaKd- is itself borrowedfromtheRecognitions. 
 
330 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 omitted ; whether by the original redactor or by his translator Ku- 
 finus, it is not easy to say\ Thus in the portions corresponding to 
 and probably taken from the Homilies no traces of this hostility 
 remain. But in one passage adopted from another work, probably 
 the 'Ascents of James V it can still be discerned, the allusion having 
 either escaped notice or been spared because it was too covert to 
 give offence. It is there related that a certain enemy (homo quidam 
 inimicus) raised a tumult against the Apostles and with his own 
 hands assaulted James and threw him down from the steps of the 
 temple, ceasing then to maltreat him, only because he believed him 
 to be dead; and that after this the Apostles received secret informa- 
 tion from Gamaliel, that this enemy (inimicus ille homo) had been 
 sent by Caiaphas on a mission to Damascus to persecute and slay 
 the disciples, and more especially to take Peter who was supposed 
 to have fled thither (i. 70, 71)^ The original work, from which this 
 
 and in the portion of the Recognitions seems to have been borrowed, was much 
 
 Ascents of . , . . 
 
 James. more violent and unscrupulous m its attacks on St Paul; for m the 
 
 ' Ascents of James ' Epiphanius read the story, that he was of Gen- 
 tile parentage, but coming to Jerusalem and wishing to marry the 
 high-priest^s daughter he became a proselyte and was circumcised : 
 then, being disappointed of his hope, he turned round and furiously 
 attacked the Mosaic ordinances (Hceres. xxx. 16). 
 
 ^ In one instance at least the change tion of St Paul, which is wholly alien 
 
 is due to Rufinus himself. His trans- to the spirit of these Clementine writ- 
 
 lation of Clem. Recogn. iii. 61 contains ings, disappears. 
 
 u. distinct recognition of St Paul's A- ^ Uhlhorn^p. 366. Epiphanius men - 
 
 postleship, 'Nonum (par) omnium gen- tions this book, dva^ad/xol'IaKti^ovj as 
 
 tium et illius qm mittetm: seminare being in circulation among the Ebion- 
 
 verbum inter gentes.' (On these avi;u- ites (xxx. 16). It was so called doubt- 
 
 7/at of the false and the true see above less as describing the ascents of James 
 
 p. 328.) But the corresponding pas- up the temple -stairs, whence he ha- 
 
 sage in the Syriac version (p. 115,1. -zo, rangued the people. The name and the 
 
 Lagarde) is wholly different, and trans- description of its contents in Epi- 
 
 lated back into Greek will run thus : rj phanius alike favour the view that it 
 
 S^ ivpdTT) ((Tv^vyla) rod <nr4p{xaTos tQv was the original of this portion of the 
 
 ^^aviojv Kal ToO e-dayyeXiov rou wefnro- Eecognitions. But if so, the redactor 
 
 (j.4vov els iiTLffTpofp-fiv, Hrav iKpL^ioOS t6 of the Becognitions must have taken 
 
 dyiov Kol els ttjv ipTjfiayffip airov 6'^<rov(n the same Hberties with it as he has 
 
 TO ^5i\vyfjia : see Dan. ix. 27, and com- done with the Homilies, 
 
 pare Clem. Hom. ii. 17 (quoted above ^ This passage is substantially the 
 
 p. 323, note 3). Thus the commenda- same in the Syriac. 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 331 
 
 In the earlier part of the third century these Gnostic Ebionites Activity of 
 ^ '^ ^ ^ the sect 
 
 seem to have made some futile efforts to propagate their views. An 
 
 emissary of the sect, one Alcibiades of Apamea in Syria, appeared 
 
 in Rome with the pretended revelation of Elchasai, and (thinking at Eome, 
 
 A.D. 
 
 himself the better juggler of the two, says Hippolytus) half sue- 219 — 223, 
 
 ceeded in cajoling the pope CalKstus, but was exposed and defeated by 
 
 the zealous bishop of Portus who tells the story (ffceres. is. 13 — 17). 
 
 Not many years after another emissary, if it was not this same and Cffisa- 
 
 rea, 
 AJcibiades, appears to have visited Csesarea, where he was confronted a.d. 247? 
 
 and denounced by Origen\ 
 
 This display of activity might lead to an exaggerated estimate The 
 
 Churches 
 of the influence of these Judaizing sects. It is not probable that of Palea- 
 
 they left any wide or lasting impression west of Syria. In Palestine 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 Ohurch at -<^iia 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 Paschal 
 
 controver- 
 middle and later half of the second century the bishops of Csesarea ay. 
 
 and Jerusalem, of Tyre and Ptolemais, ranged themselves, not with 
 the Churches of Asia Minor which regulated their Easter festival by 
 the Jewish passover without regard to the day of the week, but with 
 those of Rome and Alexandria and Gaul which observed another 
 rule ; thus avoiding even the semblance of Judaism^. But we have 
 more direct testimony to the main features of Palestinian doctrine 
 about the middle of the second century in the known opinions of two 
 writers who lived at the time — Justin as representative of the Sa- 
 maritan, and Hegesippus of the Hebrew Christianity of their day. 
 The former of these declares himself distinctly against the two cha- 
 racteristic tenets of Ebionism. Against their humanitarian views Justin, 
 he expressly argues, maintaining the divinity of Christ^. On the 
 
 ^ Euseb. H. E. vi. 38. This extract 247. See Bedepenning Origenes 11. p. 72. 
 is taken from Origen's Homily on the ^ Euseb.IZ".^. v. 23, 24. See below, 
 
 82nd Psalm, which appears to have p. 343, note 2. 
 been delivered in Cffisarea about a.d. ^ X)ial, cc. 48, 127. 
 
332 
 
 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 Hegesip- 
 pu3, 
 
 universal obligation of the law he declares, not only that those who 
 maintain this opinion are wrong, but that he himself will hold no 
 communion with them, for he doubts whether they can be saved'. 
 If, as an apologist for the Gospel against Gentile and Jew, he is 
 precluded by the nature of his writings from quoting St Paul ^, whose 
 name would be received by the one with indifference and by the 
 other with hatred, he still shows by his manner of citing and ap- 
 plying the Old Testament that he is not unfamiliar with this Apo- 
 stle's writings ^ The testimony of Hegesippus is still more important, 
 for his extant fragments prove him to have been a thorough Hebrew 
 in all his thoughts and feelings. This writer made a journey to 
 Rome, calling on the way at Corinth among other places; he ex- 
 presses himself entirely satisfied with the teaching of the churches 
 which he thus visited ; ' Under each successive bishop,' he says, ' and 
 in each city it is so as the law and the prophets and the Lord 
 preach*/ Was the doctrine of the whole Christian world at this 
 
 ^ Dial. CO. 47, 48. 
 
 2 See Westeott's argument {Canon 
 p. 116 sq.) drawn from the usage of 
 other apologists, Tertullian for in- 
 stance, who does not quote even the 
 Gospels in his Apology. 
 
 ^ See the introduction p. 60, and 
 the notes on iii. 38, iv. 27. 
 
 ^ In Euseb. H. E. iv, 22. The ex- 
 tract ends, y€jf6fievos 5^ ij^ 'Pt^Ati? diaSo- 
 X^v iiroLTjadfiTjv f^^XP''^ 'Avlk^tou ov did- 
 Kovos ^v ''^Xevdepos' Kal irapd'AvcK'^ou 
 diaS^xeraL "ZoiT-qp, fxed^ Qv'Wievdepos' iu 
 iKo/TTT} dk dtadoxv Kal kv iKoaTj] irdXei 
 ovTcos ^x^' ^5 ° v6/j.os KTjp^rrei Kal ol 
 TrpocpTJraL Kal 6 Kuptos. If the text be 
 correct, SiaBoxv^ iironja-dfJiTjv inxiBtTaea>n 
 ' 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 earUer work or earlier portion 
 of this work, which he now supple- 
 ments. Possibly however the conjec- 
 tural reading dtaTpL^ijv iTroLTjcrdfiTji/j *I 
 continued to reside,* may be correct : 
 but the translation of Eufinus, 'per- 
 mansi inibi (i.e. Rom£e) donee Aniceto 
 Soter et Soteri successit Eleutberus,' 
 
 is of little or no weight on this side; 
 for he constantly uses his fluency in 
 Latin to gloze over his imperfect 
 knowledge of Greek, and the evasion 
 of a real difficulty is with him the rule 
 rather than the exception. If we re- 
 tain dtadoxv^, the words of Hegesippus 
 would still seem to imply that he left 
 Bome during the episcopate of Anice- 
 tuB. Euaebius indeed {H. E. iv. 11) 
 infers, apparently from this passage, 
 that he remained there till Eleutherus 
 became bishop; and Jerome {de Vir. 
 HI. 22), as usual, repeats Eusebius. 
 This inference, though intelligible, 
 seems hardly correct ; but it shows 
 almost conclusively that Eusebius did 
 not read btaTpi^Tiv. The early Syriac 
 translator of Eusebius (see above, p. 
 280, note) certainly read biaBoxw* 
 The dates of the accession of the suc- 
 cessive bishops as determined by Lip- 
 sius are, Pius 141 (at the latest), 
 Anicetus 154 — 156, Soter 166 or 167, 
 Eleutherus 174 or 175, Victor 189, 
 Zephyrinus 198 or 199, Callistus 217, 
 Urbanus 222; Chron. der Rom. Bisch. 
 p. 263. But there is considerable 
 variation in the authorities, the ac- 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 333 
 
 time (a.b. 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 ?,?* ^^.^ 
 
 Ebiomte. 
 
 speaks of Hegesippus as ^ having recorded the unerring tradition of 
 the apostolic preaching {E. K iv. 8)' ; and classes him with Dio- 
 nysius of Corinth, Melito, Irenseus, and others, as one of those in 
 whose writings * the orthodoxy of sound faith derived from the apo- 
 stolic tradition had been handed down \' In this Eusebius could not 
 have been mistaken, for he himseK states that Hegesippus * left the 
 fullest record of his own opinions in five books of memoirs ' which 
 were in his hands (R. 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 ascetic ^ ; but 
 between this stern view o£ life and Ebionite doctrine the interval 
 may be wide enough; and on this showing how many fathers of the 
 Church, Jerome and Basil for instance in the fourth century, Ber- 
 nard and Dominic and Francis of Assisi in later ages, must plead 
 guilty of Ebionism. True, he used the Hebrew Gospel; but what 
 authority he attributed to it, or whether it was otherwise than or- 
 thodox, does not appear. True also, he appeals in a passage already 
 quoted to the authority of 'the law and the prophets and the 
 Lord^' ; but this is a natural equivalent for 'the Old and New Tes- 
 
 cession of Anicetus being placed by ed Boniface, Camb. 1864) the hero is 
 
 some as early as a.d. 150; see the spoken of as 'Printing heaven's mes- 
 
 hsts in Clinton's Fasti Bomani n. p. sage deeper in his soul, By reading 
 
 534 sq, holy writ, Prophet and Law, And four- 
 
 ^ H. E. iv. 21 wv KoX els rjfiSis ttjs fold Gospel.' Here, as in Hegesippus, 
 
 diroffroKiK^s irapaddcreois i) ttjs vyiovs the law is mentioned and ' the Apo- 
 
 irlaTeojs iyypa^os Kar^Xdev dpOodo^La. stle ' is not. Yet who would say that 
 
 2 Euseb. H. E. ii. 23. See the ae- this passage savours of Ebionism? 
 count of St James below. Comp. Irenseus Hcer. ii. 30. 6 ' Eelin- 
 
 3 See the passage quoted above, p. quentes eloquia Domini et Moysen et 
 332, note 4. For the inferences of the rehquosprophetas,' and again in SpzciZ. 
 Tiibingen school see Schwegler Naeha- Solesm. i. p. 3, and the Clementine 
 post. Zeitalter 1. p. 355, Baur Christen- Epistles to Virgins i. 12 * Sicut ex lege 
 thum etc. p. 78. A paraUel instance ae prophetis et a Domino nostro Jesu 
 will serve the purpose better than much Christo didicimus' (Westcott Canon p. 
 argument. In a poem by the late 185, 4th ed.). So too Apost. Const, ii. 
 Prof. Selwyn ( Winfrid, afterwards call- 39 jcterd rriv avdypuxriv rov v6fiov Kal tuiv 
 
334 
 
 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 Ebionism 
 not preva- 
 lent in 
 other 
 churclies. 
 
 tament,' and corresponding expressions would not appear out of 
 place even in our own age. True lastly, he condemns the use made 
 of the text, * Eye hath not seen nor ear heard ' etc.^, as contradicting 
 our Lord's words, ' Blessed are your eyes for ye see, etc' ; but he is 
 here protesting against its perverted application by the Gnostics, 
 who employed it of the initiated few, and whom elsewhere he 
 severely denounces ; and it is a mere accident that the words are 
 quoted also by St Paul (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 the 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 ^s. the charge 
 of Ebionism on other communities farther removed from the focus 
 
 irpo^TjTuju Kal Tov e^ayyeXiov, Hippol. 
 Hcer. vui. 19 7rXe?di' n 5t' avTQj'...fj,€- 
 fiadTjKivat 17 iK vofiov koX •jrpo(pT]Tu}v Kal 
 evayyeKlwv. 
 
 ^ The fragment to which I refer is 
 preserved in an extract from Stepha- 
 nuB Gobarus given in Photius Bibl. 
 232. After quoting the words t4 -^Tot- 
 (xafffiiva roh SiKaiois dyadd. ovre 6<f)6d\- 
 fibs eWev ovT€ ous -fJKOvffev ovre iwl kap- 
 diav dv6p(birov dvi^Tjj StephanuB pro- 
 ceeds, ' HyiJo'tTrTros (livToi, dpxo.los re 
 dv^p Kal dwoa'ToXiKOSj iv r<^ Tr^jUTrry Tiav 
 virofJ.V7jfjATWV f ovK 0T8' Tt Kal ira9(hVi 
 /mIttjp fih elp^irdac ravra X^yet Kal Kara- 
 \pe6deffdai Toi/s ravTa <pafji,4vovs tiov re 
 deiojv ypatfidv koI rod Kvpiov Xiyovros 
 'M.aKdpcoL ol 6(f>dakp.ol vixdv K.r.\. It is 
 not surprising that this writer, who 
 lived when Gnosticism had passed out 
 of memory, should he puzzled to 
 •know what had come to Hegesip- 
 pus ' : but modern critics ought not to 
 have gone astray. Hegesippus can 
 hardly be objecting to the passage 
 itself, which is probably a quotation 
 from Is. Ixiv. 4. His objection there- 
 fore must be to some application of 
 it. But whose application? Even 
 had there been no direct evidence, it 
 might have been gathered from the 
 
 argument which follows that he re- 
 ferred to the esoteric teaching of the 
 Gnostics; but the lately discovered 
 treatise of Hippolytus establishes the 
 fact that it was a favourite text of 
 these heretics, being introduced into 
 the form of initiation: see v. 24, 26, 
 27 (of Justin the Gnostic), vi. 24 (of 
 Valentinus). This is the opinion of 
 Lechler p. 463, Bitschl p. 267, West- 
 cott Canon pp. 206, 281, Bunsen Hip- 
 polytus I. p. 132 (2nd ed.), and Hilgen- 
 feld Apost. Vdter p. 102, but otherwise 
 Zeitschr.f. Wiss. Theol. 1876, p. 203 sq. 
 Yet Baur {Christenthum p. 77, Paulus 
 p. 22i),andSchwegler(i. p. 352), forcing 
 an unnatural meaning on the words, 
 contend that Hegesippus is directly 
 denying St Paul's claim to a revelation 
 and asserting that this privilege belongs 
 only to those who have seen and 
 heard Christ in the flesh. It is worth 
 noticing that the same quotation, 'eye 
 hath not seen etc.,' is found in the 
 Epistle of Clement (c. 34); and this 
 epistle was referred to by Hegesippus, 
 as the notice of Eusebiua seems to im- 
 ply (H. E. iv. 22), with approval. This 
 very mention of Clement's epistle is in 
 itself a secondary evidence that Hegesip- 
 pus recognised the authority of StPaul. 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 335 
 
 o£ Judaic influences. Here and there indeed Judaism seems to have 
 made a desperate struggle, but only to sustain a signal defeat. At 
 Antioch this conflict began earlier and probably continued longer 
 than elsewhere ; yet the names of her bishops Ignatius, Theophilus, 
 and Serapion, vouch for the doctrine and practice of the Antiochene 
 Church in the second century. In Asia Minor the influence first of 
 St Paul and then of St John must have been fatal to the ascendancy 
 of Ebionism. A disproportionate share indeed of the faint light 
 which glimmers over the Church of the second century is concen- 
 trated on this region : and the notices, though occasional and frag- 
 mentary, are sufficient to establish this general fact. The same is 
 true with regard to Greece : similar influences were at work and 
 with similar results. The Churches of Gaul took their colour from 
 Asia Minor which furnished their greatest teachers : Irenseus bears 
 witness to the Catholicity of their faith. In Alexandria, when at 
 length the curtain rises, Christianity is seen enthroned between 
 Greek philosophy and Gnostic speculation, while Judaism is far in 
 the background. The infancy of the African Church is wrapt in 
 hopeless darkness : but when she too emerges from her obscurity, 
 she comes forward in no uncertain attitude, with no deep scars as 
 of a recent conflict, oflering neither a mutilated canon nor a dwarfed 
 theology. The African Bible, as it appears in the old Latin ver- 
 sion, contains all the books which were received without dispute for 
 two centuries after. The African theology, as represented by Ter- 
 tullian, in no way falls short of the standard of Catholic doctrine 
 maintained in other parts of Christendom. 
 
 But the Church of the metropolis demands special attention. At "^^^ 
 
 ^ Church of 
 
 Rome, if anywhere, we should expect to see very distinct traces of Eome. 
 
 these successive phenomena, which are supposed to have extended 
 
 throughout or almost throughout the Christian Church — first the 
 
 supremacy of Ebionism — then the conflict of the Judaic with the 
 
 Pauline Gospel — lastly, towards the close of the second century, 
 
 the triumph of a modified Paulinism and the consequent birth of 
 
 Catholic Christianity \ Yet, even if this were the history of Catho- 
 
 1 The episcopate of Victor (ahout gen critica (see SchwegZer ii.p, 206 sq.) 
 A.D. 190 — 200) is fixed by the Tiibin- as the epoch of the antijudaic revolu- 
 
33^ ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 licity at RornGj it would still be an unfounded assumption to extend 
 
 the phenomenon to other parts of Christendom. E-ome had not yet 
 
 learnt to dictate to the Church at large. At this early period she 
 
 appears for the most part unstable and pliant, the easy prey of 
 
 designing or enthusiastic adventurers in theology, not the originator 
 
 of a policy and a creed of her own. The prerogative of Christian 
 
 doctrine and practice rests hitherto with the Churches of Antioch 
 
 and Asia Minor. 
 
