54. LI. The Date of the Galatian Letter

LI. The Date of the Galatian Letter

Much depends on the answer to the question regarding the date when, and the place where, the letter of Paul to the Galatians was written. Several able writers have recently contended that the letter must be assigned to a very early date. One of the first to do so was Professor Valentin Weber of Würzburg in a series of books and papers. Quite a number of English and Scottish writers have taken the same view: they are too many to enumerate, as I might probably omit some, and I should regret to leave out the names of any to whose courtesy and historical acumen I am so much indebted. For my own part I have long been in a state of uncertainty and dissatisfaction, and hoping for the opportunity of reaching a decided opinion. After one has argued in favour of a date and place, it is not easy to contemplate the whole question from a quite unbiassed point of view; and I waited for leisure and a quiet mind, which are conditions not easily attained. The theory of early origin was maintained, if I recollect rightly, by Calvin. It frequently came up in my mind, but was always set aside. Now it has established itself in the form that the letter was written at an early stage in the controversy which is described in Acts 15:1 ff. Emissaries from Palestine, acting with a general commission from James, though not with instructions on this special matter (which had never yet been brought up as one pressing for definite decision), had come to Antioch, and some also into the Galatian churches. In the latter, which were quite newly-formed (Galatians 1:5), (As has been generally recognised, the words here used, coming in the forefront of the letters, the first after the address, must be meant quite emphatically. Formerly I erred in not laying sufficient stress on this.) and in which there was at the moment no authoritative and experienced teacher, these emissaries, being of old standing in the Church, exercised (as was natural) very great influence. They were able to quote words or acts of Paul as implying that he agreed with them: Paul himself, as they declared, was a “preacher of circumcision”. The acts or words are admitted by Paul. (Galatians 5:11;Galatians 1:8-10.) He disputes only the interpretation placed upon them: for the sake of peace and harmony he was willing to make great concessions, but these were only concessions to Jewish weakness and must not be regarded as doctrinal and obligatory. The Galatians, of course, knew that Paul had never ordered them to accept circumcision; but the emissaries evidently maintained that this rite was the completion of their Christian profession: they had begun well, and now the perfect stage of full communion with the original Church awaited them. If (as seems to me probable) the emissaries quoted on their side an act of fullest concession by Paul, this would be an extraordinarily effective argument. However that may be, it lies in the nature of the case that the familiar idea of a progressive instruction, i.e. of stages in knowledge, was employed. Paul himself had used words of this kind, (Such teaching was evidently characteristic with Paul, and may be assumed as imparted by him to the Galatians.1 Corinthians 2:6;1 Corinthians 3:1f., 2:15, if read in this order, imply the idea of steps in knowledge, and of teaching withheld from beginners as not intelligible to them, but communicated to advanced Christians.) which quite naturally and reasonably suggested the idea of successive stages in Christian knowledge and life. Beginners heard less, and learned less, and were called on to do less, than Christians of tried experience, who were more fully endowed with the Spirit of God. This conception of progress or growth is involved in the very idea of Paulinism. Increasing knowledge is increasing strength, and this increase inevitably brings about greater demands and increasing responsibilities. That is human life; and that is the divine life. As faith grows stronger, it acts itself out in a more vigorous course of work. A faith which does not produce ever more and more exertion is not growing. Such was, and must be, the teaching of Paul in all his churches.

Without this conception of stages in knowledge the action of the Galatians, and the Epistle to the Galatians, cannot be understood, as is maintained in my Historical Commentary, § xxvii. p. 324. The Galatians thought that they were progressing to a more perfect stage of spiritual knowledge. Paul points out to them that really they are changing to a different form of Gospel, fleshly and not spiritual; but he acknowledges that they think they are progressing: “After beginning through the Spirit, are you now perfecting yourselves through the flesh?” (Galatians 3:3.)

Even the Apostolic Decree, while it is in word so remarkably complimentary to Paul and Barnabas, yet lends itself without difficulty to a similar interpretation. The concessions regarding meat, etc., are laid down as obligatory, but are called “burdens”: it is an easy thing to go on from this thought, and to say that burdens are proportioned to the strength of the bearer, and that more perfect Christians can and should bear more than the minimum imposed as necessary on weaklings and beginners. This conception of degrees lies at the basis of the whole Galatian trouble. Paul had to remove it by convincing the Galatians that they were moving diametrically contrary to the spirit of his teaching, and that what they thought progress was really retrogression.

It has been argued that the question might have become acute in Antioch long before the Council. That, however, did not take place. So Luke and Paul both say. In Antioch Jewish and Gentile Christians had for years been dwelling side by side, and the conditions of amity must have been settled by agreement, either tacit or formal: the general body of Jewish Christians in Antioch were in full fellowship publicly and privately with the Gentiles of the Church. They all ate together and lived together harmoniously. Luke and Paul are in full agreement on this point. (Galatians 2:11f.;Acts 15:1f.) Discord arose only when the Christian Jews from Palestine, who were far more strict and narrow than those of Antioch and of the Diaspora in general, found themselves confronted with the question, whether they were to sit and eat with the uncircumcised. This question Peter answered at Antioch forthwith in the affirmative (Galatians 2:11), just as previously he had eaten with Cornelius and other Gentiles (Acts 11:3). But apparently he did so impulsively and naturally and without full consideration: he looked only to the fact that these also were Christians, that all nations were admitted to the Church, (Acts 10:34.) that Cornelius and his friends and the Antiochian Church in general had received the Spirit; and he acted on impulse accordingly.

