07.03 - THE “LARGE LETTERS” AND THE “MARKS OF JESUS” IN GAL. 6.

3. THE “LARGE LETTERS” AND THE “MARKS OF JESUS” IN GAL. 6.

Paul began his preaching of the gospel to the Galatians in most promising circumstances; they received the invalid traveller as a messenger of God, yea, as if it had been the Saviour himself who sank down upon their threshold under the burden of the cross. Whereas others might have turned from Paul with loathing, they came to him, aye, and would have given away their eyes if by so doing they could have helped him. And then with childlike piety they gazed upon the majestic Form which the stranger pictured to them. Ever afterwards they were his children; and like a father’s, indeed, are the thoughts which, across land and sea, bind him to the far-off churches of Galatia. True, he knows that they had forsaken their native idols with the zeal of the newly-awakened, but he also knows that they had not followed up this advance by full realisation of the sacred fellowship in which the majesty of the living Christ ever anew assumes human form. The confession regarding his own life in Christ, which Paul, on the very eve of his martyrdom, made to his dearest friends, had been confirmed in his own mind by the painful yet joyful experience of his long apostolic labours among the churches; Not as though I had already attained! So then, as he left theseinfant churches in Asia Minor, his heart, full of love and gratitude, would yet have some foreboding of the dangers which their isolation might bring about; we cannot imagine that he was one to think, with the blind affection of a father, that the newly-awakened had no further need of tutors and governors. Nay, but rather that, as he prayed to the Father on their behalf, his remembrance of them would be all the more fervent. With their good-natured Gallic flightiness of disposition, these young Christians, left to themselves, succumbed to the wiles of their tempters. Paul was compelled to recognise that here too, the wicked enemy, who was always sowing tares among his wheat, did not labour in vain. In their simple-hearted ignorance the Galatians had allowed themselves to be bewitched by the word of the Law, and, in course of time, their idea of the man whom they had once honoured as their father in Christ became somewhat distorted in the light which streamed from national and theological animosity. How shall we figure to ourselves the feelings of the Apostle as the news of this reached his ears? If we would understand not only the words, but, so to speak, also the spirit, of the Letter to the Galatians, we must, above all, endeavour to bring home to our minds the movements of this marvellous human soul. The keen biting polemic of the missive gives us to know exactly how Paul judged of the legal particularism of his opponents; it was the salutary indignation of the reformer that guided his pen here. But we dare not assume that he meted out the same measure to the tempted as to their tempters. The bitter incisiveness with which he speaks of these churches does not proceed from the self-willed sullenness of the misinterpreted benefactor who is pleased to pose as a martyr: it is rather the lament of the father who, in the unfilial conduct of his son, sees but the evil which the wrong-doer brings upon himself. The harsh and formal speech of the first page or two of the letter is that of the παιδαγωγὸςεἰς Χριστόν. But he speaks thus only incidentally; once he has risen above the warfare of embittering words to the praise of the faith in Christ which may again be theirs, the warm feelings of the old intimacy will no longer be subdued, and the man who a moment before had feared that his labour among these foolish ones had been in vain, changes his tone and speaks as if he were addressing the Philippians or his friend Philemon. As in his other letters, so in this does Paul add to the words he had dictated to his amanuensis a postscript in his own handwriting. More attention ought to be paid to the concluding words of the letters generally; they are of the highest importance if we are ever to understand the Apostle. The conclusion of the Letter to the Galatians is certainly a very remarkable one. Once again, in short and clear antitheses, the Law and Christ are set over against each other; and, moreover, the fact that it is only his opponents whom he now treats severely, fully consorts with the mood of reconciliation with the church, to which, in course of writing, he had been brought. The letter does not close with complaints against the Galatians; and in view of the occasion of the letter, this must be taken as signifying very much the same as what can be observed in the conclusion of other letters called forth by opposition, viz., the express indication of the cordiality that subsisted