The allusion in vi. 11 (ἴδετε πηλίκοις ὑμῖν γράμμασιν ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί) is to the large bold size[11] of the letters in Paul’s handwriting, but the object and scope of the reference are matters of dispute. It is “a sensational heading” (Findlay), but it may either refer[12] to the whole epistle (so Augustine, Chrysostom, &c., followed by Zahn) or, as most hold (with Jerome) to the postscript (vi. 11-18). Paul commonly dictated his letters. His use of the autograph here may have been to prevent any suspicion of a forgery or to mark the personal emphasis of his message. In any case it is assumed that the Galatians knew his handwriting. It is unlikely that he inserted this postscript from a feeling of ironical playfulness, to make the Galatians realize that, after the sternness of the early chapters, he was now treating them like children, “playfully hinting that surely the large letters will touch their hearts” (so Deissmann, Bible-Studies (1901), 346 f.).
The earliest allusion to the epistle[13] is the notice of its inclusion in Marcion’s canon, but almost verbal echoes of iii. 10-13 are to be heard in Justin Martyr’s Dial. xciv.-xcv.; it was certainly known to Polycarp, and as the 2nd century advances the evidence of its popularity multiplies on all sides, from Ptolemaeus and the Ophites to Irenaeus and the Muratorian canon (cf. Gregory’s Canon and Text of N.T., 1907, pp. 201-203). It is no longer necessary for serious criticism to refute the objections to its authenticity raised during the 19th century in certain quarters;[14] as Macaulay said of the authenticity of Caesar’s commentaries, “to doubt on that subject is the mere rage of scepticism.” Even the problems of its integrity are quite secondary. Marcion (cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. 2-4) removed what he judged to be some interpolations, but van Manen’s attempt to prove that Marcion’s text is more original than the canonical (Theolog. Tijdschrift, 1887, 400 f. 451 f.) has won no support (cf. C. Clemen’s refutation in Die Einheitlichkeit der paulin. Briefe, 1894, pp. 100 f. and Zahn’s Geschichte d. N. T. lichen Kanons, ii. 409 f.), and little or no weight attaches to the attempts made (e.g. by J.A. Cramer) to disentangle a Pauline nucleus from later accretions. Even D. Völter, who applies this method to the other Pauline epistles, admits that Galatians, whether authentic or not, is substantially a literary unity (Paulus und seine Briefe, 1905, pp. 229-285). The frequent roughnesses of the traditional text suggest, however, that here and there marginal glosses may have crept in. Thus iv. 25a (τὸ γὰρ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ) probably represents the explanatory and prosaic gloss of a later editor, as many scholars have seen from Bentley (Opuscula philologica, 1781, pp. 533 f.) to H.A. Schott, J.A. Cramer, J.M.S. Baljon and C. Holsten. The general style of the epistle is vigorous and unpremeditated, “one continuous rush, a veritable torrent of genuine and inimitable Paulinism, like a mountain stream in full flood, such as may often have been seen by his Galatians” (J. Macgregor). But there is a certain rhythmical balance, especially in the first chapter (cf. J. Weiss, Beiträge zur paulin. Rhetorik, 1897, 8 f.); here as elsewhere the rush and flow of feeling carry with them some care for rhetorical form, in the shape of antitheses, such as a pupil of the schools might more or less unconsciously retain.[15] All through, the letter shows the breaks and pauses of a mind in direct contact with some personal crisis. Hurried, unconnected sentences, rather than sustained argument, are its most characteristic features.[16] The trenchant remonstrances and fiery outbursts make it indeed “read like a dithyramb from beginning to end.”
