For those lead astray by false teachers

A. The Character and Theme of the Epistle.
B. Analysis.
C. Its Canonicity.
D. The Identity of the Galatians and of the Churches to which the Epistle was addressed.
E. St. Paul's Attitude towards the Law.
F. His Rebuke of St. Peter.
G. The Date of the Epistle.
H. The Vocabulary and the Latin Text.
J. The Theological Teaching.
K. Bibliography.

A. The Character and Theme of the Epistle.

The Churches of Galatia had, shortly after the Apostle's evangelization of them, been seduced into accepting circumcision as a necessary introduction to the Gospel.[1] The false teachers who had induced them to do this had evidently insisted that St. Paul had no authority save what he derived from the Apostles at Jerusalem, and that he had presumably misunderstood his commission. To this the Apostle answers that his Gospel is from God,[2] and that he did not, on his conversion, go to Jerusalem. He only went there three years later to see Peter,[3] and he was unknown by face to the Churches of Judaea.[4] Moreover, when he went there fourteen years after his conversion, he did so according to revelation,[5] to communicate to them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles.[6] The authorities at Jerusalem did not think it necessary to circumcise Titus, who was with him, though false brethren did try to insist on this.[7] On the contrary, those who seemed to be something endorsed his commission to the Gentiles, only asking for alms for the poor of Jerusalem.[8] Nay more, he withstood Peter to the face on this very question of accommodation to the prejudices of the converts from Judaism, 2:11-16.[9]

It would be difficult to set forth the theme of this Epistle better than St. Jerome has done:

"Before setting forth in compendious fashion the argument of this Epistle, I must warn you first that this Epistle and that to the Romans treat of the same matters. There is, however, this difference between them, that in writing to the Romans his thought is deeper and he uses more profound arguments; in writing to the Galatians he is writing to people whom he addresses later on as 'O foolish Galatians!' and to whom he also says 'Are ye then so foolish . . . ?'; that is, he so orders his words to them as rather to blame them than teach them; and, so that even 'foolish people' may understand him, he clothes simple ideas in simple speech; since reasoning did not avail with them, he tries to recall them by authoritative pronouncements. There is hardly any address of the Apostle, whether it be in Epistles or 'as present' in the flesh, in which he does not labor to show that the burdens of the old Law are now laid aside, and that all those things which preceded as types and figures—for example, the rest on the Sabbath day, the mutilation of circumcision, the series of monthly observations and recurring three feasts of the year, the scrupulous nicety about kinds of meats, and the daily cleansings which only called for more cleansings—all these have, by the grace of the Gospel, suddenly ceased and this Gospel grace is attained, not by the blood of victims, but by the faith of the believing soul. Elsewhere, indeed, he treats of these things only in part, as it were, and because the question occurred to him when treating of something else; it is an aside, and is only summarily discussed. But in these two Epistles he treats expressly of the passing of the old dispensation and the entrance of the new.

"There is, however, this peculiar feature of the Epistle to the Galatians, that here the Apostle is not writing to people who have come from Judaism to believe in Christ and who consequently hold that they have to observe the ceremonies handed down by their fathers. On the contrary, he is speaking to people who from heathenism have passed to the Gospel, and who yet have fallen back again because frightened by the authority of some who asserted that Peter and James and all the Churches of Judaea had combined the Gospel of Christ with the old Law. These same men had asserted that Paul himself preached one thing to the Jews and another to the heathen; they had urged, too, that it was idle for the Galatians to believe in the Crucified One while affecting to neglect what the princes of the Apostles observed.

"Consequently the Apostle cautiously steers a mid-course between the two parties he refuses to betray the Gospel grace on the ground that he is overwhelmed by the weighty authority of those greater than he; yet neither does he impugn those who have gone before him when he asserts the efficacy of grace; he approaches the question indirectly, he almost seems to come to it by some subterranean passage. Thus he is able to teach Peter how, while working for the people of the circumcision entrusted to him, he may not lead them to refuse to believe in the Cross through being scandalized at it owing to his own sudden departure from his old mode of life; and for himself—to whom the preaching to the heathen had been entrusted—he maintains that it is right to defend as the truth what Peter had pretended was only a dispensation. That scoundrel Porphyrius never understood this, and hence maintained in the first volume of his work against me that Peter was blamed by Paul because he really did not proceed straightforwardly in preaching the Gospel; he tried to make Peter guilty of error and Paul of impertinence, and to make a lie out of a piece of agreed fiction by supposing that the princes of the Churches were really in disagreement."[10]

This Epistle stands apart from all the rest of St. Paul's letters by reason of its intensely personal character. As a revelation of the Apostle's character it is kin to the Second Epistle to the Corinthians and to Philemon; for precision in dogmatic teaching it ranks with that to the Romans. It has been well described as "written at a white heat."[11] For the Apostle is deeply moved by the fact that his converts of Galatia have been seduced by representatives of the Judaizing faction at Jerusalem to adopt the Mosaic Law as though it were necessary for salvation. He is distressed at their fickleness, 1:6, 3:1; he is indignant at the behavior of these Judaizers, 1:8-9, 5:12, 6:12-13; he is well aware of the personal devotion of the Galatians to himself, 4:15, and he shows at every turn how strong are his own feelings in their regard, 4:19-20, 5:10. The letter is plainly a recapitulation of what had been the unvarying theme of his teaching when amongst them: the promise of salvation was made to Abraham, i.e. long anterior to the giving of the Mosaic Law; it was made to Abraham and to his children, not, that is, to those who should keep the Law—which is to be given so much later—but to those who should prove themselves children of Abraham by believing as he did, 3:3, 16-18, 29. This "sonship" of Abraham was to receive its fulfillment in fellowship with Christ, whereby we were to become His co-heirs and thus sons of God, 3:29, 4:5-7, 31. To regard the Law as necessary for salvation after the coming of Christ was equivalent to a denial of Him, 2:21, 5:2-3.

In order to drive home his doctrine the Apostle writes in the name of "all the brethren who are with me," 1:2; it is an authoritative declaration in the name of the Church. Doubtless those who seduced the Galatians have traversed his apostolic authority and urged that he was not really one of the Twelve; he is therefore compelled to vindicate his apostolic rights, 1:12, 2:21, and show that though he was not "called" with the original Twelve, yet his call was divine; moreover, his teaching had been fully endorsed by the Apostles whom all recognized. Neither must they imagine that he has "two Gospels," one when he is present with them, another when absent; for the Gospel is "one" and unalterable, 1:6-11.