Afterwards, when the protest of the Jewish Christians from Jerusalem made him realise all that was involved in his action, he withdrew from full communion with the uncircumcised Gentiles in Antioch. In Acts 11:5-17 it is noteworthy that he does not reply to this part of the charge against him. He speaks in general terms: he had had Cornelius and his friends baptized, (It is noteworthy that he did not baptise them himself (10:48): he had with him one or more ministers for such work. Compare the rareness of Paul’s personal action in baptising at Corinth.) and vaguely he adds, “Who was I that I could withstand God?” That he ate with them, he does not expressly acknowledge, and he does not deny. The charge in this respect, however, was allowed to drop at that time: it was not urgent, and it was not pressed even at Jerusalem. In Antioch among the freer Jews full intercourse became the rule; and, when Peter came there, he followed the rule.

Until the emissaries from Judaea came to Antioch, therefore, there had been no trouble regarding intercourse among the converts, Jews and Greek. Such a case as that of Titus in Galatians 2:3 f. could not have arisen at an earlier date. Nor can the case of Titus be placed during the controversy after the emissaries arrived in Antioch, for the controversy was a universal one and not about the treatment of an individual. Moreover, the circumstances in which the case of Titus came up are of quite different character from what existed in Antioch. The emissaries found there a general rule of common life and intercourse, public and manifest; but the case of Titus was brought forward by some persons, called in strong terms “sham brethren,” who spied secretly and found that Titus was eating along with certain Jews. In Antioch this could be seen everyday by all men. Hence I cannot entertain the suggestion (which has been made by some) that the case of Titus occurred at Antioch.

There seems therefore to be no doubt that the case of Titus must be placed at Jerusalem. Nothing in it suits Antioch. Everything in it points to Jerusalem. In Jerusalem there were doubtless many Jews that, without being fully Christian, were in a certain degree sympathetic with the new Faith. These might be called “pseudo-Christians”; and some of these, looking askance at Titus as a Greek, and watching carefully though in a covert way the private life of the Antiochian delegates, observed that he ate with the Jewish colleagues. This is just what would naturally occur in Jerusalem; and doubtless this took place within the first day or two of their arrival. At once there was an explosion similar to that in Acts 11:2 f., but ending as quickly as in that case, through the prudence and sympathetic action of Titus (as we shall see).

Some of the writers who argue in favour of an early date for Galatians seem to lay most stress on the difficulties which accompany the theory (as yet the dominant and generally accepted theory — but after all only a theory) of a late date for the Epistle. Personally I attach great weight in all such problems to positive arguments of one particular class: which date makes the Epistle most illuminative of Christian history and of Paul’s mind and character? As to difficulties, it is often the case that the solution of a seeming difficulty opens the gateway of advance in knowledge; and I do not feel any serious dread of difficulties as such, even although my ignorance may at the moment prove unable to dispose of them. The only real difficulty is the impossibility; and it is not always easy to distinguish between what is only difficult and what is impossible.

Approaching the question on a different line, I am glad to feel that I have reached the same conclusion as Professor V. Weber and the rest, even though it has involved abandoning my former view. I find, however, that the change of view is not so great as might appear. The place of origin remains the same, and this involves the important question who it was that joined with Paul in issuing the letter. Who were the persons that added to Paul their authority in making the weighty decision pronounced in this letter? As it has been already maintained in my Historical Commentary, § ii. p. 238 ff., Syrian Antioch, and no other Church but Antioch, could be in the position to join with Paul in authorising this letter. With the earlier date, there can be no possible place of origin except Antioch (or the road thence to Jerusalem). (The latter view, which is that of Professor Lake, arises apparently through the idea that “all those who are with me” implies travelling companions. It puts Gal. some weeks later.) As has been stated in the book named, there was the most complete difference between the class of persons who might be mentioned in the end of a letter as joining in sending salutation to Paul’s correspondents, and the class of persons who could be admitted as joint-authorities in issuing the letter. Paul took no humble view of his own relation to his correspondents. He composed his letter as one having authority, like an Emperor using a rescript; and few could be associated in composing the rescript.

Generally his authority was Divine inspiration and knowledge of the mind of Jesus; but even where he “has no commandment of the Lord,” and gives his own personal opinion (as in 1 Corinthians 7:25), he still regards his judgment as carrying weight to his own spiritual children. He did not admit as joint authors of his letters any except persons who occupied a position of authority in respect of the correspondents addressed in the special letter, (The proof of this has been given in detail already: see Histor. Comm. Gal. § II.) Timothy, for example, could co-operate in the first letter to Corinth or in that to Colossae; but not in the circular letter to the Asian Churches which was written at the same time. He had authority in Corinth and in Colossae, (On Colossae, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 274.) but not in the Asian cities generally. The person who is associated as an authority was present with him, and approved the doctrine and judgment delivered in the letter.

Antioch was the one church that could and did possess special authority in respect of the Galatian congregations. (Even Jerusalem could not well be considered. It would indeed have the authority suitable in general for any young Church, but not in this peculiar case where its authority is treated rather slightingly.) Antioch had sent forth Paul to them, and had received him back to give an account of all that had occurred to him in that mission, and of the new step that he had taken in the course of it (Acts 14:27).

If, however, that was so, why did not Paul mention the name of the Church which lent its authority to his letter? Why did he veil it under the vague phrase “all the brethren who are with me”? This question did not occur to me formerly. Now I would suggest that the Church in Antioch was not itself unanimous; and that Paul could only claim the authority of “all those who are with me”.

Though there can be no doubt that the overwhelming majority of opinion in the Antiochian Church was with Paul, yet there can also be no doubt that the emissaries who came from Jerusalem had their supporters. Paul, in Galatians 2:12, tells the story: in the Church of Antioch, the Christian Jews, including even Barnabas, deferred to the emissaries and ceased to maintain social intercourse with the uncircumcised Christians. Hence Paul claims to speak with the authority only of “all those who are with me,” and not of the Church as a whole. He will not claim support from any man that is not in full agreement.

