GALATI, EPISTOLA al. — One of the four major letters of St. Paul, addressed to the Churches of Galatia, which had been deeply disturbed by Judaizing propaganda.
SUMMARY:
I. Occasion, recipients, and date of composition
II. Content
III. The Judaizers of Galatia
IV. Pauline authenticity and relationship to the Epistle “Romans.I. OCCASION, RECIPIENTS, AND DATE OF COMPOSITION
G. is the most polemical of the Pauline letters, in a notably harsh tone, at times reaching insult (3:1), irony (4:2), and sarcasm (5:12). Its opponents are relentlessly pursued in each of their positions. Even the part customarily regarded as moral or practical is written under the influence of the controversy agitating those Churches.The Judaizing question, then decisively overcome, had no continuation in the life of Christianity.
The issue was whether or not to accept the substance of Christianity, whether to preserve for it its character as a universal religion or to make it a mere variation of Judaism, with that particularist spirit which reserved to Israel the full right to call itself the “people of God,” to the point that no one could attain the salvation brought by Christ who did not bear in his own flesh the sign of incorporation into that people. To accept the claims of the Judaizers meant placing a most serious obstacle in the way of the spread of the Gospel in the pagan world, which would have been still more reluctant to enter the Church if it had had to pass through the vestibule of Mosaic law, submitting to circumcision and the other legal observances. Moreover, to accept circumcision as an indispensable means of salvation was, in practice, equivalent to declaring the insufficiency of Christ’s saving work.
G. is closely connected with Paul’s ministry and with the vicissitudes of the community to which it was addressed; consequently, it can be elucidated only by placing it within a precise historical moment of the Pauline epistolary corpus.
The central problem of the recipients has been vigorously debated for about a century among exegetes of every school and confession. Its solution partly determines that of the date of composition, the precise nature of the errors spread in Galatia by the pseudo-apostles, and the understanding of certain aspects of Paul’s vehement reply.
The beginning of the letter (1:2) indicates as its recipients the “Churches of Galatia.” But the term “Galatia” (r.) may be understood either ethnographically, as applied to a territory from the ethnic characteristics of its inhabitants, or administratively, as the name of a Roman province. It seems certain that St. Luke in Acts adheres to the former rather than the latter meaning. The ambiguity is especially present in G. It is true that, if the Galatia traversed by Paul according to Act. 16:8 (the second missionary journey) was the territory inhabited by the genuine G., St. Luke tells us very little about their evangelization and about the Apostle’s subsequent visit (Act. 18:23), during which the first signs of the crisis must have emerged (Gal. 1:9). But the fragmentary character of the narrative in Acts should not surprise us. Paul himself seems to imply (Gal. 4:13) that the evangelization of G. was accidental, owing to an illness which compelled him to alter his itinerary (the impediment of Acta, 16:67).
The crux of the question lies in the meaning Paul himself gives to the terms Galatia and G. Are the “Churches of Galatia” (1:2), for him, those of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, founded during the first missionary journey (Act. 13:14-14:21) and revisited at the beginning of the second (Act. 15:36; 16:1), or communities established only during the second journey in the territories of Tavium, Ancyra, and Pessinus, inhabited by the Galatian tribes? The solution is less easy than may sometimes appear from reading authors who declare themselves decisively in favor of one or the other of these two opinions (cf. G. Ricciotti, Paolo Apostolo, Roma 1946, p. 132).
The supporters of the opinion that G. was addressed to the northern Galatian communities (the North-Galatian theory defended, to mention only the best-known, by J. B. Lightfoot, J. Knabenbauer, A. Loisy, M.-J. Lagrange, F. Prat, H. Lietzmann, D. Buzy, G. Ricciotti) sometimes emphasize the fact that this destination was commonly accepted until about a century ago. The argument is not very strong, since the Fathers and ancient exegetes did not perceive the problem, the former conceiving Galatia according to the nomenclature and boundaries of their own times.
On the other hand, several of the arguments advanced by the supporters of the South-Galatian theory (G. Perrot, W. M. Ramsay, Th. Zahn, V. WEBER, MAX, E. Le Camus, E. De Witt Burton, G. S. Duncan, F. Amiot) are likewise not decisive, since the texts permit a plausible explanation even under the opposite theory. Such, for example, is the alleged silence of Paul concerning the conference of Jerusalem and the related apostolic decree, from which it would have to be supposed that the evangelization of Galatia and the crisis that followed shortly thereafter were prior to that conference. Some, however, deny (Buzy, p. 430) the basis of the argument, referring Gal. 2:1-10 to the apostolic meeting at Jerusalem, whereas others (Amiot, pp. 29-32) understand it as referring to the journey mentioned in Act. 11:30 (cf. 12:25). Besides, Paul had no interest in speaking of it, since the apostolic letter, apart from being addressed to the communities of Syria and Cilicia (Act. 15:23), said nothing about circumcision, which was the fundamental article of anti-Pauline propaganda among the G. The strongest arguments in favor of the North-Galatian theory are based on Gal. 1:2 and 3:1. In the first of these passages, the letter is addressed to the “Churches of Galatia.” Now, given the practice, even in official documents, of distinguishing by their respective proper names the individual regions incorporated into the Roman province of Galatia, it is at least strange that Paul should have used this improper term to indicate the territories traversed by him during the first missionary journey, which in Luke’s account are mentioned by their proper names.