 But the evidence lends no countenance to the idea that the 
 
 tendencies of the Roman Church during this period were towards 
 
 Heretics Ebionism. Her early history indeed is wrapt in obscurity. If the 
 
 congregate 
 
 there. veil were raised, the spectacle would probably not be very edifying, 
 
 but there is no reason to imagine that Judaism was her character- 
 istic taint. As late heathen Rome had been the sink of all pagan 
 superstitions, so early Christian Rome was the meeting-point of all 
 heretical creeds and philosophies. If the presence of Simon Magus 
 in the metropolis be not a historical fact, it is still a carrying out 
 of the typical character with which he is invested in early tradition, 
 as the father of heresy. Most of the great heresiarchs — among others 
 Yalentinus, Marcion, Praxeas, Theodotus, Sabellius — taught in Rome. 
 Ebionism alone would not be idle, where all other heresies were 
 active. But the great battle with this form of error seems to have 
 been fought out at an early date, in the lifetime of the Apostles 
 themselves and in the age immediately following. 
 Secession The last notice of the Roman Church in the apostolic writings 
 
 seems to point to two separate communities, a Judaizing Church 
 and a Pauline Church. The arrival of the Gentile Apostle in the 
 metropolis, it would appear, was the signal for the separation of 
 the Judaizers, who had hitherto associated with their Gentile bre- 
 thren coldly and distrustfully. The presence of St Paul must have 
 vastly strengthened the numbers and influence of the more liberal 
 
 tion in the Roman Church. This date immediate predecessor of Victor; see 
 
 foUows necessarily from their aasump- above, p. 332, note 4. They suppose 
 
 tion that Hegesippus was an Ebionite; however that the current had been 
 
 for his approval of this church extends setting in this direction some time 
 
 to the episcopate of Eleutherus, the before. 
 
 of Juda- 
 izers. 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 337 
 
 and Catholic party; while the Judaizers provoked by rivalry re- 
 doubled their efforts, that in making converts to the Gospel they 
 might also gain proselytes to the law \ Thus ' in every way Christ 
 was preached/ 
 
 If St Peter ever visited Rome, it must have been at a later St Peter 
 
 in Borne. 
 date than these 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 Home. As 
 they had done before in the world at large, so they would agree to do 
 now in the metropolis : they would exchange the right hand of fel- 
 lowship, devoting themselves the one more especially to the Jewish, 
 the other to the Gentile converts. Christian Rome was large enough a twofold 
 to admit two communities or two sections in one community, until ' 
 
 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 Eome were organized by the combined action 
 of the two Apostles. This fact possibly underlies the tradition that 
 St Peter and St Paul were joint founders of the E-oman Church : and 
 it may explain the discrepancies in the lists of the early bishops, 
 which perhaps 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 the one side would be met eagerly by 
 
 1 The inferences in the test are the circumcision) are my fellow-work- 
 drawn from Phil. i. 15 — 18, compared ers etc' 
 with Col. iv. II 'These only (i.e. of 
 
 GAL. 22 
 
338 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 united advances on the other. Hence at the close of the first century we 
 Clement, see no more traces of a twofold Church. The work of the Apostles, 
 now withdrawn from the scene, has passed into the hands of no un- 
 worthy disciple. The Hberal and catholic spirit of Clement eminently 
 fitted him for the task of conciliation ; and he appears as the first 
 bishop or presiding elder of the one Roman Church. This amalga- 
 mation however could not be effected without some opposition ; the 
 extreme Judaizers must necessarily have been embittered and alien- 
 ated : and, if a little later we discern traces of Ebionite sectarianism 
 in Rome, this is not only no surprise, but the most natural conse- 
 quence of a severe but short-lived struggle. 
 Clement's The Epistle to the Corinthians written by Clement in the name 
 of the Roman Church cannot well be placed after the close of the 
 A.D. 95? first century and may possibly date some years earlier. It is not 
 unreasonable to regard this as a typical document, reflecting the 
 comprehensive principles and large sympathies which had been im- 
 pressed upon the united Church of Rome, in great measure perhaps 
 by the influence of the distinguished writer. There is no early 
 Christian writing which combines more fully than this the distinctive 
 features of all the Apostolic Epistles, now asserting the supremacy oi 
 faith with St Paul, now urging the necessity of works with St James, 
 at one time echoing the language of St Peter, at another repeating 
 the very words of the Epistle to the Hebrews ^ Not without some 
 show of truth, the authority of Clement was claimpd in after genera- 
 tions for writings of very different tendencies. Belonging to nc 
 party, he seemed to belong to all. 
 Testimony Not many years after this Epistle was written, Ignatius now or 
 ti^g^ his way to martyrdom addresses a letter to the Roman brethren. II 
 
 ^'^' ^°^ contains no indications of any division in the Church of the metro 
 polis or of the prevalence of Ebionite views among his readers. Or 
 the contrary, he lavishes epithets of praise on them in the opening 
 salutation; and throughout the letter there is not the faintest shado"« 
 of blame. His only fear is that they may be too kind to him anc 
 deprive him of the honour of martyrdom by their intercessions. Tt 
 
 ^ See Westcott History of the Canon p. 24 sq. 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 339 
 
 the Ephesians, and even to Poly carp, he offers words of advice and 
 
 warning; but to the Romans he utters only the language of joyful 
 
 satisfaction ^ 
 
 But in a church thus formed we might expect to meet with other 
 
 and narrower types of doctrine than the Epistle of Clement exhibits. 
 
 Traditional principles and habits of thought would still linger on, 
 
 modified indeed but not wholly transformed by the predominance of 
 
 a Catholicity which comprehended all elements in due proportion. 
 
 One such type is represented by an extant work which emanated from 
 
 the Roman Church during the first half of the second century^. 
 
 In its general tone the Shepherd of Hermas confessedly differs Shepherd 
 
 of Hermas 
 from the Epistle of Clement ; but on the other hand the writer was not Ebion- 
 
 certainly no Ebionite, as he has been sometimes represented. If he ^ ®' 
 dwells almost exclusively on works, he yet states that the 'elect of c. a.d. 145. 
 God will be saved through faith^': if he rarely quotes the New Tes- 
 tament, his references to the Old Testament are still fainter and 
 scantier : if he speaks seldom of our Lord and never mentions Him 
 by name, he yet asserts that the * Son of God was present with His 
 Father in counsel at the founding of creation V and holds that the 
 world is 'sustained by Him®.* Such expressions no Ebionite could 
 have used. Of all the New Testament writings the Shepherd most 
 resembles in tone the Epistle of St James, whose language it some- 
 
 ^ This is the case, even though we pee, to0t6 /xol d-^Xojaov -^ irirpa koX ti 
 
 should accept only the parts preserved ttiSXi? tIs 1<xtlv\ 'H rrirpa, (prjaly, avri} 
 
 in the Syriac as genuine; but the Kal t} ttvXt} 6 vlbs tov Qeov ^arl. IluJy, 
 
 Greek (Vossian) Epistles are still more <i>T}iJ-i^ K6ptey -q ir^rpa TraXaid iartv, r} Sk 
 
 explicit. They distinctly acquit the tti/Kt} Kaivrj; "A/coue, (prjcri, Kal ai^vie, 
 
 Romans of any participation in heresy; do'^vere. 6 fiky vliis rod Beov irdcnjs ttjs 
 
 speaking of them as ' united in flesh ktIccws a{iTov irpoyevia-Tepds ^driv, ujare 
 
 and spirit with every commandment c^fx^ovKov wotov yeviadai. t(^ warpl ttjs 
 
 of Christ, filled with the grace of God KTiaews avrou ' dtd tovto Kal iraXaLos i<r- 
 
 inseparably, and strained clear of t«/. 'H 5^ tti/Xt; Stctrf /catcij, 07;(u£, KiJpie; 
 
 every foreign colour [dirodivXio-fJLivoLS "Ort, (frqaiv^ iir iffxdnov riav Tjfiepwv ttjs 
 
 dirb iravrhs dXXoTpLov xP'^A'-ctTos).* At avPTeXelas <pav€p6^ iy4v€T0, dioL tovto 
 
 the same time the writer appears in Katvi} iy^vero 7} ttiJXi;, tva ol fidXXovTes 
 
 other passages as a stubborn opponent atb^eadac 5l avrrjs els tt)v ^a<riXdav ela- 
 
 of Judaism, Magn. 8, 10, Philad. 6. iXdtaa-c tov Qeov. 
 
 2 On the date of the Shepherd see ^ Sim. ix. 14 to 6vofia tov vlov tov 
 above, p. 99, note 3. Oeov fx4ya iaTl Kal dx(^pT)Tov Kal tov 
 
 3 Vis. iii. 8 : comp. Mand. viii. Klijfxov 6Xov /SacTctfei. On the whole 
 ^ Sim. ix. 12. The whole passage subject see Dorner Lehre etc. i. p. 186 
 
 is striking: Xlp^Tov, (pTjfJLi, irdpToiv, ki5- sq., Westcott Canon p. 200 sq. 
 
 22 — 2 
 
340 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 times reflects : but the teaching of St James appears here in an 
 •exaggerated and perverted form. The author lays great stress on 
 works, and so far he copies his model : but his interpretation of 
 works is often formal and ritualistic, and in one passage he even 
 states the doctrine of supererogation \ Whether the tone of this 
 writing is to be ascribed to the traditional feelings of Judaism yet 
 lingering in the Church, or to the influence of a Judaic section still 
 tolerated, or to the constitution of the author's own mind, it is im- 
 possible to say. The view of Christian ethics here presented devi- 
 ates considerably, it is true, from St Paul's teaching ; but the devi- 
 ation is the same in kind and not greater in degree than marks a 
 vast number of mediseval 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 he means not the 
 Mosaic ordinances but the rule introduced by Christ. On the other 
 hand his very silence is eloquent. There is not a word in favour of 
 Judaic observances properly so called, not a word of denunciation 
 direct or indirect against either the doctrine or the person of St 
 Paul or his disciples. In this respect the Shepherd presents a marked 
 contrast to the truly Ebionite work, which must be taken next in 
 order. 
 Eoman "^h® Clementine writings have been assigned with great confi- 
 
 the^Cle? ^i^^ce by most recent critics of ability to a Roman authorship^. Of 
 
 mentines t}^^ truth of this view I am very far from convinced. The great 
 
 question- 
 
 ed. argument — indeed almost the only argument — in its favour is the 
 
 fact that the plot of the romance turns upon the wanderings of this 
 
 illustrious bishop of Rome, who is at once the narrator and the hero 
 
 of the story. But the fame of Clement reached far beyond the 
 
 limits of his own jurisdiction. To him, we are specially told by a 
 
 contemporary writer, was assigned the task of corresponding with 
 
 ^ Sim. V. 3 : comp. Mand. iv. 4. unanimous opinion of those who in 
 
 2 So for instance Baur, Schliemann, later days have critically examined the 
 
 Bitachl, Hilgenfeld : and this view is Clementina. ' Uhlhorn is almost alone 
 
 adopted by Dean MUman Latin Chris- among recent critics in raising his voice 
 
 tianity i. p. 31, who speaks of it as 'the against this general verdict : p. 370 sq. 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 341 
 
 foreign churches' His rank and position, his acknowledged wisdom 
 and piety, would point him out as the best typical representative of 
 the Gentile converts: and an Ebionite writer, designing by a reli- 
 gious fiction to impress his views on Gentile Christendom, would 
 naturally single out Clement for his hero, and by his example enforce 
 the duty of obedience to the Church of the Circumcision, as the 
 prerogative Church and the true standard of orthodoxy. At all 
 events it is to be noticed that, beyond the use made of Clement's 
 name, these writings do not betray any familiarity with or make any 
 reference to the Koman Church in particular^. On the contrary, the 
 scenes are all laid in the East; and the supreme arbiter, the ulti- 
 mate referee in all that relates to Christian doctrine and practice, 
 is not Peter, the Clementine Apostle of the Gentiles, the reputed 
 founder of the Roman Church, but James the Lord's brother, the 
 bishop of bishops, the ruler of the mother Church of the Circum- 
 cision. 
 
 If the Roman origin of these works is more than doubtful, the 
 time of writing also is open to much question. The dates assigned 
 to the Homilies by the ablest critics range over the whole of the 
 second century, and some place them even later. If the Roman 
 authorship be abandoned, many reasons for a very early date will fall 
 to the ground also. Whenever they were written, the Homilies are Their im- 
 among the most interesting and important of early Christian writings; exageer^ 
 but they have no right to the place assigned them in the system of ^*®'^* 
 a modern critical school, as the missing link between the Judaism of 
 the Christian era and the Catholicism of the close of the second 
 century, as representing in fact the phase of Christianity taught at 
 Rome and generally throughout the Church during the early ages. 
 
 ^ Hermas Vis. ii. 4 irifiyj/ei odv KXij- bly is later than the Homilies them- 
 
 firis els rhs ^^o) ToXets" ^Keivif yap iin- selves, 
 
 TirpaiTTau If the Homilies had really been 
 
 2 The Epistle of Clement to James, -writtenbyaRomanChristian, the slight 
 
 prefixed to the work, is an exception ; and incidental mention of St Peter's so- 
 
 for it gives an elaborate account of the journin Eome(i. i6,comp. Recogn.i. 74) 
 
 writer's appointment by St Peter as would have thrown considerable doubt 
 
 his successor. The purpose of this let- on the fact. But if they emanated from 
 
 ter, which is to glorify the see of Eome, the East, from Syria for instance, no 
 
 shows that it was no part of and proba- explanation of this silence is needed. 
 
342 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 The very complexion of the writer's opinions is such, that they car 
 
 hardly have been maintained by any large and important community. 
 
 They can- at least in the West. Had they presented a purer form of Judaism. 
 
 sent the founded on the Old Testament Scriptures, a more plausible cas€ 
 
 ^^*^^^^®° might have been made out. But the theology of the Clementines 
 
 Church, (ioes not lie in a direct line between the Old Testament and Catholic 
 
 Christianity : it deviates equally from the one and the other. In its 
 
 rejection of half the Mosaic law and much more than half of the 
 
 Old Testament, and in its doctrine of successive avatars of the 
 
 Christ, it must have been as repugnant to the religious sentiments 
 
 of a Jew trained in the school of Hillel, as it could possibly be to £ 
 
 disciple of St Paul in the first century or to a Catholic Christian ir 
 
 the third. Moreover the tone of the writer is not at all the tone 
 
 of one who addresses a sympathetic audience. His attacks on Si 
 
 Paul are covert and indirect ; he makes St Peter complain that ht 
 
 has been misrepresented and libelled. Altogether there is an ai] 
 
 of deprecation and apology in the Homilies. If they were reall] 
 
 written by a Roman Christian, they cannot represent the main bodj 
 
 of the Church, but must have emanated from one of the man] 
 
 heresies with which the metropolis swarmed in the second century 
 
 when all promulgators of new doctrine gathered there, as th< 
 
 largest and therefore the most favourable market for their spiritua 
 
 wares. 
 
 Notice in There is another reason also for thinking that this Gnosti( 
 
 Hippo y- j^]3iQj]Lism cannot have obtained any wide or lasting influence in th( 
 
 Church of Rome. During the episcopate of Callistus (a. D. 219— 
 
 223) a heretical teacher appears in the metropolis, promulgating 
 
 Elchasaite doctrines substantially, though not identically, the sam( 
 
 with the creed of the Clementines, and at first seems likely to attaii 
 
 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 mor* 
 
 necessary to warn the faithful Christian. If the Ebionism of th( 
 
 Clementines had ever prevailed at Rome, it had passed into oblivioi 
 
 when Hippolytus wrote. 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 343 
 
 The few notices of the Roman Church in the second century No Ebion- 
 point to other than Ebionite leanings. In their ecclesiastical ordi- jj^^g j^ ^he 
 nances the Romans seem anxious to separate themselves as widely p?"^^? 
 as possible from Jewish practices. Thus they extended the Friday's 
 fast over the Saturday, showing thereby a marked disregard of the 
 sabbatical festivaP. Thus again they observed Easter on a different 
 day from the Jewish passover ; and so zealous were they in favour 
 of their own traditional usage in this respect, that in the Paschal Evidence 
 controversy their bishop Victor resorted to the extreme measure of ^i^^i ^n.^' 
 renouncing communion with those churches which differed from it^ *^oversy. 
 This controversy affords a valuable testimony to the Catholicity of 
 Christianity at Rome in another way. It is clear that the churches 
 ranged on different sides on this question of ritual are nevertheless 
 substantially agreed on all important points of doctrine and practice. 
 This fact appears when Anicetus of Rome permits Polycarp of 
 Smyrna, who had visited the metropolis in order to settle some dis- 
 puted points and had failed in arranging the Paschal question, to 
 celebrate the eucharist in his stead. It is distinctly stated by Ire- 
 nseus when he remonstrates with Victor for disturbing the peace of 
 the Church by insisting on non-essentials ^ In its creed the Roman 
 Church was one with the Gallic and Asiatic Churches ; and that this 
 creed was not Ebionite, the names of Polycarp and Irenseus are 
 guarantees. Nor is it only in the Paschal controversy that the 
 Catholicity of the Romans may be inferred from their intercourse 
 
 1 TertuU. de Jejun. 14; see Neander index of Judaic or antijudaic leanings: 
 Gh. Hist. 1. 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.Y. 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 ; and 
 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- 
 Eoman 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 Boman 
 probable then that the Easter festival usage would be adopted in preference 
 had been established independently by to the Asiatic. 
 
 the Eomans and those who followed ^ In Euseb. H, E. v. 24 7) diaiptavia 
 
 the Eoman practice. Thus in the first ttjs vTjffreias r^u ofiovoLav ttjs Tria-recos 
 instance the difference of usage was no o-vvl(XT7}a-Lv, and the whole extract. 
 
344 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 Other with other Christian communities. The remains of ecclesiastical 
 cations " literature, though sparse and fragmentary, are yet sufficient to reveal 
 
 yi*^ a wide network of intercommunication between the churches of the 
 
 foreign 
 
 churches, second century ; and herein Rome naturally holds a central position. 
 The visit of Hegesippus to the metropolis has been mentioned already. 
 Not very long after we find Dionysius bishop of Corinth, whose 
 ' orthodoxy ' is praised by Eusebius, among other letters addressed 
 to foreign churches, writing also to the Romans in terms of cordial 
 sympathy and respects On the Catholicity of the African Church 
 I have already remarked : and the African Church was a daughter 
 of the Roman, from whom therefore it may be assumed she derived 
 her doctrine®. 
 
 The gleams of light which break in upon the internal history of 
 the Roman Church at the close of the second and beginning of the 
 third century exhibit her assailed by rival heresies, compromised by 
 the weakness and worldHness of her rulers, altogether distracted and 
 unsteady, but in no way Ebionite. One bishop, whose name is not 
 given, first dallies with the fanatical spiritualism of Montanus ; then 
 suddenly turning round, surrenders himself to the patripassian spe- 
 culations of Praxeas^. Later than this two successive bishops, 
 Zephyrinus and Callistus, are stated, by no friendly critic indeed but 
 yet a contemporary writer, the one from stupidity and avarice, the 
 other from craft and ambition, to have listened favourably to the 
 heresies of Noetus and Sabellius*. It was at this point in her history 
 that the Church of Rome was surprised by the novel doctrines of the 
 Elchasaite teacher, whom I have already mentioned more than once. 
 But no one would maintain that at this late date Ebionism predo- 
 minated either at Rome or in Christendom generally. 
 