What light does the early date throw on the difficult sentence in Galatians 2:3 f.? “Not even Titus who was with me, who was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: but by reason of the pretended brethren. . . .” The sentence was never completed. Paul breaks off, being carried away by the tide of his thought; and he never resumes the interrupted thought — perhaps avoiding, in the hurry and rush of his ideas, the repetition of a matter which was doubtless known in a general way to the Galatians. Paul completes their knowledge by adding some less known details; but does not repeat the public and familiar facts.

Perhaps the right clue is furnished by Acts 16:3 : “because of the Jews that were in those parts”. In St. Paul the Traveller, p. 158 f., the close parallelism between Acts 15:1 f. and Galatians 2:12 f. is pointed out, and the parallelism is used to date the incident described in those two passages. That date now stands fast on the earlier dating of the letter; but the parallelism with the language of the Acts extends further. There is a certain analogy between the case of Titus in Galatians 2:3 f. and of Timothy in Acts 16:3. Each was an uncircumcised Hellene; and each had to be treated in some way “because of the Jews in those parts”, διὰ τοὺς Ἰουδαίους; is exactly parallel to διὰ τοὺς ψυεδαδέλφους. Two possibilities seem to be open as regards the case of Titus.

(1) Not even Titus was compelled to be circumcised; but, because of the sham brothers who came about to spy upon our actions, he voluntarily accepted the rite, though we (viz. Barnabas and I) did not for a moment yield by deferring to their demands and requiring him to comply: his conduct was purely voluntary, and arose through his desire to avoid anything that might wound their feelings and produce enmity or strife. In that case Titus, by his unselfish devotion, served as a model for the case of Timothy; and Paul, by accepting his devotion, might be said by enemies to have become a preacher of circumcision. That this was actually said in Galatia by his enemies is fully admitted by himself; (Galatians 5:11; compare 1:8-10.) and it is of course clear that their account was founded on some acts or words of Paul’s, even though the act or words were, according to him, misrepresented. This theory has some advantages. It well explains the words of Galatians 5:11, and (which otherwise constitute rather a difficulty as we shall see below, when the early date of Galatians is accepted). (When the later date of Gal. is accepted, these passages are naturally understood as a reference to the case of Timothy; and to my mind that has always constituted the strongest argument in support of the later dating.) It puts Paul’s conduct on a uniform plane throughout; he acted towards Timothy as he had consented to Titus’s voluntary action some years before: he was always willing to go a very long way practically in concession to Jewish prejudices and customs. It has one very great advantage in respect of Galatians 5:2 f: “I, Paul, say unto you that, if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing. Yea, I testify again to every man that receiveth circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law. Ye are severed from Christ, ye who would be justified by the Law; ye are fallen away from grace.” This passage would have a strange and almost an ugly look, if it were taken au pied de la lettre; but, if it was written to correspondents into whose ears the case of Titus, as now interpreted by the theory we are considering, had been dinned by the insistence of Paul’s emissaries, there was no danger of their taking it in the extremest sense, and no question of Paul’s intending it in that sense. They would know at once that Paul was not condemning Titus, whose conduct he has just been explaining and justifying. They would catch Paul’s real meaning, that if you get yourselves circumcised as a rite necessary for salvation and incumbent on every Christian, who desires to be in the fullest sense a Christian, then you are asking that the Law, not Christ, should be your means of justification; but if you accept the rite as a concession to the feeling of others, this is an act of love and sympathy. The objection to this way of supplying the suppressed thought is that it requires such strong emphasis to be laid on the verb “was compelled”. It has, however, been maintained by a number of exegetes, and must be admitted, that this strong emphasis is quite possible grammatically, and is not inconsistent with the force of the Greek language.

Considerable difficulty was experienced from early time with this passage and with the facts of the case. Οὐδέ in Galatians 2:5 is omitted in the Western text and by many Fathers, though the difference among the Fathers on this matter does not determine or depend upon their opinion whether Titus was actually circumcised (as a good many careful authorities have maintained).

(2) Not even Titus was forced to be circumcised; but, because of the sham brethren, he retired from Jerusalem, in order to avoid outraging their scruples, and to facilitate the success of our mission — though we personally did not for a moment yield to their demand that Titus should be circumcised. The advantage of this interpretation is that it explains the statement of Acts 11:30, Acts 12:25, in which Titus is not mentioned as a delegate; and thus it produces perfect harmony between the two accounts of this second visit; but it makes the verb “was compelled” rather feeble: one asks why, on that interpretation, Paul did not say περιετμήθη in place of ἠναγκάσθη περιτμηθῆναι. On this interpretation we cannot determine, except by pure conjecture, what part of Paul’s teaching and conduct it was that had been construed by his opponents as implying the concession and admission that Gentiles should be circumcised; no word or act previous to the case of Timothy is recorded on the part of Paul, from which the teaching of circumcision by Paul could by any twisting be elicited. But, of course, conciliatory teaching in general on Paul’s part may be assumed as having always been his way.

Further, the strong words of Galatians 5:2-4 would be more liable to be interpreted by Galatian readers in the extreme and most literal way. There would not remain any case, so far as we know, in which Paul had practically demonstrated his opinion that a converted pagan might voluntarily and justifiably, in courteous and sympathetic consideration for Jewish custom and feelings, accept the rite as a concession to them. We should then have to explain both and Galatians 5:11, , by the same supposition, that in his early Galatian teaching Paul had laid great stress on the duty of making concession to Jewish feeling — which is of course quite probable in itself, though not actually recorded — and had said that for this conciliatory purpose any Christian might justifiably accept the Jewish rite.

