GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE
And thus it served tlie purpose of a schoolmaster, or of the guardian wlio took charge of boys under ege. But when the fulness of time is come the guardian is no more needed, the full-grown son having received the spirit of his father (3"-4'). Lastly, out of the law itself St. Paul brings proof that there is a better thing than law, even liberty. This he does by allegorizing the story of Ishmael and Isaac.
In the third division of the Ep. (5. 6) St. Paul proceeds to vindicate Christian liberty against all aspersions. First of all (5'"'-), he e.xhorts the Gal. to stand fast in their liberty, and to beware of coming under bondage to minute observances. On tlie other hand, he warns tliem against using this liberty as an occasion to the llesli (S^-S'"). In a brief conclusion, written witli his own hand in the large characters which distinguished it from the more clerkly ^vriting of his amanuensis, he con- trasts his own devotedness and aU'ectionate at- titude towards them with the selfish aims of tlie Judaizers.
Hence, as Godet says, ' This Ep. marks an epoch in the history of man ; it is the ever-precious document of his spiritual emancipation.'
Difficulties raised by the Ei'istle.— 1. Its discrepancy with the Acts of the Ajwstles. — Baur (Paul, c. V.) maintains that the autobiographical statements made by St. Paul in Gal 2 shed an unfavourable light on the Ac, ' the statements in which can only be looked at as intentional devia- tions from hist, truth in the interest of the special tendency which they possess.' Weizsacker (Das Apostol. Zeitalter, p. 87 tf., Eng. tr. i. 102) follows in Baur's steps with pedantic rigour.
(1) The first discrepancy which is discovered by a com- parison of the two narratives is that whereas St. Paul says that three years elapsed after hia conversion before he returned to Jerus., St. Luke says (Ac 9"-^), ut }>\ i^knpouvTo ri!j.\ptti iy.xfui (which Weizsiicker inaccurately renders * nur eini^'e Tage,' 'only a few days*), he was compelled to leave I);uitascus. To find here a discrepancy damaj^in;^ to the trust- worthiness of Ac, is to neglect the consideration that St. Paul li;id a reason for criving the exact time, while St. Luke had no ot'casion to be definite and rigidly exact. (2) A second dis- crepancy urged by Baur has more weight. St. Luke says (9'-^) tliat when St. Paul came to Jerus. he sought to attach himself to the disciples, but they feared him. How was it possible that the Christians of Jerus. should not have heard of his conver- Bion? There was constant communication between the two places, and St. Paul was so outstanding afigure thatitisdifiicult to believe that his adhesion to the Christian Church should not have been known to all Jerusalem. It has been urged that his absence in Arabia may have withdrawn him from attention ; that he may not have occupied the outstanding position at that time which subsequent events suggest, and, indeed, although commissioned to Damascus, it seems to have been at his own request, and not because he was sele';ted bv the Sanhedriu. liesides, even in St. Paul's own account 3al l^S), it appears that he was still known rather as the persecutor than as a convert. And, on the other hand, even in Luke's account, it is apparent that some, e.g. Barnabas, knew of his conversion. The intro- duction by Barnabas has certainly the air of truth. No doubt ditficuUies remain ; but not such as discredit the account in Ac, considering the very different points of view of the two writers. (3) A third discrepancy is found in the statement of St. Paul, that he saw none of the apostles but Peter ; whereas St. Luke says that Barnabas ' brought him to the apostiea . . . and he was with them going in and going out at Jerus., preaching boldly in the name of the Lord (Ac 9^.^). Weizsacker is here again inaccurate in alleging that St. Paul himself assures us that he got to know no one in the Church, and that he con- tinued for years to he personally unknown to the members. This is not what St. Paul says, lie states that he saw no other apostle besides Peter, and that he remained unknown to the Churches of Judijea. Whether he beauiie acquainted with Christiatis who were not apostles, and whether he preached in Jerus. or not, he does not say. The discrepancy really amounts to this, that in the one account he is represented as being introduced to the apostles os a body, in the other to St. Peter alone. (4) The dithculties which Baur raises, and which Weiz- saL-ker inherits, regarding the visit to Jerus. which Luke inter- polates between the two mentioned by St. Paul, are trifling aiui fictitious. Weizsacker's ground for rejecting this visit is that ' Paul assures us ho was seen by no one in Jerus.' during the fourteen years which elapsed" between the first and second visitJi mentioned in Gal. Where St^ I'aul makes this statement we do not know, (d) The discrepancies which the Tubingen school at one lime found between tJal *1 and Ac 16 have been rather thrown into the background by the living lucinber^ of VOL. H. — 7
GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 97