 Ebionites indeed there were at this time and very much later. 
 
 ' In Euseh. H. E. iv. 23. of Eome to revoke his concessions to 
 
 2 Tertull. de Prcescr. 36. Cyprian Montaniam, ' Ita duo negotia diaboli 
 Epist. 48 (ed. Fell) writing to Cornelius Praxeas EomsB procuravit, prophetiam 
 speaks of Eome as * Ecclesiae catholicse expulit et hEeresim intulit, paracletum 
 radicem et matricem,' in reference to fugavit et patrem crucifixit.' Forape- 
 the African Churches. cuiations as to the name of this bishop 
 
 3 Tertull. adv. Prax. 1, Tertullian, see Wordsworth's Hippolytus pp. 131, 
 now a Montanist, writes of Praxeas 132. 
 who had persuaded this nameless bishop * Hippol. Hceres. ix. 7 sq. 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 345 
 
 Even at the close of the fourth century, they seem to have mustered 
 
 in considerable numbers in the east of Palestine, and were scattered 
 
 through the great cities of the empire. But their existence was Ebionism 
 
 dies out. 
 not prolonged much later. About the middle of the fifth century 
 
 they had almost disappeared ^ 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 
 recognition of Jewish and Gentile Apostles alike throughout the 
 greater part of Christendom. At the same time it could hardly 
 happen, that the influence of both should be equally felt or the au- 
 thority of both estimated alike in all branches of the Church. St 
 Paul and the Twelve had by mutual consent occupied distinct spheres 
 of labour ; and this distribution of provinces must necessarily have 
 produced some effect on the subsequent history of the Church ^ The 
 communities founded by St Paul would collect and preserve the 
 letters of their founder with special care ; while the brotherhoods 
 evangelized by the Apostles of the Circumcision would attribute a 
 superior, if not an exclusive, value to the writings of these ' pillars ' 
 of the Church. It would therefore be no great surprise if we should 
 find that in individual writers of the second century and in difierent 
 parts of the early Church, the Epistles of St Paul on the one 
 hand, the Apocalypse of St John or the letter of St James on 
 the other, were seldom or never appealed to as authorities ^ The 
 
 ^ Theodoret, Hmr. Fah,n, ii, men- The phenomenon exhibited in the 
 
 tions the Ebionites and the Elchasaites Ancient Syriac Documents (edited by 
 
 among those of whom ovdk /9paxi> dU- Cureton, 1864) is remarkable. Though 
 
 fieLpe Xsifavov. they refer more than once to the Acts 
 
 2 Gal. ii. 9; see Westcott's History of the Apostles (pp. 15, 27, 35) as the 
 of the Canon "p. 77 sq., ed. 4. work of St Luke and as possessing 
 
 3 Many false inferences however, canonical authority, and though they 
 affecting the history of the Canonical allude incidentally to St Paul's labours 
 writings, have been drawn from the (pp. 35, 61, 62), there is yet no refer- 
 sHence of Eusebius, which has been ence to the epistles of this Apostle, 
 entirely misapprehended : see Con- where the omission cannot have been 
 teTTvporary Review, January, 1875, P* accidental (p. 32), and the most im- 
 169 sq. , Golossians p. 52 sq. portant churches founded by him. 
 
34^ ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 equable circulation of all the apostolic writings was necessarily the 
 work of time. 
 
 Sre oln^^ T^HE foregoing account of the conflict of the Church with Judaism 
 account. J- has been necessarily imperfect, and in some points conjectural ; 
 but it will prepare the way for a more correct estimate of the re- 
 lations between St Paul and the leading Apostles of the Circum- 
 cision. We shall be in a position to view these relations no longer 
 as an isolated chapter in history, but in connexion with events before 
 and after : and we shall be furnished also with means of estimating 
 the value of later traditional accounts of these first preachers of the 
 Gospel. 
 St Paul. St Paul himself is so clearly reflected in his own writings, that 
 
 a distorted image of his life and doctrine would seem to be due only 
 to defective vision. Yet our first impressions require to be corrected 
 or rather supplemented by an after consideration. Seeing him 
 chiefly as the champion of Gentile liberty, the constant antagonist 
 of Jew and Judaizer, we are apt to forget that his character has 
 another side also. By birth and education he was a Hebrew of the 
 Hebrews : and the traditions and feelings of his race held him in 
 honourable captivity to the very last. 
 
 His por- Of this fact the narrative of the Acts affords many striking 
 
 trait in the 
 
 Acts. examples. It exhibits him associating with the Apostles of the 
 
 Circumcision on terms of mutual respect and love, celebrating the 
 
 festivals and observing the rites of his countrymen, everywhere 
 
 giving the precedence to the Jew over the Gentile. 
 
 Its truth But the character of the witness has been called in question, 
 
 question- _. . ....,.., , 
 
 ed, J- his narrative, it is said, is neither contemporary nor trustworthy. 
 
 It was written long after the events recorded, with the definite 
 purpose of uniting the two parties in the Church. Thus the in- 
 cidents are forged or wrested to subserve the purpose of the writer. 
 It was part of his plan to represent St Peter and St Paul as living 
 on friendly terms, in order to reconcile the Petrine and Pauline 
 factions. 
 
 as Ephesus, Thessaloniea, Corinth, Apostles' Hand of Priesthood from 
 etc., are stated to have received 'the John the Evangelist ' (p. 34). 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 347 
 
 The Acts of the Apostles in the multiplicity and variety of its 
 
 details probably affords greater means of testing its general character 
 
 for truth than any other ancient narrative in existence ; and in my 
 
 opinion it satisfies the tests fully. But this is not the place for such 
 
 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- 
 
 T-» /-i ' 1 • blished by 
 
 school to be genuine, the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and his own 
 
 Galatians ' It so happens that they are the most important for my ^^^ ^^ ' 
 purpose. If they contain the severest denunciations of the Judaizers, 
 if they display the most uncompromising antagonism to Judaism, 
 they also exhibit more strongly than any others St Paul's sympathies 
 with his fellow-countrymen. 
 
 These then are the facts for which we have St Paul's direct per- 
 sonal testimony in the epistles allowed by all to be genuine. (i)(i)Posi- 
 The position oj the Jews. He assigns to them the prerogative over j^ws. 
 the Gentiles ; a prior right to the privileges of the Gospel, involving 
 a prior reward if they are accepted and, according to an universal 
 rule in things spiritual, a prior retribution if they are spurned (Rom. 
 i. 1 6, ii. 9, id). In the same spirit he declares that the advantage 
 is on the side of the Jew, and that this advantage is 'much every 
 way' (Rom. iii. i, 2). (2) Mis affection for his countrymen. His (2) His 
 earnestness and depth of feeling are nowhere more striking than f^^ them. 
 when he is speaking of the Jews : 'Brethren, my heart's desire and 
 prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved : for I bear 
 them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to 
 knowledge' (Rom. x. i, 2). Thus in spite of their present stubborn 
 apostasy he will not allow that they have been cast away (xi. i), 
 
 1 These four epistles alone were master.' He accepts as genuine i Thes- 
 
 aocepted 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. TkeoL v. p. 226 
 
 sition of Baur whom he calls the ' great (i 862). 
 
348 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 but looks forward to the time when *all Israel shall be saved' (xi. 26). 
 So strong indeed is his language in one passage, that commentators 
 regarding the letter rather than the spirit of the Apostle's prayer, 
 have striven to explain it away by feeble apologies and unnatural 
 interpretations : 'I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience 
 also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have great heavi- 
 ness and continual sorrow in my heart : for I could wish that my- 
 self were accursed from Christ (dvdOefJia eZvat auros eyw diro ^rov 
 Xpto-rov) for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh ' (Rom. 
 
 (3) His ix. I — 3). (3) Sis practical care /or his countrymen. The collection 
 care for of alms for the poor brethren of Judsea occupies much of his atten- 
 them. ^.^^ ^^^ suggests messages to various churches (Rom. xv. 25, 26; 
 
 I Cor. xvi. I — 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- 
 
 (4) His verts with the same interest. (4) Ris conformity to Jewish habits 
 itv\o^t^eir ^^^ usages. St Paul lays down this rule, to * become all things to 
 usages. oil j^qj^ -^i^at he may by all means save some' (i Cor. ix. 22). This 
 
 is the key to all seeming inconsistencies in different representations 
 of his conduct. In his epistles we see him chiefly as a Gentile 
 among Gentiles ; but this powerful moral weapon has another edge. 
 Applying this maxim, he himself tells us emphatically that ' unto 
 the Jews he became as a Jew, that he might gain the Jews ; unto 
 them that are under the law as under the law, that he might gain 
 them that are under the law' (ix. 20). The charges of his Judaizing 
 opponents are a witness that he did carry out his maxim in this 
 direction, as in the other. With a semblance of truth they taunt 
 him with inconsistency, urging that in his own practice he had 
 virtually admitted their principles, that in fact he had himself 
 
 (5) His use preached circumcision \ (5) His reverence for the Old Testament 
 Testa- Scriptures. This is a strongly marked feature in the four epistles 
 ment. which I am considering. They teem with quotations, while there 
 
 are comparatively few in his remaining letters. For metaphor, 
 allegory, example, argument, confirmation, he draws upon this inex- 
 
 ^ See above, p. 28 b(1., and notes on i. 10, ii. 3, v. i, 11. 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 349 
 
 haustible store. However widely he may have differed from his 
 
 rabbinical teachers in other respects, he at least did not yield to 
 
 them in reverence for *the law and the prophets and the psalms.' 
 
 These facts being borne in mind (and they are indisputable) the 
 
 portrait of St Paul in the Acts ought not to present any difficulties. 
 
 It records no one fact of the Apostle, it attributes no sentiment to 
 
 him, which is not either covered by some comprehensive maxim 
 
 or supported by some practical instance in his acknowledged letters. 
 
 On the other hand the tone of the history confessedly differs some- Difference 
 
 in tone he- 
 what from the tone of the epistles. Nor could it possibly have been tween the 
 
 otherwise. Written in the heat of the conflict, written to confute Epistles 
 unscrupulous antagonists and to guard against dangerous errors, 
 St Paul's language could not give a complete picture of his relations 
 with the Apostles and the Church of the Circumcision. Arguments 
 directed against men, who disparaged his authority by undue exalt- 
 ation of the Twelve, offered the least favourable opportunity of 
 expressing his sympathy with the Twelve. Denunciations of Ju- 
 daizing teachers, who would force their national rites on the Gentile 
 Churches, were no fit vehicle for acknowledging his respect for and 
 conformity with those rites. The fairness of this line of argument 
 will be seen by comparing the differences observable in his own 
 epistles. His tone may be said to be graduated according to the 
 temper and character of his hearers. The opposition of the Galatian 
 letter to the Mosaic ritual is stern and uncompromising. It was 
 written to correct a virulent form of Judaism. On the other hand the 
 remonstrances in the Epistle to the Romans are much more moderate, 
 guarded by constant explanations and counterpoised by expressions 
 of deep sympathy. Here he was writing to a mixed church of Jews 
 and Gentiles, where there had been no direct opposition to his 
 authority, no violent outbreak of Judaism. If then we picture him 
 in his intercourse with his own countrymen at Jerusalem, where the 
 claims of his nation were paramount and where the cause of Gentile 
 liberty could not be compromised, it seems most natural that he 
 should have spoken and acted as he is represented in the Acts. 
 Luther denouncing the pope for idolatry and Luther rebuking Carl- 
 
3SO ST PAUIi AND THE THREE. 
 
 stadt for iconoclasm writes like two different persons. He bids the 
 timid and gentle Melancthon *sin and sin boldly ^ he would have 
 cut his right hand off sooner than pen such words to the antinomian 
 rioters of Munster. It is not that the man or his principles were 
 changed : but the same words addressed to persons of opposite tem- 
 pers would have conveyed a directly opposite meaning. 
 St Paul's St Paul's language then, when in this epistle he describes his 
 
 with^the relations with the Three, must be interpreted with this caution, that 
 Three as j^ necessarily exhibits those relations in a partial aspect. The pur- 
 
 in this port of this language, as I understand it, is explained in the notes : 
 epistle. 
 
 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 the earlier visit to Jerusalem when 
 he seeks Peter apparently for the purpose of obtaining instruction in 
 the facts of the Gospel, staying with him a fortnight, and in the later 
 visit which is undertaken for the purpose, if I may use the phrase, 
 of comparing notes with the other Apostles and obtaining their 
 sanction for the freedom of the Gentile Churches. (2) On the other 
 hand there is an uncompromising resistance to the extravagant and 
 exclusive claims set up on their behalf by the Judaizers. (3) In 
 contrast to these claims, St Paul's language leaves the impression 
 (though the inference cannot be regarded as certain), that they had 
 not offered a prompt resistance to the Judaizers in the first instance, 
 hoping perhaps to conciKate them, and that the brunt of the contest 
 had been borne by himself and Barnabas. (4) At the same time 
 they are distinctly separated from the policy and principles of the 
 Judaizers, who are termed false brethren, spies in the Christian 
 camp. (5) The Apostles of the Circumcision find no fault with 
 St Paul's Gospel, and have nothing to add to it. (6) Their recog- 
 nition of his office is most complete. The language is decisive in 
 two respects : it represents this recognition first as thoroughly mu- 
 tual, and secondly as admitting a perfect equality and independent 
 position. (7) At the same time a separate sphere of labour is 
 assigned to each : the one are to preach to the heathen, the other to 
 the Circumcision. There is no implication, as some have represented, 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 351 
 
 that the Gospel preached to the Gentile would differ from the Gospel 
 preached to the Jew. Such an idea is alien to the whole spirit of 
 the passage. Lastly, (8) Notwithstanding their distinct spheres of 
 work, St Paul is requested by the Apostles of the Circumcision to 
 collect the alms of the Gentiles for the poor brethren of Judsea, and 
 to this request he responds cordially. 
 
 "With the exception of the incident at Antioch, which will be Beferences 
 considered presently, the Epistle to the Galatians contains nothing other epi- 
 more bearing directly on the relations between St Paul and the Apo- 
 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 
 behind the very chief est Apostles' twv vwepXtav aTroo-roXcov, 2 Cor. xi. 5, 
 xii. 11), and there is in the original a slight touch of irony which 
 disappears in the translation : but the irony loses its point unless the 
 exclusive preference of the elder Apostles is regarded as an exag- 
 geration of substantial claims. Elsewhere St Paul speaks of Cephas 
 and the Lord's brethren as exercising an apostolic privilege which 
 belonged also to himself and Barnabas (i Cor. ix. 5), of Cephas and 
 James as witnesses of the Lord's resurrection like himself (i Cor. xv. 
 5, 7). In the last passage he calls himself (with evident reference 
 to the elder Apostles who are mentioned immediately before) *the 
 least of the Apostles, who is not worthy to be called an Apostle.' In 
 rebuking the dissensions at Corinth, he treats the name of Cephas 
 with a delicate courtesy and respect which has almost escaped notice. 
 When he comes to argue the question, he at once drops the name of 
 St Peter ; * While one saith, I am of Paul, and another, I am of 
 ApoUos, are ye not carnal? What then is Apollos, and what is 
 Paulf 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 
 brother Apostle. 
 
352 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 Noantago- In all this there is nothing inconsistent with the character of 
 tween St St Paul as drawn in the Acts, nothing, certainly which represents 
 the" other ^^^ ^^ ^® ^^^ represented by extreme partisans in ancient times, by 
 Apostles. Ebionites on the one hand and Marcionites on the other, and as he 
 has been represented of late by a certain school of critics, in a posi- 
 tion of antagonism to the chief Apostles of the Circumcision. I 
 shall next examine the scriptural notices and traditional represen- 
 tations of these three. 
 St Peter i. The author of the Clementine Homilies makes St Peter 
 
 EbiSfites^ the mouth-piece of his own Ebionite views. In the prefatory letter 
 of Peter to James which, though possibly the work of another 
 author, represents the same sentiments, the Apostle complains that 
 he has been misrepresented as holding that the law was abolished 
 but fearing to preach this doctrine openly. 'Far be it,' he adds, 
 'for to act so is to oppose the law of God which was spoken by 
 Moses and to which our Lord bare witness that it should abide for 
 ever. For thus He said, Heaven and ea/rth shall pass away : one jot 
 or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law. And this He 
 said that aU things might be fulfilled. Yet these persons professing 
 to give my sentiments (tov ifxdv vovv iirayyeXXofjia/oi) 1 know not how, 
 attempt to interpret the words that they have heard from me more 
 cleverly (<l>povt,fxt^€pov) than myself who spoke them, telling their 
 pupils that this is my meaning ((jypovrjfia), though it never once 
 entered into my mind (o cyw ouSc kvSvp.rjO-qv). But if they dare to 
 tell such falsehoods of me while I am still alive, how much more 
 will those who come after me venture to do it when I am gone (§ 2).' 
 It has been held by some modern critics that the words thus put 
 into the Apostle's mouth are quite in character; that St Peter did 
 maintain the perpetuity of the law; and that therefore the tradi- 
 tional account which has pervaded Catholic Christendom from the 
 writing of the Acts to the present day gives an essentially false view 
 of the Apostle. 
 
 I think the words quoted will strike most readers as betraying a 
 consciousness on the part of the writer that he is treading on hollow 
 and dangerous ground. But without insisting on this, it is im- 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 353 
 
 portant to observe that the sanction o£ this venerated name was and also 
 
 by oppo- 
 claimed by other sectarians of opposite opinions. Basilides (about site sects. 
 
 A.D. 130), the famous Gnostic teacher, announced that he had been 
 instructed by one Glaucias an * interpreter' of St Peter ^ An early 
 apocryphal writing moreover, which should probably be assigned to 
 the beginning of the second century and which expressed strong anti- 
 judaic views ^, was entitled the 'Preaching of Peter.' I do not see 
 why these assertions have not as great a claim to a hearing as the 
 opposite statement of the Ebionite writer. They are probably ear- 
 lier ; and in one case at least we have more tangible evidence than 
 the 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. 
 
 1 Clem. Alex. Strom, vii. p. 898, 
 Potter. 
 
 2 On this work, the K-^pvyfia 114- 
 Tpov, see Schwegler Nachap. ZeiU 11. 
 p. 30 sq. Its opposition to Judaism 
 appears in an extant fragment preserved 
 in Clem. Alex. Strom, vi. p. 760, fir)d^ 
 Kari ^lovSalovs (r4^€ade...w(TT€ Kal vfieis 
 ojiojs Kal SiKaiois fjiavddvovTes a irapabl- 
 dofxeu vfxiv tpvKdfftTeade, KatuQs rhv Qebv 
 Slit. Tov "XpurroO ce^bfxevoi ' cvpofiev yap 
 ip rats ypa<pais KaOujs 6 Kii/jios X^7ei ' 
 'I5oi) diaridefiai ifuu Kaivrfv diad-^KTjv 
 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, and is quoted more than 
 once, apparentlyas genuine, by Clement 
 of Alexandria. 
 