between the writer and the readers. Paul has again attained to perfect peace—so far, at least, as concerns his Galatian brethren; and we are of opinion that in this placid frame of mind lies the explanation of the much-discussed words at the beginning of the autograph conclusion: See with how large letters I write unto you with mine own hand. The true mode of interpreting these words is to take them as a piece of amiable irony, from which the readers might clearly realise that it was no rigorous pedagogue that was addressing them. The amanuensis, whose swift pen was scarcely able to record the eloquent flow of Paul’s dictation upon the coarse papyrus leaves, had a minute commonplace handwriting. Between his fluent hand and that of Paul there was a pronounced difference¹¹⁸²—not only in the Letter to the Galatians. Surely it is hardly quite accurate to say that Paul used large letters in the present isolated instance for the purpose of marking the importance of the words to follow. The large letters naturally suggest that the explanation rather lies in the formal and external matter of caligraphy, and the fact that Paul calls special attention to them can only be explained, as we think, on the theory indicated above. Large letters are calculated to make an impression on children; and it is as his own dear foolish children that he treats the Galatians, playfully trusting that surely the large letters will touch their hearts. When Paul condescended to speak in such a way, the Galatians knew that the last shadows of castigatory sternness had died from his countenance. The real sternness of the letter was by no means obliterated thereby; but the feeling of coolness that might have remained behind was now happily wiped away by Paul’s thrice-welcome good-natured irony, and the readers were now all the more ready to receive the final message that still lay on his heart. The closing words present no difficulty in themselves. It is only the last sentence but one¹¹⁸³—one of the strangest utterances of Paul—which is somewhat enigmatical. Τοῦ λοιποῦ¹¹⁸⁴κόπουςμοιμηδεὶςπαρεχέτω˙ἐγὼγὰρτὰστίγματα τοῦἸησοῦἐντῷσώματίμουβαστάζω,henceforth let no man trouble me, for I bear in my body (R.V. branded on my body) the marks of Jesus. Two questions arise here: first, what does Paul mean by the marks of Jesus? and, secondly, to what extent does he base the warning, that no one shall trouble him, upon his bearing of these marks? “στίγματα . . . are signs, usually letters of the alphabet (Leviticus 19:28), which were made upon the body (especially on the forehead and the hands) by branding or puncturing,—on slaves as a symbol of their masters, on soldiers as a symbol of their leaders, on criminals as a symbol of their crime, and also, among some oriental peoples, as a symbol of the deity they served (3Ma. 2:29, . . ).”¹¹⁸⁵ Hence an ancient reader would know perfectly well what these stigmata were, but the very variety of their possible application renders less evident the special reference in the case before us. In any case, it seems to us quite evident that Paul is speaking metaphorically; is alluding, in fact, to the scars of the wounds he had received in his apostolic labours,¹¹⁸⁶ and not to actual, artificially-produced στίγματα. Sieffert¹¹⁸⁷decides in favour of the hypothesis that Paul’s intention was to describe himself as the slave of Christ; but in that case, how can the γάρ possibly be explained? We feel, in fact, that the γάρ is of itself sufficient to invalidate the hypothesis. Had Paul said the exact contrary; had he said, for instance, Henceforth go on troubling me as you will,¹¹⁸⁸—then the γάρ would have admirably fitted the context; that is, Paul might have gone on to say, with proud resignation, I am accustomed to that, for I am naught but a despised slave of Jesus Christ. No one will seriously contend that Paul wished to compare himself with a branded criminal; and the reference to the tattooing of soldiers would seem equally far-fetched. The γάρ sneaks against the latter explanation quite as forcibly as against the hypothesis of slave-marks; for the miles christianus does not quench the fiery darts of the Evil One by striking a treaty, but by going forth to active warfare, armed with the shield of faith. The explanation of Wetstein¹¹⁸⁹ still seems to us to be the best; according to this, Paul means sacred signs, in virtue of which he is declared to be one consecrated to Christ, one therefore whom no Christian dare molest. But Wetstein, too, fails adequately to show the causal relation between the two clauses, and as little does he justify the unquestionably strange periphrasis here used to express metaphorically the idea of belonging to Christ.