Jerome

(Verse 10.) For now I advise men or God: or do I seek to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be a servant of Christ. Let us not think that we are taught by the Apostle to despise the judgments of men by his example, who in another place said: Knowing therefore, the fear of the Lord, we persuade men: but we are made manifest to God (2 Corinthians 5:11); and that: Be without offense to the Jews, and to the Gentiles, and to the Church of God: as I also please all in all things, not seeking what is profitable to myself, but what is profitable to many, that they may be saved (1 Corinthians 10). But if it is possible, that we may please both God and men at the same time, it is necessary to please men. But if we do not please men in any other way than if we displease God: we ought to please God rather than men. Otherwise, he himself brings forward the reason why he is pleasing to all through all things: Not seeking, he says, what is useful to me, but what is useful to many, so that they may be saved. But whoever, out of that charity which does not seek its own things, but those that are others', pleases everyone so that they may be saved: certainly he first pleases God, to whom the salvation of men is a care. However, it also has a word, which is specifically added here, either to please people temporarily or to displease them: so that he who does not please at the moment because of the truth of the Gospel, may have pleased formerly for the salvation of many. Paul had pleased the Jews at one time, when he was an emulator of paternal traditions, having lived blamelessly according to the law, and he had such enthusiasm and faith in the ceremonies of the ancestors that he even became involved in the killing of Stephen, and he went to Damascus to bind those who had deserted the law (Acts 9). But after he was transferred to the vessel of election from a persecutor, and began to preach the faith which he had once attacked, he began to displease the Jews, whom he had previously pleased. This is therefore what he says: Am I seeking to please the Jews, by displeasing whom I pleased God? For if I were still pleasing them, I would not be a servant of Christ. For I would affirm the law, and destroy the grace of the Gospel. But now, I am not even brought to the pretense of observing the law, because I cannot please both God and the Jews at the same time. For whoever endeavors to persuade others with a word taken from human usage, with what he himself possesses and has once imbibed, and in many passages of the Scriptures it is read, from which this is one: The persuasion is not from him who called you (Gal. 5:8). And also in the Acts of the Apostles: Therefore many Jews came to him in the inn, to whom he explained, testifying about the kingdom of God and persuading them about Jesus, from the Law of Moses and the Prophets until evening. And all of this happened because it had been spread (or slandered) about him that he secretly observed the Law and had mixed with those who were practicing Judaism in Jerusalem.