Significant, however, is Gal. 3:1, where the recipients are addressed by the title “G.” and with the unflattering addition “foolish.” If “Galatia” could be used in the broad sense of the Roman province, it is not very likely that the Pisidians and Lycaonians would have been called “G.” If the individual parts of the Roman province retained their own names, still more would these have remained attached to their inhabitants, who would not have felt excessively flattered to be called by the name of barbarian tribes that had immigrated into Asian territory relatively recently. Nor are the psychological considerations suggested in part by the epithet “foolish,” employed by Paul in the heat of controversy, without foundation. According to Caesar (De bello Gallico, IV, 5), the Gauls or Celts, to whose stock belonged the tribes settled in Galatia, were lovers of novelty, impulsive and fickle, ready to believe the latest arrival—especially if dressed as a philosopher—and to make the most serious decisions on hearsay. The recipients of G. had enthusiastically received Paul’s preaching, overcoming the repugnance which the illness from which he was then suffering must have aroused, indeed ready to tear out their eyes and give them to him (4:13 ff.). Then, with the same curiosity and fickleness of mind, they listened to the new preachers and were on the point of following them (1:6).
The divergence of opinions concerning the addressees is reflected in the determination of the date of composition, although the two questions are not, in themselves, interdependent. The south-Galatian hypothesis, in fact, could allow for an interval between Paul’s preaching and the arrival of the Judaizers longer than is commonly thought. The “so quickly” of 1, 6 may be understood as referring to the unexpected ease with which the readers gave in. To maintain, under the south-Galatian hypothesis, that everything preceded the Jerusalem conference—in which case the G. would be s. Paolo’s first letter—one must regard the Apostle’s two visits (4, 13; cf. 1, 9) as corresponding to the outward and return journeys of the first missionary expedition in the regions of Pisidia and Lycaonia (Amiot, p. 40; cf. pp. 38-43). But this seems somewhat forced; hence, even among supporters of the south-Galatian destination, others prefer to date the letter to the second apostolic journey, at the beginning of which Paolo and Silas again visited the communities of Derbe and Lystra (Act. 16, 1) and, in all probability, also those of Antioch of Pisidia and Iconium. Even so, the G. could be s. Paolo’s first letter.
For supporters of the north-Galatian destination, the G. can have been written only during the third missionary journey, at the beginning of which Paolo visited for the second time “the country of Galatia and Phrygia” (Act. 18, 23; cf. 16, 6 and Gal. 4, 13).
The date of composition remains approximate under both hypotheses. In the south-Galatian destination hypothesis, opinions are divided: if the G. predates the Jerusalem conference and follows the incident at Antioch, one cannot think of any date other than 49 (Amiot, p. 39 f.); if Gal. 4, 13 presupposes the visit made at the beginning of the second missionary journey, 51-52, from Corinth, may be proposed. The advocates of the destination to the Galatians properly so called are no more agreed, some opting for 53-54, from Ephesus [M. Lagrange, M. Meinertz, E. Ruffini, Chronologia Vet. et Novi Testamenti, Rome 1924, p. 198; cf. H. Höpfl.-B. Gut, Introductio Spesialis in Novum Text., 3rd ed., Naples-Rome 1949, p. 361], while others extend the date as late as 56-57, also on account of the similarities linking the G. with the Romans (Buzy, p. 418).