(3) It cannot be admitted that there is any third alternative. Either Titus retired from Jerusalem and relieved the delegation of the difficulty caused by his presence, and thus the question was shelved for the time; or Titus submitted voluntarily in deference to Jewish prejudices. It cannot for a moment be regarded as possible either that the straitlaced Jews of Jerusalem submitted quietly to the continued presence of the unclean Gentile at the same table with Jews in their midst, or that Paul and Barnabas consented to dissimulate their relations with Titus and their feelings towards him. If Titus stayed on in Jerusalem uncircumcised, the whole question must have been raised. “They of the circumcision” could not possibly have tolerated the daily presence among them of an uncircumcised Hellene in intimate intercourse with Jews.

If Titus retired from the city, the question might have been quietly postponed, since neither side cared to force it to the front, and both probably thought that time might bring about a solution. The question had threatened to emerge, in the case of Cornelius; but as Cornelius was far away, it did not become active, and was left undecided (Acts 11:1 ff.). Not until some of the strictest class of Jewish Christians, “they of the circumcision,” found themselves daily confronted by this question in Acts 15:1, Galatians 2:11, did a final and authoritative decision become necessary. So Luke clearly intimates, and nothing that Paul says is discrepant.

It is not easy to choose between the two open alternatives. The arguments which occur to me are now stated; and they tend to favour the former alternative, that Titus accepted the rite. This seems to make history more harmonious; and it explains well the text of Galatians 2:5 and the remarkable variation there. The reading of οὐδέ in Galatians 2:5 is preferable in history as well as in authority and in sense. The omission of the negative is an early error, which disappeared again comparatively early. It arose in the time when the memory still survived that Titus had submitted to be circumcised; and the apparent contradiction — not really a contradiction — was solved by eliminating the negative word.

Considering what immense importance in this controversy attached to the willingness of Gentiles to make concessions to Jewish feelings, one is surprised to find that in the Apostolic Decree, which decided the question, there is, according to the generally accepted Text, no recognition of what after all was the most powerful force and motive to action in this problem. The Decree is almost harshly anti-Hebrew in this Text. It has not a word except condemnation of the old-fashioned Hebrews. It makes little allowance for their point of view. The concessions which it commands as necessary are slight; and they are called burdens, not concessions. Since that is so, one fails to understand why the Decree does not say anything about the point which to Paul always seemed the most important in this question — the duty of sympathy and wider concession. In the Western Text, on the other hand, the supreme duty not to do to another what you would not wish to be done’ to yourself is emphasised. This, beyond all doubt, is a strong point in that Text: it relieves us of a difficulty in the Decree. Those who reject the Western Text, however, can always find an explanation in the accompanying verbal message, which is expressly referred to in the Decree, and which (as may fairly be urged) must be regarded as needed to complete the Decree. Judas and Silas were to convey the Decree, and to complete and explain its terms. They were to show the power and the need of love and brotherly feeling and mutual concession in the give-and-take of ordinary life. Hence Paul, when treating this subject in 1 Corinthians 10, and in Romans 12, lays almost the whole stress on love and concession. He was completing the Decree, as the Council had expected that the messengers should complete it. He does not quote the Decree, because it was so completely in his favour: he assumes it as familiar: it is in the minds of all his correspondents like the Ten Commandments: its meaning is what his readers are seeking for, and this he expounds.

Therefore, Paul never quotes the Decree to Corinthians and Romans: he only adds to it the savour and the grace of love. In the letter to the Galatians, on the contrary, he does not add love to it: he rather intensifies the sternness and the bareness of its rebuke to the extremists on the Jewish side. This is why, on mature consideration, I find myself forced to put the letter before the Decree. The letter was written in the stress of conflict. It states the Pauline side in the strongest form. Though it mentions (SeeGalatians 5:22f.) the duty of love, and condemns quarrels and strife, yet it does not apply love to this question of conduct, and it is open to the criticism of suggesting that the cause of quarrel and strife lay always on the side opposed to his view. It was not written after the victory was gained, and the Decree issued, which requires that those who carry and comment on it should add what Judas and Silas were commissioned to add orally to the letter. When the Galatian letter is placed early, the result is that the stages in early Christian development are more clearly marked in history, and the conduct of Paul is always seen to be actuated by the same spirit; he is from first to last full of sympathy and ready to make concession in his attitude to the Jews, so far as practical conduct is concerned, but from first to last he is resolute and uncompromising in his teaching of principles. In this he never hesitated: it is always wrong to make any external act or any bodily mutilation a condition of entry into the fullest rights of the Christian Church. Salvation is a spiritual fact, in the spirit and through the spirit. To abandon that essential principle is to be severed from Christ, and to be fallen away from grace. In practical conduct, however, one should be ready to go very far in self-denial, and even to submit to privation and suffering, in the way of accommodating one’s deserved liberty to the scruples and prejudices of a weaker brother. From this point of view the accepted form of the text of the Apostolic Decree is found to be justified. The Western reading would be an early error, arising so early that it reaches back to the time when the real facts were still in the memory of the Church and the text was accommodated to them. As in Galatians 2:3, so it is in Acts 15:29.

I can quite imagine that many, when the case is clearly before them, will refuse to believe that the Apostles’ Decree could wholly omit a reference to the duty of being conciliatory, and could leave this to be added orally by messengers. I am not quite sure that I shall be able finally to accept this idea myself. All such must be driven to prefer the Western Text of the Decree, not necessarily as exact, but as proving that there has occurred dislocation and mutilation of the original form.

However this may ultimately be determined, the Decree is not a good specimen of legislation for the Universal Church. The Council had not attained to easy mastery of its own powers. The mere fact that the Decree is not subsequently quoted in the early history shows that it was not found in practice to be sufficient. The congregations could not neglect the duty of being conciliatory to Jewish feelings, yet this duty is either omitted or put in a very vague way, according as the “Eastern” or the “Western” text is selected as nearest the true form. In all probability the Corinthians, when they consulted Paul and were answered in his First Epistle, had in mind the Decree, perhaps quoting it explicitly; and in his reply Paul was expounding what he conceived to be the spirit which actuated the Apostles in framing it.