¹¹⁹⁰ Provisionally accepting, however, this theory of the στίγματα, we might represent the causal relation somewhat as follows: Anyone who bears the marks of Jesus is His disciple, and, as such, is under His protection; hence anyone who offends against Paul lays himself open to the punishment of a stronger Power. We should thus be led to look upon the στίγματα as sacred protective-marks, and to interpret our passage in connection with certain lines of thought to which B. Stade has recently called attention.¹¹⁹¹ Already in the Old Testament, according to him, we find not a few indications of such protective-marks. He explains the mark of Cain as such, but, even apart from this, reference may be made to Isaiah 44:5¹¹⁹² and Ezekiel 9:1-11; ¹¹⁹³ in the latter passage we read that, before the angels bring ruin upon Jerusalem and destroy its inhabitants, one of them sets a mark upon the forehead of all those who mourn for the abominations practised in the city; these are spared by the destroying angels.¹¹⁹⁴ In Leviticus 19:27 f., ¹¹⁹⁵Leviticus 21:5 f. Deuteronomy 14:1 f., there is likewise implied an acquaintance with sacred signs by which the bearer indicates that he belongs to a certain deity: were the Israelites to permit of the sign of another god among them, they would thereby rupture their special relation to Jahweh as being His people. Circumcision, too, may be looked upon as a mark of Jahweh.¹¹⁹⁶ The following passages, belonging to a later time, may be mentioned:¹¹⁹⁷Psa. Sol. 15:8ὅτιτὸσημεῖοντοῦθεοῦἐπὶδικαίουςεἰςσωτηρίαν, cf.v. 10, where it is said of the ποιοῦντεςἀνομίαν that they have τὸσημεῖοντῆςἀπωλείαςἐπὶτοῦμετώπου αὐτῶν; according to 3Ma. 2:29 the Alexandrian Jews were compelled by Ptolemy IV. Philopator to have branded upon them an ivy leaf, the sign of Dionysos, the king himself being similarly marked;¹¹⁹⁸ Philo, de Monarchia (M.), p. 220 f., reproaches the Jewish apostates for allowing themselves to be branded with the signs of idols made with hands (ἔνιοι δὲ τοσαύτῃ κέχρηνται μανίας ὑπερβολῇ, ὥστ’ . . . ἵενται πρὸς δουλείαν τῶν χειροκμήτων γράμμασιν αὐτὴν ὁμολογοῦντες . . . . ἐν τοῖς σώμασι καταστίζοντες αὐτὴν σιδήρῳ πεπυρωμένῳ πρὸς ἀνεξάλειπτον διαμονήν˙οὐδὲ γὰρ χρόνῳ ταῦτα ἀμαυροῦνται); and similarly the worshippers of the beast in Revelation bear the name or the number of the beast as a χάραγμα on the forehead or on the right hand,¹¹⁹⁹ while the faithful are marked with the name of the Lamb and of the living God.¹²⁰⁰ Finally—a fact which is specially instructive in regard to the significance of protective-marks in Greek Judaism—the Thephillin, prayer-fillets, were regarded as protective-marks, and were designated φυλακτήρια, the technical term for amulets. These various data are sufficient, in our opinion, to justify us in supposing that the Apostle might quite easily characterise his scars metaphorically as protective-marks.¹²⁰¹ In confirmation of this supposition we feel that we must draw attention to a certain Papyrus passage, which seems to grow in significance the longer we contemplate it, and which, moreover, may even merit the attention of those who cannot at once accept the conclusions here drawn from it, as we think, with some degree of justification. It is found in the bilingual (Demotic and Greek) Papyrus J. 383 (Papyrus Anastasy 65) of the Leiden Museum. C. J. C. Reuvens¹²⁰² was the first to call attention to it, assigning it to the first half of the 3rd cent. A.D.¹²⁰³Then it was published in fac-simile¹²⁰⁴ and discussed¹²⁰⁵ by C. Leemans, the director of the museum, who has lately again¹²⁰⁶ indicated his agreement with Reuvens’ date. H. Brugsch¹²⁰⁷ has expressly emphasised the great importance of the Papyrus for the study of the Demotic, and has made most exhaustive use of it in his Demotic Grammar.¹²⁰⁸ He follows Reu-vens and Leemans in describing it as Gnostic—a term that may either mean much or little. The passage in question has been recently discussed more or less elaborately by E. Revillout,¹²⁰⁹ G. Maspero¹²¹⁰ and C. Wessely.¹²¹¹ It is found in the Demotic text of this “Gnostic” Papyrus,¹²¹² which belongs to that literature of magic which has been handed down to us in extensive fragments, and recently brought to light. To judge from the fac-similes, its decipherment is quite easy—so far, at least, as it affects us here. First of all, the text, as we read it, is given, the various readings of Reuvens (Rs), Leemans (L), Brugsch (B), Maspero (M), Revillout (Rt) and Wessely (W) being also indicated. It is introduced by a sentence in the Demotic which Revillout translates as follows: “Pour parvenir a e’tre aime de quelqu’un qui lutte contre toi et ne veut pas to parler (dire):” In the original the spell occupies three and a half lines. A rent runs down the Papyrus column, nearly in the middle; the number of the missing letters is indicated in the transcript by dots, the ends of the original lines by |.