Bibliography.—Of more modern editions in English, the most competent are those of C.J. Ellicott (4th ed., 1867, strong in linguistic and grammatical material), Prof. Eadie (Edinburgh, 1869), J.B. Lightfoot (11th ed., 1892), Dean Alford (3rd ed., 1862) and F. Rendall (Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1903) on the Greek text; Dr Sanday (in Ellicott’s Commentary, 1879), Dr Jas. Macgregor (Edinburgh, 1879), B. Jowett (3rd ed., 1894), Huxtable (Pulpit Comment., 1885), Dr Agar Beet (London, 1885, &c.), Dr W.F. Adeney (Century Bible), Dr E.H. Perowne (Cambridge Bible, 1890) and Dr James Drummond (Internat. Handbooks to N.T., 1899) also comment on the English text. The editions of Lightfoot and Jowett are especially valuable for their subsidiary essays, and Sir W.M. Ramsay’s Historical Commentary on Galatians (1899) contains archaeological and historical material which is often illuminating. The French editions are few and minor, those by A. Sardinoux (Valence, 1837) and E. Reuss (1878) being adequate, however. In Germany the two most up-to-date editions are by F. Sieffert (in Meyer’s Comment., 1899) and Th. Zahn (2nd ed., 1907); these supersede most of the earlier works, but H.A. Schott (1834), A. Wieseler (Göttingen, 1859), G.B. Winer (4th ed., 1859), J.C.K. von Hofmann (2nd ed., 1872), Philippi (1884), R.A. Lipsius (2nd ed., Hand.-Commentar, 1892), and Zöckler (2nd ed., 1894) may still be consulted with advantage, while Hilgenfeld’s commentary (1852) discusses acutely the historical problems of the epistle from the standpoint of Baur’s criticism. The works of A. Schlatter (2nd ed., 1894) and W. Bousset (in Die Schriften des N.T., 2nd ed., 1907) are more popular in character. F. Windischmann (Mayence, 1843), F.X. Reithmayr (1865), A. Schäfer (Münster, 1890) and F. Cornely (1892, also in Cursus scripturae sacrae, 1907) are the most satisfactory modern editors, from the Roman Catholic church, but it should not be forgotten that the 16th century produced the Literalis expositio of Cajetan (Rome, 1529) and the similar work of Pierre Barahona (Salamanca, 1590), no less than the epoch-making edition of Luther (Latin, 1519, &c.; German, 1525 f.; English, 1575 f.). After Calvin and Grotius, H.E.G. Paulus (Des Apostel P. Lehrbriefe an die Gal. u. Römer Christen, 1831) was perhaps the most independent interpreter. For the patristic editions, see the introductory sections in Zahn and Lightfoot. The religious thought of the epistle is admirably expounded from different standpoints by C. Holsten (Das Evangelium Paulus, Teil I., i., 1880), A.B. Bruce (St Paul’s Conception of Christianity, 1894, pp. 49-70) and Prof. G.G. Findlay (Expositor’s Bible). On the historical aspects, Zimmer (Galat. und Apostelgeschichte, 1882) and M. Thomas (Mélanges d’histoire et de litt. religieuse, Paris, 1899, pp. 1-195) are excellent; E.H. Askwith’s essay (Epistle to the Galatians, its Destination and Date, 1899) advocates ingeniously the south Galatian theory, and W.S. Wood (Studies in St Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, 1887) criticizes Lightfoot. General studies of the epistle will be found in all biographies of Paul and histories of the apostolic age, as well as in works like Sabatier’s The Apostle Paul (pp. 187 f.), B.W. Bacon’s Story of St Paul (pp. 116 f.), Dr R.D. Shaw’s The Pauline Epistles (2nd ed., pp. 60 f.), R. Mariano, Il Cristianesimo nei primi secoli (1902), i. pp. 111 f., and Volkmar’s Paulus vom Damaskus bis zum Galaterbrief (1887), to which may be added a series of papers by Haupt in Deutsche Evang.-Blätter (1904), 1-16, 89-108, 161-183, 238-259, and an earlier set by Hilgenfeld in the Zeitschrift für wiss. Theologie (“Zur Vorgeschichte des Gal.” 1860, pp. 206 f., 1866, pp. 301 f., 1884, pp. 303 f.). Other monographs and essays have been noted in the course of this article. See further under [Paul].
(J. Mt.)
[1] The historical and geographical facts concerning Galatia, which lead other writers to support the south Galatian theory, are stated in the preceding article on Galatia; and the question is still a matter of controversy, the division of opinion being to some extent dependent on whether it is approached from the point of view of the archaeologist or the Biblical critic. The ablest re-statements of the north Galatian theory, in the light of recent pleas for south Galatia as the destination of this epistle, may be found by the English reader in P.W. Schmiedel’s exhaustive article in Encycl. Biblica (1592-1616) and Prof. G.H. Gilbert’s Student’s Life of Paul (1902), pp. 260-272. Schmiedel’s arguments are mainly directed against Sir W.M. Ramsay, but a recent Roman Catholic scholar, Dr A. Steinmann, takes a wider survey in a pamphlet on the north Galatian side of the controversy (Die Abfassungszeit des Galaterbriefes, Münster, i. W., 1906), carrying forward the points already urged by Sieffert and Zöckler amongst others, and especially refuting his fellow-churchman, Prof. Valentine Weber.
[2] The tendency among adherents of the south Galatian theory is to put the epistle as early as possible, making it contemporaneous with, if not prior to, 1 Thessalonians. So Douglass Round in The Date of St Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (1906).
[3] It is not quite clear whether traces of the Judaistic agitation were already found by Paul on this visit (so especially Holsten, Lipsius, Sieffert, Pfleiderer, Weiss and Weizsäcker) or whether they are to be dated subsequent to his departure (so Philippi, Renan and Hofmann, among others). The tone of surprise which marks the opening of the epistle tells in favour of the latter theory. Paul seems to have been taken aback by the news of the Galatians’ defection.
[4] Apparently they were clever enough to keep the Galatians in ignorance that the entire law would require to be obeyed (v. 3).
[5] The critical dubiety about οὐδέ in ii. 5 (cf. Zahn’s excursus and Prof. Lake in Expositor, March 1906, p. 236 f.) throws a slight doubt on the interpretation of ii. 3, but it is clear that the agitators had quoted Paul’s practice as an authoritative sanction of the rite.