It seems, then, clear that, during the visit to Jerusalem described in Galatians 2:1-10 and Acts 11, 12, the question regarding the circumcision of Gentile converts did not reach an acute form, and was not discussed publicly. Nor was the question discussed in the private meeting of Paul and Barnabas with the three leading Apostles (Galatians 2:2). The latter heard the two future missionaries describe their action and attitude in Syrian Antioch. Perhaps this private conversation took place on the eve of Paul’s departure, immediately after he had received the command described in Acts 22:17-21, to go right away into the Gentile world; and at any rate it is clear that Barnabas and Saul indicated their plans for future mission work. The three fully approved of the division of work: Paul and Barnabas were commissioned to the Gentiles, and they themselves to the circumcision. But in Paul’s statement there is nothing to suggest that the conditions of future social intercourse between Christian Jews and converted Gentiles were considered.

Every difficulty was met when it emerged in the early history of the Church. It was met always (Pictures of the Apostolic Church, § xiii.) in the same way by reliance on the guidance of the Spirit. The Apostles, as a rule, did not go out to meet future difficulties and to discuss ways of solving questions that had not yet presented themselves in practice.

Personally, I find myself strongly influenced by the argument which the Rev. J. Ironside Still briefly states in a private letter, and which I restate in my own fashion, as well as I can. In the Galatian letter the tone of Galatians 1:16 f., , seems a little ungracious towards the older Apostles, and hardly justifiable as a complete statement of fact, if Paul, while he wrote, was carrying with him the Decree in which they speak so cordially and generously of him, and in which they decide a difficult case on his appeal to them. Could he so emphatically assert his complete independence of them? Could he say, as if this were complete and final, without adding later some qualification and restriction, “I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were Apostles before me,” after he had actually gone up to Jerusalem, and had referred to their decision a controversy that had arisen in Antioch? Those words would be correct for the moment referred to, but they had at that later date ceased to be a sufficient statement of the case, and it was urgently necessary that the modification needed after the meeting of the Council should be mentioned. Contrast the tone of Galatians 2:6 with the words of the Apostles about Paul, Acts 15:25 f. It is, of course, true that at a later time Paul’s statement of his relation to the older Apostles is very strong, but yet it is qualified: 2 Corinthians 11:5, 2 Corinthians 12:11, “I reckon that I am not a whit behind the very chiefest Apostles, though I am nothing”; 1 Corinthians 15:9, “I am the least of the Apostles”.

Such statements of equality are, however, essentially different from the assertions in Galatians 1:16, “I conferred not with flesh and blood,” and in Galatians 2:6, “they imparted nothing to me”. Paul could always assert emphatically his equality in authority. His sphere of action and of supreme authority under divine guidance had been recognised by the older Apostles frankly and generously and fully. But after the Council and the Decree he could not say with the graciousness and courtesy that characterised all his relations towards the older Apostles and breathed through their words regarding him (Acts 15:25 f.) — he could hardly even with truth say — “they imparted nothing to me”. And, further, after he had publicly conferred with them and discussed the whole question in the Council, he could not be held justified in asserting to the Galatians that he had only privately and not publicly discussed plans of action with them. Such a statement would be disingenuous, to use the mildest possible term. It has even been explained by some modern scholars as an instance of the lower standard of truth that prevailed in Paul’s time. To me it seems essentially un-Pauline.

If the Galatian letter was written early, this would fully confirm the confidence expressed in Section I, that Paul had thought out his Gospel completely before he went to the Gentiles; and that there is no development in his own religious position and doctrine from letter to letter. There is indeed development in his missionary methods. He learned much in that respect through experience. There is also some development in his way of presenting his Gospel to his audience. But, on the whole, the difference between his letters is mainly due to the varying character and needs of his correspondents. In writing to the Thessalonians he was addressing an audience of pagan hearers, from whom he had been torn after a very few weeks of preaching, and who were in their infancy as converts. Their needs and their difficulties were quite different from those of a community where Paul had taught for months or years, and where he had instituted a body of officials charged with oversight of the congregation. (See also Section I.) The Galatian letter is the earliest, yet it is perfectly mature in its teaching, and in that respect it naturally goes with the Roman and Corinthian letters. The resemblance, however, forms no proof of date; although it has been classed with them on that account by most scholars, and assigned to the same period. Paul was addressing congregations of maturer character. He had been a considerable time in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra (I adhere to the views expressed about times and seasons in my first books on the subject: the first journey lasted from spring 47 A.D. to autumn 49. Mr. Turner would cut the time shorter by a whole year.) (we know little about Derbe, which was less important in Pauline time and throughout Christian history): he returned to those cities and spent some time there, organising them, lappointing presbyters and (as we may say with confidence) giving some training to these officials in their congregational duties. On these two visits he had formed bodies of not merely enthusiastic, but also in some degree matured, converts; and it was in such people that his letter was addressed. Their very error, which he is correcting in his letter, was a sign of thought and of anxious painstaking search for truth, though they had not understood Paul’s religious position. It is, however, quite clear that some word or act of Paul’s had been misconstrued, and Paul’s explanations and recurrence to the topic show that the misunderstanding was easy and not unnatural.