II. CONTENT
After the brief and impassioned prologue (1:1–10), which introduces the subject directly, Paul undertakes the apologia of his apostolate on the basis of a complex of positive facts, ranging from his conversion to the incident at Antioch (1:11–2:14). This is followed by the central section (2:15–5:12), commonly called the dogmatic section, which consists of a rapid succession of arguments in defense of Christian freedom over against the Mosaic law. Finally, almost in order to remove any possibility of misunderstanding concerning the nature of this freedom, the letter concludes with a series of practical exhortations (5:13–6:10). It cannot be denied, however, that this division has something artificial about it, in contrast with the spontaneity and ardor of the writing, which presents itself, from beginning to end, as inspired by one great idea: the defense of Christian freedom over against the Mosaic law, already superseded.The prologue (1:1–10) immediately offers a salient theme of the writing: the apologia of the apostolate and doctrine that have come to Paul not from men but from God. At the outset, therefore, we read of the origin of his apostolic dignity; this is followed, in the address and the greeting of good wishes to the communities addressed, by the idea of liberation from the present evil age through the work of Christ the redeemer, and by a brief doxology to the Father (2–5). There is no praise of these communities, but rather amazement at seeing them so quickly turned away from the one Gospel, which is the Gospel preached to them by Paul, and the most decisive condemnation—without concern for displeasing men—of anyone who attempts to subvert the Gospel of Christ, whether it be Paul himself or an angel from heaven (6–10).
In defending his apostolic ministry (1:11–2:14), Paul begins with his own activity as a persecutor, which was well known to the Galatians (1:11–14). Converted by Christ and called to the apostolate among the Gentiles, he did not become a disciple of the Apostles who had preceded him, but withdrew into a period of preparatory silence; only three years later did he meet Peter and James in Jerusalem, while nevertheless remaining almost unknown to the Churches of Judea, which had only vague information about his first apostolic labors in Syria and Cilicia (1:15–24). The more important visit to Jerusalem, a kind of almost official recognition, took place only after fourteen years, at a meeting in which St. Paul strenuously defended freedom from the yoke of the Mosaic law, in the interest of Gentile Christians—a freedom also affirmed by the fact that Titus, a pagan by origin, was spared circumcision. The “pillars” of the Church recognized that Paul had been entrusted with the apostolate among the Gentiles, just as Peter had been entrusted with that among the circumcised. Concern for the poor of the Jewish communities was to be a tangible sign of this sincere agreement between the two fields of action (2:1–9). But when, at Antioch, Peter, out of fear of those who had come from Jerusalem, adopted a course of conduct that practically denied the freedom sanctioned at Jerusalem, Paul opposed him firmly, reproaching him for the inconsistency of imposing legal observances on others from which he himself considered himself exempt (2:11–14).
The discourse addressed to Peter passes imperceptibly from the particular episode to the formulation of the principle that God justifies by virtue of faith in Christ, without the works of the law. Indeed, Paul says, we Jews too have sought our justification in faith. But if we were nevertheless found to be sinners, it would follow absurdly that Christ was a minister of sin (2:15–18). Instead, we have died to the law in order to live by the life of Christ, who loved us and offered himself for us. If the law could justify, Christ would have died in vain (2:19 ff.).
The very experience of the faithful (3:1–5) and the testimony of Scripture concerning Abraham and his descendants (3:6–9) prove that justification comes through faith, not through the law. The latter was rather a source of malediction—a malediction that Christ took upon himself so that all nations might share in the blessing of Abraham (3:10–14). Moreover, the law could not invalidate the gratuitous promise previously made to Abraham (3:15–18). Through the law, which became an occasion of sin, men were to feel more keenly the need for Christ’s work (3:19–22): the law was a jailer (3:23), the pedagogue who was to lead us to him (3:24 f.). Through faith, which makes us children of God, and through Baptism, which clothes us with Christ, every distinction between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female comes to an end: all are united in Christ and share in the promises made to Abraham (3:26–29). The period of spiritual minority and servitude under the law has definitively ended through the work of Christ, who has made us adopted children and heirs (4:1–7). How, then, could the readers wish to return to slavery, they who had received Paul and his message with such enthusiasm? And do they not realize that they are the plaything of a false zeal? (4:8–20). Let them rather learn the lesson that Scripture provides concerning Hagar and Sarah; let them not wish to become children of the slave woman, since they would lose the right to share in the inheritance of Isaac (4:21–31). Let them therefore beware of allowing the freedom won for them by Christ to be taken from them. To be circumcised would be to fall away from grace and to take upon oneself the entire burden of legal observances (5:1–5). Circumcision is now of no value, and the one who preaches it and damages Christ’s work will be punished (5:6–12).
Genuine Christian freedom does not deliver us from slavery to the law in order to subject us to slavery to the flesh: its desires must be restrained, so that the fruits of the spirit may abound. The genuine follower of Christ has crucified his flesh and lives and acts according to the spirit (5:13–25). Let the faithful beware of vainglory, envy, and harshness toward anyone caught in wrongdoing, keeping watch lest they in turn be tempted. Let them bear one another’s burdens and give generously to those who instruct them, remembering that each person will reap according to what he has sown (5:26–6:10).