 The identity of this work with the 
 Pradicatio Pauli quoted in the treatise 
 DeBaptismoHcereticorumipuntedia.mong 
 Cyprian's works (App. p. 30, Fell) seems 
 to me very doubtful, though maintained 
 by several able critics. The passage 
 there quoted is strangely misinterpreted 
 by Baur {Christenthum p. 53). I give 
 his words, lest I should have misunder- 
 stood him : ' Auch die kirchliche Sage, 
 welche die Apostel wieder zusammen- 
 brachte, lasst erst am Ende nach einer 
 langen Zeit der Trennung die gegensei- 
 tige Anerkennung zu Stande kommen. 
 
 GAL. 
 
 Post tanta tempora, hiess es in der Pra- 
 dicatio Pauli in der Stelle, welche sich 
 in der Cyprian's Werken angehangten 
 Schrift de rebaptismate erhalten hat 
 (Cypr. 0pp. ed. Baluz. s. 365 f.), Petrum 
 et Paulum post conlationem evangelii 
 in Jerusalem et mutuam cogitationem 
 [?] et aitercationem 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 Pr<sdicatio Pauli as 
 maintaining ' adulterinum, imo interne- 
 cinum baptisma ' ; in order to invalidate 
 its authority, he proceeds to show its 
 thoroughly unhistorical character ; and 
 among other instances he alleges the 
 fact that it makes St Peter and St Paul 
 meet in Eome 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 the chief Apostle of the Cir- 
 cumcision are the Gospel, the Acts, 
 and the Apocalypse of Peter; but our 
 information respecting these is too 
 scanty to throw much light on the pre- 
 sent question : on the Gospel of Peter 
 see above, p. 274. 
 
 23 
 
354 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 But we are not to look for trustworthy information from such 
 
 sources as these. If we wish to learn the Apostle's real attitude in 
 
 the conflict between Jewish and Gentile converts, the one fragment- 
 
 St Paul's ary notice in the Epistle to the Galatians will reveal more than all 
 notice of p /~t 
 
 the occur- th^ distorted and interested accounts or later ages: *But when Ce- 
 
 ^tlodi P^^^ came to Antioch I withstood him to the face, for he was con- 
 demned (his conduct condemned itself). For before that certain 
 came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles, but when they came, 
 he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision : 
 and the rest of the Jews also dissembled with him, so that even Bar- 
 nabas was carried away with their dissimulation (crvvairrj^Oy} aurcSv rg 
 viroKpio-et), 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 bom a Jew ('louSatos vVapx*^^)? 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. !!■ — 14).' 
 
 Now the point of St Paul's rebuke is plainly this : that in sanc- 
 tioning the Jewish feeling which regarded eating with the Gentiles 
 as an unclean thing, St Peter was untrue' to his principles j was acting 
 hypocritically and from fear. In the argument which follows he 
 assumes that it was the normal practice of Peter to live as a Gentile 
 (iOviKois ^ys and not e^vt/cws e^^s), in other words, to mix freely with 
 the Gentiles, to eat with them, and therefore to disregard the dis- 
 tinction of things clean and unclean : and he argues on the glaring 
 inconsistency and unfairness that Cephas should claim this liberty 
 himself though not born to it, and yet by hypocritical compliance 
 with the Jews should practically force the ritual law on the Gentiles 
 and deprive them of a freedom which was their natural right \ 
 
 ^ I do not see how this conclusion p. 129) explains <TvvvireKpiQri(Tav a^Tt} 
 
 can be resisted. According to the Tii- *were hypocritical enough to side with 
 
 bingen view of St Peter's position, his him,* thus forcing the expression itself 
 
 hypocrisy or dissimulation must have and severing it from the contest ; but 
 
 consisted not in withdrawing from, but even then he is obliged to acquit the 
 
 in holding intercourse with the Gen- other Jewish Christians at Antioch of 
 
 tiles ; but this is not the view of St Paul Ebiouism. Hilgenfeld {Galater p. 61 
 
 on any natural interpretation of his sq.) discards Schwegler's interpretation 
 
 words; and certainly the Ebionite wri- and explains vw6Kpi.o-is of the self-con- 
 
 ter already quoted (p. 352) did not so tradiction, the unconscious inconsist- 
 
 understand his meaning. Schwegler (i. ency of Jewish Christian or Ebionite 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 35 S 
 
 How St Peter came to hold these liberal principles, so entirely I* accords 
 
 ^ ^ ' ^ with an 
 
 opposed to the narrow traditions of his age and country, is explained incident 
 
 by an incident narrated in the Acts. He was at one time as rigid ^j^g ^q^^ 
 
 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 scandalize? the Jewish 
 
 brethren: but he explains and for the moment at least convinces 
 
 (xi. 18). 
 
 And if his normal principles are explained by the narrative of and with 
 
 his cha- 
 the Acts, his exceptional departure from them is illustrated by his racter as 
 
 character as it appears in the Gospels. The occasional timidity fj^g qq^_ 
 and weakness of St Peter will be judged most harshly by those who ^ 
 have never themselves felt the agony of a great moral crisis, when 
 not their own ease and comfort only, which is a small thing, but 
 the spiritual welfare of others seems to clamour for a surrender 
 of their principles. His true nobleness — his fiery zeal and over- 
 flowing love and abandoned self-devotion — will be appreciated most 
 fully by spirits which can claim some kindred however remote with 
 his spirit. 
 
 Thus the fragmentary notices in the Gospels, the Acts, and the 
 Epistles of St Paul, combine to form a harmonious portrait of a 
 character, not consistent indeed, but — to use Aristotle's significant 
 phrase — consistently inconsistent (o/AaXws avw/iaXov) ; and this is a 
 much safer criterion of truth. But there is yet another source of The First 
 information to be considered — his own letters. If the deficiency of gt peter 
 external evidence forbids the use of the Second Epistle in contro- 
 versy, the First labours under no such disabilities* for very few of 
 the apostolical writings are better attested. 
 
 To this epistle indeed it has been objected that it bears too 
 
 manifest traces of Pauline influence to be the genuine writing of St shows the 
 T» m • • -I 11- influence 
 
 Peter. The objection however seems to overlook two important of St Paul, 
 
 principles: but inconsistency is not dis- the context which denounces St Peter 
 simulation or hypocrisy, and this inter- for abandoning a certain line of con- 
 pretation, like the former, loses sight of duct from timidity. 
 
 23—2 
 
35^ ST PAUL AISTD THE THREE. 
 
 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 his writings 
 were probably the first which clothed the truths of the Gospel and 
 the aspirations of the Church in the language of Greece; we shall 
 hardly hesitate to allow that he ' had a great influence in moulding 
 this language for Christian purposes, and that those who afterwards 
 trod in his footsteps could hardly depart much from the idiom thus 
 moulded'.' Secondly. It is begging the whole question to assume 
 that St Peter derived nothing from the influence of the Apostle of 
 the Gentiles. The 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 heart ^: and taking into account 
 the many occasions when either by his writings or by personal inter- 
 course St Paul's influence would be communicated, we can hardly 
 doubt that the whole efiect was great. 
 
 but bears But after all the epistle bears the stamp of an individual mind 
 
 the indi- 
 vidual 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 suflerings of Christ, in the view 
 
 taken of the relations between the believer and the world around, 
 
 in the realisation of the promises made to the chosen people of old, 
 
 in the pervading sense of a regenerate life and the reiterated hope of 
 
 a glorious advent, than in any special development of doctrine: but 
 
 it would be difficult to give any reason why, prior to experience, we 
 
 should have expected it to be otherwise. 
 
 1 Sehleiermacher, Einl, ins N. T. exhibits of coincidence with St Paul's 
 
 p. 402 sq. doctrinal teaching (though there are 
 
 ^ See I Pet. ii. 24x^5 afMapTlas tj/xCov occasionally strong resemblances of lan- 
 
 ai^rds dvi^veyK€v iv rf (T(hfjt.aTi adrov iirl guage). With it compare Gral. ii. 20 
 
 rb ^v\ov, tva rats afAaprlaLS diroy^pdfievoL "KpiCT^ <Tvv€aTavpo)fj,aL ' ^w 5^ ovk4tl iytbf 
 
 T% diKaioo-wy fijtrw/xej'. This is the ^ 5^ ip ifjuol Xpiarbs k.t.X. 
 most striking instance which the epistle 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 357 
 
 Altogether the epistle is anything but Ebionite. Not only is the of a mind 
 
 Hebrew 
 *law' never once named, but there is no allusion to formal ordinances but not 
 
 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 converts, 
 
 but he transfers to them the cherished titles of the covenant race ; 
 
 they are the true 'dispersion (i. i)'; they are ^a chosen generation, 
 
 a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people (ii. 9).' The 
 
 believer in Christ is the Israelite; the unbeliever the Gentile (ii. 12). 
 
 Corresponding to the position of St Peter as he appears in the Its rela- 
 ,. , . ,..,.., . tion to St 
 
 apostolic history, this epistle m its language and. tone occupies a paul and 
 
 place midway between the writings of St James and St Paul. With ^^es. 
 
 St James it dwells earnestly on the old : with St Paul it expands 
 
 to the comprehension of the new. In its denunciation of luxurious 
 
 wealth, in its commendation of the simple and homely virtues, in its 
 
 fond reference to past examples in Jewish history for imitation or 
 
 warning, it recalls the tone of the head of the Hebrew Church : in 
 
 its conception of the grace of God, of the ransom of Christ's death, 
 
 of the wide purpose of the Gospel, it approaches to the language of 
 
 the Apostle of the Gentiles. 
 
 With St Paul too the writer links himself by the mention of two Mark and 
 names, both Christians of the Circumcision, and both companions of 
 the Gentile Apostle; Mark who, having accompanied him on his 
 first missionary tour, after some years of alienation is found by his 
 side once more (Col. iv. 10), and Silvanus who shared with him the 
 labours and perils of planting the Gospel in Europe. Silvanus is 
 the bearer or the amanuensis of St Peter's letter ; Mark joins in the 
 salutations (v. 12, 13). 
 
 Thus the Churches of the next generation, which were likely to St Peter 
 be well informed, delighted to unite the names of the two leading paul asso- 
 Apostles as the greatest teachers of the Gospel, the brightest examples parlv tra 
 of Christian life. At Rome probably, at Antioch certainly, both these *^*i°°' 
 
358 
 
 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 Borne. 
 
 Antioch. 
 
 Corinth. 
 
 Misrepre- 
 sentations 
 of extreme 
 parties. 
 
 Apostles were personally known. We have the witness of the one 
 church in Clement; of the other in Ignatius. The former classes 
 them together as the two ' noble ensamples of his own generation," 
 'the greatest and most righteous pillars' of the Church, who *for 
 hatred and envy were persecuted even unto death (§ 5).' The lattei 
 will not venture to command the Christians of E-ome, ' as Peter and 
 Paul did; they were Apostles, he a convict; they were free, he a slave 
 to that very hour^' Clement wrote before the close of the first 
 century, Ignatius at the beginning of the second. It seems probable 
 that both these fathers had conversed with one or other of the 
 two Apostles. Besides Antioch and Rome, the names of St Petei 
 and St Paul appear together also in connexion with the Church ot 
 Corinth (i Cor. iii. 22). This church again has not withheld her 
 voice, though here the later date of her testimony detracts somewhat 
 from its value ^. Dionysius bishop of Corinth, writing to the Romans 
 during the episcopate of Soter (c. 166 — 174), claims kindred with 
 them on the ground that both churches alike had profited by the 
 joint instruction of St Peter and St PauP. 
 
 But though the essential unity of these two Apostles is thus 
 recognised by difierent branches of the Catholic Church, a disposition 
 to sever them seems early to have manifested itself in some quarters. 
 Even during their own lifetime the religious agitators at Corinth 
 would have placed them in spite of themselves at the head of rival 
 parties. And when death had removed all fear of contradiction, 
 extreme partisans boldly claimed the sanction of the one or the other 
 
 ^ Rom. 4. The words ovx tbs n^- 
 Tpos Kal IlaOXos dLaTd(7(Tofj,aL itfuv gain 
 force, as addressed to the Romans, if we 
 suppose both Apostles to have preached 
 in Eome. 
 
 2 The language of Clement however 
 implicitly contains the testimony of this 
 church at an earlier date : for he assumes 
 the acquiescence of the Corinthians 
 when be mentions both Apostles as of 
 equal authority (§§ 5, 47). 
 
 3 In Euseb. H. E. ii. 25 t^v dirb 
 n^rpou Kal HavXov (pvreiav yeu7}dei(rav 
 ^'Pojfiaiujv re Kal Kopcvdliijp (TvveKepdaaTG. 
 
 Kal yap dficfxa Kal els r-ijv Tj/xeT^pav Ko- 
 pivBov (poLT7}(ravTGs 'q/Mois Ojuo/ojs iSida^av, 
 ofxoiios dk Kal els t^v ^IrdXiav 6fj,6<Tc 
 dtdd^avres ifj-apTvprjcau Kara t6p avroi 
 Kaipop. All the mss and the Syriac 
 version here have 0UTeuo-aj/res ; bul 
 (pOLT7}(ravT€s is read by Georgius Syn- 
 eellus, and Rufinus has ' adventantes' 
 the sense too seems to require it. Id 
 any case it is hardly a safe inferencf 
 that Dionysius erroneously supposed 
 the Churches of Rome and Corinth to 
 have been founded by both Apostles 
 jointly. 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THEEE. 359 
 
 for their own views. The precursors of the Ebionites misrepresented 
 
 the Israelite sympathies of St Peter, as if he had himself striven 
 
 'to put a yoke upon the neck of the Gentiles which neither their 
 
 fathers nor they were able to bear. The precursors of Marcionism 
 
 exaggerated the antagonism of St Paul to the Mosaic ritual, as if 
 
 he had indeed held the law to be sin and the commandment neither 
 
 holy nor just nor good. It seems to have been a subsidiary aim of Concilia- 
 
 St Luke's narrative, which must have been written not many years of the 
 
 after the 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 the career of the two 
 
 reveals itself in the narrative when carefully examined. E-ecent 
 
 criticism has laid much stress on this ' conciliatory ' purpose of the 
 
 Acts, as if it were fatal to the credit of the narrative. But denying 
 
 the inference we may concede the fact, and the very concession 
 
 draws its sting. Such a purpose is at least as likely to have been 
 
 entertained by a writer, if the two Apostles were essentially united, 
 
 as if they were not. The truth or falsehood of the account must be 
 
 determined on other grounds. 
 
 2. While St Peter was claimed as their leader by the Judaizers, St John 
 
 not claim- 
 no such liberty seems to have been taken with the name of St ed by 
 
 JoHN^ Long settled in an important Gentile city, surrounded by ^^^^^ ^^• 
 
 a numerous school of disciples, still living at the dawn of the second 
 
 century, he must have secured for his teaching such notoriety as 
 
 protected it from gross misrepresentation. 
 
 His last act recorded in St Luke's narrative is a visit to the His posi- 
 
 newly founded Churches of Samaria, in company with St Peter (viii. apostolic 
 
 history. 
 
 ^ In the portion of the first book of in their writings. In another passage 
 
 the Becognitions, 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 are introduced with distinguished James the Lord's brother 
 
 the rest of the Twelve confuting here- [Hcsres. Isxviii. 13); and this account 
 
 sies, but the sentiments attributed to he perhaps derived from some Essene 
 
 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 
 
3^0 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 14). He thus stamps with his approval the first movement of the 
 Church in its liberal progress. From the silence of both St Paul 
 and St Luke it may be inferred that he took no very prominent 
 part in the disputes about the Mosaic law. Only at the close of 
 the conferences we find him together with St Peter and St James 
 recognising the authority and work of St Paul, and thus giving 
 another guarantee of his desire to advance the liberties of the Church. 
 This is the only passage where he is mentioned in St PauFs Epistles. 
 Yet it seems probable that though he did not actually participate in 
 the public discussions, his unseen influence was exerted to promote 
 the result. As in the earliest days of the Church, so now we may 
 imagine him ever at St Peter's side, his faithful colleague and wise 
 counsellor, not forward and demonstrative, but most powerful in 
 private, pouring into the receptive heart of the elder Apostle the 
 lessons of his own inward experience, drawn from close personal 
 intercourse and constant spiritual communion with his Lord. 
 His life in At length the hidden fires of his nature burst out into flame. 
 Ms writ- When St Peter and St Paul have ended their labours, the more 
 ^°^^' active career of St John is just beginning. If it had been their task 
 
 to organize and extend the Church, to remove her barriers and to 
 advance her liberties, it is his special province to build up and 
 complete her theology. The most probable chronology makes his 
 withdrawal from Palestine to Asia Minor coincide very nearly with 
 the martyrdom of these two Apostles, who have guided the Church 
 through her first storms and led her to her earliest victories. This 
 epoch divides his life into two distinct periods : hitherto he has lived 
 as a Jew among Jews ; henceforth he will be as a Gentile among 
 Gentiles. The writings of St John in the Canon probably mark the 
 close of each period. The Apocalypse winds up his career in the 
 Church of the Circumcision j the Gospel and the Epistles are the crown- 
 ing result of a long residence in the heart of Gentile Christendom. 
 
 Both the one and the other contrast strongly with the leading 
 features of Ebionite doctrine ; and this fact alone would deter the 
 Judaizers from claiming the sanction of a name so revered. 
 
