a
al ey
TORONTO
᾿ς
OF
τ
ras Hf ζλνὰς
εν ΣῈ τῶν ἐφέξει cee ene : enya aig a=. oh
On FDTD ΦῸ erect,
UNIVERSITY
a ts Af > she τς ἩΠΡΝΗΡΝ τ sth ἘΣ ety sa tidash hah cade ties) sty Peer δι
ἐς oa fee has aN Bi it serene
ψ aco
Poe
SB ἀνε Rest b eyo te 2a ts pisces Pig sett.
δι Ἐπ ree ἜΣΗΙ
shh AE sty ἔων,
LED ἐς
τ ξ νει sn sy aka
Heese Gri retits
pti ἀρ νομάνς
Sipser το ἐδ srs mA ats et tt rs ale
aie be
The Mf Se
te ra acre ἀν 4 ἢ. ad dtd xen the ἊΣ 2», ν hui : slag tA lgacacnls ated shpat ante pase eres ἐξ:
‘ , ete
434%
ἥ
th “Δ τυ et? 34: 1.414 sf
“quid t ear ieee ἘΠΕ ΕΝ
3 te ἌΡ Last, Lean ang PART
a
igh δι ἐγείφεῖσεα, Ἢ ys) re ie
eats ΠΕ
Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2010 with funding from University of Toronto
https://archive.org/details/ed9saintpaulsepisOOligh
WORKS BY THE RT. REV. J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D.,
BISHOP OF DURHAM.
ST PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. A Revised Text, with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations. Ninth Edition. 8yvo. 12s.
ST PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. A Revised Text, with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations. Eighth Edition. 8yo. 12s.
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. Parrll. 8. IGNA- TIUS, 5. POLYCARP. Revised Texts with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and Translations. 2 vols. in 3. 8vo, 48s.
APOSTOLIC FATHERS. Abridged Edition. With short Introductions, Greek Text, and English Translation. [In the Press.
ST CLEMENT OF ROME. The two Epistles to THE CORINTHIANS. A Revised Text, with Introduction and Notes. A New dition. 8vo. [In the Press.
PRIMARY CHARGE. Two Addresses delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Durham, 1882. 8vo. 2s.
A CHARGE delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Durham, Nov. 25th, 1886. 8vo. 2s.
ESSAYS ON THE WORK ENTITLED “SUPER- NATURAL RELIGION.” (Reprinted from the Contemporary Review.) 8vo. 10s. 6d.
MACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.
THE EPISTLES OF ST PAUL.
ELT. THE FIRST ROMAN CAPTIVITY.
2: EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
3. EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
oment. ( N.T.) slossians
-
SAINT PAUL'S EPISTLES TO THE COLOSSIANS
AND TO
PHILEMON.
A REVISED TEXT WITH
INTRODUCTIONS, NOTES, AND DISSERTATIONS.
BY
eb. LIGHTEOOL DD DOL. LED:
LATE BISHOP OF DURHAM. HONORARY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,
NINTH EDITION.
London MACMILLAN AND CO. AND NEW YORK
1890
[The Right of Translation is reserved.}
MIMHTAI MOY γίνεοθε κἀθὼς κἀγὼ χριοτοῦ.
Παῦλος γενόμενος μέγιστος ὑπογραμμός. CLEMENT.
Οὐχ ὡς Παῦλος διατάσσομαι ὑμῖν᾽ ἐκεῖνος ἀπόστολος, > ‘ , e ᾽ ΄΄ ν , J 4 ‘ ’, ~ ΄- ἐγὼ κατάκριτος" ἐκεῖνος ἐλεύθερος, ἐγὼ δὲ μέχρι νῦν δοῦλος. IenaTivs.
Οὔτε ἐγὼ οὔτε ἄλλος ὅμοιος ἐμοὶ δύναται κατακολουθῆσαι τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ μακαρίου καὶ ἐνδόξου Παύλου. ῬΟΙΥΟΔΕΡ.
First Edition May 1875. New Editions Dec. 1875, March 1879. Reprinted May 1879, 1880, 1882, 1884, 1886, 1889, 1890.
TO THE
RIGHT REV. EDWARD HAROLD BROWNE, D.D.,
LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER,
IN SINCERE ADMIRATION OF HIS PERSONAL CHARACTER AND EPISCOPAL WORK AND IN GRATEFUL RECOGNITION
OF
THE PRIVILEGES OF A PRIVATE FRIENDSHIP.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
On the completion of another volume of my commentary, I wish again to renew my thanks for the assistance received from previous labourers in the same field. Such obligations must always be great; but it is not easy in a few words to apportion them fairly, and I shall not make the attempt. I have not consciously neglected any aid which might render this volume more complete; but at the same time I venture to*hope that my previous commentaries have established my claim to be regarded as an independent worker, and in the present instance more especially I have found myself obliged to diverge widely from the treatment of my predecessors, and to draw largely from other materials than those which they have collected.
In the preface to a previous volume I expressed an in- tention of appending to my commentary on the Colossian Epistle an essay on ‘Christianity and Gnosis.’ This intention has not been fulfilled in the letter; but the subject enters largely into the investigation of the Colossian heresy, where it receives as much attention as, at all events for the pre- sent, it seems to require. It will necessarily come under dis- cussion again, when the Pastoral Epistles are taken in hand.
The question of the genuineness of the two epistles con- tained in this volume has been deliberately deferred. It could not be discussed with any advantage apart from the Epistle to the Ephesians, for the three letters are inseparably
Vili Preface.
bound together. Meanwhile however the doctrinal and _his- torical discussions will, if I mistake not, have furnished answers to the main objections which have been urged; while the commentary will have shown how thoroughly natural the language and thoughts are, if conceived as arising out of an immediate emergency. More especially it will have been made apparent that the Epistle to the Colossians hangs together as a whole, and that the phenomena are altogether adverse to any theory of interpolation such as that recently put forward by Professor Holtzmann.
In the commentary, as well as in the introduction, it has been a chief aim to illustrate and develope the theological conception of the Person of Christ, which underlies the Epistle to the Colossians. The Colossian heresy for instance owes its importance mainly to the fact that it throws out this conception into bolder relief. To this portion of the subject therefore I venture to direct special attention.
I cannot conclude without offering my thanks to Mr A. A. VanSittart, who, as on former occasions, has given his aid in correcting the proof sheets of this volume; and to the Rev. J. J. Scott, of Trinity College, who has prepared the index. I wish also to express my obligations to Dr Schiller- Szinessy, of whose talmudical learning I have freely availed myself in verifying Frankel’s quotations and in other ways. I should add however that he is not in any degree responsible for my conclusions, and has not even seen what I have written.
TRINITY COLLEGE, April 30, 1875.
CONTENTS.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
INTRODUCTION. PAGE PL CDOMUT CIOS: Of) LNRE LACUS >. cc. cketscacontossceteseowossses I—70 ΠΡ IE \COLOSSTGM ΗΘ σὴ, Oo Secs soccdsawsscchootscccocerecde® 7I—III 11. Character and Contents of the Epistle.........c00..006 112—126 ΡΝ OM ΤΕ ΕΤΟΥΣ ee ee nS σεῖς 129—243 On some Various Readings in the Epistle .......0...0..004. 244—254 On the Meaning Of mrnpopa .......c0.cescascoscossasscevecscces 255—271 Lhe Episile fromt Laodiced, .......2..ccnesecreecssenecensesacesecs 272—298 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. ΟΡ ΟΕ πΦΠρβᾧ8ᾳ4}Ὃοσο ΄Ὶ΄!; στ 30I—327 pe eter NPE INO ELS oo. ete Penns ncsa) 0 sencacte seed ν΄. 331—344 DISSERTATIONS. ΠΟ INGIIGY ΒΒ80 δ. Δ. 32 couceasehectaccseoee een eeoaekeoek 347—352 2. Origin and Affinities of the Essenes ............0.0025 353—394 3. LEssentsm and Christianity π᾿ 395—417
PA ce το ae Rat os dh sigs sales Stade aes aehweeaenaseansee 419—428
sea
IIE
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
YING in, or overhanging, the valley of the Lycus, a Situation
? Ξ : f the tributary of the Meander, were three neighbouring ae cities.
towns, Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colosse’.
1 The following are among the most important books of travel relating to this district; Pococke Description of the East and Some Other Countries, Vol. u1, Part 1, London 1745; Chandler Travels in Asia Minor etc., Oxford 1775; Leake Tour in Asia Minor, London 1824; Arundell Discoveries in Asia Minor, London 1834; Hamilton Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus, and Armenia, London 1842; Fellows Asia Minor, London 1839, Discoveries in Lycia, London 1840; Davis Anatolica, London 1874; Tchihatcheff Asie Mi- neure, Description Physique, Statis- tique et Archéologique, Paris 1853 etc., with the accompanying Atlas (1860) ; Laborde Voyage de VAsie Mineure (the expedition itself took place in 1826, but the date on the title-page is 1838, and the introduction was written in 1861); Le Bas Voyage Archéologique en Gréce et en Asie Mineure, continued by Waddington and not yet completed; Texier De- scription de VAsie Mineure, Vol. 1 (1839). Itis hardly necessary to add the smaller works of Texier and Le Bas on Asie Mineure (Paris 1862, 1863) in Didot’s series L’Univers, as these have only a secondary value. Of the
COL.
The river flows,
books enumerated, Hamilton’s work is the most important for the topo- graphy, etc.; Tchihatcheff’s for the physical features; and Le Bas and Waddington’s for the inscriptions, ete. The best maps are those of Hamilton and Tchihatcheff: to which should be added the Karte von Klein-Asien by v. Vincke and others, published by Schropp, Berlin 1844.
Besides books on Asia Minor gene- rally, some works relating especially to the Seven Churches may be mentioned. Smith’s Swrvey of the Seven Churches of Asia (1678) is a work of great merit for the time, and contains the earliest de- scription of the sites of these Phrygian cities. It was published in Latin first, and translated by its author after- wards. Arundell’s Seven Churches (1828) is a well-known book. Allom and Walsh’s Constantinople and the Scenery of the Seven Churches of Asia Minor illustrated (1850) gives some views of this district. Svoboda’s Seven Churches of Asia (1869) contains 20 photographs and an introduction by the Rey. H. B. Tristram. This is a selection from a larger series of Syoboda’s photo- graphs, published separately.
Their neigh- bourhcod and inter- course.
Physical forces at work.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
roughly speaking, from east to west; but at this point, which is some few miles above its junction with the Meander, its direction is more nearly from south-east to north-west’. Laodicea and Hierapolis stand face to face, being situated respectively on the southern and northern sides of the valley, at a distance of six miles’, and within sight of each other, the river lying in the open plain between the two, The site of Colossee is somewhat higher up the stream, at a distance of perhaps ten or twelve miles* from the point where the road between Laodictea and Hierapolis crosses the Lycus. Unlike Laodicea and Hierapolis, which overhang the valley on opposite sides, Colossee stands immediately on the river-bank, the two parts of the town being divided by the stream. The three cities lie so near to each other, that it would be quite possible to visit them all in the course of a single day.
Thus situated, they would necessarily hold constant in- tercourse with each other. We are not surprised therefore to find them so closely connected in the earliest ages of Christianity. It was the consequence of their position that they owed their knowledge of the Gospel to the same evan- gelist, that the same phases of thought prevailed in them, and that they were exposed to the same temptations, moral as well as intellectual.
The physical features of the neighbourhood are very striking, — Two potent forces of nature are actively at work to change the face of the country, the one destroying old landmarks, the other creating fresh ground.
On the one hand, the valley of the Lycus was and is
1 The maps differ very considerably Fellows Asia Minor p. 283, Hamilton in this respect, nor do the statements 1. p.514. The relative position of the of travellers always agree. The direc- two cities appears in Laborde’s view, — tion of the river, as given in the text, pl. xxxix.
accords with the maps of Hamilton and 5.1 do not find any distinct notice — Tchihatcheff, and with the accounts of the distance; but, to judge from the of the most accurate writers. maps and itineraries of modern tra-
* Anton. Itin. Ὁ. 337 (Wesseling) vellers, this estimate will probably be gives the distance as 6 miles. See also found not very far wrong.
ik bck Sa
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 3
especially liable to violent earthquakes. The same danger Frequent indeed extends over large portions of Asia Minor, but this aes district is singled out by ancient writers’ (and the testimony
of modern travellers confirms the statement”), as the chief theatre of these catastrophes. Not once or twice only in the history of Laodicea do we read of such visitations laying waste the city itself or some flourishing town in the neighbourhood*. Though the exterior surface of the earth shows no»traces of recent volcanoes, still the cavernous nature of the soil and the hot springs and mephitic vapours abounding here indicate the presence of those subterranean fires which from time to time have manifested themselves in this work of destruction.
But, while the crust of the earth is constantly broken up Deposits of traver-
by these forces from beneath, another agency is actively em- tine,
If fire has its fitful outbursts of devastation, water is only less powerful in
ployed above ground in layig a new surface.
The lateral streams which swell the waters of the Lycus are thickly impregnated with calcareous matter, which they deposit in their course. The travertine formations of this valley are among the most re-
its gradual work of reconstruction.
markable in the world, surpassing even the striking pheno- mena of Tivoli Ancient monuments are buried, fertile lands overlaid, river-beds choked up and streams diverted, fantastic grottoes and cascades and archways of stone formed, by this strange capricious power, at once destructive and creative, working silently and relentlessly through long ages. Fatal to vegetation, these incrustations spread like a stony shroud over the ground. Gleaming like glaciers on the hill-side they attract the eye of the traveller at a distance
and Clermont’.
1 Strabo xii. 8 (Ρ. 578) τὸ πολύτρητον τῆς χώρας Kal TO εὔσειστον᾽ εἰ γάρ τις ἄλλη, καὶ ἡ Λαοδίκεια εὔσειστος, καὶ τῆς πλησιοχώρου δὲ Καάρουρα, Ioann. Lyd. p. 349 (ed. Bonn.) πυκνότερον σείεται, ola τὰ περὶ τὴν Φρυγίας Λαοδι- κείαν καὶ τὴν παρ᾽ αὐτῇ Ἱερὰν πόλιν.
2 Thus Pococke (p. 71) in 1745 writes
of Denizli, which is close to Laodicea, ‘The old town was destroyed about 25 years past by an earthquake, in which 12,000 people perished.’
3 See below, p. 38.
4 Tchihatcheff P. 1. Geogr. Phys. Comp. p. 344 8q., esp. p. 353. See the references below, pp. 9 sq., 15.
2
4 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
of twenty miles’, and form a singularly striking feature in
scenery of more than common beauty and impressiveness.
Produce and manu- factures of the dis- trict.
At the same time, along with these destructive agencies, Its rich pastures fed large flocks of sheep, whose fleeces were of
the fertility of the district was and is unusually great.
a superior quality; and the trade in dyed woollen goods was For the bounty of nature was not confined to the production of the material, but extended also to the preparation of the fabric. The mineral streams had chemical qualities, which were highly Hence we find that all the three towns, with which we are concerned, were famous in this branch of trade. At Hierapolis, as at Thyatira, the guild of the dyers
the chief source of prosperity to these towns.
valued by the dyer’®.
appears in the inscriptions as an important and influential body’*. scarlets and purples of the farther East*. Laodicea again was famous for the colour of its fleeces, probably a glossy black, which was much esteemed’, of dyers®.
Their colours vied in brilliancy with the richest
Here also we read of a guild And lastly, Colossee gave its name to a peculiar
1 Fellows Asia Minor p. 283.
2 See note 4.
3 Boeckh no. 3924 (comp. Anatolica Ῥ. 104) τοῦτο τὸ ἡρῶον Στεφάνῳ ἡ Epya- σία τῶν βαφέων, at Hierapolis. See Laborde, pl. χχχυ. In another inscrip- tion too (Le Bas and Waddington, no. 1687) there is mention of the purple- dyers, πορφυραβαφεῖς.
4 Strabo xiii. 4. 14 (p. 630) ἔστι δὲ καὶ πρὸς βαφὴν ἐρίων θαυμαστῶς σύμ- μετρον τὸ κατὰ τὴν Ἱερὰν πόλιν ὕδωρ, ὥστε τὰ ἐκ τῶν ῥιζῶν βαπτόμενα ἐνά- μίλλα εἶναι τοῖς ἐκ τῆς κόκκον καὶ τοῖς ἁλουργέσιν.
> Strabo xii. 8. τό (p. 578) φέρει δ᾽ ὁ περὶ τὴν Λαοδίκειαν τόπος προβάτων ἀρετὰς οὐκ εἰς μαλακότητα μόνον τῶν ἐρίων, f καὶ τῶν Μιλησίων διαφέρει, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰς τὴν κοραξὴν χρόαν, ὥστε καὶ προσοδείονται λαμπρῶς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν, ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ ἹΚολοσσηνοὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁμω-
νύμου χρώματος, πλησίον οἰκοῦντες. For this strange adjective κοραξός (which seems to be derived from κόραξ and to mean ‘raven-black’) see the passages in Hase and Dindorf’s Steph. Thes. In Latin we find the form coracinus, Vitruv. viii. 3 § 14 ‘Aliis coracino co- lore,’ Laodicea being mentioned in the context. Vitruvius represents this as the natural colour of the fleeces, and attributes it to the water drunk by the sheep. See also Plin. N. H. viii. 48 § 73. So too Hieron. adv. Jovin. ii. 21 (II. p. 358) ‘Laodicee indumentis ornatus incedis.’ The ancient accounts of the natural colour of the fleeces in this neighbourhood are partially con- firmed by modern travellers ; e.g. Po- cocke p. 74, Chandler p. 228.
ὁ Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3938 [ἡ ép- γασία] τῶν γναφέϊων Kal βαφέων τῶν] ἁλουργ[Φ]ν.
7
ρον... -
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 5
dye, which seems to have been some shade of purple, and from which it derived a considerable revenue’.
1. Of these three towns LAODICEA, as the most important, ;, Laonr- deserves to be considered first. Laodice was a common name τις Same among the ladies of the royal house of the Seleucid, as ae Antiochus was among the princes. Hence Antiochia and Lao- dicea occur frequently as the designations of cities within the dominions of the Syrian kings. Laodicea on the Lycus’, as it was surnamed to distinguish it from other towns so called, and more especially perhaps from its near neighbour Laodicea Catacecaumene, had borne in succession the names of Diospolis and Rhoas*; but when refounded by Antiochus Theos (B.C. 261—246), it was newly designated after his wife Laodice*. It is situated® on an undulating hill, or group of hills, which overhangs the valley on the south, being washed on either side by the streams of the Asopus and the Caprus,
tributaries of the Lycus®.
1 See the passage of Strabo quoted p. 4, note 5. The place gives its name to the colour, and not conversely, as stated in Blakesley’s Herod. vii. 113. See also Plin. N. H. xxi. 9 § 27, ‘In yepribus nascitur eyclaminum ... flos ejus colossinus in coronas admit- titur,’ a passage which assists in de- termining the colour.
2 ἐπὶ Λύκῳ, Boeckh Corp. Inser. no. 3938, Ptol. Geogr. v. 2, Tab. Peut. ‘laudicium pilyeum’; πρὸς [τῷ] Λύκῳ, Eckhel Num. Vet. 111. p. 166, Strabo 1.c., Boeckh C. I. 5881,5893; πρὸς Λύκον, Boeckh 6478. A citizen was styled Λαοδικεὺς ἀπὸ Λύκου, Diog, Laert. ix. 12 §116; C.I.L. vi. 3743; comp. wept τὸν Λύκον Appian. Mithr. 20.
3 Plin. N. H. v. 29.
4 Steph. Byz. s. v., who quotes the oracle in obedience to which (ὡς ἐκέλευ- ge Ζεὺς ὑψιβρεμέτης) it was founded.
° For descriptions of Laodicea see Smith Ὁ. 250 sq., Pococke p. 71 sq., Chandler p. 224 sq., Arundell Seven
Behind it rise the snow-capped
Churches Ὁ. 84 sq., Asta Minor 11. p. 180 sq., Fellows Asia Minor 280 sq., Hamil- ton 1. p. 514 84., Davis Anatolica p. 92 sq., Tchihatcheff P. 1. p. 252 sq., 258sq. See also the views in Laborde, pl. xxxix, Allom and Walsh m1. p. 86, and Svoboda phot. 36—38.
The modern Turkish name is Eski- hissar, ‘the Old Castle,’ corresponding to the modern Greek, Paledkastro, a common name for the sites of an- cient cities; Leake p. 251. On the ancient site itself there is no town or village; the modern city Denizli is a few miles off.
6 The position of Laodicea with respect to the neighbouring streams is accurately described by Pliny N. H. γ. 29 ‘Imposita est Lyco flumini, la- tera affluentibus Asopo et Capro’; see Tchihatcheff P. 1. p. 258. Strabo xii (1. 6.) is more careless in his de- scription (for it can hardly be, as Tchihatcheff assumes, that he has mistaken one of these two tributaries
Its grow- ing pros-
perity.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
heights of Cadmus, the lofty mountain barrier which shuts in the south side of the main valley’. A place ef no great importance at first, it made rapid strides in the last days of the republic and under the earliest Caesars, and had be- come, two or three generations before St Paul wrote, a po- pulous and thriving city*, Among its famous inhabitants are mentioned the names of some philosophers, sophists, and rhetoricians, men renowned in their day but forgotten or almost forgotten πον More to our purpose, as illustrating the boasted wealth and prosperity of the city, which appeared as a reproach and a stumblingblock in an Apostle’s eyes*, are the facts, that one of its citizens, Polemo, became a king and a father of kings, and that another, Hiero, having accumulated enormous wealth, bequeathed all his property to the people and adorned the city with costly gifts’, To the good fortune of her principal sons, as well as to the fertility of the country around, the geographer Strabo ascribes the increase and pros- perity of Laodicea. The ruins of public buildings still bear
testimony by their number and magnificence to the past great-
ness of the city®.
for the Lycus itself), ἐνταῦθα δὲ καὶ ὁ Καπρος καὶ ὁ Λύκος συμβάλλει τῷ Μαιάνδρῳ ποταμῷ ποταμὸς εὐμεγέθης, where ἐνταῦθα refers to ὁ περὶ τὴν Λαοδίκειαν τόπος, and where by the junction of the stream with the Me- ander must be intended the junction of the combined stream of the Lycus and Caprus. On the coins of Lao- dicea (Eckhel mr. p. 166, Mionnet tv. p- 330, ib. Suppl. vit. p. 587, 589) the Lycus and Caprus appear to- gether, being sometimes represented as a wolf and a wild boar. The Asopus is omitted, either as being a less im- portant stream or as being less capa- ble of symbolical representation. Of modern travellers, Smith (p. 250), and after him Pococke (p. 72), have cor- rectly described the position of the streams. Chandler (p. 227), misled by Strabo, mistakes the Caprus for the
Lycus and the Lycus for the Meander. The modern name of the Lycus is Techoruk 56.
1 The modern name of Cadmus is Baba-Dagh, ‘ The father of mountains.’
2 Strabo xii. 1. 6. ἡ δὲ Λαοδίκεια μικρὰ πρότερον οὖσα αὔξησιν ἔλαβεν ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν καὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων πατέρων, καίτοι κακωθεῖσα ἐκ πολιορκίας ἐπὶ Μιθριδάτου Strabo flourished in the time of Augustus and the earlier years of Tiberius. The growing im- portance of Laodicea dates from before the age of Cicero: see p. 7.
3 Strabo 1. c.; Diog. Laert. ix. 11 § 106, 12 § 116; Philostr. Vit. Soph. i, 25; Eckhel Doctr. Num. Vet. ut. p- 162, 163 sq.
4 Rey. iii. 17; see below p. 43.
5 Strabo 1. c. On this family see Ephemeris Epigraphica τ. p. 270 sq.
® The ruins of Laodicea have formed
τοῦ Εὐπάτορος.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
Not less important, as throwing light on the Apostolic history, is the political status of Laodicea. Asia Minor under the Romans was divided into districts, each compris- ing several towns and having its chief city, in which the courts were held from time to time by the proconsul or legate of the province, and where the taxes from the sub- ordinate towns were collected’. Each of these political ag- gregates was styled in Latin conventus, in Greek διοίκησις--- a term afterwards borrowed by the Christian Church, being applied to a similar ecclesiastical aggregate, and thus natu- ralised in the languages of Christendom as diocese. At the head of the most important of these political dioceses, the ‘Cibyratic convention’ or ‘jurisdiction,’ as it was called, com- prising not less than twenty-five towns, stood Laodicea?. Here in times past Cicero, as proconsul of Cilicia, had held his court’; hither at stated seasons flocked suitors, advo-
the quarry out of which the modern town of Denizli is built. Yet notwith- standing these depredations they are still very extensive, comprising an amphitheatre, two or three theatres, an aqueduct, ete. The amphitheatre was built by the munificence of a citizen of Laodicea only a few years after St Paul wrote, as the inscription testifies ; Boeckh C. I. no. 3935. See especially Hamilton 1. p. 515 sq., who describes these ruins as ‘bearing the stamp of Roman extravagance and luxury, rather than of the stern and massive solidity of the Greeks.’
1 See Marquardt Rémische Staats- verwaltung τ. p. 365 54.
2 See Cie. ad Att. v. 21, ‘Idibus Februariis ... forum institueram agere Laodicess Cibyraticum,’ with the re- ferences in the next note: comp. also Plin. N. H. v. 29 ‘Una (jurisdictio) appellatur Cibyratica. Ipsum (i. e. Cibyra) oppidum Phrygize est. Con- veniunt eo xxv civitates, celeberrima urbe Laodicea.’
Besides these passages, testimony is borne to the importance of the Ciby- ratic ‘conventus’ by Strabo, xiii. 4 § 17 (p. 681), ἐν ταῖς μεγίσταις ἐξετά ζε- ται διοικήσεσι τῆς ᾿Ασίας ἡ Κιβυρατική. It will be remembered also that Ho- race singles out the Cibyratica negotia (Epist. i. 6. 33) to represent Oriental trade generally. The importance of Laodicea may be inferred from the fact that, though the union was named after Cibyra, its head-quarters were from the first fixed at or soon afterwards trans- ferred to Laodicea.
3 See ad Fam. ii. 17, 111. 5, 7, 8, 1X. 25, Xili. 54, 67, xv. 4; ad Att. v. τό, 17, 20, 21, Vi. I, 2, 3, 7. He visited Laodicea on several occasions, some- times making a long stay there, and not a few of his letters are written thence. See especially his account of his work there, ad Att. vi. 2, ‘ Hoc foro quod egi ex Idibus Februariis Laodicex ad Kalendas Maias omnium dioece- sium, preter Cilicia, mirabilia qua- dam efficimus; ita mult civitates,
7
Its politi- cal rank, as the capital of a conventus.
Its religi- ous wor- ship.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
cates, clerks, sheriffs’-oflicers, tax-collectors, pleasure-seekers, — courtiers—all those crowds whom business or leisure or policy or curiosity would draw together from a wealthy and populous district, when the representative of the laws and the majesty of Rome appeared to receive homage and to hold his assize*. To this position as the chief city of the Cibyratic union the inscriptions probably refer, when they style Laodicea the ‘metropolis*®? And in its metropolitan rank we see an explanation of the fact, that to Laodicea, as to the centre of a Christian diocese also, whence their letters would rea- dily be circulated among the neighbouring brotherhoods, two Apostles addressed themselves in succession, the one writing from his captivity in Rome’, the other from his exile at Patmos’.
On the religious worship of Laodicea very little special in- formation exists. Its tutelary deity was Zeus, whose guardian- ship had been recognised in Diospolis, the older name of the city, and who, having (according to the legend) commanded its rebuilding, was commemorated on its coins with the surname Occasionally he is also called Aseis, a title which perhaps reproduces a Syrian epithet of this deity, ‘the mighty,’ If this interpretation be correct, we have a link of connexion between Laodicea and the religions of the farther Hast—a con- nexion far from improbable, considering that Laodicea was
Laodicenus’.
ete.’ Altogether Laodicea seems to p.184. It had lost its original sense,
haye been second in importance to none of the cities in his province, ex- cept perhaps Tarsus. See also the notice, in Verr. Act. 11. τ. 6. 30.
1 The description which Dion Chry- sostom gives in his eulogy of Celenz (Apamea Cibotus), the metropolis of a neighbouring ‘ dioecesis,’ enables us to realise the concourse which gather- ed together on these occasions: Orat. EXXV (II. p. 69) ξυνάγεται πλῆθος ἀνθρώ- πων δικαζομένων, δικαζόντων, ἡγεμόνων, ὑπηρετῶν, οἰκετῶν, K.T.A.
2 On this word see Marquardt 1. c.
as the mother city of a colony. Lao- dicea is styled ‘metropolis’ on the coins, Mionnet Iv. p. 321.
3 Col. iv. 16 with the notes. See also below p. 37, and the introduction to the Epistle to the Ephesians.
4 Rev. ili. 14.
5 See Eckhel m1. p. 159 sq. (passim), Mionnet Iv. p. 315 sq., ib. Suppl. vi. Ῥ. 578 sq. (passim). In the coins com- memorating an alliance with some other city Laodicea is represented by Zeus; e.g. Mionnet Iv. pp. 320, 324, 331 Sq., Suppl. viz. pp. 586, 580.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 9
refounded by a Syrian king and is not unlikely to have adopted some features of Syrian worship’. . 2. On the north of the valley, opposite to the sloping 2. Hmra-
. . . . POLIS, hills which mark the site of Laodicea, is a broad level terrace tts situa-
jutting out from the mountain side and overhanging the plain Ho with almost precipitous sides.
the vast ruins of HIERAPOLIS’. it abuts occupy the wedge of ground between the Meander and the Lycus; but, as the Meander above its junction
with the Lycus passes through a narrow ravine, they blend,
On this plateau are scattered The mountains upon which
1 ACEIC or ACEIC AAOAIKEQDN. See 2 For descriptions of Hierapolis,
Waddington Voyage en Asie Mineure au point de vue Numismatique (Paris 1853) pp. 25, 26sq. Mr Waddington adopts a suggestion communicated to him by M. de Longpérier that this word represents the Aramaic NITY ‘the strong, mighty,’ which appears also in the Arabic ‘Aziz.’ This view gains some confirmation from the fact, not mentioned by Mr Waddington, that ‘Afifos was an epithet of the Ares of Edessa: Julian Orat. iv; comp. Cure- ton Spic. Syr. p. 80, and see Lagarde Gesamm. Abhandl. p.16. On the other hand this Shemitic word elsewhere, when adopted into Greek or Latin, is writien”A (.fosor Azizus: see Garrucci in the Archeologia xuu1. p. 45 ‘Tyrio Sep- timio Azizo,’ and Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 9893 "Agigos Ayplzra Σύρος. M. de Long- périer offers the alternative that acelc, i.e. “Acis, is equivalent to ᾿Ασιατικός. An objection to this view, stronger than those urged by Mr Waddington, is the fact that ᾿Ασίς seems only to be used as a feminine adjective. M. Renan points to the fact that this ZEYC ACEIC is represented with his hand on the horns of a goat, and on the strength of this coincidence would identify him with ‘the Azazel of the Semites’ (Saint Paul, p. 359), though tradition and orthography alike point to some other derivation of Azazel ῤ ἮΝ 70).
see Smith p. 245 sq., Pococke p. 75 sq., Chandler 229 sq., Arundell Seven Churches p. 79 sq., Hamilton p. 517 sq., Fellows Asia Minor p. 283 sq. For the travertine deposits see espe- cially the description and plates in Tchihatcheff P. 1. p. 345, together with the views in Laborde (pl. xxxii— xxxvili), and Svoboda (photogr. 41 —47). Tchihatcheff repeatedly calls the place Hieropolis; but this form, though commonly used of other towns (see Steph. Byz. s. v. Ἱεραπόλις, Leake Num. Hell. p. 67), appears not to occur as a designation of the city on the Lycus, which seems always to be writ- ten Hierapolis. The citizens however are sometimes called ἱΙεροπολῖται on the coins.
The modern name is given different- ly by travellers. It is generally called Pambouk-Kalessi, i.e. ‘ cotton-castle,’ supposed to allude to the appearance of the petrifactions, though cotton is grown in the neighbourhood (Hamilton I. p.517). So Smith, Pococke, Chand- ler, Arundell, Tchihatcheti, Wadding- ton, and others. M. Renan says ‘Tambouk, et non Pambouk, Kalessi’ (S. Paul p. 357). Laborde gives the word Tambouk in some places and Pambouk in others; and Leake says ‘Hierapolis, now called Tabiuk-Kale or Pambuk-Kale’ (p. 252).
IO
Remark- able
physical features.
Their relation to the Apos- tolic his- tory.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
when seen from a distance, with the loftier range of the Mesogis which overhangs the right bank of the Meander almost from its source to its embouchure, and form with it the northern barrier to the view, as the Cadmus range does
Thus Hierapolis may be said to lie over against Mesogis, as Laodicea
the southern, the broad valley stretching between.
lies over against Cadmus’.
It is at Hierapolis that the remarkable physical features which distinguish the valley of the Lycus display themselves in the fullest perfection. Over the steep cliffs which support the plateau of the city, tumble cascades of pure white stone, the deposit of calcareous matter from the streams which, after traversing this upper level, are precipitated over the ledge into the plain beneath and assume the most fantastic shapes in their descent. At one time overhanging in cornices fringed with stalactites, at another hollowed out into basins or broken up with ridges, they mark the site of the city at a distance, glistening on the mountain-side like foaming cataracts frozen in the fall.
But for the immediate history of St Paul’s Epistles the striking beauty of the scenery has no value. It is not probable that he had visited this district when the letters Were it
otherwise, we can hardly suppose that, educated under widely
to the Colossians and Laodiceans were written.
different influences and occupied with deeper and more absorb-
1 Strabo xiii. 4. 14 (p. 629) says had himself visited the place and
ὑπερβαλοῦσι δὲ τὴν Meowyléa...rddes εἰσὶ πρὸς μὲν τῇ Μεσωγίδι καταντικρὺ Λαοδικείας Ἱερὰ πόλις, κιτ.λ. He can- not mean that Hierapolis was situated immediately in or by the Mesogis (for the name does not seem ever to be ap- plied to the mountains between the Lycus and Mzander), but that with respect to Laodicea it stood over a- gainst the Mesogis, as I have explain- ed it in the text. The view in Laborde (pl. xxxix) shows the appearance of Hierapolis from lLaodicea. Strabo
must have known how it was situated. Some modern travellers however (e.g. Chandler and Arundell) speak of the plateau of Hierapolis as part of the Mesogis. Steiger (Kolosser p. 33) gets over the difficulty by translating Strabo’s words, ‘near the Mesogis but on the opposite side (i.e. of the Me- ander) is the Laodicean Hierapolis’ (to distinguish it from others of the
name); but καταντικρὺ cannot be separated from Λαοδικείας without violence.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. IT
ing thoughts, he would have shared the enthusiasm which this scenery inspires in the modern traveller. Still it will give a reality to our conceptions, if we try to picture to ourselves the external features of that city, which was destined before long to become the adopted home of Apostles and other personal disciples of the Lord, and to play a conspicuous part— second perhaps only to Ephesus—in the history of the Church during the ages immediately succeeding the Apostles.
Like Laodicea, Hierapolis was at this time an important Hierapolis and a growing city, though not like Laodicea holding metro- ee politan rank’. Besides the trade in dyed wools, which it Place shared in common with the neighbouring towns, it had another source of wealth and prosperity peculiar to itself. The streams, to which the scenery owes the remarkable features already described, are endowed with valuable medicinal qualities, while at the same time they are so copious that the ancient city is described as full of self-made baths’. An inscription, still legible among the ruins, celebrates their virtues in heroic verse, thus apostrophizing the city :
Hail, fairest soil in all broad Asia’s realm;
Hail, golden city, nymph divine, bedeck’d
With flowing rills, thy jewels%. Coins of Hierapolis too are extant of various types, on which fEsculapius and Hygeia appear either singly or together’. To this fashionable watering-place, thus favoured by nature, seekers of pleasure and seekers of health alike were drawn.
To the ancient magnificence of Hierapolis its extant ruins The mag-
bear ample testimony. More favoured than Laodicea, it has eee
not in its immediate neighbourhood any modern town or *™* village of importance, whose inhabitants have been tempted
to quarry materials for their houses out of the memorials of
1 On its ecclesiastical title of me- εὐρείης προφερέστατον οὖδας ἁπάντων,
tropolis, see below, p. 69. χαίροις, χρυσόπολι Ἱεράπολι, πότνια Νυμ- 2 Strabo lic. οὕτω δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἄφθονον φῶν, νάμασιν, ἀγλαΐῃσι, κεκασμένη.
τὸ πλῆθος τοῦ ὕδατος ὥστε ἡ πόλις μεστὴ 4 Mionnet Iv. p. 297, 306, 307,
τῶν αὐτομάτων βαλανείων ἐστί. ib. Suppl. vir. p. 567; Waddington
% Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3909, ᾿Ασίδος Voyage etc. p. 24.
Its religi- ous WOr- ship.
The Plu- tonium,
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
its former greatness. Hence the whole plateau is covered with ruins, of which the extent and the good taste are equally re- markable; and of these the paliestra and the therme, as might be expected, are among the more prominent.
A city, which combined the pursuit of health and of gaiety, had fitly chosen as its patron deity Apollo, the god alike of medicine and of festivity, here worshipped especially as ‘ Archegetes,’ the Founder’. But more important, as illus- trating the religious temper of this Phrygian city, is another fact connected with it. In Hierapolis was a spot called the Plutonium, a hot well or spring, from whose narrow mouth issued a mephitic vapour immediately fatal to those who stood over the opening and inhaled its fumes. To the muti- lated priests of Cybele alone (so it was believed) an immunity
was given from heaven, which freed them from its deadly
effects”.
of the passionate mystical devotion of ancient Phrygia.
Indeed this city appears to have been a chief centre
But
indications are not wanting, that in addition to this older worship religious rites were borrowed also from other parts
1 Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3905, 3906; Mionnet tv. pp. 297, 301, 307, ib. Suppl. vil. p. 568, 569, 570. In coins struck to commemorate alliances with other cities, Hierapolis is represented by Apollo Archegetes : Mionnet tv. p. 303, ib. Suppl. vir. 572, 573, 574; Wad- dington Voyage etc. p. 25; and see Eckhel m1. p. 156. On the meaning of Archegetes, under which name Apollo was worshipped by other cities also, which regarded him as their founder, see Spanheim on Callim. Hymn. Apoll. 57.
2 Strabo 1. 6. He himself had seen the phenomenon and was doubtful how to account for the immunity of these priests, εἴτε θείᾳ προνοίᾳ...εἴτε ἀντιδό- τοις τισὶ δυνάμεσι τούτου συμβαίνοντος. See also Plin. N. H. ii. 93 § 95 “1ο- cum...matris tantum magne sacerdoti innoxium.’ Dion Cass. (Xiphil. ) lxviii.
27, who also witnessed the phenomenon, adds οὐ μὴν καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν αὐτοῦ συννοῆ- σαι ἔχω, λέγω δὲ ἅ τε εἶδον ὡς εἶδον καὶ ἃ ἤκουσα ὡς ἤκουσα. Ammian. Mare. xxiii. 6. 18 also mentions this mar- vel, but speaks cautiously, ‘ut asse- runt quidam,’ and adds ‘quod qua causa eveniat, rationibus physicis per- mittatur.? Comp. Anthol. vir. p. 190 Ei τις ἀπάγξασθαι μὲν ὀκνεῖ θανάτου δ᾽ ἐπιθυμεῖ, ἐξ ‘lepGs πόλεως ψυχρὸν ὕδωρ πιέτω; Stobeus Eel. i. 34, p.680. La- borde states (p. 83) that he discovered by experiment that the waters are sometimes fatal to animal life and sometimes perfectly harmless; and if this be substantiated, we have a solu- tion of the marvel. Other modern travellers, who have visited the Pluto- nium, are Cockerell (Leake p. 342), and Svoboda. In Svoboda’s work a chemical analysis of the waters is given.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUB. 13
of the East, more especially from Egypt’, By the multitude ‘of her temples Hierapolis established her right to the title of the ‘sacred city, which she bore”.
Though at this time we have no record of famous citizens The birth- at Hierapolis, such as graced the annals of Laodicea, yet a gene- ee ration or two later she numbered among her sons one nobler far than the rhetoricians and sophists, the millionaires and princes, of whom her neighbour could boast. The lame slave Epictetus, the loftiest of heathen moralists, must have been growing up to manhood when the first rumours of the Gospel reached his native city. Did any chance throw him across the path of Epaphras, who first announced the glad-tidings there? Did he ever meet the great Apostle himself, while Epictetus dragging out his long captivity at Rome, or when after his ae ae release he paid his long-promised visit to the valley of the We should be glad to think that these two men met together face to face—the greatest of Christian, and the great- est of heathen preachers.
than one riddle.
Lycus ?
Such a meeting would solve more A Christian Epictetus certainly was not: his Stoic doctrine and his Stoic morality are alike apparent ; but nevertheless his language presents some strange coinci- dences with the Apostolic writings, which would thus receive an explanation’. outward intercourse between the Apostle and the philosopher history furnishes no hint.
It must be confessed however, that of any
3. While the sites of Laodicea and Hierapolis are con- 3. Conos- spicuous, so that they were early identified by their ruins, Difficulty the same is not the case with CoLoss#. Only within the age present generation has the position of this once famous city site. been ascertained, and even now it lacks the confirmation of any
1 On a coin of Hierapolis, Pluto- where in this neighbourhood. At
Serapis appears seated, while before him stands Isis with a sistrum in her hand; Waddington Voyage ete. p. 24. See also Mionnet Iv. pp. 296, 305; Leake Num. Hell. p. 66.
The worship of Serapis appears else-
Chonz (Colosse) is an inscription recording a vow to this deity; Le Bas Asie Mineure inser. 1693 b.
2 Steph. Byz. s.v. ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱερὰ πολ- Aa ἔχειν.
* See Philippians, p. 313 sq.
14
Subterra- nean chan- nel of the Lycus.
1
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
Herodotus states that in Colossx the river Lycus disappears in a sub-
inscription found in situ and giving the name},
terranean cave, emerging again at a distance of about five stades*; and this very singular landmark—the underground passage of a stream for half a mile—might be thought to have placed the site of the city beyond the reach of controversy, But this is not the case. In the immediate neighbourhood of the only ruins which can possibly be identified with Colosse, no such subterranean channel has been discovered. But on the other hand the appearance of the river at this point suggests that at one time the narrow gorge through which it runs, as it traverses the ruins, was overarched for some distance with in- crustations of travertine, and that this natural bridge was broken
up afterwards by an earthquake, so as to expose the channel
of the stream’*.
1 See however a mutilated inscrip- tion (Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3956) with the letters... HN@N, found near Chone.
2 Herod. vii. 30 ἀπίκετο és Κολοσσᾶς, πόλιν μεγάλην Φρυγίης, ἐν τῇ Λύκος πο- ταμὸς ἐς χάσμα γῆς ἐσβάλλων ἀφανίζε- ται, ἔπειτα διὰ σταδίων ὡς πέντε μά- λιστά Kn ἀναφαινόμενος ἐκδιδοῖ καὶ οὗτος ἐς τὸν Μαίανδρον.
3 This is the explanation of Hamil- ton (1. p. 509 sq.), who (with the doubt- ful exception of Laborde) has the merit of having first identified and described the site of Colosse. It stands on the Tchoruk SG (Lycus) at the point where it is joined by two other streams, the Bounar Bashi 84 and the Ak-S@. In confirmation of his opinion, Hamilton found a tradition in the neighbourhood that the river had once been covered over at this spot (p.522). He followed the course of the Lycus for some dis- tance without finding any subterrane- an channel (p. 521 sq.).
It is difficult to say whether the fol- lowing account in Strabo xii. 8 § 16 (p. 578) refers to the Lycus or not;
This explanation seems satisfactory. If it be
ὄρος Kdduos ἐξ οὗ καὶ ὁ Λύκος ῥεῖ καὶ ἄλλος ὁμώνυμος τῷ ὄρει: τὸ πλέον δ᾽ οὗτος ὑπὸ γῆς ῥυεὶς εἶτ᾽ ἀνακύψας συνέ- πεσεν εἰς ταὐτὸ τοῖς ἄλλοις ποταμοῖς, ἐμ- φαίνων ἅμα καὶ τὸ πολύτρητον τῆς χώρας καὶ τὸ εὔσειστον. If the Lycus is meant, may not συνέπεσεν imply that this re- markable feature had changed before Strabo wrote ?
Laborde (p. 103), who visited the
place before Hamilton, though his ac-_ count was apparently not published till later, fixes on the same site for
Colosse, but thinks that he has dis- covered the subterranean course of the Lycus, to which Herodotus refers, much higher up a stream, close to its source (‘a dix pas de cette source’), which he describes as ‘a deux lieues au nord de Colosse.’ Yet in the same paragraph he says ‘Or il [Hérodote, exact cice- rone] savait que le Lycus disparait pres de Coloss@, ville considérable de la Phrygie’ (the italics are his own). He apparently does not see the vast difference between his prés de Colosse thus widely interpreted and
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
rejected, we must look for the underground channel, not within the city itself, as the words of Herodotus strictly interpreted require, but at some point higher up the stream. In either case there can be little doubt that these are the ruins of
Colosse. The fact mentioned by Pliny’, that there is in this Petrifying
city ariver which turns brick into stone, is satisfied by a side
stream flowing into the Lycus from the north, and laying
large deposits of calcareous matter; though in this region, as
we have seen, such a phenomenon is very far from rare.
The
site of Colossz then, as determined by these considerations, lies two or three miles north of the present town of Chonos, the medieval Chonz, and some twelve miles east of Laodicea. The Lycus traverses the site of the ruins, dividing the city
into two parts, the necropolis standing on the right or northern bank, and the town itself on the left.
