Supposed German affinities,

how to be explained.

by Pausanias (x. 19) as the name for a horse among the Gauls of the
Delphic expedition (Diefenb. 1. p. 67).
In gathering together the evidence in favour of the Celtic extrac-
tion of the Galatians as afforded by their language I have omitted
many questionable affinities; and even of those which are given some
perhaps will appear uncertain. But taken as a whole the evidence,
if I mistake not, places the result beyond a doubt; and the few
German etymologies real or imagined, which have been alleged on
the other side, will be quite insufficient to turn the scale. Thus it is
asserted that the names of the leaders of the Asiatic expedition,
LUTARIUs and LeoNNonius, 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
names might perhaps have been accepted. But with the vast mass
of evidence on the other side, it becomes a question whether some
more satisfactory account cannot be given of them. Thus Lutarius
(or Luturius) is said to be the same name with the Frankish Lothaire :
and the Saxon Luther, and therefore Teutonic (see Graff Althochd.
Sprachsch. Iv. p. 555); but among the Gallic chieftains one Lucterius
is mentioned (Caesar B. G. vii. etc.), and the identity of the names
Lutarius and Lucterius is at least not improbable (Diefenb. II. p. 253;
Zeuss, G. C. p. 78, derives the name Lucterius from luct, “agmen,”

[ocr errors]

pars :

Leonnorius has certainly a namesake in a genuine Celtic saint, a

native of Britain (Acta Sanct. Jul. 1. see Diefenb. II. p. 254), and

see also p. 180). Again the other Galatian commander

there seems to be no reason for assigning a Teutonic parentage to this word. In the name Teutobodiaci indeed the first component seems very plainly to mean ‘German’: but, even granting that this is not one of those very specious but very deceptive affinities which are the snares of comparative philology, the word need not imply that the tribe itself was Teutonic. If the second component is rightly taken to denote victory (‘buad,” “buaid,” comp. Boadicea, Bodiocasses, Bodiontici, Bodicus, etc.; see Zeuss G. C. p. 27, Glück

p. 53), then the Teutobodiaci were not necessarily Teutons any more than Thessalonica was Thessalian. The remaining word Germanopolis seems in its very form to betray its later origin, or at all events to mark some exceptional occupants other than the main population of the country. It is quite possible indeed, as Thierry supposes (I. p. 225), that A possible swept away with the hordes of Gaulish invaders a small body of . 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 Conclusettlers were genuine Celts, and of the two main subdivisions Sion. into which modern philologers have divided the Celtic race, they seem rather to have belonged to the Cymric, of which the Welsh are the living representatives. Thus in the age when St Paul preached, a native of Galatia spoke a language essentially the same with that which was current in the southern part of Britain. And if—to indulge a passing fancy—we picture to ourselves one of his Asiatic converts visiting the far West to barter the hair cloths of his native country for the useful metal which was the special product of this island, we can imagine that finding a medium of communication in a common language he may have sown the first seeds of the Gospel and laid the foundations of the earliest Church in Britain.

Two rival theories.



N the early ages of the Church two conflicting opinions were held regarding the relationship of those who in the Gospels and

Apostolic Epistles are termed ‘the brethren of the Lord.’

On the

one hand it was maintained that no blood relationship existed; that these brethren were in fact sons of Joseph by a former wife, before he espoused the Virgin; and that they are therefore called the Lord's brethren only in the same way in which Joseph is called His father, having really no claim to this title but being so designated by an exceptional use of the term adapted to the exceptional fact of the miraculous incarnation. On the other hand certain persons argued that the obvious meaning of the term was the correct meaning, and that these brethren were the Lord's brethren as truly as Mary was the Lord's mother, being her sons by her husband Joseph. The former of these views was held by the vast majority of orthodox believers and by not a few heretics; the latter was the opinion of a father of the Church here and there to whom it occurred as the natural inference from the language of Scripture, as Tertullian for instance, and of certain sects and individuals who set themselves against the incipient worship of the Virgin or the one-sided asceticism of the day, and to whom therefore it was a very serviceable weapon of controversy. Such was the state of opinion, when towards the close of the A third fourth century Jerome struck out a novel hypothesis. One Helvi- * dius, who lived in Rome, had attacked the prevailing view of the Jerome. 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 Alphaeus 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 . sideration, and I shall therefore investigate their several claims. three.

* The interest in this subject, which was so warmly discussed towards the close of the fourth century, has been revived in more recent times by the publication of Herder's Briefe Zweener Briider Jesu in unserem Kanon (1775), in which the Helvidian hypothesis is put forward. Since then it has formed the subject of numberless monographs, dissertations, and incidental comments. The most important later works, with which I am acquainted, are those of Blom, De ro's déexposs et rais d6e Aopa’s ros, Kuplov (Leyden, 1839); of Schaf, Das Verhältniss des Jakobus Bruders des Herrn zu Jakobus Alphéii (Berlin, 1842); and of Mill, The accounts of our Lord's Brethren in the New Testament 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 arguments 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 Söhne Zebedii Vettern des Herrn (1840, p. 648), and Ueber die Brüder des Herrn, etc. (1842, p. 71). In preparing for the second edition I looked over the careful investigation in Laurent's Newtest. Studien p. 155 sq (1866), where the Helvidian hypothesisis maintained, but saw no reason to make any change in consequence. The works of Arnaud, Recherches sur l'Epitre de Jude, and of Goy (Mont. 1845), referred to in Bishop Ellicott's Galatians i. 19, I have not seen. My object in this dissertation is mainly twofold; (1) To place the Hieronymian hypothesis in its true light, as an effort of pure criticism unsupported 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 pleara in literature and theology, as well as in politics, Ör' diploporépwy 3rt of $vvmywwltovro 5 p06vo roß repuesvau 5ueq6eipovro. I suppose it was because he considered it idle to discuss a theory which hadnofriends, 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.

their real merits or from their wide popularity to deserve con

As it will be convenient to have some short mode of designation,

* Adv. Helvidium de Perpetua Virginitate B. Mariae, II. p. 206 (ed. Wall.). Comp. Comment. ad Gal. i. 19.

I shall call them respectively the Epiphanian, the Helvidian, and
the Hieronymian theories, from the names of their most zealous
advocates in the controversies of the fourth century when the
question was most warmly debated.
But besides the solutions already mentioned not a few others
have been put forward. These however have been for the most part
built upon arbitrary assumptions or improbable combinations of
known facts, and from their artificial character have failed to secure
any wide acceptance. It is assumed for instance, that two persons
of the same name, James the son of Alphaeus 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

Arbitrary assumptions

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

aside. 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

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« 前へ次へ »