 Of all the writings of the New Testament the Apocalypse is 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 36 1 
 
 most thoroughly Jewish in its language and imagery. The whole The Apo- 
 calypse 
 book is saturated with illustrations from the Old Testament. It Hebrew in 
 
 speaks not the language of Paul, but of Isaiah and Ezekiel and „gry 
 Daniel. Its tone may be well described by an expression borrowed 
 from the book itself ; ' the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of pro- 
 phecy (xix. 10).' The doctrine of Balaam, the whoredoms of Je- 
 zebel, the song of Moses, the lion of Judah, the key of David, the 
 great river Euphrates, the great city Babylon, Sodom and Egypt, 
 Gog and Magog, these and similar expressions are but the more 
 striking instances of an imagery with which the Apocalypse teems. 
 Nor are the symbols derived solely from the canonical Scriptures ; 
 in the picture of the New Jerusalem the inspired Apostle has bor- 
 rowed many touches from the creations of rabbinical fancy. Up to 
 this point the Apocalypse is completely Jewish and might have 
 
 been Ebionite. But the same framing serves only to bring out more but not E- 
 
 , . T 1 mi bionite in 
 
 strongly the contrast between the pictures themselves. The two doctrine. 
 
 distinctive features of Ebionism, its mean estimate of the person 
 of Christ and its extravagant exaltation of the Mosaic law, are 
 opposed alike to the spirit and language of St John. It might have The 
 been expected that the beloved disciple, who had leaned on his 
 Master's bosom, would have dwelt with fond preference on the hu- 
 manity of our Lord : yet in none of the New Testament writings, 
 not even in the Epistles of St Paul, do we find a, more express re- 
 cognition of His divine power and majesty. He is ' the Amen, the 
 faithful and true witness, the beginning (the source) of the creation 
 of God (iii. 14).' 'Blessing, honour, glory, and power' are ascribed 
 not ' to Him that sitteth on the throne ' only, but * to the Lamb for 
 ever and ever (v. 13).' His name is *the Word of God (xix. 13).' 
 Therefore he claims the titles and attributes of Deity. He de- 
 clares himself ' the Alpha and Omega, the first and last, the begin- 
 ning and the end (xxii. 13 ; comp. i. 8).' He is *the Lord of lords 
 and the King of kings (xvii. 14, xix. 16).* And so too the Ebionite 
 reverence for the law as still binding has no place in the Apocalypse. The law. 
 The word does not occur from beginning to end, nor is there a single 
 allusion to its ceremonial as an abiding ordinance. The Paschal 
 
362 
 
 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 Lamb indeed is ever present to St John*s thought ; but with him it 
 signifies not the sacrifice ofiered in every Jewish home year by year, 
 but the Christ who once * was slain, and hath redeemed us to God 
 by his blood out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation 
 (vii. 9).' All this is very remarkable, since there is every reason 
 to believe that up to this time St John had in practice observed 
 the Jewish law\ To him however it was only a national custom 
 
 ^ Certain traditions of St John's 
 residence at Ephesus, illustrating his 
 relation to the Mosaic law, deserve no- 
 tice here. They are given byPolycrates 
 who was himself bishop of Ephesus 
 (Euseb. H. E. v. 24). Writing to pope 
 Victor, probably in the last decade of 
 the second century, he mentions that 
 he 'numbers (^x^^) 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. 343), 
 that there is no good ground for ques- 
 tioning this tradition. The institution 
 of such an annual celebration by this 
 Apostle derives light from the many 
 references to the Paschal Lamb in the 
 Apocalypse; and in the first instance 
 it would seem most natural to celebrate 
 it on the exact anniversary of the Pass- 
 over. It is more questionable whether 
 the Eoman and other Churches, whose 
 usage has passed into the law of Chris- 
 tendom, had really the apostolic sanc- 
 tion which they vaguely asserted for 
 celebrating it always on the Friday, 
 This usage, if not quite so obvious as 
 the other, was not unnatural and pro- 
 bably was foundmuch more convenient. 
 (2) Polycrates says incidentally of St 
 John that he was ' a priest wearing the 
 mitre and a martyr and teacher (8s 
 iyeviQdT} Icpei/s t6 wiToKov ir€(popeKU}S Kal 
 fxdpTvs Kal diddaKoKos).* The reference 
 
 in the w^toXov is doubtless to the metal 
 plate on the high-priest's mitre (Exod. 
 xxviii. 36 irirdKov 'Xpv(Todv Kadap6v, 
 comp. Protevang. c. 5 to iriToXov tqv 
 iep^ias) ; 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. fieydXa a-Totx^'la 
 K€KoifM7]TaL (where aTOLX^ia means 'lu- 
 minaries/ being used of the heavenly 
 bodies) ; MeXfrwca tov ei}vovxov (proba- 
 bly a metaphor, as Eufinus translates 
 it, ' propter regnum dei eujiuchum ' ; see 
 Matt. xix. 12 and comp. Athenag. Swppl. 
 33, 34, Clem. Alex. Peed. iii. 4, p. 269, 
 Strom, iii. i. p. 509 sq.); rhv fUKpbv fiov 
 avdpojTTov ('my insignificance*; comp. 
 Bom. vi. 6 d TraXatds ■^fj.uii' dpOptairost 
 1 Cor. iv. 16 d ?|w Tiixiav dvdpcairos, i Pet. 
 iii. 4 d KpvTTTos Tijs Kapdias dvdpwwos). 
 The whole passage is a very rude speci- 
 men of the fiorid '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 
 (' minima politae minimeque elegantes,' 
 Orator, 25) and which is described by 
 another writer as Ko/j.ird}57}s Kal <f>pva.yfia- 
 rias Kal kcvoO yavptdpLaros Kal <f>i\oTi.fjJ.as 
 dvojfidXov fieards, Plut. Vit. Anton. 2; 
 see Bernhardy Griech. Litt. i. p. 465. 
 On the other hand it is possible — I think 
 not probable — that St John did wear 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 363 
 
 and not an universal obligation, only one of the many garbs in which 
 religious worship might clothe itself, and not the essence of religious 
 life. 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 he denounces the errors of heathen speculation, taking 
 up their own watchword 'knowledge (yi/wcrts)' and retorting upon 
 them that they know only *the depths of Satan (ii. 24) V on the 
 other hand he condemns in similar language the bigotry of Jewish 
 prejudice, denouncing the blasphemy of those ' who say they are Jews 
 and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan ' (ii. 9 ; comp. iii. 9). 
 
 A lapse of more than thirty years spent in the midst of a The Gos- 
 Gentile population will explain the contrast of language and imagery Epistles 
 between the Apocalypse and the later writings of St John, due allow- contrasted 
 
 ance being made for the difference of subject^. The language and pared with 
 
 the Apoca- 
 colouring of the Gospel and Epistles are no longer Hebrew ; but so lypse. 
 
 far as a Hebrew mind was capable of the transformation, Greek or 
 
 this decoration as an emblem of his GeoO, and see Philippiansp. 252). The 
 Christian privileges ; nor ought this view expression is a striking example of the 
 to cause any offence, as inconsistent lingering power not of Ebionite tenets 
 with the spirituality of his character. but of Hebrew imagery. 
 If in Christ the use of external symbols ^ See above, p. 309, note 3. 
 is nothing, the avoidance of them is no- ^ Owing to the difference of style, 
 thing also. But whether the statement many critics have seen onlythe altema- 
 of Polycrates be metaphor or matter of tive of denying the apostolic authorship 
 fact, its significance, as in the case of either of the Apocalypse or of the Gos- 
 the Paschal celebration, is to be learnt pel and Epistles. The considerations 
 from the Apostle's own language in the urged in the text seem sufficient to 
 Apocalypse, where not only is great meet the difficulties, which are greatly 
 stress laid on the priesthood of the be- increased if a late date is assigned to 
 lievers generally (i. 6, v. 10, xx. 6), but the Apocalypse. Writers of the Tii- 
 even the special privileges of the high- bingen school reject the Gospel and 
 priest are bestowed on the victorious Epistles but accept the Apocalypse- 
 Christian (Kev. ii. 1 7, as explained by This book alone, if its apostolicai au- 
 Zullig, Trench, and others: see Stanley thorship is conceded, seems to me to 
 1. c. p. 285; comp. Justin Dial. 116 furnish an ample refutation of their 
 dpxt^po.TLKbv TO d\7}6tv6v yivo^ icfikv rod pecuUar views. 
 
3^4 ST PAUL AND THE THEEE. 
 
 rather Greco-Asiatic. The teaching of these latter writings it will 
 be unnecessary to examine; for all, I believe, will allow theii 
 general agreement with the theology of St Paul ; and it were a bold 
 criticism which should discover in them any Ebionite tendencies. 
 Only it seems to be often overlooked that the leading doctrinal 
 ideas which they contain are anticipated in the Apocalypse. The 
 passages which I have quoted from the latter relating to the divinity 
 of Christ are a case in point : not only do they ascribe to our 
 Lord the same majesty and power ; but the very title ' the Word,' 
 with which both the Gospel and the first Epistle open, is found 
 here, though it occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. On 
 the other hand, if the Apocalypse seems to assign a certain pre- 
 rogative to the Jews, this is expressed equally in the sayings of 
 the Gospel that Christ *came to His own (i. ii),' and that 'Salvation 
 is of the Jews (iv. 22),' as it is involved also in St Paul's maxim 
 *to the Jew first and then to the Gentile.' It is indeed rather a 
 historical fact than a theological dogma. The difference between the 
 earlier and the later writings of St John is not in the fundamental 
 conception of the Gospel, but in the subject and treatment and lan- 
 guage. The Apocalypse is not Ebionite, unless the Gospel and 
 Epistles are Ebionite also. 
 St James 3. St James occupies a position very different from St Peter 
 
 localo3BQce. ^^ ^* John. If his importance to the brotherhood of Jerusalem was 
 greater than theirs, it was far less to the world at large. In a 
 foregoing essay I have attempted to show that he was not one of the 
 Twelve. This result seems to me to have much more than a critical 
 interest. Only when we have learnt to regard his office as purely 
 local, shall we appreciate the traditional notices of his life or estimate 
 truly his position in the confiict between Jewish and Gentile Chris- 
 tians. 
 Beasons -^ disbeliever in the Lord's mission to the very close of His 
 
 appoint- ^^^^^7 li^^) ^^ '^^^ convinced, it would seem, by the appearance of 
 ment. the risen Jesus'. This interposition marked him out for some special 
 work. Among a people who set a high value on advantages of race 
 ^ See above, p. 265. 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 3^5 
 
 and blood, the Lord's brother would be more likely to win his way 
 than a teacher who would claim no such connexion. In a state 
 of religious feeling where scrupulous attention to outward forms was 
 held to be a condition of favour with God, one who was a strict 
 observer of the law, if not a. rigid ascetic, might hope to obtain 
 a hearing which would be denied to men of less austere lives and 
 wider experiences. These considerations would lead to his selec- 
 tion as the ruler of the mother Church. The persecution of Herod 
 which obliged the Twelve to seek safety in flight would naturally be 
 the signal for the appointment of a resident head. At all events 
 it is at this crisis that James appears for the first time with his 
 presbytery in a position though not identical with, yet so far 
 resembling, the ' bishop ' of later times, that we may without much 
 violence to language give him this title (Acts xii. 17, xxi. 18). 
 
 As the local representative then of the Church of the Circum- His allegi- 
 cision we must consider him. To one holding this position the law j^^^ 
 must have worn a very different aspect from that which it wore to 
 St Peter or St John or St Paul. While they were required to be- 
 come * all things to all men,' he was required only to be ' a Jew to 
 the Jews.' No troublesome questions of conflicting duties, such as 
 entangled St Peter at Antioch, need perplex him. Under the law 
 he must live and die. His surname of the Just^ is a witness to his 
 rigid observance of the Mosaic ritual. A remarkable notice in the 
 Acts shows how he identified himself in all external usages with 
 those * many thousands of Jews which believed and were all zealous 
 of the law (xxi. 20).' And a later tradition, somewhat distorted in- 
 deed but perhaps in this one point substantially true, related how by 
 his rigid life and strict integrity he had won the respect of the whole 
 Jewish people". 
 
 A strict observer of the law he doubtless was ; but whether to The ac- 
 
 this he added a rigorous asceticism, may fairly be questioned. The Hegesip- 
 
 ^ In the account of Hegesippus, re- H. E. iv. 5), either in memory of their ^^^ 
 
 ferred to in the following note, SiKatos predecessor or in token of their own 
 
 'Justus' is used almost as a proper rigid lives: compare also Acts i. 23, 
 
 name. Two later bishops of Jerusalem xviii. 7, Col. iv. 11 (with the note). 
 in the early part of the second century ^ Hegesippus in Euseb. if. E. ii. 
 
 also bear the name 'Justus' (Euseb. 23. 
 
3^6 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 account to which I have just referred, the tradition preserved in 
 Hegesippus, represents him as observing many formalities not en- 
 joined in the Mosaic ritual. *IIe was holy/ says the writer, 'from 
 his mother's womb. He drank no wine nor strong drink, neither 
 did he eat flesh. No razor ever touched his head ; he did not anoint 
 himself with oil ; he did not use the bath. He alone was allowed to 
 enter into the holy place (et? ra ayta). For he wore no wool, but 
 only fine linen. And he would enter into the temple (vaoV) alone, 
 and be found there kneeling on his knees and asking forgiveness for 
 the people, so that his knees grew hard like a camel's knees, because 
 he was ever upon them worshipping God and asking forgiveness for 
 not trust- the people.' There is much in this account which cannot be true : 
 the assigning to him a privilege which was confined to the high- 
 priest alone, while it is entangled with the rest of the narrative, is 
 plainly false, and can only have been started when a new generation 
 had grown up which knew nothing of the temple services \ Moreover 
 the account of his testimony and death, which follows, not only con- 
 tradicts the brief contemporary notice of Josephus^, but is in itself 
 
 "■ It is perhaps to be explained like sephus might be expected to write if he 
 the similar account of St John: see alluded to the matter at all. His stolid 
 above, p. 362, note. Compare Stan- silence about Christianity elsewhere 
 ley Apostolical Age p. 324. Epiphanius cannot be owing to ignorance, for a sect 
 {Hcer. Ixxviii. 14) makes the same state- which had been singled out years before 
 ment of St James which Polycrates he wrote as a mark for imperial Ten- 
 does of St John, TT^raKov iirl ttjs /ce0a- geance at Eome must have been only 
 Xtjs i(p6p€a-e, too well known in Judasa. On the other 
 
 2 Josephus (Antiq. xx. 9. i) relates hand, if the passage had been a Chris- 
 
 that in the interregnum between the tian interpolation, the notice of James 
 
 death of Festus and the arrival of AIM- would have been more laudatory, as is 
 
 nu8,thehigh-priest Ananustheyounger, actually the case in the spurious passage 
 
 who belonged to the sect of the Saddu- of Josephus read by Origen and Euse- 
 
 eees (notorious for their severity in bins (H". E. ii. 23, see above, p. 313, 
 
 judicial matters), considering this a fa- note 2), but not found in existing copies, 
 
 vourable opportunity Kadl^ei avvibpiov On these grounds I do not hesitate to 
 
 KpLTuiv, Kal irapayayCjv els auro rov prefer the account in Josephus to that 
 
 &de\<l}Ov 'Iijcrou rod Xeyofiipov XpL<rrov, of Hegesippus. This is the opinion of 
 
 'laKw^os ovofia aur<^, Kal rivas iT^povs, Neander {Planting i. p. 367, Eng. 
 
 ws irapapofj/rjo'dvTbJi' KaTTjyopiav iroLTjca- Trans.),of Ewald(Gesc/iicfttevi.p.547), 
 
 fievos 7rap45o}Ke 'Kevadrjaofx^vovs* This and of some few writers besides (so 
 
 notice is wholly irreconcilable with the recently Gerlach Romiscke Statthalter 
 
 account of Hegesippus. Yet it is pro- etc. p. 81, 1865): but the majority take 
 
 bable in itself (which the account of the opposite view. 
 Hegesippus is not), and is such as Jo- 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 3^7 
 
 so melodramatic and so fiill of high improbabilities, that it must 
 
 throw discredit on the whole context \ 
 
 We are not therefore justified in laying much stress on this He was 
 
 perhaps 
 tradition. It is interesting as a phenomenon, but not trustworthy as an ascetic. 
 
 a 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 
 
 ^ 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 [TrrepiHyiov) of the tem- 
 ple. Instead of denouncing Jesus how- 
 ever, he preaches Him. Finding 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 his mur- 
 derers. The improbability of the nar- 
 rative will appear in this outline, but it 
 is much increased by the details. The 
 points of resemblance with the portion 
 of the Recognitions conjectured to be 
 taken from the ' Ascents of James' (see 
 above, p. 330) are striking, and recent 
 writers have called attention to these as 
 showing that the narrative of Hegesip- 
 pus was derived from a similar source 
 (Uhlhorn Clement, p. 367, Eitschlp. 226 
 sq.). May we not go a step farther and 
 hazard the conjecture that the story of 
 the martyrdom, towhichHegesippusis 
 indebted, was the gxand Jinale of these 
 ' Ascents, ' of which the earlier portions 
 are preserved in the Eecognitions ? The 
 Eecognitions 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 Eecog- 
 
 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 deHvers 
 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 j 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 
 Eecognitions. 
 
 If Hegesippus, himself no Ebionite, 
 has borrowed these incidents (whether 
 directly or indirectly, we cannot say) 
 from an Ebionite source, he has done 
 no more than Clement of Alexandria 
 did after him (see above, p. 324), than 
 Epiphanius, the scourge of heretics, 
 does repeatedly. The religious romance 
 seems to have been a favourite style of 
 composition with the Essene Ebionites : 
 and in the lack of authentic informa- 
 tion relating to the Apostles, Catholic 
 writers eagerly and unsuspiciously ga- 
 thered incidents from writings of which 
 they repudiated the doctrines. It is 
 worthy of notice that though iheEssenes 
 are named among the sects in Hege- 
 sippus, they are not mentioned in the 
 Eecognitions ; and that, while the Ee- 
 cognitions lay much stress on baptisms 
 and washings (a cardinal doctrine of 
 Essene Ebionism), this feature entirely 
 disappears in the account of James 
 given by Hegesippus. 
 
368 ST PAUL AND THE THEEE. 
 
 outward garb in all persons, and at all times ; not the same in James 
 
 as in Paul; not the same in mediaeval as in protestant Christianity. 
 
 In James, the Lord's brother, if this account be true, we have the 
 
 prototype of those later saints, whose rigid life and formal devotion 
 
 elicits, it may be, only the contempt of the world, but of whom 
 
 nevertheless the world was not and is not worthy. 
 
 St James But to retrace our steps from this sKppery path of tradition to 
 
 stands a- ^^ ^ ^ 
 
 part from firmer ground. The difference of position between St James and 
 
 ia^the^^ ^^ ^^^ other Apostles appears plainly in the narrative of the so-called 
 
 Acts, Apostolic council in the Acts. It is Peter who proposes the eman- 
 
 cipation of the Gentile converts from the law ; James who suggests 
 the restrictive clauses of the decree. It is Peter who echoes St Paul's 
 sentiment that Jew and Gentile alike can hope to be saved only 
 ' by the grace of the Lord Jesus ' ; James who speaks of Moses 
 having them that preach him and being read in the synagogue every 
 sabbath day. I cannot but regard this appropriateness of sentiment 
 as a subsidiary proof of the authenticity of these speeches recorded 
 by St Luke. 
 
 and in the And the same distinction extends also to their own writings. 
 
 Epistles ^^ Peter and St John, with a larger sphere of action and wider obli- 
 gations, necessarily took up a neutral position with regard to the 
 law, now carefully observing it at Jerusalem, now relaxing their 
 observance among the Gentile converts. To St James on the other 
 hand, mixing only with those to whom the Mosaic ordinances were 
 the rule of life, the word and the thing have a higher importance. 
 The neutrality of the former is reflected in the silence which pervades 
 their writings, where 'law' is not once mentioned \ The respect of 
 the latter appears in his differential use of the term, which he employs 
 almost as a synonyme for 'GospeP,' 
 
 The But while so using the term ' law,' he nowhere implies that the 
 
 Gospel a . . . 
 
 higher Mosaic ritual is identical with or even a necessary part of Chris- 
 law. 
 