The Apostle's earnestness in this Epistle appears in its freedom from the digressions which are so marked a feature of most of his letters; here he never quits the question at issue. Galatians differs, too, from the rest of St. Paul's Epistles in that he did not in this case employ an amanuensis, but wrote it all with his own hand, or, if this is a doubtful interpretation of 6:11,[12] that he wrote at least the concluding verses himself. The entire absence of the customary "salutations" is remarkable, for the Apostle must have known practically all the members of those Churches by name; perhaps his self-restraint was meant as an indication of sternness.

B. Analysis of the Epistle.

A. 1:1-10. INTRODUCTION:

1:1-10. I marvel that you are so soon removed from Him that called you into the Gospel of Christ, unto another Gospel!

B. 1:11-to-2:21. HIS APOLOGIA OR DEFENSE OF HIS GOSPEL.

1:11-12. The Gospel which he preached was not from man, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. 1:13-to-2:21. Proofs of this:

(a) The story of his conversion, 1:13-16.
(b) On that occasion he had no communication with the Apostles, 1:17-24.
(c) Nor again when he went up to Jerusalem fourteen years later, 2:1-10.
(d) Indeed, he withstood Cephas to the face on this very question of subservience to the Mosaic Law which has had such a fascination for the Galatians, 2:11-21.

C. 3:1-to-5:13a. HE CONTRASTS THE LAW OF BONDAGE AND THE SPIRIT OF FREEDOM.

(a) 3:1-6. He adjures them to reflect on what they have done: Did ye receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by the hearing of faith?
(b) 3:6-18. The promises came to Abraham by promise, not as a reward for works: the just man liveth by faith; and this promise was not annulled by the coming of the Law.
(c) 3:19-29. What, then, is the function of the Law? It is our pedagogue into Christ.
(d) 4:1-10. Under the Law we were children, νήπιοι; under Christ we are sons, ὑιοί, of adoption.
(e) 4:11-20. He makes a personal appeal to them: they had received him so well in spite of his infirmities.
(f) 4:21-31. The children of Agar and Sara are types respectively of the bond and the free, of the material and the spiritual Jerusalem: We are not the children of the bondwoman, but of the free—by the freedom wherewith Christ hath made us free.
(g) 5:1-13a. If they take up circumcision—the yoke of the Law—they will fall back into servitude, whereas they have been called unto liberty.

D. 5:13b-to-6:10. MORAL APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING.

(a) 5:13b-26. This law of liberty is that of mutual charity; the life of the Spirit as opposed to that of the flesh. He contrasts the works of the flesh with the works of the Spirit.
(b) 6:1-10. Practical charity consists in mutual instruction and in bearing one another's burdens.

E. 6:11-18. CONCLUSION:

6:11-18. See what a letter I have written to you with mine own hands! Those who counsel circumcision do so for their own glory; the Apostle glories in nought save the Cross of Christ.

C. Canonicity.

Doubt has never been thrown on the authenticity and canonicity of this Epistle.

The Apostolic Fathers have several allusions to it; compare, for example, St. Clement, I Cor. v. with Ga 2:8; I Cor. xlix. and Ga 1:4. St. Ignatius, Philadel. i. and Ga 1:1; Magnes. viii. x. and Ga 1:13, 2:14. St. Polycarp, Phil. iii. and Ga 4:26; v. and Ga 6:7; also xiii., where Ga 1:1 is quoted. It is given in the Fragment of Muratori, and Tertullian undertook the defense of the Epistle against Marcion's use of it, Adv. Marcionem, V. ii-v, P.L. II. 470-482.

D. The Identity of the Galatians and of the Churches to which St. Paul wrote.

The Galatians were Gaulish immigrants into Asia Minor who had been invited thither by Nicomedes, king of Bithynia, about 278 B.C. They were allies of Mithridates I, king of Pontus, though about 66 B.C. we find them in alliance with Rome against the Mithridates who then ruled. The natives of the district were Phrygians who probably outnumbered the invading Gauls. These latter consisted of three tribes, the Tolistobogii, the Trocmi and the Tectosages. According to St. Jerome [13] they had, besides Greek, "which the entire East makes use of," a language of their own, "nearly allied to that of the Treviri." Jerome also quotes [14] Lactantius ad Probum—a lost work—as saying that "in the Province of Galatia to which the Gauls came they mingled with the Greeks, so that their territory was first called Gallo-Graecia, and afterwards Galatia.” He also quotes Varro as saying that they were trilingual, since they spoke Greek, Latin, and the Gallic language.[15] St. Jerome supposes that the recipients of the Epistle to the Galatians were the inhabitants of the northern district, and he speaks of "Ancyra, the metropolis of Galatia," as still torn by factions.[16]

In 189 B.C. Manlius Vulso undertook a punitive expedition against these Gaulish immigrants, and sold great numbers of them into slavery. Some thirty years later we find the Galatians conquering a portion of Lycaonia; in 88 B.C. they league themselves with the Romans in the latter's war against Mithridates, king of Pontus. In 39 B.C. Antony made Amyntas king of Pisidia, and in 36 he received in addition "Galatia proper, Isauria, part of Pamphylia, and Western Cilicia, as well as the Lycaonian plain between his Pisidian and Galatian dominions." This meant that Antioch, Iconium and Lystra came at that date to be included in "Galatia." When Amyntas died in 25 B.C. his kingdom was broken up into the Provinces of Galatia and Pamphylia; in A.D. 41 Derbe was also included in this Roman Province.

Which were the Churches of Galatia? Until recent years it was always supposed that the Galatians to whom the Epistle was addressed were the inhabitants of the northern district in which lie the towns Ptavium, Pessinus, and Ancyra. And it was presumed that at some time in the course of his second missionary journey St. Paul evangelized that northern district. But there are certain patent difficulties attaching to this view.

1. St. Luke is silent regarding any such journey.[17]
2. These towns are never mentioned in the N.T.
3. It is difficult to assign a place for mission work in them during the course of the second journey.
4. It is remarkable, too, that Galatia is nowhere mentioned in Acts; for Acts 16:6 does not—it is maintained—really speak of the country of Galatia, but of the Galatic region.

Now Galatia and the Galatic region are not the same thing. The former denotes the geographical district occupied by the Galatians, the latter the Roman Province of Galatia, which extended much further south than did the district, for it reached as far as the northern border of the Roman Province of Pamphylia. This twofold division, viz. the geographical and the political, led to the use of a double nomenclature in speaking of the districts of Asia Minor: the local nomenclature whereby the various peoples were distinguished, e.g. Phrygia, Galatia, Pisidia, Lycaonia, Mysia, Lydia, Caria, etc.; and the Roman nomenclature according to the Roman Provinces, e.g. Asia, Lycia, Pamphylia, Bithynia, Galatia, Cappadocia. These nomenclatures overlapped, so that we have Asian as well as Galatic Phrygia. Now St. Paul apparently followed the line of the Roman road, and by preference preached in Roman districts. We have an instance of this in his visit to Lystra and Derbe rather than to Barada and Laranda which were bigger cities but not Romanized, Acts 14:6; for Lycaonia fell into two well-defined portions: the Roman, i.e. that portion of it which coincided with the Province of Galatia, and was in consequence known as Galatic Lycaonia, and that portion which was under the sway of Antiochus, and was known as Antiochian Lycaonia. Thus the people dwelling in the Roman portion would speak of that portion which fell under Antiochus as the Antiochian territory or "region"; while those dwelling in this latter portion would speak of the portion under the Romans as the Galatic region, i.e. that portion of Lycaonia which fell under the Roman Province of Galatia.