ΜΗΜΕΔΙΩΚΕΟΔΕΑΝΟΧ

ΠΑΠΙΠΕΤ. . ΜΕΤΟΥΒΑΝΕΣ

ΒΑΣΤΑΖΩΤΗΝΤΑΦΗΝ

ΤΟΥΟΣΙΡΕΩΣΚΑΙΥΠΑΓΩ

5 ΚΑΤΑ . . ΗΣΑΙΑΥΤΗΝΕΣ

ΑΒΙΔΟΣ|ΚΑΤΑΣΤΗΣΑΙΕΙΣ

ΤΑΣΤΑΣΚΑΙΚΑΤΑΘΕΣΘΑΙ

ΕΙΣ. . . ΧΑΣΕΑΝΜΟΙΟΔ

ΚΟΠΟΥΣ|ΣΠΑΡΑΣΧΗΠΡΟΣ

ΡΕΥΩΑΥΤΗΝΑΥΤΩ|

2 παπιπε . . . : Rs. παπιπε . . . ., L. παπιπετ., B. παπιπετ(ου), M. Papipetu, Rt. Παπεπιτου, W. παπιπετου| 4 οσιρεως: W. οσιροις [!] 5 κατα . . . ησαι: Rs. πατα(στη)σαι, L. κατα. . . ησαι, B. M. Rt. καταστησαι, W. κατα(στη)σαιες: Rs. B. M. Rt. εις, L. ε. ς | 7 ταστας: Rs. ταςτας, B. ταςταφας, W. ταςτας^sic | 8 ... χας: Rs. (μ)αχας, L. αχας, M. αλχας, W. . . αχας | Δ: B. M. Rt. interpret as δεινα, W. δ(ε) ι(να)| 9 ρεψω: B. M. Rt. τρεψω, W. φερω | The editors differ from one another principally in their reproduction (or restoration) of the non-Greek words in the text. As these are irrelevant to our present purpose, we shall not further pursue the subject, feeling constrained to follow Maspero in reading thus:—