Those Galatian converts still needed much further training; but the training was that which was suited for a more mature class than the Thessalonians; and this training was conveyed to them both in the letter and in two subsequent visits (Acts 16:1-6, Acts 18:23). The desire to avoid pressing too far the South Galatian theory long influenced me, and made me shrink from disturbing the general consensus that Galatians should go with Romans and Corinthians. I could not trust myself completely in this matter. I feel, however, that the early date brings out better the conduct of Paul as eagerly seeking after unity from first to last. Only in the very beginning of the controversy, when he was contending, as it appeared, for the very existence of a Gentile Church, he seems in some small touches to claim too complete independence. But quickly he recognised that such complete independence was inconsistent with the unity of the Church, and he accepted (probably, as I think, he suggested) the reference of the controversy bearing on this matter to the senior Apostles and the whole governing body in Jerusalem for an authoritative decision. This was a sacrifice of complete independence, and is therefore subsequent to the Galatian letter, which claims absolute independence. My friend Professor Vernon Bartlet, in the Expositor, May, 1913, has fully stated the arguments by which he tries to establish the date to which he assigns the Pastoral Epistles, viz. during the imprisonment of Paul in Rome, i.e. the time described in Acts 28:17 ff. Now there is between us no full agreement that the method of settling the relative date of Paul’s letters by tracing in them a development of doctrine from the earliest to the latest is unsound; and that the teaching in the letters is graduated according to the position and knowledge of the people addressed, and is not determined by the growth in Paul’s thought. (This is more fully stated in Section I.) When, however, Professor Bartlet asks us to accept the theory that Paul could write First Timothy to the Asian Christians (He lays much stress (perhaps even too much) on the view that this letter was intended as much for the Asian Christians as for Timothy himself.) at Rome a very short time before he despatched to them the letters which we call Ephesians (not to add Colossians (A letter like Colossians was intended, not merely for them, but for others, as Paul says in 4:16.)), I cannot but ask how Paul’s conception of the needs of the Asians could change so radically in the course of a few days or weeks or at the most months.

Except in respect of date, I am in sympathy with almost all that Professor Bartlet says in his series of articles on the Pastoral Epistles; (Expositor, January, etc., 1913.) but I think he has not yet explained this difficulty. I suspect that there may be an explanation in a different line from that which he takes; but meanwhile he bases his theory upon a system of chronology which seems to me to pervert the story of Paul’s life and the meaning of Luke’s history.

Let us take the arguments one by one: we may fairly assume that Professor Bartlet, with his characteristic sureness, has marshalled every consideration that can be brought to bear. He puts his argument in six positions. I put them, as far as brevity permits, in his own words: —

(1) “If Luke had meant this to be understood” (viz. that “the case simply went in Paul’s favour by default at the end of the two years”), why then “it would have been easy for him to say so”. This form of reasoning is devoid of strength. One might with equally cogency reply that, if Luke had meant it to be understood that Paul was tried and executed at the end of the two years, it would have been easy for him to say so. The historian writes the concluding part of his narrative in a tone of gladness and confidence which contrasts strongly with the gloom and despondency of the preceding chapters (down to the beginning of the voyage). No person used to judging literary method would naturally understand that the joyous spirit of the end of Acts heralded the condemnation and execution of Paul. It is true that a martyrdom was a victory; but still the prelude to martyrdom was a severe strain on the martyr and on the Church, and the tone of such a narrative is grave and sombre.

Such a line of reasoning, however, is always bad. Luke was not writing to clear up our minds, and to save us from making historical errors. He might in numerous places have saved us from mistakes and from interminable discussion — sometimes from controversies in which tempers have been lost and reason has been flouted — if he had told us in a word or two that such and such a thing happened. If he had put one or two more notes of time in his history, what thousands of pages about the chronology of the Gospel and the Acts would have been avoided. But he had no eye to the difficulties created by the modern commentator. His object was unconcerned with our wandering ignorance. He was concerned only with his own audience and his own subject, which was the action of the Divine Spirit in the Church. He assumes knowledge of surroundings which we do not possess.

(2) “The analogy between the case of Paul and the trial of Jesus” tends, as my friend says, to prove that Paul, like Jesus, was put to death. If you were to argue from analogy after that fashion, it would follow that Paul was put to death in Jerusalem by crucifixion. There are analogies in certain points between the one case and the other, and these analogies Luke mentions; but there can be no progress made if we argue that the analogy is complete in respect of some other point which Luke does not mention.

(3) Professor Bartlet has now become quite confident about the innuendo in Agrippa’s comment (Acts 26:32): “This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed to Caesar”. Formerly he stated merely as a possible alternative that this might be taken to imply, “but Paul had appealed, and the reigning Caesar was Nero!” Now he says positively that “the very fullness with which Acts records the preliminary hearings in Palestine and the favourable verdicts, points to the condemnation by an ‘abnormal monster’ like Nero”.

Professor Bartlet here argues as if the point in question was whether Paul was or was not condemned under Nero; but it is a matter of history that Paul was condemned by Nero. The question is not whether Nero did or did not condemn Paul, but only when and in what circumstances Paul was condemned by Nero. Tacitus says in clear and explicit terms that the Christians began to be persecuted by Nero in the autumn of the year 64. What has to be proved by Professor Bartlet is that Paul was condemned more than two years earlier than 64. That proof he does not enter upon through this line of argument, even if it were valid in itself