The epilogue is a postscript written in Paul’s own hand, to authenticate the letter, and once again emphasizes the irreconcilable opposition between his activity and doctrine and those of his adversaries. He also bears in his own flesh, as though in confirmation of his preaching, the stigmata of Christ (6:11–17). The final greeting has the nervous brevity of the beginning (6:18).
III. THE JUDAIZERS OF GALATIA
It emerges from the G. that they preached and imposed circumcision, along with the other Jewish practices.The ancient exegetes (e.g. s. Girolamo, In Epist. ad Gal., 5, 4: PL 26, 424; s. Agostino, Exp. Epist. ad Gal.: PL 35, 2105 ff.) did not doubt that such practices were regarded as necessary means to salvation, without which Faith and Baptism remained ineffective. These would have been the Judaizers commonly called intransigent or radical. That those of Galatia preached the observance of these things as a means leading to perfection in the religious life, but not as necessary for salvation—as something proposed to the good will of the neophytes but not imposed—has been maintained by non-Catholic and Catholic scholars alike. Against them, cf. Lagrange, who provided (Epitre aux Galates, 3ª ed., Parigi 1926, pp. xxix-xxviii; id., Les judaisants de l’Epitre aux Galates, in Revue biblique, 14 [1917], pp. 138-67) the most exhaustive demonstration of the uncompromising radicalism of the Judaizers opposed in the G. The energy with which Paul attacks the issue and his adversaries makes it clear that this was a serious deformation, or rather perversion, of the Gospel, leading to the disastrous consequence of rendering Christ’s work useless. Two different Gospels are involved—or rather, the Apostle immediately corrects himself, not two Gospels, since there is only one, but an attack upon the very substance of the Gospel of Christ (1, 6 ff.). And the matter is so grave that he does not hesitate to invoke an anathema against anyone who dares undertake such an enterprise, even on the absurd hypothesis that he himself were Paul or an angel from heaven (1, 8 ff.).
A. Loisy, too, at first (Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuse, 7 [1921], p. 76 ff.) acknowledged that the G., like the two letters to the Corinthians, is a document alive with Pauline life; but a further critique of his (La naissance du christianisme, Parigi 1933, p. 23 ff.) was unfavorable to the authenticity of the G., which he considered in part to be considerably later than the first century, on account of its overly clear affirmation of the divinity of Jesus: this, he held, was the fruit of a theological evolution that had reached its final stage only well into the second century.
Loisy’s view remained isolated (cf. M. Goguel, Galates, Epître aux, in Dict. Enc. de la Bible, I, p. 459); indeed, the G. was known and used at the beginning of the second century by Ignazio di Antiochia (Ad Eph., 16, 1 and 18, 1; Ad Magnes., 8, 1; Ad Rom., 2, 1; 7, 2; Ad Philadel., 1, 11; Ad Polycarp., 1, 2) and by S. Policarpo (3, 3; 5, 1, 3; 9, 2; 12, 2); during the second century, quotations and explicit attributions to Paul multiplied, with the heretic Marcione also contributing, since among the Pauline letters he accepted the G. above all (cf. Burton, p. LXXIII ff.; Amiot, p. 11).
IV. AUTENTICITÀ PAOLINA E RAPPORTO CON L'EPISTOLA AI ROMANI
L'autenticità della G. è ormai indiscussa. Se il radicalismo di B. Bauer e di qualche altro rappresentante della scuola olandese (cf. Burton, p. LXX sgg.) è arrivato a contestarla, per contro la scuola di Tubinga (per rimanere nel campo scattolico) ha architettato la teoria del paolinismo contro il patrimonio sul presupposto dell'autenticità della G., quale documento dell'intransigenza di Paolo nell'affermare l'emancipazione della legge.I caratteri interni confermano appieno la testimonianza dell'antichità. Oltre che un falsario non avrebbe pensato a mettere così crudelmente a nudo una grave crisi di queste comunità paoline, quasi uno scacco di Paolo stesso, questi solo poteva parlare con tanta sicurezza ed energia, forte della sua autorità di apostolo e di padre.
L'autenticità della G. sarebbe confermata, se occorresse, anche dalle notevolissime somiglianze con la Romani, non per il tono e per la particolare impostazione del problema che sono totalmente diversi, ma per le idee. La G. è l'anticipazione polemica dell'ampia a serena trattazione della Romani. Ma in questa il disegno si è allargato: la nuova economia della Grazia vi è considerata in una visione sintetica ed esauriente e in forma più positiva. L'anima, però, a le idee maestre sono le medesime; onde si può considerare la G. come un abbozzo della Romani; un abbozzo che non dovette precedere di molto il quadro tracciato a Corinto, nella calma relativa dell'inverno 57-58. - Vedi tav. CXXV.