 1 As regards St John this is true dfiaprla ia-rlv t) dvofiia. In St Peter 
 
 onlyoftheEpistlesandtheApocalypse: neither vSfios nor dvo/xia occurs, 
 
 in the Gospel the law is necessarily ^ The words e^a77^X(oi', evayyeXl^e- 
 
 mentioned by way of narrative. In aOat, do not occur in St James. 
 I Joh. iii. 4 it is said significantly, r} 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 3^9 
 
 tianity. On the contrary he distinguishes the new dispensation as 
 the perfect law, the law of liberty (i. 25, ii. 12), thus tacitly implying 
 imperfection and bondage in the old. He assumes indeed that his 
 readers pay allegiance to the Mosaic law (ii. 9, 10, iv. 11), and he 
 accepts this condition without commenting upon it. But the mere 
 ritual has no value in his eyes. When he refers to the Mosaic law, 
 he refers to its moral, not to its ceremonial ordinances (ii. 8 — 11). 
 The external service of the religionist who puts no moral restraint 
 on himself, who will not exert himself for others, is pronounced 
 deceitful and vain. The external service, the outward garb, the very 
 ritual, of Christianity is a life of purity and love and self -de votion \ 
 What its true essence, its inmost spirit, may be, the writer does not 
 say, but leaves this to be inferred. 
 
 Thus, though with St Paul the new dispensation is the negation St James 
 of law, with St James the perfection of law, the ideas underlying Paul. 
 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 
 
 works. 
 to the doctrine of St Paul, is determined by the view taken of the 
 
 persons to whom the epistle is addressed. If it is intended to coun- 
 teract any modification or perversion of St Paul's teaching, then there 
 is, though not a plain contradiction, yet at all events a considerable 
 divergency in the mode of dealing with the question by the two 
 Apostles. I say the mode of dealing with the question, for antino- 
 mian inferences from his teaching are rebuked with even greater 
 severity by St Paul himself than they are by St James ^. If on the 
 other hand the epistle is directed against an arrogant and barren 
 orthodoxy, a Pharisaic self-satisfaction, to which the Churches of the 
 Circumcision would be most exposed, then the case is considerably 
 altered. The language of the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians 
 
 ^ James i. 26, 27. Coleridge directs New Testament and elsewhere, as the 
 
 attention to the meaning of dpriaKda^ *cultus exterior,' see Trench Synon. 
 
 and the consequent bearing of the text, § xlviii. 
 
 in a well-known passage in Aids to ^ e.g. Rom. yi. 15 — 23, r Cor. vi. 
 
 Reflection, Introd. Aphor. 23. For the 9 — 20, Gal. v. 13 sq. 
 signification of 0p7](TKela both in the 
 
 GAL. 24 
 
370 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 at once suggests the former as the true account. But further con- 
 sideration leads us to question our first rapid inference. Justifica- 
 tion and faith seem to have been common terms, Abraham's faith 
 a common example, in the Jewish schools ^ This fact, if allowed, 
 counteracts the prima facie evidence on the other side, and leaves us 
 free to judge from the tenour of the epistle itself. Now, since in 
 this very passage St James mentions as the object of their vaunted 
 faith, not the fundamental fact of the Gospel 'Thou believest that 
 God raised Christ from the deadV but the fundamental axiom of the 
 law ' Thou believest that God is one^' ; since moreover he elsewhere 
 denounces the mere ritualist, telling him that his ritualism is nothing 
 worth ; since lastly the whole tone of the epistle recalls our Lord's 
 denunciations of the scribes and Pharisees, and seems directed 
 against a kindred spirit ; it is reasonable to conclude that St James 
 is denouncing not the moral aberrations of the professed disciple of 
 St Paul (for with such he was not likely to be brought into close 
 contact), but the self-complacent orthodoxy of the Pharisaic Christian, 
 who, satisfied with the possession of a pure monotheism and vaunting 
 his descent from Abraham, needed to be reminded not to neglect the 
 still 'weightier matters' of a self-denying love. If this view be cor- 
 rect, the expressions of the two Apostles can hardly be compared, for 
 they are speaking, as it were, a difierent language. But in either case 
 we may acquiesce in the verdict of a recent able writer, more free than 
 most men both from traditional and from reactionary prejudices, that 
 in the teaching of the two Apostles ' there exists certainly a striking 
 difference in the whole bent of mind, but no opposition of doctrine*.' 
 Ebionite Thus the representation of St James in the canonical Scriptures 
 
 sentations ^^^^^ from its Ebionite counterpart as the true portrait from the 
 
 ^^ ^* caricature. The James of the Clementines could not have acquiesced 
 
 James ^ 
 
 explained, in the apostolic decree, nor could he have held out the right hand 
 of fellowship to St Paul. On the other hand, the Ebionite picture 
 was not drawn entirely from imagination. A scrupulous observer 
 
 ^ See above, p. 164. ^ Bleek {Einl. in das N. T. p. 550), 
 
 2 Rom. X. 9. who however considers that St James 
 
 3 ii. 19. Comp. Glem. Horn. iii. is writing against perversions of St 
 6 sq. Paul's teaching. 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 371 
 
 of the law, perhaps a rigid ascetic, partly from temper and habit, 
 partly from the requirements of his position, he might, without any 
 very direct or conscious falsification, appear to interested partisans of 
 a later age to represent their own tenets, from which he differed less 
 in the external forms of worship than in the vital principles of 
 religion. Moreover during his lifetime he was compromised by those 
 with whom his office associated him. In all revolutionary periods, 
 whether of political or religious history, the leaders of the movement 
 have found themselves unable to control the extravagances of their 
 bigoted and short-sighted followers: and this great crisis of all 
 was certainly not exempt from the common rule. St Paul is con- 
 stantly checking and rebuking the excesses of those who professed to 
 honour his name and to adopt his teaching : if we cannot state this 
 of St James with equal confidence, it is because the sources of infor- 
 mation are scantier. 
 
 Of the Judaizers who are denounced in St Paul's Epistles this His rela- 
 much is certain; that they exalted the authority of the Apostles of the Judai- 
 the Circumcision : and that in some instances at least, as members of ^^^^' 
 the mother Church, they had direct relations with James the Lord's 
 brother. But when we attempt to define these relations, we are lost 
 in a maze of conjecture. 
 
 The Hebrew Christians whose arrival at Antioch caused the Antioch. 
 rupture between the Jewish and Gentile converts are related to have 
 'come from James' (Gal. ii. 12). Did they bear any commission 
 from him? If so, did it relate to independent matters, or to this 
 very question of eating with the Gentiles ? It seems most natural 
 to interpret this notice by the parallel case of the Pharisaic brethren, 
 who had before troubled this same Antiochene Church, 'going forth' 
 from the Apostles and insisting on circumcision and the observance 
 of the law, though they *gave them no orders^ (Acts xv. 24). But 
 on the least favourable supposition it amounts to this, that St James, 
 though he had sanctioned the emancipation of the Gentiles from the 
 law, was not prepared to welcome them as Israelites and admit 
 them as such to full communion : that in fact he had not yet over- 
 come scruples which even St Peter had only relinquished after many 
 
 24 — 2 
 
17-2' 
 
 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 Galatia. 
 
 Corinth. 
 
 The two 
 
 Judaizing 
 
 parties. 
 
 years and by a special revelation ; in this, as in his recognition of 
 Jesus as the Christ, moving more slowly than the Twelve. 
 
 Turning from Antioch to Galatia, we meet with Judaic teachers 
 who urged circumcision on the Gentile converts and, as the best 
 means of weakening the authority of St Paul, asserted for the Apostles 
 of the Circumcision the exclusive right of dictating to the Church. 
 How great an abuse was thus made of the names of the Three, I trust 
 the foregoing account has shown ; yet here again the observance of 
 the law by the Apostles of the Circumcision, especially by St James, 
 would furnish a plausible argument to men who were unscrupulous 
 enough to turn the occasional concessions of St Paul himself to the 
 same account. But we are led to ask, Did these false teachers belong 
 to the mother Church % had they any relation with James % is it 
 possible that they had ever been personal disciples of the Lord Him- 
 self % There are some faint indications that such was the case ; and, 
 remembering that there was a Judas among the Twelve, we cannot 
 set aside this supposition as impossible. 
 
 In Corinth again we meet with false teachers of a similar stamp j 
 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 Judaizers ^ To the latter 
 class St Paul alludes again in the Second Epistle : these must have 
 been the men who ' trusted to themselves that they were of Christ ' 
 (x. 7), who invaded another's sphere of labour and boasted of work 
 
 ^ Several writers representing dif- 
 ferent schools have agreed in denying 
 the existence of a ' Christ party.' Pos- 
 sibly the word * party ' may be too 
 strong to describe what was rather a 
 sentiment than an organization. But 
 if admissible at all, I cannot see how, 
 allowing that there were three parties, 
 the existence of the fourth can be ques- 
 tioned. For (i) the four watchwords 
 are co-ordinated, and there is no indi- 
 cation that ^ycb 5^ Xptcrov is to be 
 isolated from the others and differently 
 
 interpreted. (2) The remonstrance im- 
 mediately following {fie/jJpKTTCLL 6 Xpt.~ 
 ffros) shows that the name of Christ, 
 which ought to be common to all, had 
 been made the badge of a party. (3) 
 In 2 Cor. X. 7 the words et rts iriirotdep 
 ^avT(} XpLo-Tov etvai and the description 
 which foUows gain force and definite- 
 ness on this supposition. There is in 
 fact more evidence for the existence of 
 a party of Christ than there is of a 
 party of Peter. 
 
ST PAUL AND THE THEEE. 373 
 
 which was ready to hand (x. 13 — 16), who were 'false apostles, crafty 
 workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ^ (xi. 13), 
 who 'commended themselves' (x. 12, 18), who vaunted their pure 
 Israelite descent (xL 21 — 23). It is noteworthy that this party of 
 extreme Judaizers call themselves by the name not of James, but of 
 Christ. This may perhaps be taken as a token that his concessions 
 to Gentile liberty had shaken their confidence in his fidelity to the 
 law. The leaders of this extreme party would appear to have seen 
 Christ in the fiesh : hence their watchword *I am of Christ'; hence 
 also St Paul's counter-claim that 'he was of Christ' also, and his 
 unwilling boast that he had himself had visions and revelations of 
 the Lord in abundance (xii. i sq.). On the other hand, of the party 
 of Cephas no distinct features are preserved ; but the passage itself 
 implies that they differed from the extreme Judaizers, and we may 
 therefore conjecture that they took up a middle position with regard 
 to the law, similar to that which was occupied later by the Naza- 
 renes. In claiming Cephas as the head of their party they had 
 probably neither more nor less ground than their rivals who shel- 
 tered themselves under the names of Apollos and of Paul. 
 
 Is it to these extreme Judaizers that St Paul alludes when he Letters of 
 
 , T 1 , 1 ■ commen- 
 
 mentions 'certain persons as 'needing letters or recommendation to dation. 
 
 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 1 By the mother Church 
 
 of Jerusalem 1 By any of the primitive disciples 1 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 notices, 
 
 nothing or next to nothing of the true principles of St James. Only 
 
374 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 
 
 so long as we picture to ourselves an ideal standard of obedience, 
 where the will of the ruler is the law of the subject, will such notices 
 cause us perplexity. But, whether this be a healthy condition for 
 any society or not, it is very far from representing the state of Christ- 
 endom in the apostolic ages. If the Church had been a religious 
 machine, if the Apostles had possessed absolute control over its 
 working, if the manifold passions of men had been for once anni- 
 hilated, if there had been no place for misgiving, prejudice, trea- 
 chery, hatred, superstition, then the picture would have been very 
 different. But then also the history of the first ages of the Gospel 
 would have had no lessons for us. As it is, we may well take 
 courage from the study. However great may be the theological 
 differences and religious animosities of our own time, they are far 
 surpassed in magnitude by the distractions of an age which, closing 
 our eyes to facts, we are apt to invest with an ideal excellence. In 
 the early Church was fulfilled, in its inward dissensions no less than 
 in its outward sufferings, the Master's sad warning that He came 
 'not to send peace on earth, but a sword.' 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Abraham, the faith of, p. 158 sq. (pas- 
 sim) ; see Hagar 
 
 accusative, for other objective cases, v. 
 7, 26 
 
 Acichorius, p. 248 
 
 Acts of the Apostles, its scope and cha- 
 racter, p. 346 sq., 359; its relation 
 to St Paul's Epistles, ii. i sq., p. 91 
 sq., 123 sq. (passim), 305 sq., 346 
 
 sq-, 359 
 
 Acts, passages commented on ; (ix. 
 20—26) p. 89 ; (XV. 29) p. 305 sq. ; 
 (xvi. 6) p. 20, 22 ; (xxviii. 21) p. 93 
 
 Aelia Capitolina, foundation of, p. 316; 
 Church of, p. 317 
 
 ceons, the two, i. 4 
 
 Africa, the Church of, p. 335, 344 
 
 Alcibiades of Apamea, p. 331 
 
 Alcuin founds a school of bibUcal in- 
 terpretation, p. 235 
 
 Alexandria, the Church of, p. 335 
 
 Alfred's (king) malady, p. 190 sq. 
 
 Alphaeus, to be identified with Clopas? 
 p. 257, 267, 290; with Alfius? p. 
 268 
 
 Ambrose (the friend of Origen), a trea- 
 tise by, p. 60 
 
 Ambrose (St), commentary wrongly 
 ascribed to, p. 229 ; on the Lord's 
 brethren, p. 287 sq. 
 
 Ambrosiaster : see Hilary 
 
 Ancient Syriae Documents (Cureton's), 
 P- 60, 345 
 
 Ancyra, p. 6, 8, 11, 13, 20 sq., 32, 34 
 sq., 242, v. 20 
 
 Andronicus and Junia (-as), p. 96 
 
 angels administering the law, iii. 19 
 
 Anselm, commentary ascribed to, p. 236 
 
 Antidicomarianites, p. 285 
 
 Antioch, foundation of the Church at, 
 p. 301 ; the new metropolis of Christ- 
 • endom, p. 304 ; St Peter reputed 
 bishop of, ii. 1 1 ; catholicity of, p. 335, 
 341 ; Judaizersat, ii. 12 sq., p. 371 ; 
 biblical school of, p. 228 ; see Paul 
 (St) 
 
 Antioch in Pisidia, St Paul preaches at, 
 
 P- 304 
 
 aorist, uses of, v. 4, 24, vi. 2 ; episto- 
 lary, vi. 1 1 
 
 Apocryphal Gospels, on the Lord's bre- 
 thren, p. 260, 274 sq. 
 
 Apollos, not an Apostle, p. g6, 98 
 
 apologists, references to Galatians, p. 
 60 
 
 Apostle, meaning of the term, p. 92 sq. ; 
 not limited to the twelve, p. 93 sq., 
 260 ; qualifications and functions of, 
 p. 97 sq. (passim) 
 
 apostolic congress and decree, ii. i sq. 
 (passim), p. 125 sq., 305 sq. (passim), 
 
 350 
 
 Apostohe Constitutions, mention of 
 
 Philip in, p. 100 ; on the Jameses, 
 
 p. 282 
 apostolic fathers, references to G-ala- 
 
 tians in, p. 58 sq. ; use of the term 
 
 * Apostle' in, p. 99 
 Arabia, meaning of, p. 88 ; St Paul's 
 
 visit to, p. 87 sq., 194 
 Arabians, called Hagarenes, iv. 25 ; 
 
 their enmity to the Jews, iv. 29 
 Arabic version of the New Testament, 
 
 p. 87 sq. 
 Ariston of Pella, p. 152 sq., 301 sq. 
 article, the definite, i. 4, 7, 10, 13, 23, 
 
 iii. 20, 21, iv. 6, 31, V. 14, p. 193; 
 
 see also v6fios 
 
376 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Artotyritse, p. 32 
 
 Ascents of James, p. 276, 330, 359, 367 
 
 Aecodrobi, etc., p. 33 
 
 Asia, meaning of in N.T., p. 19 
 
 aspirates, anomalous, ii. 14 
 Atto Yercellensis, his commentary on 
 St Paul, p. 236 
 
 Augustine (St), his dispute with Je- 
 rome, p. 131 sq. ; commentary on 
 Galatians, p. 232 ; on the Lord's 
 brethren, p. 288 sq. 
 
 d|S/3a, iv. 6 
 
 dyadd, vi. 6 
 
 dyadoTTOu'iv , KoKoiroietp, vi. 9 
 
 dyadwa^vq^ xpi^cr 6x775, V. 22 
 
 ddeXipot, emphatic, iii. 15. vi. i, 18 
 
 dOerelvj ii. 21 
 
 alJpefTis, V. 20 
 
 alifiVy i. 4 
 
 dKaOapala, v. 19 
 
 OLKo-^f iii. 'z 
 
 d\-^6ei.a, ij dX. tov e^uayyeXlov, ii. 5 
 
 dWTjyope'iv {-yopiajt iv. 24 
 
 dWos, h-epos, i. 6 
 
 dfiapTOjXos, ii. 14, 15, 17, 18 
 
 &v omitted, iii. 19, iv. 15 
 
 dva^aiveiVf i- 17 
 
 dvddefxa, dvd$7}pLa, i. 8 
 
 dyaKOTTTeiif, V. 7 
 
 dvaffrarovv, v. 12 
 
 dvaridecrdaL, ii. -s 
 
 dvipxeadai, i. 17 
 
 c^Tre/cS^eff^at, V. 5 
 
 ttTTO, did, i, I 
 
 diro, irapd, i. 12 
 a7ro/co7rTea"^at, v. 12 
 dirokafM^dveLv, iv. 5 
 diropeiv {-peia-doLi)^ iv. 20 
 aTToffroXos, p. 92 sq. 
 dpa, v. II ; (apa), ii. 17 
 aprt, i. 9 
 daiXyeia., v. 19 
 drepl^eiv, p. 192 
 a^6 Touro, ii. 10 
 d^opi^cLPi ii. 15 
 d(pop/j,-/i, V. 13 
 
 Barcochba, rebellion of, p. 313, 316 
 Barnabas, au apostle, p. ^6y 100 ; Jo- 
 
 seph, not Joses, p. 268 ; his estrange- 
 ment from St Paul, ii. 13 
 
 Barsabas, Joseph or Joses ? p. 268 ; 
 identified with Matthias, p. 97 
 
 Basil (St), on the Lord's brethren, 
 p. 284 
 
 Basilides, and eld(a\66vTaj p. 310 
 
 Bede, commentary wrongly ascribed to, 
 p. 236 
 
 Belgse, a Celtic people, p. 244 
 
 Belta (el), p. 87, 196 
 
 biblical studies, Antiochene school of, 
 p. 228 ; revival of, under Charle- 
 magne, p. 235 
 
 Bolgius, p. 248 
 
 Bonosus, p. 286 
 
 branding among the' ancients, vi. 17 
 
 Brennus, p. 247 
 
 brethren of the Lord, p. 252 sq. (pas- 
 sim) 
 
 'brother,' wide use of the term, p. 256, 
 261, 288 
 
 Bruno Carthusianus, commentary on 
 St Paul, p. 236 
 
 ^aaKaiueLv , iii. i 
 
 ^aard^eiVf vi. 17 
 
 Cassiodorus, his notes on St Paul, p. 
 233 ; he expurgates the commentary 
 of Pelagius, ib.; he translates the 
 notes of Clement of Alexandria, p. 
 279 
 
 Catena (Cramer's), on Galatians, p. 234 
 
 causa, 'a thing,' early use of, p. 194 
 
 Celsus quotes Galatians, p. 61 
 
 Celts, the name, p. 2 sq. ; its use in 
 Dion Cassius, p. 240 ; migrations of 
 the, p. 4 sq. (passim), 241 ; distin- 
 guished from Germans, p. 240 sq, 
 
 Cephas, use of the name, i. 18; falsely 
 assigned to different persons, p. 129 
 
 Cerethrius, p. 248 
 
 chiasm, the figure, iv. 5 
 
 Christian, the name, p. 301 
 
 chronology of the exodus, iii. 17 ; of 
 St Paul, see Paul 
 
 Chrysostom (St), his homily on St Peter 
 at Antiooh, p. 131, 229; his com- 
 mentary on Galatians, p. 228 sq. ; on 
 
INDEX. 
 