Commanding the approaches to a pass in the Cadmus range, Its ancient
and standing on a great high-way communicating between Eastern and Western Asia, Colossee at an early date appears
as a very important place.
Here the mighty host of Xerxes
halted on its march against Greece; it is mentioned on this occasion as ‘a great city of Phrygia®’ Here too Cyrus remained seven days on his daring enterprise which terminated so fatally; the Greek captain, who records the expedition, speaks
of it as ‘a populous city, prosperous and great®’ this time its glory seems to wane.
the precise ἐν τῇ of Herodotus himself. Obviously no great reliance can be placed on the accuracy of a writer, who treats his authorities thus. The subterranean stream which Laborde saw, and of which he gives a view (pl. xl), may possibly be the pheno- menon to which Herodotus alludes; but if so, Herodotus has expressed himself very carelessly. On the whole Hamil- ton’s solution seems much more proba- ble. See however Anatolica Ὁ. 117 sq.
Arundell’s account (Seven Churches p. 98 sq., Asia Minor p. 160 sq.) is
But after The political supremacy
very confused and it is not clear whether he has fixed on the right site for Colosse; but it bears testimony to the existence of two subterranean courses of rivers, though neither of them is close enough to the city to satisfy Herodotus’ description,
1 Plin. N. A. xxxi.2§20. Thisis the Ak-Sf, which has strongly petrify- ing qualities.
3 Herod. vii. 30. See p. 14, note 2.
3 Xen. Anab. i. 2. 6 ἐξελαύνει διὰ Ppv- ylas...els Κολοσσάς, πόλιν οἰκουμένην, εὐδαίμονα καὶ μεγάλην.
16
and later decline.
Uncertain ortho-
graphy of the name.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
of Laodicea and the growing popularity of Hierapolis gradu- ally drain its strength; and Strabo, writing about two genera- tions before St Paul, describes it as a ‘small town’’ in the We shall there- fore be prepared to find that, while Laodicea and Hierapolis both hold important places in the early records of the Church, Colossee disappears wholly from the pages of history. Its com-
district of which Laodicea was the capital.
parative insignificance is still attested by its ruins, which are few and meagre’, while the vast remains of temples, baths, theatres, aqueducts, gymnasia, and sepulchres, strewing the extensive sites of its more fortunate neighbours, still bear wit- It is not even mentioned by Ptolemy, though his enumeration of towns
ness to their ancient prosperity and magnificence.
includes several inconsiderable places*. Without doubt Colossze was the least important church to which any epistle of St Paul is addressed.
And perhaps also we may regard the variation in the orthography of the name as another indication of its com- Are we to write So far as the evidence goes, the con-
parative obscurity and its early extinction. Colosse or Colassw ? clusion would seem to be that, while Colosse alone occurs during the classical period and in St Paul's time, it was after- wards supplanted by Colasse, when the town itself had either disappeared altogether or was already passing out of notice*.
1 πόλισμα, Strabo xii. 8. 13 (p. 576). Plin. N. H. v. 32. § 41 writes ‘Phrygia ...oppida ibi celeberrima preter jam dicta, Ancyra, Andria, Celeenz, Colos- se, etc. The commentators, referring to this passage, overlook the words ‘preter jam dicta,’ and represent Pliny as calling Colosse ‘oppidum celeberri- mum.’ Not unnaturally they find it difficult to reconcile this expression with Strabo’s statement. But in fact Pliny has already exhausted all the considerable towns, Hierapolis, Lao- dicea, Apamea, etc., and even much less important places than these (see
v. 28, 29 § 29), so that only decayed and third-rate towns remain. The Ancyra here mentioned is not the capital of Galatia, but a much smaller Phrygian town.
2 Laborde p. 102 ‘De cette grande célébrité de Colosse il ne reste presque rien: ce sont des substructions sans suite, des fragments sans grandeur; les restes d’un théatre de médiocre dimension, une acropole sans hardi- esse,’ etc.; comp. Anatolica p. 115.
3 Geogr. Vv. 2.
4 All Greek writers till some cen- turies after the Christian era write it
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 17
Considered ethnologically, these three cities are generally BeECSE: regarded as belonging to Phrygia. But as they are situated tions of on the western border of Phrygia, and as the frontier line te tree
cities, separating Phrygia from Lydia and Caria was not distinctly
Κολοσσαί: so Herod. vii. 30, Xen. Anab. i. 2. 6, Strabo xii. 8. 13, Diod. xiv. 80, Polyen. Strat. vii. τό. 1; though in one or more mss of some of these authors it is written Κολασσαΐί, showing the tendency of later scribes. Colosse is also the universal form in Latin writers. The coins moreover, even as late as the reign of Gordian (a.D. 238 —244) when they ceased to be struck,
universally have KOAOCCHNOI! (or KO- AOCHNO!); Mionnet rv. p. 267 sq.: see Babington Numismatic Chronicle New series m1. p. 1 sq., 6. In Hie- rocles (Synecd. p. 666, Wessel.) and in the Apostolic Constitutions (vii. 46) Κολασσαί seems to be the original read- ing of the text, and in later Byzan- tine writers this form is common. If Prof. Babington (p. 3) were right in supposing that it is connected with κολοσσός, the question of the correct spelling might be regarded as settled ; but in a Phrygian city over which so many Eastern nations swept in suc- cession, who shall say to what lan- guage the name belonged, or what are its affinities ?
Thus, judging from classical usage, we should say that Κολοσσαί was the old form and that Κολασσαί did not supplant it till some time after St Paul’s age. This view is confirmed by a review of the authorities for the different readings in the New Testa- ment.
In the opening of the episile (i. 1) the authorities for ἐν Κολοσσαῖς are overwhelming. Itis read by NBDFGL (A is obliterated here and C is want- ing); and in the Old Latin, Vulgate, and Armenian Versions. On the other
COL,
hand ἐν Κολασσαῖς is read by KP. 17. 37. 47, and among the versions by the Memphitic and the Philoxenian Syriac (swamclan, though the marg. gives KOACCAICc). In the Peshito also the present reading represents Κολασ- σαῖς, but as the vowel was not express- ed originally and depends on the later pointing, its authority can hardly be quoted. The Thebaic is wanting here.
In the heading of the epistle how- ever there is considerably more au- thority for the formin a. Kodaccaets is the reading of AB* ΚΡ. 37 (Κολα- oaes). 47. Cis wanting here, but has Κολασσαεις in the subscription. On the other hand Κολοσσαεις (or Κολοσ- gais) appears in NB! (according to Tregelles, but B? Tisch.; see his introd. p. xxxxvili) DFG (but G has left Ko- λασσαεις in the heading of one page, and Κολαοσαεις in another) L. 17 (Ko- λοσαει5), in the Latin Version, and in the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac. The readings of both Peshito and Philoxenian (text) here depend on the vocalisation ; and those of other ver- sions are not recorded. In the sub- scription the preponderance of au- thority is even more favourable to Κολασσαεις.
Taking into account the obvious tendency which there would be in scribes to make the title πρὸς Κολοσ- σαεῖς Or πρὸς Κολασσαεῖς conform to the opening ἐν Κολοσσαῖς or ἐν Κολασ- σαῖς, aS shown in G, we seem to arrive at the conclusion that, while ἐν Κολοσσαῖς was indisputably the original reading in the opening, πρὸς Κολασ- σαεῖς was probably the earlier reading in the title. If so, the title must have
2
18
Their political relations.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYOUS.
traced, this designation is not persistent’. Thus Laodicea is sometimes assigned to Caria, more rarely to Lydia*; and again, Hierapolis is described as half Lydian, half Phrygian®, On the other hand I have not observed that Colossz is ever re- garded as other than Phrygian‘, partly perhaps because the notices relating to it belong to an earlier date when these several names denoted political as well as ethnological divi- sions, and their limits were definitely marked in consequence,
but chiefly because it lies some miles to the east of the other
cities, and therefore farther from the doubtful border land. Phrygia however ceased to have any political significance,
when this country came under the dominion of the Romans.
Politically speaking, the three cities with the rest of the
been added at a somewhat later date ; which is not improbable.
Connected with this question is the variation in the adjectival form, -ηνός or-aevs. Parallels to this double ter- mination occur in other words; e. g. Δοκιμηνός, Δοκιμεύς ; Λαοδικηνός, Aao- δικεύς ; Νικαηνός, Νικαεύς ; Σαγαλασση- νός, Σαγαλασσεύς, etc. ΤῊΘ coins, while they universally exhibit the form in ο, are equally persistent in the termina- tion -ηνός, KOAOCCHNQN ; and it is curious that to the form Κολοσσηνοί in Strabo xii. 8 § 16 (p. 578) there is a various reading Κολασσαεῖς. Thus, though there is no necessary con- nexion between the two, the termina- tion -ηνός seems to go with the ὁ form, and the termination -αεύς with the a form.
For the above reasons I have written confidently ἐν Κολοσσαῖς in the text, and with more hesitation πρὸς Κολασ- σαεῖς in the superscription.
1 Strabo, xiii, 4. 12 (p. 628) τὰ δ᾽ ἑξῆς ἐπὶ τὰ νότια μέρη τοῖς τόποις τούτοις ἐμπλοκὰς ἔχει μέχρι πρὸς τὸν Ταῦρον, ὥστε καὶ τὰ Φρύγια καὶ τὰ Καρικὰ καὶ τὰ Λύδια καὶ ἔτι τὰ τῶν Μυσῶν δυσδιά- κριτα εἶναι παραπίπτοντα εἰς ἄλληλα"
εἰς δὲ τὴν σύγχυσιν ταύτην οὐ μικρὰ συλλαμβάνει τὸ τοὺς Ῥωμαίους μὴ κατὰ φῦλα διελεῖν αὐτούς κ.τ.λ.
* Τὸ Phrygia, Strabo xii. 8. 13 (p. 576), Polyb. v. 57, and so generally; to Caria, Orac. Sibyll. iii. 472 Καρῶν ἀγλαὸν ἄστυ, Ptol. v. 2, Philostr. Vit. Soph. i. 25 (though in the context Philostratus adds that at one time 77 Φρυγίᾳ Ewerdrrero); to Lydia, Steph. Byz. s.v. On the coins the city is sometimes represented as seated be- tween two female figures Φρυγιὰ and KApIA; Hckhel m1. p. 160, comp. Mionnet rv. p. 329. From its situation on the confines of the three countries Laodicea seems to have obtained the surname Trimitaria or Trimetaria, by which it is sometimes designated in later times: see below, and comp. Wesseling, Itin. p. 665.
3 Steph. Byz. s. v. says μεταξὺ Φρυ- ylas καὶ Λυδίας πόλις. But generally Hierapolis is assigned to Phrygia: e. g. Ptol. v. 2, Vitruy. viii. 3 § ro.
4 Colosse is assigned to Phrygia in Herod. vii. 30, Xen. Anab. i. 2. 6, Strabo xii. 8. 13, Diod. xiv. 80, Plin. N. H. vy. 32 ὃ 4t, Polyen. Strat. vit. 16. I.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
Cibyratic union belonged at this time to Asia, the procon- sular province’. As an Asiatic Church accordingly Laodicea
is addressed in the Apocalyptic letter. To this province they
had been assigned in the first instance; then they were handed
over to Cilicia®; afterwards they were transferred and retrans- ferred from the one to the other; till finally, before the Chris-
tian era, they became a permanent part of Asia, their original province. Here they remained, until the close of the third century, when a new distribution of the Roman empire was made, and the province of Phrygia Prima, afterwards called Pacatiana, was created with Laodicea as its capital®.
The Epistle to the Colossians supposes a powerful Jewish Important
colony in Laodicea and the neighbourhood. We are not how- Bhat
settlement ever left to draw this inference from the epistle alone, but the ™ this
neighbour- fact is established by ample independent testimony. When, hood. with the insolent licence characteristic of Oriental kings, An- tiochus the Great transplanted two thousand Jewish families from Babylonia and Mesopotamia into Lydia and Phrygia *, Colony ot we can hardly doubt that among the principal stations of these aa new colonists would be the two most thriving cities of Phrygia, whick were also the two most important settlements of the Syrian kings, Apamea and Laodicea, the one founded by his grandfather Antiochus the First, the other by his father Antiochus the Second. If the commercial importance of Apa- mea at this time was greater (for somewhat later it was reck-
oned second only to Ephesus among the cities of Asia Minor
1 After the year B.c. 49 they seem to have been permanently attached to ‘Asia’: before that time they are bandied about between Asia and Ci- licia. These alternations are traced by Bergmann de Asia provincia (Berlin, 1846) and in Philologus τι. 4 (1847) p.641sq. See Marquardt Rim. Staats- verwalt. 1. p. 176 sq. Laodicea is assigned to ‘Asia’ in Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 6512, 6541, 6626.
The name ‘Asia’ will be used throughout this chapter in its political
sense, as applying to the Roman pro- vince.
2 Cie. ad Fam. xiii. 67 ‘ex pro- vincia mea Ciliciensi, cui scis τρεῖς διοικήσεις Asiaticas [i.e. Cibyraticam, Apamensem, Synnadensem] attributas fuisse’; ad Att. v. 21 ‘mea expectatio Asis nostrarum diccesium’ and ‘in hac mea Asia.’ See also above, p. 7, notes 2, 3.
3 Hierocles Synecd. p. 664 sq. (Wes- sel.): see Marquardt l.c. p. 190.
+ Joseph. Antig. xii. 3, 4.
—2
20
Confisca- tions of Flaceus.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
as a centre of trade), the political rank of Laodicea stood When mention is made of Lydia and Phrygia’, this latter city especially is pointed out by its position, for it A Jewish settle- ment once established, the influx of their fellow-countrymen Accordingly under the Roman
higher’. stood near the frontier of the two countries.
would be rapid and continuous, domination we find them gathered here in very large numbers. When Flaccus the propreetor of Asia (B.C. 62), who was afterwards accused of maladministration in his province and defended by Cicero, forbade the contributions of the Jews to the temple- worship and the consequent exportation of money to Palestine, he seized as contraband not less than twenty pounds weight in gold in the single district of which Laodicea was the capital ὅς Calculated at the rate of a half-shekel for each man, this sum represents a population of more than eleven thousand adult freemen‘: for women, children, and slaves were exempted. It must be remembered however, that this is only the sum which
1 Strabo xii. 8 13 (p. 576) εἶτα *Amduea ἡ KiBwrds λεγομένη καὶ Aao- δίκεια αἵπερ εἰσὶ μέγισται τῶν κατὰ τὴν Below § 15 (Ρ. 577) he says ᾿Απάμεια δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐμπόριον μέγα τῆς ἰδίως λεγομένης ᾿Ασίας δευτερεῦον μετὰ τὴν Ἔφεσον. The relative im- portance οὗ Apamea and Laodicea two or three generations earlier than St Paul may be inferred from the notices in Cicero; but there is reason for thinking that Laodicea afterwards grew more rapidly than Apamea.
2 In Josephus 1. ὁ. the words are τὰ κατὰ τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Λυδίαν, the two names being under the vinculum of the one article: while immediately afterwards Lydia is dropped and Phry- gia alone named, πέμψαι τινὰς ... els Φρυγίαν.
3 Cic. pro Flacc. 28 ‘Sequitur auri illa invidia Judaici...Quum aurum Ju- deorum nomine quotannis ex Italia et ex omnibus provinciis Hierosolyma
Φρυγίαν πόλεων.
exportari soleret, Flaccus sanxit edicto ne ex Asia exportari liceret...multitu- dinem Judzxorum, flagrantem non- numquam in concionibus, pro repub- lica contemnere gravitatis summ@p fuit...Apames manifesto comprehen- sum ante pedes pretoris in foro ex- pensum est auri pondo centum paullo minus...Laodicesx viginti pondo paullo amplius.’
Josephus (Antiq. xiv. 7. 2), quoting the words of Strabo, πέμψας δὲ Μιθρι- darns els KG ἔλαβε...τὰ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων ὀκτακόσια τάλαντα, explains this enor- mous sum as composed of the temple- offerings of the Jews which they sent to Cos for safety out of the way of Mithridates.
4 This calculation supposes (1) That the half-skekel weighs 110 gr.; (2) That the Roman pound is 5050 gr.: (3) That the relation of gold to silver was at this time as 12:1. This last esti- mate is possibly somewhat too high.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
the Roman officers succeeded in detecting and confiscating ; and that therefore the whole Jewish population would pro- bably be much larger than this partial estimate implies. The amount seized at Apamea, the other great Phrygian centre was five times as large as this’.
2
Somewhat later we have a document purporting to be a decree of the Laodiceans, in which they thank the Roman Consul for a measure granting to Jews the liberty of observing their sabbaths and practising other rites of their religion*; and though this decree is pro- bably spurious, yet it serves equally well to show that at this time Laodicea was regarded as an important centre of the To the same effect may be quoted the extravagant hyperbole in the Talmud, that when on a cer-
dispersion in Asia Minor.
tain occasion an insurrection of the Jews broke out in Cesarea the metropolis of Cappadocia, which brought down upon their heads the cruel vengeance of king Sapor and led to a mas- sacre of 12,000, ‘the wall of Laodicea was cloven with the sound of the harpstrings’ in the fatal and premature mer-
riment of the insurgents ’*.
1 The coinage of Apamea affords a striking example of Judaic influence at a later date. On coins struck at this place in the reigns of Severus, Macrinus, and the elder Philip, an ark is represented floating on the waters. Within are a man and a wo- man: on the roof a bird is perched ; while in the air another bird ap- proaches bearing an olive-branch in its claws. The ark bears the inscrip- tion Νῶε. Outside are two standing figures, ἃ man and a woman (ap- parently the same two who have been represented within the ark), with their hands raised as in the attitude of prayer. The connexion of the ark of Noah with Apamea is explained by ἃ passage in one of the Sibylline Oracles (i. 261 sq.), where the moun- tain overhanging Apamea is identified with Ararat, and the ark (κιβωτός) is
This place was doubtless singled
stated to have rested there. Whether this Apamea obtained its distinctive surname of Cibotus, the Ark or Chest, from its physical features or from its position as the centre of taxation and finance for the district, or from some other cause, it is difficult to say. In any case this surname might naturally suggest to those acquainted with the Old Testament a connexion with the deluge of Noah; but the idea would not have been adopted in the coinage of the place without the pressure of strong Jewish influences. On these coins see Eckhel Doctr. Num. Vet. mm. p- 132 sq., and the paper of Sir F. Madden in the Numismatic Chronicle N. S. vi. p. 173 54. (1866), where they are figured.
2 Joseph. Ant. xiv. το. 21.
3 Talm. Babl. Moéd Katon 26a, quot- ed by Neubauer, La Géographie du
21
Other evidence.
N Ww
Special attrac- tions of Hiera- polis,
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
out, because it had a peculiar interest for the Jews, as one of their chief settlements’, It will be remembered also, that Phrygia is especially mentioned among those countries which furnished their quota of worshippers at Jerusalem, and were thus represented at the baptism of the Christian Church on the great day of Pentecost’*.
Mention has already been made of the traffic in dyed wools, which formed the staple of commerce in the valley of the Lycus*, It may be inferred from other notices that this branch of trade had a peculiar attraction for the Jews*. If so, their commercial instincts would constantly bring fresh recruits to a colony which was already very considerable. But the neighbour- hood held out other inducements besides this. Hierapolis, the gay watering place, the pleasant resort of idlers, had charms for them, as well as Laodicea the busy commercial city. At least such was the complaint of stricter patriots at home. ‘The wines and the baths of Phrygia,’ writes a Talmudist bit-
terly, ‘have separated the ten tribes from Israel *”
Talmud p. 319, though he seems to have misunderstood the expression quoted in the text, of which he gives the sense, ‘Cette ville tremblait au bruit des fléches qu’on avait tirées.’
It is probably this same Lacdicea which is meant in another Talmudical passage, Talm. Babl. Baba Metziah 84 a (also quoted by Neubauer, p. 311), in which Elijah appearing to R. Ish- mael ben R. Jose, says ‘Thy father fled to Asia; flee thou to Laodicea,’ where Asia is supposed to mean Sardis.
1 An inscription found at Rome in the Jewish cemetery at the Porta Por- tuensis (Boeckh Corp. Inser. 9916) runs thus; €NOA . KITE . AMMA . [e]ioyAea . ἀπο. AAAIKIAC. «.7.d., 1.6. ἔνθα κεῖται “Aula Ἰουδαία ἀπὸ Probably Laodicea on the Lycus is meant. Perhaps also we may refer another inscription (6478), which mentions one Trypho from Lao-
Ἀαοδικείας.
dicea on the Lycus, to a Jewish source.
2 Acts ii. Io.
3 See p. 4.
4 Acts xvi. 14. Is there an allusion to this branch of trade in the message to the Church of Laodicea, Rev. iii. 17 οὐκ οἷδας ὅτι σὺ ef ὁ... γυμνός" συμβου- λεύω σοι ἀγοράσαι... ἱμάτια λευκὰ ἵνα περιβάλῃ, K.T.\.2? The only other of the seven messages, which contains an allusion to the white garments, is ad- dressed to the Church of Sardis, where again there might be a reference to the βάμμα Σαρδιανικόν (Arist. Pax 1174, Acharn, 112) and the φοινικίδες Σαρδια- νικαί (Plato Com. in Athen. 1. p. 48 5) of the comic poets.
° Talm. Babl. Sabbath 147 b, quoted by Neubauer La Géographie du Talmud p- 317: see Wiesner Schol. zum Babyl. Talm. p. 259 sq., and p. 207 sq. On the word translated ‘baths,’ see Rapo- port’s Hrech Millin p. 113, col. τ.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 23
There is no ground for supposing that, when St Paul wrote St Paul his Epistle to the Colossians, he had ever visited the church Ea in which he evinces so deep an interest. Whether we ex- es amine the narrative in the Acts, or whether we gather up wrote. the notices in the epistle itself, we find no hint that he had ever been in this neighbourhood; but on the contrary some expressions indirectly exclude the supposition of a visit to the district.
It is true that St Luke more than once mentions Phrygia What is as lying on St Paul’s route or as witnessing his labours. ae But Phrygia was a vague and comprehensive term; nor can St Luke? we assume that the valley of the Lycus was intended, unless the direction of his route or the context of the narrative dis- tinctly points to this south-western corner of Phrygia. In neither of the two passages, where St Paul is stated to have travelled througk Phrygia, is this the case.
I. On his second missionary journey, after he has revisited r.StPaul’s and confirmed the churches of Pisidia and Lycaonia founded Paces on his first visit, he passes through ‘the Phrygian and Galatian ΤΕ ἜΘΡΟΤΟ country’. I have pointed out elsewhere that this expression ary jour- must be used to denote the region which might be called in- ai differently Phrygia or Galatia—the land which had originally belonged to the Phrygians and had afterwards been colonised by the Gauls; or the parts of either country which lay in the immediate neighbourhood of this debatable ground*® This region lies considerably north and east of the valley of the Lycus. Assuming that the last of the Lycaonian and Pisidian towns at which St Paul halted was Antioch, he would not on any probable supposition approach nearer to Colosse than Apamea Cibotus on his way to ‘the Phrygian and Galatian
country, nor indeed need he have gone nearly so far west-
1 Acts xvi. 6 τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Tada- iii. 1 τῆς Ἰτουραίας καὶ Tpaxwviridos τικὴν χώραν, the correct reading. For χώρας, Acts xiii, τ4᾿Αντιόχειαν τὴν Πισι- this use of Φρυγίαν as an adjective δίαν (the correct reading). comp. Mark i. 5 πᾶσα ἡ ᾿Ιουδαία χώρα, 2 See Galatians, p. 18 sq., 22-
Joh. iii. 22 els τὴν ᾿Ιουδαίαν γῆν, Luke
2. His visit
on his third mis- sionary journey.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
ward as this. And again on his departure from this region he journeys by Mysia to Troas, leaving ‘ Asia’ on his left hand and Bithynia on his right. Thus the notices of his route con- spire to show that his path on this occasion lay far away from the valley of the Lycus.
2. But if he was not brought into the neighbourhood of Colosse on his second missionary journey, it is equally improbable that he visited it on his third. So far as regards Asia Minor, he seems to have confined himself to revisiting the churches already founded ; the new ground which he broke was in Macedonia and Greece. Thus when we are told that during this third journey St Paul after leaving Antioch ‘ passed in order through the Galatian country and Phrygia, confirm- ing all the disciples’? we can hardly doubt that ‘the Galatian country and Phrygia’ in this latter passage denotes essentially the same region as ‘the Phrygian and Galatian country’ in the former. The slight change of expression is explained by the altered direction of his route. In the first instance his course, as determined by its extreme limits—Antioch in Pisidia its starting-point, and Alexandria Troas its termination— would be northward for the first part of the way, and thus would le on the border land of Phrygia and Galatia; whereas on this second occasion, when he was travelling from Antioch in Syria to Ephesus, its direction would be generally from east to west, and the more strictly Galatian district would be traversed before the Phrygian. If we suppose him to leave Galatia at Pessinus on its western border, he would pass along the great highway—formerly a Persian and at this time a Roman road—by Synnada and Sardis to Ephesus, traversing the heart of Phrygia, but following the valleys of the Hermus and Cayster, and separated from the Meander and Lycus by the high mountain ranges which bound these latter to the north ®.
1 Acts xviii. 23. St Paul and St Luke is not the country * M. Renan (Saint Paul pp. 51 sq., properly so called, but that they are 126, 313) maintains that the Galatia of | speaking of the Churches of Pisidian
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
Thus St Luke’s narrative seems to exclude any visit of
β the Apostle to the Churches of the Lycus before his first
Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, - which lay within the Roman province of Galatia. This interpretation of Gala- tia necessarily affects his view of St ‘Paul’s routes (pp. 126 sq., 331 8q.); and he supposes the Apostle on his third missionary journey to have passed through the valley of the Lycus, with- out however remaining to preach the Gospel there (pp. 331 §q., 356 54., 362). As Antioch in Pisidia would on this hypothesis be the farthest church in ‘Galatia and Phrygia’ which St Paul visited, his direct route from that city to Ephesus (Acts xviii, 23, xix. 1) would naturally lie by this valley. I have already (Galatians pp. 18 sq., 22) stated the serious objections to which this interpretation of ‘Galatia’ is open, and (if I mistake not) have answered most of M. Renan’s arguments by an- ticipation. But, as this interpretation nearly affects an important point in the history of St Paul's dealings with the Colossians, it is necessary to sub- ject it to a closer examination.
Without stopping to enquire whe- ther this view is reconcilable with St Paul’s assertion (Col. ii. 1) that these churches in the Lycus valley ‘had not seen his face in the flesh,’ it will ap- pear (I think) that M. Renan’s argu- ments are in some cases untenable and in others may be turned against him- self. The three heads under which _ they may be conveniently considered are: (i) The use of the name ‘ Galatia’; (ii) The itinerary of St Paul’s travels; (iii) The historical notices in the Epis- tle to the Galatians.
(i) On the first point, M. Renan states that St Paul was in the habit of using the oficial name for each dis- trict, and therefore called the country which extends from Antioch in Pisidia
to Derbe ‘Galatia,’ supporting this view by the Apostle’s use of Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia (p. 51). The answer is that the names of these elder provinces had very generally su- perseded the local names, but this was not the case with the other districts of Asia Minor where the provinces had been formed at a comparatively late date. The usage of St Luke is a good criterion. He also speaks of Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia; but at the same time his narrative abounds in historical or ethnographical names which have no official import; e.g. Lycaonia, Mysia, Pamphylia, Pisidia, Phrygia. Where we have no evidence, it is reasonable to assume that St Paul’s usage was conformable to St Luke’s. And again, if we consider St Luke’s account alone, how insu- perable are the difficulties which this view of Galatia creates. The part of Asia Minor, with which we are imme- diately concerned, was comprised offi- cially in the provinces of Asia and Galatia. On M. Renan’s showing, St Luke, after calling Antioch a city of Pisidia (xiii. 14) and Lystra and Derbe cities of Lycaonia (xiv. 6), treats all the three, together with the interme- diate Iconium, as belonging to Galatia (xvi. 6, xviii. 23). He explains the in- consistency by saying that in the former case the narrative proceeds in detail, in the latter in masses. But if so, why should he combine a historical and ethnological name Phrygia with an official name Galatia in the same breath, when the two are different in kind and cannot be mutually exclusive? ‘Galatia and Asia,’ would be intelligi- ble on this supposition, but not ‘Ga- latia and Phrygia.’ Moreover the very form of the expression in xvi. 6, ‘ the
25
The infer- ence from
26
St Luke's narrative
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
Roman captivity. And this inference is confirmed by St Paul’s
own language to the Colossians.
Phrygian and Galatian country’ (ac- cording to the correct reading which M. Renan neglects), appears in its stu- died vagueness to exclude the idea that St Luke means the province of Gala- tia, whose boundaries were precisely marked. And eyen granting that the Christian communities of Lycaonia and Pisidia could by a straining of language be called Churches of Gala- tia, is it possible that St Paul would address them personally as ‘ye fool- ish Galatians’ (Gal. iii, 1)? Such lan- guage would be no more appropriate than if a modern preacher in a fami- liar address were to appeal to the Poles of Warsaw as ‘ye Russians,’ or the Hungarians of Pesth as ‘ye Aus- trians,’ or the Irish of Cork as ‘ye Englishmen.’
(ii) In the itinerary of St Paul several points require consideration. (a) M. Renan lays stress on the fact that in Acts xvi. 6, xviii. 23, the order in which the names of Phrygia and Galatia occur is inverted. I seem to myself to have explained this satisfac- torily in the text. He appears to be unaware of the correct reading in xvi. 6, τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Tadrarixhy χώραν (see Galatians p. 22), though it has an important bearing on St Paul’s proba- ble route. (Ὁ) He states that Troas was St Paul’s aim (‘Vobjectif de Saint Paul’) in the one case (xvi. 6), and Ephesus in the other (xviii. 23): con- sequently he argues that Galatia, pro- perly so called, is inconceivable, as there was no reason why he should have made ‘this strange detour to- wards the north.’ The answer is that Troas was not his ‘objectif’ in the first instance, nor Ephesus in the second. On the first occasion St Luke states that the Apostle set out on his
journey with quite different intentions, but that after he had got well to the north of Asia Minor he was driven bya series of divine intimations to proceed first to Troas and thence to cross over into Europe (see Philippians p. 48). This narrative seems to me to imply that he starts for his further travels from some point in the western part of Galatia proper. When he comes to the borders of Mysia, he designs bear- ing to the left and preaching in Asia; but a divine voice forbids him. He then purposes diverging to the right and delivering his message in Bithynia; but the same unseen power checks him again, Thus he is driven forward, and passes by Mysia to the coast at Troas (Acts xvi. 6—8). Here all is plain, But if we suppose him to start, not from some town in Galatia proper such as Pessinus, but from Antioch in Pisidia, why should Bithynia, which would be far out of the way, be mentioned at all? On the second occasion, St Paul’s primary object is to revisit the Gala- tian Churches which he had planted on the former journey (xviii. 23), and it is not till after he has fulfilled this intention that he goes to Hphesus. (c) M. Renan also calls attention to the difficulty of traversing ‘the central steppe’ of Asia Minor. ‘There was probably,’ he says, ‘at this epoch no route from Iconium to Ancyra,’ and in justification of this statement he re- fers to Perrot, de Gal. Rom. prov. p. 102,103. ven so, there were regular roads from either Iconium or Antioch to Pessinus; and this route would serve equally well. Moreoverthe Apostle, who was accustomed to ‘perils of rivers, perils of robbers, perils in the wilder- ness’ (2 Cor. xi. 26), and who preferred walking from Troas to Assos (Acts xx.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
2
<
7
He represents his knowledge of their continued progress, fora out
and even of their first initiation, in the truths of the Gospel, Paul’s owa
as derived from the report of others. He describes himself aac:
13) while his companions sailed, would i. be deterred by any rough or un- frequented paths. But the facts ad- duced by Perrot do not lend them- selves to any such inference, nor does
he himself draw it. He cites an in-
scription of the year 4a.p. 82 which speaks of A. Cesennius Gallus, the legate of Domitian, as a great road- maker throughout the Eastern pro- vinces of Asia Minor, and he suggests that the existing remains of a road be- tween Ancyra and Iconium may be part of this governor’s work. Even if the suggestion be adopted, it is highly improbable that no road should have existed previously, when we consider the comparative facility of construct- ing a way along this line of country (Perrot p. 103) and the importance of such a direct route. (d) ‘In the con- ception of the author of the Acts,’ writes M. Renan, ‘the two journeys across Asia Minor are journeys of con- firmation and not of conversion (Acts
XV. 36, 41, XVi. 5, 6, xviii. 23). This
statement seems to me to be only partially true. In both cases St Paul
begins his tour by confirming churches already established, but in both he advances beyond this and breaks new ground. In the former he starts with the existing churches of Lycaonia and
Pisidia and extends his labours to
Galatia: in the latter he starts with
the then existing churches of Galatia,
and carries the Gospel into Macedonia and Achaia. This, so far as I can dis- cover, was his general rule.
(iii) The notices in the Galatian Epistles, which appear to M. Renan to favour his view, are these: (a) St Paul appears to have ‘had intimate rela- tions with the Galatian Church, at
least as intimate as with the Corinth- ians and Thessalonians,’ whereas St Luke disposes of the Apostle’s preaching in Galatia very summarily, unless the communities of Lycaonia and Pisidia be included. But the Galatian Epis- tle by no means evinces the same close and varied personal relations which we find in the letters to these other churches, more especially to the Corinthians. And again; St Luke’s history is more or less fragmentary. Whole years are sometimes dismissed in a few verses. The stay in Arabia which made so deep an impression on St Paul himself is not even mention- ed: the three months’ sojourn in Greece, though doubtless full of stir- ring events, only occupies a single verse in the narrative (Acts xx. 3). St Luke appears to have joined St Paul after his visit to Galatia (xvi. 10); and there is no reason why he should have dwelt on incidents with which he had no direct acquaintance. (b) M. Renan sees in the presence of emis- saries from Jerusalem in the Galatian Churches an indication that Galatia proper is not meant. ‘It is improba- ble that they would have made such a journey.’ But why so? There were important Jewish settlements in Gala- tia proper (Galatians p. 9 54.); there was a good road through Syria and Cilicia to Ancyra (Itin. Anton. p. 205 54.» Itin. Hierosol. p. 575 sq. ed. Wessel.) ; and if we find such emissaries as far away from Jerusalem as Corinth (2 Cor. xi. 13, etc.), there is at least no impro- bability that they should have reached Galatia. (c) Lastly; M. Renan thinks that the mention of Barnabas (Gal. ii. I, 9, 13) implies that he was person- ally known to the churches addressed,
28
Silence of St Paul.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYOUS.
us hearing of their faith in Christ and their love to the saints’, He recals the day when he first heard of their Christian pro- fession and zeal’, Though opportunities occur again and again where he would naturally have referred to his direct personal relations with them, if he had been their evangelist, he abstains He speaks of their being instructed in the Gospel, of his own preaching the Gospel, several times in the course of the letter, but he never places the two in any direct connexion, though the one reference stands in the immediate neighbourhood of the other*, Moreover, if he had actually visited Colossz, it must appear strange that he should not once allude to any incident occurring during his sojourn
from any such reference.
there, for this epistle would then be the single exception to his ordinary practice. And lastly; in one passage at least, if interpreted in its natural sense, he declares that the Colossians were personally unknown to him: ‘I would have you know, he writes, ‘how great a conflict I have for you and them that are in Laodicea and as many as have not seen my face in the
flesh *’
and therefore points to Lycaonia and Pisidia. But are we to infer on the same grounds that he was personally known to the Corinthians (τ Cor. ix. 6), and to the Colossians (Col. iv. 10)? In fact the name of Barnabas, as a fa- mous Apostle and an older disciple even than St Paul himself, would not fail to be well known in all the churches. On the other hand one or two notices in the Galatian Epistle present serious obstacles to M. Renan’s view. What are we to say for instance to St Paul’s statement, that he preached the Gos- pel in Galatia δ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκός (iv. 13), i.e. because he was detained by sickness (see Galatians pp. 23 Sq., 172), whereas his journey to Lycaonia and Pisidia is distinctly planned with a view to missionary work? Why again is there no mention of Timothy, who was much in St Paul’s company about
this time, and who on this showing was himself a Galatian? Some mention would seem to be especially suggested where St Paul is justifying his conduct respecting the attempt to compel Titus to be circumcised.
1 Col. i. 4.
2 i. g διὰ τοῦτο Kal ἡμεῖς, ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέ- pas ἠκούσαμεν, οὐ παυόμεθα κιτ.λ. This corresponds to ver. 6 καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, ap’ ἧς ἡμέρας ἠκούσατε καὶ ἐπέγνωτε τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. The day when they first heard the preach- ing of the Gospel, and the day when he first heard the tidings of this fact, are set against each other.
3 e.g. 1. 5—8, 21—23, 25, 28, 20. Lis 5, 6: Ὁ
Δ Πα θέλω γὰρ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι ἡλίκον ἀγῶνα ἔχω ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καὶ τῶν ἐν Λαοδι- κείᾳ καὶ ὅσοι οὐχ ἑώρακαν τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἐν σαρκί, ἵνα παρακληθῶσν αἱ καρ-
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
29
But, if he was not directly their evangelist, yet to him Epaphras
was the
they were indirectly indebted for their knowledge of the truth. evangelist Epaphras had been his delegate to them, his representative
in Christ. pel.
By Epaphras they had been converted to the Gos- This is the evident meaning of a passage in the open-
ing of the epistle, which has been much obscured by misreading
and mistranslation, and which may be paraphrased thus: ‘The Gospel, which has spread and borne fruit throughout the rest of the world, has been equally successful among yourselves. This fertile growth has been manifested in you from the first day when the message of God’s grace was preached to you, and accepted by you—preached not as now with adulterations by these false teachers, but in its genuine simplicity by Epa-
phras our beloved fellowservant; he has been a faithful minister
of Christ and a faithful representative of us, and from him we
have received tidings of your love in the Spirit’
δίαι αὐτῶν, συμβιβασθέντες x.7.X. The question of interpretation is whether the people of Colosse and Laodicea belong to the same category with the ὅσοι, or not. The latter view is taken by one or two ancient interpreters (e.g. Theodoret in his introduction to the epistle), and has been adopted by several modern critics. Yet it is op- posed alike to grammatical and logical considerations. (1) The grammatical form is unfavourable; for the preposi- tion ὑπὲρ is not repeated, so that all the persons mentioned are included under 8. vinculum. (2) No adequate sense can be extracted from the pas- sage, so interpreted. For in this case what is the drift of the enumeration? If intended to be exhaustive, it does not fulfil the purpose; for nothing is said of others whom he had seen be- sides the Colossians and Laodiceans. Tf not intended to be exhaustive, it is meaningless; for there is no reason why the Colossians and Laodiceans
especially should be set off against those whom he had not seen, or in- deed why in this connexion those whom he had not seen should be mentioned at all. The whole context shows that the Apostle is dwelling on his spiritual communion with and interest in those with whom he has had no personal com- munications. St Jerome (Ep. cxxx.ad Demetr. § 2) has rightly caught the spirit of the passage; ‘Ignoti ad ig- notam scribimus, dumtaxat juxta fa- ciem corporalem. Alioquin interior homo pulcre sibi cognitus est illa notitia qua et Paulus apostolus Co- lossenses multosque credentium no- verat quos ante non viderat.’? For parallels to this use of καὶ ὅσοι, see the note on the passage.
11.6 ἐν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ ἐστὶν καρ- ποφορούμενον καὶ αὐξανόμενον, καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, ad’ ἧς ἡμέρας ἠκούσατε καὶ ἐπέγνωτε τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, καθὼς ἐμάθετε ἀπὸ “Eragpé τοῦ ἀγαπη- τοῦ συνδούλου ἡμῶν, ὅς ἐστιν πιστὸς
of this district.
30 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
St Paul’s How or when the conversion of the Colossians took place, aiichavus we have no direct information. Yet it can hardly be wrong instru- ΘΟ (0 connect the event with St Paul’s long sojourn at Ephesus. mental in
It is possible indeed that during this period he paid short visits to other neighbouring cities of Asia: but if so, the notices in the
their con- Here he remained preaching for three whole years. version.
Acts oblige us to suppose these interruptions to his residence in Ephesus to have been slight and infrequent’. Yet, though the Apostle himself was stationary in the capital, the Apostle’s influence and teaching spread far beyond the limits of the city and its immediate neighbourhood. geration when Demetrius declared that ‘almost throughout all Asia this Paul had persuaded and turned away much people*’ The sacred historian himself uses equally strong language in describing the effects of the Apostle’s preaching ; ‘All they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks*’ the Apostle himself in an epistle written during this sojourn sends salutations to Corinth, not from the Church of Ephesus specially, as might have been anticipated, but from the
It was hardly an exag-
In accordance with these notices
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν διάκονος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ καὶ δηλώσας ἡμῖν τὴν ὑμῶν ἀγάπην ἐν πνεύ- ματι.
The various readings which obscure the meaning are these. (i) The re- ceived text for καθὼς ἐμάθετε has καθὼς καὶ ἐμάθετε. With this reading the passage suggests that the instructions of Epaphras were superadded to, and so distinct from, the original evangeli- zation of Coloss# ; whereas the correct text identifies them. (ii) For ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν the received reading is ὑπὲρ ὑμών. Thus the fact that St Paul did not preach at Coloss# in person, but through his representative, is obliterat- ed. In both cases the authority for the readings which I have adopted against the received text is over- whelming.
The obscurity of rendering is in
καθὼς [καὶ] ἐμάθετε ἀπὸ ᾿Επαφρᾶ, trans- lated in our English Version by the ambiguous expression, ‘as ye also learned of Epaphras.’ The true force of the words is, ‘ according as ye were taught by Epaphras,’ being an ex- planation of ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. See the notes on the passage.
1 See especially xx. 18 ‘Ye know, from the first day when I set foot on Asia, how I was with you all the time,’ and ver. 31 ‘For three years night and day I ceased not warning every one with tears.’ As it seems necessary to allow for a brief visit to Corinth (2 Cor. xii, 14, xiii. 1) during this period, other interruptions of long duration should not be postulated.
2 Acts xix. 26.
3 Acts xix. ro.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 31
‘Churches of Asia’ generally’. St Luke, it should be ob- served, ascribes this dissemination of the Gospel, not to jour- neys undertaken by the Apostle, but to his preaching at Ephe- sus itself*. hither, as to the metropolis of Western Asia, would flock crowds from all the towns and villages far and near. Thence they would carry away, each to his own neighbour- hood, the spiritual treasure which they had so unexpectedly found.
Among the places thus represented at the Asiatic metro- Relations polis would doubtless be the cities lying in the valley of the ofthese Lycus. The relations between these places and Ephesus ap- Ephesus. pear to have been unusually intimate. The Concord of the Laodiceans and Ephesians, the Concord of the Hierapolitans and Ephesians, are repeatedly commemorated on medals struck for the purpose*. Thus the Colossians, Epaphras and Phile- The work mon, the latter with his household‘, and perhaps also the pines Laodicean Nymphas’, would fall in with the Apostle of the Nvmnes Gentiles and hear from his lips the first tidings of a heavenly life.
But, whatever service may have been rendered by Philemon but especi- at Colosse, or by Nymphas at Laodicea, it was to Epaphras πε δ especially that all the three cities were indebted for their knowledge of the Gospel. Though he was a Colossian by birth, the fervency of his prayers and the energy of his love are re- presented as extending equally to Laodicea and Hierapolis’. It is obvious that he looked upon himself as responsible for the spiritual well-being of all alike.
1 τ Cor. xvi. 19 ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς al ἐκκλησίαι τῆς ᾿Ασίας. In accordance with these facts it should benoticed that St Paul himself alluding to this period speaks of ‘Asia,’ as the scene of his ministry (2 Cor. i. 8, Rom. xvi. 5).
2 Acts xix. τὸ ‘disputing daily in the School of Tyrannus ; and this con- tinued for two years, so that all they which dwelt in Asia, etc,’
= NAOAIKEDN . EDECION . OMO- NOId, Eckhel mm. p. 165, Mionnet rv.
Ῥ- 324, 325, 331, 332, Suppl. vu. p. 583, 586, 589; IEPATIOAEITOON . εφε- CIWN . OMONOIA, Eckhel m1 p. 155, 157, Mionnet Iv. p. 299, 300, 307, Suppl. vil. p. 569, 571, 572, 574» 575+ See Steiger Kolosser p. 50, and comp. Krause Civitat. Neocor, ὃ 20.
4 Philem. 1, 2, 19.
5 Col. iv. On the question whether the name is Nymphas or Nympha, see the notes there.
δ᾽ iy. 12, 12:
I5-
32 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
St Paul We pass over a period of five or six years. St Paul's Be τς first captivity in Rome is now drawing to a close. During ah this interval he has not once visited the valley of the Lycus. He has, it is true, skirted the coast and called at Miletus, which lies near the mouth of the Meander; but, though the elders of Ephesus were summoned to meet him there’, no
mention is made of any representatives from these more dis-
tant towns. His I have elsewhere described the Apostle’s circumstances Inent at. during his residence in Rome, so far as they are known to
Rome. _us*, It is sufficient to say here, that though he is still a prisoner, friends new and old minister freely to his wants. Meanwhile the alienation of the Judaic Christians is complete. Three only, remaining faithful to him, are commemorated as honourable exceptions in the general desertion’.
Colosse We have seen that Colossee was an unimportant place, and
prought that it had no direct personal claims on the Apostle. We
before his notice by might therefore feel surprise that, thus doubly disqualified,
eee it should nevertheless attract his special attention at a critical moment, when severe personal trials were superadded to ‘the care of all the churches. But two circumstances, the one affecting his public duties, the other private and personal, happening at this time, conspired to bring Colossee prominently before his notice.