A study of the expressions used in 16:1-8 may perhaps serve to corroborate the view here suggested, viz. that the Epistle is addressed to Churches in the Province of Galatia as distinct from the district of that name, with only a portion of which did it coincide, and that consequently the recipients of the Epistle were the Churches so familiar to us from Acts 14-16, and not the Churches of Ancyra, Ptavium, etc., with which Acts in no way connects the Apostle.

In chapter 16, then, Paul and Barnabas come to Derbe and Lystra from the East, not from the West, as in 14:6. There is no question of their founding Churches on this occasion—they simply "pass through" (16:4-6); verse 6 continues: "And when they had passed through Phrygia and the country of Galatia, they were forbidden by the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia. And when they were come into Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not." A correction is demanded in the italicized words of ver. 6: we should—so it is maintained—read with the best MSS. the Phrygo-Galatic region; moreover, in ver. 7, "over against Mysia." is the correct rendering of κατὰ την Μυσίαν. The term "Asia" in verse 6 of course stands for the Roman Province of "Asia," which comprised Mysia, Caria, and Lydia. If we retain the translation Phrygia and the country of Galatia, we shall have to suppose that Paul and Barnabas went to the West from Iconium into the geographical district known as Phrygia, and that they then turned north-east into the geographical district of Galatia, where St. Paul proceeded—according to the traditional or the "North Galatian" theory—to establish the Churches of Galatia, to which he afterwards addressed his Epistle. But the whole tenor of the passage shows that this journey was a hasty one, and that its objective—in the intention of the Holy Spirit—was Europe and Philippi, though Paul and Barnabas failed to see this at first. It is hard, then, to find time on this second journey for the foundation of these North Galatian Churches. Moreover, the expression over against Mysia is incompatible with an approach to that district from the north-east. For the preposition κάτα with the accusative denotes rather approach to an obstacle stretched across the route, and this would only have been the case if the missioners came from the neighborhood of Antioch of Pisidia, cf. κατὰ την Μυσίαν. (Acts 27:7). In full accord with this the next verse has: "And when they had passed along the border of Mysia," 5% Thu Mvalav. Now, according to the explanations given above, the Phrygo-Galatic region should signify that portion of Phrygia which coincided with part of the Roman Province of Galatia, and, coming from Iconium, as they did, the missioners would actually be in Phrygia and also in the Province of Galatia. When St. Paul commenced his third missionary journey we are told (Acts 18:23) that "he went through the country of Galatia and Phrygia." That these two names cannot here stand for the local geographical divisions will be evident from a glance at the map—for such a journey would have been impossible to one coming from the East; how could he get to the "district" of Galatia? Nor can we render it "the Galatic Province and Phrygia," since so hybrid a nomenclature—half Roman and half local—is without parallel. But St. Paul's starting-point on this occasion was Derbe which is not in Phrygia, whereas Iconium—the starting-point in 16:6—was in Phrygia. Hence in 16:6 he uses the expression "Phrygo-Galatic," in 18:23 "Galatico-Phrygian"; for Derbe, while not in Phrygia, was yet in the Province of Galatia.

If appeal is made to Acts 19:1 as favoring the North Galatian theory—since we are there told that Paul, having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus may be sufficient to reply that these "upper coasts" merely signify the route to Ephesus on the hill crest above the valley of the Lycus and the Meander.

The only explanation which would favor the North Galatian theory is that St. Paul founded these Churches in the course of his first missionary journey. In fact, it seems probable from Ga 3:14 that sickness compelled him on that occasion to neglect the low-lying Pamphylia and to proceed at once to the higher-lying Pisidia; but have we any reason for supposing that at this time he pressed forward northwards and evangelized the territory of the Galatians? The journey would have been a long one and an arduous one; moreover, we should have to account for St. Luke’s complete silence regarding it.

The above is a condensed account of the theory which Ramsay has made famous.[18] Practically every point in his argument has been controverted, and though his theory was welcomed on its first appearance, the pendulum seems now inclined to swing round to the older view that the Epistle really was directed to the Churches situated in North Galatia. The weakest point in his argument seems to be the rendering "Phrygo-Galatic region," also the endeavor to read an official meaning into the word χώρα as given above. It is possible that in his anxiety to establish his theory he has unduly forced certain arguments, and thus apparently weakened his case. But even granting this, it must, we think, be conceded that, on the whole, the theory that our Epistle was addressed to the Churches of South Galatia is the more acceptable one, since it seems to square with the greater number of factors in the case.

Since, however, this is strenuously denied by recent upholders of the older North Galatian theory it is but just to examine their arguments. To begin with: Ramsay argues that St. Paul would, as a Roman citizen, be inclined to use rather the official Roman terminology; in other words, by Galatia he would mean the Roman Province rather than the original district in the north colonized by the Gauls. Now the Apostle refers to ten such districts; that is, countries which, besides their original local denomination, were also Roman Provinces. These are Achaia, Arabia, Asia, Cilicia, Dalmatia, Illyricum, Judaea, Macedonia, Spain, Syria, and Galatia. It is maintained that only in the case of Asia does St. Paul certainly refer to the Province, and not to the geographical district; he may do so in the case of Macedonia and Illyricum, and—with less probability—in the case of Achaia. We must, then, regard St. Paul's usage as quite indecisive.[19] But Tacitus clearly refers to the Province "Galatia,"[20] so, too, do Pliny [21] and Ptolemy the geographer.[22] Strabo is quoted as using the term in strictly geographical sense, i.e. by "Galatia" and the "Galatians" he means the district and its inhabitants as distinct from those added later: "The Galatians," he says, "received by a voluntary concession the present Galatia, or Gallo-Graecia as it is called. . . . At present the Romans possess this as well as all the country which was subject to Amyntas, and have reduced it to one Province." In other words, Strabo seems expressly to exclude the term "Galatia" from those additions which embraced St. Paul's cities of Antioch, Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium. This, however, seems perfectly intelligible when we reflect that Strabo only died the year after these districts were erected into a Province. The same applies to his concluding remarks about Caesar's creation of the "Consular government" of "Asia within the Halys and the Taurus, except the Galatians and the nations under Amyntas."[23] The same seems to be the case with St. Peter's opening words, "To the sojourners in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Pamphylia," where it is not easy to see how Mr. Williams can acknowledge that these names refer to Provinces, and yet in the same breath argue that "the position of Galatia (in this list) between Pontus and Cappadocia suggests that only the northern, or northeastern, part of it was meant by St. Peter for while that is perfectly true, it does not alter the fact that St. Peter is referring to the Province of Galatia, though more especially to the northern and ancient portion of it.

