Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 6:11 - 6:11
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_6:11. Not “an odd verse,” the purport of which is “a singular whim” (Usteri): on the contrary, in accordance with his well-known manner in other passages (1Co_16:21; Col_4:18; 2Th_3:17), Paul adds to the letter, which up to this point he had dictated (comp. Rom_16:22), the conclusion from Gal_6:11 onward in his own handwriting.1[259] By means of these autograph endings the epistles indicated their authentic character. See 2Th_2:2; 2Th_3:17. But this close of our epistle, as stringently comprehending all its main points once more, was intended to catch the eyes of the readers as something so specially important, that from Gal_6:12 to the end the apostle wrote it with very large letters,[260] just as we, in writing and printing, distinguish by letters of a larger size anything that we wish to be considered as peculiarly significant. To this point, and consequently to the quite special importance of the addition now made at the end, not by the hand of the amanuensis, but by his own hand in large writing, Paul calls the attention of his readers, and says: “See with how great letters I have written (the sequel, from Gal_6:12) to you with my own hand!” Neither ἴδετε (in opposition to Rückert and Schott) nor ἜΓΡΑΨΑ (in opposition to Usteri) is at variance with the reference to what follows; for Paul, following the custom of letter-writers, has in his mind not the present point of time, when he is just about to write, but the point of time, when his readers have received the letter and consequently see what and how he has written (Phm_1:19; Phm_1:21; 1Jn_2:14; 1Jn_2:21; Act_15:27; Act_23:30, Rom_16:22; Thuc. 1. 1 in.; Isocr. ad Demonic. in.). Just in the same way in Phm_1:19, ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί points to what follows. In keeping with this is the similarly common use of ἔπεμψα , “respectu habito temporis, quo alter donum accipiebat;” Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 9. 25; comp. Krüger, § 53. 10. 1. Holsten, Voemel, Matthias, Windischmann, Reithmayr, agree with our view. Grotius also (“sua manu scripsit omnia, quae jam sequuntur”), Studer, and Laurent refer the words to what follows. Grotius, however, contrary to the usus loquendi, explains πηλίκοις as how much, thus making Paul call attention to the length of his autograph conclusion; and Studer understands it as referring to the unshapeliness of the letters (in opposition to this, see below); whilst Laurent (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 644 ff., and in his neut. Stud. p. 125. 5), against the signification of the word, adheres to the qualibus of the Vulgate, and is of opinion that Paul wrote this conclusion of the letter in the cursive character. Usually, however (as also by Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann), Gal_6:11 is referred to the whole epistle, which Paul had written with his own hand,[261] πηλίκοις being explained (with Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Cajetanus, Estius, Winer, Rückert, Usteri, Hilgenfeld) as referring to the unshapeliness of the letters,[262] arising from want of practice in writing Greek; or πηλίκ . γράμμ . being explained as: what a large letter I have written to you. So most expositors, including de Wette and Hofmann. But against this latter view—although the epistle, notwithstanding 1Pe_5:12, Heb_13:22, would no doubt be long enough for an autograph one—may be urged the very use which it assumes of γράμματα for ἐπιστολή ,[263] since Paul elsewhere always calls an epistle ἐπιστολή (1Co_5:9; 1Co_16:3; 2Co_3:1 f., 2Co_10:10; 2Th_2:2; 2Th_3:14; 2Th_3:17); and, on the other hand, he just as constantly uses the word ΓΡΆΜΜΑ , in the singular (Rom_2:27; Rom_2:29; Rom_7:6; 2Co_3:6) and plural (2Co_3:7), to express the idea of a letter of the alphabet; and also the decisive consideration that the employment of the dative (instrum.) instead of the accusative (Act_23:25; Rom_16:22; 2Pe_3:1) would be quite in opposition to all usage.[264] The dative would only be suitable if, instead of ἔγραψα , παρεκάλεσα perhaps, or some suitable word, followed. Against the former interpretation, which refers the word to the unshapeliness of the letters, it may be urged that the idea of ἀμορφία is arbitrarily introduced into πηλίκοις , as this quality is by no means an essential characteristic of large letters; secondly, that the charge of want of practice in writing Greek cannot be proved. The native of Tarsus and Roman citizen, who from his youth had enjoyed a learned training in Jerusalem, where the Greek language was very current among the Jews (see Hug, Einl. II. § 10)—the man who handled with so much delicacy and skill the Greek literary language, who was familiar with the works of the Greek poets (see on Act_17:28), and who was in constant intercourse with Greek Jews and Gentiles,—is it to be thought that such an one should not have possessed even the humble attainment of writing Greek without making the letters of an unshapely size? In Wieseler’s view, the large letters were very legible (for the public reading of the epistle); and in calling attention to this circumstance, Paul desires to bring into prominence his great love for his readers, which shuns no trouble on their account. But even thus the matter would amount only to a trifle. The Galatians were in possession of far greater proofs of his love than the size of the characters in his own handwriting, which, besides, might be something very different from legibility.