1. The 1. He had received a visit from EPAPHRAS. The dangerous
eee condition of the Colossian and neighbouring churches had filled the mind of their evangelist with alarm. A strange form of heresy had broken out in these brotherhoods—a com- bination of Judaic formalism with Oriental mystic specula- tion extreme. He gratefully acknowledged and reported their faith in Christ and their works of love*. But this only quickened his anxiety. He had ‘much toil for them’; he was ‘ever
and was already spreading rapidly. His distress was
TVAcis xx. τὸ, τῇ: 3 Col. iv. το, 11. See Philippians 2 See Philippians p. 6 sq. p- 17 8q. 4 igen
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 35
wrestling in his prayers on their behalf” that they might stand fast and not abandon the simplicity of their earlier faith’. He came to Rome, we may suppose, for the express purpose of laying this state of things before the Apostle and seeking his counsel and assistance.
2. But at the time when Epaphras paid this visit, St Paul, oyazsz- was also in communication with another Colossian, who had neil visited Rome under very different circumstances. ONESIMUS, Rome. the runaway slave, had sought the metropolis, the common sink of all nations’, probably as a convenient hiding place, where he might escape detection among its crowds and make a livelihood as best he could. Here, perhaps accidentally, perhaps through the intervention of Epaphras, he fell im with his master’s old friend. The Apostle interested himself in his case, instructed him in the Gospel, and transformed him from a good-for-nothing slave ® into a ‘faithful and beloved brother *’
This combination of circumstances called the Apostle’s αὖ- 6 apo. tention to the Churches of the Lycus, and more especially to Shree Colosse. His letters, which had been found ‘weighty and three let-
ters simul-
ΤᾺ τ powerful’ in other cases, might not be unavailing now; and taneously.
in this hope he took up his pen. Three epistles were written and despatched at the same time to this district.
1. He addresses a special letter to the COLOSSIANS, written 1. The in the joint names of himself and Timothy, warning them Eee against the errors of the false teachers. He gratefully ac- Ce knowledges the report which he has received of their love and zeal®, He assures them of the conflict which agitates him on their behalf’. He warns them to be on their guard against the delusive logic of enticing words, against the vain deceit of a false philosophy’. The purity of their Christianity The theo-
: : logical and is endangered by two errors, recommended to them by their fe practi-
heretical leaders—the one theological, the other practical— Peale §1ans, LING 12. 15. 4 Col. iv. ο; comp. Philem. 16. 2 Tac. Ann. Xv. 44. 5 i. 3—9, 21 Sq. 3 Philem. 11 τόν ποτέ σοι ἄχρηστον 6 ii, 1 sq. K.T-A. ἢ Tile 2. ὃ; 18:
COL. 3
34 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
but both alike springing from the same source, the conception of matter as the origin and abode of evil. Thus, regarding God and matter as directly antagonistic and therefore apart from and having no communication with each other, they sought to explain the creation and government of the world by inter- posing a series of intermediate beings, emanations or angels, to whom accordingly they offered worship. At the same time,
since they held that evil resided, not in the rebellious spirit of
man, but in the innate properties of matter, they sought to
overcome it by a rigid ascetic discipline, which failed after all The pro. to touch the springs of action. As both errors flowed from the
per corree- same source, they must be corrected by the application of the
tive to
Laer same remedy, the Christ of the Gospel. In the Person of Christ, in Θ Ρ . . Christ of the one mediator between heaven and earth, is the true solution aie of the theological difficulty. Through the Life in Christ, the
purification of the heart through faith and love, is the effectual triumph over moral evil. St Paul therefore prescribes to the Colossians the true teaching of the Gospel, as the best anti- dote to the twofold danger which threatens at once their theo-
References logical creed and their moral principles; while at the same to Epa-
phras. time he enforces his lesson by the claims of personal affection,
appealing to the devotion of thew evangelist Epaphras on their behalf?.
Of Epaphras himself we know nothing beyond the few but significant notices which connect him with Colosse*. He did not return to Colossze as the bearer of the letter, but remained
1 j, 1—20, ii. 9, ili. 4. The two note 4. The later tradition, which
threads are closely interwoven in St Paul’s refutation, as these references will show. The connexion of the two errors, 88 arising from the same false principle, will be considered more in detail in the next chapter.
5.1: Ike 12:
3 For the reasons why Epaphras cannot be identified with Epaphrodi- tus, who is mentioned in the Phi- lippian letter, see Philippians p. 61,
makes him bishop of Colosse, is doubt- less an inference from St Paul’s lan- guage and has no independent value. The further statement of the martyr- ologies, that he suffered martyrdom for his flock, can hardly be held to deserve any higher credit. His day is the 19th of July in the Western Calendar. His body is said to lie in the Church of 5. Maria Maggiore at Rome.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 35
behind with St Paul*. As St Paul in a contemporary epistle designates him his fellow-prisoner’, it may be inferred that his zeal and affection had involved him in the Apostle’s cap- tivity, and that his continuance in Rome was enforced. But however this may be, the letter was placed in the hands of Tychicus, a native of proconsular Asia, probably of Ephesus ἥ, Tychicus
τ - Ae oar ay ee . ., and Onesi- who was entrusted with a wider mission at this time, and in its mus ac-
discharge would be obliged to visit the valley of the Lycus* Pov. At the same time he was accompanied by Onesimus, whom the Colossians had only known hitherto as a worthless slave, but who now returns to them with the stamp of the Apostle’s warm approval. St Paul says very little about himself, because Tychicus and Onesimus would be able by word of mouth to
But he sends The salu- tations.
communicate all information to the Colossians *. one «~ two salutations which deserve a few words of explana- tion. Epaphras of course greets his fellow-townsmen and children in the faith. Other names are those of Aristarchus the Thessalonian, who had been with the Apostle at Ephesus® and may possibly have formed some personal connexion with the Colossians at that time: Mark, against whom apparently the Apostle fears that a prejudice may be entertained (perhaps the fact of his earlier desertion, and of St Paul’s dissatisfaction in consequence’, may have been widely known), and for whom therefore he asks a favourable reception at his approaching visit to Colossee, according to instructions which they had already received; and Jesus the Just, of whose relations with the
1 Col. iv. 12.
2 Philem. 23 ὁ συναιχμάλωτός pov. The word may possibly have a meta- phorical sense (see Philippians p. 11); but the literal meaning is more proba- ble. St Jerome on Philem. 23 (vu. p. 762) gives the story that St Paul’s parents were natives of Giscala and, when the Romans invaded and wasted Juda, were banished thence with their sonto Tarsus. He adds that Epaphras may have been St Paul’s fellow-
prisoner at this time, and have been removed with his parents to Colossx. It is not quite clear whether this statement respecting Epaphras is part of the tradition, or Jerome’s own con- jecture appended to it.
3 Acts xx. 4, 2 Tim. iy. 12.
4 See below, p. 37.
5 Col. iv. 7—9.
6 Acts xix. 29.
7 Acts xiii. 13, XV. 37—39.
5
36
Charge re- specting Laodicea,
2. The LETTER TO PHILEMON.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCOS.
Colossians we know nothing, and whose ouly claim to a men- tion may have been his singular fidelity to the Apostle at a critical juncture. Salutations moreover are added from Luke and from Demas; and here again their close companionship with the Apostle is, so far as we know, the sole cause of their names appearing *,
Lastly, the Laodiceans were closely connected with the Colossians by local and spiritual ties. To the Church of Lao- dicea therefore, and to the household of one Nymphas who was a prominent member of it, he sends greeting. At the same time he directs them to interchange letters with the Laodiceans; for to Laodicea also he had written. And he closes his salutations with a message to Archippus, a resident either at Colosse or at Laodicea (for on this point we are left
to conjecture), who held some important office in the Church, ᾿
and respecting whose zeal he seems to have entertained a misgiving *,
2. But, while providing for the spiritual welfare of the whole Colossian Church, he did not forget the temporal inter- ests of its humblest member. Having attended to the soli- citations of the evangelist Epaphras, he now addressed himself to the troubles of the runaway slave Onesimus, The mission of Tychicus to Colossee was a favourable opportunity of restoring him to Philemon; for Tychicus, well known as the Apostle’s friend and fellow-labourer, might throw the shield of his pro- tection over him and avert the worst consequences of Phile- mon’s anger. But, not content with this measure of precaution, the Apostle himself writes to PHILEMON on the offender's be- half, recommending him as a changed man’, and claiming for- giveness for him as a return due from Philemon to himself as to his spiritual father ἃ
The salutations in this letter are the same as those in the Epistle to the Colossians with the exception of Jesus
1 Col. iv. 1o—14. 3 Philem. 11, 16, 2 iv. 15—17. DAI ΤΌΣ
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 37
Justus, whose name is omitted’, Towards the close St Paul declares his hope of release and intention of visiting Colosse, and asks Philemon to ‘ prepare a lodging’ for him?
3. But at the same time with the two letters destined espe- 3. The cially for Colosse, the Apostle despatched a third, which had pale
a wider scope. It has been already mentioned that Tychicus Nomar
was charged with a mission to the Asiatic Churches. It has sent to been noticed also that the Colossians were directed to procure πω and read a letter in the possession of the Laodiceans. These two facts are closely connected. The Apostle wrote at this time a circular Jetter to the Asiatic Churches, which got its ultimate designation from the metropolitan city and is consequently known to us as the Epistle to the EPHESIANS ὃ. It was the immediate object of Tychicus’ journey to deliver copies of this letter at all the principal centres of Christi- anity in the district, and at the same time to communicate by word of mouth the Apostle’s special messages to each ἢ, Among these centres was Laodicea. Thus his mission brought him into the immediate neighbourhood of Colosse. But he was not charged to deliver another copy of the circular letter at Colossz itself, for this Church would be regarded only as a dependency of Laodicea; and besides he was the bearer of a special letter from the Apostle to them. It was sufficient therefore to provide that the Laodicean copy should be circu- lated and read at Colossz.
Thus the three letters are closely related. ‘Tychicus is the Personal personal link of connexion between the Epistles to the Ephe- real sians and to the Colossians; Onesimus between those to the ean Colossians and to Philemon.
For reasons given elsewhere ®, it would appear that these three letters were written and despatched towards the close of the Apostle’s captivity, about the year 63. At some time not
1 VV. 23, 24. 5 See Philippians p. 30 sq.; where 2 ver. 22. reasons are given for placing the 3 See the introduction to the epis- Philippian Epistle at an earlier, and tle. the others at a later stage in tho
4 Ephes. vi. 21, 22. Apostle’s captivity.
38
Farth- quake in the Lycus Valley.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
very distant from this date, a great catastrophe overtook the cities of the Lycus valley. An earthquake was no uncommon
occurrence in this region’.
But on this occasion the shock had
been unusually violent, and Laodicea, the flourishing and popu-
lous, was laid in ruins.
Tacitus, who is our earliest authority
for this fact, places it in the year 60 and is silent about the
neighbouring towns’.
1 See above, p. 3. Laodicea was visited by the following earthquakes in the ages preceding and subsequent to the Christian era.
(1) Before about B.c. 125, Orac. Sibyll. ili. 471, if the date now com- monly assigned to this Sibylline Oracle be correct, and if the passage is to be regarded as a prophecy after the event. In iii. 347 Hierapolis is also mentioned as suifering in the same way; but it may be questioned whether the Phry- gian city is meant.
(2) About B.c. 12, Strabo xii. 8,p. 579, Dion Cass, liv. 30. Strabo names only Laodicea and Tralles, but Dion Cas- sius says ἡ ᾿Ασία τὸ ἔθνος ἐπικουρίας τινὸς διὰ σεισμοὺς μάλιστα ἐδεῖτο.
(3) AD. 60 according to Tacitus (Ann. xiv. 27); A.D. 64 or 65 according to Eusebius (Chron. s.a.), who includes also Hierapolis and Colosse. To this earthquake allusion is made in a Sibyl- line Oracle written not many years after the event; Orac. Sibyll. iv. 107 (see also v. 289, Vil. 23).
(4) Between a.D. 222 and A.D. 235, in the reign of Alexander Severus, as we learn from another Sibylline Oracle (xii. 280). On this occasion Hierapolis also suffered.
This list will probably be found not to have exhausted all these catastro- phes on record.
The following earthquakes also are mentioned as happening in the neigh- bouring towns or in the district gene- rally: at an uncertain date, Carura (Strabo xii, 8, p. 578); a.p. 17 the
Eusebius however makes it subse-
twelve cities, Sardis being the worst sufferer (Tac. Ann. ii. 7, Plin. N. H. ii. 86, Dion Cass. lvii. 17, Strabo xii. 8, p. 579); A.D. 23 Cibyra (Tac. Ann. iv. 13); A.D. 53 Apamea (Tac. Ann. xii. 58): about a.p. 138—142, under Antoninus Pius, ‘Rhodiorum et Asie oppida’ (Capitol. Anton. Pius g, Aristid. Or. xliy); A.D. 151 Or 152, under the same emperor, Mitylene and other plaees (Aristid. Or. xxv); A.D. 180, under M. Aurelius, Smyrna (Chron. Pasch, τ. p. 489, ed. Dind., Aristid. Or. xx, xxi, xli; see Clinton Fast. Rom. 1. p- 176 sq., Hertzberg Griechenland ete. II. pp. 371, 410, and esp. Waddington Mémoire sur la Chronologie du Rhéteur Ajlius Aristide pp. 242 sq., 267, in Mém. de VAcad. des Inscr. xxv, 1867, who has corrected the dates); a.p. 262, under Gallienus τι (Trebell. Gallien. 5 ‘Malum tristius in Asie urbibus fuit ...hiatus terre plurimis in locis fue- runt, cum aqua salsa in fossis appa- reret,’ ib. 6 ‘vastatam Asiam...elemen- torum concussionibus’). Strabo says (Ρ. 579) that Philadelphia is more or less shaken daily (καθ᾽ ἡμέραν), and that Apamea has suffered from nu- merous earthquakes.
2 Tac. Ann. xiv. 27 ‘Hodem anno ex inlustribus Asie urbibus Laodicea, tremore terre prolapsa, nullo a nobis remedio propriis opibus revaluit.’ The year is given ‘Nerone iy, Corn. Cosso consulibus’ (xiv. 20). Two different writers, in Smith’s Dictionary of Geo- graphy and Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, s.v. Laodicea, place the destruc-
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 39
quent to the burning of Rome (A.D. 64), and mentions Hiera- Its proba- polis and Colossz also as involved in the disaster’; while later ee writers, adopting the date of Eusebius and including the three
cities with him, represent it as one of a series of divine judg-
ments on the heathen world for the persecution of the Chris-
tians which followed on the fire*. Having no direct knowledge of the source from which Eusebius derived his information, we should naturally be disposed to accept the authority of Tacitus for the date, as more trustworthy. But, as indications occur elsewhere that Eusebius followed unusually good authorities in
recording these earthquakes *, it is far from improbable that he
tion of Laodicea in the reign of Tibe- rius, confusing this earthquake with an earlier one (Amn. ii. 47). By this earlier earthquake ‘duodecim celebres Asiz urbes conlapse,’ but their names are given, and not one is situated in the valley of the Lycus.
1 Euseb. Chron. Ol. 210 (1. p. 154 sq., ed. Schéne) ‘In Asia tres urbes terre motu conciderunt Laodicea Hie- rapolis Colosse.’ The Armenian ver- sion and Jerome agree in placing it the next event in order after the fire at Rome (4.D. 64), though there is a difference of a year in the two texts. If the Sibylline Oracle, v. 317, refers to this earthquake, as seems probable, we have independent testimony that Hierapolis was involved in the cata- strophe; comp. ib. v. 289.
2 This is evidently the idea of Oro- sius, Vil. 7.
51 draw this inference from his account of the earthquake in the reign of Tiberius. Tacitus (Ann. ii. 47) states that twelve cities were ruined in one night, and records their names. Pliny also, who mentions this earthquake as ‘the greatest within the memory of man’ (N. H. ii. 86), gives the same number. Eusebius however, Chron. Ol. 198 (11. p. 146 sq., ed. Schone), names thirteen cities, coinciding with
Tacitus as far as he goes, but including Ephesus also. Now a monument was found at Puteoli (see Gronoy. Thes. Grec. Ant. VI. p. 433 8q.), and is now in the Museum at Naples (Museo Borbonico xv, Tay. iv, v), dedicated to Tiberius and representing fourteen female figures with the names of four- teen Asiatic cities underneath ; these names being the same as those men- tioned by Tacitus with the addition of Ephesus and Cibyra. There can be no doubt that this was one of those monuments mentioned by Apollonius quoted in Phlegon (Fragm. 42, Miiller’s Fragm. Hist. Grec. 1. p. 621) as erected to commemorate the liberality of Tiberius in contributing to the re- storation of the ruined cities (see Eckhel Doct. Num. Vet. v1. 192 sq.). But no earthquake at Ephesus is mentioned by Tacitus. He does indeed speak of such a catastrophe as happening at Cibyra (Ann. iv. 13) six years later than the one which ruined the twelve cities, and of the relief which Tiberius afforded on this latter occasion as on the former. But we owe to Eusebius alone the fact that Ephesus also was seriously injured by an earthquake in the same year—perhaps not on the same night—with the twelve cities: and this fact is necessary to explain
40
Bearing on the chron- ology of these let- ters.
St Mark’s intended visit.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
In this case the catastrophe was sub- If on the other hand the year named by Tacitus be adopted, we gain a subsidiary
cives the correct date’. sequent to the writing of these letters.
confirmation of the comparatively late date which I have ven- tured to assign to these epistles on independent grounds; for, if they had been written two years earlier, when the blow was recent, we might reasonably have expected to find some refer- ence to a disaster which had devastated Laodicea and from which Colossze cannot have escaped altogether without injury. The additional fact mentioned by the Roman historian, that Laodicea was rebuilt from her own resources without the usual assistance from Rome’, is valuable as illustrating a later notice in the Apostolic writings *.
It has been seen that, when these letters were written, St Mark was intending shortly to visit Colosse, and that the Apostle himself, looking forward to his release, hoped at length to make a personal acquaintance with these churches, which hitherto he knew only through the report of others. Whether St Mark’s visit was ever paid or not, we have no means of
determining*, Of St Paul himself it is reasonable to assume,
the monument. It should be added δὲ πάλιν πόλιν εὐρυάγυιαν, where στήσει
that Nipperdey (on Tac. Ann. li. 47) supposes the earthquake at Ephesus to have been recorded in the lost por- tion of the fifth book of the Annals which comprised the years 4.D. 29—31; but this bare hypothesis cannot out- weigh the direct testimony of Euse- bius.
1 Hertzberg (Geschichte Griechen- lands unter der Herrschaft der Romer Il. p. 96) supposes that Tacitus and Ku- sebius refer to two different events, and that Laodicea was visited by earth- quakes twice within a few years, A.D. 60 and A.D. 65.
2 Tac. Ann. xiv. 27, quoted above, p. 38, note 2. To this fact allusion is made in the feigned prediction of the Sibyllines, iv. 107 Τλῆμον Λαοδίκεια, σὲ δὲ τρώσει ποτὲ σεισμὸς πρηνίξας, στήσει
must be the 2nd person, ‘ Thou wilt re- build thy city with its broad streets.’ This Sibylline poem was written about the year 80. The building of the amphi- theatre, mentioned above (p. 6, note 6), would form part of this work of recon- struction.
3 See below, p. 43.
* Two notices however imply that St Mark had some personal connexion with Asia Minor in the years imme- diately succeeding the date of this re- ference: (1) St Peter, writing to the Churches of Asia Minor, sends a salu- tation from St Mark (1 Pet. v. 13); (2) St Paul gives charge to Timothy, who appears to be still residing at Ephesus, to take up Mark and bring him to Rome (2 Tim. iv. 11 Μάρκον Thus it
ἀναλαβὼν ἄγε μετὰ σεαυτοῦ).
+ pe
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 41
that in the interval between his first and second Roman cap- St Paul tivity he found some opportunity of carrying out his design. ela At all events we find him at Miletus, near to the mouth of ©less®. the Mzander*: and the journey between this place and Lao- dicea is neither long nor difficult.
At the time of this visit—the first and last, we may suppose, which he paid to the valley of the Lycus—St Paul’s With St John his death they pass into the hands of St John’, who takes up eee his abode in Asia Minor. Of Colossz and Hierapolis we hear
nothing more in the New Testament: but from his exile in
direction of the Asiatic Churches is drawing to a close.
Patmos the beloved disciple delivers his Lord’s message to the The mes- : : ge t Church of Laodicea*; a message doubtless intended to be ladies!
communicated also to the two subordinate Churches, to which it would apply almost equally well.
The message communicated by St John to Laodicea pro- ea . - ΒΑΘΗΟΘΗ͂
longs the note which was struck by St Paul in the letter to boreeee the Apoca- lypse and
Obviously the same St Paul’s Epistles.
Colosse. An interval of a very few years has not materially altered the character of these churches. temper prevails, the same errors are rife, the same correction must be applied.
I. Thus, while St Paul finds it necessary to enforce the τ. The truth that Christ is the image of the invisible God, that in (cnet Him all the divine fulness dwells, that He existed before all οἱ Ch™st things, that through Him all things were created and in Him
all things are sustained, that He is the primary source (ἀρχή)
seems fairly probable that St Mark’s projected visit to Colossz was paid.
1 2 Tim. iv. 20. By a strange error Lequien (Oriens Christ. 1. p. 833) substitutes Hierapolis for Nicopolis in Tit. iii. 12, and argues from the pas- sage that the Church of Hierapolis was founded by St Paul.
2 It was apparently during the in- terval between St Paul’s first captivity at Rome and his death, that St Peter wrote to the Churches of Asia Minor (τ Pet. i.1). Whether in this interval
he also visited personally the districts evangelized directly or indirectly by St Paul, we have no means of deciding. Such a visit is far from unlikely, but it can hardly have been of long dura- tion. A copy of his letters would pro- bably be sent to Laodicea, as a prin- cipal centre of Christianity in Pro- consular Asia, which igs among the provinces mentioned in the address of the First Epistle. 3 Rev. iii. 14—21.
and prac- tical duties which fol- low upon it.
2. Warn-
ing against
lukewarm- ness.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
and has the pre-eminence in all things’; so in almost identical language St John, speaking in the person of our Lord, declares that He is the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the primary source (ἀρχή) of the creation of God* Some lingering shreds of the old heresy, we may suppose, still hung about these Churches, and instead of ‘holding fast the Head’ they were even yet prone to substitute intermediate agencies, angelic mediators, as links in the chain which should bind man to God. They still failed to realise the majesty and significance, the completeness, of the Person of Christ.
And the practical duty also, which follows from the recog- nition of the theological truth, is enforced by both Apostles in very similar language. If St Paul entreats the Colossians to seek those things which are above, where Christ is seated on the right hand of God’, and in the companion epistle, which also he directs them to read, reminds the Churches that God raised them with Christ and seated them with him in heavenly places in Christ Jesus*; in like manner St John gives this promise to the Laodiceans in the name of his Lord: ‘He that overcometh, I will grant to him to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame and did sit with my Father in His throne’®.’
2. But again; after a parting salutation to the Church of Laodicea St Paul closes with a warning to Archippus, ap-
parently its chief pastor, to take heed to his ministry®, Some
1 Col. i. 15—18. 2 Rev. iii. 14. It should be ob- served that this designation of our
μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ, κιτιλ. Here again it must be noticed that there is no such re- semblance in the language of the
Lord (ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῖ), which so closely resembles the lan- guage of the Colossian Epistle, does not occur in the messages to the other six Churches, nor do we there find anything resembling it.
3 Col. iii. τὸ
4 Ephes. ii. 6 συνήγειρεν καὶ συνε- κάθισεν K.T.X.
5 Rev. iii.
21 δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι
promises to the faithful in the other six Churches. This double coinci- dence, affecting the two ideas which may be said to cover the whole ground in the Epistle to the Colossians, can hardly, I think, be fortuitous, and suggests an acquaintance with and recognition of the earlier Apostle’s teaching on the part of St John, 8. Col: iv. 17.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 42
signs of slackened zeal seem to have called forth this rebuke. It may be an accidental coincidence, but it is at least worthy of notice, that lukewarmness is the special sin denounced in the angel of the Laodiceans, and that the necessity of greater earnestness is the burden of the message to that Church’, As with the people, so it is with the priest. The community takes
its colour from and communicates its colour to its spiritual
rulers. The ‘be zealous’ of St John is the counterpart to the
‘take heed’ of St Paul.
3. Lastly; in the Apocalyptic message the pride of wealth 3. The is sternly condemned in the Laodicean Church: ‘For that thou eee Ae sayest I am rich and have gotten me riches and have need nounced. of nothing, and knowest not that thou art utterly wretched and miserable and beggarly and blind and naked, I counsel thee to buy gold of me refined with fire, that thou mayest have riches?” This proud vaunt receives its best illustration from a recent occurrence at Laodicea, to which allusion has already been made. Only a very few years before this date an earthquake had laid the city in ruins. Yet from this catastrophe she rose again with more than her former splendour. This The vaunt While other cities, οἱ προ! prostrated by a like visitation, had sought relief from the con- cessions of the Roman senate or the liberality of the emperor’s purse, it was the glory of Laodicea that she alone neither courted nor obtained assistance, but recovered by her own resources.
however was not her chief title to respect.
‘Nullo a nobis remedio, says the Roman his- Thus she had asserted a proud independence, to which neither far-famed metropolitan Ephesus, nor old imperial Sardis, nor her prosperous commer-
torian, ‘propriis opibus revaluit*’
1 Rey. iii.19. Ifthe common view, interpretation of the angels seems to
that by the angel of the Church its chief pastor is meant, were correct, and if Archippus (as is very probable) had been living when St John wrote, the coin- eidence would be still more striking; see Trench’s Epistles to the Seven Churches in Asia p. 180. But for reasons given elsewhere (Philippians p. 199 8q.), this
me incorrect.
2 Rey. iii. 17, 18, where the correct reading with the repetition of the definite articles, ὁ ταλαίπωρος καὶ ὁ ἐλεινός, signifies the type, the em- bodiment of wretchedness, etc.
3 Tac. Ann. xiv. 27.
Pride of intellectu- al wealth.
-
THE CHURCIIES OF THE LYCUS.,
cial neighbours, Apamea and Cibyra, could lay claim’, No one would dispute her boast that she ‘had gotten riches and had need of nothing.’
But is there not a second and subsidiary idea underlying the Apocalyptic rebuke? The pride of intellectual wealth, we may well suspect, was a temptation at Laodicea hardly less strong than the pride of material resources. When St Paul wrote, the theology of the Gospel and the comprehension of the Church were alike endangered by a spirit of intellectual exclusiveness” in these cities. He warned them against a vain philosophy, against a show of wisdom, against an intrusive mystic speculation, which vainly puffed up the fleshly mind®. He tacitly contrasted with this false intellectual wealth ‘the riches of the glory of God’s mystery revealed in Christ*, the riches of the full assurance of understanding, the genuine trea- sures of wisdom and knowledge’. May not the same contrast be discerned in the language of St John? The Laodiceans boast of their enlightenment, but they are blind, and to cure their blindness they must seek eye-salve from the hands of the great Physician. They vaunt their wealth of knowledge, but they are wretched paupers, and must beg the refined gold of the Gospel to relieve their wants®.
This is the last notice in the Apostolic records relating to the Churches in the valley of the Lycus; but during the suc- ceeding ages the Christian communities of this district play a conspicuous part in the struggles and the development of the Church. When after the destruction of Jerusalem St John
1 In all the other cases of earth- 2 See the next chapter of this intro- quake which Tacitus records as hap- duction. pening in these Asiatic cities, Ann. 3 Col. ii. 8, 18, 23. li. 47 (the twelve cities), iv. 13 (Ci- 4 1: Δ΄: byra), xii. 58 (Apamea), he mentions Sith $5 3%
the fact of their obtaining relief from § Comp. Eph. i. 18 ‘The eyes of the Senate or the Emperor. On an your understanding being enlightened, earlier occasion Laodicea herself had that ye may know what is the hope not disdained under similar cireum- οἱ his calling, what the riches of the stances to receive assistance from Au- glory of his inheritance in the saints.’
gustus : Strabo, xii. p. 579.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 45
fixed his abode at Ephesus, it would appear that not a few of The early os 56 disciples the oldest surviving members of the Palestinian Church ac- settle in
proconsu-
companied him into ‘Asia,’ which henceforward became the lala
head-quarters of Apostolic authority. In this body of emi- grants Andrew’ and Philip among the twelve, Aristion and John the presbyter? among other personal disciples of the Lord, are especially mentioned.
Among the chief settlements of this Christian dispersion was and espe- Hierapolis. sree assumed a prominence in the ecclesiastical history of the second 18.
This fact explains how these Phrygian Churches
century, for which we are hardly prepared by their antecedents as they appear in connexion with St Paul, and which they
failed to maintain in the history of the later Church. Here at all events was settled Philip of Bethsaida’, the
1 Canon Murator. fol. 1, 1. 14 (p. 17, ed. Tregelles), Cureton’s Ancient Sy- riac Documents pp. 32, 34. Comp. Papias in Euseb. H. ΕἸ. iii. 39.
2 Papias in Euseb. H. E. iii. 39.
2 Polycrates in Euseb. H. ΕἸ. 111. 31, ν. 24 Φίλιππον [τὸν] τῶν δώδεκα ἀπο- στόλων, ὃς κεκοίμηται ἐν Ἱεραπόλει, καὶ δύο θυγατέρες αὐτοῦ γεγηρακυῖαι παρθένοι, καὶ ἡ ἑτέρα αὐτοῦ θυγάτηρ ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι πολιτευσαμένη, ἢ ἐν "Edéow ἀναπαύεται. To this third daughter the statement of Clement of Alexandria must refer, though by a common looseness of expression he uses the plural number (Euseb. H. Ε. iii. 30) ἢ Kal τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἀποδο- κιμάσουσι᾽ Πέτρος μὲν γὰρ καὶ Φίλιππος ἐπαιδοποιήσαντο, Φίλιππος δὲ καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας ἀνδράσιν ἐξέδωκε. On the other hand in the Dialogue between Gaius and Proclus, Philip the Evan- gelist was represented as residing at Hierapolis (Huseb. H. ΕἸ. 111. 31) μετὰ τοῦτον δέ προφήτιδες τέσσαρες al Φιί- λιπποῦ γεγένηνται ἐν Ἱεραπόλει TH κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ασίαν" ὁ τάφος αὐτῶν ἐστὶν ἐκεῖ, καὶ ὁ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῶν, where the mention of the four daughters prophesying iden-
tifies the person meant (see Acts xxi. 8). Nothing can be clearer than that St Luke distinguishes Philip the Evan- gelist from Philip the Apostle; for (1) When the Seven are appointed, he distinctly states that this new oftico is created to relieve the Twelve of some onerous duties (Acts vi. 2—5). (2) Af- ter Philip the Evangelist has preached in Samaria, two of the Twelve are sent thither to convey the gifts of the Spirit, which required the presence of an Apostle (viii. r4—17). (3) When St Paul and his companions visit Philip at Caesarea, he is carefully described as ‘the Evangelist, being one of the Seven’ (xxi. 8). As St Luke was a member of the Apostle’s company when this visit was paid, and stayed ‘many days’ in Philip’s house, the accuracy of his information cannot be questioned. Yet Eusebius (H. ΕἸ. iii. 31) assumes the identity of the Apostle with the Evangelist, and describes the notice in the Dialogue of Gaius and Proclus as being ‘in harmony with (συνᾷάδων)᾽ the language of Polycrates, And accordingly in another passage (H. Ε. iii. 39), when he has occasion
: mas
46 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
Philip the early friend and fellow-townsman of St John, and the first οἰκῶν Apostle who is recorded to have held communication with
with his daughters. t)e@ Gentiles. Here he died and was buried; and here after
to mention the conversations of Papias as it also drew Andrew. And, when
with Philip’s daughters at Hierapolis, he again supposes them to be the same who are mentioned in the Acts.
My reasons for believing that the Philip who lived at Hierapolis was not the Evangelist, but the Apostle, are as follows. (1) This is distinctly stated by the earliest witness, Polycrates, who was bishop of Ephesus at the close of the second century, and who besides claimed to have and probably had special opportunities of knowing early traditions. It is confirmed more- over by the notice in Clement of Alexandria, who is the next in order of time, and whose means of infor- mation also were good, for one of his earliest teachers was an Ionian Greek (Strom. 1. 1, p. 322). (2) The other view depends solely on the au- thority of the Dialogue of Gaius and Proclus. I have given reasons else- where for questioning the separate ex- istence of the Roman presbyter Gaius, and for supposing that this dialogue was written by Hippolytus bishop of Portus (Journal of Philology 1. p. 98 sq., Cambridge, 1868). But however this may be, its author was a Roman ecclesiastic, and probably wrote some quarter of a century at least after Polyerates. In all respects therefore his authority is inferior. Moreover it is suspicious in form. It mentions four daughters instead of three, makes them all virgins, and represents them as prophetesses, thus showing a dis- tinct aim of reproducing the particu- lars as given in Acts xxi. 9; whereas the account of Polycrates is divergent in all three respects. (3) A life-long friendship would naturally draw Philip the Apostle of Bethsaida after John,
we turn to St John’s Gospel, we can hardly resist the impression that inci- dents relating to Andrew and Philip had a special interest, not only for the writer of the Gospel, but also for his hearers (John 1, 40, 43—46, Vi. 5—8, xil. 20—22, xiv. 8, 9). Moreover the Apostles Andrew and Philip appear in this Gospel as inseparable com- panions, (4) Lastly; when Papias men- tions collecting the sayings of the Twelve and of other early disciples from those who heard them, he gives a prominent place to these two Apos- {165 τί ᾿Ανδρέας ... εἶπεν ἢ τί Φίλιππος, but there is no reference to Philip the Evangelist. When therefore we read later that he conversed with the daughters of Philip, it seems natural to infer that the Philip intended is the same person whom he has men- tioned previously. It should be added, though no great value can be assign- ed to such channels of information, that the Acts of Philip place the Apostle at Hierapolis; Tischendorf, Act. Apost. Apocr. p. 75 8q.
On the other hand, those who sup- pose that the Evangelist, and not the Apostle, resided at Hierapolis, ac- count for the other form of the tra- dition by the natural desire of the Asiatic Churches to trace their spiritual descent directly from the Twelve. This solution of the phenomenon might have been accepted, if the authorities in favour of Philip the Evangelist had been prior in time and superior in quality. There is no improbability in supposing that both the Philips were married and had daughters.
1 John xii. 20.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 47
his decease lived his two virgin daughters, who survived to a very advanced age and thus handed down to the second century the traditions of the earliest days of the Church. A third daughter, who was married, had settled in Ephesus, where her body rested". It was from the two daughters who resided Their tra- at Hierapolis, that Papias heard several stories of the first poke preachers of the Gospel, which he transmitted to posterity in Py Papias. his work’.
This Papias had conversed not only with the daughters of Philip, but also with at least two personal disciples of the Lord, Aristion and John the presbyter. He made it his busi- ness to gather traditions respecting the sayings of the Saviour and His Apostles; and he published a work in five books, entitled An Exposition of Oracles of the Lord, using the information thus collected to illustrate the discourses, and perhaps the doings, of Christ as recorded in the Gospels’. Among other stories he related, apparently on the authority of these daughters of Philip, how a certain dead man had
been restored to life in his own day, and how Justus Barsabas, who is mentioned in the Acts, had drunk a deadly poison and miraculously escaped from any evil effects*.
1 See above p. 45, note 3.
2 Kuseb. H. E. iii. 39. This is the general reference for all those particu- lars respecting Papias which are de- rived from Eusebius.
3 See Westcott, Canon p. 63. On the opinions of Papias and on the nature of his work, I may perhaps be allowed to refer to articles in the Contemporary Review Aug. 1867, Aug. and Sept. 1875, where I have investi- gated the notices of this father. The object of Papias’ work was not to con- struct a Gospel narrative, but to in- terpret and illustrate those already existing. I ought to add that on two minor points, the martyrdom of Papias and the identity of Philip with the Evan- gelist, I have been led to modify my views since the first article was written.
4 Euseb. 1. c. ὡς δὲ κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ὁ Παπίας γενόμενος διήγησιν παρειλη- φέναι θαυμασίαν ὑπὸ [ἀπὸ] τῶν τοῦ Φιλίππου θυγατέρων μνημονεύει, τὰ νῦν σημειωτέον' νεκροῦ γὰρ ἀνάστασιν κατ᾽ αὐτὸν “γεγονυῖαν ἱστορεῖ, καὶ αὖ πάλιν ἕτερον παράδοξον περὶ ᾿Ἰοῦστον τὸν ἐπι- κληθέντα Βαρσαβᾶν γεγονός x.7.X. The information respecting the raising of the dead man might have come from the daughters of Philip, as the context seems certainly to imply, while yet the event happened in Papias’ own time (κατ᾽ αὐτόν). It will be remembered that even Irenzus mentions similar miracles as occurring in his own age (Her. ii. 32. 4). Eusebius does not say that the miraculous preservation of Justus Barsabas also occurred in the time of Papias.
48
Life and teaching of Parias.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
If we may judge by his name, ῬΑΡΙΑΒ. was a native of Phrygia, probably of Hierapolis’, of which he afterwards be- came bishop, and must have grown up to youth or early man-
hood before the close of the first century.
He is said to have
suffered martyrdom at Pergamum about the year 165; but there is good reason for distrusting this statement, independ-
ently of any chronological difficulty which it involves’.
1 Papias, or (as it is very frequently written in inscriptions) Pappias, is a common Phrygian name. It is found several times at Hierapolis, not only in inscriptions (Boeckh Corp. Inser. no, 3930, 3912 ἃ add.) but even on coins (Mionnet rv. p. 301). This is explained by the fact that it was an epithet of the Hierapolitan Zeus (Boeckh 3817 Παπίᾳ Act σωτῆρι), just as in Bithynia this same god was called Πάπας (Lobeck Aglaoph. p. 10483; see Boeckh Corp. Inscr. Ul. p. 1051). Hence as the name of a mortal it is equivalent to the Greek Diogenes; e.g. Boeckh no. 3012 a add., Παπίας τοῦ Στράτωνος ὁ καλούμενος Διογένης. Galen also mentions a physician of Laodicea, bearing this name (Op. x11. p. 799, ed. Kiihn). In an inscription at Tra- janopolis we meet with it in a curious conjunction with other familiar names (Boeckh no, 3865 i add.) Παππίας Tpo- φίμου καὶ Τυχικῆς κιτ.λ. (see Wad- dingion on Le Bas, Inser. no, 718). This last belongs to the year A.D. 199. On other analogous Phrygian names see the introduction to the Epistle to Philemon.
Thus at Hierapolis the name Papias is derived from heathen mythology, and accordingly the persons bearing it on the inscriptions and coins are all heathens. It may therefore be pre- sumed that our Papias was of Gentile origin. The inference however is not absolutely certain. A rabbi of this name is mentioned in the Mishna Shekalim iv. 7, Edaioth vii. 6. These
Other-
two references are given by Zunz Namen der Juden p. 16.
3 Chron. Pasch. sub. ann. 163 σὺν τῷ ἁγίῳ δὲ Πολυκάρπῳ καὶ ἄλλοι θ΄ ἀπὸ Φιλαδελφείας μαρτυροῦσιν ἐν Σμύρνῃ" καὶ ἐν Περγάμῳ δὲ ἕτεροι, ἐν οἷς ἦν καὶ Πα- πίας καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοί, ὧν καὶ ἔγγραφα φέρονται τὰ μαρτύρια. See also the Syrian epitome of Huseb. Chron. (1. p. 216 ed. Schéne) ‘Cum persecutio in Asia esset, Polycarpos martyrium subiit et Papias, quorum martyria in libro (seripta) extant,’ but the Armenian version of the Chronicon mentions only Polycarp, while Jerome says ‘ Poly- carpus et Pionius fecere martyrium.’ In his history (iv. 15) Eusebius, after quoting the Martyrdom of Polycarp at length, adds ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ δὲ περὶ αὐτοῦ γραφῇ καὶ ἄλλα μαρτύρια συνῆπτο ἐὸν μεθ᾽ ὧν καὶ Μητρόδωρος ... ἀνήρηται" τῶν γε μὴν τότε περιβοήτων μαρτύρων εἷς τις ἐγνωρίζετο ἸΠιόνιος ... ἑξῆς δὲ καὶ ἄλλων ἐν Περγάμῳ πόλει τῆς ᾿Ασίας ὑπο- μνήματα μεμαρτυρηκότων φέρεται, Kap- που καὶ ἸΪαπύλου καὶ γυναικὸς ᾿Αγα- θονίκης κιτιλ. He here apparently falls into the error of imagining that Metro- dorus, Pionius, and all the others, were martyred under M. Aurelius, whereas we know from their extant Acts that some at least suffered in the Decian persecution. For the martyrdoms of Pionius and Metrodorus see Act. SS. Bolland. Feb. 1; for those of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonica, ib. April 13. The Acts of the former, which are included in Ruinart (Act. Sinc. Mart. p. 120 54.) 1689) are appa-
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 49
Eusebius, to Account of
wise he must have lived to a very advanced age. Eusebius.
whom chiefly we owe our information respecting him, was repelled by his millennarian views, and describes him as a man of mean intelligence’, accusing him of misunderstanding the Apostolic sayings respecting the kingdom of Christ and thus interpreting in a material sense expressions which were intended to be mystical and symbolical. though one-sided, was indeed not altogether undeserved, for his love of the marvellous seems to have overpowered his faculty of discrimination. But the adverse verdict of Eusebius must be corrected by the more sympathetic language of Ire- nzeus*, who possibly may have known him personally, and who certainly must have been well acquainted with his reputation
This disparaging account,
and character,
Much has been written respecting the relation of this
rently the same which were seen by Eusebius. The only Acts of the latter known until lately were a late com- pilation of the Metaphrast, but the original document has been recently discovered and published by Aubé (1881). See on the whole subject of these martyrdoms, Ignatius and Polycarp τ pp. 622 sq., 695 sq. Hu- sebius, finding the Acts of all these persons bound up together with those of Polycarp drew the hasty inference that they were martyred at the same time. With regard to Pionius and his companions, as we have seen, he was very wide of the mark; but Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonice, may have suffered within a few years of Poly- carp, though probably not during the same reign (l.c. p. 625 sq.). At all events this passage in the Ecclesiastical History, by a confusion of the names Papias and Papylus, must have given rise to the statement respecting Papias in the Chronicon Paschale and in the Syriac epitome, as it obviously has misled Jerome respecting Pionius.
COL.
This part of the Chronicon Paschale is plainly taken from Eusebius, as the coincidences of expression and the sequence of events alike show. The martyrdom of Papias therefore ap- pears to be a fiction, and he may have died a natural death at an earlier date. Polycarp’s martyrdom is now shown by M. Waddington’s investigations to have taken place ἀν. 155 (Mémoire sur la Chronologie du Rhéteur Allius Aristide p. 232 sq., in the Mém. de V Acad. des Inscr. xxv, 1867); see Ig- natius and Polycarp 1 p. 629 sq.
1 H. E. iii. 39 σφόδρα σμικρὸς τὸν νοῦν. In another passage (iii. 36), as commonly read, Eusebius makes par- tial amends to Papias by calling him ἀνὴρ τὰ πάντα ὅτι μάλιστα λογιώτατο: καὶ τῆς γραφῆς εἰδήμων, but this passage is found to be a spurious interpola- tion (see Contemporary Review, August, 1867, p. 12), and was probably added by some one who was acquainted with the work of Papias and desired to do him justice,
2. Tren. V.. 33-3, 4.
50
A modern hypothesis
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
writer to the Canonical Gospels, but the discussion has no very direct bearing on our special subject, and may be dismissed here’. One question however, which has a real importance as affecting the progress of the Gospel in these parts, has been raised by modern criticism and must not be passed over in silence.
It has been supposed that there was an entire dislocation
respecting 2nd discontinuity in the history of Christianity im Asia Minor
Christi- anity in
at a certain epoch; that the Apostle of the Gentiles was
Asia Minor jonored and his teaching repudiated, if not anathematized;
stated and discussed.
The posi- tion of St John
and of Papias.
and that on its ruins was erected the standard of Judaism, around which with a marvellous unanimity deserters from the Pauline Gospel rallied. Of this retrograde faith St John is supposed to have been the great champion, and Papias a typical and important representative’.
The subject, as a whole, is too wide for a full investigation here. I must content myself with occupying a limited area, showing not only the historical baselessness, but the strong inherent improbability of the theory, as applied to Hierapolis and the neighbouring churches. As this district is its chief stronghold, a repulse at this point must involve its ultimate defeat along the whole line.
Of St John himself I have already spoken® It has been shown that his language addressed to these churches is not only not opposed to St Paul’s teaching, but presents remark- able coincidences with it. So far at least the theory finds no support; and, when from St John we turn to Papias, the case is not different. The advocates of the hypothesis in question lay the chief stress of their argument on the silence of Papias, or rather of Eusebius. Eusebius quotes a passage from Papias, in which the bishop of Hierapolis mentions collecting from
1 See on this subject Westcott Canon οὐ in Schwegler’s Nachapostolisches p- 64 sq.; Contemporary Review, Au- Zeitalter. It has been reproduced (at
gust and September, 1875. least as far as regards the Asiatic 3 The theory of the Tiibingen school Churches) by Renan S, Paul p. 366 sq. may be studied in Baur’s Christliche 3 See above p. 41 sq.
Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 5
trustworthy sources the sayings of certain Apostles and early disciples; but St Paul is not named among them, He also gives short extracts from Papias referring to the Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark, and mentions that this writer made use of the first Epistle of St John and the first Epistle of St Peter; but here again there is no allusion to St Paul’s writings, Whether referring to the personal testimony or to the Canon- ical writings of the Apostles, Papias, we are reminded, is equally silent about St Paul.