Up to the present there seem to be only three inscriptions which give us any clue as to the nomenclature which would be used when speaking of the inhabitants of the southern portion, namely—to repeat—of that portion which was not originally territory occupied by the Galatians. The first is from Iconium, and practically contemporary with St. Paul's missionary life, since it is referred either to the time of Claudius or of Nero; in it an official's district is spoken of as Γαλατικης ἐπαρχείας, and ἐπαρχεία is rendered "Provincia" in Acts 23:34 and 25:1, so, too, by Polybius.[24] The second is from Antioch of Pisidia: Sospes, a governor of Galatia, is spoken of as being over "provinc. Gal. Pisid. Phryg." It is true, of course, as Mr. Williams notes, that these are official or quasi-official inscriptions, and that, perhaps, we should not be justified in arguing from them to popular usage. But is it precisely popular usage that we are in search of? We want to know what terms a Roman citizen like St. Paul would employ; it seems undeniable that he thought along the lines of Roman domination. The third inscription hails from Apollonia, in the extreme West of the Province of Galatia, about fifty miles from Antioch of Pisidia. A citizen of Antioch here speaks of his city as his "fatherland of the Galatians"; in other words, he speaks of what we term South Galatia as inhabited by "Galatians," just as—according to the "South Galatian" theory—St. Paul does in Galatians 3:1.

We find it hard to understand how Mr. Williams, after a careful study of this evidence, concludes by saying that "unless St. Paul was, for some special reason, likely to use official terminology, he would more probably use the terms in their more popular and narrow meaning, viz. of North Galatia, as we say, and its inhabitants."

We pointed out above that one of the weak spots in Ramsay’s arguments was his insistence on the rendering "Phrygo-Galatic" region in Acts 16:6. The Textus receptus reads τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ τὴν Γαλατικὴν χώραν, but authority for the second τὴν is wanting.[25] Now is it true that Φρυγίαν is a substantive, and that consequently we have an impossible combination in "Phrygo-Galatic"? This is always roundly asserted, yet without apparent justification, for the adjective is Φρύγιος.[26] If the second definite article really formed part of the text we could, and perhaps should, render "Phrygia and the Galatic district"; but the article is by common consent omitted, and we seem shut up to the alternatives, "Phrygo-Galatic," or, as Mr. Williams translates it, "Phrygia and (some) Galatic district," i.e. part of a country belonging to Galatia. But is this latter alternative really acceptable?

E. St. Paul's Attitude towards the Law.

In the Epistle to the Galatians St. Paul lays down that (a) the Law was superadded to the promise which it did not annul, 3:17; (b) that it only condemns those who transgress it, 3:19; (c) that it was only temporary, 3:24-25; (d) that it did not justify of itself, 2:16, 19, 21; (e) that it was a contract, bilateral and conditional, 3:12. (f) that it was mediately delivered, in contrast to the promise which was delivered immediately by God Himself, 3:19—this may serve to explain the enigmatical expression: Now a mediator is not of one, but God is One, 3:20, viz. that the New Covenant is not a contract, but a free gift, and is thus immediate to the recipient of faith, and not mediate—as was the Law; (g) it is in this sense that the Apostle is able to speak of the weak and beggarly elements, 4:9, cf. 4:3, for in the Law there were physical elements, days, months, times, and years, 4:10; there was also rudimentary moral instruction in the elements of revealed religion.[27]

F. St. Paul's rebuke to St. Peter, Ga 2:1-17.

Peter had eaten without scruple with the Gentile Christians at Antioch. But "they of the circumcision" now dissuaded him from doing so, and Barnabas also was induced to follow their lead. But St. Paul pointed out that if Peter accommodated himself to the Gentiles he could not logically compel the Gentiles to Judaize. It is true, he says, that we are Jews, and not sinners like the Gentiles; but we realize as Christians that we are not justified from our sins by the Law, but by grace. If, then, we insist on circumcision as being a necessity, that is tantamount to saying that grace is insufficient for our justification, and that we must have in addition the works of the Law.

St. Peter’s behavior involved no question of false doctrine; it was rather a question of human respect, fearing them who were of the circumcision. The case of Cornelius had, of course, shown St. Peter that the Gentiles were to be received. But did it follow that they were not to be circumcised? Was it clear that the whole Jewish Law was abrogated in its details, and that Jews could communicate freely with Gentiles simply because both were Christians? We find St. James, for instance, particularly careful not to offend the prejudices of those Jews who had become Christians, cf. Acts 15:20-21, 21:18-26. Further, St. Peter's behavior has nothing whatever to do with the Decree of the Council of Jerusalem which simply regularized the position of the uncircumcised Gentile Christians; it was silent about the relations which were to subsist between the Jewish and Gentile Christians.[28]

This episode gave rise to one of the most interesting minor controversies which marked the opening of the fifth century. Its importance for us lies in the exegetical principles invoked by the disputants. In what precisely consisted the "dissimulation"?

St. Paul says that he withstood St. Peter to the face "because he was to be blamed," inasmuch as, whereas he had hitherto eaten openly with Gentiles, he was now led by fear of the Judaizers to refuse to do so, "fearing them who were of the circumcision." "To his dissimulation," adds the Apostle, "the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation." St. Jerome maintained that the whole scene was a "dissimulation," Peter was not "to be blamed" by Paul, but solely by those brethren whom he had offended by withdrawing from their table; the scene, therefore, was meant to appease both parties, viz. those who believed in circumcision—for they could follow Peter, and those who repudiated circumcision—for they could follow Paul. St. Jerome's reasons for holding this view are briefly that Paul could not have withstood Peter, who was his senior, and further that Paul, by circumcising Timothy and shaving his head at Cenchre, was guilty of the same obsequiousness towards Jewish prejudices. Some, he says, try to avoid the dilemma by saying that "Cephas" is not the Apostle Peter, but one of the Seventy disciples,[29] and, moreover, that Acts is silent concerning the whole affair. But St. Jerome replies that Cephas and Peter are but Aramaic and Greek forms of the same name; that he knows of no other Cephas than the one who is termed at one time "Cephas," at another "Peter"; and finally, that St. Luke was not bound to mention every event he knew of.[30]