Μήμεδίωκεὅδε˙ανοχ

παπιπετ[ου] μετουβανες˙

βαστάζωτὴνταφὴν

τοῦ Ὀσίρεωςκαὶ ὑπάγω

5 κατα[στ]ῆσαιαὐτὴνε(ἰ) ς

Ἄβιδος,καταστῆσαιεἰς

τασταςκαὶκαταθέσθαι

εἰς [αλ]χας˙ἐάνμοιὁδεῖνα

κόπουςπαράσχῃ,προσ- 10 (τ)ρέψωαὐτὴναὐτῷ. In the Papyrus a Demotic rendering of the incantation follows the Greek text,—not literal, indeed, but showing, few variations. This Demotic version is thus rendered by Revillout:¹²¹³ “Ne me persecute pas, une telle!—Je suis Papipetou Metoubanes, je porte le sepulcre d’ Osiris, je vais le transporter a Abydos; je le ferai reposer dans les Alkah. Si une telle me resiste aujourd’hui, je le renverserai.—Dire sept fois.” We perceive at once that we have here a formula of adjuration. The following notes will help towards an understanding of the Greek text. Line 1. The commentators take ανοχ to be the Coptic anok (cf. אָנֹכִי) I am. In the Greek books of magic we very frequently find similar instances of the ἐγώεἰμι followed by the divine name, by which the adjurer identifies himself with the particular deity in order to invest his spell with special efficacy, and to strike the demon with terror. L. 2. We have not as yet discovered any satisfactory etymological explanation of the words παπιπετουμετουβανες ; Reuvens and Leemans give nothing more than conjectures. It is sufficient for our purpose to remember that such foreign words play a very great part in adjurations. Even if they had originally any meaning at all, it is yet unlikely that those who used the formula ever knew it; the more mysterious the words of their spell sounded, the more efficacious did they deem it. L. 3. The editors translate τὴνταφὴντοῦὈσίρεως as the coffin, or the mummy, of Osiris. ταφή in this sense is of frequent occurrence in the Papyri and elsewhere.¹²¹⁴ By this ταφὴτοῦὈσίρεως we must understand a model of the coffin or of the mummy of Osiris used as an amulet. The efficacy of this amulet is explained by the Osiris myth.¹²¹⁵ The Osiris of Graeco-Roman times was the god of the dead. His corpse, dismembered by Typhon, was again put together with the greatest difficulty by Isis; and it was ever afterwards the most cherished task of Isis, Nephthys, Horus, Anubis and Hermes, deities friendly to Osiris, to guard his tomb, and to prevent the wicked Typhon from repeating his mutilation of the divine body. The magicians took advantage of this conflict among the gods in order to make sure of the assistance of those who were friendly to Osiris. They strove to get possession of the sacred coffin; they carried it about with them—at least in effigie, as an amulet—and they threatened to demolish it if their desires were not fulfilled. Thus, according to Jamblichus,¹²¹⁶ the threats to destroy the heavens, to reveal the mysteries of Isis, to divulge the ineffable secret hidden in the depths, to stay the sacred sun-barge, to gratify Typhon by scattering the limbs of Osiris belong to the βιαστικαὶἀπειλαί, of the Egyptian magicians. The adjuration under notice is an efficacious minatory formula of this kind. It is directed to a demon, who is believed to be the cause of the difficulties which, it is hoped, will be eluded by its means;¹²¹⁷ the possession of the ταφὴτοῦὈσίρεως cannot but impress him, being a guarantee for the support of the most powerful deities, seeing that it was to their own best interests to be favourable to the possessor of the imperilled mummy. A quite similar menace, made by some “obscure gentleman,” is found in a recently-published tabula devotionis¹²¹⁸ from Adrumetum: if not, I shall go down to the holy places of Osiris, and break his corpse in pieces, and throw it into the river to be borne away.¹²¹⁹ L. 6. Ἄβιδος is the Egyptian Abydos. The town is of great importance in the history of Osiris. It was looked upon as the burial-place of the god, and its mysteries are spoken of by several ancient writers.¹²²⁰ The assertion of the bearer of the amulet, viz., that he is about to convey the mummy of Osiris to Abydos, seems to us to signify that he wishes, by means of an act which exercises a secret influence upon the friends of Osiris, to be all the more assured of their favour, and all the more dangerous to the demon. L. 7 and 8. ταστας and αλχας are the Greek transcriptions of two Egyptian words which are rendered by Maspero¹²²¹as les retraites and les demeures eternelles respectively. They help us to obtain a clearer understanding of the preceding lines: the user of the spell, in thus reverently entombing the body which Typhon had abused, lays the most powerful deities under the highest obligation to himself. L. 8. ὁδεῖνα is represented in the original by the abbreviation Δ, which is frequently used in the Papyri in the same way; when the formula prescribed in the book of magic was actually used against some troublesome person, this person’s name was substituted for the ὁδεῖνα, just as the name of the demon who was the cause of the κόποι took the place of the ὅδε in line 1. (U. von Wilamowitz-Moellen-dorff informs the author by letter that he reads ὁδε(ῖνα) also in line 1 (not ὅδε), for which there is much to be said). L. 9. προσ(τ)ρέψω: the Papyrus distinctly shows προσρέψω, i.e., the future of προσρέπω, to incline towards, intransitive: here it would be transitive, for which usage there is no authority.¹²²² Hence προστρέψω¹²²³ would seem the preferable reading. But the question is of no importance for the sense of the concluding sentence; in either case, the adjurer threatens to use his efficacious amulet against the troubler. The spell may accordingly be translated as follows:—

Persecute me not, thou there am PAPIPETOU METUBANES; I carry the corpse of Osiris and I go to convey it to Abydos, to convey it to its resting-place, and to place it in the everlasting chambers. Should any one trouble me, I shall use it against him.

