ページの画像
PDF
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

contrast to the “Israel after the flesh” (I Cor. x. 18); comp. Rom. ix. 6 ow Yàp tévres ol āč 'IopañA oërot 'Iopań, Gal. iii. 29, Phil. iii. 3. It stands here not for the faithful converts from the circumcision alone, but for the spiritual Israel generally, the whole body of believers whether Jew or Gentile; and thus kai is epeacegetic, i.e. it introduces 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.” rod Aouroń) “henceforth’ differs from Aoimov, as ‘in the time to come’ from ‘throughout the time to come.’ Compare vuxrös and vskra. In the New Testament it occurs only here and Ephes, vi. Io, where however the received reading is Aoimóv. ortyuara] ‘the brands,’ i.e. the marks of ownership branded on his body. These arriyuara were used; (1) In the case of domestic slaves. With these however branding was not usual, at least among the Greeksand Romans, except to mark such as had attempted to escape or had otherwise misconducted themselves, hence called a raypartal, “literati' (see the ample collection of passages in Wetstein), and such brands were held a badge of disgrace; Pseudo-Phocyl. 212 oriyuara ypdWoms émoveubišov 6spámovra, Senec. de Benef iv. 37, 38. (2) Slaces attached to some temple (iepā8ov\ot) or persons devoted to the service of some deity were so branded: Herod. ii. 113 ® dv6poorov infláMmrai orriyuara ipsi,

GAL.

tovrov 8180ès 6eó, oùx ićeart rowrow avaoréal, Lucian de Dea Syr. § 59 orrićovrat návres of pièv is kaprows of 8* is adyévas; Philo de Mon. II. p. 221 M.: comp. 3 Macc. ii. 29. The passage of Lucian is a good illustration of Rev. xiii. 16, 17. (3) Captires 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 IIL p. 427. The metaphor here is most appropriate, if referred to the second of these classes. Such a practice at all events cannot have been unknown in a country which was the home of the worship of Cybele. A tepēs 800Xos 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. Io row véxpooru roi, 'Ingot ivoró orduart weptopovres, xi. 23. See the introduction, p. 51 sq.

Whether the stigmata of St Francis of Assisi can be connected by any historical link with a mistaken interpretation 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 current 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.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

The Patristic Commentaries on this Epistle.

THE patristic commentaries on the Galatians, extant either whole or in part, are perhaps more numerous than on any other of St Paul's Epistles. The earlier of these have for the most part an independent value; the later are mere collections or digests of the labours of preceding writers and have no claim to originality. In the list which follows an asterisk is prefixed to the name of the author in cases where fragments only remain.

In drawing up this account I have had occasion to refer frequently to Cave's Script. Eccles. Hist. Liter. (Oxon. 1740), to Fabricius's Bibliotheca Graeca (ed. Harles), and to Schröckh's Christliche Kirchengeschichte. Special works relating to the subject, to which reference is also made, are Simon's Histoire Critique des Principawa Commentateurs du N. T. (1693), Rosenmüller's Historia Interpretationis Librorum Sacrorum (1795–1814), and a treatise by J. F. S. Augustin in Nösselt's Opusc. III. p. 321 sq.

1. EARLIER CoMMENTARIES.

(a) Greek and Syrian Fathers.

(i) *ORIGENEs (+ 253). The recently discovered list of Origen's works drawn up by Jerome mentions fifteen books on the Epistle to the Galatians, besides seven homilies on the same (Redepenning in Niedner's Zeitschr. 1851, pp. 77,78); while the same Jerome in the preface to his Commentary (VII. p. 370, ed. Wall) says of this father, “Scripsit ille vir in epistolam Pauli ad Galatas quinque proprie volumina et decimum Stromatum suorum librum commatico super explanatione ejus sermone complevit: tractatus quoque varios et excerpta quae vel sola possint sufficere composuit.’ The two accounts are not irreconcileable. Of this vast apparatus not a single fragment remains in the original, and only two or three have been preserved in a Latin dress either in the translation of Pamphilus's Apology (Origen, Op. Iv. p. 690, Delarue), or in Jerome's Commentary (Gal. v. 13). On the other hand there can be no doubt that all subsequent writers are directly or indirectly indebted to him to a very large extent. Jerome especially avows his obligations to this father of Biblical criticism. In my notes I have had occasion to mention Origen's name chiefly in connexion with fanciful speculations or positive errors, because his opinion has rarely been recorded by later writers, except where his authority was needed to sanction some false or questionable interpretation: but the impression thus produced is most unjust to his reputation. In spite of his very patent faults, which it costs nothing to denounce, a very considerable part of what is valuable in subsequent commentaries, whether ancient or modern, is due to him. A deep thinker, an accurate grammarian, a most laborious worker, and a most earnest Christian, he not only laid the foundation, but to a very great extent built up the fabric of Biblical interpretation.