On both these points a satisfactory answer can be given; but the two cases are essentially different, and must be con- sidered apart.
(1) The range of personal testimony which Papias would be 1. The able to collect depended on his opportunities. Before he had pie grown up to manhood, the personal reminiscences of St Paul PY Papias. would have almost died out. The Apostle of the Gentiles had not resided more than three years even at Ephesus, and seems to have paid only one brief visit to the valley of the Lycus, even if he visited it at all. Such recollections of St Paul as might once have lingered here would certainly be overshadowed by and forgotten in the later sojourn of St John, which, beginning where they ceased, extended over more than a quarter of a cen- tury. To St John, and to those personal disciples of Christ who surrounded him, Papias and his contemporaries would naturally and almost inevitably look for the traditions which they so eagerly collected. This is the case with the leading representa- tive of the Asiatic school in the next generation, Irenzus, whose traditions are almost wholly derived from St John and his companions, while at the same time he evinces an entire sympathy with the work and teaching of St Paul. But indeed, even if it had been otherwise, the object which Papias had directly in view did not suggest any appeal to St Paul’s authority. He was writing an ‘Exposition of Oracles of the Lord, and he sought to supplement and interpret these by traditions of our Lord’s life, such as eyewitnesses only could give. St Paul could have no place among those personal
4—2
$2 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYOCUS.
disciples of Christ, of whom alone he is speaking in this preface to his work, which Eusebius quotes. 2. Hisre- (2) But, though we have no right to expect any mention
ferences to : : : the Ca- of St Paul where the appeal is to personal testimony, yet with
nonical
ae quotations from or references to the Canonical writings
the case, it may be argued, is different. Here at all events we might look for some recognition of St Paul. To this argument it would perhaps be a sufficient reply, that St Paul’s Epistles do not furnish any matter which must necessarily have been introduced into a work such as Papias composed, But the complete and decisive answer is this; that the silence of Euse- bius, so far from carrying with it the silence of Papias, does not No weight even afford a presumption in this direction. Papias may have
to be at- ξ : ἃ tached to quoted St Paul again and again, and yet Eusebius would see
pee muce no reason to chronicle the fact. His usage in other cases is bius. decisive on this point. The Epistle of Polycarp which was read by Eusebius is the same which we still possess. Not only does it teem with the most obvious quotations from St Paul, but in one passage it directly mentions his writing to the Philippians*. Yet the historian, describing its relation to the Canonical Scriptures, contents himself with saying that it ‘em- ploys some testimonies from the former Epistle of Peter’? Exactly similar is his language respecting Irenzeus also. [τ- nus, as is well known, cites by name almost every one of St Paul’s Epistles; yet the description which Eusebius gives under this same head, after quoting this writer’s notices respecting the history of the Gospels and the Apocalypse, is that ‘he mentions also the first Epistle of John, alleging very many testimonies from it, and in like manner also the former Epistle
1 § 3. so happens that in an earlier passage
2 H. E. iv. 14 ὁ γέ τοι Πολύκαρπος (iii. 36) he has given an extract from ἐν τῇ δηλωθείσῃ πρὸς Φιλιππησίους aitod §©=©- Polycarp, in which St Paul’s name γραφῇ φερομένῃ els δεῦρο κέχρηταί τισι is mentioned; but the quotation is μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς Πέτρου προτέρας émt- brought to illustrate the life of Igna- στολῆς. This is all that Eusebius tius, and the mention of the Apostle says with reference to Polycarp’s know- there is purely accidental. ledge of the Canonical writings. It
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 53
of Peter’’ There is every reason therefore to suppose that Eusebius would deal with Papias as he has dealt with Polycarp and Irenzus, and that, unless Papias had introduced some curious fact relating to St Paul, it would not have occurred to him to record mere quotations from or references to this Apostle’s letters. It may be supposed that Eusebius records with a fair amount of attention references to the Catholic Epistles in early writers, because the limits of the Canon in this part were not accurately fixed. On the other hand the Epistles of St Paul were universally received and therefore did not need to be accredited by any such testimony. But whatever may be the explanation, the fact is patent, and it furnishes a complete answer to the argument drawn from his silence in the case of Papias’.
But, if the assumption has been proved to be baseless, have The views we any grounds for saying that it is also highly improbable? faeces Here it seems fair to argue from the well-known to the un- paar known. Of the opinions of Papias respecting St Paul we know absolutely nothing; of the opinions of Polycarp and Irenzeus ample evidence lies before us. Noscitur a sociis is a sound maxim to apply in such a case. Papias was a companion of Polycarp, and he is quoted with deference by Ireneus*. Is it probable that his opinions should be diametrically opposed to those of his friend and contemporary on a cardinal point affect-
Irenzus, because they are historically connected with Papias; but his silence is even more remarkable in other cases. Thus, when speaking of the epistle of the Roman Clement (H. EL. iii. 38), he alludes to the coincidences with the Epistle to the Hebrews, but omits to mention the direct references to St
1H. E. vy. 8 μέμνηται δὲ καὶ τῆς Ἰωάννου πρώτης ἐπιστολῆς, μαρτύρια ἐξ αὐτῆς πλεῖστα εἰσφέρων, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῆς Πέτρου προτέρας.
2 It is necessary to press this argu- ment, because though it has never been answered and (so far as I can see) is quite unanswerable, yet thoughtful
men, who have no sympathy with the Tiibingen views of early Christian his- tory, still continue to argue from the silence of Eusebius, as though it had some real significance. To illustrate the omissions of Eusebius I have given only the instances of Polycarp and
Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians which is referred to by name. I have discussed the whole subject in the Contemporary Review, January, 1875, p- 169 sq.
Slren ΤΟΥ Va 22: 4-
54
Millenna- rian views consistent with the recogni- tion of
St Paul.
C1LaupiIus APOoLutI- NABRIs bi-
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
ing the very conception of Christianity (for the rejection of St Paul must be considered in this light)? or that this vital heterodoxy, if it existed, should have escaped an intelligent critic of the next generation who had the five books of his work before him, who himself had passed his early life in Asia Minor, and who yet appeals to Papias as preserving the doc- trinal tradition which had been handed down from the Apostles themselves to his own time? I say nothing of Eusebius himself, who, with a distinct prejudice against Papias, accuses him of no worse heresy in his writings than entertaining millennarian views.
It may indeed be confessed that a man like Papias, whose natural bent, assisted by his Phrygian education, was towards sensuous views of religion, would not be likely to appreciate the essentially spiritual teaching of St Paul ; but this proves nothing. The difference between unconscious want of sympathy and con- scious rejection is all-important for the matter in hand. The same charge might be brought against numberless theologians, whether in the middle ages or in more modern times, into whose minds it never entered to question the authority of the Apostle and who quote his writings with the utmost reverence. Nei- ther in the primitive days of Christianity nor in its later stages has the profession of Chiliastic views been found in- consistent with the fullest recognition of St Paul’s Apostolic claims. In the early Church Irenzeus and Tertullian are notable instances of this combination; and in our own age and country a tendency to millennarian speculations has been com- monly associated with the staunchest adherence to the funda- mental doctrines of St Paul*.
The literary character of the see of Hierapolis, which had been inaugurated by Papias, was ably sustained by CLAUDIUS
1 Tn the earlier editions [had givena place to Abercius, as Bishop of Hiera- polis, between Papias and Claudius Apollinaris following the extant Acts of Abercius. But the recent researches of Prof. W. M. Ramsay have shown
that his see was not Hierapolis on the Meander, but Hierapolisnear Synnada. The question is discussed at greater length in my Ignatius and Polycarp I. p. 477 584.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 55
APOLLINARIS. His surname, which seems to have been com- shop of mon in these parts’, may have been derived from the patron τς 3 deity of Hierapolis? and suggests a Gentile origin. His inti- mate acquaintance with heathen literature, which is mentioned by more than one ancient writer, points in the same direction. During the reign of M. Aurelius he had already made himself a name by his writings, and seems to have been promoted to the see of Hierapolis before the death of that emperor®.
Of his works, which were very numerous, only a few scanty His liter-
ary works,
fragments have survived*. The imperfect lists however, which
have reached us, bear ample testimony both to the literary
1 Some of the family, as we may infer from the monuments, held a high position in another Phrygian town. Ona tablet at Aizani, on which is inscribed a letter from the emperor Septimius Severus in reply to the con- gratulations of the people at the ele- vation of Caracalla to the rank of Au- gustus (A.D. 198), we find the name of KAAYAIOC .ATTOAAINAPIOC . AYPHAIA- Noc, Boeckh 3837 (see mI. p. 1066 add.). In another inscription at the same place, the same or another mem- ber of the family is commemorated as holding the office of pretor for the second time, CTPATH[TOYNTOC.TO.B. KA . ATTOAAINAPIOY; Boeckh 3840, ib. p. 1067. See also the inscriptions 3842 6, 3846 z (ib. pp. 1069, 1078) at the same place, where again the name Apollinarius occurs. It is found also at Appia no. 3857 Ὁ (ib. p. 1086). In more distant regions we meet with at least two contemporaries of this Chris- tian father, bearing the same combi- nation of names, the one in Upper Egypt (Boeckh 4831 b), and the other at Athens (Inser. Att. 11.1140). At an earlier date, under Trajan, we are confronted with a Ti. Claudius Apol- linaris likewise in Upper Egypt (Boeckh 4714). At an earlier date one Claudius Apollinaris is found in
command of the Roman fleet at Mi- senum (Tac. Hist. ili. 57, 76, 77), and a person of the name appears in a Neapolitan inscription (C. 1. ZL. x. 3564). The name Apollinaris occurs also at Hierapolis itself, but combined with another nomen, Boeckh no. 3915, TT.AlAIOC. TT .AIAIOY.ATTOAAINAPIOY. loYAIANO[y] . yloc.. ce[...] . ATTOAAI- NAPIC. MAKEAWN.k.7.A., Which shows that both the forms, Apollinaris and Apollinarius, by which the bishop of Hierapolis is designated, are legitimate. The former however is the correct Latin form, the latter being the Greek adaptation.
More than a generation later than our Apollinaris, Origen in his letter to Africanus (Op. 1. 30, Delarue) sends greeting to a bishop bearing this name (τὸν καλὸν ἡμῶν πάπαν ᾿Απολινάριον), of whom nothing more is known.
2 Apollo Archegetes; see above p. 12, note 1.
3 Kuseb. ΗΠ. E. iv. 26, Chron. 5. a. 171, 172, ‘ Apollinaris Asianus, Hiera- politanus episcopus, insignis habetur.’
4 Collected in Routh’s Reliquie Sa- cr@ 1. p. 159 8q., and more recently in Otto’s Corp. Apol. Christ. 1x. p. 479 sq. For more respecting the writings of Claudius Apollinaris see Contemporary Review, February 1876, p. 486 sq.
56
He takes part in the two chief controver- sies of the day.
1. The Paschal question.
2. Montan- ism,
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
activity of the man, and to the prominence of the Church over which he presided, in the great theological and ecclesiastical controversies of the age.
The two questions, which especially agitated the Churches of Asia Minor during the last thirty years of the first century, were the celebration of the Easter festival and the pretensions of the Montanist prophets. In both disputes Claudius Apolli- naris took an active and conspicuous part.
1. The Paschal controversy, after smouldering long both here and elsewhere, first burst into flames in the neighbouring Church of Laodicea*. An able bishop of Hierapolis therefore must necessarily have been involved in the dispute, even if he had been desirous of avoiding it. What side Apollinaris took in the controversy the extant fragments of his work do not by themselves enable us to decide; for they deal merely with a subsidiary question which does not seriously affect the main issue* But we can hardly doubt that with Polycarp of Smyrna and Melito of Sardis and Polycrates of Ephesus he defended the practice which was universal in Asia’, observing the Paschal anniversary on the 14th Nisan whether it fell on a Friday or not, and invoking the authority of St John at Ephesus, and of St Philip at his own Hierapolis*, against the divergent usage of Alexandria and Palestine and the West.
2. His writings on the Montanist controversy were still more famous, and are recommended as an authority on the subject by Serapion of Antioch a few years after the author’s
1 See below, p. 61.
2 The main point at issue was whether the exact day of the month should be observed, as the Quarto- decimans maintained, irrespective of the day of the week. The fragments of Apollinaris (preserved in the Chron. Pasch. p. 13) relate to a discrepancy which some had found in the accounts of St Matthew and St John; see Con- temporary Review l. c. p. 487 sq.
3 Eusebius represents the dioceses of ‘Asia’ and the neighbourhood, as absolutely unanimous; H. ΕἸ. v. 23 τῆς ᾿Ασίας ἁπάσης αἱ παροικίαι, V. 24 τῆς ᾿Ασίας πάσης ἅμα ταῖς ὁμόροις ἐκκλησίαις τὰς παροικίας. ‘Asia’ includes all this district, as appears from Polycrates, ib.
4 See Polycrates of Ephesus in Kuseb. H. E. v. 24.
——?>
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYOUS.
death’.
Though later than many of his works’, they were
written soon after Montanus had divulged the extravagance of
his pretensions and before Montanism had attained its complete
development.
If a later notice may be trusted, Apollinaris was
not satisfied with attacking Montanism in writing, but sum- moned at Hierapolis a council of twenty-six bishops besides himself, where this heresy was condemned and sentence of excommunication pronounced against Montanus together with his adherent the pretended prophetess Maximilla’,
1 In Euseb. H. E. v. 19.
2 Eusebius (H. H. iv. 27) at the close of his list of the works of Apol- linaris gives καὶ ἃ μετὰ ταῦτα συν- ἔγραψε κατὰ τῆς [τῶν] Φρυγῶν αἱρέ- σεως μετ’ οὐ πολὺν καινοτομηθείσης χρόνον, τότε ye μὴν ὥσπερ ἐκφύειν ἀρ- χομένης, ἔτι τοῦ Μοντανοῦ ἅμα ταῖς av- τοῦ ψευδοπροφήτισιν ἀρχὰς τῆς παρεκ- τροπῆς ποιουμένου, i.e. the vagaries of Montanus and his followers had al- ready begun when Apollinaris wrote, but Montanism assumed a new phase shortly after.
3 Included in the Libellus Synodi- cus published by Pappus; see Labb. Conc. τ. 615, ed. Coleti. Though this council is not mentioned elsewhere, there is no sufficient ground for ques- tioning its authenticity. The import- ant part taken by Apollinaris against the Montanists is recognised by Eu- sebius H. Εἰ. v. 16, πρὸς τὴν λεγομένην κατὰ Φρύγας αἵρεσιν ὅπλον ἰσχυρὸν καὶ ἀκαταγώνιστον ἐπὶ τῆς ‘lepamb\ews τὸν ᾿Απολινάριον.
After mentioning the council the compiler of this Synodicon speaks thus of the false prophets; of καὶ βλασφή- pws, ἤτοι δαιμονῶντες, καθώς φησιν ὁ αὐτὸς πατήρ [ἱ.6.᾿ Απολινάριος]), τὸν βίον κατέστρεψαν, σὺν αὐτοῖς δὲ κατέκρινε καὶ Θεόδοτον τὸν σκυτέα. He evidently has before him the fragments of the anonymous treatises quoted by Euse-
bius (H. E. v. 16), as the following parallels taken from these fragments show: ws ἐπὶ ἐνεργουμένῳ καὶ δαιμο- νῶντι.. βλασφημεῖν διδάσκοντος τοῦ ἀπηυθαδισμένου πνεύματος...τὸν βιὸν καταστρέψαι ᾿Ιούδα προδότου δίκην ...olov ἐπίτροπόν τινα Θεόδοτον πολὺς αἱρεῖ λόγος... τετελευτήκασι MovTavos τε καὶ Θεόδοτος καὶ ἣ προειρημένη γυνή. Thus he must have had before him a text of Eusebius (H. ΕἸ. v. 16) which omitted the words δή τις at the com- mencement, as they are omitted in some existing mss; and accordingly he ascribed all the treatises to Apol- linaris. The parallels are taken from the first and second treatises; the first might have been written by Apollinaris, but the second was cer- tainly not by his hand, as it refers to much later events.
Hefele (Conciliengeschichte τ. p. 71) places the date of this council be- fore a.D. 150. But if the testimony of Eusebius is worth anything, this is impossible; for he states that the writings of Claudius Apollinaris a- gainst the Montanists were later than his Apology to M. Aurelius (see the last note), and this Apology was not written till after a.p. 174. The chro- nology of Montanism is very perplex- ing, but Hefele’s dates appear to be much too early. The Chronicon of Eusebius gives the rise of Montanism
97
58
His other heeresiolo- gical writ- ings.
His apolo- getic
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
Nor were his controversial writings confined to these two topics. In one place he refuted the Encratites*; in another he upheld the orthodox teaching respecting the true humanity of Christ, It is plain that he did not confine himself to questions especially affecting Asia Minor; but that the doc- trine and the practice of the Church generally found in him a vigorous advocate, who was equally opposed to the novelties of heretical teaching and to the rigours of overstrained asceti- cism.
Nor again did Apollinaris restrict himself to controversies carried on between Christian and Christian, He appears alike as the champion of the Gospel against attacks from without, and as the promoter of Christian life and devotion within the pale of the Church. On the one hand he was the author of an apology addressed to M. Aurelius’, of a controversial treatise in five books against the Greeks, and of a second in two books
under A.D. 172 or 173, and this state- ment is consistent with the notices in his History. But if this date be cor- rect, it most probably refers to Mon- tanism as a distinet system; and the fires had probably been smouldering within the Church for some time be- fore they broke out.
It will be observed that the writer of the Synodicon identifies Theodotus the Montanist (see Euseb. H. E. v. 3) with Theodotus the leather-seller who was a Monarchian. There is no au- thority for this identification in Euse- bius.
1 Theodoret. H. F. i. 21.
2 Soer. H. ἘΠ iii. 7.
3 Huseb. H. ΕἸ. iv. 26, 27. He re- ferred in this Apology to the incident of the so-called Thundering Legion which happened a.p. 174; and as re- ported by Eusebius (H. E. vy. 5), he stated that the legion was thus named by the emperor in commemoration of this miraculous thunderstorm. As a contemporary however, he must pro-
bably have known that the title Legio Fulminata existed long before; and we may conjecture that he used some ambiguous expression implying that it was fitly so named (6.4. ἐπώνυμον τῆς ovvtuxlas), which Eusebius and — later writers misunderstood; just as Eusebius himself (v. 24) speaks of — Treneeus as φερώνυμός τις ὧν τῇ προση- yopla αὐτῷ τε τῷ τρόπῳ εἰρηνοποιός. Of the words used by Eusebius, οἰκείαν τῷ γεγονότι πρὸς τοῦ βασιλέως εἰληφέναι προσηγορίαν, we may suspect that ol- — κείαν τῷ γεγονότι προσηγορίαν is aN ex- © pression borrowed from Apollinaris — himself, while πρὸς τοῦ βασιλέως εἰλη- Ὁ φέναι gives Eusebius’ own erroneous © interpretation of his author’s meaning. The name of this legion was Fulmi- ὦ nata not Fulminatriz, as it is often carelessly written out, where the in- — scriptions haye merely FvLM or some other abbreviation. I have discussed this story of the Thundering Legion more fully in Ignatius and Polycarp, τ.
P. 472 54.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 59
against the Jews*; on the other we find mentioned among his writings a work in two books On Truth, and a second On Piety, 204 di-
dactic
besides several of which the titles have not come down to us”, works.
He seems indeed to have written on almost every subject which
interested the Church of his age.
He was not only well versed
in the Scriptures, but showed a wide acquaintance with secular
literature also.
His style is praised by a competent judge‘,
and his orthodoxy was such as to satisfy the dogmatic precision
of the post-Nicene age’.
These facts are not unimportant in their bearing on the
question which has already been discussed in relation to Papias. If there had been such a discontinuity of doctrine and practice Important
bearing of
in the Church of Hierapolis as the theory in question assumes, these facts
if the Pauline Gospel was repudiated in the later years of the
on the history of
first century and rank Judaism adopted in its stead, how can Christi-
we explain the position of Apollinaris ?
ἔ anity. Obviously a counter-
revolution must have taken place, which undid the effects of
the former.
One dislocation must have been compensated by
another. And yet Irenzus knows nothing of these religious con-
vulsions which must have shaken the doctrine of the Church to its foundations, but represents the tradition as one, continuous, unbroken, reaching back through the elders of the Asiatic Churches, through Papias and Polycarp, to St John himself—
1 The words καὶ πρὸς ᾿Ιουδαίους πρῶ- Tov καὶ δεύτερον are omitted in some mss and by Rufinus. They are found however in the very ancient Syriac version, and are doubtless genuine, Their omission is due to the homeote- leuton, as they are immediately pre- ceded by καὶ περὶ ἀληθείας πρῶτον καὶ δεύτερον.
2 A list of his works is given by Eusebius (H. Εἰ. iv. 27), who explains that there were many others which he had not seen. This list omits the work on the Paschal Feast, which is quoted in the Chronicon Paschale p. 13 (ed. Dind.), and the treatise On
Piety, of which we know from Photius Bibl. 14; see Contemporary Review, 1. Ὁ. Ὁ. 487:
3 Theodoret. Her. Fab. ili. 2 ἀνὴρ ἀξιέπαινος καὶ πρὸς TH γνώσει τῶν θείων καὶ τὴν ἔξωθεν παιδείαν προσειληφώς. So too Jerome, Ep. 7o (1. p. 428, ed. Vallarsi), names him among those who were equally versed in sacred and pro- fane literature.
4 Photius 1. c., ἀξιόλογος δὲ ὁ ἀνὴρ καὶ φράσει ἀξιολόγῳ κεχρημένος.
5 Huseb. H. E. iv. 21, Jerome 1. c., Theodoret. 1. c., Socr. H. £. 111. 7.
60 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
Treneus who received his Christian education in Asia Minor, who throughout life was in communication with the churches there, and who had already reached middle age when this second revolution is supposed to have occurred. The demands on our credulity, which this theory makes, are enormous. And its improbability becomes only the more glaring, as we extend Solidarity our view. For the solidarity of the Church is the one striking ae τὰ fact unmistakably revealed to us, as here and there the veil ae which shrouds the history of the second century is lifted, Anicetus and Soter and Eleutherus and Victor at Rome, Pantenus and Clement at Alexandria, Polycrates at Ephesus, Papias and Apollinaris at Hierapolis, Polycarp at Smyrna, Melito at Sardis, Ignatius and Serapion at Antioch, Primus and Dionysius at Corinth, Pothinus and Ireneus in Gaul, Philippus and Pinytus in Crete, Hegesippus and Narcissus in Palestine, all are bound together by the ties of a common organization and the sympathy of a common creed. The
Paschal controversy is especially valuable, as showing the limits of divergence consistent with the unity of the Church. The study of this controversy teaches us to appreciate with ever-increasing force the pregnant saying of Irenzus that the difference of the usage establishes the harmony of the faith’. | Activity of _ Though Laodicea cannot show the same intellectual ac-
odie tivity as Hierapolis, yet in practical energy she is not want- ing.
Martyr- One of those fitful persecutions, which sullied the rule of
ey the imperial Stoic, deprived Laodicea of her bishop Sagaris*.
The exact date of his martyrdom is not known; but we cannot be far wrong in assigning it to an early year in the reign of
-
1 Tren. in Euseb. H. E.v. 24 ἡ δια’ ᾿Ασίας, ᾧ Σάγαρις καιρῷ ἐμαρτύρησεν, φωνία τῆς νηστείας (the fast which pre- ἐγένετο gyrnois πολλὴ ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ ceded the Paschal festival) τὴν ὁμόνοιαν περὶ τοῦ πάσχα ἐμπεσόντος κατὰ καιρὸν τῆς πίστεως συνίστησι. ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις, καὶ ἐγράφη ταῦτα
2 Melito in Euseb. H. Ε. iv. 26 ἐπὶ (i.e. Melito’s own treatise on the Σερουιλλίν Παύλου ἀνθυπάτου τῆς Paschal festival).
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 61
M. Aurelius, if not before’. held in great honour’.
But while the Church of Laodicea was thus contending Outbreak against foes without, she was also torn asunder by feuds within. ie Coincident with the martyrdom of Sagaris was the outburst of "Vey: the Paschal controversy, of which mention has been already made, and which for more than a century and a half disturbed the peace of the Church, until it was finally laid at rest by the Council of Nica. The Laodiceans would naturally regulate their festival by the Asiatic or Quartodeciman usage, strictly
observing the day of the month and disregarding the day of
His name appears to have been
the week. But a great commercial centre like Laodicea must have attracted large crowds of foreign Christians from Palestine or Egypt or Rome or Gaul, who were accustomed to commemo- rate the Passion always on a Friday and the Resurrection on a Sunday according to the western practice; and in this way probably the dispute arose. The treatise On the Paschal Festival by Melito of Sardis was written on this occasion to defend the Asiatic practice. The fact that Laodicea became the head-quarters of the controversy is a speaking testimony to the prominence of this Church in the latter half of the second century. At a later date the influence of Laodicea has sensibly de- Laodices
: : in 1 clined. In the great controversies of the fourth and fifth nee
1 The proconsulate of Paullus, under whom this martyrdom took place is dated by Borghesi (Guvres vit. p. 507) somewhere between a.p. 163—168; by Waddington (Fastes des Provinces Asia- tiques p. 228) probably a.p. 164—166. Some reasons are given in Ignatius and Polycarp 1. p. 494, which seem to point to 4.D. 159 or 163; but the exact year must remain uncertain. All these solutions rest on the as- sumption that the Servillius Paullus here named must be identified with L, Sergius Paullus of the inscriptions. The name Sergius is elsewhere con-
founded with Servius (Servillius) (see Borghesi Iv. p. 493, VIII. p. 504, Mommsen Rim. Forsch. τ. p. 8, Ephem. Epigr. τι. p. 338). The mistake must have been introduced very early into the text of Eusebius. All the Greek mss have Servillius (Servilius), and so it is given in the Syriac Version. Rufinus however writes it correctly Sergius.
2 Besides Melito (l. c.), Polyerates of Ephesus refers to him with respect ; Euseb. Η. Εἰ. v. 24 τί δὲ δεῖ λέγειν Σάγαριν ἐπίσκοπον καὶ μάρτυρα, ὃς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ κεκοίμηται.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
centuries she takes no very conspicuous part. Among her bishops there is not one who has left his mark on history. And yet their names appear at most of the great Councils, in which
The Arian they bear a silent part. heresy.
At Niczea she was represented by
idan Nunechius*. He acquiesced in the decrees of the Council, and A.D. 325+ as metropolitan published them throughout the Churches of his Jes province’, A little later this see lapsed into Arianism, At the ὌΝ synod of Philippopolis, composed of bishops who had seceded
from the Council of Sardica, the representative of Laodicea was present and joined in the condemnation of the Athanasians, But the see had changed hands twice meanwhile. Cecropius had won the imperial favour by his abuse of the orthodox party, and was first promoted to Laodicea, whence he was translated to Nicomedia®, He was succeeded by Nonnius, who When Laodicea [Consran- recovered her orthodoxy we do not know; but it is perhaps See a significant fact, that she does not appear at the second The Nes- general Council, held at Constantinople (A.D. 381), At the
torian and third general Council, which met at Ephesus, she is represented
signed the Arian decree at Philippopolis*.
Eutychian ΩΣ by Aristonicus, who signs the decrees condemning Nestorius, a. 431. Again in the next Christological controversy which agitated the τυ Church she bears her part. At the notorious Robbers’ Synod, av. 449- held also at Ephesus, she was represented by another Nune- chius, who committed himself to the policy of Dioscorus and the opinions of the heretic Eutyches®, Yet with the fickleness which characterized this see at an earlier date during the Arian Cnarce- controversy, we find this same Nunechius two years later at εν the Council of Chalcedon siding with the orthodox party and
1 Labb. Cone. τι. 57, 62; Cowper’s Syriac Miscellanies pp. 11, 28,34. He had also been present at the Synod of Ancyra held about a.p. 314 (see Galatians p. 34); ib. p. 41.
2 Labb. Cone. 11. 236.
3 Athanas. ad Epise. Aigypt. 8 (Op. I. p. 219), Hist. Arian. ad Mon. 74 (ib. p. 307).
4 Labb. Cone. τι. 744.
ἢ Cowper’s Syriac Miscell. p. 39.
6 Labb. Conc. Iv. 892, 925, 928, 1107, 1170, 1171, 1185. In the Acts of this heretical council, as occasion ally in those of the Council of Chal- cedon, Laodicea is surnamed Trimi- taria (see above, p. 18, note 2).
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
condemning the Eutychian heresy which he had so lately sup- ported’,
The history of this church at a later date is such as might Later _ have been anticipated from her attitude during the period of ata the first Four General Councils. The same vacillation and % infirmity of purpose, which had characterized her bishops in the earlier councils, marks the proceedings of their later successors*.
But, though this see thus continues to bear witness to its Its com- existence by the repeated presence of its occupants at councils Se and synods, yet its real influence on the Church at large has ®"°
terminated with the close of the second century. On one Councm
: : : της : oF Laopt- occasion only did this Church assume a position of prominence. ops an ex-
About the middle of the fourth century a council was held at ception.
Laodicea?,
1 Labb. Cone. Iv. 853, 1195, 1241, 1312, 1384, 1392, 1445, 1463, 1481, 1501, 1732, 1736, 1745, 1752. Nune- chius was addressed by the Emperor Leo in his letter respecting the Council of Chalcedon. He was also one of those who signed the decree against simony at the Council of Constantinople (4.D. 459): Cone. Vv. 50.
2 See for instance the tergiversa- tion of Theodorus of Laodicea in the matter of Photius and the 8th General Council.
3 This council cannot have been held earlier than the year 344, as the 7th canon makes mention of the Pho- tinians, and Photinus did not attract notice before that year: see Hefele, Conciliengesch. 1. p. 722 sq. In the ancient lists of Councils it stands after that of Antioch (a.p. 341), and before that of Constantinople (A.D. 381). Dr Westcott (History of the Canon Ῥ. 400) is inclined to place it about A.D. 363, and this is the time very generally adopted.
Here however a difficulty presents itself, which has not been noticed
It was convened more especially to settle some
hitherto. In the Syriac ms Brit. Mus. Add. 14,528, are lists of the bishops present at the earlier councils, includ- ing Laodicea (see Wright’s Catalogue of the Syriac MSS in the British Museum, DOCCVI, p. 1030 sq.). These lists have been published by Cowper (Syriac Miscell. p. 42 sq., Analecta Nicena p- 36), who however has transposed the lists of Antioch and Laodicea, so that he ascribes to the Antiochian Synod the names which really belong to the Laodicean. This is determined (as I am informed by Prof. Wright) by the position of the lists,
The Laodicean list then, which seems to be imperfect, contains twenty names; and, when examined, it yields these re- sults. (1) At least three-fourths of the names can be identified with bishops who sat at Nicea, and probably the exceptions would be fewer, if in some cases they had not been obscured by transcription into Syriac and by the errors of copyists. (2) When identi- fied, they are found to belong in almost every instance to Celesyria, Phoenicia, Palestine, Cilicia, and Isauria, whereas
64
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
Its decree points of ecclesiastical discipline; but incidentally the assembled
on the Canon.
bishops were led to make an order respecting the Canon of
Scripture’,
As this was the first occasion in which the subject
had been brought formally before the notice of an ecclesiastical assembly, this Council of Laodicea secured a notoriety which it would not otherwise have obtained, and to which it was hardly entitled by its constitution or its proceedings. Its decrees were confirmed and adopted by later councils both in
the East and in the West’.
apparently not one comes from Phrygia, Lydia, or the other western districts of Asia Minor.
Supposing that this is a genuine Laodicean list, we are led by the first result to place it as near in time as possible to the Council of Nicwa; and by the second to question whether after all the Syrian Laodicea may not have been meant instead of the Phry- gian. On the other hand tradition is unanimous in placing this synod in the Phrygian town, and in this very Syriac ms the heading of the canons begins ‘Of the Synod of Laodicea of Phrygia.’ On the whole it appears probable that this supposed list of bishops who met at Laodicea belongs tosome other Council. The Laodicean Synod seems to have been, as Dr Westcott describes it (1. c.), ‘A small gathering of clergy from parts of Lydia and Phrygia.’
In a large mosaic work in the Church at Bethlehem, in which all the more important councils are represented, we find the following inscription; [Ἢ] ἁγία σύνοδος ἡ ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ τῆς Φρυγίας τῶν κε ἐπισκόπων γέγονεν διὰ Μοντανὸν κὲ [r]a[s] λοιπὰς ἑρέσεις᾽" τούτους] ὡς αἱρετικοὺς καὶ ἐχθροὺς τῆς ἀλεθείας ἡ ἁγία σύνοδος ἀνεθεμάτισεν (Ciampini de Sacr. Aidif. a Constant. constr. p. 156; comp. Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 8953). The mention of Montanus might sug-
gest that this was one of those Asiatie synods held against Montanism at the end of the second or beginning of the third century. But no record of any such synod is preserved elsewhere, and, as all the other Councils com- memorated in these mosaics are found in the list sanctioned by the Quini- sextine Council, this can hardly have been an exception. The inscription must therefore refer to the well-known Council of Laodicea in the fourth cen- tury, which received this sanction. The description however is not very correct, for though Montanism is inci- dentally condemned in the eighth canon, yet this condemnation was not the main object of the council and oc- cupies a very subordinate place. The Bethlehem Mosaics were completed A.D. 1169: see Boeckh C. I. 8736.
1 The canons of this Council, 59 in number, will be found in Labb. Cone. τ. 1530 sq. ed. Coleti. The last of these forbids the reading of any but ‘the Canonical books of the New and Old Testament.’ To this is often appended (sometimes as a 60th canon) a list of the Canonical books; but Dr Westcott has shown that this list is a later addition and does not befong to the original decrees of the council (Canon p. 400 sq.).
2 By the Quinisextine Council (a. Ὁ. 692) in the East (Labb. Conc. vu.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 65
More important however for my special purpose, than the Its decrees influence of this synod on the Church at large, is the light ele which its canons throw on the heretical tendencies of this Ase he district, and on the warnings of St Paul in the Colossian sians. Epistle. To illustrate this fact it will only be necessary to write out some of these canons at length:
29. from labour on the sabbath, but to work on this same day. They should pay respect rather to the Lord’s day, and, if possible, ab- stain from labour on it as Christians. But if they should be found Judaizers, let them be anathema in the sight of Christ.’
35. ‘Itis not right for Christians to abandon the Church Col. ii. 18. of God and go away and invoke angels (ἀγγέλους ὀνομάξειν) and hold conventicles (συνάξεις ποιεῖν); for these things are forbidden. If therefore any one is found devoting himself to this secret idolatry, let him be anathema, because he aban- doned our Lord Jesus Christ and went after idolatry.’
36.
or enchanters or mathematicians or astrologers’, or to make
‘It is not right for Christians to Judaize and abstain Col. ii. r4, 16, 17.
‘Tt is not right for priests or clergy to be magicians 8 Sy Ξ
1345), and by the Synod of Aix-la- Chapelle (a.D. 789) in the West (Cone. IX. το §q.).
1 Theodoret about a century after the Laodicean Council, commenting on Col. ii. 18, states that this disease (τὸ πάθος) which St Paul denounces ‘long remained in Phrygia and Pi- sidia.’ ‘For this reason also,’ he adds, ‘a synod convened in Lao- dicea of Phrygia forbad by a decree the offering prayer to angels; and even to the present time oratories of the holy Michael may be seen among them and their neighbours.’ See also below p. 68, note 2. A curi- ous inscription, found in the theatre at Miletus (Boeckh C. I. 2895), illus- trates this tendency. It is written in seven columns, each having a dif- ferent planetary symbol, and a dif- ferent permutation of the vowels with
COL.
the same invocation, γε. byAATON. THN . TTOAIN . MIAHCIWN . Kal . TIANTAC . TOYC . KATOIKOYNTAC, while at the common base is written apxarreAol . myAacceTal .H . πο- Alc . MIAHCIWN. Kal . TIANTEC. O1. Kat... Boeckh writes, ‘Etsi hic titulus Gnosticorum et Basilidianorum commentis prorsus congruus est, ta- men potuit ab ethnicis Milesiis scrip- tus esse; quare nolui eum inter Chris- tianos rejicere, quum presertim pub- lice Milesiorum superstitionis docu- mentum insigne sit.? The idea of the seven ἅγιοι, combined in the one dpxayyedos, seems certainly to point to Jewish, if not Christian, influences: Rev. i. 4, iil. 1, iv. 5, v. 6.
2 Though there is no direct men- tion of ‘magic’ in the letter to the Colossians, yet it was a characteristic
5
66
Career of Hiera- polis.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
safecuards (φυλακτήρια) as they are called, for such things are prisons (δεσμωτήρια) of their souls’: and we have enjoined that they which wear them be cast out of the Church.’
37. ‘It is not right to receive from Jews or heretics the festive offerings which they send about, nor to join in their festivals.’
38. Jews or to participate in their impieties.’
It is strange, at this late date, to find still lingering in
‘It is not right to receive unleavened bread from the
these churches the same readiness to be ‘judged in respect
of an holiday or a new moon or a sabbath,’ with the same
tendency to relinquish the hold of the Head and to substitute
‘a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels,’ which three
centuries before had called forth the Apostle’s rebuke and _
warning in the Epistle to the Colossians.
The career of Hierapolis is not so easily followed during these —
centuries. So far as we can trace the facts, its history appears
not to have differed materially from that of its neighbour
Laodicea, though even less conspicuous than this latter. But there has been much confusion with another less considerable Phrygian city of the same name, Hieropolis or Hierapolis, near Synnada’; and notices have hitherto been appropriated to it,
tendency of this part of Asia: Acts xix. 19, 2 Tim. 11]. 8, 13. See the note on Gal. v. 20. The term μαθη- ματικοὶ is used in this decree in its ordinary sense of astrologers, sooth- sayers.
1 A play on the double sense of φυ- λακτήριον (1) ἃ safeguard or amulet, (2) a guard-house.
2 A flood of light has been thrown upon the ecclesiastical arrangements of Phrygia by the recent researches of Prof.W.M. Ramsay ; seehis papers Trois Villes Phrygiennes in the Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Juillett882, The Tale of Abercius in the Journal of Hellenic Studies 1882, p. 339 sq-, and The Cities and Bishopries of Phrygia
in the same Journal 1883, p. 424 sq. The most important result is the rescue from oblivion of the city of Hieropolis near Synnada, which had a considerable Christian population as early as the second century. This place, which belonged to Phrygia Salu- taris and therefore was a suffragan see of Synnada, is commonly written Hierapolis in the records of the Coun- cils and in the Notitiw, and is even declined ‘Iepds πόλεως. In consequence of Ramsay’s discoveries I have con- siderably modified what I wrote in the earlier editions of this work, as it is now clear that many bishops, who have hitherto been assigned to the city near the Lycus, belong to this
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
which are now shown to belong to its less famous namesake. This latter place appears from the monumental inscriptions, as well as from other indications, to have occupied a position in
the early history of Christianity quite out of proportion to its size or its political importance.
67
During the flourishing period of the Eastern Church, Lao- Ecelesias-
tical status
dicea appears as the metropolis of the province of Phrygia of Laodi- Pacatiana counting among its suffragan bishoprics the see of
Colossz’.
more important sees in this same province.
At a later date
Hierapolis itself was raised to metropolitan rank’.
Hierapo- Hierapolis would seem to have been one of the ls
But while Laodicea and Hierapolis held the foremost place Obscurity
in the records of the early Church, and continued to bear an
namesake. This is the case not only with the early Abercius, who has been already mentioned (p. 54), but also with a later bishop of the same name, who was present at the Council of Chalcedon (Labb. Conc. ty. 862, 1204, 1496, 1716, 1744). This con- fusion may suggest a suspicion, that even Papias and Claudius Apollinaris— one or both— may belong to this other Hierapolis; but the consideration that the city near the Lycus had a Chris- tian community as early as the Apo- stolic times and that it was the larger place of the two will reassure us.
1 A list of the bishoprics belonging to this province at the time of the Council of Chalcedon, on whose behalf their metropolitan signs the decrees, is given, Labb. Conc. tv. 1501, 1716. Colosse is one of these, but Hierapolis is not.
2 At the 5th and 6th General Coun- cils (4D. 553 and 4.D. 680) Hierapolis is styled a metropolis (Labb. Cone. v1. 220, VII. 1068, 1097, 1117); and in the latter case it is designated metropolis of Phrygia Pacatiana, though this same designation is still given to Lao-
dicea. Synnada retains its position as metropolis of Phrygia Salutaris.
From this time forward Hierapolis seems always to hold metropolitan rank. But no notice is preserved of the circumstances under which the change was made. It took place how- ever after Hierocles, and not impro- bably in a.p. 535 under Justinian: see Ramsay Cities and Bishoprics of Phry- gia p. 374. Accordingly in the No- titig, which are later, it is entered as metropolis of another Phrygia Pa- catiana (distinct from that which has Laodicea for its metropolis): Hieroclis Synecdemus et Notitie (ed. Parthey) Not. 1, pp. 56, 57, 73; Not. 3, p. 1245 Not. 6, p. 147; Not. 7, pp. 152, 161; Not. 8, pp. 164, 180; Not. 9,-p. 197; Not. 10, p. 220. In this position it is placed out of the proper geographical order and near the close of the list, thus showing that its metropolitan jurisdic- tion was created at a comparatively late date. The number of dioceses in the province is generally given as 9; Nilus ib, p. 301. The name of the province is variously corrupted from Πακατιανῆς e.g. Καππατιανῆς, Καππαδοκίας.
=
ofColosse.
68
It is sup- planted by Choner.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
active, though inconspicuous part, in later Christian history, Colosse was from the very first a cipher. The town itself, as we have seen, was already waning in importance, when the Apostle wrote; and its subsequent decline seems to have been rapid. Not a single event in Christian history is connected with its name; and its very existence is only rescued from oblivion, when at long intervals some bishop of Coloss at- taches his signature to the decree of an ecclesiastical synod. The city ceased to strike coins in the reign of Gordian (A.D. 238—244)*. It fell gradually into decay, being supplanted by the neighbouring town Chonz, the modern Chonos, so called from the natural funnels by which the streams here disappear in underground channels formed by the incrustations of traver-
tine”.
a renewed assault of its ancient enemy, the earthquake’*.
1 See Mionnet iv. p. 269, Leake Numism. Hellen. p. 45.
2 Joannes Curopalata p. 686 (ed. Bonn.) φήμη... τοὺς Τούρκους ἀπαγγέλ- λουσα τὴν ἐν Χώναις πολιτείαν καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν περιβόητον ἐν θαύμασι καὶ ἀναθή- μασι τοῦ ἀρχιστρατήγου ναὸν καταλαβεῖν ἐν μαχαίρᾳ... καὶ τὸ δὴ σχετλιώτερον, μηδὲ τὰς τοῦ χάσματος σήραγγας ἐν ᾧπερ οἱ παραρρέοντες ποταμοὶ ἐκεῖσε χωνευό- μενοι διὰ τῆς τοῦ ἀρχιστρατήγου πα- λαιᾶς ἐπιδημίας καὶ θεοσημίας ὡς διὰ πρανοῦς ἀστατοῦν τὸ ῥεῦμα καὶ λιὰν εὐδρομοῦν ἔχουσι, τοὺς καταπεφευγότας διατηρῆσαι, K.T.r.
The ‘ worship of angels’ is curiously connected with the physical features of the country in the legend to which Curopalata refers. The people were in imminent danger from a sudden inun- dation of the Lycus, when the arch- angel Michael appeared and opened a chasm in the earth through which the waters flowed away harmlessly: Hart- ley’s Researches in Greece p. 53. See another legend, or another version of the legend, in which the archangel interposes, in Laborde p. 103.
We may conjecture also that its ruin was hastened by
It is
It was the birthplace of Nicetas Choniates, one of the most important of the Byzantine historians, who thus speaks of it (de Manuel. vi. 2, p. 230, ed. Bonn.); Φρυγίαν τε καὶ Λαοδίκειαν διελθὼν ἀφικνεῖται ἐς Χώνας, πόλιν εὐ- δαίμονα καὶ μεγάλην, πάλαι τὰς Κολασ- σάς, τὴν ἐμοῦ τοῦ συγγραφέως πατρίδα, καὶ τὸν ἀρχαγγελικὸν ναὸν εἰσιὼν μεγέθει μέγιστον καὶ κάλλει κάλλιστον ὄντα καὶ θαυμασίας χειρὸς ἅπαντα ἔργον κ.τ.λ., where a corrupt reading Παλασσὰς for Κολασσὰς had misled some. It will be remembered that the words πόλιν εὐδαίμονα καὶ μεγάλην are borrowed from Xenophon’s description of Colosse (Anab. i. 2. 6): see above, p. 15, note 3.
He again alludes to his native place, de Isaac. il. 2, pp. 52, 3 τοὺς Λαοδικεῖς δὲ Φρύγας μυριαχῶς ἐκάκωσεν, ὥσπερ καὶ τοὺς τῶν Χωνῶν τῶν ἐμῶν οἰκήτορας, and Urbs Capta 16, p. 842, τὸ δὲ ἦν ἐμοῦ To} συγγραφέως Νικήτα πατρὶς ai Χῶναι καὶ ἡ ἀγχιτέρμων ταύτῃ Φρυγικὴ Λαοδί- κεια.
3 We may conjecture that it was the disastrous earthquake under Gallienus (4.D. 262) which proved fatal to Colos-
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
commonly said that Chone is built on the site of the ancient Colosse; but the later town stands at some distance from the earlier, as Salisbury does from Old Sarum. The episcopal see necessarily followed the population; though for some time after its removal to the new town the bishop still continued to use the older title, with or without the addition of Chonz by way of explanation, till at length the name of this primitive
Apostolic Church passes wholly out of sight’.