St. Chrysostom's explanation is fundamentally the same as that of St. Jerome. It could not, he urges, have really been a dispute, for this they would have had in private. Therefore "to his face," κατὰ πρόσωπον, must be a figure of speech, and the equivalent of "in appearance," σχημα. The explanation, then, is that Peter withdrew from the table of the uncircumcised converts for two reasons: lest he should offend the Jewish converts, and in order to give St. Paul an occasion for correcting him. This correction was necessitated, not because St. Peter was in the wrong, but because those who saw him eat with Jews might fancy he did so out of fear of St. Paul. The latter, of course, had no such feeling. "Paul, then, rebukes, and Peter bears with it; so that while the master is silent under rebuke his disciples may be the more easily induced to put aside their suspicion. . . . Peter, then, joins Paul in this pretense, συνυποκρινεται, as though were really in fault, so that owing to this rebuke they might be corrected. . . . Thus, by his silence Peter corrected their false suspicions; he put up with the imputation of dissimulation so as, by a real dissimulation, to free the Jews."[31]

This view was strenuously combated by St. Augustine, who pointed out that it made Scripture untruthful.[32] St. Jerome replied that his view was derived from Origen,[33] and that it seemed to him compelling from the twofold consideration that (a) Peter knew from the conversion of Cornelius that the Gentiles were to be received into the Church, and (b) that St. Paul had done the same in the case of Timothy, and in shaving his own head at Cenchre. Finally, he endeavored to show that he and Augustine were really saying the same thing in different words.[34] But Augustine declined to accept this statement. The idea that the whole scene was fictitious was repellent to him, since it imperiled the whole truth of Scripture: "Non nunc inquiro quid fecerit, sed quid scripserit quaero."[35] "If Peter was doing what he had a right to do, then Paul lied when he said that Peter walked not uprightly unto the truth of the Gospel. . . . But if Paul wrote the truth, then it was true that Peter walked not rightly."[36] St. Augustine then shows that the cases of Timothy and the shaving of Paul's head are not parallel with this episode at Antioch;[37] he further points out that in St. Jerome's list of authorities for his view Apollinaris the Laodicean and Alexander are heretics, while Jerome himself acknowledges that there are errors in Origen and Didymus. Augustine's main exegetical point, however, is that the scene at Antioch took place either after or—as he himself at that date seems to have thought merely more probable—before the Council at Jerusalem. If after the Council, then it is to be noticed that whereas the Decrees forbade anyone to compel the Gentile converts to Judaize, they did not prohibit the Jewish converts from Judaizing. If before the Council, then it is not to be wondered at that St. Paul should urge St. Peter to uphold what he had already learnt from the case of Cornelius.[38] But Augustine really based his whole position on the irrefragable veracity of Scripture; again and again in the course of the controversy does he return to the principle that if the scene is fictitious, then we can no longer trust Scripture. It is certainly remarkable that St. Jerome nowhere takes up this point, while his marked descent from acrimony to an unusual suavity in the course of the correspondence seems to indicate that he felt that Augustine's position was really the sounder, though he never sang the palinodia for which St. Augustine called![39]

Tertullian repeatedly treats of this episode. He urges that Peter is rebuked for no question of doctrine, but of practical politics, and that in what he did he was blameworthy since he was led to do it through human respect. He further points out that in effect St. Paul did much the same as Peter when he made himself "all things to all men," and that Peter might have retorted to his rebuker that Paul himself had circumcised Timothy, the difference being, of course, that he did so in defiance of human respect. The statement that St. Paul actually circumcised Timothy is of interest, since it shows that Tertullian—as well as St. Irenaeus[40]—had in his text of Ga 2:5, "Ad horam cessimus subjectioni," and not, as it now stands, "Neque ad horam cessimus." Indeed, he roundly accuses Marcion of a "vitiatio" of the text by reading it with the negative "neque." This reading, i.e. without the negative, is important for the question of the date of the Epistle.[41]

G. The Date of the Epistle to the Galatians.

There exists what we may term a traditional view that St. Paul wrote to the Galatians in the course of his third missionary journey, and from Ephesus.[42] The Epistle would thus fall in line with those to the Romans and to the Corinthians. In assigning a date to this Epistle, however, the following points should be borne in mind:

1. Ga 1:6. The defection of the Galatians is described as "soon" after their conversion.
2. Ga 2:1-3. On his second visit to Jerusalem "those who seemed to be something," viz. the great Apostles, did not demand the circumcision of Titus, who was a Gentile Christian, but—
3. Ga 2:4-5. False brethren indeed did so.
4. Ga 2:6-10. The great Apostles endorsed Paul's mission to the "circumcision."
5. Ga 2:11-21. St. Paul withstood Cephas at Antioch on this very question of accommodation to the prejudices of Jewish Christians, who wished to uphold the demands of the Law as though it were still binding.

If we now turn to Acts we find the following noteworthy points:

1. Acts 13:14-14:23. St. Paul's first Galatian mission.
2. Acts 14:27. On his return he spent "no small time at Antioch."
3. Acts 15:1. The faction which demanded circumcision sends emissaries from Jerusalem to Antioch; Paul and Barnabas withstand them there; both sides agree to refer the case to the authorities at Jerusalem.
4. Acts 15:3-4. On their way they narrate to the Christians in Phoenicia, Samaria, and Jerusalem the marvel of the conversion of the Gentiles.
5. Acts 15:5. But in Jerusalem some Pharisees who had become Christians demand that these Gentile converts should submit to circumcision.
6. Acts 15:6. A Council is held on the matter.
7. Acts 15:7-11. After much disputing Peter answers the question by deciding in favor of liberty. It should be noted that his answer is but a résumé of the very words which St. Paul addressed to him at Antioch, Ga 2:11-21.

The following questions present themselves:

1. Was there time between St. Paul's departure from Galatia after his first mission and the holding of the Council at Jerusalem for the defection of the Galatians and for St. Paul's letter to them? That their defection was speedy is clear from Ga 1:6, I marvel that you are so soon removed. And Acts 14:27 shows us that he stayed no small time at Antioch. This would seem to indicate that between the close of the first missionary journey and the holding of the Council sufficient time had elapsed for the defection of the Galatians.
2. If the Epistle was written previous to the Council, then St. Peter’s visit to Antioch must have taken place during this interval; there seems no difficulty in this.
3. If the Epistle was subsequent to the Council, how comes it that in it there is no mention of those very Decrees of the Council which would have solved the whole difficulty?
4. Again, if the Epistle was subsequent to the Council, where are we to find a place for it ? For almost immediately after the Council St. Paul went in person to Galatia and delivered to them the apostolic Decrees, Acts 15:41.
5. If the defection of the Galatians took place after this second visit from the Apostle, then it cannot be described as soon.
6. Once more, is the action of the false brethren at Jerusa1em, Ga 2:4-5, conceivable after the Council?
7. Similarly, is the action of Peter at Antioch conceivable after the Council?