(Verse 11, 12.) For I make known to you, brothers, the Gospel that was preached by me: that it is not according to man, nor did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ. From this passage, the teachings of Ebion and Photinus are refuted: that God is Christ, and not only man. For if the Gospel of Paul is not according to man, nor did he receive it from man, nor was he taught it, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ, who revealed the Gospel to Paul, is certainly not a mere man. But if he is not a man, therefore he is God. Not that we deny that he assumed humanity; but only that we refuse mere humanity. The question is whether the whole Church of God has received the Gospel, or just individual people: for how many of us have learned the revelation of Christ and known it not from a human preacher? To which we will respond, those who can say: Do you seek proof of Christ speaking in me (2 Cor. 13:3)? And: I no longer live, but Christ lives in me (Galatians 2:20), teaching not so much themselves, but God who speaks to the saints: I said, 'You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High' (Psalm 82:6); and immediately about sinners: But you will die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Therefore, when Paul and Peter, who do not die like men or fall like one of the princes, speak of them being gods, it is evident. But those who are gods, they transmit the Gospel of God, and not of man. Marcion and Basilides and other heretical pests do not have the Gospel of God; because they do not have the Holy Spirit, without whom the human Gospel is not possible to be taught. Nor can we consider the Gospel to be in the words of the Scriptures, but in the meaning: not in the surface, but in the core; not in the leaves of words, but in the root of reason. It is said in the prophet about God: His words are good with him (Micah 2:7). Then the Scriptures are useful to those who listen, since they are not spoken without Christ, nor proclaimed without the Father, nor are they revealed without the Spirit by the one who preaches. Otherwise, both the devil, who speaks about the Scriptures, and all heresies, according to Ezekiel (Chapter XIII), make for themselves pillows that they place under the elbow of all ages. Even I, who am speaking, if I have Christ in me, do not have the Gospel of man; but if I am a sinner, God says to me: O sinner, why do you declare my justice and assume my covenant on your lips? But you have hated discipline and cast my words behind you (Ps. XLIX, 16, 17), and so on that follows. There is great danger in speaking in the Church, lest by a perverse interpretation, the Gospel of Christ becomes the gospel of man, or worse, of the devil. However, there is a difference between receiving and learning, in that the one receives the Gospel to whom it is first taught and is led to faith, to believe what is written. But he learns who understands the things that are represented in it by enigmas and parables, when they are explained and expounded: and he understands them not through the revelation of man, but through Christ, who revealed them to Paul, or through Paul, in whom Christ speaks. The very word 'revelation' itself, that is, 'unveiling,' properly belongs to the Scriptures, and was not used by any of the wise men of the world among the Greeks. Therefore, they seem to me, just as in other words that the Seventy translators translated from Hebrew into Greek, to have made a great effort also in this one to express the peculiarity of a foreign language by inventing new words for new things: and the word 'to sound' means when something that is hidden and covered is shown and brought forth into the light, by removing the covering from above. To make this clearer, take the example of Moses. When he spoke with God, his face was revealed and uncovered (Exodus 33, 34), that is, without a veil. But when he spoke to the people, they could not look at his face, so he put a veil on (Numbers 4). Also, in front of the Ark of the Covenant, there was a veil. When this veil was pulled back, the things that had been hidden were revealed, or, to use the words itself, they were uncovered. So if those who are accustomed to reading the eloquent works of the present age start mocking us for the novelty and cheapness of our language, let us send them to Cicero's books, which are renowned for their philosophical inquiries; and let them see how compelled he was by necessity to produce such monstrous words that the ears of a Latin man have never heard: and this even when he was translating from Greek, a language that is close to ours. What do those who attempt to express the peculiarities of Hebrew difficulties endure? And yet there are much fewer things in such great volumes of Scriptures that sound new, than those that he has collected in a small work. But, as we said at the beginning when we were explaining: Paul the apostle did not receive his mission from men or through a man: in this place, it can be understood indirectly of Peter and his predecessors: that it may not be objected to on account of anyone's law or authority, who holds Christ alone as the teacher of the Gospel. Moreover, it signifies that revelation, when on his journey to Damascus, he deserved to hear the voice of Christ: and with blinded eyes, he beheld the true light of the world.

(Verse 13.) For you have heard of my previous conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers. This account is highly beneficial to the Galatians, as it shows how Paul, once a destroyer of the church and a fervent defender of Judaism, suddenly converted to the faith of Christ. And it was at this time, when the crucifixion was first announced in the world; when the new doctrine was being expelled from the boundaries of both the Gentiles and the Jews. For they could say: If he, who from a young age was instructed in the teachings of the Pharisees, and surpassed all his contemporaries in the Jewish tradition, now defends the Church which he once fiercely persecuted; and desires the grace and novelty of Christ more than the oldness of the Law, to the envy of all: what should we who have begun to be Christian from the Gentiles do? Moreover, he aptly added: I pursued the Church of God beyond measure, so that from here also admiration might arise, that not every person who lightly persecuted the Church, but he who overcame the others in persecution, turned to the faith. And wisely, while narrating something else, he interjects that he served not so much the Law of God, as the paternal, that is, the traditions of the Pharisees; who teach the doctrines and commandments of men (Matt. XV; Mark VII); and they reject the Law of God in order to establish their own traditions. However, what a beautiful observation and weight of words: 'You have heard,' he says, 'of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers.' And he says, not the Church of Christ, as he then thought (or was thought): which he considered contemptible, which he persecuted: but as he now believes, the Church of God: either signifying that Christ himself is God, or that the Church is of the same God who was once the giver of the Law. And I made progress, he says, in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my race: being a more zealous follower of my ancestral traditions. Again, he calls it progress not of the Law of God, but of Judaism. Not above all, but above most, not above the elders, but above the contemporaries, so that he might apply his zeal to the Law and avoid boasting. However, by mentioning the traditions of the fathers instead of the commandments of the Lord, and by identifying himself as a Pharisee among the Pharisees, he showed that he had indeed a zeal for God but not according to knowledge. But until this day, those who understand the Scriptures in a Jewish sense persecute the Church of Christ and plunder it, corrupted not by the study of the Law of God but by human traditions.