 377 
 
 StPaxil's infirmity, p. 187; onHagar, 
 p. 195; on the Lord's brethren, p. 
 257, 289 sq. 
 
 circumcision, the question of, p. 305 
 sq. (passim), ii. i sq. (passim) 
 
 Claudius Altissiodorenais (or Tauri- 
 nensis), his commentary on St Paul, 
 P- 235 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, on Cephas at 
 Antioch, p. 139; on the Lord's bre- 
 thren, p. 279 sq. ; on the Nicolaitans, 
 p. 298 ; his use of the word ' apostle, ' 
 p. 100 ; his commentary on the Ca- 
 tholic Epistles, p. 279 
 
 Clement of Rome, his position in the 
 Church, p. 338, 341 ; his Epistle, 
 
 P- .338» 358 
 
 Clementine Homilies, their scope and 
 complexion, p. 340 sq. ; editions and 
 epitomes of, etc. p. 327 ; their Ro- 
 man origin doubtful, p. 340 sq. ; 
 their representation of St James, 
 p. 274, 276, 370 sq. ; attacks on St 
 Paul, ii. II, 13, iv. 10, 16, 24, p. 
 61 sq., 129, 327 sq. ; limitation of 
 the term 'apostle' in, p. 100; letter 
 of Peter prefixed to, p. 329 ; letter 
 of Clement prefixed to, p. 341 
 
 Clementine Recognitions, composition 
 of, p. 329 sq. ; editions and trans- 
 lations of, p. 327 ; Ascents of James 
 incorporated in, p. 276, 330, 359, 
 367 ; allusion to St Paul in, iv. 16 ; 
 arbitrary alteration of Rufinus in, 
 
 P- 330 
 Cleopas, the name, p. 267 
 Clopas, p. 256 sq,, 267 sq., 277 ; to he 
 
 identified with Alphaeus? p. 257, 
 
 267, 290 
 collection of alms for Judsea, p. 25, 55, 
 
 304, ii. 10, vi. 7 
 Collyridians, p. 285 
 Corinth, the Chujch of, its catholicity, 
 
 p. 358; parties in, p. 372 sq.; Ju- 
 
 daizers in, ib ; the offender in, p. 
 
 54, vi. I 
 Corinthians, ist Epistle to the, when 
 
 written, p. 38; compared with Gala- 
 
 tians, p. 51 sq., 64; passages com- 
 
 mented on, (i. 12) p. 372, (ii. 9) p. 
 334, (viii. I— 13, X. 14—22) p. 308 
 
 Corinthians, 2nd Epistle to the, when 
 written, p. 39 ; tone of, p. 51 ; com- 
 pared with Galatians, p. 44, 49, 64 
 
 Cornelius, conversion of, p. 300 sq. 
 
 Cramer's Catena, on Galatians, p. 234 
 
 Crescens, p. 31 
 
 cross, offence of the, p. 153 sq. 
 
 crucifixion, not a Jewish punishment, 
 
 P- 154 
 
 crucifying with Christ, ii. 20, vi. 14 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria, on the Lord's bre- 
 thren, p. 290 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, on the Lord's bre- 
 thren, p. 283 
 
 Kadibs, ii. 5 
 
 Kal idVf icLv Kai, i. 8 
 
 KaLv^ KTlais, vi. 15 
 
 Kaipoij iv. 10 
 
 KoKsiVj 6 KoXioj/ (/caX^cras), i. 6, v. 8; 
 KaXeTv ^iri, v. 13 
 
 KaXoTTote?*', vi. 9 
 
 Kavihif, vi. 16 
 
 Kara dvBpunroy^ i. ii, iii. 15 
 
 Karapaivecv, i. 17 
 
 KaTapri^eiP, vi. i 
 
 KaraffKoireiv, ii. 4 
 
 KaT4px^<T6atj i. 17 
 
 KaTTjx^'iyt vi. 6 
 
 Kavx'rjo'i-Sy /eaiix);/Aa, vi. 4 
 
 Kevddo^os {'8o^La), V. 26 
 
 K\i/j,a, i. 21 
 
 KoiKias {^k), i. 15 
 
 KOLVioyeTv, vi. 6 
 
 Kpdi^etv, iv. 6 
 
 Kplp.a (KpTfia), V. 10 
 
 X^P^v, iii. 19 
 
 X^p, ^v x^tp/, iii. 19 
 
 XPV^t6t7}s {dyadojcT'^vi]), v. 22 
 
 Damascenus (Johannes), coinmentary 
 
 on St Paul, p. 234 
 dative, uses of, ii. 19, v. 16, 25, vi. 
 
 12, 16 
 Deuteronomy, passages commented on ; 
 
 (xxi. 23) p. 152 sq.; (xxvii. 26) iii. 
 
 10 ; (xsxiii. 2) iii. 19 
 Didymus of Alexandria, on St Peter at 
 
378 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Antioch, p, 130; his commentary on 
 
 St Paul, p. 232 
 Dionysius of Corinth, p. 344 
 dispersion, the, p. 2^6 
 Dorotheus Tyrius, the pseudo-, p. 286 
 DrynsBmetum, p. 247 
 dying and being buried with Christ, 
 
 ii. 20 
 deKair^vre, i. 18 
 Se^Lcis Sovpaij 'Kafx^dvetp, ii. 9 
 dia with gen., i. i ; dia (^k) Trfffrews, ii. 
 
 16; with accus., iv. 13 
 Siadi^KT}, iii. 15 
 doKeiv eXval tl (ris), ii. 6, vi. 3 : ol doKOvv- 
 
 Tes, ii. 2 
 dvvdfxets, iii. 5 
 Sojpedv, ii. 21 
 
 Eastern Churches, testimony respecting 
 
 the Jameses, p. 290 
 Ebionites, different classes of, p. 317, 
 
 321 sq. (passim) 
 Egyptians, Gospel of; saying ascribed 
 
 to our Lord in, iii. 28; tradition re- 
 specting gnosis in, p. 280 
 Elchasai or Elxai, book of, p. 324 sq. ; 
 
 see Hippolytus 
 Eheser (Kabbi), on the Samaritans, 
 
 p. 299 
 ellipsis, after ii'a,ii, 9; with /i6i'oz', ii. 10, 
 
 vi. 12 ; with /at}, v. 13; of the name 
 
 of God, i. 6, 15, V. 8 
 Ephesians, ii. 20, iii. 5, commented on, 
 
 P-97 
 
 Ephraem Syrus, his commentary on St 
 
 Paul, p. 227; on Hagar, p. 194 
 Epiphanius, on the Lord's brethren, 
 p. 253 sq. (passim), 285 sq,; on the 
 Nazarenes, p. 319 
 Esdras, 4th book of, on faith, p. 161 
 Essene Ebionism, p. 322 sq. (passim) 
 Ethiopian eunuch, conversion of, p. 
 
 300 
 Eusebius of Csesarea, Syriac transla- 
 tion of, p. 280, 283, 332, 358; the 
 passage H. E. ii. i commented on, 
 p. 280 ; on the Lord's brethren, 
 p. 282 ; his silence misinterpreted, 
 P- 345 
 
 Eusebius of Emesa, his commentary 
 
 on St Paul, p. 37, 228 
 Euthalius, his edition of St Paul, p. 230 
 EuthymiusZigabenus,his commentary, 
 
 p. 234 
 evil eye, iii. i 
 
 Exodus, sii. 40 commented on, iii. 17 
 exodus, see chronology 
 ^b.v Kai, Koi idy, i. 8 
 iavTOVj V. 14 
 iyKaKciv {iKKaKciv^f vi. 9 
 iyKOTTTeiVj V. 7 
 et 7e, etir^p, iii. 4 
 d fi-^ {idv fi^), i. 19, ii. 16 
 eldivai, see yivdiffKetv 
 eldoA6$vTaj p. 308 sq. 
 elSf V. 10, vi. 4 
 iK, StCt, with Tr/crews, ii. 16; ol iK iri- 
 
 (Trecos, iii. 7; iK KoiX/a$, i. 15 
 iKKhqalay i. 22 
 ^/fXyec^at, vi. 10 
 
 "mo^-nv, ii. 3 
 
 iXiriSt V. 5 
 
 iv i/Molf i. 16 
 
 ivdpxeffSai, iii. 3 
 
 iv86e<T6aij iii. 27 
 
 ivepyetp, ii. 8, iii. 5, v. 6 
 
 ive<rT<j}Sj i. 4 
 
 ^i, iii. 28 
 
 i^ayopdl;€Lv, iii. 13 
 
 iirayyeXlaf iii. 14 
 
 €TrcdiaTd(r<7e(r6aij iii. 15 
 
 erriTeXeta-dai, iii. 3 
 
 iiriTpoiroSf iv. ^ 
 
 eTTLXop-nyeiVf iii. 5 
 
 eptdeiay V. 20 
 
 eppi$T}y iii. 16 
 
 h-eposj oXXos, i. 16 ; 6 ^repos, vi. 4 
 
 ^t, i. 10, V. II 
 
 edayyeKl^eadaif i. 9 
 
 eiivovxos, p. 362 
 
 eirTrpoffiaireiv , vi. 12 
 
 evpeBijvaif ii. 17 
 
 ijfiipai, p. 89 
 
 Faith, words denoting, p. 154 sq. ; not 
 intheO.T., p. 155, i58sq.; of Abra- 
 ham, p. 158 sq. ; Philo on, p. 159 sq.. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 379 
 
 163; rabbinicalteacherson,p. i6iBq., 
 
 163 : see James the Lord's brother 
 fascination, iii. i 
 
 fides, fidelis, fidentia, fiducia, p. 158 
 first-born, meaning of, p. 271 
 Florus Magister, his commentary on 
 
 St Paul, p. 235 
 Francis (St) of Assisi, his stigmata, 
 
 vi. 17 
 fulness of time, iv. 4 
 future tense, uses of, vi. 5, 16 
 
 Gsezatodiastus, p. 248 
 
 Galatffi, the name, p. 2 sq. 
 
 Galatia, geographical limits of, p. 6, 7, 
 18 sq, ; mixed population of, p. 8 sq. ; 
 Jews in, p. g sq., 25 sq.; Komans in, 
 p. 6 sq., 9 ; trade of, p. 10 ; fertihty of, 
 ib. ; used of European Gaul, p. 3, 31 
 
 Galatia, the people of, alien to Asia, p. r ; 
 their origin, migrations, and early 
 history, p. 4 sq. (passim) ; their lan- 
 guage, p. 12, 246 sq. ; their three 
 tribes, p. 7, 248; their national cha- 
 racter, p. 12 sq.; their religion, p. 8, 
 Ti, 16 sq., 21, 23, 30; mutilation 
 among, p. 16, v. 12; witchcraft among, 
 V. 20; were they Celts or Teutons? 
 p. 239 sq. (passim) ; supposed German 
 affinities explained, p. 25osq. ; names 
 among, p. 246 
 
 Galatia, the Churches of, their locality, 
 p. 20 sq. ; composition of, p. 26 ; St 
 Paul's intercourse with, p. 21 sq, 
 (passim), 41; Judaism in, p. 27 sq., 
 372 sq.; persecutions of, iii. 4; later 
 history of, p. 31 sq. ; heresies of, 
 p. 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 Eom., p. 45 sq. ; genu- 
 ineness of, p. 57 sq.; external testi- 
 mony to, p. 58 sq.; analysis of, p. 65 
 sq. ; postscript to, p. 65, vi. 11 ; com- 
 mentaries on, p. 227 sq. (passim) ; its 
 
 importance in modern controversy, 
 p. 68, 293 
 
 Galli, Gallia, the names, p. 2 sq. 
 
 Gauls : see Celtse, GalatsB, Galli 
 
 Gelasius (Pope), commentary falsely 
 ascribed to, p. 233 
 
 Genesis, passages commented on, (xv. 
 6) p. 159 sq.; (xv. 13) iii. 17; (xxi.9, 
 10) iv. 29, 30 
 
 Gennadius, bis commentary on St Paul, 
 p. 231 
 
 Gentiles, the Gospel preached to, p. 295 
 sq. (passim); emancipation and pro- 
 gress of, p. 302 sq. (passim) 
 
 Germanopolis, p. 250 sq. 
 
 Glossa Ordxnaria, p. 236 
 
 Gordium, p. 10, 20 
 
 Gregory Nazianzen, on St Peter at An- 
 tioch, p. 130 
 
 Gregory Nyssen, on the Lord's bre- 
 thren, p. 284 
 
 guardianship, ancient laws respecting, 
 iv. J 
 
 gutturals interchanged in the Shemitic 
 languages, p. 197 
 
 yevvaVy iv. 24 
 
 yiViiaKeiv, elSivai^ iii. 7, iv. 9 
 
 yp(i}pL^b} i/fujfj i. II 
 
 ypdfifiaTa, vi. 11 
 
 7pa0i5, iii. 8, 22 
 
 Habakkuk, ii. 4 commented on, p. 156, 
 
 iii. II 
 Hadrian, his treatment of Jews and 
 
 Christians, p. 316 sq. 
 Hagar, meaning of, p. 90 sq. ; places 
 
 bearing the name, p. 196; a syno- 
 
 nyme for Sinai?, p. 89, I96sq.,iv. 25; 
 
 doubtful reading, p. 192 sq. 
 Hagarenes, iv. 25, 29 
 Harant, der Christliohe Ulysses, p. 195 ; 
 
 on Hagar, ib, 
 Haymo, commentary on St Paul, p. 236 
 Hebrews, Gospel of the; account of our 
 
 Lord appearing to James, p. 274 
 Hegesippus,hissojourninEome, p.332; 
 
 not an Ebionite, p. 333 sq.; on the 
 
 Lord's brethren, p. 276sq.; on Jamea 
 
 the Lord's brother, p. 365 sq.; on 
 
38o 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 heresies in the Church of Jerusalem, 
 
 p- 315, 325 sa- 
 
 Hellenists, their influence in the Church, 
 
 p. 297 sq. 
 Helvidius, on the Lord's brethren, p. 
 
 253 sq. (passim), 286 
 Hermas, the Shepherd of ; its date, p. 99 ; 
 
 its character and teaching, p. 339 sq. ; 
 
 use of the term ' apostle ' in, p. 99 
 Herod, persecution of, p. 124, 127 
 Herveus Dolensis, commentary on St 
 
 Paul, p. 236 
 Hilary (Ambrosiaster), commentary on 
 
 St Paul, p. 229, 232 ; on the Lord's 
 
 brethren, p. 284 
 Hilary of Poitiers, on the Gauls, p. 242 ; 
 
 on the Lord's brethren, p. 283; com- 
 
 mentary wrongly ascribed to, p. 229 
 Hippolytus on the Nicolaitans, p. 279 
 
 sq.;onthebookofElohasai,p.324sq., 
 
 331, 342 ; St John illustrated from, 
 
 p. 309; the pseudO", concerning the 
 
 Lord's brethren, p. 282 
 
 James the Lord's brother, was he an 
 apostle? i. 19, p. 95, 100, 261 sq. 
 (passim) ; our Lord's appearance to 
 him, p. 265 sq., 274, 364; his po- 
 sition, ii. 9, p. 364 sq. (passim) ; his 
 asceticism, p. 365 sq. ; his relation 
 to the Judaizers, p. 29, 306, 365, 371 
 sq. (passim) ; to St Peter and St John, 
 p. 368 ; to St Paul (faith and works), 
 p. 164, 369, Y. 6; his death, p. 313, 
 366 sq. ; account of him in the He- 
 brew Gospel, p. 274; in the Clemen- 
 tines, p. 276; among the Ophites, p. 
 280: see also Ascents of James 
 
 James the son of Alphseus, p. 254 sq. 
 (passim) 
 
 James the son of Mary, p. 255 sq. (pas- 
 sim) ; why called d fiiKpSs^ p. 262, 285 
 
 James the son of Zebedee, martyrdom 
 of, p. 303; was he a cousin of our 
 Lord? p. 264 
 
 Jason andPapiscus, Dialogue of, p. 152 
 sq. : see Ariston 
 
 idols, things sacrificed to, p. 308 sq. 
 
 Jerome, his commentary on the Gala- 
 tians, p. 232 ; his disputes with Au- 
 gustine, p. 130 sq. ; his visit to Gaul 
 and Galatia, p. 242 ; his disingenu- 
 ousness, p. 130, 278; his allegorizing, 
 p. 90; on the Galatian language, p. 
 12, 243 ; on Galatian heresies, p. 32 ; 
 on the origin of the Galatian people, 
 p. 242 sq. ; on the Nazarenes,p. 317; 
 on the Lord's brethren, p. 253 sq. 
 (passim), 287; on the thorn in the 
 flesh, p. 186, 188; commentary of 
 Pelagius ascribed to him, p. 233 
 
 Jerusalem, the fall of, p. 312 sq. ; the 
 early Church of, p. 295 sq. (passim); 
 its waning influence, p. 303 sq. (pas- 
 sim) ; outbreak of heresies in, p. 315 
 sq.; reconstitutionof, p. 3i6Bq, ; the 
 new, heavenly, Jerusalem, iv. 26 ; see 
 also Paul (St), collection of alms 
 
 Jewish names, exchanged for heathen, 
 p. 267 sq. ; abbreviated, p. 268 
 
 Ignatius, his testimony to the Koman 
 Church, p. 338 ; on St Peter and St 
 Paul, p. 358 
 
 imperfect tense, iv. 20 
 
 John (St), was he the Lord's cousin? 
 p. 264 ; his position in the Church, 
 p. 359 sq. J on €lSo}\66vTa^ p. 309 ; tra- 
 ditions relating to, p. 362 sq. ; not 
 claimed by Ebionites, p. 359; Gospel 
 and Epistles of, p. 363 ; Apocalypse 
 of, p. 361 
 
 John, Gospel of, six. 25 commented 
 on, p. 264, 266 
 
 Joseph, a common name, p. 268 ; oc- 
 currence in our Lord's genealogy, p. 
 269; the same with Joses? p. 268 
 
 Joseph, the Virgin's husband, early 
 death of, p. 270 
 
 Josephus, on the death of St James, 
 p. 366 sq.; the pseudo-, p. 313 
 
 Joses, the son of Mary, p. 268 
 
 Jovinianus, p. 286 
 
 Irenseus, on the Paschal controversy, 
 
 P- 343 
 Isaac, explained by Philo, p. 199 
 Ishmael, meaning of, p. 199 ; rabbinica 
 
 accounts of, iv. 29 
 
INDEX. 
 