[259] 1 From 2Th_3:17 it is to be assumed that Paul closed all his epistles with his own hand, even when he does not expressly say so.
[260] The principal emphasis is on the word πηλίκοις , which is therefore placed apart; the secondary stress lies on τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί . It may, however, be doubtful whether Paul wrote merely ver. 12 with larger letters, and the sequel with his own hand but in his ordinary mode of writing, or whether he continued the large characters down to ver. 16 or to ver. 18. The internal connection of vv. 12–16, the uniform solemn tone of these verses down to their solemn conclusion, and the abrupt character of ver. 17, all unite in inducing us to adopt the second view.
[261] In adopting this view various grounds have been guessed for its autograph composition. Pelagius: “that Paul desired to show that he was not afraid!” Ambrosiaster, comp. Augustine and Michaelis: “that he desired to prove the genuineness of the epistle.” Chrysostom (who, moreover, assumes in addition the cause assigned by Pelagius), Luther, Calvin, Calovius, and many others: “that his intention was to show the Galatians his earnest care for them, to make them attentive in reading, and the like.” Hilgenfeld: “that he attached so much importance to the epistle.” Ewald: “that Timothy had not been with him just at the time when he composed the epistle; and he thus wished, in the postscript written at a somewhat later period, to make excuse for the large inelegant letters in which the epistle had been written.” Hofmann: “that the autograph writing was intended to bring the apostle as it were vividly before the eyes of his readers.” Hofmann is also of opinion that Paul had not elsewhere written with his own hand, that he might not needlessly curtail the time for procuring his bodily maintenance. As if the dictating to the pen of another would not have involved just as much loss of time! Tertius and Timothy were hardly shorthand writers. Or is Paul supposed to have been occupied in tent-making during the time when he was dictating his letters, which presuppose so much abstraction and concentration of mental labour?
[262] This is not, as is often stated, the view of Jerome, who, on the contrary, specifies this view only to reject it, and assumes that down to ver. 11 the epistle was written by the amanuensis, but after ver. 11 by Paul himself in very large characters, in order that his readers should recognise his genuine handwriting and at the same time his solicitous care for them. Jerome therefore comes nearest to our view, but introduces into the πηλίκοις purposes which have no natural connection with the largeness of the characters, and could not, without further intimation, have been understood by the reader. Theodore of Mopsuestia explains it better, likewise understanding πηλίκοις γράμμασιν correctly ( μείζοσιν ἐχρήσατο γράμμασιν ), and specifying as Paul’s object that he, μέλλων καθάπτεσθαι τῶν ἐναντίων , wished to intimate that he neither ἐρυθριᾷ οὔτε ἀρνεῖται τὰ λεγόμενα .
[263] Taking the word by itself, there can be no doubt that γράμμα (scriptum, 2Ti_3:15, Joh_5:47) may, according to the context, mean epistle, so that in the plural it would denote epistolae (Act_28:21, and often in Greek authors), but may also apply to a single epistle. Thus, for instance, Thuc. vii. 8. 3, where ἐπιστολή is used shortly before; Xen. Cyr. iv. 5. 26, where ἐπιστολή occurs immediately after; Xen. Eph_2:5 and Locella in loc. Comp. also Luk_16:6; 1Ma_4:10; 1Ma_4:14; Ignat. Romans 8, ad Polyc. 7.
[264] Quite irrelevantly Hofmann compares the usage of combining a verb with the abstract noun derived from it in the dative (Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 159); and just as irrelevantly the expresssion εἰπεῖν λόγῳ , Mat_8:8 (see on this passage), Luk_7:7. Not even that use of εἰπεῖν λόγῳ , in which it may denote to deliver as an orator (Krüger on Thuc. i. 22. 1), would here be analogous. Only such phrases as, e.g., χρυσοῖς γράμμασι γράφειν , to write with golden letters, Lucian. Alex. 43; μεγάλοις γράμμ . ἀναγράφειν , to write down in large letters, Gymn. 22; γράμμασιν Ἑλληνικοῖς , Luk_23:38, Elz.; φοινικίοις γράμμ ., Soph. Fragm. 460 D, really correspond.