(Verse 15) But when it pleased Him who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother. (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.) Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ. But they were hearing only, "He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy." And they glorified God in me. But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. David sings against sinners: For behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and my mother conceived me in sins (Ps. 50:7). And in another place: Sinners are estranged from the womb (Ps. 57:4). And even before the children were born, God loved Jacob but hated Esau (Malachi 1:1, 2). Heretics find a place where they claim there are different natures, namely spiritual, animal, and earthly, and that one is saved, another perishes, and another exists between the two, so that neither the righteous would be chosen before doing anything good, nor would the sinner be hated before committing a sin, unless there were different natures of those who perish and those who are saved. To which it can be simply answered: this happens from God's foreknowledge, that he loves whom he knows will be just before they are born from the womb, and hates whom he knows will be a sinner before they sin; not that in God there is injustice in love and hatred, but that he must not have them otherwise, knowing either that they will be sinners or that they will be just: we as humans can only judge based on the present, but He to whom the future is already made known can pass judgment on the end of things, not on their beginnings. And indeed, these things have been said in a simpler manner: and without a deeper discussion, they can please the reader in some way. Moreover, those who try to assert that God is unjust, after what we have previously stated, have strayed from the womb, and they also bring forth the other things that follow: They have gone astray from the womb, they have uttered falsehoods. And they say, how is it that sinners have immediately gone astray from the womb and have uttered falsehoods, when they could not even have speech or understanding? But what is this justice of the foreknowledge of God, to love and guard one before they are born, and to detest another? And the causes of this matter refer to a previous life, that each person is assigned to good or evil angels according to their merit, immediately from their first birth. And that whole passage about Jacob and Esau, which we mention now, is discussed in such a way in the letter to the Romans (Rom. IX), that it cannot be answered without sweat and Chrysippus' hellebore. However, it is not the same for him to reveal his Son in me, as if he were to say, to reveal his Son to me. For whoever something is revealed, to him it can be revealed, which was not in him before. But in whom it is revealed, that is revealed which was in him before, and later revealed. It is similar to what is said in the Gospel: Among you stands one whom you do not know (John 1:26). And elsewhere: He was the true light, which enlightens every person coming into the world (ibid., 9). From which it becomes clear that the knowledge of God is inherent in all of nature, and no one is born without Christ, and does not have the seeds of wisdom, justice, and other virtues within them. Hence, many without faith and the Gospel of Christ, either wisely do certain things, or piously, such as obeying their parents, extending help to the needy, not oppressing their neighbors, not plundering others, and therefore become more susceptible to the judgment of God because, having within them the principles of virtues and the seeds of God, they do not believe in Him without whom they cannot exist. It is possible to take it in another way in the letter of Paul, Sons of God revealed: that, when he preached, he was acknowledged by the Gentiles, whom they previously did not know.