He adds, too, that in Luke’s history the condemnation of Paul “is naturally passed over in silence as well known, and dangerous to refer to explicitly from the Christian standpoint”. This last statement is one which he can hardly support on longer consideration. Did Luke not dare to mention in his history that Paul was condemned, because it was “dangerous to refer to” this fact? From what point of view can Professor Bartlet count it dangerous, or think that Luke would shrink from at any rate briefly mentioning it, even supposing it had been dangerous? He holds that the book of the Acts was written between 72 and 75 A.D. under Vespasian. Nero was then a proscribed and condemned Emperor. There could be no danger, so far as politics and the Roman State were concerned, in saying that a man, even though innocent, was executed by order of Nero. Nero was then officially treated as an “abnormal monster”. His very name was expunged, so far as possible, from history; and his acts were declared invalid. To have been condemned by Nero was at that time rather a proof of good character. Why should Luke on any view think it dangerous to say so, or shrink from saying so? For my own part, I hold that Vespasian originated the Imperial condemnation of Christianity; but, if Luke had shrunk from defending Christianity in spite of the official condemnation, he would not have written at all. His book is from beginning to end a defence of Christianity, and a protest against the Imperial condemnation. As to recording that Nero condemned Paul, such a record could in no way have been dangerous to the Christians or to the man who wrote the words. (My view that Vespasian originated the anti-Christian policy, and that Nero’s persecution was personal to himself and did not commit the government permanently — inasmuch as Nero’s acts were abrogated and his memory condemned — has not yet been accepted by historians. The prevailing view regards Vespasian as good-naturedly indifferent to Christianity (and of course also as absolutely hostile to Nero). That is still more fatal to Professor Bartlet’s argument.) The only possible danger lay in speaking well about Nero. To cast blame on Nero was politic, if Luke had ever wished to be politic. As to Paul’s “foreboding at Ephesus that he would never again see the Ephesian elders,” on which Professor Bartlet lays such stress, I have pointed out, time and again, that there is no foreboding in the speech. Paul had no time to waste in forebodings at that time: he stated plans: he did not know, or forecast, the future: he never pretended to forecast future events: perhaps he would have thought it wrong to do so except by revelation. His plans were now formed, and he stated them to the Ephesian bishops — doubtless at greater length and in more detail than in the resume which Luke gives. His face was now set towards wider plans in the centre and the west of the Empire, as soon as the final act in his mission to the Four Provinces was concluded, viz., the delivery in Jerusalem of the charities of all his congregations. In the pursuance of those plans he did not intend to be in Ephesus again, but to go from Syria direct to Rome, and thereafter to devote himself to Western work, leaving the East to others as his representatives.

If my friend would start afresh on this new line, I think he would have a better road to success in proving his case. He might reasonably argue that First Timothy and Titus were written in pursuance of the plan which Paul had intimated to the Ephesian elders (and generally to his friends). Timothy was to carry on his work in Asia, Titus in the new Crete; and they required a certain charge. Then, in the development of events, Paul found that more was needed in Asia: first came the needed Epistles, and finally the return implied in Second Timothy. This involves a long gap between First and Second Timothy. Professor Bartlet makes a distinct gap, both in thought and circumstances, between them. A longer gap in time is quite in consonance with the real meaning of his theory. (I may add that the arguments which I formerly stated against Professor Bartlet’s placing of First Timothy on the voyage from Ephesus to Jerusalem do not apply to his improved form, that it was written in Rome, soon after his arrival there.)

(4) In his argument under this fourth head Professor Bartlet is singularly indifferent to the facts and methods of Roman legal procedure. Admitting that, as I have proved, there was a period fixed within which the prosecutors in an appeal must appear, and that eighteen months was probably the period, he suggests “that the Jews had at least given notice within the legal limit that they would press their case as soon as the winter of 61-62 was over and their witnesses could arrive”. But it made no difference what notice they might give; the practice had been instituted by the preceding Emperor that the prosecutors must appear to begin proceedings and not merely give notice that at some future and remoter time they would appear to take practical action. Their time for acting and for appearing to press their case with witnesses and evidence, assuming that witnesses were required and permitted, was limited. (I assume that witnesses were brought forward, as my friend makes a point of this. But in appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Great Britain now, no witnesses are allowed to be called: lawyers state the case on both sides, but new evidence is not admitted.)

Professor Bartlet argues respecting the difference between Luke’s “two full years” and “eighteen months”. But the force of Luke’s phrase is not to be pressed to the exact limit of twenty-four months. A study of usage does not suggest anything more than that Luke is guarding against the quite possible understanding that “two years” might mean only a year and a bit. He means the substantial part of 60 and 61 (the Roman years), beginning 1st January; and a term ending in autumn 61 would fully explain Luke’s expression. Luke is always loose in definitions of time. Even when in Acts 20-21, he gives so many numerical statements of days, he leaves it open to dispute and diverse opinion whether or not Paul actually reached Jerusalem before Pentecost, as he so eagerly desired. (Personally I entertain no doubt that Paul arrived in time, and that Luke in his own way intimates this; but many commentators argue on the opposite side. A careful study of Luke’s usage seems to me to eliminate all doubt.) After the lapse of eighteen months, there followed necessarily (as I have pointed out) various legal proceedings and forms, which took some time. The limit did not open the door and unlock the chain of the prisoner automatically. It merely started the new series of forms, culminating (as I have argued from the action of Claudius) in a formal acquittal by the law (in which sometimes the Emperor personally appeared). Claudius loved to appear personally; and, if we are to judge from Acts 27:24, Nero appeared personally in the case of Paul, and “Paul stood before him” (a favourable augury). The words of the vision imply success and inspire hope. On the other hand, in the case of a tedious trial, in which an obscure Roman (Obscure among the hundred of thousands of cives Romani, but actually a member of a great aristocracy of birth and influence in his own surroundings in the Eastern province.) from Tarsus was concerned and witnesses from many provinces and cities (as Professor Bartlet urges) had to testify, the idea that the Emperor would take part personally in the proceedings is in the last degree improbable — especially an idle and careless Emperor like Nero. From Acts 27:24 alone it seems highly probable that the condemnation did not occur at this time. Some years later of course the trial did occur; but Luke’s way seems to point on to the success of Paul at this stage and the failure of the Jews.

It was only later, in the degeneration of tyranny, that the condemnation occurred, when Roman government was admittedly all going wrong. A sort of prepossession seems to affect the minds of many writers on this subject. There was a condemnation under Nero: Luke mentions an accusation under Nero: therefore the two must be placed together. Tacitus with his absolute negative is set aside, or perhaps not even thought of.