69
The Turkish conquest pressed with more than common Turkish
severity on these districts.
When the day of visitation came, the Church was taken by surprise.
Occupied with ignoble
quarrels and selfish interests, she had no ear for the voice of
Him who demanded admission.
580 (see above p. 38, note τ). This is consistent with the fact above men- tioned that no Colossian coins later than Gordian are extant. We read indeed of an earthquake in the reign of Gordian himself ‘eo usque gravis ut civitates etiam terre hiatu deperirent’ (Capitol. Vit. Gord. 26), but we are not informed of the localities affected by it. When St Chrysostom wrote, the city existed no longer, as may be in- ferred from his comment (x1. p. 323)
Ἢ πόλις τῆς Φρυγίας jv Kal δῆλον ἐκ
τοῦ τὴν Λαοδίκειαν πλησίον εἶναι.
On the other hand M. Renan (L’ Antechrist p. 99) says of the earth- quake under Nero, ‘Colosses ne sut se relever; elle disparut presque du nombre des églises’; and he adds in a note ‘Colosses n’a pas de monnaies impériales [Waddington].’ For this statement there is, I believe, no au- thority; and as regards the coins it is certainly wrong.
Earthquakes have been largely in- strumental in changing the sites of cities situated within the range of their influence. Of this we have an instance in the neighbourhood of
The door was barred and
Colosse. Hamilton (1. p. 514) reports that an earthquake which occurred at Denizli about a hundred years ago caused the inhabitants to remove their residences to a different locality, where they have remained ever since.
1 At the Council of Chalcedon (a.p. 451) Nunechius of Laodicea subscribes ‘for the absent bishops under him,’ among whom is mentioned ᾿Επιφανίου πόλεως Κολασσῶν (Labb. Cone. tv. 1501, ed. Coleti; comp. ib. 1745). At the Quinisextine Council (4.p. 692) occurs the signature of Κοσμᾶς ἐπίσκοπος πό- λεως Κολασσαῆς (sic) Πακατιανῆς (Conc. vu. 1408). At the 2nd Council of Nicwa (4.D. 787) the name of the see is in @ transition state; the bishop Theodosius (or Dositheus) signs him- self sometimes Χωνῶν ἤτοι Κολασσῶν, sometimes Χωνῶν simply (Conc. vu. 689, 796, 988, 1200, 1222, 1357, 1378, 1432, 1523, 1533, In many of which passages the word Χωνῶν is grossly corrupted). At later Councils the see is called XGva:; and this is the name which it bears in the Notitie (pp. 97, 127, 199, 222, 303, ed. Parthey).
conquest.
JO
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
the knock unheeded. The long-impending doom overtook — her, and the golden candlestick was removed for ever from the Eternal Presence’.
1 For the remains of Christian Hierapolis is given in Fergusson’s JI- Churches at Laodicea see Fellows Asia lustrated Handbook of Architecture τι, Minor p. 282, Pococke p. 74. A de- Ρ. 967 8q.; comp. Texier Asie Mineure scription of three fine churches at 1. ἢ. 143.
ΠΕ
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.
ROM the language of St Paul, addressed to the Church Two ele- of Colosse, we may infer the presence of two disturbing τς elements which threatened the purity of Christian faith and eee practice in this community. These elements are distimguish- able in themselves, though it does not follow that they present the teaching of two distinct parties.
1. A mere glance at the epistle suffices to detect the 1. Jupatc. presence of JUDAISM in the teaching which the Apostle com- bats. The observance of sabbaths and new moons is decisive in this respect. The distinction of meats and drinks points in the same direction’. Even the enforcement of the initiatory rite of Judaism may be inferred from the contrast implied in St Paul’s recommendation of the spiritual circumcision *.
2. On the other hand a closer examination of its language 2. Gyos- shows that these Judaic features do not exhaust the portrai-~ ture of the heresy or heresies against which the epistle is directed. We discern an element of theosophic speculation, which is alien to the spirit of Judaism proper. We are con- fronted with a shadowy mysticism, which loses itself m the contemplation of the unseen world. We discover a tendency to interpose certain spiritual agencies, intermediate beings, between God and man, as the instruments of communication ‘ and the objects of worship*®, Anticipating the result which will appear more clearly hereafter, we may say that along
2
1 Col. ii. 16, 17, 21 sq. 2 11. II. 5.111:.2. 5, 18, 23°
THE COLOSSIAN
HERESY.
with its Judaism there was a Gnostic element in the false
\ : teaching which prevailed at Colossie.
Are these combined or sepa- rate?
General reasons for supposing
Have we then two heresies here, or one only?
Were
these elements distinct, or were they fused into the same
system 2
In other words, Is St Paul controverting a phase
of Judaism on the one hand, and a phase of Gnosticism on
the other; or did he find himself in conflict with a Judzo-
Gnostic heresy which combined the two*?
On closer examination we find ourselves compelled to
adopt the latter alternative.
The epistle itself contains no
One ΕΘΗ hint that the Apostle has more than one set of antagonists
only,
whichthey in view; and the needless multiplication of persons or events is always to be deprecated in historical criticism. Nor indeed does the hypothesis of a single complex heresy present any
are fused.
1 The Colossian heresy has been made the subject of special disserta- tions by ScHNECKENBURGER Beitriige zur Einleitung ins N. T. (Stuttgart 1832), and Ueber das Alter der jiidischen Proselyten-Taufe, nebst einer Beilage diber die Irrlehrer zu Colossé (Berlin 1828); by OstanpER Ueber die Colos- sischen Irrlehrer (Tiibinger Zeitschrift for 1834, 1π| p. 96 sq.); and by Rurtn- WALD De Pseudodoctoribus Colossensibus (1834). But more valuable contribu- tions to the subject will often be found in introductions to commentaries on the epistle. Those of BurEx, Daviss, Meyer, OusHausEN, STEIGER, DE Werre, and ΚΙΘΟΡΡΕΒ may be men- tioned. Among other works which may be consulted are Baur Der Apos- tel Paulus p. 417 8sq.; ΒΟΕΗΜΕῈ Isagoge in Epistolam ad Colossenses, Berlin 1829, p. 56 sq., p- 277 8q.; Burton Inquiry into the Heresies of the Apostolic Age, Lectures tv, v; Hwaup Die Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus Ὁ. 462 sq.; HiLeEnreLp Der Gnosticismus wu. das Neue Testa- ment in the Zeitschr. f. Wissensch.
Theol. x1. p. 233 8q.; BR. A. Lir- sius in Schenkels Bibel-Lexicon, 8.0. Gnosis; Mayrernorr Der Brief an die Colosser p. 107 8q.; NEANDER Planting of the Christian Church 1. p- 319 sq. (Eng. Trans.); Prus- sENsE ‘Trois Premiers Siécles τι. p- 194 8q.; Storr Opuscula τι. p. 149 sq.; Turerscu Die Kirche im Apos- tolischen Zeitalter Ὁ. 146 sq. OF all the accounts of these Colossian false teachers, I have found none more satisfactory than that of Neander, whose opinions are followed in the main by the most sober of later writers.
In the investigation which follows I have assumed that the Colossian false teachers were Christians in some sense. The views maintained by some earlier critics, who regarded them as (1) Jews, or (2) Greek philosophers, or (3) Chal- dean magi, have found no favour and do not need serious consideration. See Meyer’s introduction for an enumera- tion of such views. A refutation of them will be found in Bleek’s Vor- lesungen Ὁ. 12 54.
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.
- real difficulty. If the two elements seem irreconcilable, or at least incongruous, at first sight, the incongruity disappears on further examination. It will be shown in the course of this investigation, that some special tendencies of religious thought among the Jews themselves before and about this time pre- pared the way for such a combination in a Christian community like the Church of Colosse*. Moreover we shall find that the Christian heresies of the next succeeding ages exhibit in a more developed form the same complex type, which here appears in its nascent state”; this later development not only showing that the combination was historically possible in itself, but likewise presupposing some earlier stage of its existence such as confronts us at Colosse.
73
But in fact the Apostle’s language hardly leaves the ques- 5. Paul’s
tion open. The two elements are so closely interwoven in
passes backwards and forwards from the one to the other in such a way as to show that they are only parts of one complex whole. On this point the logical connexion of the sentences is decisive: ‘Beware lest any man make spoil of you through philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world...Ye were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands...And you...did He quicken,...blotting out the handwriting of ordinances which was against you...Let no man therefore judge you in meat or drink, or in respect of a holy day or a new moon or a sabbath...Let no man beguile you of your prize in a self- imposed humility and service of angels...If ye died with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why-...are ye subject to ordinances...which things have a show of wisdom in self- imposed service and humility and hard treatment of the body, but are of no value against indulgence of the flesh*’ Here
1 See below, p. 83 sq. elements. He argues that ‘these two
2 See below, p. 107 sq. tendencies are related to one another
3 Col. ii. 8—23. Hilgenfeld(DerGnos- 85 fire and water, and nothing stands
ticismus etc. p. 250 sq.) contends stre- ἴῃ the way of allowing the author after nuously for the separation of the two the first side-glance at the Gnostics to
language is decisive
his refutation, that it is impossible to separate them. He Sane
74
Gnostic- ism must be defined and de- scribed,
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.
the superior wisdom, the speculative element which is charac- teristic of Gnosticism, and the ritual observance, the practical element which was supplied by Judaism, are regarded not only as springing from the same stem, but also as inter- twined in their growth. And the more carefully we examine the sequence of the Apostle’s thoughts, the more intimate will the connexion appear.
Having described the speculative element in this complex heresy provisionally as Gnostic, I purpose enquiring in the first place, how far Judaism prior to and independently of Christianity had allied itself with Gnostic modes of thought ; and afterwards, whether the description of the Colossian heresy is such as to justify us in thus classing it as a species of Gnosticism. But, as a preliminary to these enquiries, some de- finition of the word, or at least some conception of the leading ideas which it involves, will be necessary. With its complex varieties and elaborate developments we have no concern here: for, if Gnosticism can be found at all in the records of the
pass over with ver. 11 to the Judaizers, with whom Col. ii. 16 sq. is exclusively concerned.’ He supposes therefore that ii. 8—ro refers to ‘pure Gnosties,’ and ii. 16--23 to ‘pure Judaizers.’ To this it is sufficient to answer (1) That, if the two elements be so an- tagonistic, they managed nevertheless to reconcile their differences; for we find them united in several Judzo- Gnostic heresies in the first half of the second century, ξυνώμοσαν γάρ, ὄντες ἔχθιστοι τὸ πρίν, πῦρ καὶ θάλασσα, καὶ τὰ πίστ᾽ ἐδειξάτην ; (2) That the two passages are directly connected together by τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου, which occurs in both vv. 8, 20; (3) That it is not a simple transition once for all from the Gnostic to the Judaic element, but the epistle passes to and fro several times from the one to the other ; while no hint is given that two
separate heresies are attacked, but on the contrary the sentences are con- nected in a logical sequence (e.g. ver. Q ὅτι, το Os, 11 ἐν ᾧ, 12 ἐν ᾧ, 13 καὶ, 16 οὖν). LI hope to make this point clear in my notes on the passage.
The hypothesis of more than one heresy is maintained also by Hein- richs (Koppe N. 7. vu. Part 2, 1803). At an earlier date it seems to be favoured by Grotius (notes on ii. 16, 21); but his language is not very explicit. And earlier still Calvin in his argument to the epistle writes, ‘ Putant aliqui duo fuisse hominum genera, qui abducere tentarent Colossenses ab evangelii pu- ritate,’ but rejects this view. The same question is raised with regard to the heretical teachers in the Pastoral Epis. tles and in Ignatius, and should be answered in the same way; see Igna- tius and Polycarp τ. p. 364.
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 75
Apostolic age, it will obviously appear in a simple and ele- mentary form. Divested of its accessories and presented in its barest outline, it is not difficult of delineation’.
1. As the name attests*, Gnosticism implies the possession τ. Intel-
lectual ex- It makes a cjusive- ‘distinction between the select few who have this higher gift, Gia oe nostic-
Faith, blind faith, ism. suffices the latter, while knowledge is the exclusive possession
of a superior wisdom, which is hidden from others. and the vulgar many who are without it. of the former. Thus it recognises a separation of intellectual caste in religion, introducing the distinction of an esoteric and an exoteric doctrine, and interposing an initiation of some kind or other between the two classes. In short it is animated by the exclusive aristocratic spirit *, which distinguishes the ancient religions, and from which it was a main function of Christianity to deliver mankind.
2. which its energies were concentrated and to which it professed
This was its spirit; and the intellectual questions, on 2. Specu- lative te- nets of
to hold the key, were mainly twofold. How can the work of ere
creation be explained? and, How are we to account for the ex-
istence of evil*?
the existence of evil with the conception of God as the abso- ao nae lute Being, was the problem which all the Gnostic systems set peg
themselves to solve.
cannot be treated independently but have a very close and
To reconcile the creation of the world and Creation
It will be seen that the two questions
intimate connexion with each other.
1 The chief authorities for the his- they designated the possessors of this
tory of Gnosticism are NEANDER Church History τι. p. τ sq.; Baur Die Christliche Gnosis (Tiibingen, 1835); Matter Histoire Critique du Gnos- ticisme (2nd ed., Strasbourg and Paris, 1843); R. A. Lipsrus Gnosticismus in Ersch u. Gruber s. v. (Leipzig, 1860) ; Mansen Gnostic Heresies of the First and Second Centuries (London, 1875) ; and for Gnostic art, Kine Gnostics and their Remains (London 1864).
2 See esp. Iren. i. 6. 1 sq., Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. p. 433 sq. (Potter). On the words τέλειοι, πνευματικοί, by which
higher gnosis, see the notes on Col. i. 28, and Phil. iii. 15.
3 See Neander l.c. p. 1 sq., from whom the epithet is borrowed.
4 The fathers speak of this as the main question about which the Gno- sties busy themselves ; Unde malum 3 πόθεν ἡ κακία; Tertull. de Prescr. 7, adv. Mare. 1. 2, us. H. ΕἸ. v. 27; passages quoted by Baur Christliche Gnosis p. 19. On the leading concep- tions of Gnosticism see especially Ne- ander, 1. ¢. p. 9 sq.
76 THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.
Bxistence The Gnostic argument ran as follows: Did God create the
mene be world out of nothing, evolve it from Himself? Then, God
explained? Heine perfectly good and creation having resulted from His sole act without any opposing or modifying influence, evil would have been impossible; for otherwise we are driven to the conclusion that God created evil.
Matter This solution being rejected as impossible, the Gnostic was
pee obliged to postulate some antagonistic principle independent of God, by which His creative energy was thwarted and limited. This opposing principle, the kingdom of evil, he conceived to be the world of matter. The precise idea of its mode of operation varies in different Gnostic systems. It is sometimes regarded as a dead passive resistance, sometimes as a turbulent active power. But, though the exact poimt of view may shift, the object contemplated is always the same. In some way or other evil is regarded as residing in the material, sensible world. Thus Gnostic speculation on the existence of evil ends in a dualism.
Creation, This point being conceded, the ulterior question arises:
ey How then is creation possible? How can the Infinite com- municate with the Finite, the Good with the Evil? How can God act upon matter? God is perfect, absolute, incompre- hensible.
This, the Gnostic went on to argue, could only have been
possible by some self-limitation on the part of God. God must express Himself in some way. There must be some evolution,
Doctrine some effluence, of Deity. Thus the Divine Being germinates, as of emana-
one it were; and the first germination again evolves a second from
itself in like manner. In this way we obtain a series of succes- sive emanations, which may be more or fewer, as the requirements of any particular system demand. In each successive evolution the Divine element is feebler. They smk gradually lower and lower in the scale, as they are farther removed from their source; until at length contact with matter is possible, and creation ensues. These are the emanations, zons, spirits, or angels, of Gnosticism, conceived as more or less concrete and
2
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. Tel
personal according to the different aspects in which they are regarded in different systems.
3. Such is the bare outline (and nothing more is needed 3. Practi- cal errors of Gnostic-
ism. But it is obvious that these views must have exerted ™:
for my immediate purpose) of the speculative views of Gnostic-
a powerful influence on the ethical systems of their advocates, and thus they would involve important practical consequences. If matter is the principle of evil, it is of infinite moment for a man to know how he can avoid its baneful influence and thus keep his higher nature unclogged and unsullied.
To this practical question two directly opposite answers Two oppo- were given 1. site ethi-
cal rules.
(i) On the one hand, it was contended that the desired (i) Rigid end might best be attained by a rigorous abstinence. Thus **tcism. communication with matter, if it could not be entirely avoided, might be reduced to a minimum. Its grosser defilements at all events would be escaped. The material part of man would be subdued and mortified, if it could not be annihilated ; and the spirit, thus set free, would be sublimated, and rise to its proper level. Thus the ethics of Gnosticism pointed in the first instance to a strict asceticism.
(ii) But obviously the results thus attained are very slight (ii) Un- and inadequate. Matter is about us everywhere. We do but Hides touch the skirts of the evil, when we endeavour to fence our- selves about by prohibitive ordinances, as, for instance, when we enjoin a spare diet or forbid marriage. Some more compre- hensive rule is wanted, which shall apply to every contingency and every moment of our lives. Arguing in this way, other Gnostic teachers arrived at an ethical rule directly opposed to the former. ‘Cultivate an entire indifference, they said,
‘to the world of sense. Do not give it a thought one way or
1 On this point see Clem. Strom. ili. μοσύνης καταγγέλλουσι, With the whole 5 (Ὁ. 529) εἰς δύο διελόντες πράγματα d- passage which follows. As examples πάσας τὰς αἱρέσεις ἀποκρινώμεθα αὐ of the one extreme may be instanced τοῖς" ἢ γάρ τοι ἀδιαφόρως ζῆν διδάσς the Carpocratians and Cainites: of the κουσιν, ἢ τὸ ὑπέρτονον ἄγουσαι éyxpa- other the Encratites. τειαν διὰ δυσσεβείας καὶ φιλαπεχθη-
Original independ- ence of Gnostic- ism and its subse- quent con- nexion withChris- tianity.
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.
the other, but follow your own impulses. The ascetic prin- The ascetic fails
The true rule of life is to treat matter as something alien to you, towards
which you have no duties or obligations and which you can
ciple assigns a certain importance to matter. in consequence to assert his own independence.
use or leave unused as you like’’ In this way the reaction from rigid asceticism led to the opposite extreme of unrestrained licentiousness, both alike springing from the same false concep- tion of matter as the principle of evil.
Gnosticism, as defined by these characteristic features, has
Christi-
anity would naturally arouse it to unwonted activity, by lead-
obviously no necessary connexion with Christianity *.
ing men to dwell more earnestly on the nature and power of evil, and thus stimulating more systematic thought on the theological questions which had already arrested attention. After no long time Gnosticism would absorb into its system more or fewer Christian elements, or Christianity in some of its forms would receive a tinge from Gnosticism. But the thing itself had an independent root, and seems to have been
1 See for instance the description of the Carpocratians in Iren. i. 25. 3 56.» ii. 32. 1 8q., Hippol. Her. vii. 32, Epi- phan. Her. xxvii. 2 sq.; from which passages it appears that they justified their moral profligacy on the principle that the highest perfection consists in the most complete contempt of mun- dane things.
2 Tt will be seen from the descrip- tion in the text, that Gnosticism (as I have defined it) presupposes only a belief in one God, the absolute Being, as against the vulgar polytheism, All its essential features, as a speculative system, may be explained from this simple element of belief, without any intervention of specially Christian or even Jewish doctrine. Christianity added two new elements to it; (1) the idea of Redemption, (2) the person of Christ. To explain the former, and to
find a place for the latter, henceforth become prominent questions which press for solution; and Gnosticism in its several developments undergoes various modifications in the endeavour to solve them. Redemption must be set in some relation to the fundamen- tal Gnostic conception of the antagon- ism between God and matter; and Christ must have some place found for Him in the fundamental Gnostic doctrine of emanations.
If it be urged that there is no autho- rity for the name ‘ Gnostic’ as applied to these pre-Christian theosophists, I am not concerned to prove the con- trary, as my main position is not affected thereby. The term ‘ Gnostic’ is here used, only because no other is so convenient or so appropriate. See note 2, p. 81.
1
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.
prior in time.
two'.
contact with Christianity ; for we are concerned only with the
The probabilities of the case, and the scanty traditions of history, alike point to this independence of the If so, it is a matter of little moment at what precise time the name ‘Gnostic’ was adopted, whether before or after
growth and direction of thought which the name represents’.
79
If then Gnosticism was not an offspring of Christianity, Its alli-
but a direction of religious speculation which existed indepen-
dently, we are at liberty to entertain the question whether 1
with or prior to its alliance with Christianity.
There is at
least no obstacle which bars such an investigation at the out-
1 This question will require closer investigation when I come to discuss the genuineness of the Epistle to the Colossians. Meanwhile I content my- self with referring to Baur Christliche Gnosis p. 29 sq. and Lipsius Gnosti- cismus Ὁ. 230 sq. Both these writers concede, and indeed insist upon, the non-Christian basis of Gnosticism, at least so far as I have maintained it in the text. Thus for instance Baur says (p. 52), ‘Though Christian gnosis is the completion of gnosis, yet the Christian element in gnosis is not so essential as that gnosis cannot still be gnosis even without thiselement. But just as we can abstract it from the Christian element, so can we also gostill further and regard even the Jewish as not strictly an essential element of gnosis.’ Inanother work (Die drei ersten Jahrhunderte p. 167, 1st ed.) he ex- presses himself still more strongly to the same effect, but the expressions are modified in the second edition.
2 We may perhaps gather from the notices which are preserved that, though the substantive γνῶσις was used with more or less precision even before con- tact with Christianity to designate the superior illumination of these opinions,
the adjective γνωστικοί was not distinct- ly applied to those who maintained them till somewhat later. Still it is possible that pre-Christian Gnostics already so designated themselves. Hippolytus speaks of the Naassenes or Ophites as giving themselves this name; Her. v. 6 μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἐπε- κάλεσαν ἑαυτοὺς γνωστικούς, φάσκοντες μόνοι τὰ βάθη γινώσκειν ; comp. 88 8, 11. His language seems to imply (though it is not explicit) that they were the first to adopt the name. The Ophites were plainly among the earliest Gnostie,sects, as the heathen element is still predominant in their teaching, and their Christianity seems to have been a later graft on their pagan theo- sophy ; but at what stage in their development they adopted the name γνωστικοί does not appear. Irenzus (Her. i. 25. 6) speaks of the name ag affected especially by the Carpocra- tians. For the use of the substantive γνῶσις See 1 Cor. Vili. 1, xiii. 2, 8, τ Tim. vi. 20, and the note on Col. ii. 3: comp. Rey. ii. 24 οἵτινες οὐκ ἔγνωσαν τὰ βαθέα τοῦ Σατανᾶ, ὡς λέγουσιν (as explained by the passage already quoted from Hippol. Her. v. 6; see Galatians, Ῥ. 309, note 3).
ance with Judaism t before Christi-
did not form an alliance with Judaism, contemporaneously anity.
80
The three sects of the Jews.
Sadducee- ism, pure- ly nega- tive.
Pharisee- ism and Essenism compared.
Elusive
features of
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.
set. If this should prove to be the case, then we have a combination which prepares the way for the otherwise strange phenomena presented in the Epistle to the Colossians.
Those, who have sought analogies to the three Jewish sects among the philosophical schools of Greece and Rome, have com- pared the Sadducees to the Epicureans, the Pharisees to the Stoics, and the Essenes to the Pythagoreans. Like all historical parallels, this comparison is open to misapprehension: but, carefully guarded, the illustration is pertinent and instructive.
With the Sadducees we have no concern here. Whatever respect may be due to their attitude in the earlier stages of their history, at the Christian era at least they have ceased to deserve our sympathy; for their position has become mainly negative. They take their stand on denials—the denial of the existence of angels, the denial of the resurrection of the dead, the denial of a progressive development in the Jewish Church. In these negative tendencies, in the materialistic teaching of the sect, and in the moral consequences to which it led, a very rough resemblance to the Epicureans will appear’.
The two positive sects were the Pharisees and the Essenes. Both alike were strict observers of the ritual law; but, while the Pharisee was essentially practical, the tendency of the Essene was to mysticism ; while the Pharisee was a man of
the world, the Essene was a member of a brotherhood. In this —
respect the Stoic and the Pythagorean were the nearest counter- parts which the history of Greek philosophy and social life could offer. These analogies indeed are suggested by Josephus himself’.
While the portrait of the Pharisee is distinctly traced and
Essenism. easily recognised, this is not the case with the Essene. The
Essene is the great enigma of Hebrew history. Admired alike by Jew, by Heathen, and by Christian, he yet remains a dim vague outline, on which the highest subtlety of successive
1 The name LEpicureans seems to 2 For the Pharisees see Vit. 2 παρα- be applied to them evenin the Talmud; σπσπλήσιός ἐστι τῇ Tap’ Ἕλλησι Στωϊκῇ see Hisenmenger’s Entdecktes Juden- λεγομένῃ: for the Essenes, Ant. xv. ro. thum I. pp. 95, 6948q.; comp. Keim 4 διαίτῃ χρώμενον τῇ map “Ἕλλησιν ὑπὸ Geschichte Jesu von Nazara 1. p. 281. Πυθαγόρου καταδεδειγμένῃ.
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 81
critics has been employed to supply a substantial form and an adequate colouring. An ascetic mystical dreamy recluse, he seems too far removed from the hard experience of life to be eapable of realisation.
And yet by careful use of the existing materials the A suffici-
Σ Ξ 2 F tly dis- portrait of this sect may be so far restored, as to establish with eee Ἐπὶ
δι reasonable amount of probability the point with which alone nee we are here concerned. It will appear from the delineations attainable. of ancient writers, more especially of Philo and Josephus, that
the characteristic feature of Essenism was a particular direction
of mystic speculation, involving a rigid asceticism as its prac-
tical consequence. Following the definition of Gnosticism
which has been already given, we may not unfitly call this tendency Gnostic.
Having in this statement anticipated the results, I shall ΜῈ ἴον now endeavour to develope the main features of Essenism; Essenism. and, while doing so, I will ask my readers to bear in mind the portrait of the Colossian heresy in St Paul, and to mark the resemblances, as the enquiry proceeds’.
The Judaic element is especially prominent in the life and teaching of the sect. in his observance of the Mosaic ritual.
The Essene was exceptionally rigorous In his strict abstinence
1 The really important contempo- rary sources of information respecting the Essenes are Josrpuus, Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 2—13, Ant. xiii. 5. 9, xviii. 1. 5, Vit. 2 (with notices of individual Es- senes Bell. Jud. i. 3.5, ii. 7. 3, ii. 20. 4, i. 2. 1, Ant. xiii. 11. 2, XV. 10. 4, 5)$ and Pxino, Quod omnis probus liber § 12 sq. (π. p. 4578q.), Apol. pro Jud. (τ. p. 632 sq., a fragment quoted by Eusebius Prep. Evang. viii. 11). The account of the Therapeutes by the latter writer, de Vita Contemplativa (II. p. 471 sq.), must also be consulted, as describing a closely allied sect. To these should be added the short notice of Pury, Ν. H. v. 15. 17, as expressing the views of a Roman writer. His ac-
COL.
count, we may conjecture, was taken from Alexander Polyhistor, a contem- porary of Sulla, whom he mentions in his prefatory elenchus as one of his authorities for this 5th book, and who wrote a work On the Jews (Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 21, Ὁ. 396, Huseb. Prep. Ev. ix. 17). Significant men- tion of the Essenes is found also in the Christian Hecrsirpus (Huseb. H. E. iv. 22) and in the heathen Dion Curysostom (Synesius Dion 3, p. 39). EprpHanius (Her. pp. 28 sq., 40 Βα.) discusses two separate sects, which he calls Essenes and Osseans respectively. These are doubtless different names of the same persons, His account is, as usual, confused and inaccurate, but
6
82 THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.
Observ. from work on the sabbath he far surpassed all the other Jews, mete the He would not light a fire, would not move a vessel, would not law. perform even the most ordinary functions of life. The whole
day was given up to religious exercises and to exposition of the
Pp. 308q., 61 sq.; Borrazr Ueber den Orden der LEsster, Dresden 1849 ;
has a certain value. All other autho- ritiesaresecondary. Hipronyrus, Her.
ix. 18—28, follows Josephus (Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 28q.) almost exclusively. Ponr- pHyRy also (de Abstinentia, iv. 11 sq.) copies this same passage of Josephus, with a few unimportant exceptions probably taken from a lost work by the same author, πρὸς τοὺς “ENXnvas, which he mentions by name. EvsE- Bus (Prep. Evang. viii. 11 8q., 1X. 3) contents himself with quoting Philo and Porphyry. Sonus (Polyh. xxxv. g 54.) merely abstracts Pliny. ‘Tau- MUDICAL and RABBINICAL passages, sup- posed to refer to the Essenes, are col- lected by Frankel (see below); but the allusions are most uncertain (see below, p. 362 sq.). On the authorities for the history of the Essenes see W. Clemens in Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. 1869, p- 328 86.
The attack on the genuineness of the De Vit. Cont. by Gratz (11. p. 463 sq.) has been met by Zeller (Philos. Il. li. p. 255 sq.), whose refutation is complete. Yet Lucius, Hilgenfeld, and Schiirer reject it as spurious. The at- tack of Gratz (mr. p. 464) on the Quod omnis probus liber Zeller considers too frivolous to need refuting (ib. p. 235). A refutation will be found in Clemens (1.6. p. 340 Sq.).
Of modern writings relating to the Essenes the following may be espe- cially mentioned; BrtneRmann Ueber Essder τι. Therapeuten, Berlin 1821; GrroreR Philo τι. p. 299 sq.; Dayne Ersch αἰ. Gruber’s Encyklopidie s.v.; FRANKEL Zeitschrift fiir die religidsen Interessen des Judenthums 1846 p. 441 8q., Monatsschrift fiir Geschichte u. Wissenschaft des Judenthums 1853,
Ewaup Geschichte des Volkes Israel rv. Ῥ. 4208q., VII p. 153 8q.; RiTscHL Entstehung der Altkatholischen Kirche — Ῥ. 179 sq. (ed. 2, 1857), and Theolo- — gische Jahrbiicher 1855, Ὁ. 315 8-3 Jost Geschichte des Judenthums τ. p. 207 8q.; Graurz Geschichte der Juden UI. Ὁ. 79 8q-, 463 sq. (ed. 2, 1863); Hincrenretp Jiidische Apocalyptik Ὁ. 245 sq., and Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. ΣΧ. Pp. 97 84., XI. Pp. 343 8Q., XIV. pom 30 84.; Westcorr Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible 8. v.; Ginspura The Essenes, London 1864, and in Kitto’s Cyclopedia 8. v.; DERENBoURG L’ His- toire et la Géographie de la Palestine p- 166 sq., 460 sq.; Kuim Geschichte Jesu von Nazara 1. p. 282 sq.; Haus- RATH Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte I. p. 133 8q.; Lirstus Schenkel’s Bibel Lexikon 5. v.; HirzFreLp Geschichte des Volkes Israel 11. 368 sq., 3888q., 509 sq. (ed. 2, 1863); ZELLER Philo- sophie der Griechen mt. ii. p. 234 8q. (ed. 2, 1868); Lancen Judenthum in Palistina p. 190 8q.; Lowy Kritisch- talmudisches Lexicon s.v.; WEIs8 Zur Geschichte der jiidischen Tradition p. 120 8q.; Lucius Hssenismus etc. (1881); HincGenre.p Ketzergeschichte p. 87 sq. (1884); Scuiirer Gesch. d. Jiid. Volkes 1. p. 467 sq. (ed. 2, 1886),
1B. J. ii. 8. g puddooovrat... ταῖς, ἑβδόμασιν ἔργων ἐφάπτεσθαι διαφορώτατα Ιουδαίων ἁπάντων" οὐ μόνον γὰρ τροφὰς ἑαυτοῖς mpd ἡμέρας μιᾶς παρασκευάζουσιν, ὡς μηδὲ πῦρ ἐναύοιεν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ σκεῦός τι μετακινῆσαι θαρροῦσιν κιτ.λ. Hippolytus (Her. ix. 25) adds that some of them do not so much as leave their beds on this day.
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 83
Scriptures’. His respect for the law extended also to the law- giver. After God, the name of Moses was held im the highest reverence. He who blasphemed his name was punished with death”. In all these points the Essene was an exaggeration, almost a caricature, of the Pharisee.
So far the Essene has not departed from the principles of External normal Judaism; but here the divergence begins. In three sine = main points we trace the working of influences which must τοῖος have been derived from external sources.
1. To the legalism of the Pharisee, the Essene added ant. Rigid asceticism, which was peculiarly his own, and which in many eee respects contradicted the tenets of the other sect. The honour- *° able, and even exaggerated, estimate of marriage, which was characteristic of the Jew, and of the Pharisee as the typical Jew, found no favour with the Essene*. Marriage was to him an marriage, abomination. Those Essenes who lived together as members of an order, and in whom the principles of the sect. were carried to their logical consequences, eschewed it altogether. To secure the continuance of their brotherhood they adopted children, whom they brought up in the doctrines and practices of the community. There were others however who took a different view. They accepted marriage, as necessary for the preservation of the race. Yet even with them it seems to have been regard- ed only as an inevitable evil. They fenced it off by stringent
rules, demanding a three years’ probation and enjoining various
1 Philo Quod omn. prob. lib. § 12. Of the Therapeutes see Philo Vit. Cont. ὃ 3, 4
2B. J. 1. 6. § 9 σέβας δὲ μέγιστον παρ αὐτοῖς μετὰ τὸν Θεὸν τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ νομοθέτου, κἂν βλασφημήσῃ τις εἰς τοῦτον (i.e. τὸν νομοθέτην), κολάζεσθαι θανάτῳ: comp. § Io.
8.8, J.1. 6. § 2 γάμου μὲν ὑπεροψία παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς. .. τὰς τῶν γυναικῶν ἀσελ- yelas φυλασσόμενοι καὶ μηδεμίαν τηρεῖν πεπεισμένοι THY πρὸς ἕνα πίστιν, Ant. XVili. 1. 5; Philo Fragm. p. 633 γάμον παρῃτήσαντο μετὰ τοῦ διαφερόντως ἀσκεῖν
ἐγκράτειαν" ᾿Εσσαίων “γὰρ οὐδεὶς ἄγεται γυναῖκα, διότι φίλαυτον ἡ γυνὴ καὶ ζηλό- τυπον οὐ μετρίως καὶ δεινὸν ανδρὸς ἤθη παρασαλεῦσαι, with more to the same purpose. This peculiarity astonished the heathen Pliny, N. H. v. 15, ‘gens sola et in toto orbe preter ceteros mira, sine ulla femina, venere abdicata... In diem ex quo conyenarum turba renascitur large frequentantibus... Ita per seculorum millia (incredibile dictu) gens eterna est, in qua nemo nascitur. Tam feecunda illis aliorum vite peenitentia est.’
5--
84
meats and drinks
and oil for anointing.
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.
purificatory rites’. The conception of marriage, as quickening and educating the affections and thus exalting and refining human life, was wholly foreign to their minds. Woman was a mere instrument of temptation in their eyes, deceitful, faithless, selfish, jealous, misled and misleading by her passions.
But their ascetic tendencies did not stop here. Pharisee was very careful to observe the distinction of meats lawful and unlawful, as laid down by the Mosaic code, and even rendered these ordinances vexatious by minute definitions of But the Essene went far beyond him. He drank no wine, he did not touch animal food. His meal consisted of
Even this
his own.
a piece of bread and a single mess of vegetables.
Them
simple fare was prepared for him by special officers consecrated —
for the purpose, that it might be free from all contamination’. — Nay, so stringent were the rules of the order on this point,
that when an Essene was excommunicated, he often died of starvation, being bound by his oath not to take food prepared
by defiled hands, and thus being reduced to eat the very grass
of the field®.
Again, in hot climates oil for anointing the body is almost a necessary of life. stained. Even if they were accidentally smeared, they were careful at once to wash themselves, holding the mere touch to be a contamination *.
1 B. J. 1.¢.§ 13. Josephus speaks εὐτελῆ" καὶ ὄψον ἅλες, ods οἱ ἀβροδιαιτό-
From this too the Essenes strictly 80-
of these as ἕτερον ᾿Εσσηνῶν τάγμα, ὃ δί- αιταν μὲν καὶ ἔθη καὶ νόμιμα τοῖς ἄλλοις ὁμοφρονοῦν, διεστὸς δὲτῇ κατὰ γάμον δόξῃ- We may suppose that they correspond- ed to the third order of a Benedictine or Franciscan brotherhood; so that, living in the world, they would observe the rule up to a certain point, but would not be bound by vows of celibacy or subject to the more rigorous dis- cipline of the sect.
2 B. J. 1. 6. 8 5; see Philo’s account of the Therapeutes, Vit. Cont. ὃ 4 σι- τοῦνται δὲ πολυτελὲς οὐδέν, ἀλλὰ ἄρτον
τατοι παραρτύουσιν ὑσσώπῳ" ποτὸν ὕδωρ ναματιαῖον αὐτοῖς ἐστιν; and again more to the same effect in ὃ 9: and compare the Essene story of St James in Hege- sippus (Huseb. H. ΕἸ. 11. 23) οἶνον καὶ σίκερα οὐκ ἔπιεν, οὐδὲ ἔμψυχον ἔφαγε. Their abstention from animal food accounts for Porphyry’s giving them so prominent a place in his treatise: see Zeller, p. 243.
3 B.J.1.¢. § 8.
4B. J.1. 6. § 3 κηλῖδα δὲ ὑπολαμβά- vovot τὸ ἔλαιον K.T.A.; Hegesippus 1. 6. ἔλαιον οὐκ ἠλείψατο.
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 85
From these facts it seems clear that Essene abstinence was Underly-_ something more than the mere exaggeration of Pharisaic prin- Ξ of this ciples. The rigour of the Pharisee was based on his obligation of °*#s™- obedience to an absolute external law. The Essene introduced He condemned in any form the gratification
of the natural cravings, nor would he consent to regard it as
a new principle.
moral or immoral only according to the motive which suggested it or the consequences which flowed from it. It was in
itself an absolute evil. He sought to disengage himself, as far
as possible, from the conditions of physical life. In short, in
the asceticism of the Essene we seem to see the germ of that
Gnostic dualism which regards matter as the principle, or at
least the abode, of evil.
2. And, when we come to investigate the speculative tenets 2. Specu- of the sect, we shall find that the Essenes have diverged ae ὩΣ appreciably from the common type of Jewish orthodoxy.
(i) Attention was directed above to their respect for (i) Tend- Moses and the Mosaic law, which they shared in common with prea the Pharisee. But there was another side to their theological *™?- teaching. Though our information is somewhat defective, still in the scanty notices which are preserved we find sufficient indications that they had absorbed some foreign elements of religious thought into their system. Thus at day-break they addressed certain prayers, which had been handed down from their forefathers, to the Sun, ‘as if entreating him to rise’?
They were careful also to conceal and bury all polluting sub-
stances, so as not ‘to insult the rays of the god*.’ We can-
1 B.J.1.¢.§ 5 πρός ye μὴν τὸ θεῖον ἰδίως εὐσεβεῖς" πρὶν yap ἀνασχεῖν τὸν ἥλιον οὐδὲν φθέγγονται τῶν βεβήλων, πατρίους δέ τινας εἰς αὐτὸν εὐχάς, ὥσπερ ἱκετεύοντες ἀνατεῖλαι. Compare what Philo says of the Therapeutes, Vit. Cont. § 3 ἡλίου μὲν ἀνίσχοντος εὐημερίαν αἰτούμενοι τὴν ὄντως εὐημερίαν, φωτὸς οὐρανίου τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν ἀναπλησθῆναι, andid.§ τα. On the attempt of Frankel (Zeitschr. p. 458) to resolve this worship, which
Josephus states to be offered to the sun (els αὐτόν), into the ordinary prayers of the Pharisaic Jew at day-break, see the second dissertation on the Essenes. 2B, J.1. ὁ. ὃ 9 ὡς μὴ τὰς αὐγὰς ὑβρί- ζοιεν τοῦ θεοῦ. There can be no doubt, 1 think, that by rod θεοῦ is meant the ‘sun-god’; comp. Eur. Heracl. 749 θεοῦ φαεσίμβροτοι avyal, Ale. 722 τὸ φέγγος τοῦτο τοῦ θεοῦ, Appian Pref. 9 δυομένου τοῦ θεοῦ, Lib. 113 τοῦ θεοῦ
86
(ii) Resur- rection of the body denied.
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.
not indeed suppose that they regarded the sun as more than a symbol of the unseen power who gives light and life; but their outward demonstrations of reverence were sufficiently promi- nent to attach to them, or to a sect derived from them, the epithet of ‘Sun-worshippers', and some connexion with the characteristic feature of Parsee devotion at once suggests itself. The practice at all events stands in strong contrast to the denunciations of worship paid to the ‘hosts of heaven’ in the Hebrew prophets.
(ii) Nor again is it an insignificant fact that, while the Pharisee maintained the resurrection of the body as a cardinal article of his faith, the Essene restricted himself to a belief in The soul, he maintained, was con- Only when disengaged
the immortality of the soul. fined in the flesh, as in a prison-house. from these fetters would it be truly free. Then it would soar aloft, rejoicing in its newly attained liberty? This doctrine accords with the fundamental conception of the
malignity of matter.
περὶ δείλην ἑσπέραν ὄντος, Civ. iv. 79 δύνοντος ἄρτι τοῦ θεοῦ: comp. Herod. ii. 24. Dr Ginsburg has obliterated this very important touch by translating τὰς αὐγὰς τοῦ θεοῦ ‘the Divine rays’ (Hssenes p. 47). It is a significant fact that Hippolytus (Her. ix. 25) omits the words τοῦ θεοῦ, evidently regarding them as a stumbling-block. How Josephus expressed himself in the original He- brew of the Bellum Judaicum, it is vain to speculate: but the Greek trans- lation was authorised, if not made, by him.
1 Hpiphan. Her. xix. 2, xx. 3 ’Oo- onvol δὲ μετέστησαν ἀπὸ ᾿Ἰουδαϊσμοῦ els τὴν τῶν Σαμψαίων αἵρεσιν, 1111. 1, 2 Σαμ- ψαῖοι γὰρ ἑρμηνεύονται ᾿Ηλιακοί, from the Hebrew Wi’ ‘the sun.’ The historical connexion of the Sampseans with the Essenes is evident from these passages: though it is difficult to say what their precise relations to each
To those who held this conception a
other were. Sce below, p. 372.
2 B.J.1. 6. 8 τι καὶ γὰρ éppwra παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς nde ἡ δόξα, φθαρτὰ μὲν εἶναι τὰ σώματα καὶ τὴν ὕλην οὐ μόνιμον αὐτοῖς, τὰς δὲ ψυχὰς ἀθανάτους ἀεὶ διαμένειν ... ἐπειδὰν δὲ ἀνεθῶσι τῶν κατὰ σάρκα δεσ- μῶν, οἷα δὴ μακρᾶς δουλείας ἀπηλλαγ- μένας, τότε χαίρειν καὶ μετεώρους φέρεσ- θαι x.7.X. To this doctrine the teach- ing of the Pharisees stands in direct contrast; ib. § 13: comp. also Ant. ΣΙ els
Nothing can be more explicit than the language of Josephus. On theother hand Hippolytus (Her. ix. 27) says of them ὁμολογοῦσι yap καὶ τὴν σάρκα ἀναστήσεσθαι καὶ ἔσεσθαι ἀθάνατον ὃν τρόπον ἤδη ἀθάνατός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή κ.τ.λ.:; but his authority is worthless on this point, as he can have had no personal knowledge of the facts: see Zeller p. 251, note 2, Hilgenfeld takes a dif- ferent view; Zeitschr. X1v. p. 40.
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 87
resurrection of the body would be repulsive, as involving a perpetuation of evil.
(i) But they also separated themselves from the religious (iii) Pro- belief of the orthodox Jew in another respect, which would eerste While they sent gifts to the temple It would appear that the slaughter of animals was altogether forbidden
provoke more notice. at Jerusalem, they refused to offer sacrifices there’.
by their creed’, It is certain that they were afraid of con- tracting some ceremonial impurity by offering victims in the Meanwhile they had sacrifices, bloodless sacrifices, of They regarded their simple meals with their
temple. their own. accompanying prayers and thanksgiving, not only as devotional but even as sacrificial rites. Those who prepared and presided over these meals were their consecrated priests ’*.
(iv) In what other respects they may have departed from, (iv) Eso-
: teric doc- or added to, the normal creed of Judaism, we do not know. trine of
But it is expressly stated that, when a novice after passing 8s through the probationary stages was admitted to the full privi- leges of the order, the oath of admission bound him ‘ to conceal nothing from the members of the sect, and to report nothing concerning them to others, even though threatened with death; not to communicate any of their doctrines to anyone otherwise
than as he himself had received them; but to abstain from
robbery, and in like manner
1 Ant. xviii. τ. 5 εἰς δὲ τὸ ἱερὸν dva- Onward τε στέλλοντες θυσίας οὐκ ἐπιτε- λοῦσι διαφορότητι ἁγνειῶν, ds νομίζοιεν, καὶ 6¢ αὐτὸ εἰργόμενοι τοῦ κοινοῦ τεμενίσ- ματος ἐφ᾽ αὑτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσι. So Philo Quod omn. prob. lib. § 12 de- scribes them as οὐ ζῴα καταθύοντες ἀλλ᾽ ἱεροπρεπεῖς᾽ τὰς ἑαυτῶν διανοίας κατα- σκευάζειν ἀξιοῦντες.