(Verse 16) Immediately, I did not consult with flesh and blood. Or, as it is better in Greek: I did not confer with flesh and blood. I know that many consider this statement to be about the apostles. For even Porphyry objects that after the revelation of Christ, he did not deign to go to men and confer with them: lest, of course, he be instructed by flesh and blood after the teaching of God. But far be it from me to think that Peter, John, and James are flesh and blood; which cannot possess the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 1). If the spiritual apostles are flesh and blood, what do we think of the earthly ones? Paul did not associate himself with flesh and blood after the revelation of Christ, because he did not want to cast pearls before swine or give what is holy to dogs (Matthew 7). See what is written about sinners: My spirit will not remain in these people, for they are flesh (Genesis 6). With those who were flesh and blood, who did not reveal the Son of God to Peter either (Matthew 16), the Apostle did not share the Gospel that had been revealed to him, but gradually turned them from flesh and blood to spirit. And only then did he entrust them with the hidden sacraments of the Gospel. Let someone say: If immediately he did not communicate the Gospel with flesh and blood, nevertheless it is understood that later he will communicate with flesh and blood: and this understanding, by which the apostles are excused, cannot stand, lest flesh and blood be [involved], since nevertheless he who did not communicate with flesh and blood in the beginning, later, as I said, will communicate with flesh and blood. This preposition constrains us, that we may distinguish thus, lest immediately or continuously, we unite with flesh and blood; but that we may adhere to the previous statements, and it may be read: But when it pleased him who separated me from the womb of my mother. And then: That he might reveal his Son in me. And finally: That I might preach him among the Gentiles immediately: that I have not conferred with flesh and blood; but rather it should be understood in this sense: that he who is immediately sent to proclaim the Gospel to the Gentiles after the revelation of Christ, has not remained, nor has he extended the time by going to the apostles and comparing the Lord's revelation with men: but he has gone to Arabia, and then returned to Damascus, and after three years he preached the Gospel; and only then, coming to Jerusalem, did he see Peter, John, and James.

(Verse 17.) Nor did I go to Jerusalem to the apostles before me. If he had mentioned the apostles, I did not confer with flesh and blood. So why was it necessary to repeat the same thing by saying, Nor did I go to Jerusalem to the apostles before me? Therefore, we must maintain the meaning that we explained above.

But I went into Arabia and then returned to Damascus. It does not seem to fit with the order of the story, as recounted by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts IX), that after Paul spoke boldly about the Gospel of Christ for many days in Damascus, plots were made against him and he was lowered in a basket through the wall at night, and he came to Jerusalem trying to join the disciples. But when they avoided him and were afraid to approach him, he was brought to the apostles by Barnabas and he told them how he had seen the Lord on the road and had acted confidently in the name of the Lord (some versions add Jesus) while in Damascus. He was, he said, with them, going in and out in Jerusalem, boldly acting in the name of the Lord. He also spoke and debated with the Greeks, but they sought to kill him. When the brothers learned of this, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus. But he says that he first went to Arabia, and then returned to Damascus after three years, and went to Jerusalem, saw Peter, and stayed with him for fifteen days, and did not see anyone else except James, the brother of the Lord. In order for them to be believed as true (since doubtful things could appear questionable in the absence of witnesses), he confirms under oath, saying: “The things that I tell you are true, behold, I say them before God, for I do not lie.” Therefore, we can conclude that Paul, according to the account of Luke, went to Jerusalem not to learn something from the apostles who came before him, but to avoid the onslaught of persecution that had been incited against him in Damascus because of the Gospel of Christ. And so he came to Jerusalem as if he had come to any other city. Then, when he had immediately withdrawn on account of the ambush, he came to Arabia or Damascus; and then, after three years, he returned to see Peter in Jerusalem. Or certainly, this is how it happened: Immediately after he was baptized and strengthened by receiving food, he stayed with the disciples in Damascus for a few days; and while all the Jews in the synagogues were amazed, he preached continuously that Jesus was the Son of God. Then he went to Arabia, and returned from Arabia to Damascus, where he spent three years. These many days are attested by the Scripture, which says: When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him (Acts 9:23). However, there were plots made against Saul, and they were guarding the gates day and night in order to kill him. So, his disciples took him at night and lowered him down the wall in a basket. When he arrived in Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples. But Luke mentions that he passed through Arabia because perhaps he had not done anything deserving of apostleship in Arabia. And he chose to give a concise account of the things that seemed worthy of the Gospel of Christ. Nor should we attribute this to the laziness of the Apostle, if he stayed in Arabia in vain (or: remained): but rather that it was some dispensation and command of God that he should keep silent. For we also read that after this Paul went out with Silas, and the Holy Spirit prohibited him from speaking the word in Asia (Acts 16). In another passage: But I went to Arabia; and again, I returned to Damascus. What benefit is this account to me, if I read that Paul immediately went to Arabia after the revelation of Christ, and immediately returned from Arabia to Damascus, without knowing what he did there, or what usefulness his going and returning had? Give me the opportunity for a deeper understanding in this same letter the Apostle himself, while discussing Abraham, Hagar, and Sarah, says: These things, he says, are spoken in allegory. For these are the two covenants: one indeed from Mount Sinai, which brings forth into slavery, and that is Hagar. For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, which is joined to the present Jerusalem (Gal. IV, 24, 25). And he teaches that the old Testament, that is, the son of the servant girl, was established in Arabia (which translates to humble and western). So immediately, as soon as Paul believed, he turned to the Law, the Prophets, and the sacraments of the old Testament which were already placed in the west, and he sought in them the Christ whom he had been instructed to preach to the Gentiles. And having found Him, he did not linger there any longer; but he returned to Damascus, that is, to the blood and passion of Christ. And from there, strengthened by prophetic reading, he went on to Jerusalem, the place of the vision and peace: not so much to learn something from the apostles as to compare the Gospel that he had taught with them.