Now, differ as we may as to the meaning of the individual details of this spell, and, in particular, as to the allusions to Egyptian mythology, it is, after all, only the essential meaning which concerns us here, and this meaning the author holds to be established: the βαστάζειν of a particular amulet associated with a god acts as a charm against the κόπουςπαρέχειν on the part of an adversary. Starting from this point, let us now seek to understand the enigmatical words of the Apostle. One can hardly resist the impression that the obscure metaphor all at once becomes more intelligible: Let no man ventureκόπουςπαρέχειν for me, for in theβαστάζεινof the marks of Jesus I possess a talisman against all such things. In this way the sense of the γάρ, in particular, becomes perfectly clear. The words are not directed against the Judaisers, but to the Galatians, and, moreover, it seems probable that we must explain the threat by the same temper of mind¹²²⁴ to which we attributed the sportive phrase about the large letters. Just as the Apostle, with kindly menace, could ask the Corinthians, Shall I come unto you with the rod?¹²²⁵ so here, too, he smilingly holds up his finger and says to his naughty but well-beloved children: Do be sensible, do not imagine that you can hurt me—I am protected by a charm. We must confess that we do not feel that Paul, by this mixture of earnest and amiable jest, lays himself open to the charge of trifling. Only by a total misapprehension of the actual letter-like character of his writings as they have come down to us, could we expect that he should in themassume the severe manner of the doctor gentium, who, caught up into the third heaven, proclaims to mankind and to the ages what eye hath never seen. Paul is no bloodless and shadowy figure of a saint, but a man, a man of the olden time. One in whose letters utterance is found for the raptured glow of faith and for a sensitive and circumspect love, for bitter feelings of scorn and relentless irony—why should the winning kindliness of the jest be deemed alien to him? He wishes to bring back the Galatians to the true way, but perhaps feels that he, in treating as τέλειοι those who are but νήπιοι, has overshot the mark. So he withdraws, though as regards the manner rather than the matter of his charges; and who that has ever loved the Apostle could find fault? Paul has taken care, in this passage, that his words shall have no hackneyed ring; he does not use general terms about the purposelessness of the attacks made on him, but intimates that what preserves him are the protective-marks of Jesus. Jesus guards him; Jesus restrains the troublers; Jesus will say to them: τίαὐτῷκόπουςπαρέχετε; καλὸνἔργονἠργάσατοἐνἐμοί. We cannot, of course, go so far as to maintain that Paul makes conscious allusion to the incantation of the Papyrus; but it is not improbable that it, or one similar to it, was known to him, even were it not the case that he composed the Letter to the Galatians in the city of magicians and sorcerers. The Papyrus dates from the time of Tertullian; the incantation itself may be much older.¹²²⁶ The same Papyrus furnishes us with another incantation,¹²²⁷ manifestly pervaded by Jewish ideas,—another proof of the supposition that the Apostle may have been acquainted with such forms of expression. Moreover, we learn even from Christian sources that Paul on more than one occasion came into contact with magicians,¹²²⁸ while he himself warns the Galatians against φαρμακεία,¹²²⁹ and reproaches them for having suffered themselves to be bewitched:¹²³⁰ all these things but serve as evidence for the fact that the sphere, from which, haply, some light has been thrown upon the obscure phrase about the marks of Jesus, was in no wise outwith the circle of ideas in which the writer moved.¹²³¹ Be it at least conceded that our contention should not be met by aesthetic or religious objections. We would not maintain, of course, that the figure used by Paul can be fitted into the formulas of dogmatic Christology; but in its context it forms a perfectly definite and forcible metaphor. And as for the possible religious objection, that Paul was not the man to apply terms originating in the darkest “heathenism” to facts distinctively Christian, it is a fair counter-plea to ask whether it is an unchristian mode of speech, at the present day, to use the verb charm (feien) in a similar connection, or to extol the Cross as one’s Talisman. In the same manner does Paul speak of the wounds which he had received in his apostolic work—and which in 2 Corinthians 4:10 he escribes as the νέκρωσιςτοῦἸησοῦ—as the marks of Jesus, which protected him as by a charm.