2 The following considerations show that their abstention should probably be explained in this way: (1) Though the language of Josephus may be am- biguous, that of Philo is unequivocal on this point; (2) Their abstention
to guard carefully the books
from the temple-sacrifices cannot be considered apart from the fact that they ate no animal food: see above p. 86, note 2. (3) The Christianised Es- senes, or Ebionites, though strong Judaizers in many respects, yet dis- tinctly protested against the sacrifice of animals; see Clem. Hom. iii. 45, 52, and comp. Ritschl p.224. On this sub- ject see also Zeller p. 2428q., and my second dissertation.
3 Ant. xvill. 1. 5 ἱερεῖς re [χειρο- τονοῦσι] διὰ ποίησιν σίτου τε καὶ βρωμά- των, B. J. ii. 8. 5 προκατεύχεται δὲ ὁ ἱε- ρεὺς τῆς τροφῆς K.T.A.; See Ritschl Ρ.18:1.
88
(v) Specu- lations on God and Creation.
(vi) Magic- al charms.
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.
of their sect, and the names of the angels’ It may be reason- ably supposed that more lurks under this last expression than meets the ear. ‘This esoteric doctrine, relating to angelic beings, may have been another link which attached Essenism to the religion of Zoroaster*. At all events we seem to be justified in connecting it with the self-imposed service and worshipping of angels at Colossee: and we may well suspect that we have here a germ which was developed into the Gnostic doctrine of ceons or emanations.
(v) Ifso, it is not unconnected with another notice relating to Essene peculiarities. The Gnostic doctrine of intermediate beings between God and the world, as we have seen, was intimately connected with speculations respecting creation. Now we are specially informed that the Essenes, while leaving physical studies in general to speculative idlers (μετεωρο- λέσχαις), as being beyond the reach of human nature, yet excepted from their general condemnation that philosophy which treats of the existence of God and the generation of the universe *.
(vi) Mention has been made incidentally of certain secret books peculiar to the sect. The existence of such an apocryphal literature was a sure token of some abnormal development im
doctrine *. In the passage quoted it is mentioned in relation to
1B, J.1. 6. § 7 ὅρκους αὐτοῖς ὄμνυσι φρικώδεις...μήτε κρύψειν τι τοὺς aipe- τιστὰς μήτε ἑτέροις αὐτῶν τι μηνύσειν, καὶ ἂν μέχρι θανάτου τις βιάζηται. πρὸς τούτοις ὀμνύουσι μηδενὶ μὲν μεταδοῦναι τῶν δογμάτων ἑτέρως ἢ ὡς αὐτὸς μετέ- λαβεν" ἀφέξεσθαι δὲ λῃστείας καὶ συντη- ρήσειν ὁμοίως τά τε τῆς αἱρέσεως αὐτῶν βιβλία καὶ τὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων ὀνόματα. With this notice should be compared the Ebionite διαμαρτυρία, or protest of initiation, prefixed to the Clementine Homilies, which shows how closely the Christian Essenes followed the practice of their Jewish predecessors in this respect. See Zeller p. 254.
2 See the second dissertation.
3 Philo Omn. prob. lib. § 12 (p. 458) τὸ δὲ φυσικὸν ὡς μεῖζον ἢ κατὰ ἀνθρωπί- νην φύσιν μετεωρολέσχαις ἀπολιπόντες, πλὴν ὅσον αὐτοῦ περὶ ὑπάρξεως Θεοῦ καὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς γενέσεως φιλοσοφεῖται.
4 The word Apocrypha was used originally to designate the secret books which contained the esoteric doctrine of a sect. The secondary sense ‘spu- rious’ was derived from the general character of these writings, which were heretical, mostly Gnostic, forgeries. See the note on ἀπόκρυφοι below, ii. 3, and the discussion in Ignatius and
Polycarp 1. p. 337 54.
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.
some form of angelology. Elsewhere their skill in prediction, for which they were especially famous, is connected with the perusal of certain ‘sacred books, which however are not
described?
But more especially, we are told that the Essenes
studied with extraordinary diligence the writings of the ancients, selecting those especially which could be turned to profit for soul and body, and that from these they learnt the qualities of roots and the properties of stones*. This expres-
1B. J. ii. 8. 12 εἰσὶ δὲ ἐν αὐτοῖς ot Kal τὰ μέλλοντα προγινώσκειν ὑπισχνοῦν- ται, βίβλοις ἱεραῖς καὶ διαφόροις ἁγνείαις καὶ προφητῶν ἀποφθέγμασιν ἐμπαιδοτρι- βούμενοι" σπάνιον δέ, εἴποτε, ἐν ταῖς προ- αγορεύσεσιν ἀστοχήσουσιν. Dr Ginsburg (Ὁ. 49) translates βίβλοις ἱεραῖς “ the sacred Scripture,’ and προφητῶν ἀπο- φθέγμασιν ‘the sayings of the prophets’; but as the definite articles are wanting, the expressions cannot be so rendered, nor does there seem to be any refer- ence to the Canonical writings.
We learn from an anecdote in Ant. xiii. 11. 2, that the teachers of this sect communicated the art of predic- tion to their disciples by instruction. We may therefore conjecture that with the Essenes this acquisition was con- nected with magic or astrology. At all events it is not treated as a direct inspiration.
2B. J. ii. 8. 6 σπουδάζουσι δὲ ἐκτό- πως περὶ τὰ τῶν παλαιῶν συγγράμματα, μάλιστα τὰ πρὸς ὠφέλειαν ψυχῆς καὶ σώ- ματος ἐκλέγοντες" ἔνθεν αὐτοῖς πρὸς θερα- πείαν παθῶν ῥίζαι τε ἀλεξιτήριοι καὶ λίθων ἰδιότητες ἀνερευνῶνται. This passage might seem at first sight to refer simply to the medicinal qualities of vegetable and mineral substances; buta compari- son with another notice in Josephus in- vestsit with a different meaning. In Ant. Vili. 2, 5 he states that Solomon, having received by divine inspiration the art of defeating demons for the advantage and hesling of man (els ὠφέλειαν καὶ
θεραπείαν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις), composed and left behind him charms (ἐπῳδάς) by which diseases were allayed, and diverse kinds of exorcisms (τρόπους ἐξορκώσεων) by which demons were cast out. ‘This mode of healing,’ he adds, ‘is very powerful even to the present day’; and he then relates how, as he was credibly informed (ἱστόρησα), one of his coun- trymen, Eleazar by name, had healed several persons possessed by demons in the presence of Vespasian and his sons and a number of officers and com- mon soldiers. This he did by applying to the nose of the possessed his ring, which had concealed in it one of the roots which Solomon had directed to be used, and thus drawing out the demon through the nostrils of the person smelling it. At the same time he adjured the evil spirit not to re- turn, ‘making mention of Solomon and repeating the charms composed by him.’ On one occasion this E- leazar gave ocular proof that the de- mon was exorcized; and thus, adds Josephus, σαφὴς ἡ DoAoudvos καθίστατο σύνεσις καὶ σοφία. On these books re- lating to the occult arts and ascribed to Solomon see Fabricius Cod. Pseud. Vet. Test.1. p. 1036 sq., where many curious notices are gathered together. See especially Origen Jn Matth.Comm. XXXV. § 110 (I. p. 910), Pseudo-Just. Quest. 55.
This interpretation explains all the expressions in the passage. The λίθων
89
gO
3. Exclu- sive spirit of Essen- ism.
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.
sion, as illustrated by other notices, points clearly to the study of occult sciences, and recalls the alliance with the practice of magical arts, which was a distinguishing feature of Gnos- ticism, and is condemned by Christian teachers even in the heresies of the Apostolic age.
3. But the notice to which I have just alluded suggests a broader affinity with Gnosticism. Not only did the theo- logical speculations of the Essenes take a Gnostic turn, but they guarded their peculiar tenets with Gnostic reserve. They too had their esoteric doctrine which they looked upon as the exclusive possession of the privileged few; their ‘mysteries’ which it was a grievous offence to communicate to the un- initiated. This doctrine was contained, as we have seen, in an apocryphal literature. Their whole organisation was arranged so as to prevent the divulgence of its secrets to those without. The long period of noviciate, the careful rites of initiation, the distinction of the several orders’ in the community, the solemn oaths by which they bound their members, were so many safeguards against a betrayal of this precious deposit, which
ἰδιότητες naturally points to the use of | 19 and elsewhere, referring to magical
charms or amulets, as may be seen e.g. from the treatise, Damigeron de Lapi- dibus, printed in the Spicil. Solemn. 111. p- 3248q.: comp. King Antique Gems Sect. rv, Gnostics and their Remains. The reference to ‘the books of the an- cients’ thus finds an adequate expla- nation, On the other hand the only expression which seemed to militate against this view, ἀλεξιτήριοι ῥίζαι, is justified by the story in the Antiqui- ties; comp. also Clem. Hom. viii. 14. It should be added also that Hippolytus (Her. ix. 22) paraphrases the language of Josephus so as to give it this sense ; πάνυ δὲ περιέργως ἔχουσι περὶ βοτάνας καὶ λίθους, περιεργότεροι ὄντες πρὸς τὰς τούτων ἐνεργείας, φάσκοντες μὴ μάτην ταῦτα γενονέναι. The sense which πε- ρίεργος (‘curiosus’) bears in Acts xix.
arts, illustrates its use here.
Thus these Essenes were dealers in charms, rather than physicians, And yet it is quite possible that along with this practice of the occult sciences they studied the healing art in its nobler forms. The works of Alexander of Tralles, an eminent ancient physician, constantly recommend the use of such charms, of which some obviously come from a Jewish source and not impro- bably may have been taken from these Solomonian books to which Josephus refers, A number of passages from this and other writers, specifying charms of various kinds, are given in Becker and Marquardt Rom. Alterth. Iv. p. 116sq. See also Spencer’s note on Orig. c. Cels. p. 17 sq.
1 See especially B. J. ii. 8. 7, 10.
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.
they held to be restricted to the inmost circle of the brother- hood.
In selecting these details I have not attempted to give a finished portrait of Essenism. From this point of view the de- lineation would be imperfect and misleading: for I have left out of sight the nobler features of the sect, their courageous en- durance, their simple piety, their brotherly love. My object was solely to call attention to those features which distinguish it from the normal type of Judaism, and seem to justify the
ΟΙ
attribution of Gnostic influences. And here it has been seen The three
that the three characteristics, which were singled out above as
notes of Gnostic-
distinctive of Gnosticism, reappear in the Essenes; though it pre in Θ
has been convenient to consider them in the reversed order. Essenes.
This Jewish sect exhibits the same exclusiveness in the com- munication of its doctrines. Its theological speculations take the same direction, dwelling on the mysteries of creation, regarding matter as the abode of evil, and postulating certain intermediate spiritual agencies as necessary links of communi- cation between heaven and earth. And lastly, its speculative opinions involve the same ethical conclusions, and lead in like manner to a rigid asceticism. If the notices relating to these points do not always explain themselves, yet read in
the light of the heresies of the Apostolic age and in that of
subsequent Judzeo-Gnostic Christianity, their bearing seems to be distinct enough; so that we should not be far wrong, if we were to designate Essenism as Gnostic Judaism’.
But the Essenes of whom historical notices are preserved How
were inhabitants of the Holy Land. Their monasteries were ae ae
situated on the shores of the Dead Sea. We are told indeed. Essenes ? dispersed?
that the sect was not confined to any one place, and that
1 ]T have said nothing of the Kab- to separate these from later additions bala, as a development of Jewish or to assign to them even an approxi-
thought illustrating the Colossian he- resy: because the books containing the Kabbalistic speculations are com- paratively recent, and if they contain ancient elements, it seems impossible
mate date. The Kabbalistic doctrine however will serve to show to what extent Judaism may be developed in the direction of speculative mystic- ism.
Do they appear in Asia Minor?
How the term Es- sene is to be under- stood.
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.
members of the order were found in great numbers in divers cities and villages’. But Judzea in one notice, Palestine and Syria in another, are especially named as the localities of the Essene settlements*. Have we any reason to suppose that they were represented among the Jews of the Dispersion? In Egypt indeed we find ourselves confronted with a similar ascetic sect, the Therapeutes, who may perhaps have had an inde- pendent origin, but who nevertheless exhibit substantially the But the Disper-
sion of Egypt, it may be argued, was exceptional; and we might
same type of Jewish thought and practice ὃ
expect to find here organisations and developments of Judaism hardly less marked and various than in the mother country. What ground have we for assuming the existence of this type in Asia Minor? Do we meet with any traces of it in the cities of the Lycus, or in proconsular Asia generally, which would justify the opinion that it might make its influence felt in the Christian communities of that district ?
Now it has been shown that the colonies of the Jews in this neighbourhood were populous and influential*; and it might be argued with great probability that among these large numbers Essene Judaism could not be unrepresented. But indeed throughout this investigation, when I speak of the Judaism in the Colossian Church as Essene, I do not assume a precise identity of origin, but only an essential
1 Philo Fragm. Ὁ. 632 οἰκοῦσι δὲ πολλὰς μὲν πόλεις τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας, πολλὰς δὲ κώμας, καὶ μεγάλους καὶ πολυανθρώ- mous ὁμίλους, Joseph. 8. J. 11. 8. 4 μία δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτῶν πόλις, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἐκάστῃ κατοικοῦσι πολλοί. On the notices of the settlements and dispersion of the Essenes see Zeller p. 239.
2 Philo names Jude@a in Fragm. p. 632; Palestine and Syria in Quod omn. prob. lib. 12, p. 457. Their chief set- tlements were in the neighbourhood of the Dead Sea. This fact is men- tioned by the heathen writers Pliny (N. H. v. 15) and Dion Chrysostom (Synesius Dio 3). The name of the
‘Essene gate’ at Jerusalem (B. J. v. 4. 2) seems to point to some establish- ment of the order close to the walls of that city.
ὃ They are only known to us from Philo’s treatise de Vita Contemplativa. Their settlements were on the shores of the Mareotic lake near Alexandria. Unlike the Essenes, they were not gathered together in convents as mem- bers of a fraternity, but lived apart as anchorites, though in the same neigh- bourhood. In other respects their tenets and practices were very similar to those of the Essenes.
4 See above p. 19 sq.
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 93
affinity of type, with the Essenes of the mother country. As
a matter of history, it may or may not have sprung from the
colonies on the shores of the Dead Sea; but as this can neither
be proved nor disproved, so also it is immaterial to my main
purpose. All along its frontier, wherever Judaism became Probabili-
ties of the
enamoured of and was wedded to Oriental mysticism, the case.
same union would produce substantially the same results.
In a country where Phrygia, Persia, Syria, all in turn had
moulded religious thought, it would be strange indeed if
Judaism entirely escaped these influences. Nor, as a matter of
fact, are indications wanting to show that it was not unaffected
by them. If the traces are few, they are at least as numerous Direct
and as clear as with our defective information on the whole ra
subject we have any right to expect in this particular instance. When St Paul visits Ephesus, he comes in contact with St Paul at
certain strolling Jews, exorcists, who attempt to cast out evil loa
spirits, Connecting this fact with the notices of Josephus, from 57:
which we infer that exorcisms of this kind were especially Exorcisms
practised by the Essenes*, we seem to have an indication of ae
their presence in the capital of proconsular Asia. If so, it is
a significant fact that in their exorcisms they employed the
name of our Lord: for then we must regard this as the earliest
notice of those overtures of alliance on the part of Essenism,
which involved such important consequences in the subse-
quent history of the Church*. It is also worth observing,
that the next incident in St Luke’s narrative is the burn-
ing of their eae books by those whom St Paul converted ie by
on this occasion*, As Jews are especially mentioned among
these converts, and as books of charms are ascribed to the
Essenes by Josephus, the two incidents, standing in this close
1 Acts xix. 13 τῶν περιερχομένων in this passage: see Wetstein ad loc.,
Ἰουδαίων ἐξορκιστῶν.
2 See above, p. 89, note 2.
3 On the latter contact of Essenism with Christianity, see the third disser- tation, and Galatians p. 322 sq.
4 There is doubtless a reference to the charms called ᾿Εφέσια γράμματα
and the references in Becker and Mar- quardt Rom. Alterth. Iv. p. 123 8q. But this supposition does not exclude the Jews from a share in these magical arts, while the context points to some such participation.
94
Sibylline Oracle A.D. 8o.
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.
connexion, throw great light on the type of Judaism which thus appears at Ephesus’.
Somewhat later we have another notice which bears in The Sibylline Oracle, which forms the fourth book in the existing collection, is discovered by internal
the same direction. evidence to have been written about A.D. 80%. It is plainly a product of Judaism, but its Judaism does not belong to the normal Pharisaic type. With Essenism it rejects sacri- fices, even regarding the shedding of blood as a pollution ὃ, and with Essenism also it inculcates the duty of frequent washings *. Yet from other indications we are led to the con- clusion, that this poem was not written in the interests of
Essenism properly so called, but represents some allied though
1 Tecan only regard it as an accidental coincidence that the epulones of the Ephesian Artemis were called Essenes, Pausan. vill, 13. 1 τοὺς τῇ ᾿Αρτέμιδι ἱστιάτορας τῇ Eqeola γινομένους, καλου- μένους δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν πολιτῶν ᾿Εσσῆνας: see Guhl Ephesiaca τοῦ 84ᾳβ. The Εἰ μηιοῖ. Magn. has ᾿Εσσήν" ὁ βασιλεὺς κατὰ ’Ede- σίους, and adds several absurd deriva- tions of the word. In the sense of ‘a king’ it is used by Callimachus Hymn. Jov. 66 οὔ σε θεῶν ἐσσῆνα πάλιν θέσαν. It is probably not a Greek word, as other terms connected with the worship of the Ephesian Artemis (e.g. μεγαβυζος, a Persian word) point to an oriental or at least a non-Greek origin; and some have derived it trom the Ara- maic ἢ ὉΠ chasin ‘strong’ or ‘ power- ful.’ But there is no sufficient ground for connecting it directly with the name of the sect ’Eoonvol or ᾿Εσσαῖοι, as some writers are disposed to do (e.g. Spanheim on Callim. 1. ¢., Creuzer Symbolik tv. pp. 347, 349); though this view is favoured by the fact that certain ascetic practices were enjoined on these pagan ‘Essenes.’
2 Its date is fixed by the following allusions. The temple at Jerusalem
has been destroyed by Titus (vv. 122 sq.), and the cities of Campania have been overwhelmed in fire and ashes (vv. 127 584). Nero has disappeared and his disappearance has been fol- lowed by bloody contests in Rome (vv. 116 sq.); but his return is still ex- pected (vv. 134 sq.).
3 See vv. 27—30 of νηοὺς μὲν ἅπαντας ἀποστρέψουσιν ἰδόντες, καὶ βωμοὺς, εἰκαῖα λίθων ἱδρύματα κωφών αἵμασιν ἐμψύχων μεμιασμένα καὶ θυσίῃσι τετραπόδων K.T.r. In an earlier passage vy. 8 sq. it is said of God, οὔτε γὰρ οἶκον ἔχει ναῷ λίθον ἱδρυθέντα κωφότατον νωδόν τε, βροτῶν πολναλγέα λώβην.
4 ver. 160 ἐν ποταμοῖς λούσασθε ὅλον Another point of con- tact with the Essenes is the great stress on prayers before meals, ver. 26 εὐλογέοντες πρὶν πιέειν φαγέειν Te. Hwald (Sibyll. Biicher p. 46) points also to the prominence of the words εὐσεβεῖν, εὐσεβής, εὐσεβία (vv. 26, 35, 42, 45, 133, 148, 151, 162, 165, 181, 183) to designate the elect of God, as tending in the same direction. The force of this latter argument will depend mainly on the derivation which is given to the name Essene. See below, p. 347 56.
δέμας ἀενάοισι.
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.
independent development of Judaism. In some respects at all events its language seems quite inconsistent with the purer
type of Essenism*.
of its locality there can hardly be a doubt.
But its general tendency is clear: and
The affairs of
Asia Minor occupy a disproportionate space in the poet's de-
scription of the past and vision of the future.
The cities of
the Meander and its neighbourhood, among these Laodicea,
are mentioned with emphasis’.
Θ᾽
And certainly the moral and intellectual atmosphere would Phrygia
not be unfavourable to the growth of such a plant.
The same
district, which in speculative philosophy had produced a Thales and a Heraclitus®, had developed in popular religion the wor- religion. ship of the Phrygian Cybele and Sabazius and of the Ephe-
sian Artemis‘,
religious fanaticism, all had their home here.
Cosmological speculation, mystic theosophy,
Associated with
Judaism or with Christianity the natural temperament and the intellectual bias of the people would take a new directior ;
1 Thus for instance, Ewaid (1. ¢., p. 47) points to the tacit approval of mar- riage in ver. 33. [hardly think however that this passage, which merely con- demns adultery, can be taken to imply so much. More irreconcilable with pure Essenism is the belief in the resur- rection of the body and the future life on earth, which is maintained in vv. 176 sq.; though Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr. XIV. p. 49) does not recognise the diffi- culty. See above p. 88. This Sibyl- line writer was perhaps rather a He- merobaptist than an Essene, On the relation of the Hemerobaptists and Kssenes see the third dissertation. Alexandre, Orac. Sibyll. (11. p. 323), says of this Sibylline Oracle, ‘Ipse liber haud dubie Christianus est,’ but there is nothing distinctly Christian in its teaching,
2 vy. 106 Sq., 145 Sq.; See above p. 40, note 2, It begins κλῦθι λεὼς ᾿Ασίης pe- γαλαυχέος Εἰὐρώπης τε.
85. The exceptional activity of the
forces of nature in these districts of Asia Minor may have directed the speculations of the Ionie school towards physics, and more especially towards cosmogony. In Heraclitus there is also a strong mystical element. But besides such broader affinities, I ven- ture to call attention to special dicta of the two philosophers mentioned in the text, which curiously recall the tenets οἱ the Judzo-Gnostic teachers. Thales declared (Diog. Laert. i. 27) τὸν κόσμον ἔμψυχον καὶ δαιμόνων πλήρη, OF, as re- ported by Aristotle (de An. i. 5, p. 411), πάντα πλήρη θεῶν εἶναι. In a recorded saying of Heraclitus we have the very language of a Gnostic teacher; Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 13, p. 699, τὰ μὲν τῆς γνώσιος βάθη κρύπτειν ἀπιστίη ἀγαθή, καθ’ Ἡράκλειτον: ἀπιστίη yap διαφυγγάνει τὸ μὴ γινώσκεσθαι. See above pp. 75, 90.
4 For the characteristic features of Phrygian religious worship see Steiger Kolosser p. 70 sq.
and Asia congenial
Previous results summed
up.
Is the Colossian heresy Gnostic ?
Three notes of Gnosti- cism,
1. Intel- lectual exclusive- ness.
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.
but the old type would not be altogether obliterated. Phrygia She was the mother of Montanist enthusiasm’, and the foster-mother of
reared the hybrid monstrosities of Ophitism’. Novatian rigorism®, The syncretist, the mystic, the devotee, the puritan, would find a congenial climate in these regions of Asia Minor.
It has thus been shown first, that Essene Judaism was Gnostic in its character; and secondly, that this type of Jewish thought and practice had established itself in the Apostolic age in those parts of Asia Minor with which we are more directly It now remains to examine the heresy of the Colossian Church more nearly, and to see whether it deserves the name, which provisionally was given to it, of Gnostic Its Judaism all will allow. Its claim to be regarded as Gnostic will require a closer scrutiny. And in conducting this examination, it will be convenient to take the three notes of Gnosticism which have been already laid down, and to enquire how far it satisties these tests.
1. It has been pointed out that Gnosticism strove to esta- blish, or rather to preserve, an intellectual oligarchy in religion.
concerned,
Judaism.
It had its hidden wisdom, its exclusive mysteries, its privileged
class.
Now I think it will be evident, that St Paul in this epistle
1 The prominence, which the Phry- gian mysteries and Phrygian rites held in the syncretism of the Ophites, is clear from the account of Hippolytus Her.v. 754. Indeed Phrygia appears to have been the proper home of Ophi- tism. Yet the admixture of Judaic elements is not less obvious, as the name Naassene, derived from the He- brew word for a serpent, shows.
2 The name, by which the Mon- tanists were commonly known in the early ages, was the sect of the ‘Phry- gians’; Clem. Strom. vii. 17, p. 900 αἱ δὲ [τῶν αἱρέσεων] ἀπὸ ἔθνους [προσαγο- ρεύονται], ὡς ἡ τῶν Φρυγῶν (comp. Eus.
H. Ε. iv. 27, v. τό, Hipp. Her. viii. 19, X. 25). From οἱ (or ἡ) κατὰ Ppvyds (Eus. H. Ε. ii. 25, v. τό, 18, vi. 20) comes the solcecistic Latin name Cata- phryges.
3 Socrates (iv. 28) accounts for the spread of Novatianism in Phrygia by the σωφροσύνη of the Phrygian temper. If so, it is a striking testimony to the power of Christianity, that under its influence the religious enthusiasm of the Phrygians should have taken this direction, and that they should have exchanged the fanatical orgiasm of their heathen worship for the rigid puritanism of the Novatianist.
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 97
feels himself challenged to contend for the universality of the st Paul This indeed is a characteristic feature of the Apostle’s j., fous
Gospel. teaching at all times, and holds an equally prominent place in rae the epistles of an earlier date. But the point to be observed is, Gospel, that the Apostle, in maintaining this doctrine, has changed the
mode of his defence ; and this fact suggests that there has been
a change in the direction of the attack. It is no longer against national exclusiveness, but against intellectual exclusiveness,
that he contends. His adversaries do not now plead ceremonial restrictions, or at least do not plead these alone: but they erect
an artificial barrier of spiritual privilege, even more fatal to
the universal claims of the Gospel, because more specious and
more insidious. It is not now against the Jew as such, but
against the Jew become Gnostic, that he fights the battle of liberty. In other words; it is not against Christian Pharisaism
but against Christian Essenism that he defends his position.
Only in the light of such an antagonism can we understand the emphatic iteration with which he claims to ‘warn every man
and teach every man in every wisdom, that he may present
every man perfect in Christ Jesus’’ It will be remembered against that ‘wisdom’ in Gnostic teaching was the exclusive possession of OES “ the few; it will not be forgotten that ‘perfection’ was the term "πὲ δε especially applied in their language to this privileged minority, intellect, as contradistinguished from the common herd of believers;
and thus it will be readily understood why St Paul should go
on to say that this universality of the Gospel is the one object
of his contention, to which all the energies of his life are directed, and having done so, should express his intense anxiety
for the Churches of Colossze and the neighbourhood, lest they
should be led astray by a spurious wisdom to desert the true
knowledge*. This danger also will enable us to appreciate a 8 2 pp
1 1, 28 νουθετοῦντες πάντα ἄνθρωπον καὶ διδάσκοντες πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ ἵνα παραστήσωμεν πάντα ἄνθρωπον τέλειον ἐν Χριστῷ κιτ.λ. The reiteration has offended the scribes; and the first πάντα ἄνθρωπον is omitted
COL.
in some copies, the second in others. For τέλειον see the note on the passage.
2 The connexion of the sentences should be carefully observed. After the passage quoted in the last note comes the asseveration that this is
i
98
He con- trasts the true wis- dom with
the false, /
—
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.
novel feature in another passage of the epistle. While dwelling —
on the obliteration of all distinctions in Christ, he repeats his earlier contrasts, ‘Greek and Jew, ‘circumcision and uncircum- cision,’ ‘bondslave and free’; but to these he adds new words which at once give a wider scope and a more immediate appli- cation to the lesson. In Christ the existence of ‘barbarian’ and even ‘Scythian,’ the lowest type of barbarian, is extinguished’. As culture, civilisation, philosophy, knowledge, are no conditions of acceptance, so neither is their absence any disqualification in the believer. The aristocracy of intellectual discernment, which Gnosticism upheld in religion, is abhorrent to the first principles of the Gospel.
Hence also must be explained the frequent occurrence οὗ
the words ‘wisdom’ (σοφία), ‘intelligence’ (σύνεσις), ‘knowledge’ (γνῶσις), ‘perfect knowledge’ (ἐπέγνωσις), in this epistle. St Paul takes up the language of his opponents, and translates it into a higher sphere. The false teachers put forward a ‘ philo- sophy, but it was only an empty deceit, only a plausible display of false reasoning’. They pretended ‘wisdom, but it was merely the profession, not the reality*. Against these pretentions the Apostle sets the true wisdom of the Gospel. On its wealth, its fulness, its perfection, he is never tired of dwelling’. The true wisdom, he would argue, is essentially spiritual and yet essentially definite ; while the false 1s argumentative, is specu-
Σκύθης. There is nothing correspond- ing to this in the parallel passage, Gal. iii. 28.
2 Tor copia see i. 9, 28, li. 3, 111. 16, iv. 5; for σύνεσις i. g, ii. 2; for γνῶσις
the one object of the Apostle’s preach- ing (i. 29) εἰς ὃ καὶ κοπιῶ x.7.d.; then the expression of concern on behalf of the Colossians (ii. 1) θέλω yap ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι ἡλίκον ἀγῶνα ἔχω ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν
κιτολο; then the desire that they may be brought (ii. 2) εἰς πᾶν πλοῦτος τῆς πληροφορίας τῆς συνέσεως, els ἐπί- γνῶωσιν τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ ; then the definition of this mystery (ii. 2, 3), Χριστοῦ ἐν ᾧ εἰσὶν πάντες ol θησαυροὶ k.7.\.; then the warning against the false teachers (ii. 4) τοῦτο λέγω ἵνα μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς παραλογίζηται K.T.r.
1 Col. iii, rx after περιτομὴ καὶ dxpoBvorla the Apostle adds βάρβαρος,
li, 3; for ἐπίγνωσις i. 9, το, ii. 2, iii. to.
3 ii. 4 πιθανολογία, ii. 8 κενὴ ἀπάτη.
4 ii, 23 λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας͵ where the μὲν suggests the contrast of the suppressed clause.
5 e.g. i. 9, 28, ill, τό ἐν πάσῃ copia; li. 2 τῆς πληροφορίας. For the ‘wealth’ of this knowledge compare i. 27, li. 2, iii, τό; and see above
Ρ. 44:
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 99
lative, is vague and dreamy’. Again they had their rites of initiation. St Paul contrasts with these the one universal, com- papain prehensive mystery’, the knowledge of God in Christ. This χα ν mystery is complete in itself: it contains ‘all the treasures of aes wisdom and of knowledge hidden’ in it®, Moreover it is offered to all without distinction: though once hidden, its revelation is unrestricted, except by the waywardness and disobedience of men. The esoteric spirit of Gnosticism finds no countenance in the Apostle’s teaching.
2. From the informing spirit of Gnosticism we turn to the 2. Specu-
1 atl speculative tenets—the cosmogony and the theology of the Geet Gnostic. pace
And here too the affinities to Gnosticism reveal themselves theology. in the Colossian heresy. We cannot fail to observe that the Apostle has in view the doctrine of intermediate agencies, re~ St Paul garded as instruments in the credtion and government of the aac ΤΣ world. Though this tenet is not distinctly mentioned, it is eee ὅς tacitly assumed in the teaching which St Paul opposes to it. Against the philosophy of successive evolutions from the Divine nature, angelic mediators forming the successive links in the chain which binds the finite to the Infinite, he sets the doctrine of the one Eternal Son, the Word of God begotten before the setting — worlds*. The angelology of the heretics had a twofold bearing ; pea it was intimately connected at once with cosmogony and with ee religion. Correspondingly St Paul represents the mediatorial carnate, function of Christ as twofold: it is exercised in the natural | creation, and it is exercised in the spiritual creation. In both these spheres His initiative is absolute, His control is universal, His action is complete. By His agency the world of matter was
created and is sustained. He is at once the beginning and the
eal. 4, 18. sages are i. 15—20, ii. g—15. They
31. 26, 27, ii. 2, iv. 3. will be found to justify the statements
3 ii. 2 ἐν ᾧ εἰσὶν πάντες of θησαυροὶ in this and the following paragraphs Ths σοφίας καὶ τῆς γνώσεως ἀπόκρνφοι. οἵ the text. For the meaning of in- For the meaning of ἀπόκρυφοι see above dividual expressions see the notes on p. 88, and the note on the passage. the passages.
4 The two great Christological pas- Lae
100
as the re- conciler of heaven and earth.
His rela- tions to (1) Deity ; as God mani- fested.
The plero} ma resides in Him.
f
(2) Created things; as absolute Lord.
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.
end of the material universe; ‘All things have been created | through Him and unto Him.’ Nor is His office in the spiritual world less complete. In the Church, as in the Universe, He is sole, absolute, supreme ; the primary source from which all life proceeds and the ultimate arbiter in whom all feuds are reconciled.
On the one hand, in relation to Deity, He is the visible image of the invisible God. He is not only the chief manifes- tation of the Divine nature: He exhausts the Godhead mani- fested. In Him resides the totality of the Divine powers and attributes. For this totality Gnostic teachers had a technical term, the pleroma or plenitude’. From the pleroma they sup- posed that all those agencies issued, through which God has at any time exerted His power in creation, or manifested His will through revelation. These mediatorial beings would retain more or less of its influence, according as they claimed direct parentage from it or traced their descent through successive evolutions, But in all cases this pleroma was distributed, diluted, transformed and darkened by foreign admixture. They were only partial and blurred images, often deceptive caricatures, of their original, broken lights of the great central Light. It is not improbable that, like later speculators of the same school, they found a place
somewhere or other in their genealogy of spiritual beings for the Christ. If so, St Paul’s language becomes doubly signifi- cant. But this hypothesis is not needed to explain its reference.
In contrast to their doctrine, he asserts and repeats the asser- tion, that the pleroma abides absolutely and wholly in Christ as the Word of God*, The entire light is concentrated in Him.
Hence it follows that, as regards created things, His supre- macy must be absolute. In heaven as in earth, over things immaterial as over things material, He is king. Speculations on the nature of intermediate spiritual agencies—their names, thei ranks, their offices—were rife in the schools of Judzo-Gnostic
1 See the detached note on πλή- πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι, ii. g ἐν αὐτῷ κα- ρωμα. τοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σω- 5.1, 19 ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησεν πάν τὸ ματικώς.
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. IOI
thought. ‘Thrones, dominations, princedoms, virtues, powers’— these formed part of the spiritual nomenclature which they had invented to describe different grades of angelic mediators. Without entering into these speculations, the Apostle asserts that Christ is Lord of all, the highest and the lowest, what- ever rank they may hold and by whatever name they are called’, for they are parts of creation and He is the source of creation. Through Him they became, and unto Him they tend.
Hence the worship of angels, which the false teachers incul- Angelola- try is therefore
angelolatry it is not difficult to imagine. There was a show of ae
cated, was utterly wrong in principie. The motive of this
humility’, for there was a confession of weakness, in this sub- servience to inferior mediatorial agencies. It was held feasible to grasp at the lower links of the chain which bound earth to heaven, when heaven itself seemed far beyond the reach of man. The successive grades of intermediate beings were as successive steps, by which man might mount the ladder leading up to the throne of God. This carefully woven web of sophistry the Apostle tears to shreds. The doctrine of the false teachers was based on confident assumptions respecting angelic beings of whom they could know nothing. It was moreover a denial of Christ’s twofold personality and His mediatorial office. It follows from the true conception of as a denial
f Hi : Christ’s Person, that He and He alone can bridge over the eae chasm between earth and heaven; for He is at once the lowest #°™
and the highest. He raises up man to God, for He brings down God to man. Thus the chain is reduced to a single link, this link being the Word made flesh. As the pleroma resides in Him, so is it communicated to us through Him®*. To sub- stitute allegiance to any other spiritual mediator is to sever
1 See especially i. τό etre θρόνοι Compare also ii. 10 ἣ κεφαλὴ πάσης εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι. ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας, and ii. 15 ἀπεκδυσά- k.7.., compared with the parallel pas- μενος τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας κ.τ.λ. sage in Eph. i. 21 ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς 2 ἢ, 18 θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ καὶ καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ κυριότητος θρησκείᾳ τῶν ἀγγέλων k.T.X. καὶ παντὸς ὀνόματος ὀνομαζομένου κ.τ.λ. 3 ii. 10; comp. i. g.
102
The Apo- stle’s prac- tical infer- ence.
3. Moral results of Gnostic doctrine.
Asceticism of the Co- lossian heresy
THK COLOSSIAN HERESY.
the connexion of the limbs with the Head, which is the centre of life and the mainspring of all energy throughout the body’.
Hence follows the practical conclusion, that, whatever is done, must be done in the name of the Lord’. Wives must submit to their husbands ‘in the Lord’: children must obey their parents ‘in the Lord’: servants must work for their mas- ters as working ‘unto the Lord*” This iteration, ‘in the Lord,’ ‘unto the Lord,’ is not an irrelevant form of words; but arises as an immediate inference from the main idea which under- lies the doctrinal portion of the epistle.
3. It has been shown that the speculative tenets of Gnos- ticism might lead (and as a matter of fact we know that they did lead) to either of two practical extremes, to rigid asceticism or to unbridled license. The latter alternative ap- pears to some extent in the heresy of the Pastoral Epistles ἡ and still more plainly in those of the Catholic Epistles’ and the Apocalypse®. It is constantly urged by Catholic writers as a reproach against later Gnostic sects’.
But the former and nobler extreme was the first impulse of the Gnostic. To escape from the infection of evil by escap- ing from the domination of matter was his chief anxiety. This appears very plainly in the Colossian heresy. Though the pro- hibitions to which the Apostle alludes might be explained in part by the ordinances of the Mosaic ritual, this explanation will not cover all the facts. Thus for instance drinks are mentioned as well as meats*, though on the former the law of Moses is silent. Thus again the rigorous denunciation, ‘ Touch not, taste not, handle not®” seems to go very far beyond the Levitical enactments. And moreover the motive of these pro-
1 ii. 18. iv. 2 the ascetic tendency still pre- Paths yp dominates. 3 iii. 18, 20, 23. 5 2 Pet. ii. το sq., Jude 8. 4 At least in 2 Tim. iii. 1—7, where, § Apoc. ii. 14, 20—22. though the most monstrous develop- 7 See the notes on Clem. Rom. Ep.
ments of the evil were still future, ii. ὃ 9. the Apostle’s language implies that it 8 ii. 16. had already begun. On the other hand 9 ii, a1. in the picture of the heresy in 1 Tim.
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 103
hibitions is Essene rather than Pharisaic, Gnostic rather than hot ex- Jewish. These severities of discipline were intended ‘to check pee by indulgence of the flesh*’ They professed to treat the body *™- with entire disregard, to ignore its cravings and to deny its
wants. In short they betray a strong ascetic tendency’, of
which normal Judaism, as represented by the Pharisee, offers
no explanation.
And St Paul’s answer points to the same inference. The St Paul’s difference will appear more plainly, if we compare it with his eae its treatment of Pharisaic Judaism in the Galatian Church. This fe epistle offers nothing at all corresponding to his language on that occasion; ‘If righteousness be by law, then Christ died in vain’; ‘If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you no- thing’; ‘Christ is nullified for you, whosoever are justified by law ; yeare fallen from grace*®’ The point of view in fact is wholly changed. With these Essene or Gnostic Judaizers the Mosaic law was neither the motive nor the standard, it was only the starting point, of their austerities. Hence in replying the Apostle no longer deals with law, as law; he no longer points It is no the contrast of grace and works; but he enters upon the moral ΤΟΣ ἜΗΝ aspects of these ascetic practices. He denounces them, as con- ees centrating the thoughts on earthly and perishable things‘.
He points out that they fail in their purpose, and are found
valueless against carnal indulgences*. In their place he offers the true and only remedy against sin—the elevation of the inner life in Christ, the transference of the affections into a higher sphere®, where the temptations of the flesh are powerless. Thus dying with Christ, they will kill all their earthly mem- bers’. Thus rising with Christ, they will be renewed in the
image of God their Creator®.
Pe 23°
2 Asceticism is of two kinds. There is the asceticism of dualism (whether conscious or unconscious), which springs from a false principle; and there is the asceticism of self-discipline, which is the training of the Christian athlete (1 Cor. ix. 27). I need not say that the
remarks in the text apply only to the former.
Ξ' (Calo 11 on Ve By Ἢ.
4 ii, 8, 20—22.
5 ii. 23 οὐκ ἐν τιμὴ τινὶ πρὸς πλησμο- νὴν τῆς σαρκός: see the note on these words. sits τὶ ὩΣ
τ τς I stl, es
104 THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.
he tenth In attempting to draw a complete portrait of the Colossian eee heresy from a few features accidentally exhibited in St Paul’s
= tested epistle, it has been necessary to supply certain links; and some assurance may not unreasonably be required that this has not been done arbitrarily. Nor is this seeurity wanting, In all such cases the test will be twofold. The result must be consistent with itself: and it must do no violence to the historical conditions under which the phenomena arose. (x) Its in- 1. In the present instance the former of these tests is fully oes satisfied. The consistency and the symmetry of the result is eyand its great recommendation. The postulate of a Gnostic type enn brings the separate parts of the representation into direct con- nexion, The speculative opinions and the practical tenden- cies of the heresy thus explain, and are explained by, each other. It is analogous to the hypothesis of the comparative anatomist, who by referring the fossil remains to their proper type restores the whole skeleton of some unknown animal from a few bones belonging to different extremities of the body, and without the intermediate and connecting parts. In the one case,
as in the other, the result is the justification of the postulate.
(2) Its 2. And again; the historical conditions of the problem eee are carefully observed. It has been shown already, that Ju-
sequence. qaism in the preceding age had in one of its developments assumed a form which was the natural precursor of the Colos- sian heresy. In order to complete the argument it will be necessary to show that Christianity in the generation next suc- ceeding exhibited a perverted type, which was its natural out- erowth. If this can be done, the Colossian heresy will take its proper place in a regular historical sequence.
Continu- I have already pointed out that the language of St John eae in the Apocalypse, which was probably written within a few Bae years of this epistle, seems to imply the continuance in this cismin the district of the same type of heresy which is here denounced
Bete by St Paul’. But the notices in this book are not more de-
1 See above p. 41 sq.
TILE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 105
finite than those of the Epistle to the Colossians itself; and we are led to look outside the Canonical writings for some Has early Christian history then pre- served any record of .a distinctly Gnostic school existing on the
more explicit evidence.
confines of the Apostolic age, which may be considered a legiti- mate development of the phase of religious speculation that confronts us here ?
We find exactly the phenomenon which we are seeking in Heresy of
- Ceri - the heresy of Cerinthus’. ena This heresiarch is said to have been origin-
The time, the place, the circum- stances, all agree. ally a native of Alexandria’; but proconsular Asia is allowed His date on all hands to have been the scene of his activity as Pe He lived and taught at the close of the Apostolic age, that is, in the latest decade of the first century. Some
writers indeed make him an antagonist of St Peter and St
teacher®.
Paul’, but their authority is not trustworthy, nor is this very early date at all probable. But there can be no reasonable doubt that he was a contemporary of St John, who was related by Polycarp to have denounced him face to face on one me- morable occasion’, and is moreover said by Irenzeus to have written his Gospel with the direct object of confuting his errors’.
1 The relation of Cerinthus to the with St John in the bath is placed at
Colossian heresy is briefly indicated by Neander Planting of Christianity I. p. 325 sq. (Eng. Trans.). It has been remarked by other writers also, both earlier and later. The subject appears to me to deserve a fuller investigation than it has yet re- ceived,
2 Hippol. Her. vii. 33 Αἰγυπτίων παιδείᾳ ἀσκηθείς, X. 21 ὁ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ ἀσκηθείς, Theodoret. Her. Fab. ii. 3 ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ πλεῖστον διατρίψας χρόνον.
3 Tren. i. 26. 1 ‘et Cerinthus autem quidam...in Asia docuit,? Epiphan. Her, xxviii. 1 ἐγένετο δὲ οὗτος ὁ Κή- ρινθος ἐν τῇ ᾿Ασίᾳ διατρίβων, κἀκεῖσε τοῦ κηρύγματος τὴν ἀρχὴν πεποιημένος, Theodoret. 1. 6. ὕστερον εἰς τὴν ᾿Ασίαν ἀφίκετο. The scene of his encounter
Ephesus: see below, note 5.
4 Epiphanius (xxviii. 2 sq.) repre- sents him as the ringleader of the Judaizing opponents of the Apostles in the Acts and Epistles to the Co- rinthians and Galatians. Philastrius (Her. 36) takes the same line.
5 The well-known story of the en- counter between St John and Cerinthus in the bath is related by Irenzus (iii. 3. 4) on the authority of Polycarp, who appears from the sequence of Treneus’ narrative to have told it at Rome, when he paid his visit to Ani- cetus ; ὃς καὶ ἐπὶ ᾿Ανικήτου ἐπιδημήσας τῇ Ῥώμῃ πολλοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν προειρημένων αἱρετικῶν ἐπέστρεψεν... καὶ εἰσὶν οἱ ἀκη- κούτες αὐτοῦ ὅτι Iwavyns κ.τ.λ.
6 Tren. ili. ri. 1.
109
Cerinthus a link be- tween Ju- daism and Gnosti- cism.
Judaism still pro- minent in his system
though Gnosti- cism is already aggressive.
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.
‘Cerinthus,’ writes Neander, ‘is best entitled to be con- sidered as the intermediate link between the Judaizing and the Gnostic sects.’ ‘ Hven among the ancients,’ he adds, ‘ opposite reports respecting his doctrines have been given from opposite points of view, according as the Gnostic or the Judaizing element was exclusively insisted upon: and the dispute on this point has been kept up even to modern times. In point of chro- nology too Cerinthus may be regarded as representing the prin- ciple in its transition from Judaism to Gnosticism*.’