(Verse 18.) Then, after three years, I came to Jerusalem to see Peter. Not to look at his eyes, cheeks, and face, to see if he was thin or fat, if he had a hooked or straight nose, and if he covered his forehead with hair or (as Clement reports in his Periods) had baldness on his head. And I don't think it was the gravity of the Apostolic office that wanted to see something human in Peter after such a long three-year preparation. But she looked at him with these eyes, with which she seems to see him even now in her Letters. With his own eyes, Paul saw Peter, whom now by the wise and learned, Paul himself is seen. And if someone does not see this, let them join these facts with their superior understanding: that the apostles did not confer anything upon themselves. For even though Paul was told to go to Jerusalem, it was for the purpose of seeing the apostle, not for the purpose of learning, because he himself had the same author of preaching; but rather to show honor to the apostle who was before him.


And I stayed with him for fifteen days. He did not lack for great instruction, as he had prepared himself so much time to see Peter. And although it may seem excessive to some, it is also fitting to observe the numbers that are in the Scriptures: nevertheless, I think it is not without reason that the fifteen days Paul spent with Peter signify complete knowledge and perfected doctrine. For there are fifteen songs in the Psalter, and fifteen steps by which the righteous ascend to sing to God, and stand in his courts. Moreover, Ezechias, having been granted fifteen years of life, deserves to receive a sign in the degrees (Isa. XXXVIII): and the solemnities of God begin on the fifteenth day (Exod. XII). Also, (because we follow a double understanding) therefore he adds fifteen days, to show that there was not a long time in which he could have learned anything from Peter; so that everything may be referred back to that meaning from which he began: that he was not taught by man, but by God.

James, who is called the brother of the Lord, surnamed the Just, the son of Joseph by another wife, as some think, but, as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother of our Lord of whom John makes mention in his book, after our Lord's passion at once ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem, wrote a single epistle, which is reckoned among the seven Catholic Epistles and even this is claimed by some to have been published by some one else under his name, and gradually, as time went on, to have gained authority. Hegesippus, who lived near the apostolic age, in the fifth book of his Commentaries, writing of James, says

"After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed. He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies, since indeed he did not use woolen vestments but linen and went alone into the temple and prayed in behalf of the people, insomuch that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels' knees."