St. Augustine, as we have seen, sometimes shows himself merely inclined to the view that the rebuke administered to St. Peter by St. Paul preceded the Council at Jerusalem, but at another time he takes it for granted. Similarly, St. Paul's silence about the Decrees in his account of that scene seems to make it clear that the Epistle to the Galatians as well as the dispute preceded the Council. And this seems more consonant with the facts as depicted in Acts. For though, as Augustine points out, the Council only decided that no one was to compel the converts from heathenism to accept the Mosaic Law, yet it is hard to believe that St. Peter would have withdrawn from association with these converts from heathenism after his outspoken words at the Council; and it is also well-nigh incredible that, had that Council already taken place, St. Paul should have made no allusion to Decrees which were so directly in favor of his view. If, then, the Epistle antedated the Council, we should have to refer it to the period between the close of the first missionary journey and the opening of the Council, viz. A.D. 48-49. Save, then, the supposition that the North Galatian theory is true, there seems to be absolutely no extrinsic evidence in favor of the later date, viz. after the Council, which has hitherto been assigned to this Epistle; indeed, it would almost seem as though the fact that it is always grouped with the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians were the sole ground for assigning it to the same period as those Epistles.

Moreover, evidence for a different order from that to which we are accustomed appears in the fact that the earliest known Syriac list of the Canon of New Testament gives the Epistles in the order Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, Hebrews.[43] St. Ephraim appears to have had the same order in his Canonical list; at any rate, for the first three Epistles.[44] This precedence of Galatians is also clear from Marcion's Canon, the order of which we can deduce from Tertullian's examination of Marcion's treatment of the Pauline Epistles. In the Fifth Book against Marcion, chap. i. is devoted to St. Paul himself; ii-iv. to Galatians; v-x. to I Corinthians, xi-xii. to 2 Corinthians; xiii-xiv. to Romans; xv. to I Thessalonians, xvi. to 2 Thessalonians; xvii-xviii. to Laodiceans, which Tertullian identifies with Ephesians; xix. to Colossians; xx. to Philippians, xxi. to Philemon; thus accounting for the ten Pauline Epistles which alone Marcion admitted.[45] We saw above that both Irenaeus and Tertullian had a text of Ga 2:5, which made the Apostle circumcise Timothy; if this reading is the true one, and ours merely a Marcionic "vitiatio," we may well ask whether St. Paul would have taken this line subsequent to the Council.[46]

H. The Vocabulary of the Epistle.

Of the thirty-four forms given in Grimm-Thayer as peculiar to this Epistle we need only notice a few: ὀρθοποδέω, Ga 2:14, appears to occur nowhere else, and may be taken as an example of St. Paul's word-coining; while κεκυρωμένην, in Ga 3:15, is classical, the form προκεκυρω μένην, Ga 3:17, seems to be another of the Apost1e's creations, whence it passed into Byzantine usage. Μεσίτης, 3:19-20, is a purely Biblical word, cf. 1 Tm 2:5, He 8:6, 9:15, 12:24, and has, of course, become part of ecclesiastical terminology; the same must be said of κενόδοξος, Ga 5:26, cf. κενόδοξος, Pp 2:3; cf. 1 Tm 1:10, seems also to have been coined by St. Paul; so, too, ἐυπροσωπησαι, 6:12. Πορθέω, 1:13 and 23, is a classical word, but has a peculiar significance here, since it only occurs elsewhere in the parallel passage in Acts 9:21, thus, so it would seem, establishing a peculiar link between St. Luke's account of the Apostle's conversion and the account here given.

The Latin text presents some interesting features: thus προςαναθέμην is rendered by "acquievi" in 1:16, and the same verb by "contulerunt" in 2:6; in the former instance it should rather be translated "take into my counsel."[47] The unusual form συνιστάνω, 2:18, is rendered by "coustituo," but elsewhere, 2 Cr 3:1, 5:12, 10:12, by "commendare." In 3:1 "fascinavit" is a perfectly apt rendering of ἐβάσκανεν, indeed it is the same word in a Latin dress; in 5:10 and 12 "conturbare" is used to represent alike ἀναστατουντες and ταράσσω; similarly in 6:9 "deficere" stands for both εκκακωμεν and ἐκλυομένοι. The most unfortunate instance, however, of the same Latin word being used for different Greek words occurs in 6:2 and 5, where βάρη and φορτίον are rendered by "onera" and "onus" respectively, though this involves an apparent contradiction on the Apostle's part; it seems clear that the former refers to burdens from without while the latter refers to those from within.

In 3:1 the words "non obedire veritati" are omitted in the best Latin and Greek texts; in 2:14 all the Latin MSS. of importance and most Greek MSS. read "Cephas" instead of "Petro"; in 4:14 the reading "my temptation" in the received Greek text is generally repudiated. The chapter division whereby chapter 5 opens with the words "State et . . ." is preferable to the division in the ordinary Greek text, and is supported by all the best Latin MSS. In 5:13 only the Sixtine and Clementine editions have the addition "Spiritus”; similarly the "fruits" of the Spirit are only given as twelve in the Sixtine and Clementine editions, which alone have "patientia, mansuetudo, et castitas" in 5:22-23. On the other hand, in 5:21 φονόι, which finds good MSS. support in Greek, is omitted in all Latin MSS.[48]

J. Theology of the Epistle.

God and the Father: God is one, 3:20; the will of God, 1:4; the grace of, 2:21; He is "not mocked," 6:7; His kingdom, 5:21; He has "known" the Galatians, 4:9; is not an acceptor of persons, 2:6; His promise, 3:14-29; it is of the Spirit, 3:14; through faith, 3:14, 22; to Abraham, 3:16; is confirmed, 3:17; is not by "the Law," 3:18, 21; is to Christ, 3:19; we are children of the promise, 5:28; God is the Father, 1:1, 3; glory to the Father, 1:5; has sent His Son, 4:4; also His Spirit, 3:5, 4:6; has revealed His Son, 1:16; Christ is dependent on the Father, 1:4; the Father raised Christ from the dead, 1:1; we are the children of God by faith in Christ, 3:26, 29, 4:5.