Of his Judaism no doubt has been or can be entertained. The gross Chiliastic doctrine ascribed to him’, even though it may have been exaggerated in the representations of ad- verse writers, can only be explained by a Jewish origin. His conception of the Person of Christ was Ebionite, that is Judaic, in its main features*. He is said moreover to have enforced the rite of circumcision and to have inculcated the observance of sabbaths‘*. It is related also that the Cerinthians, like the Ebionites, accepted the Gospel of St Matthew alone’.
At the same time, it is said by an ancient writer that his This limitation is As Gnostic principles asserted themselves
adherence to Judaism was only partial’. doubtless correct. more distinctly, pure Judaism necessarily suffered. All or nearly all the early Gnostic heresies were Judaic; and for a time a compromise was effected which involved more or less concession on either side. But the ultimate incompatibility of the two at length became evident, and a precarious alliance was ex-
changed for an open antagonism. ‘This final result however
‘was not reached till the middle of the second century: and
meanwhile it was a question to what extent Judaism was pre-
1 Church History τι. p. 42 (Bohn’s Trans.).
2 See the Dialogue of Gaius and Proclus in Euseb. H. E. iii. 28, Dio- nysius of Alexandria, ib. vil. 25, Theo- doret. 1, c., Augustin. Her. 8.
3 See below p. 111.
4 Epiphan. Her. xxvili. 4, 5, Phi- lastr. Her. 36, Augustin. 1.6. The
statements of these writers would not carry much weight invthemselves; but in this instance they are rendered highly probable by the known Judaism of Cerinthus.
δ Epiphan. Her. xxviii. 5, xxx. 14, Philastr. Her. 36.
6 Epiphan. Her. xxviii. 1 προσέχειν τῷ Ιουδαϊσμῷ ἀπὸ μέρους.
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 107
pared to make concessions for the sake of this new ally. Even the Jewish Essenes, as we have seen, departed from the ortho- dox position in the matter of sacrifices; and if we possessed fuller information, we should probably find that they made Of the Colossian heretics we can only form a conjecture, but the angelology and an- gelolatry attributed to them point to a further step in the same direction. As we pass from them to Cerinthus we are
still larger concessions than this.
no longer left in doubt; for the Gnostic element has clearly Gnostic _ gained the ascendant, though it has not yet driven its rival ree out of the field. Two characteristic features in his teaching 58: especially deserve consideration, both as evincing the tendency
of ‘his speculations and as throwing back light on the notices
in the Colossian Epistle.
1. His cosmogony is essentially Gnostic. The great pro- 1. His
blem of creation presented itself to him in the same aspect; Cas and the solution which he offered was generically the same, °°"Y The world, he asserted, was not made by the highest God,
but by an angel or power far removed from, and ignorant of,
this Supreme Being’. Other authorities describing his sys- tem speak not of a single power, but of powers, as creating
the universe’: but all alike represent this demiurge, or these
1 Tren. i. 26. τ ‘Non a primo Deo factum esse mundum docuit, sed a virtute quadam valde separata et dis- tante ab ea principalitate que est su- per universa, et ignorante eum qui est super omnia Deum’; Hippol. Her. vii. 33 ἔλεγεν οὐχ ὑπὸ τοῦ πρώτου Θεοῦ γε- γονέναι τὸν κόσμον, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ δυνάμεώς τινος κεχωρισμένης τῆς ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα ἐξου- σίας καὶ ἀγνοούσης τὸν ὑπὲρ πάντα Θεόν, X. 21 ὑπὸ δυνάμεώς τινος ἀγγελικῆς, πολὺ κεχωρισμένης καὶ διεστώσης τῆς ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα αὐθεντίας καὶ ἀγνοούσης τὸν ὑπὲρ πάντα Θεόν.
5 Pseudo-Tertull. Her. 3 *Carpocra- tes preterea hanc tulit sectam: Unam esse dicit virtutem in superioribus principalem, ex nac prolatos angelos
atque virtutes, quos distantes longe a superioribus virtutibus mundum istum in inferioribus partibus condidisse... Post hune Cerinthus hereticus erupit, similia docens. Nam et ipse mundum institutum esse ab illis dicit’; Epi- phan. Her. xxviii. 1 ἕνα εἶναι τῶν ἀγγέ- λων τῶν τὸν κόσμον πεποιηκότων ; Theo- doret. H, F. ii. 3 ἕνα μὲν εἶναι τὸν τῶν ὅλων Θεόν, οὐκ αὐτὸν δὲ εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου δημιουργόν, ἀλλὰ δυνάμεις τινὰς κεχω- ρισμένας καὶ παντελῶς αὐτὸν ἀγνοούσας ; Augustin. Her.8. The one statement is quite reconcilable with the other. Among those angels by whose instru- mentality the world was created, Ce- rinthus appears to have assigned a position of preeminence to one, whom
108 THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.
demiurges, as ignorant of the absolute God. It is moreover stated that he held the Mosaic law to have been given not by the supreme God Himself, but by this angel, or one of these angels, who created the world’. andconse- From these notices it is plain that angelology had an im- nce, portant place in his speculations; and that he employed it to explain the existence of evil supposed to be inherent in the physical world, as well as to account for the imperfections of the old dispensation. The ‘remote distance’ of his angelic demiurge from the supreme God can hardly be explained ex- cept on the hypothesis of successive generations of these inter- mediate agencies. Thus his solution is thoroughly Gnostic. At the same time, as contrasted with later and more sharply defined Gnostic systems, the Judaic origin and complexion of his cosmogony is obvious. His intermediate agencies still re- tain the name and the personality of angels, and have not yet given way to those vague idealities which, as emanations Angels of or eons, took their place in later speculations. Thus his theory ae nd + linked on to the angelology of later Judaism founded on ee Gnos- the angelic appearances recorded in the Old Testament nar- rative. And again: while later Gnostics represent the demi- urge and giver of the law as antagonistic to the supreme and good God, Cerinthus does not go beyond postulating his igno- rance. He went as far as he could without breaking entirely with the Old Testament and abandoning his Judaic standing- ground.
Cerinthus In these respects Cerinthus is the proper link between the alinkbe- . -- 5 : é tween the IMcipient gnosis of the Colossian heretics and the mature
δ τος ἘΝ gnosis of the second century. In the Colossian epistle we
peace OE still breathe the atmosphere of Jewish angelology, nor is there 1¢1Ssm. 5 os . .
any trace of the won of later Gnosticism*; while yet speculation
is so far advanced that the angels have an important function
he regarded as the demiurge in a Her. xxviii. 4 τὸν δεδωκότα νόμον ἕνα
special sense and under whom the εἶναι τών ἀγγέλων τῶν τὸν κόσμον πε-
others worked; see Neander Church ποιηκότων.
History τι. p. 43. 2T am quite unable to see any 1 Pseudo-Tertull. 1. ¢.; Epiphan. reference to the Gnostic conception of
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.
in explaining the mysteries of the creation and government of the world. On the other hand it has not reached the point at which we find it in Cerinthus. Gnostic conceptions respecting the relation of the demiurgic agency to the supreme God would appear to have passed through three stages. This relation was represented first, as imperfect appreciation; next, as entire ignorance; lastly, as direct antagonism. The second and third are the standing points of Cerinthus and of the later The first was probably the position of the Colossian false teachers. The imperfections of the natural world, they would urge, were due to the limited
Gnostic teachers respectively.
capacities of these angels to whom the demiurgic work was committed, and to their imperfect sympathy with the Supreme God; but at the same time they might fitly receive worship as mediators between God and man; and indeed humanity seemed in its weakness to need the intervention of some such beings less remote from itself than the highest heaven.
2. Again the Christology of Cerinthus deserves attention τς Christo-
from this point of view. Here all our authorities are agreed. As a Judaizer Cerinthus held with the Ebionites that Jesus was only the son of Joseph and Mary, born in the natural way. As a Gnostic he maintained that the Christ first descended in the form of a dove on the carpenter’s son at his baptism; that He revealed to him the unknown Father, and worked miracles through him: and that at length He took His flight and left him, so that Jesus alone suffered and rose, while the Christ remained impassible*. It would appear also, though this is
an con in the passages of the New Testament, which are sometimes quoted in support of this view, e.g., by Baur Paulus p. 428, Burton Lectures p. 111 sq.
1 Tren. i. 26. 1, Hippol. Her. vii. 33, X. 21, Epiphan. Her. xxviii. 1, Theodoret. H. F. ii. 3. The argu- ments by which Lipsius (Gnosticismus Pp. 245, 258, in Ersch τι. -Gruber; Quellenkritik des Epiphanios p. 118
sq.) attempts to show that Cerinthus did not separate the Christ from Jesus, and that Ireneus (and subse- quent authors copying him) have wrongly attributed to this heretic the theories of later Gnostics, seem insuf- ficient to outweigh these direct state- ments. It is more probable that the system of Cerinthus should have ad- mitted some foreign elements not very consistent with his Judaic standing
109
110 THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.
not certain, that he described this re-ascension of the Christ as a return ‘to His own pleroma’.’
Approach Now it is not clear from St Paul’s language what opinions
towards Cerinthian Christo- logy in the i ; ἣ Colossian and derogatory. The emphasis, with which he asserts the
heresy. eternal being and absolute sovereignty of Christ, can hardly be explained in any other way. But individual expressions tempt us to conjecture that the same ideas were already floating in the air, which ultimately took form and consistency in the tenets of Cerinthus. Thus, when he reiterates the statement that the whole pleroma abides permanently in Christ?, he would appear to be tacitly refuting some opinion which main- tained only mutable and imperfect relations between the two. When again he speaks of the true gospel first taught to the Colossians as the doctrine of ‘the Christ, even Jesus the Lord*? his language might seem to be directed against the tendency to separate the heavenly Christ from the earthly Jesus, as though the connexion were only transient. When lastly he dwells on the work of reconciliation, as wrought ‘through the blood of Christ’s cross” ‘in the body of His flesh through death*? we may perhaps infer that he already discerned a disposition to put aside Christ’s passion as a stumbling-block
the Colossian heretics held respecting the person of our Lord; but we may safely assume that he regarded them as inadequate
in the way of philosophical
point, than that these writers should have been misinformed. Inconsistency was ἃ necessary condition of Judaic Gnosticism, The point however is comparatively unimportant as affect- ing my main purpose.
1 Treneus (iii, 11. 1), after speaking of Cerinthus, the Nicolaitans, and others, proceeds ‘non, quemadmodum 1111 dicunt, alterum quidem fabricatorem (i.e. demiurgum), alium autem Patrem Domini: et alium quidem fabricatoris filium, alterum vero de superioribus Christum, quem et impassibilem per- seyerasse, descendentem in Jesum filinm fabricatoris, et iterum revolasse
religion. Thus regarded, the
in suum pleroma.’ The doctrine is pre- cisely that which he has before as- cribed to Cerinthus (i. 26. 1), but the mode of statement may have been borrowed from the Nicolaitans or the Valentinians or some other later Gnos- tics, There is however no improbabi- lity in the supposition that Cerinthus used the word pleroma in this way. See the detached note on πλήρωμα below.
2 j. 19, li. 9. See above p. roo, note 2. On the force of κατοικεῖν see the note on the earlier of the two passages.
3 ἢ, 6 παρελάβετε τὸν Χριστόν, Ἰη- σοῦν τὸν Κύριον.
4 1. 20, 22.
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. ΠῚ
- Apostle’s language gains force and point; though no stress can be laid on explanations which are so largely conjectural.
But if so, the very generality of his language shows that The Gnos-
these speculations were still vague and fluctuating. The dif- fog. ot. ference which separates these heretics from Cerinthus may be Bae measured by the greater precision and directness in the Apo- undeve- stolic counter-statement, as we turn from the Epistle to the ee Colossians to the Gospel of St John. In this interval, extend- -ing over nearly a quarter of a century, speculation has taken a definite shape. The elements of Gnostic theory, which were before held in solution, had meanwhile crystallized around the facts of the Gospel. Yet still we seem justified, even at the earlier date, in speaking of these general ideas as Gnostic, guarding ourselves at the same time against misunderstanding with the twofold caution, that we here employ the term to express the simplest and most elementary conceptions of this tendency of thought, and that we do not postulate its use as a distinct designation of any sect or sects at this early date. Thus limited, the view that the writer of this epistle is com- bating a Gnostic heresy seems free from all objections, while it appears necessary to explain his language; and certainly it does not, as is sometimes imagined, place any weapon in the hands of those who would assail the early date and Apostolic authorship of the epistle.
iM
CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
standing of the heresy
necessary: direction was necessarily determined by the occasion which gave
The under- \ ITHOUT the preceding investigation the teaching of this epistle would be very imperfectly understood; for its
rise to it. Only when we have once grasped the nature of the doctrine which St Paul is combating, do we perceive that every sentence is instinct with life and meaning. Ainglorrors We have seen that the error of the heretical teachers was though twofold. ‘They had ἃ false conception in theology, and they had
twofold
pene, 8 false basis of morals. It has been pointed out also, that these
root. two were closely connected together, and had their root in the
same fundamental error, the idea of matter as the abode of evil and thus antagonistic to God.
So the As the two elements of the heretical doctrine were derived Paina '© from the same source, so the reply to both was sought by the oth is in
eee Apostle in the same idea, the conception of the Person of Christ as the one absolute mediator between God and man, the true and only reconciler of heaven and earth.
But though they are thus ultimately connected, yet it will be necessary for the fuller understanding of St Paul’s position to take them apart, and to consider first the theological and then the ethical teaching of the epistle.
1. The 1. This Colossian heresy was no coarse and vulgar develop- eae ment of falsehood. It soared far above the Pharisaic Judaism
ofthe which St Paul refutes in the Epistle to the Galatians. The
heretics. ὃ ϑ ΡΣ ; ? questions in which it was interested lie at the very root of our
CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 113
religious consciousness. The impulse was given to its specu- Its lofty lations by an overwhelming sense of the unapproachable Poe majesty of God, by an instinctive recognition of the chasm which separates God from man, from the world, from matter. Its energy was sustained by the intense yearning after some mediation which might bridge over this chasm, might establish inter-communion between the finite and the Infinite. Up to this point it was deeply religious in the best sense of the term.
The answer which it gave to these questions we have but com- already seen. In two respects this answer failed signally. On pees the one hand it was drawn from the atmosphere of mystical speculation. It had no foundation in history, and made no appeal to experience. On the other hand, notwithstanding its complexity, it was unsatisfactory in its results; for in this plurality of mediators none was competent to meet the require- ments of the case. God here and man there—no angel or spirit, whether one or more, being neither God nor man, could truly reconcile the two. Thus as regards credentials it was without a guarantee; while as regards efficiency it was wholly inadequate.
The Apostle pointed out to the Colossians a more excellent The
way. It was the one purpose of Christianity to satisfy those peste very yearnings which were working in their hearts, to solve eae that very problem which had exercised their minds. In Christ of Christ. they would find the answer which they sought. His life—His cross and resurrection—was the guarantee; His Person—the The me- Word Incarnate—was the solution. He alone filled up, He impute? alone could fill up, the void which lay between God and man, ane could span the gulf which separated the Creator and creation. This solution offered by the Gospel is as simple as it is ade- quate. To their cosmical speculations, and to their religious yearnings alike, Jesus Christ is the true answer. In the World, as in the Church, He is the one only mediator, the one only reconciler. This twofold idea runs like a double thread through the fabric of the Apostle’s teaching in those passages of the epistle where he is describing the Person of Christ.
COL. 8
114
(i) In the Universe.
Impor- tance of
this aspect In the natural order of things is always emphasized in the
of the Person of
Christ,
CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
It will be convenient for the better understanding of St Paul’s teaching to consider these two aspects of Christ’s me- diation apart—its function in the natural and in the spiritual order respectively.
(i) The heresy of the Colossian teachers took its rise, as we saw, in their cosmical speculations. It was therefore natural that the Apostle in replying should lay stress on the function of the Word in the creation and government of the world. This is the aspect of His work most prominent in the first of the two distinctly Christological passages. The Apostle there predicates of the Word, not only prior, but absolute existence. All things were created through Him, are sustaimed in Him, are tending towards Him. Thus He is the begin- ning, middle, and end, of creation. This He is, because He is the very image of the Invisible God, because in Him dwells the plenitude of Deity.
This creative and administrative work of Christ the Word
writings of the Apostles, when they touch upon the doctrine of His Person. It stands in the forefront of the prologue to St John’s Gospel: it is hardly less prominent in the opening of the Epistle to the Hebrews. His mediatorial function in the Church is represented as flowing from His mediatorial func- tion in the world. With ourselves this idea has retired very much into the background. Though in the creed common to all the Churches we profess our belief in Him, as the Being ‘through whom all things were created, yet in reality this confession seems to exercise very little influence on our thoughts. And the loss is serious. How much our theological conceptions suffer in breadth and fulness by the neglect, a moment’s reflexion will show. How much more hearty would be the sympathy of theologians with the revelations of science and the developments of history, if they habitually connected them with the operation of the same Divine Word who is the centre of all their religious aspirations, it is needless to say. Through the recognition of this idea with all the consequences which
CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 115
flow from it, as a living influence, more than in any other way, may we hope to strike the chords of that ‘vaster music,’ which results only from the harmony of knowledge and faith, of rever- ence and research.
It will be said indeed, that this conception leaves un- notwith- standing
touched the philosophical difficulties which beset the subject; aitticulties that creation still remains as much a mystery as before. ee
This may be allowed. But is there any reason to think that with our present limited capacities the veil which shrouds it ever will be or can be removed? The metaphysical specula- tions of twenty-five centuries have done nothing to raise it. The physical investigations of our own age from their very nature can do nothing; for, busied with the evolution of phe- nomena, they lie wholly outside this question, and do not even touch the fringe of the difficulty. But meanwhile revelation has interposed and thrown out the idea, which, if it leaves many questions unsolved, gives a breadth and unity to our conceptions, at once satisfying our religious needs and linking our scientific instincts with our theological beliefs.
(ii) But, if Christ’s mediatorial office in the physical crea- pola stie tion was the starting point of the Apostle’s teaching, His ; mediatorial office in the spiritual creation is its principal theme.
The cosmogonies of the false teachers were framed not so much in the interests of philosophy as in the interests of re- ligion; and the Apostle replies to them in the same spirit and with the same motive. If the function of Christ is unique in the Universe, so is it also in the Church. He is the sole Its abso- and absolute link between God and humanity. Nothing short eee of His personality would suffice as a medium of reconcilia- tion between the two. Nothing short of His life and work in the flesh, as consummated in His passion, would serve as an assurance of God’s love and pardon. His cross is the atone- ment of mankind with God. He is the Head with whom all the living members of the body are in direct and imme- diate communication, who suggests their manifold activities to each, who directs their several functions in subordination 8—2
116
Hence angelic media- tions are funda- mentally wrong.
Christ’s mediation in the Church justified by His mediation in the World.
Relation of the doctrine of the Word
’
CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
to the healthy working of the whole, from whom they indi- vidually receive their inspiration and their strength.
And being all this He cannot consent to share His prero- gative with others. He absorbs in Himself the whole function of mediation. Through Him alone, without any interposing link of communication, the human soul has access to the Father. Here was the true answer to those deep yearnings after spiritual communion with God, which sought, and could not find, satisfaction in the manifold and fantastic creations of a dreamy mysticism. The worship of angels might have the semblance of humility; but it was in fact a contemptuous defiance of the fundamental idea of the Gospel, a flat denial of the absolute character of Christ’s Person and office. It was a severance of the proper connexion with the Head, an amputation of the disordered limb, which was thus disjoined from the source of life and left to perish for want of spiritual nourishment.
The language of the New Testament writers is beset with difficulties, so long as we conceive of our Lord only in con- nexion with the Gospel revelation: but, when with the Apo- stles we realise in Him the same Divine Word who is and ever has been the light of the whole world, who before Chris- tianity wrought first in mankind at large through the avenues of the conscience, and afterwards more particularly in the Jews through a special though still imperfect revelation, then all these difficulties fall away. Then we understand the signifi- cance, and we recognise the truth, of such passages as these: ‘No man cometh unto the Father, but by me’: ‘There is no salvation in any other’; ‘He that disbelieveth the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth upon him*’ The exclusive claims advanced in Christ’s name have their full and perfect justification in the doctrine of the Eternal Word.
The old dispensation is primarily the revelation of the abso- lute sovereignty of God. It vindicates this truth against two opposing forms of error, which in their extreme types are repre-
1 Joh, xiv. 6, Acts iv. 12, Joh. iii. 36.
CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
sented by Pantheism and Manicheism respectively. The Pan- theist identifies God with the world: the Manichee attributes to the world an absolute existence, independent of God. With the Pantheist sin ceases to have any existence: for it is only one form of God’s working. With the Manichee sin is in- herent in matter, which is antagonistic to God. The teaching of the Old Testament, of which the key-note is struck in the opening chapters of Genesis, is a refutation of both these errors. God is distinct from the world, and He is the Creator of the world, Evil is not inherent in God, but neither is it in- herent in the material world. Sin is the disobedience of in- telligent beings whom He has created, and whom He has endowed with a free-will, which they can use or misuse.
The revelation of the New Testament is the proper com- plement to the revelation of the Old. It holds this position in two main respects. If the Old Testament sets forth the abso- lute unity of God—His distinctness from and sovereignty over His creatures—the New Testament points out how He holds communion with the world and with humanity, how man becomes one with Him. And again, if the Old Testament shows the true character of sin, the New Testament teaches the appointed means of redemption. On the one hand the monotheism of the Old Testament is supplemented by the theanthropism* of the New. Thus the theology of revelation is completed. On the other hand, the hamartiology of the Old Testament has its counterpart in the soteriology of the New. Thus the economy of revelation is perfected.
1 T am indebted for the term thean- thropism, as describing the substance of the new dispensation, to an article by Prof. Westcott in the Contemporary Review tv. p. 417 (December, 1867); but it has been used independently, though in very rare instances, by other writers. The value of terms such as I have employed here in fixing ideas is enhanced by their strangeness, and will excuse any appearance of affectation.
In applying the terms theanthro- pism and soteriology to the New Testa- ment, as distinguished from the Old, it is not meant to suggest that the ideas involved in them were wholly wanting in the Old, but only to indi- cate that the conceptions, which were inchoate and tentative and subsidiary in the one, attain the most prominent position and are distinctly realised in the other.
117
to the mo- notheism of the Old Testa- ment.
The New Testament is comple- mentary to the Old.
118
2. The ethical error of the here- tics,
Their practical earnest- ness,
but funda- mental miscon- ception and con- sequent failure.
St Paul substi- tutes a principle for ordi- nances.
CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
2. When we turn from the theology of these Colossian heretics to their ethical teaching, we find it characterised by the same earnestness. Of them it might indeed be said that they did ‘hunger and thirst after righteousness.’ Escape from impurity, immunity from evil, was a passion with them. But it was no less true that notwithstanding all their sincerity they ‘went astray in the wilderness’; ‘hungry and thirsty, their soul fainted within them. By their fatal transference of the abode of sin from the human heart within to the material world without, they had incapacitated themselves from finding the true anti- dote. Where they placed the evil, there they necessarily sought the remedy. Hence they attempted to fence themselves about, and to purify their lives by a code of rigorous prohibitions. Their energy was expended on battling with the physical con- ditions of human life. Their whole mind was absorbed in the struggle with imaginary forms of evil. Necessarily their character was moulded by the thoughts which habitually en- gaged them. Where the ‘elements of the world,’ the ‘things which perish in the using’, engrossed all their attention, it could not fail but that they should be dragged down from the serene heights of the spiritual life into the cloudy atmosphere which shrouds this lower earth.
St Paul sets himself to combat this false tendency. For negative prohibitions he substitutes a positive principle; for special enactments, a comprehensive motive. He tells them that all their scrupulous restrictions are vain, because they fail to touch the springs of action. If they would overcome the evil, they must strike at the root of the evil. Their point of view must be entirely changed. They must transfer them- selves into a wholly new sphere of energy. This transference is nothing less than a migration from earth to heaven—from the region of the external and transitory to the region of the spiritual and eternal®. For a code of rules they must substitute a principle of life, which is one in its essence but
1 il. 20, 22, 9. ili. 1 Βα.
CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 110
infinite in its application, which will meet every emergency, will control every action, will resist every form of evil.
This principle they have in Christ. With Him they have This prin-
ied to the world; with Him they have risen to God. Christ, #5 new the revelation of God’s holiness, of God’s righteousness, of bers ee God’s love, is light, is life, is heaven. With Him they have been translated into a higher sphere, have been brought face to face with the Eternal Presence. Let them only realise this trans- lation. It involves new insight, new motives, new energies. They will no more waste themselves upon vexatious special restrictions : for they will be furnished with a higher inspiration which will cover all the minute details of action. They will not exhaust their energies in crushing this or that rising desire, but they will kill the whole body* of their earthly passions through the strong arm of this personal communion with God in Christ.
When we once grasp this idea, which lies at the root of St Paul’s St Paul’s ethical teaching, the moral difficulty which is sup- bee posed to attach to his doctrine of faith and works has vanished, 824 ¥°rs
se : ΓΕ τοῖς : ᾿ considered It is simply an impossibility that faith should exist without in the
works. Though in form he states his doctrine as a relation of oie contrast between the two, in substance it resolves itself into ciple: a question of precedence. Faith and works are related as principle and practice. Faith—the repose in the unseen, the recognition of eternal principles of truth and right, the sense of personal obligations to an Eternal Being who vindicates these principles—must come first. Faith is not an intellectual assent, nor a sympathetic sentiment merely. It is the absolute surrender of self to the will of a Being who has a right to command this surrender. It is this which places men in personal relation to God, which (in St Paul’s language) justifies them before God. For it touches the springs of their actions ;
it fastens not on this or that detail of conduct, but extends
lit τι ἐν τῇ ἀπεκδύσει τοῦ σώμα- ὑμεῖς TA πάντα, and ver. 9 ἀπεκδυσά- τος τῆς σαρκός, ili. 5 νεκρώσατε οὖν τὰ μενοι τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον. See the μέλη With ver. 8 νυνὶ δὲ ἀπόθεσθε καὶ notes on the several passages,
120 CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
throughout the whole sphere of moral activity; and thus it determines their character as responsible beings in the sight
of God.
The From the above account it will have appeared that the dis- Bey of tinctive feature of this epistle is its Christology. The doctrine this epistle of the Person of Christ is here stated with greater precision and fulness than in any other of St Paul’s epistles. It is therefore pertinent to ask (even though the answer must neces- sarily be brief) what relation this statement bears to certain other enunciations of the same doctrine; to those for instance
considered which occur elsewhere in St Paul’s own letters, to those which i ee are found in other Apostolic writings, and to those which appear in the fathers of the succeeding generations.
1. The 1. The Christology of the Colossian Epistle is in no way ats gt different from that of the Apostle’s earlier letters. It may
oe indeed be called a development of his former teaching, but only epistles as exhibiting the doctrine in fresh relations, as drawing new deductions from it, as defining what had hitherto been left un- defined, not as superadding any foreign element to it. The doctrine is practically involved in the opening and closing words of his earliest extant epistle: ‘The Church which is in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’; ‘The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you*.’ The main conception of the Person of Christ, as enforced in the Colossian Epistle, alone justifies and explains this language, which otherwise would be emptied of all significance. And again: it had been enunciated by the Apostle explicitly, though briefly, in the earliest directly doctrinal passage which bears on the subject; ‘One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through Him’.’ The absolute the same universal mediation of the Son is declared as unreservedly in Pee ack this passage from the First Epistle to the Corinthians, as in any
1 ; Thess, i. 1, v. 28. even where the term itself is not
2 1 Cor. viii. 6 δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ used. See the dissertation on the doc- ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ. The expression δι’ οὗ trine of the Logos in the Apostolic implies the conception of the Logos. writers.
. |
CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 121
later statement of the Apostle: and, if all the doctrinal and less fully - Ξ Ξ 5A δες 5 developed. practical inferences which it implicitly involves were not directly emphasized at this early date, it was because the cir- cumstances did not yet require explicitness on these points. New forms of error bring into prominence new aspects of the truth. The heresies of Laodicea and Colossee have been inva- luable to the later Church in this respect. The Apostle himself, it is not too much to say, realised with ever-increasing force the manifoldness, the adaptability, the completeness of the Christian idea, notwithstanding its simplicity, as he opposed it to each successive development of error. The Person of Christ proved the complete answer to false speculations at Colosse, as it had been found the sovereign antidote to false practices at Corinth. All these unforeseen harmonies must have appeared to him, as they will appear to us, fresh evidences of its truth.
2. And when we turn from St Paul to the other Apostolic 2. The writings which dwell on the Person of Christ from a doctrinal loge
other Apostolic
implies the same fundamental conception, though they may not Writings. always present it in exactly the same aspect. More especially
in the Epistle to the Hebrews first, and in the Gospel of St Their John afterwards, the form of expression is identical with the ἀνε ταν statement of St Paul. In both these writings the universe is ‘entity. said to have been created or to exist by or through Him.
This is the crucial expression, which involves in itself all
the higher conceptions of the Person of Christ. The Epistle
to the Hebrews seems to have been written by a disciple of
St Paul immediately after the Apostle’s death, and therefore within some five or six years from the date which has been assigned to the Colossian letter. The Gospel of St John, if the traditional report may be accepted, dates about a quarter of a century later; but it is linked with our epistle by the fact that
point of view, we find them enunciating it in language which
the readers for whom it was primarily intended belonged to the neighbouring districts of proconsular Asia. Thus it illustrates,
1 Joh. i. 3 πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο x.7.d., Heb. i. 2 & οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας.
Firmness of the apostolic idea,
3. The
Christ-
ology of the suc- ceeding ages,
Tts loose- ness of concep- tion,
CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
and is illustrated by, the teaching of St Paul in this letter. More especially by the emphatic use of the term Logos, which St Paul for some reason has suppressed, it supplies the centre round which the ideas gather, and thus gives unity and direct- ness to the conception.
In the Christology of these Apostolic writings there is a firm- ness and precision which leaves no doubt about the main con- ception present to the mind of the writers. The idea of Christ as an intermediate being, neither God nor man, is absolutely and expressly excluded. On the one hand His humanity is distinctly emphasized. On the other He is represented as existing from eternity, as the perfect manifestation of the Father, as the abso- lute mediator in the creation and government of the world.
3. But, when we turn from these Apostolic statements to the writings of succeeding generations, we are struck with the contrast’, A vagueness, a flaccidity, of conception betrays itself in their language.
In the Apostolic Fathers and in the earlier Apologists we find indeed for the most part a practical appreciation of the Person of Christ, which leaves nothing to be desired; but as soon as they venture upon any directly dogmatic statement, we miss at once the firmness of grasp and clearness of conception which mark the writings of the Apostles. If they desire to emphasize the majesty of His Person, they not unfrequently fall into language which savours of patripassianism™. If on the other hand they wish to present Him in His mediatorial capacity, they use words which seem to imply some divine being, who is God and yet not quite God, neither Creator nor creature®.
1 The remarks on the theology of the Apostolic Fathers, as compared with the. Apostles, in Dorner’s Lehre von der Person Christi τ. Ὁ. 130 8q. seem to me perfectly just and highly significant. See also Pressensé Trois Premiers Siécles 11. p. 406 sq. on the unsystematic spirit of the Apostolic Fathers.
2 See for instance the passages
quoted in the note on Clem. Rom. 2 τὰ παθήματα αὐτοῦ.
3 The unguarded language of Justin for instance illustrates the statement in the text. On the one hand Peta- vius, Theol. Dogm. de Trin. ii. 3. 2, dis- tinctly accuses him of Arianism: on the other Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. ii. 4. 1 54.» indignantly repudiates the charge and claims him as strictly orthodox. Peta-
CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 123
The Church needed a long education, before she was fitted
to be the expositor of the true Apostolic doctrine. <A conflict
of more than two centuries with Gnostics, Ebionites, Sabellians,
Arians, supplied the necessary discipline. The true successors The Apo- of the Apostles in this respect are not the fathers of the second Ἐπ century, but the fathers of the third and fourth centuries. In the te 8868, expositors of the Nicene age we find indeed technical terms
and systematic definitions, which we do not find in the Apostles themselves; but, unless I have wholly misconceived the nature
of the heretical teaching at Colossz and the purport of St Paul’s
reply, the main idea of Christ’s Person, with which he here confronts this Gnostic Judaism, is essentially the same as that
which the fathers of these later centuries opposed to the Sabel-
fianism and the Arianism of their own age. If I mistake not,
the more distinctly we realise the nature of the heresy, the
more evident will it become that any conception short of the
perfect deity and perfect humanity of Christ would not have furnished a satisfactory answer; and this is the reason why
I have dwelt at such length on the character of the Colossian
false teaching, and why I venture to call especial attention to
this part of my subject.
Of the style of the letter to the Colossians I shall have occa- Style of this
sion to speak hereafter, when I come to discuss its genuine- cae ness. It is sufficient to say here, that while the hand of St Paul is unmistakeable throughout this epistle, we miss the flow and the versatility of the Apostle’s earlier letters.
A comparison with the Epistles to the Corinthians and to the Philippians will show the difference. It is distinguished from Its rug-
» gedness
them by a certain ruggedness of expression, a ‘want of finish’ and com- often bordering on obscurity. What account should be given of Pt" this characteristic, it is impossible to say. The divergence of vius indeed approaches the subject nevertheless Justin’s language is occa- from the point of view of later Western sionally such as no Athanasian could theology and, unable to appreciate have used. The treatment of this
Justin’s doctrine of the Logos, does father by Dorner (Lehre 1. p. 414 sq.) less than justice to this father; but [15 just and avoids both extremes.
124 CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
style is not greater than will appear in the ietters of any active- minded man, written at different times and under different circumstances. The epistles which I have selected for contrast suggest that the absence of all personal connexion with the Colossian Church will partially, if not wholly, explain the dimi- nished fluency of this letter. At the same time no epistle of
put essen- St Paul is more vigorous in conception or more instinct with
pabvigour: meaning. It is the very compression of the thoughts which creates the difficulty. If there is a want of fluency, there is no want of force. Feebleness is the last charge which can be brought against this epistle.
Analysis. The following is an analysis of the epistle :
1. Intrropuctory (i. I—13).
(1) 1. 1, 2. Opening salutation. (2) i. 3—8. Thanksgiving for the progress of the Colossians hitherto. (3) i. 9—13. Prayer for their future advance in knowledge and well-doing through Christ. [This leads the Apostle to speak of Christ as the only path of progress. |
11. Docrriat (i. 13—ii. 3). The Person and Office of Christ. (1) i. 13, 14. Through the Son we have our deliverance, our redemption. (2) 1. 15—19. The Preeminence of the Son ; (i) As the Head of the natural Creation, the Universe (i 15—17) (ii) As the Head of the new moral Creation, the Church (i. 18). Thus He is first in all things ; and this, because the pleroma has its abode in Him (i. το). (3) L 2o—11. 3. The Work of the Son—a work of recon- ciliation ; (i) Described generally (i. 20). (ii) Applied specially to the Colossians (i. 21—23).
CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 125
(iii) St Paul’s own part in carrying out this work. His Analysis,
sufferings and preaching. The ‘ mystery’ with which he is charged (i. 24—27).
His anxiety on behalf of all (i. 28, 29): and more especially of the Colossian and neighbouring Churches (ii, 1—3).
[This expression of anxiety leads him by a direct path to the next division of the epistle. |
TH. Poemican (ii. 4—ill. 4).
Warning against errors.
(1) i. 4—8. The Colossians charged to abide in the truth of the Gospel as they received it at first, and not to be led astray by a strange philosophy which the new teachers offer.
(2) ᾿. g—15. The truth stated first positively and then negatively.
[In the passage which follows (ii. g—23) it will be ob- served how St Paul vibrates between the theological and practical bearings of the truth, marked a, β, re- spectively. |
(i) Positively.
(a) The pleroma dwells wholly in Christ and is com. municated through Him (ii. 9, 10).
(8) The true circumcision is a spiritual circumcision {Π ἘΠῚ ΕΖ):
(ii) Negatively. Christ has (8) annulled the law of ordinances (ii. 14) ; (a) triumphed overall spiritual agencies, however power- ful (ii. 15). (3) ii. 16—iii. 4. Obligations following thereupon. (i) Consequently the Colossians must not
(8) either submit to ritual prohibitions (ii. 16, 17),
(a2) or substitute the worship of inferior beings for allegiance to the Head (ii. 18, 19).
(ii) On the contrary this must henceforth be their
rule:
126 CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
Analysis. 1. They have died with Christ; and with Him they have died to their old life, to earthly ordinances (ii 20—23). 2. They have risen with Christ; and with Him they have risen to a new life, to heavenly principles (iii, I—4).
IV. Horrarory (iii. 5—iv. 6). Practical application of this death and this resurrection. (1) 111. 5—17. Comprehensive rules. (i) What vices are to be put off, being mortified in this death (111. 5—rr). (ii) What graces are to be put on, being quickened through this resurrection (iii. 12—17). (2) ii. r8—iv. 6. Special precepts. (a) The obligations Of wives and husbands (iii. 18, 19) ; Of children and parents (111. 20, 21) ; Of slaves and masters (111, 22—y. 1). (Ὁ) The duty of prayer and thanksgiving ; with spevial intercession on the Apostle’s behalf (iv. 2—4). (c) The duty of propriety in behaviour towards the unconverted (iv. 5, 6).
V. Pursonat (iv. 7—18). (1) iv. 7—9. Explanations relating to the letter itself. (2) iv. 1o—14. Salutations from divers persons. (3) iv. 15—17. Salutations to divers persons. A message relating to Laodicea. (4) iv. 18 Farewell.
ΠΡῸΣ KOAASSAETLS.
WE SPEAK WISDOM AMONG THEM THAT ARE PERFECT. YET NOT THE WISDOM OF THIS WORLD.
BUT WE SPEAK THE WISDOM OF GOD IN A MYSTERY,
Iste vas electionis
Vires omnes rationis Humane transgreditur :
Super choros angelorum
Raptus, celi secretorum Doctrinis imbuitur.
De hoe vase tam fecundo, Tam electo et tam mundo, Tu nos, Christe, complue ; Nos de luto, nos de face, Tua sancta purga prece, Regno tuo statue.
ie
ΠΡΟΣ
KOAASSAEELS.
ΝΕ ΟΣ ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ διὰ θελήματος
Θεοῦ, καὶ Τιμόθεος ὁ ἀδελῴος, "τοῖς ἐν Κολοσσαῖς
I, 2. ‘PavL, an apostle of Christ Jesus by no personal merit but by God’s gracious will alone, and Trmoruy, our brother in the faith, to the conse- crated people of God in Cotoss#, the brethren who are stedfast in their allegiance and faithful in Christ. May grace the well-spring of all mercies,and peace the crown of all blessings, be bestowed upon you from God our Father,’
I. ἀπόστολος] On the exceptional omission of this title in some of St Paul’s epistles see Phil. 1. 1. Though there is no reason for supposing that his authority was directly impugned in the Colossian Church, yet he inter- poses by virtue of his Apostolic com- mission and therefore uses his autho- ritative title.
διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ] Asin 1 Cor.i.1, 2 Cor. i τ, Ephes, i. 1, 2 Tim: i. 1. These passages show that the words cannot have a polemical bearing. If they had been directed against those who questioned his Apostleship, they would probably have taken a stronger form. The expression must therefore be regarded as a renunciation of all personal worth, and a declaration of God’s unmerited grace; comp. Rom. ix. 16 dpa οὖν ov τοῦ θέλοντος οὐδὲ τοῦ τρέχοντος ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἐλεῶντος Θεοῦ. The same words διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ are used in other connexions in Rom. xv. 32, 2 Cor. viii. 5, where no polemical reference is possible.
Τιμόθεος] The name of this disciple is attached to the Apostle’s own in
COL,
the heading of the Philippian letter, which was probably written at an earlier stage in his Roman captivity. It appears also in the same connexion in the Epistle to Philemon, but not in the Epistle to the Ephesians, though these two letters were contempora- neous with one another and with the Colossian letter. For an explanation of the omission, see the introduction to that epistle.
In the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon the presence of Ti- mothy is forgotten at once (see Phil. i. 1). In this epistle the plural is maintained throughout the thanks- giving (vv. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9), but after- wards dropped, when the Apostle be- gins to speak in his own person (i. 23, 24), and so he continues to the end. The exceptions (i. 28, iv. 3) are rather apparent than real.
ὁ ἀδελφός] Timothy is again desig- nated simply ‘the brother’ in 2 Cor. i. 1, Philem. 1, but not in Heb. xiii. 23, where the right reading is τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν. The same designation is used of Quartus (Rom. xvi. 23), of Sosthenes (1 Cor. i. 1), of Apollos (1 Cor. xvi. 12); comp. 2 Cor. viii. 18, ix. 3, 5, xii. 18. As some designation seemed to be required, and as Timothy could not be called an Apostle (see Galatians, p. 96, note 2), this, as the simplest title, would naturally suggest itself.
2. Κολοσσαῖς] For the reasons why this form is preferred here, while Κολασσαεῖς is adopted in the heading of the epistle, see above, p. 16 sq.
g
130
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
LI. 3
ay lots καὶ πιστοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ" χάρις ὑμῖν
> / ᾽ \ ΄σ \ Cc καὶ εἰρηνὴ απὸ Θεοῦ TAT POS ἡμών.
δ Εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ Θεῷ [καὶ] πατρὶ τοῦ Κυρίου
ἁγίοις ‘saints,’i.e, the people con- secrated to God, the Israel of the new covenant; see the note on Phil. i. 1. This mode of address marks the later epistles of St Paul. In his earlier letters (1, 2 Thess., 1, 2 Cor., Gal.) he writes τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. The change begins with the Epistle to the Romans, and from that time forward the Apostle always uses ἁγίοις in various combinations in addressing churches (Rom., Phil. Col., Ephes.). For a similar phenomenon, serving as a chronological mark, see the note on ἡ χάρις, iv. 18. The word ἁγίοις must here be treated as a substantive in accordance with its usage in parallel passages, and not as an adjective con- nected with ἀδελφοῖς. See the next note.
καὶ πιστοῖς ἀδελφοῖς] This unusual addition is full of meaning. Some members of the Colossian Church were shaken in their allegiance, even if they had not fallen from it. The Apostle therefore wishes it to be understood that, when he speaks of the saints, he means the true and stedfast members of the brotherhood. In this way he obliquely hints at the defection. Thus the words καὶ πιστοῖς ἀδελφοῖς are ¢ supplementary explanation of τοῖς a- γίοις. He does not directly exclude any, but he indirectly warns all. The epithet πιστὸς cannot mean simply ‘believing’; for then it would add no- thing which is not already contained in ἁγίοις and ἀδελφοῖς. Its passive sense, ‘trustworthy, stedfast, unswerv- ing,’ must be prominent here, as in Acts Xvi. 15 εἰ κεκρίκατε pe πιστὴν τῷ Κυρίῳ εἶναι. See Galatians p. 155.
ev Χριστῷ] Most naturally connected with both words πιστοῖς ἀδελφοῖς, though referring chiefly to πιστοῖς ; comp. Ephes. vi. 21 πιστὸς διάκονος ἐν
Κυρίῳ, τ Tim. i. 2 γνησίῳ τέκνῳ ἐν πί- For the expression πιστὸς ἐν Χριστῷ, ev Κυρίῳ, see also I Cor. iv. 17, Ephes. i. 1. The Apostle assumes that the Colossian brethren are ‘ sted- fast in Christ” Their state thus con- trasts with the description of the he- retical teacher, who (ii. 19) οὐ κρατεῖ τὴν κεφαλήν.
χάρις κιτ.λ.] On this form of saluta- tion see the note to 1 Thess. i. 1.
πατρὸς ἡμῶν] The only instance in St Paul’s epistles, where the name of the Father stands alone m the open- ing benediction without the addition of Jesus Christ. The omission was noticed by Origen (om. τ. § 8, Iv. p. 467), and by Chrysostom (ad loc. x1. p. 324, Hom. in 2 Cor. Xxx,x.p.651). But transcribers naturally aimed at uni- formity, and so in many copies we find the addition καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The only other exception to the Apo- stle’s usual form is in 1 Thessalonians, where the benediction is shorter still, χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη, and where like- wise the copyists have supplied words to lengthen it out in accordance with St Paul’s common practice.
3—8. ‘We never cease to pour forth our thanksgiving to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ on your account, whensoever we pray to Him. for the tidings of the faith which ye have in Christ Jesus, and the dove which ye show towards all the people of God, while ye look forward to the hope which is stored up for you in heaven as a treasure for the life to come. This hope was communicated to you in those earlier lessons, when the Gos- pel was preached to you in its purity and integrity—the one universal un- changeable Gospel, which was made known to you, even as it was carried
OTEL.
We are full of thankfulness —
I. 4, 5]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 131
~ ~ ΄σ / ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ πάντοτε περὲ ὑμῶν προσευχόμενοι"
/ \ if ε “=~ > > - \ \ 4aKOUTAYTES THY πίστιν ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ THY
3 , A 7 > / \ « 7, 5 \ \ aAYaT HV [nv ἔχετε] GUS παν τΤας TOUS aylous, διὰ ΤῊΝ
throughout the world, approving itself by its fruits wheresoever it is plant- ed. For, as elsewhere, so also in you, these fruits were manifested from the first day when ye received your lessons in, and apprehended the power of, the genuine Gospel, which is not a law of ordinances but a dispensation of grace, not a device of men but a truth of God. Such was the word preached to you by Epaphras, our beloved fellow- servant in our Master’s household, who in our absence and on our behalf has ministered to you the Gospel of Christ, and who now brings back to us the welcome tidings of the love which ye show in the Spirit’
3. Εὐχαριστοῦμεν] See the notes on 1 Thess. i. 2.