He says also many other things, too numerous to mention. Josephus also in the 20th book of his Antiquities, and Clement in the 7th of his Outlines mention that on the death of Festus who reigned over Judea, Albinus was sent by Nero as his successor. Before he had reached his province, Ananias the high priest, the youthful son of Ananus of the priestly class, taking advantage of the state of anarchy, assembled a council and publicly tried to force James to deny that Christ is the son of God. When he refused Ananius ordered him to be stoned. Cast down from a pinnacle of the temple, his legs broken, but still half alive, raising his hands to heaven he said, "Lord forgive them for they know not what they do." Then struck on the head by the club of a fuller such a club as fullers are accustomed to wring out garments with — he died. This same Josephus records the tradition that this James was of so great sanctity and reputation among the people that the downfall of Jerusalem was believed to be on account of his death. He it is of whom the apostle Paul writes to the Galatians that "No one else of the apostles did I see except James the brother of the Lord," and shortly after the event the Acts of the apostles bear witness to the matter. The Gospel also which is called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and which I have recently translated into Greek and Latin and which also Origen often makes use of, after the account of the resurrection of the Saviour says, "but the Lord, after he had given his grave clothes to the servant of the priest, appeared to James (for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he drank the cup of the Lord until he should see him rising again from among those that sleep)" and again, a little later, it says "'Bring a table and bread,' said the Lord." And immediately it is added, "He brought bread and blessed and broke and gave to James the Just and said to him, 'my brother eat your bread, for the son of man is risen from among those that sleep.'" And so he ruled the church of Jerusalem thirty years, that is until the seventh year of Nero, and was buried near the temple from which he had been cast down. His tombstone with its inscription was well known until the siege of Titus and the end of Hadrian's reign. Some of our writers think he was buried in Mount Olivet, but they are mistaken.

(Verse 19) But I saw none of the other apostles, except James the Lord's brother. I remember that while I was in Rome, I published a book on the perpetual virginity of Saint Mary under the urging of the brothers. In this matter, I had to argue for a long time about those who are called the brothers of the Lord. Therefore, we should be satisfied with whatever we have written. Now let it suffice that, because of his outstanding character and incomparable faith and wisdom, he was called the Lord's brother, not in an ordinary sense. And he was the first to preside over the Church, which was the first to be gathered to Christ from among the Jews. Indeed, the other apostles are also called brothers of the Lord, as in the Gospel: 'Go, tell my brethren: I go to my Father, and your Father; to my God, and your God' (John 20:17). And in the psalm: 'I will declare Your name to my brethren; in the midst of the church will I praise You' (Psalm 22:22). But especially here this person is called brother, to whom the Lord had entrusted the sons of his mother as he went to the Father. And just as Job and the other patriarchs were indeed called servants of God, but Moses had something extraordinary, so that it was written about him: 'But not as Moses, my servant' (Hebrews 3:5), likewise the blessed James is specially called the brother of the Lord (as we said before). But why, except for the twelve, some are called apostles is this: all who had seen the Lord, and then preached about Him, were called apostles, as it is written to the Corinthians: 'He appeared to Cephas, then to the eleven.' After that, He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at once, many of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles (I Cor. XV, 5 seqq.). But gradually, as time went on, and elsewhere from those whom the Lord had chosen, the apostles were ordained; as he declares in his letter to the Philippians, saying: But I thought it necessary to send back to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your apostle and minister to my need (Philippians 2:25). And concerning such, it is written to the Corinthians: whether apostles of the churches, the glory of God (2 Corinthians 8:23). Silas and Judas were also named apostles by the apostles. Therefore, he greatly erred who believed that James, the brother of John, mentioned in the Gospel, was an apostle. It is well known that James, after Stephen, shed his blood for Christ according to the faith of the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 12). However, this James was the first bishop of Jerusalem, also known as James the Just. He was a man of such great holiness and reputation among the people that they eagerly sought to touch the fringe of his garment. And he himself, after being cast down from the temple by the Jews, had Simon as his successor, whom they also relate was crucified as the Lord. He denies that he met any of the other apostles, aside from those mentioned, so as not to give rise to hidden contradictions: even if you were not taught by Peter, you had other apostles as teachers. However, he did not see them, not because he regarded them with contempt, but because they had been scattered throughout the whole world for the preaching of the Gospel.