Professor Bartlet even quotes “the analogy of the case of Lampon”. As I have just pointed out above, there is no analogy: a governor with autocratic authority in Egypt kept a case hanging over Lampon there for two years: there was no time limit, (The time limit under consideration operated only in case of appeals from the provinces to the Emperor. Lampon was a provincial, charged with treasonable words or acts; and the governor had full authority to protract or to decide the case.) because this was not an appeal: the governor could do as he chose, and might have kept the case impending for ten years if his tenure of power lasted so long. It is really not right to harp on this old quotation, which merely proves that those who quote it as an analogy are disregarding facts and law. The one analogy is that “two years” occurs both in Philo and in Luke; but the term is a very wide one; in Philo it might perhaps mean only fourteen months, but in Luke it certainly means fully twenty-one or twenty-two months. The end was fixed by legal considerations in the one case, and by the governor’s caprice or convenience or fears in the other.

(5) “The nature of the references to his prospects made by Paul in Philemon and Philippians respectively is against the theory that the Jews did not support their case at Rome. For if so we should expect the tone of Philippians, as nearer the end of the time-limit for such action, to be more confident than that used in the earlier Philemon; whereas the opposite is the case.” So Professor Bartlet writes. This is a reason of rather flimsy character. It is quite obvious, as I have pointed out, that in that long imprisonment, Paul, with his weak health, was exposed to alternations of confidence and apprehension; and the situation itself changed. Moreover, the date of Philippians is after all not accepted as certain. Lightfoot puts it earlier than Philemon. Like Professor Bartlet I have argued that it is later; (St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen, p. 358.) but my mind then was largely influenced by the same prepossession which dominates Professor Bartlet’s mind, that the trial for life came towards the end of the “two full years”. Just as he does, so I formerly read everything through the colouring influence of that fixed idea. Things appear different when one looks through a colourless atmosphere. In any case, as has just been stated, the argument has no bearing on the case and no value in either direction. As I fancy. Professor Bartlet would incline to place Colossians and Philemon and Philippians early in the imprisonment and Second Timothy at some interval after them.

Moreover, my friend himself only a month before saw no great difference between Paul’s tone when he refers in those two Epistles to the prospect of his release. I have just quoted what he printed in May, 1913; but in April, 1913, in the same magazine, p. 327, he says: “Somewhat confident forecasts of relief and consequent journeying were to be found in the so-called ‘Imprisonment Group,’ viz. Philemon 1:22 and Php 1:25 f., Php 2:23 f.”. The difference that may exist between two fairly confident anticipations of release forms a very slight and unstable foundation on which to build an argument of this kind.

(6) Professor Bartlet now brings up his final and, as he thinks, conclusive argument. “This new view is excluded by the joint witness of 1 Peter , 1 Clement, which (as I have pointed out in the article ‘Paul’ in the Encycl. Britannica) do not permit of Paul’s having survived the Neronian persecution of 64, in which Peter also suffered. For Clement says (c. 6) that the Neronian victims of 64 were ‘gathered together’ unto those two Apostles just referred to.”

Unfortunately the argument from Clement is based on a double misinterpretation. The first misinterpretation is that Peter and Paul died first, and then the Roman martyrs were “gathered together” to them. This results from an incautious application of such a translation as that by Lightfoot: “unto these men of holy lives was gathered together a vast multitude of the elect”. Lightfoot was guided by the right desire to keep close to the order of the Greek; (τούτοις τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ὁσίως τολιτευσαμένοις συνηθπρίσθη πολύπλῆθος ἐκλεκτῶν.) but, so far as I remember, (I write far from books.) he never used this argument from his own expression which Professor Bartlet employs. The dative case at the beginning cannot bear the sense which the argument requires: the dative is determined by the sense of the verb — not “was gathered unto,” but “was gathered along with” — and the proper suggestion is “along with these men of holy lives there was gathered like a great crowd, a multitude of the elect”. There is no suggestion of sequence: the other elect did not follow, they go along with, Paul and Peter, In the second place, the other elect are not simply the martyrs of the Neronian persecution. They are the whole band of martyrs that have suffered in Rome, and perhaps universally. Considerations of time play no part in the mind of Clement: all the band of martyrs down to his own day are associated in the great “cloud of witnesses” with Peter and Paul. The argument is based, from first to last, on a wrong prepossession, and involves a wrong view. As long as one looks simply at the Greek, and keeps all prepossessions far from one’s mind, no such inference as Professor Bartlet draws can possibly suggest itself. The weakness of his arguments is due to the prepossession that holds his mind: ordinarily he reasons in a far freer and more convincing way. The method of drawing auguries in a totally different sense from words which were spoken with a clear and definite meaning, is not a sound one. In Acts 26:32 Agrippa spoke a definite acquittal. He had no thought of contrasting his judgment with the Emperor’s: he simply stated that the case might have ended at this point if Paul had not by his appeal removed it from the authority of the present court. Now the Roman pagan system of augury laid much stress on the unconscious innuendo conveyed in words intended to have a quite different meaning. Personally, I am satisfied always to take the historian’s words in the sense in which each speaker intended them, and to draw no innuendo as to the light in which future developments might place them to later observers; and the other method as Professor Bartlet employs it seems to me a dangerous one. When he was writing as a commentator, with no case to prove, he regarded Acts 26:32 in a fair and unprejudiced way, and he stated only the plain meaning (which I take) as being really “of the greatest significance,” while the innuendo was to him a matter on which “opinions may differ”; but now he founds an argument on this innuendo as if it were a matter of certainty. His argument based on First Peter touches such a big issue and involves so many preliminary steps, each of which is a subject of grave controversies, that I may be permitted here to set it aside. One cannot go into it on the necessary scale. I would only say that, while I (like very few others) am very much in agreement with him in almost all the steps of the complicated train of reasoning which he assumes as the preliminary to his inference, I draw from these steps a widely different conclusion.