The Christology: Christ is the Son of God, 2:20, 4:4, 7; He is sent by the Father, 4:4; is made of a woman, 4:4; made under the Law, 4:4; is dependent on the Father, 1:4, 4:4; the promise is by faith in Christ, 3:22; He is of the seed of Abraham, 3:16; we are children of God by faith in Christ, 3:26; He is Lord, 1:3; He gave Himself for us, 1:4, 2:20; was made a curse, 3:13; for the deliverance of this world, 1:4; was crucified, 3:1; redeemed us from the Law, 3:13, 4:5; He loved us, 2:20; did not die in vain, 2:21; was raised by the Father, 1:1; the grace of Christ, 1:6, 6:18; His Gospel, 1:7; He revealed it to Paul, 1:12; Christ was revealed to Paul by the Father, 1:16; Paul is His Apostle, 1:1; His servant, 1:10; He is to be preached by Paul, 1:16; the blessing of Abraham is to come to the Gentiles through Christ, 3:14; the Galatians received Paul as Christ, 4:14; Paul has confidence in Him, 5:10; the persecution of the Cross of Christ, 6:12, 14; the marks of Christ, 6:17; we are nailed to the Cross with Christ, 2:19; they that are Christ's are crucified, 5:4; we are justified by the faith of Christ, 2:16; and in Christ, 2:17; and live in the faith of Christ, 2:20; and thus are children of God, 3:26; the Law is a pedagogue to Christ, 3:24; He is no profit to the circumcised, 5:2, 4; we must fulfill the Law of Christ, 6:2; are baptized in Christ, 3:27; and so have put on Christ, 3:27; and are all one in Christ, 3:28; and are all His, 3:29; He lives in us, 2:20; the Galatians must have Christ formed in them, 4:19.

The Holy Spirit: The promise of, 3:14; is sent by the Father, 3:5, 4:6; received by faith, not by the Law, 3:2; we hope for justification in the Spirit, 5:5;[49] we must walk in the Spirit, 5:16; and be led by it, 5:16; the flesh and the Spirit are opposed, 5:17; the fruits of the Spirit, 5:22-23; we must live in the Spirit, 5:25; and must sow in it, 6:8.

The Position of the Law: The works of the Law do not justify a man, 2:16, 21, 3:11, 21; the Spirit is not given by the Law, 3:2, 5; nor are miracles worked because of the works of the Law, 3:5; heirship to the promise is not by the Law, 3:18; the Law does not give life, 3:21; it is but "weak and needy elements," 4:9; those who are under the works of the Law are under a curse, 3:10; we are redeemed from the curse of the Law, 3:13, 4:5; the Law does not disannul the testament nor the promise, 3:17; the Law was set for transgressions, 3:19; through the Law we are dead to the Law, 2:19; the Law is our pedagogue to Christ, 3:23-25; the Law is figured by the son of the bondwoman, 4:22-31; after the advent of faith the Law is useless, 5:2-6; all the Law is comprised in love of our neighbor, 5:14; they that are of the circumcision do not keep the Law, 6:13; the Law we have to fulfill is that of Christ, 6:2.

Faith: Is not the justifying principle of the Law, 3:12; is to be revealed, 3:23; it deposes the Law, 3:13-29; it justified Abraham, 3:6-18; faith in Christ justifies, 2:16, 20, 3:22, 4:5-6; it enables us to receive the Spirit, 3:2, 5, 14; is the fruit of the Spirit, 5:23; the faith is revealed to St. Paul, 1:12, 16, 23.

K. Bibliography.

In addition to the Dictionaries and the Commentaries on all the Epistles, e.g. those of Cornelius à Lapide and Estius, there are the Patristic Commentaries—those, namely, of Victorinus, P.L. VIII. (XII), of St. Jerome (P.L. XXVI), and of St. Augustine (P.L. XXXV); these are all valuable, but, of course, no one reads them nowadays! From the Greeks we have the Commentaries of St. Chrysostom (P.G. LX.) and Theodore of Mopsuestia (ed. Swete, 1880). These five Commentaries are extraordinarily different from one another, and may be said to cover between them the entire field. It is to be regretted that, save for a fragment on 1:1 and 11-12 given in Delarue, we have nothing of Origen's left. The same applies to the numerous writers on the Epistle to whom St. Jerome refers (Prol. to Comment. on Galatians). A full account of the patristic writers on the Epistle is given by Lightfoot in his Commentary, 1865, and often since. Ramsay, Historical Commentary on the Galatians, 2nd ed., 1900, chiefly consists in introductory matter and disquisitions on certain points, but it is valuable. The Cambridge Greek Testament, Galatians, 1910, is exceedingly practical. Lagrange, O.P., Épître aux Galates, 1918. De Witt Burton, Galatians, in the International Critical Commentary.

__________________________
Footnotes
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
1. 1:6.

2. 1:11-16.

3. 1:18.

4. 1:22.

5. 2:2, cp. Acts 11:27-30.

6. 2:2.

7. 2:4-5.

8. 2:6-10, cp. Acts 11:27-30.

9. See St. Jerome on Gal. 1:1 and 14, P.L. XXVI. 312 and 324; also Ep. LXXIV. 3, P.L. XXII. 683-684. For a paraphrase of the whole Epistle see Expositor, March, 1916.

10. Prologue to his Commentary on Galatians, P.L. XXVI. 309-311; the last words, of course, gave rise to the famous controversy with St. Augustine, cf. infra, and St. Jerome's actual Commentary on chapter 2.

11. Thus note St. Chrysostom: "Nunc quidem urens et secans, nunc rursum mitiora admovens remedia . . . nunc beatis praedicans et collaudans, rursus increpans et objurgans," Comment. on Gal. i. 1, P.G. LXI. 611-612.

12. The ordinary reading has Ἴδετε πηλίκοις ὑμῑν γράμμασιν ἔγραψα τῃ ἐμῃ χειρί. It seems impossible to render this "see what a letter I have written to you with my own hand," see Lightfoot, Galatians, 1865, p. 211-212. St. Chrysostom maintained (in loco, P.G. LXI. 678) that this could

"mean nothing else than that St. Paul wrote the whole Epistle himself"; the word πηλίκοις, qualibus, is referred by him, not to the size of the letters used, but to their badly formed character, as if he would say, 'though unable to write well, yet am I compelled to write.'"

St. Jerome, however, repudiates this interpretation:

"Not that the letters were large in character (for this in Greek would be πηλίκοις), but that his handwriting was well known to them; so that, as they looked at it, they could fancy they actually saw the writer" (in loco, P.L. XXVI. 434).