 381 
 
 Israel (Israelite), force of, vi. 16; ex- 
 plained by Philo, p. 199 
 
 Judaizers, ii. i sq. (passim), 12, vi. 12, 
 13, P- 17 sq., 305 eq. (passim), 317 sq. 
 (passim), 349 sq. (passim), 371 sq. 
 (passim) 
 
 Judas, the Apostle and the Lord's 
 brother the same? p. 95, 257 sq. 
 (passim) 
 
 Judas, a name of Thomas, p. 263 
 
 Julian and the Galatians, p. 33 sq. 
 
 Juhopolis (Gordium), p. 20 
 
 Justin Martyr, not an Ebionite, p. 331 
 sq. ; acquainted with St Paul's 
 Epistles, iii. 10, 13, iv. 27, p. 60: 
 Orat. ad Grcec. wrongly ascribed to, 
 p. 60 ; a fragment wrongly ascribed 
 to, p. 278 sq. 
 
 Justus, the name, p. 365 
 
 tde {l5oi/) 6rt, i. 20 ; Ue or Idi, v. 2 
 
 'lepoffiXu/ia, i. 18; ('lepoucaXiJ/*) iv. 26 
 
 iKavos, p. 89 
 
 iva, with indie, ii. 4, iv. 17; ellipsis 
 with, ii. 9 ; repeated, iii. 14, iv. 5 
 
 'lovdati^eiv, ii. 14 
 
 *Ioi/3ai/cajs with aspirate, ii. 14 
 
 'lovdaX(Tfx6s, i. 13 
 
 IffTopetv, i. 18 
 
 Lactantius, on the Galatian people, p. 
 242 
 
 Lanfranc, commentary on St Paul, p. 
 236 
 
 Law, the ; St Paul's conception of, ii. 
 i9sq.,iii. 10 sq., 19, 24, iv. 5, ii, 30, 
 vi. 2 . Our Lord's teaching aa regards, 
 p. 295 ; zeal for and decline of, p. 31 1 
 sq. (passim) ; relation of St Peter to, 
 p. 352 sq. ; of St John to, p. 359 
 sq. ; of St James to, p. 365 sq. : 
 see Paul (St), and vofios 
 
 leaven, a symbol, v. 9 
 
 Leonnorius, p. 5, 250 sq, 
 
 Lutarius, p. 5, 250 sq. 
 
 Luther, on the Epistle to the Galatians, 
 p. 18; on the Galatian people, p. 239; 
 on the thorn in the flesh, p, 188 sq. ; 
 his different language at different 
 times, p. 349 sq. 
 
 \4y€LP, Xiyei impersonal, Iii. 16 ; X^7w 
 
 5^, iv. I 
 XotTTos, difference of rb Xoiirbv and rot 
 
 XoiiroVf vi. 17 
 
 Maccabees, First Book of, viii. 2 com- 
 mented on, p. 9 
 
 Marcion, the canon of ; order of St 
 Paul's Epistles in,, p. 36; Galatians 
 in, p. 59; omissions in his text, i. i, 
 iii. 6 
 
 Mary, different persons bearing the 
 name, p. 255 sq., 259 sq., 262, 269, 
 285, 289 
 
 Mary, the Lord's mother; her virginity, 
 p. 270 ; commended to the keeping 
 of St John, p. 272 
 
 Melito, p. 362 
 
 Moses, called a mediator, iii. 19; Reve- 
 lation of, vi. 15 
 
 Muratorian Canon, order of St Paul's 
 Epistles in, p. 37 
 
 fiuKapcfffj^As, iv. 15 
 
 /xapT^po/iatj V. 3 
 
 fxeo-iri^s, iii. 19 
 
 fieTaffTpicpHV, i. 7 
 
 (lerarldeffdaL, i. 6 
 
 (j.^ with indie, iv. 11 
 
 ju-J; y4voLTo, ii. 17, vi. 14 
 
 fi-^irm, construction with, ii. z 
 
 fiLKpos (6), p. 262 
 
 fJLVKT7}pL^€LV, vi. 7 
 
 Nazarenes, p. 317 sq. 
 neighbour, meaning of, v. 14 
 Nervii, a Celtic people, p. 244 
 Nicolas and the Nicolaitans, p. 297 sq. 
 v^TTLoSy iv. I 
 
 vofMos and vo/juoSf ii. 19, iv. 4, 5, 21, 
 V. 18, vi. 13 
 
 CEcumenius, Catena bearing his name, 
 
 p. 234 
 Old Testament, interpretation of types 
 
 in, iii. 16 
 Ophites, their use of Galatians, p. 61 ; 
 
 reference to, in the Apocalypse, p. 
 
 309 ; their use of the Gospel of the 
 
 Egyptians, p. 280 
 optative, not after final particles, ii. 2 
 
382 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Origen, his commentaries on Galatians, 
 p. 227; on St Peter at Antioch, p. 
 130; on the Lord's brethren, p. 281 
 sq. ; on the Ebionites, p, 317, 331; 
 misinterpretations of, iii. 19, v. 24 
 
 and w confused, vi. 12 
 
 oketoy, vi. 10 
 
 oUovofioSf iv. 2 
 
 SfibJSi iii. 15 
 
 dvo/na^€<Tdai, p. 283 
 
 dpdoirodeiv, ii. 14 
 
 SffTiSf fis, distinguished, iv. 24, 26, v. 19 
 
 8tl with quotations, i. 23 
 
 ovS^...oih-€j i. 12 
 
 ovk4tl logicEil, iii. 18 
 
 ov 1X1} with fut. ind., iv. 30 
 
 ov Tras for oiJ5eis, ii. 16 
 
 6<l>eKoVf V. 12 
 
 ois, ' while,' vi. 10 
 
 Palestine, Churches of, 331 sq. 
 
 Papias distinguishes other disciples 
 from the Apostles, p. 99 ; passage 
 wrongly ascribed to, p. 273 
 
 Papias (the mediteval), his Elementa- 
 rium, p. 273 
 
 Paschal controversy, p. 331, 343 
 
 Passalorhynchitffi, p. 32 
 
 Paul (St) ; chronology of his early life, 
 ii. I, p. 124; his qualifications and 
 conversion, p. 302 sq. ; date of his apo- 
 stolic GOTH mission, i. 1, p. 98, 124; 
 visit to Arabia, p. 87 sq. ; at Damas- 
 cus, i. 17, 18, p. 89; first visit to Je- 
 rusalem, p. 91 sq., i. 21, 22; first 
 missionary journey, p. 304sq.j third 
 visit to Jerusalem, ii. i sq. (passim), 
 123 sq. (passim), 305 sq. ; confiict 
 with St Peter at Antioch, ii. 11 sq., 
 p. 128 sq., p. 354 sq.; preaching 
 in Galatia, p. 22 sq. (passim), 41; 
 sojourn at Ephesus, p. 38 ; history 
 in the years 57, 58, p. 38 sq. ; his 
 personal appearance, p. 191 ; eye- 
 sight, vi. II, p. 191; thorn in the 
 flesh, p. 23, 186 sq. (passim), iv. 13 
 sq. ; on the support of the ministry, 
 vi. 6; on €l8o)\66vTa, p. 308 sq.; re- 
 lation to the Apostles of the circum- 
 cision, p. 57, 91 sq., 126 sq., 292 sq. 
 
 (passiiii), 350 sq. (passim), ii. i sq. 
 (passim), (see James, Peter, John); 
 relations to his countrymen, p. 346 
 sq. ; accounts of him in the Acts, p. 
 346 ; in the Test. xii. Pair. p. 3 19, 32 1 ; 
 attacks of Judaizers on, i. 10, p.27sq. 
 (see Judaizers, Clementine Homilies); 
 his teaching compared with Philo, p. 
 163, 199; with rabbinical writers, p. 
 163; on the law (see Law); his use of 
 metaphors, ii. 20, iv. 19, vi. 8 
 
 Paul (St), Epistles of; order in differ- 
 ent canons, p. 36 sq. ; four chronolo- 
 gical groups of, p. 43 ; postscripts to, 
 vi. II ; partial reception of, p. 345 ; 
 questioned by modern critics, p. 347 
 
 Pauli Prsedicatio, p. 353 
 
 Pelagius, his commentary on St Paul, 
 p. 233 ; on the Lord's brethren, p. 288 
 
 Pella, Church of, p. 313 sq., 316: see 
 Ariston 
 
 perfect, uses of, ii. 7, iii. 18, iv. 23, v. 14 
 
 Pessinus, p. 6, 8, 10, 20, 21, 34, v. 12 
 
 Peter (St), his vision, and its effects, ii. 
 12, 14, p. 355 ; at Antioch, ii. 11 sq., 
 p. I28sq., 354sq., 356; at Kome, p. 
 337 s*!-. 353; ^s character, p. 129, 
 
 355 sq. ; how regarded by St Paul, 
 p. 351 ; how represented by the Cle- 
 mentines, ii. II, 13, p. 324, 327 sq., 
 352; by Basilides, etc. p. 353; cou- 
 pled with St Paul in early writers, 
 p. 358; writings ascribed to, p. 353 
 
 Peter (St), ist Epistle of; to whom writ- 
 ten, p. 26; its character, etc., p. 
 
 356 sq. ; its resemblance to St Paul, 
 
 P- 355 si- 
 Peter, Gospel of ; its docetism; p. 274 
 sq.; account of the Lord's brethren 
 in, ib. 
 Peter, Preaching of ; tradition pre- 
 served by, p. 127 ; influence of a pas- 
 sage in, iv. 3; not Ebionite, p. 353 
 Philip the deacon ; his work, p. 298 sq. ; 
 
 confused with the Apostle, p. 100 
 philology, advanced by Christian mis- 
 sions, p. 243 
 Philo, his doctrine of faith, p. 159 sq. ; 
 allegory of Abraham, p. i6osq. ; of 
 Hagar and Sarah, p. 198 sq. ; on the 
 
INDEX. 
 
 383 
 
 name of Hagar, p. 197 ; on those of 
 
 Isaac and Ishmael, p. 199 
 Photius, his commentary on St Paul, 
 
 p. 231 
 Polycarp, the Epistle of, p. 59, iv. 26 ; 
 
 at Eome, p. 343 
 Polycrates (of Ephesus), his date and 
 
 style, p. 362 ; traditions preserved 
 
 by, p. 343» 362 sq. 
 Prausus, p. 248 
 Primasius, his commentary on St Paul, 
 
 P- 234 
 proselytes, different classes of, p. 296 
 Protevangelium, on the Lord's bre- 
 thren, p. 275, 281 
 iraB'^fiaTa, iTriBv/xlaL, v. 24 
 TraidayctrySs, iii. 24 
 iraidia-Ki], iv. 22 
 Trapd, dtrd, i. 12 
 •jrapddoais, i. 14 
 vapa\afjL^dv€LVj i. 12 
 ■TrapaTTjpeTv, iv. 10 
 irapeliraKTOs, irapeKreKdetv, ii. 4 
 •Trdo-xeiv, iii. 4 
 
 iretdcij, i. 10; ir^woida els (^7r£), v. 10 
 7retpa<rfM6s, iv. 4 
 ireurfMovq, V. 8 
 Trepij viripf i. 4 
 'ir€pt(TffOT4p(i)Sy i. 14 
 
 7repir^fjLVE<rdatf ol Trepirefj.vbfxevoiy ''^^ 13 
 Tre/jtro/iiJ, ol ^k Treptro/Aijs, ii. 12 
 TriraXov, p. 362, 366 
 irio-Te^ecv, constructions with, ii. 16 ; 
 
 Tria-Te^eadai tl, ii. 7 
 iriffTis, i. 23, iii. 23, V. 22, p. 152 sq. 
 
 (passim) 
 irta-Tds, p. 156 sq. 
 irK'qpovv, V. 14 
 
 irKr^posfxa, t6 it. toO xP^^ov^ iv. 4 
 TTor^, meaning, ii. 6; displaced, i. 13, 23 
 irpavTTjs {irpaoT7}s), V. 23 
 irpoypd^eiv J iii. i 
 TTpodeafxia, iv. 2 
 TrpoKoXeurdat, v. 26 
 irpo\a/j.^dvetv f vi. i 
 TTpos, ii. 14 
 
 TrpoffavaHdeffdaL, i. 16, ii. 6 
 Trpoffumov "KapL^dveiv, ii. 6 
 irpoTepov, rb wp., iv. 13 
 TrpwTOTOKOS, p. 271 
 
 ^apfjLaKela, v. 20 
 <f>dov€7v (with accus.), v. 26 
 ^dovoSj ^Xos, V. 21 
 tpdopdj vi. 8 
 (popHov^ ^dpoSf vi. 5 
 <f>p€vairaTdv, vi. 3 
 
 Eabanus Maurus, his commentary on 
 
 St Paul, p. 236 
 regeneration, vi. 15 
 Revelation, ii. 24 commented on, p. 
 
 309 
 Romans, epistle to the ; when written, 
 p. 40 ; resemblance to Galatians, p. 
 45 sq. (passim) ; contrast to Galatians, 
 
 P-349 
 Romans xvi. 7 commented on, p. g6 
 Rome, Church of; early history, p. 335 
 sq. ; succession of bishops, p. 332; 
 recognition of St Peter and St Paul 
 by, p. 358 
 Rufinus, his translation of Eusebius, 
 p. 332 ; of the Clementine Recogni- 
 tions, p. 327, 330 
 
 Salome, p. 264 
 
 Samaritans, how regarded by the Jews, 
 
 p. 299 ; conversion of, ih. 
 Sarah (Sarai), meaning of the word, 
 
 p. 198; typifies Jerusalem, iv. 27: 
 
 see also Hagar 
 Scripture and scriptures, iii. 22 
 Sedulius, his commentary on Paul, p. 
 
 235 
 Serapion, on the Gospel of Peter, p. 
 
 Seres, mythical character of, p. 324 sq. 
 Seven, appointment of the, p. 297 
 Seventy, the; called apostles, p. 100 
 Severianus, his conunentary on Gala- 
 tians, p. 229 ; (?) on Hagar, p. 193 
 Silas, an apostle (?) p. 96 
 Simon or Symeon, different persons 
 called, p. 257 sq., 266; a common 
 name, p. 268 sq. 
 Sinai, St Paul at, p. 88 ; allegorical 
 
 meaning of, iv. 25: see Hagar 
 spirit and the Spirit, v. 5, 17 
 stadium, St Paul's metaphor of the, ii. 
 2, V. 7 
 
384 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Stephanus Gobarus, on Hegesippus, p. 
 
 334 
 Stephen (St), influence and work of, p. 
 
 298, 301 
 Symeon, son of Clopas, p. 266 sq., 276 
 
 sq. ; his martyrdom , p. 3 1 5 : see Simon 
 Syriac translations ; of the Clementines, 
 
 P- 3^7' 330 ; of Ignatius, p. 339; of 
 
 Euaebius, see Eusebius 
 ffKCLvdaXoVf V. 1 1 
 CKoKof^ p. 187 sq. 
 (Tir^pixara (plural), iii. 16 
 
 (TTiyixaTa, vi. 17 
 
 oTotxeta, iv. 3 
 
 (TTiiXot, usage and accent, ii. 9 
 
 uvyyevets, i. 14 
 
 (TvyKKeieiy els (i^tto), iii. 22 
 
 ffvv- superfluous [crvvriKLKubTTjs), i. 14 
 
 ffvvairdyeadat with dative, ii. 13 
 
 cvviardveLVj ii. 18 
 
 ffvvcTOiX^Xv ("X^tt)) i*^' 24, p. 230 
 
 Tavium, p. 6, 8, 10, 20 
 
 Tectosages (-gas), p. 6, 248 sq. 
 
 Tertullian, charges against Marcion, p. 
 122, 129; on the Lord's brethren, 
 P- 253, 258, 278 sq.; on St Paul's 
 infirmity, p. 186; on Praxeas, p. 344 
 
 Testaments of Twelve Patriarchs, p. 
 319 sq. 
 
 Teutobodiaci, p. 250 sq. 
 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia, his commen- 
 tary on St Paul's Epistles, p. 229 sq.; 
 error in the Greek text, p. 193; in 
 the Latin translation, p. 230; on St 
 Peter at Antioch, p. 132 ; on Hagar, 
 p. 194, 196 
 
 Theodoretjhis commentary on St Paul's 
 Epistles, p. 230; on St Peter at An- 
 tioch, p. 132 ; on Hagar, p. 194, 196; 
 on the Lord's brethren, p. 257, 390 
 
 Theophylact, his commentary on St 
 Paul's Epistles, p. 234; on the Lord's 
 brethren, p. 254, 290 
 
 Thomas (St), his name Judas, p. 263 
 
 thorn in the flesh ; see Paul (St) 
 
 Timotheus, circumcision of, ii. 3 ; not 
 an apostle, p. 96, 98 
 
 Timothy, Second Epistle to, iv. 10 com- 
 mented on, p- 3, 31 
 
 Titus, mission of, ii. i ; circumcision of, 
 etc. ii. 3, p. 122 
 
 Tolistobogii, p. 6, 249 
 
 Tolosa, p. 249 
 
 transcribers, fidelity of, ii. 12 
 
 Treveri, the name how written, p. 243 ; 
 were Celts, not Germans, p. 243 sq.; 
 later German settlement among, p. 
 
 245 
 Trocmi, p. 6, 249 ^ 
 
 TapdaireiVf i. 7, v. 10 
 Tax^ios, p. 41, i. 6 
 T^Kva {viol) GeoO, iii. 26 
 T€Kvia, iv. 19 
 Tpix^LVf see stadium 
 Bvfioi (plural), v. 20 
 
 Versions, testimony respecting the 
 Lord'Bbrethren,p.266, 275sq. ; Itala, 
 p. r22 
 
 Victor of Rome, p. 335 sq., 343 
 
 Victorinus the philosopher, his com- 
 mentary on St Paul, p. 231 ; on the 
 date of Galatians, p. 36 ; on the Lord's 
 brethren, p. 284 ; he mistakes the 
 Latin version, p. 90 
 
 Victorinus Petavionensis, on the Lord's 
 brethren, p. 258, 282 
 
 vlo&effiat iv. 5 
 
 viol GeoO, iii. 26 
 
 virdpx^i-v, ii. 14 
 
 virip, irepi, i. 4 
 
 vtroa-TiWeiv, ii. 12 
 
 Walafredus Strabo, his commentary, 
 
 p. 236 
 Western Services, testimony respecting 
 
 the Jameses, p. 289 
 
 Zealots, i. 14 
 f^Xos, v. 20, 21 
 trjXoOv, iv. 17 
 ^T/XoiTiJy, i. 14 
 
 CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. & SONS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
m 
 
 ^r 
 
 ^;KV ^J 
 
 , '"^H^^^'l 
 
 ■■Sill 
 
 ■i*