(ii) EPHRAEM SYRUs (+ 378), the deacon of Edessa. An Armenian version of a commentary on the Scriptures, including St Paul's Epistles,

[ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

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 1. p. 235, Fabricius viii. p. 217, Schröckh xv. p. 527; and the article by E. Rödiger 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 Rödiger seems also to take this view. In the few passages which I have had the opportunity of testing, both the readings and the interpretation 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 Caesarea, 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 meaning. 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. II. p. 498, III. p. 497 sq (Eng. trans.), Reuss Gesch. d. Heil. Schr. § 518 (3te ausg.), Kihn Die Bedeutung der Antioch. Schule (1867), Th. Forster Chrysostom u sein Verhältniss zur Antiochemischen Schule (1869). (iii) *EUSEBIUS EMISENUs (+ about 360), so called from the name of his see Emesa or Emisa (Hums), a native of Edessa. A few fragments of his work are preserved in Cramer's Catema, pp. 6, 8, 12, 20, 28, 32, 40, 44, 57, 62, 64, 65, 67, 91. It is described by Jerome, as ‘ad Galatas libri decem' (de Vir. Illustr. c. 91). Eusebius enjoyed a great reputation with his contemporaries, and these scanty fragments seem to indicate an acute and careful expositor. His writings are the subject of monographs by Augusti Eusebii Emesent Opusc. Graec. etc. 1829, and by Thilo Ueber die Schriften d. Euseb. v. Alexandrien u. d. Euseb. v. Emisa (1832). See also Fabricius VII. p. 412, Schröckh v. p. 68 sq. The publication of Cramer's Catena has since added materials for an account of this writer. (iv) JoANNES CHRYsostomus (+ 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 Bibl. Orient. also men

School of
Antioch.

Eusebius
of Emisa.

Chrysostom.

though advertised, seems never to have

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
tersione nunc primum lattnitate dona-
tum. But it is not included in a re-
cent catalogue of the works printed
at the Armenian press at Wenice, and

appeared.
* Through the kindness of Dr Rieu
of the British Museum I have been
able in some important passages to
give the readings and interpretations
of Ephraem in my commentary. [On
this work see further in Essays on
Supernatural Religion, 1889, p. 287 sq.]

it would seem from its character to have been intended for oral delivery.
It is an eloquent popular exposition, based on fine scholarship. The date is
uncertain, except that it was written at Antioch, i.e. before A.D. 398, when
St Chrysostom became Patriarch of Constantinople (see the preface of the
Benedictine edition, x. p. 655). It appears not to have been known to
Jerome when he wrote his own commentary. In his controversy with
Augustine indeed, which arose out of that commentary, he alludes to the
opinion of Chrysostom on the collision of the Apostles at Antioch, but
distinctly refers to a separate homily of the great preacher devoted to this
special subject (“proprie super hoc capitulo latissimum exaravit librum,'
Hieron. Epist.cxii. See above, p. 131 sq). The exposition of the Galatians
may be read in the Benedictine edition of Chrysostom's works x. p. 657; or
still better in Field's edition of the Homilies (Oxon. 1852).
(v) *SEVERLANUs (about 4oo), bishop of Gabala in Syria, first the friend
and afterwards the opponent of Chrysostom; see Schröckh x. p. 458 sq.
He wrote an Expositio in Epistolam ad Galatas (Gennad. de Vir. Illustr.
c. 21, Hier. Op. II. p. 981). Gennadius speaks of him as “in divinis scrip-
turis eruditus? Several fragments of this work are preserved in Cramer's
Catema, pp. 16, 18, 23, 29, 39, 40, 55, 58, 59, 64, 66, 70, 82, 93, and one at
least in the CEcumenian commentary (Gal. i. 13). Like most writers of the
Graeco-Syrian School he maintained the literal meaning of Scripture against
the allegorists. See Cave 1. p. 375, Fabricius x. p. 507.
(vi) THEoDoRUs MopsuestENUs (+ 429), a native of Tarsus, so called
from the see of Mopsuestia which he held. He wrote commentaries on all
St Paul's Epistles; see Ebed Jesu's Catalogue in Assemann. Bibl. Orient.
III. p. 32. Several fragments of these in the original are preserved in the
Catema', and have been collected and edited by O. F. Fritzsche Theod.
Mops. Comment. in N. T. (1847). This editor had before written a mono-
graph De Theodori Mopsuesteni Vita et Scriptis (1836). Fritzsche's mono-
graph and collection of fragments are reprinted in the edition of Theodore's
works in Migne's Patrol. Graec. Lxvi. But though only portions survive in
the Greek, the complete commentaries on the smaller epistles from Gala-
tians to Philemon inclusive are extant in a Latin translation. These com-
mentaries, from Philippians onwards, had been long known in the compila-
tion of Rabanus Maurus (Migne's Patrol. Lat. CxII), where they are incor-
porated nearly entire under the name of Ambrose; and a few years since
Dom Pitra, Spicil. Solesm. 1. p. 49 sq (1852), printed the expositions of
the Galatians, Ephesians, and Philemon complete, and supplied the omis-
sions and corrected the errors in the extracts on the remaining epistles in
Rabanus, ascribing the work however to Hilary of Poitiers.
In the Corbey Ms which he used, these commentaries of Theodore on
the shorter epistles were attached to the exposition of the Ambrosiaster or
pseudo-Ambrose (who seems to have been one Hilary: see below, p. 232)
on Romans and Corinthians, and the two together were entitled Expositio
Sancti Ambrosii in Epistolas B. Pauli. This circumstance accounts for
their being assigned to St Ambrose in Rabanus, as it also suggested the

* The fragments assigned to Theo- are none of his, but belong to Theodore in Mai Nov. Patr. Bibl. vii. 1. p. 408 doret.

Severiailus.

Theodore of Mopsuestia.

« 前へ次へ »