This would seem to show that St. Jerome read ἡλίκοις and not πηλίκοις. St. Jerome then proceeds to pour contempt on the opinion which, as a matter of fact, St. Chrysostom held; but since the latter clearly read πηλίκοις, which would, as St. Jerome admits, refer to the size of the characters employed, it seems clear that St. Jerome is not referring to Chrysostom himself. The English translations vary:

"Se ye what maner of lettris I haue write to you: with myn owne hand,” Wyclif and Rheims;
"Beholde how large a letter I have written unto you with myne awne honde," Tyndale, Cranmer, the Genevan and the Authorized Version;
"See with how large letters I have written . . .," the Revised Version, agreeing with Wyclif and Rheims;
"See what a letter I have written . . ." Challoner.

See a discussion in Expository Times for June, 19:1, also March, 1913; Deissmaun, Bible Studies, Engl. tr., p. 346.

13. Comm. on Galatians, Prol. to Bk. II, P.L. XXVI. 357; cf. Photius, Bibliotheca, CCXXIV. 20, P.G. XCIII. 898.

14. Ibid. 554.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid. 356. In 2 Tm 4:10 "Cresens has gone to Galatia." Eusebius, H.E. III. iv. 9, has ἐις τὰς Γαλλίας, or in some MSS. τὴν Γαλλίαν, and St. Epiphanius, Haer. LI. 11, P.G. XLI. 910, maintains that, despite the fact that some read "Galatia," the reading "Gaul" is correct.

17. Yet this depends on the interpretation of Acts 16:6 and 18:23 (see below).

18. See especially his Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 74-96; St. Paul the Traveller, chapters 5-9. See, too, various papers in the Expository Times, 1911-1913. For a trenchant criticism see Schmiedel, s.v. Galatians in Encyclopaedia Biblica, also Lagrange, Épître aux Galates, pp. xiii-xxviii, 1918, and A. Lukyn Williams in the Cambridge Greek Testament, Galatians, 1910. For other articles see R.B., 1895, p. 78, October, 1900, p. 625, 1909, p. 313, July, 1920, p. 457; Turner, Studies in Early Church Histary, pp. 169-179, Oxford, 1912; Fouard, St. Paul, Eng. tr., p. 50, note.

19. Lukyn Williams, Galatians in Cambridge Greek Testament, pp. xix-xx.

20. Hist. ii. 9 and Annales, xv. 6.

21. Hist. Natur. v. 95.

22. XII. v. 1.

23. XVII. iii. 5.

24. II. xix. 2.

25. Weymouth, Resultant Greek Testament, omits it.

26. Liddell and Scott in their larger edition give no other form, and cite many passages from classical authors for its use.

27. Cf. infra, Theology of the Epistle. For a discussion of the teaching of the Apostle on the Law in Romans and Galatians respectively, see St. Jerome on Gal. iv. 1-2 and on Eph. iii. 5-7, P.L. XXVI. 369 and 479; also St. Augustine, Contra Julianum Pelagianum, III. xxvi (59-66), P.L. XLIV. 733.

28. See Section G. on the probable date of the Epistle to the Galatians.

29. E.g. Paschal Chronicle, P.G. XCII. 522; so, too, Clement of Alexandria in his lost Hypotyposes, according to Eusebius, H.E. I. xii. 2.

30. On Gal. ii. 11 ff., P.L. XXVI. 338. This was the opinion of Clement of Alexandria, cf. H.E. I. xii. 2.

31. Comment. on Gal. ii, P.G. LXI. 640-642; also Hom. on Gal. ii. 11 (17). P.G. LI. 385.

32. Ep. LXVII. 3-6, P.L. XXVI. 648-650.

33. Ep. CXII. 4-6, P.L. XXII. 917-919.

34. Ep. CXII. 17, P.L. XXII. 927.

35. Ep. CXVI. 7, P.L. XXII. 938.

36. Ibid.

37. Ibid. 8, cp. St, Thomas Aquinas, Summa, 1a. 2dae., ciii. 4 ad 2m.

38. Ep. CXVI. 10-11. St. Augustine's dispute with St. Jerome on this subject covered approximately the years 402-405, and he only suggests as the more probable view that the scene at Antioch preceded the Council. But when arguing against Faustus in A.D. 400 he displays no hesitation on the point: "Paul," he says, "corrected Peter. But afterwards, when the Apostles were gathered together, on Peter's own initiative (consilio suo) they decided that the Gentiles should not be compelled to submit to the works of the Law" (Contra Faustum, XIX. xvii, P.L. XLII. 358).

39. See Epp. LXVII, CII, CX, CXII, CXVI, inter Epp. S. Hieronymi, P.L. XXII., also his Expos. Ep. ad Galatas, P.L. XXXV. 2113-2114; cp. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, 1a. 2dae., civ. 4 ad 1m, Expository Times, December, 1902. The commentator, M. Victorinus, holds that St. Peter only feigned to accommodate himself to Jewish prejudices, and did not do so in reality, but it is to comprehend this; see his Commentary inter opp. Sti. Hier. XII. (P.L. VIII.) 1164. It is a pity Victorians' Commentary is not better known, if only for the interesting text it presents.

40. Adv. Haer. III. xiii. 3, P.G. VII. 912.

41. Adv. Marcionem, V. 3; cp. I. 20, IV. 3. and De Praescriptionibus, xxiii-xxiv, P.L. II. 35-37, 268-269, 364-365, 473.

42. See Victorinus, P.L. VIII. 1145.

43. H.D.B. IV. 647.

44. Rendel Harris in Expos. Times, June, 1907, p. 393, a résumé of Dom De Bruyne's article on the Marcionitic Prologues in the Rev. Bénédictine for January, 1907.

45. P.L. II. 4677-524. Note, too, St. Chrysostom: "It appears to me that the Epistle to the Galatians preceded that to the Romans. Nor need we be surprised if the Epistles are given in another order in the Bibles, for the Twelve Prophets are placed side by side in the Bible, though belonging to different epochs," Hom. I. 1 in Ep. ad Rom., P.G. LX. 392.

46. See also Expository Times, 1900, pp. I 57 and 568, May, 1907, April, 1910, May to September, 1913, April, 1921; R.B., July, 1907; J. T. S., July, 1912, p. 606. Round, The Date of St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians; Bird, Irish Theological Quarterly; January, 1919.

47. See St. Jerome's Commentary on the two passages, P.L. XXVI.

48. For the Vulgate text see Lagrange, R.B., July, 1917, and also his Commentary; also for St. Jerome's share in the production of this version see Irish Theological Quarterly, January, 1914.

49. In this and the following verses referred to, it is hard to decide whether it is a question of the Holy Spirit or the sanctified human spirit which is in question. Some editions of the Greek Testament, e.g. Weymouth's Resultant Greek Testament, print "Spirit" as opposed to "spirit" in 6:18.
__________________________

by
Very Rev. Hugh Pope, O.P., S.T.M.
Doctor in Sacred Scripture,
Member of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, and
late Professor of New Testament Exegesis at the Collegio Angelico, Rome.