πατρί] If the καὶ be omitted, as the balance of authorities appears to sug- gest, the form of words here is quite exceptional. Elsewhere it runs ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ Tov Κυρίου, Rom. xv.6, 2 Cor. ieee xi. 31, Ephes. 1: 3 (y. L), 1 Pet. 1. 3; comp. Rev. i. 6: and in analogous cases, such as ὁ Geos καὶ πατὴρ ἡμῶν, the rule is the same. See the note on Clem. Rom. ὃ 7. In iii. 17 however we have τῷ Θεῷ πατρί, where the evi- dence is more decisive and the ex- pression quite as unusual, On the authorities for the various readings here see the detached note.
πάντοτε x.t.A.| We here meet the same difficulty about the connexion of the clauses, which confronts us in several of St Paul’s opening thanks- givings. The words πάντοτε and περὶ ὑμῶν must clearly be taken together, because the emphasis of περὶ ὑμῶν would be inexplicable, if it stood at the beginning of a clause. But are they to be attached to the preceding or to the following sentence? The con- nexion with the previous words is fa-
voured by St Paul’s usual conjunction of εὐχαριστεῖν πάντοτε (see the note on Phil. i. 3), and by the parallel passage ov παύομαι εὐχαριστῶν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν in Ephes. i. 16. Thus the words will mean ‘ We give thanks for you always in our prayers” For this absolute use of προσευχόμενοι see Matt. vi. 7, Acts xvi. 25.
4. ἀκούσαντες] ‘having heard’ from Kpaphras (ver. 8); for the Apostle had no direct personal knowledge of the Colossian Church: see the introduc- tion, p. 27 sq.
ev Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ) To be connected with τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν. The strict clas- sical language would require τὴν ἐν X. Ἶ., but the omission of the article is common in the New Testament (e. g ver, 8); see the note on 1 Thess. i. 1, and Winer § xx. p. 169 (ed. Moulton). The preposition ἐν here and in the pa- rallel passage, Ephes. i. 15, denotes the sphere in which their faith moves, rather than the object to which it is directed (comp. 1 Cor. iii. 5); for, if the object had been meant, the na- tural preposition would have been ἐπὶ or εἰς (e.g. ii. 5). This is probably the case also in the passages where at first sight it might seem otherwise, Gyey Abe 135,2 Abn, Th TSG ἸῸΣ compare 2 Tim. 1. 13 ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, where the meaning is unambiguous. There is however authority in the Lxx for the use of ἐν with πίστις, πιστεύειν, to de- note the object, in Jer. xii. 6, Ps. Ixxviii. 22, and perhaps in Mark i. 15, Rom. iii. 25, and (more doubtfully still) in Joh. iii. 15.
nv ἔχετε] See the detached note on the various readings.
5. διὰ τὴν ἐλπίδα] ‘for the hope, i.e. looking to the hope. The following reasons seem decisive in favour of con-
o—2
132
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
[I. 6
> / ΄σ ΄σ ΄σ a) ἐλπίδα τὴν ἀποκειμένην ὑμῖν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ἣν προη- > ond , ΄σ > 7 ΄σ 7 σι κούσατε ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ἀληθείας τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, “τοῦ
ε cal \ Wo 8 \ ~ ΄ \ παρόντος εἰς υμας, κειθὼς Kat €V παντι TW KOO MW ἐστὶν
necting διὰ τὴν ἐλπίδα, not with εὐχα- ριστοῦμεν, but with τὴν πίστιν κιτιλ., whether ἣν ἔχετε be retained or not. (1) The great distance of εὐχαριστοῦ- μεν is against the former connexion; (2) The following clause, ἣν προηκού- gate κιτιὰλ., suggests that the words διὰ τὴν ἐλπίδα describe the motives of the Colossians for well-doing, rather than the reasons of the Apostle for thanksgiving: (3) The triad of Chris- tian graces, which St Paul delights to associate together, would otherwise be broken up. This last argument seems conclusive; see especially the corre- sponding thanksgiving in 1 Thess. i. 3, μνημονεύοντες ὑμῶν τοῦ ἔργου THs πί- στεως καὶ τοῦ κόπου τῆς ἀγάπης καὶ τῆς ὑπομονῆς τῆς ἐλπίδος KT.A., With the note there. The order is the same here, as there; and it is the natural sequence. Faith rests on the past; love works in the present; hope looks to the future. They may be regard- ed as the efficient, material, and final causes respectively of the spiri- tual life. Compare Polycarp Phil. 3 πίστιν ἥτις ἐστὶ μήτηρ πάντων ἡμῶν, ἐπακολουθούσης τῆς ἐλπίδος, προαγούσης τῆς ἀγάπης.
The hope here is identified with the object of the hope: see the passages quoted on Gal. v. 5. The sense of ἐλπίς, as of the corresponding words in any language, oscillates between the subjective feeling and the objective realisation ; comp. Rom. viii. 24 τῇ yap ἐλπίδι ἐσώθημεν: ἐλπὶς δὲ βλεπο- μένη οὐκ ἔστιν ἐλπίς" ὃ γὰρ βλέπει τις κιτιὰλ., Where it passes abruptly from the one to the other.
τὴν ἀποκειμένην] ‘which is stored up. Itis the θησαυρὸς ἐν οὐρανῷ of the Gospels (Matt. vi. 20, 21, Luke xii. 34, Xviii. 22).
προηκούσατε] ‘of which ye were
told in time past” The preposition seems intended to contrast their earlier with their later lessons—the true Gospel of Epaphras with the false gospel of their recent teachers (see the next note). The expression would gain force, if we might suppose that the heretical teachers obscured or perverted the doctrine of the resur- rection (comp. 2 Tim. ii. 18); and their speculative tenets were not unlikely to lead to such a result. But this is not necessary; for under any circum- stances the false doctrine, as leading them astray, tended to cheat them of their hope; see ver. 23. The common interpretations, which explain mpo- as meaning either ‘before its fulfilment’ or ‘before my writing to you, seem neither so natural in themselves nor so appropriate to the context.
τῆς ἀληθείας τοῦ εὐαγγελίου] ‘ the truth of the Gospel, i.e. the true and genuine Gospel as taught by Epaphras, and not the spurious substitute of these later pretenders: comp. ver. 6 ev ἀληθείᾳ. See also Gal. ii. 5, 14, where a similar contrast is implied in the use of ἡ ἀληθεία τοῦ εὐαγγελίου.
6. τοῦ παρόντος εἰς ὕμᾶς) ‘which reached you. The expression παρεῖ- ναι εἰς is not uncommon in classical writers ; comp. παρεῖναι πρὸς in Acts xii. 20, Gal. iv. 18, 20. So also evpe- θῆναι εἰς (Acts viii. 40), γενέσθαι εἰς (eg. Acts xxv. 15), and even εἶναι eis (Luke xi. 7). See Winer ὃ 1]. p. 516 sq.
ev παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ] For a similar hyperbole see Rom. i. ὃ ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ ; comp. I Thess. i. 8, 2 Cor. ii. 14, ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ. More lurks under these words than appears on the surface. The true Gospel, the Apostle seems to say, proclaims its truth by its universality. The false gospels are the outgrowths
I. 6]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
133
/ \ 3 , \ Ve is [ “« καρποφορούμενον Kat αὐξανόμενον, καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, ὯΝ ld 7 \ 4 \ ’ ΄ ap 7S ἡμερας ἠκούσατε καὶ ἐπέγνωτε τὴν χάριν τοῦ
of local circumstances, of special idio- syncrasies; the true Gospel is the same everywhere. The false gospels address themselves to limited circles ; the true Gospel proclaims itself boldly throughout the world. Heresies are at best ethnic: truth is essentially catholic. See ver. 23 μὴ μετακινούμενοι ἀπὸ τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ εὐαγγελίου οὗ ἠκούσατε, τοῦ κηρυχθέντος ἐν πάσῃ κτίσει τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν.
ἐστὶν καρποφορούμενον ‘is constantly bearing fruit, The fruit, which the Gospel bears without fail in all soils and under every climate, is its cre- dential, its verification, as against the pretensions of spurious counterfeits. The substantive verb should here be taken with the participle, so as to express continuity of present action ; as in 2 Cor. ix. 12 οὐ μόνον ἐστὶν προσα- vatAnpovoak.T.A., Phil. ii. 26 ἐπιποθῶν ἦν. It is less common in St Paul than in some of the Canonical writers, e.g. St Mark and St Luke; but pro- bably only because he deals less in narrative.
Of the middle καρποφορεῖσθαι no other instance has been found. The voice is partially illustrated by κωδω- νοφορεῖσθαι, σιδηροφορεῖσθαι, τυμπα- νοφρρεῖσθαι, though, as involving ἃ different sense of -φορεῖσθαι ‘to wear, these words are not exact parallels. Here the use of the middle is the more marked, inasmuch as the active occurs just below (ver. 10) in the same connexion, καρποφοροῦντες καὶ αὐξανόμενοι. This fact however points to the force of the word here. The middle is intensive, the active exten- sive. The middle denotes the inherent energy, the active the external diffu- sion. The Gospel is essentially a re- productive organism, a plant whose ‘seed is in itself.’ For this ‘dynamic’ middle see Moulton’s note on Winer ὃ xxxviii. p. 319.
καὶ αὐξανόμενον] The Gospel is not like those plants which exhaust them- selves in bearing fruit and wither away. The external growth keeps pace with the reproductive energy. While καρποφορούμενον describes the inner working, αὐξανόμενον gives the outward extension of the Gospel. The words καὶ αὐξανόμενον are not found in the received text, but the autho- rity in their favour is overwhelming.
καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν] The comparison is thus doubled back, as it were, on itself. This irregularity disappears in the received text, καὶ ἐστὶν καρποφο- ρούμενον καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, where the insertion of καὶ before καρποφορούμε- νον straightens the construction. For a similar irregularity see 1 Thess. iv. I παρακαλοῦμεν ev Κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ iva, καθὼς παρελάβετε παρ᾽ ἡμῶν τὸ πῶς δεῖ ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀρέσκειν Θεῷ, καθὼς καὶ περιπατεῖτε, ἵνα περισσεύητε μᾶλλον, where again the received text simpli- fies the construction, though in a dif- ferent way, by omitting the first ἵνα and the words καθὼς καὶ περιπατεῖτε. In both cases the explanation of the irregularity is much the same; the clause reciprocating the comparison (here καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, there καθὼς καὶ περιπατεῖτε) 18 an afterthought springing out of the Apostle’s anxiety not to withhold praise where praise can be given.
For the appearance of καὶ in both members of the comparison, καὶ ἐν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ...καθὼς καί, comp. Rom. i. 13 καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν καθὼς καὶ ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν ; and in the reversed order below, iii. 13 καθὼς καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἐχαρίσατο ὑμῖν, οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς (with the note): see also Winer liii. p. 549 (ed. Moulton). The correlation of the clauses is thus rendered closer, and the comparison emphasized.
ἠκούσατε καὶ ἐπέγνωτε] The accusa- tive is governed by both verbs equally,
134
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
[I. 7,8
Θεοῦ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, Ἰκαθὼς ἐμάθετε ἀπὸ Ἐπαφρά τοῦ
> “- / ε ~ / > \ ε \ ΄σ ἀγαπητοῦ συνδούλου ἡμῶν, ὅς ἐστιν πιστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν
’ al ~~ διάκονος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, > / > , AYATNY ἐν πνευματι.
‘Ye were instructed in and fully ap- prehended the grace of God.’ For this sense of ἀκούειν see below, ver. 23. For ἐπιγινώσκειν as denoting ‘ad- vanced knowledge, thorough apprecia- tion, see the note on ἐπίγνωσις, ver. 9.
τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ] St Paul’s syno- nyme for the Gospel. In Acts xx. 24 he describes it as his mission to preach TO εὐαγγέλιον τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Θεοῦ. The true Gospel as taught by Epa- phras was an offer of free grace, a message from God; the false gospel, as superposed by the heretical teach- ers, was a code of rigorous prohibitions, a system of human devising. It was not χάρις but δόγματα (il. 14); not τοῦ Θεοῦ but τοῦ κόσμου, τῶν ἀνθρώπων (Ii. 8, 20, 22). For God’s power and good- ness it substituted self-mortification and self-exaltation. The Gospel is called ἡ χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ again in 2 Cor. Vi. I, Vili. 9, with reference to the same leading characteristic which the Apo- stle delights to dwell upon (e.g. Rom. 111. 24, Υ. 15, Eph. ii. 5, 8), and which he here tacitly contrasts with the doc- trine of the later intruders. The false teachers of Colossze, like those of Ga- latia, would lead their hearers ἀθετεῖν τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ (Gal. ii. 21) ; to ac- cept their doctrine was ἐκπίπτειν τῆς χάριτος (Gal. v. 4).
ἐν ἀληθείᾳ] i.e. ‘in its genuine sim- plicity, without adulteration’: see the note on τῆς ἀληθείας τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, ver. 5.
7. καθὼς ἐμάθετε] Seven as ye were instructed in it, the clause being an explanation of the preceding ἐν ἀλη- Geta. 3 comp. ii. 7 καθὼς ἐδιδάχθητε. On the insertion of καὶ before ἐμά- Gere in the received text, and the con- sequent obscuration of the sense, see above, p. 29 sq. The insertion how-
8 ε \ 4 com \ ε a ὁ Kal δηλώσας ἡμῖν THY ὑμῶν
ever was very natural, inasmuch as καθὼς καὶ is an ordinary collocation of particles and has occurred twice in the preceding verse.
’Eradpa| On thenoticesof Epaphras, and on his work as the evangelist of the Colossians see above, p. 29 8q., p. 34 8q., and the note on iy. 12.
συνδούλου) Seeiv. 7. The word does not occur elsewhere in St Paul.
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν] As the evangelist of Colossee, Epaphras had represented St Paul there and preached in his stead ; see above, p. 30. The other reading ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν might be interpret- ed in two ways: either (1) It might describe the personal ministrations of Hpaphras to St Paul as the represen- tative of the Colossians (see a similar case in Phil. ii. 25, iv. 18), and so it might be compared with Philem. 13 ἵνα ὑπὲρ σοῦ μοι διακονῇ : but this in- terpretation is hardly consistent with τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Or (2) It might refer to the preaching of Epaphras for the good of the Colossians ; but the na- tural construction in this case would hardly be ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν (of which there is no direct example), but either ὑμῶν (Rom. xv. 8) or ὑμῖν (1 Pet. i. 12). The balance of external authority however is against it. Partly by the accidental interchange of similar sounds, partly by the recurrence of ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν in the context (vv. 3, 9), and partly also from ignorance of the his- torical circumstances, ὑμῶν would read- ily be substituted for ἡμῶν. See the detached note on various readings.
8. ὁ καὶ δηλώσας) ‘ As he preached to you from us, so also he brought back to us from you the tidings, etc,
ev πνεύματι] To be connected with τὴν ὑμῶν ἀγάπην. ‘The fruit of the Spirit is love, Gal. v. 22. For the
| I. 9]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 135
\ ‘ol \ ε ~ > 3) St: ε / > / > 9 Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς, ap NS ἥμερας HKOVTAMEV, OU
ἣ ε ΄σ / \ > ᾿ ef πανόμεθα ὑπὲρ ὑμών προσευχόμενοι Kal αἰτούμενοι ἵνα ~ \ > / ΄σ , > “ ᾽ πληρωθῆτε τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ ἐν
omission of the article, τὴν ἐν πνεύματι, see the note on ver. 4.
g—14. ‘ Hearing then that ye thus abound in works of faith and love, we on our part have not ceased, from the day when we received the happy tidings, to pray on your behalf. And this is the purport of our petitions ; that ye may grow more and more in knowledge, till ye attain to the perfect understanding of God’s will, being en- dowed with all wisdom to apprehend His verities and all intelligence to follow His processes, living in the mind of the Spirit—to the end that knowledge may manifest itself in practice, that your conduct in life may be worthy of your profession in the Lord, so as in all ways to win for you the gracious favour of God your King. Thus, while ye bear fruit in every good work, ye will also grow as the tree grows, being watered and re- freshed by this knowledge, as by the dew of heaven: thus ye will be strengthened in all strength, according to that power which centres in and spreads from His glorious manifesta- tion of Himself, and nerved to all endurance under afiliction and all long-suffering under provocation, not only without complaining, but even with joy: thus finally (for this is the crown of all), so rejoicing ye will pour forth your thanksgiving to the Uni- versal Father, who prepared and fitted us all—you and us alike—to take pos- session of the portion which His good- ness has allotted to us among the saints in the kingdom of light. Yea, by a strong arm He rescued us from the lawless tyranny of Darkness, re- moved us from the land of our bond- age, and settled us as free citizens in our new and glorious home, where His Son, the offspring and the representa-
tive of His love, is King; even the same, who paid our ransom and thus procured our redemption from cap- tivity—our redemption, which (be assured) is nothing else than the re- mission of our sins.’
9. Διὰ τοῦτο] ‘for this cause,’ i.e. ‘by reason of your progressive faith and love,’ referring not solely to 6 καὶ δηλώσας κιτιλ. but to the whole of the preceding description. For διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς in an exactly similar connexion, see 1 Thess. ii. 13 ; comp. Hphes. i. 15 διὰ τοῦτο κἀγὼ κιτιλ. In all these cases the καὶ denotes the response of the Apostle’s personal feeling to the favourable character of the news; ‘we on our part.’ This idea of correspondence is still further emphasized by the repetition of the same words: καὶ ev ὑμῖν ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέρας ἠκούσατε (ver. 6), καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέ- ρας ἠκούσαμεν (ver. 9).
καὶ αἰτούμενοι) The words have an exact parallel in Mark xi. 24 (as cor- rectly read) πάντα ὅσα προσεύχεσθε καὶ αἰτεῖσθε.
ἵνα] With words like προσεύχεσθαι, αἰτεῖσθαι, ete., the earlier and stronger force of ἵνα, implying design, glides imperceptibly into its later and weaker use, signifying merely purport or re- sult, so that the two are hardly sepa- rable, unless one or other is directly indicated by something in the con- text. See the notes on Phil.i. 9, and comp. Winer ὃ xliy. p. 420 sq.
τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν) A favourite wordin the later epistles of St Paul; see the note on Phil.i.9. In all the four epistles of the first Roman captivity it is an elementin the A postle’s opening prayer for hiscorrespondents’ well-being (Phil. i. 9, Ephes. i. 17, Philem. 6, and here). The greater stress whichis thus laid on the contemplative aspects of the Gospel
136
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
[I. 10
le ΄σ ΄σ πάση σοφίᾳ καὶ συνέσει πνευματικῇ, ""περιπατῆσαι ἐ > a ᾽ “- / § ἀξίως τοῦ Κυρίου εἰς πᾶσαν ἀρέσκειαν" ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ
may be explained partly by St Paul’s personal circumstances, partly by the requirements of the Church. His en- forced retirement and comparative leisure would lead his own thoughts in this direction, while at the same time the fresh dangers threatening the truth from the side of mystic specu- lation required to be confronted by an exposition of the Gospel from a corresponding point of view.
The compound ἐπίγνωσις is an ad- vance upon γνῶσις, denoting a larger and more thorough knowledge. So Chrysostom here, ἔγνωτε, ἀλλὰ δεῖ τι καὶ ἐπιγνῶναι. Comp. Justin Mart. Dial. 3, p. 221 A, ἡ παρέχουσα αὐτῶν τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων καὶ τῶν θείων γνῶσιν, ἔπειτα τῆς τούτων θειότητος καὶ δικαιο- σύνης ἐπίγνωσιν. So too St Paul himself contrasts ywockew,yveors,with ἐπιγινώσκειν, ἐπίγνωσις, as the par- tial with the complete, in two pas- sages, Rom. i. 21, 28, 1 Cor. xiii. 12. With this last passage (ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι) com- pare Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 17, p. 369, mapa τῶν Ἑ βραϊκῶν προφητῶν μέρη τῆς ἀληθείας οὐ Kat ἐπίγνωσιν λα- βόντες, Where κατ᾽ ἐπίγνωσιν is com- monly but wrongly translated ‘without proper recognition’ (comp. Tatian ad Gree. 40). Hence also ἐπίγνωσις is used especially of the knowledge of God and of Christ, as being the per- fection of knowledge: e.g. Prov. ii. 5, Hos. iv. 1, vi. 6, Ephes. i. 17, iv. 13, 2 Pet. i. 2, 8, ii. 20, Clem. Alex. Pad. ΠῚ ΠῚ. 1753:
σοφίᾳ καὶ συνέσει] ‘wisdom and in- telligence.’ The two words are fre- quently found together: e.g. Exod. xxxi. 3, Deut. iv. 6, 1 Chron. xxii. 12, 2u@hron; 1. 10 56. ls) ΧΙ 2, xxix, Dan. ii. 20, Baruch iii. 23, 1 Cor. i. 19, Clem. Rom. 32. So too σοφοὶ καὶ συνετοί, Prov. xvi. 21, Matt. xi. 25, and elsewhere. In the parallel pas-
sage, Hph. i. 8, the words are ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ φρονήσει, and the substitu- tion of φρόνησις for σύνεσις there is instructive. The three words are mentioned together, Arist. Lith. Nic. i. 13, a8 constituting the intellectual (διανοητικαὶ) virtues. Σοφία is mental excellence in its highest and fullest sense ; Arist. Hth. Nic. vi. 7 ἡ ἀκρι- βεστάτη τῶν ἐπιστημών..-«ὥσπερ κεῴφα- λὴν ἔχουσα ἐπιστήμη τῶν τιμιωτάτων (see Waitz on Arist. Organ. 11. p. 295 sq.), Cicero de Off. i. 43 ‘ princeps om- nium virtutum,’ Clem. Alex. Ped. ii. 2, p. 181, τελεία... ἐμπεριλαβοῦσα τὰ ὅλα. The Stoic definition οἵ σοφία, as ἐπι- στήμη θείων καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων καὶ τῶν τούτων αἰτιῶν, is repeated by various writers: e.g. Cic. de Off. ii. 5, Philo Congr. erud. grat. 14, Ὁ. 530, [J oseph. } Mace. 2, Clem. Alex. Peed. ii. 2, Ὁ. 181, Strom. i. 5, p. 333, Orig. δ. Cels. iii. 72, Aristob. in Hus. Prep. Ho. xiii. 12, p. 667. And the glorification of copia by heathen writers was even sur- passed by its apotheosis in the Pro- verbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon. While σοφία ‘wisdom’ is thus primary and absolute (th. Nic. vi. 7 μὴ μόνον Ta ἐκ τῶν ἀρχῶν εἰδέναι ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς ἀληθεύειν), both σύνεσις ‘in- telligence’ and φρόνησις ‘prudence’ are derivative and special (£th. Nic Vi. 12 τῶν ἐσχάτων καὶ τῶν καθ᾽ ἕκαστον). They are both applications of σοφία to details, but they work on different lines; for, while σύνεσις is critical, φρόνησις is practical; while σύνεσις apprehends the bearings of things, φρόνησις suggests lines of action: see Arist. Eth. Nic. vi. 11 ἡ μὲν yap φρό- νησις ἐπιτακτική ἐστιν...ἣἢ δὲ σύνε- σις κριτική. For σύνεσις see 2 Tim. ii. 7 νόει ὃ λέγω, δώσει yap σοι ὁ Κύ- ριος σύνεσιν ἐν πᾶσιν. ‘This relation of σοφία to σύνεσις explains why in almost every case σοφία (σοφός) pre- cedes σύνεσις (συνετός), where they
I, 11]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
137
ἀγαθῷ sep ποϑ Ὀροῦ στε: καὶ αὐξανόμενοι τῇ ἐπιγνώσει
ποῦ Θεοῦ"
are found together, and also why in Baruch iii. 23 of ἐκζητηταὶ τῆς συνέ- σεως, ὁδὸν δὲ σοφίας οὐκ ἔγνωσαν, We find σύνεσις implying a tentative, par- tial, approach to σοφία. The relation of σοφία to φρόνησις will be considered more at length in the note on the parallel passage, Ephes. i. 8.
πνευματικῇ] The word is emphatic from its position. The false teachers also offered a σοφία, but it had only a show of wisdom (ii. 23); it was an empty counterfeit calling itself philo- sophy (ii. 8); it was the offspring of vanity nurtured bythe mind of the flesh (ii. 18). See 2 Cor. i. 12 οὐκ ἐν σοφίᾳ σαρκικῇ, where a similar contrast is implied, and 1 Cor. i. 20, ii. 5, 6, 13, iii. 19, where it is directly expressed by σοφία τοῦ κόσμου, σοφία ἀνθρώπων, σοφία τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, ἀνθρωπίνη σο- dia, ete.
10. περιπατῆσαι ἀξίως κιτ.λ.}] Sot Thess. ii. 12, Ephes. iv. 1; comp. Phil. 1,27. The infinitive here denotes the consequence (not necessarily the pur- pose) of the spiritual enlightenment described in ἵνα πληρωθῆτε κιτ.λ.; see Winer ὃ xliv. p. 399 sq. With the received text περιπατῆσαι ὑμᾶς ἀξίως «7A, the connexion might be doubtful; but this reading is condemned by ex- ternal evidence. The emphasis of the sentence would be marred by the inser- tion of duds. The end ofall knowledge, the Apostle would say, is conduct.
τοῦ Κυρίου) 1. 6. ‘of Christ. In1 Thess. ii. 12 indeed we have περιπα- Tew ἀξίως τοῦ Θεοῦ; but St Paul’s com- mon, aud apparently universal, usage requires us to understand ὁ Κύριος of Christ.
ἀρέσκειαν Le. ‘to please God in all Ways’ ; ; comp. I Thess. iv. I πῶς δεῖ ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀρέσκειν Θεῷ. AS this word was commonly used ‘to de- scribe the proper attitude of men to- wards God, the addition of τοῦ Θεοῦ
‘év πάση δυνάμει δυναμούμενοι κατὰ τὸ
would not be necessary: Philo Quis rer. div. her. 24 (I. p. 490) ὡς ἀποδε- χομένου (τοῦ Θεοῦ) τὰς ψυχῆς ἑκουσίου ἀρεσκείας, de Abrah. 25 (π. p. 20) Tas πρὸς ἀρέσκειαν ὁρμάς, de Vict. Off. ὃ (I. p. 257) διὰ πασῶν ἰέναι τῶν εἰς ἀρέσκειαν ὁδῶν, With other passages quoted by Loesner. Otherwise it is used especially of ingratiating oneself with a sovereign or potentate, e.g. Polyb. vi. 2. 12; and perhaps in the higher connexion, in which it occurs in the text, the idea of a king is still prominent, as e.g. Philo de Mund. Op. 50 (I. p. 34) πάντα καὶ λέγειν καὶ πράττειν ἐσπούδαζεν εἰς ἀρέσκειαν τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ βασιλέως. Towards men this complaisance is always dangerous and most commonly vicious; hence ἀρέσκεια is a bad quality in Aristotle [11 (2th. Lud. ii. 3 τὸ λίαν πρὸς ἡδονήν) as also in Theophrastus (Char. 5 οὐκ ἐπὶ τῷ βελτίστῳ ἡδονῆς παρασκευαστι- xn), but towards the King of kings no obsequiousness can be excessive. The ἀρέσκεια Of Aristotle and Theophrastus presents the same moral contrast to the ἀρέσκεια here, as ἀνθρώποις ἀρέ- oxew ἴο Θεῷ ἀρέσκειν in such passages as 1 Thess. ii. 4, Gal.i. 10. Opposed to the ἀρέσκεια commended here is ἀν- θρωπαρέσκεια condemned below, iii. 22.
ἐν παντὶ k.t.A.] i.e. ‘not only showing the fruits of your faith before men (Matt. vii. 16), but yourselves growing meanwhilein moral stature (Eph.iv.13).’
τῇ ἐπιγνώσει] ‘by the knowledge, The other readings, ἐν τῇ ἐπιγνώσει, eis τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν, are unsuccessful attempts to define the construction. The simple instrumental dative re- presents the knowledge of God as the dew or the rain which nurtures the growth of the plant; Deut. xxxii. 2, Hos. xiv. 5.
11. δυναμούμενοι)] A word found more than once in the Greek versions of the Old Testament, Ps. Lxvii (Ixviii).
138
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
[1.1
΄σ / ’ A 3 “ ε \ \ κράτος THS δόξης QAUTOU ELS πασᾶν υπομονὴν και μάακρο-
΄σ a A \ a θυμίαν μετὰ χαρᾶς" "εὐχαριστοῦντες TW πατρὶ τῷ ἱκα-
12. τῷ ἱκανώσαντι ὑμᾶς.
29 (Lxx), Eccles. x. 10 (LXx), Dan. ix. 27 (Theod.), Ps. Ixiv (Ixv). 4 (Aq.), Job xxxvi. 9 (Aq.), but not occurring else- where in the New Testament, except in Heb. xi. 34 and as a various read- ing in Ephes. vi. το The compound ἐνδυναμοῦν however appears several times in St Paul and elsewhere.
κατὰ TO κράτος] The power commu- nicated to the faithful corresponds to, and is a function of, the Divine might whence it comes. Unlike δύναμις or ἰσχύς, the word κράτος in the New Testament is applied solely to God.
τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ] The ‘glory’ here, as frequently, stands for the majesty or the power or the goodness of God, as manifested to men; e.g. Eph. i. 6, 12, 17, iii. 16; comp. ver. 27, below. The ddéa, the bright light over the mercy-seat (Rom. ix. 4), was a symbol of such manifestations. God’s revela- tion of Himself to us, however this revelation may be made, is the one source of all our highest strength (κατὰ τὸ κράτος k.T.A.).
ὑπομονὴν καὶ μακροθυμίαν | ‘endurance and long-suffering.” The two words occur in the same context in 2 Cor. vi. 4, 6, 2 Tim. iii. 10, James v. 10, 11, Clem. Rom. 58 (64), Ign. Ephes. 3. They are distinguished in Trench Synon. § liii. p. 184 sq. The difference of meaning is best seen in their opposites. While ὑπομονὴ is the temper which does not easily succumb under suffer- ing, μακροθυμία is the self-restraint which does not hastily retaliate a wrong. The one is opposed to covw- ardice or despondency, the other to wrath or revenge (Prov. xv. 18, XVi. 32; see also the note on iii, 12). While ὑπομονὴ is closely allied to hope (τ Thess. i 3), μακροθυμία is commonly connected with mercy (e.g. Exod. xxxiv. 6). This distinction however, though it applies generally, is uot true with-
out exception. Thus in Is. lvii. 15 μακροθυμία is opposed to ὀλιγοψυχία, where we should rather have expected ὑπομονή ; and μακροθυμεῖν is used simi- larly in James ν. 7.
μετὰ χαρᾶς] So James i. 2, 3, πᾶσαν χαρὰν ἡγήσασθε..-ὅταν πειρασμοῖς πε- ριπέσητε ποικίλοις, γινώσκοντες ὅτι τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως κατεργάζεται ὑπομονήν κιτιλ.: comp. I Pet. iv. 13, and see below 1. 24. This parallel points tv the proper connexion of μετὰ χαρᾶς, which should be attached to the preceding words. On the other hand some would connect it with ed- χαριστοῦντες for the sake of preserving the balance of the three clauses, ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ ἀγαθῷ καρποφοροῦντες, ἐν πάσῃ δυνάμει δυναμούμενοι, μετὰ χαρᾶς εὐχαριστοῦντες ; and this seems to be favoured by Phil. i. 4 μετὰ χαρᾶς τὴν δέησιν ποιούμενος : but when it is so connected, the emphatic position of μετὰ χαρᾶς cannot be explained; nor indeed would these words be needed at all, for εὐχαριστία is in itself an act of rejoicing.
12. εὐχαριστοῦντες) Most naturally coordinated with the preceding parti- ciples and referred to the Colossians. The duty of thanksgiving is more than once enforced upon them below, ii. 7, ili. 17, iv. 2; comp.1 Thess. v.18. On the other hand the first person ἡμᾶς, which follows, has led others to con- nect εὐχαριστοῦντες with the primary verb of the sentence, ov παυόμεθα ver. 9. But, even if the reading ἡμᾶς be preferred to ὑμᾶς (which is perhaps doubtful), the sudden transition from the second to the first person is quite after St Paul’s manner (see the note on iil. 13, 14, συνεζωοποίησεν ὑμᾶς... χαρισάμενος ἡμῖν), and cannot create any difficulty.
τῷ ἱκανώσαντι)] ‘who made us com- petent’; comp. 2 Cor. ili. 6. On the
ἘΞ 13]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
139
/ ε > ? \ 7 σ i ΄σ ε > νώσαντι ἡμᾶς εἰς THY μερίδα TOU κλήρου τῶν ἁγίων ἐν ΄σ fe. 1: ἃ > , ε ~ 3 ΄- > / = τῷ Pwti' "ὃς ἐρύσατο ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσίας τοὺ
yarious readings see the detached note.
τὴν μερίδα τοῦ κλήρου] ‘the parcel of the lot) ‘the portion which consists in the lot,’ rod κλήρου being the genitive of apposition: see Winer ὃ lix. p. 666 sq., and comp. Ps. xv (xvi). 5 Κύριος μερὶς τῆς κληρονομίας pov. In Acts viii. 21 μερὶς and κλῆρος are co- ordinated; in Gen. xxxi. 14, Num. XViil. 20, Is. lvii. 6, μερὶς and κληρο- vopia. The inheritance of Canaan, the allotment of the promised land, here presents an analogy to, and supplies a metaphor for, the higher hopes of the new dispensation, as in Heb. iii. 7—iv. 11. See also below, iii. 24 τὴν ἀνταπόδοσιν τῆς κληρονομίας, πα Ephes. i. 18. St Chrysostom writes, διὰ τί κλῆρον καλεῖ; δεικνὺς ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἀπὸ κατορθωμάτων οἰκείων βασιλείας τυγχά- νει, referring to Luke xvii. το. It is not won by us, but allotted to us.
ἐν τῷ φωτί] Best taken with the expression τὴν μερίδα κιτιλ, For the omission of the definite article, [τὴν] ἐν τῷ φωτί, see above, VY. 2, 4, 8. The portion of the saints is situated in the kingdom of light. For the whole con- text compare St Paul’s narrative in Acts xxvi. 18 τοῦ ἐπιστρέψαι ἀπὸ σκότους εἰς φῶς καὶ τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ Σατανᾶ ἐπὶ τὸν Θεόν, τοῦ λαβεῖν αὐτοὺς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ κλῆρον ἐν τοῖς ἡγιασμένοις, Where all the ideas and many of the expressions recur. See also Acts xx. 32, in another of St Paul’s later speeches. As a clas- sical parallel, Plato Resp. vii. p. 518 Α, ἔκ te φωτὸς εἰς σκότος μεθισταμένων καὶ ἐκ σκότους εἰς φῶς, is quoted.
13. ‘We were slaves in the land of darkness. God rescued us from this thraldom. He transplanted us thence, and settled us as free colonists and citizens in the kingdom of His Son, in the realms of light.’
ἐρύσατο] ‘rescued, delivered us’ by His strong arm, as a mighty conquer- or: comp. ii. 15 θριαμβεύσας. On the form ἐρύσατο see A. Buttmanpn, p. 29: comp. Clem. Rom. 55, and see the note on ἐξερίζωσεν, ib. 6.
ἐξουσίας] Here ‘arbitrary power, ty- ranny.’ The word ἐξουσία properly sig- nifies ‘liberty of action’ (ἔξεστι), and thence, like the corresponding Eng- lish word ‘license,’ involves two second- ary ideas, of which either may be so prominent as to eclipse the other; (1) ‘authority,’ ‘delegated power’ (e.g. Luke xx. 2); or (2) ‘tyranny, ‘law- lessness, ‘unrestrained or arbitrary power. For this second sense comp. e.g. Demosth. F. Z. p. 428 τὴν ἄγαν ταύτην ἐξουσίαν, Xenoph. Hiero 5 τῆς εἰς TO παρὸν ἐξουσίας ἕνεκα (Speak- ing of tyrants), Plut. Vit. Hum. 13 ἀνά- yoyo. ταῖς ἐξουσίαις καὶ μαλακοὶ ταῖς διαίταις, Vit. Alex. 33 τὴν ἐξουσίαν καὶ τὸν ὄγκον τῆς ᾿Αλεξάνδρου δυνάμεως, Herodian ii. 4 καθαίρεσιν τῆς ἀνέτου ἐξουσίας. This latter idea of a capri- cious unruly rule is prominent here. The expression ἡ ἐξουσία τοῦ σκότους occurs also in Luke xxii. 53, where again the idea of disorder is involved. The transference from darkness to light is here represented as a trans- ference from an arbitrary tyranny, an ἐξουσία, to a well-ordered sovereignty, a βασιλεία. This seems also to be St Chrysostom’s idea; for he explains τῆς ἐξουσίας by τῆς τυραννίδος, adding χαλεπὸν καὶ τὸ ἁπλῶς εἶναι ὑπὸ τῷ δια- Bod@ τὸ δὲ καὶ μετ᾽ ἐξουσίας, τοῦτο χαλεπώτερον.
μετέστησεν) ‘removed, when they were baptized, when they accepted Christ. The image of μετέστησεν is supplied by the wholesale transporta- tion of peoples (ἀναστάτους or ἀνα- σπάστους ποιεῖν), Of which the history of oriental monarchies supplied so
140
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
(Tl.
/ > \ / ΄ c cd ~ σκότους, καὶ μετέστησεν εἰς THY βασιλείαν τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς
many examples. See Joseph. Ant. ix. II. I τοὺς οἰκήτορας αἰχμαλωτίσας μετέστησεν εἰς τὴν αὐτοῦ βασιλείαν, speaking of Tiglath-Pileser and the Transjordanic tribes.
τοῦ υἱοῦ] Not of inferior angels, as the false teachers would have it (ii. 18), but of His own Son. The same con- trast between a dispensation of angels and a dispensation of the Son un- derlies the words here, which is ex- plicitly brought out in Heb. i. —ii. 8; see especially i. 2 ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν vid, compared with ii, 5 οὐ yap ἀγγέλοις ὑπέταξεν τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν. Severianus has rightly caught the idea underlying τοῦ υἱοῦ here ; ὑπὸ τὸν κληρονόμον ἐσμέν, οὐχ ὑπὸ τοὺς οἰκέτας.
τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ] ‘of His love. As love is the essence of the Father(1 Joh. iv. 8, 16), so is it also of the Son. The mission of the Son is the revelation of the Father’s love; for as He is the μονογενής, the Father’s love is _per- fectly represented in Him (see 1 Joh. iv. 9). St Augustine has rightly in- terpreted St Paul’s words here, de Trin. xv. 19 (VII. p. 993) ‘ Caritas quippe Patris...nihil est quam ejus ipsa natura atque substantia...ac per hoe filius caritatis ejus nullus est alius quam qui de ejus substantia est geni- tus.’ See also Orig. ὁ. Cels.y. 11. Thus these words are intimately connected with the expressions which follow, εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου (Ver. I5), and ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησεν πᾶν τὸ πλή- ρωμα κατοικῆσαι (ver. 19). The loose interpretation, which makes τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης equivalent to τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἠγαπημένου, destroys the whole force of the expression.
In the preceding verses we have a striking illustration of St Paul’s teach- ing in two important respects. First. The reign of Christ has already begun. His kingdom is a present kingdom. Whatever therefore is essential in the kingdom of Christ must be capable of
realisation now. There may be some exceptional manifestation in the world to come, but this cannot alter its in- herent character. In other words the sovereignty of Christ is essentially a moral and spiritual sovereignty, which has begun now and will only be per- fected hereafter. Secondly. Corre- sponding to this, and equally signi- ficant, is his language in speaking of individual Christians. He regards them as already rescued from the power of darkness, as already put in possession of their inheritance ag saints. They are potentially saved, because the knowledge of God is itself salvation, and this knowledge is within their reach. Such is St Paul’s con- stant mode of speaking. He uses the language not of exclusion, but of com- prehension. He prefers to dwell on their potential advantages, rather than on their actual attainments. He hopes to make them saints by dwelling on their calling as saints. See especially Ephes. ii. 6 συνήγειρεν καὶ συνεκάθισεν ἐν Tots ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ κ-ιτ.λ.
14. ἔχομεν] For the reading ἔσ- χομεν, Which is possibly correct here, and which carries out the idea en- forced in the last note, see the de- tached note on the various readings. In the parallel passage, Ephes. i. 7, there is the same variation of reading.
τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν] ‘ransom, redemp- tion.’ The image of a captive and en- slaved people is still continued: Philo Omn. prob. lib. 17 (IL. p. 463) αἰχμά- λωτος ἀπήχθη... ἀπογνοὺς ἀπολύτρωσιν, Plut. Vit. Pomp. 24 πόλεων aixpa- λώτων ἀπολυτρώσεις. The metaphor however has changed from the victor who rescues the captive by force ofarms (ver. 13 ἐρύσατο) to the philanthropist who releases him by the payment of a ransom. The clause which follows in the received text, διὰ τοῦ αἵματος av- τοῦ, is interpolated from the parallel passage, Hphes. i. 7.
I. 14]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
141
> / 3 > 142 fe of \ > J 4 ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ, "ἐν ὦ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν, THY
ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν"
14- ἐν ᾧ ἔσχομεν.
τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν] So in the parallel passage Ephes. i. 7 the Apo- stle defines τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν as τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν παραπτωμάτων. May not this studied precision point to some false conception of ἀπολύτρωσις put forward by the heretical teachers? Later Gnostics certainly perverted the meaning of the term, applying it to their own formularies of initiation. This is related of the Marcosians by Irenzeus i. 13. 6 διὰ τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν ἀκρατήτους καὶ ἀοράτους γίνεσθαι τῷ κριτῇ K.T.r., 1. 21. I ὅσοι γάρ εἶσι ταύτης τῆς γνώμης μυσταγωγοί, τοσαῦ- ται καὶ ἀπολυτρώσεις, ib. § 4 εἶναι δὲ τελείαν ἀπολύτρωσιν αὐτὴν τὴν ἐπίγνω- σιν τοῦ ἀρρήτου μεγέθους (with the whole context), and Hippolytus Her. Vi. 41 λέγουσί τι φωνῇ ἀρρήτῳ, ἐπιτι- θέντες χεῖρα τῷ τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν λα- βόντι κιτ.Ὰ. (comp. ix. 13). In sup- port of their nomenclature they per- verted such passages as the text, Iren. j. 21. 2 τὸν Παῦλον ῥητῶς φάσκουσι τὴν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἀπολύτρωσιν πολ- λάκις μεμηνυκέναι. It seems ποῦ im- probable that the communication of similar mystical secrets, perhaps con- nected with their angelology (ii. 18), was put forward by these Colossian false teachers as an ἀπολύτρωσις. Com- pare the words in the baptismal for- mula of the Marcosians as given in Iren. i. 21. 3 (comp. Theodt. Her. Fab. i. 9) εἰς ἕνωσιν καὶ ἀπολύτρωσιν καὶ κοινωνίαν τῶν δυνάμεων, where the last words (which have been differently interpreted) must surely mean ‘com- munion with the (spiritual) powers.’ Thus it is a parallel to εἰς λύτρωσιν ἀγγελικήν, Which appears in an alter- native formula of these heretics given likewise by Irenzeus in the context ; for this latter is explained in Clem. Alex. Exc. Theod. p. 974, εἰς λύτρωσιν
ἀγγελικήν, τουτέστιν, ἣν καὶ ἄγγελοι ἔχουσιν. Any direct historical con- nexion between the Colossian heretics and these later Gnostics of the Valen- tinian school is very improbable ; but the passages quoted will serve to show how a false idea of ἀπολύτρωσις would naturally be associated with an eso- teric doctrine of angelic powers. See the note on i. 28 ἵνα παραστήσωμεν πάντα ἄνθρωπον τέλειον.
15 sq. In the passage which fol- lows St Paul defines the Person of Christ, claiming for Him the absolute supremacy,
(1) Inrelation to the Universe, the
Natural Creation (vv. 15—17);
(2) In relation to the Church, the
new Moral Creation (ver. 18) ; and he then combines the two, iva γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων, CX- plaining this twofold sovereignty by the absolute indwelling of the pleroma in Christ, and showing how, as a conse- quence, the reconciliation and har- mony of all things must be effected in Him (vv. 19, 20).
As the idea of the Logos underlies the whole of this passage, though the term itself does not appear, a few words explanatory of this term will be necessary by way of preface. The word λόγος then, denoting both ‘rea- son’ and ‘speech,’ was a philosophical term adopted by Alexandrian Juda- ism before St Paul wrote, to express the manifestation of the Unseen God, the Absolute Being, in the creation and government of the World. It included all modes by which God makes Himself known to man. As His reason, it denoted His purpose or design; as His speech, it implied His revelation. Whether this λόγος was conceived merely as the divine energy personified, or whether the
142
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
[1.18
> 4 ΄σ ΄σ > / / τό ὕς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ TOU ἀοράτου, TPWTOTOKOS
conception took ἃ more concrete form, I need not stop now to enquire ; but I hope to give a fuller account of the matter in a later volume. It is suf- ficient for the understanding of what follows to say that Christian teachers, when they adopted this term, exalted and fixed its meaning by attaching to it two precise and definite ideas :
(1) ‘The Word is a Divine Person,’
ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος ; and (2) ‘The Word became incarnate in Jesus Christ, ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο. It is obvious that these two propositions must have altered materially the significance of all tho subordinate terms connected with the idea of the λόγος ; and that therefore their use in Alexandrian writers, such as Philo, cannot be taken to define, though it may be brought to dJdus- trate, their meaning in St Paul and St John. With these cautions the Alexandrian phraseology, as a pro- vidential preparation for the teaching of the Gospel, will afford important aid in the understanding of the Apo- stolic writings.
15—17. ‘He is the perfect image, the visible representation, of the un- seen God. He is the Firstborn, the absolute Heir of the Father, begotten before the ages; the Lord of the Universe by virtue of primogeniture, and by virtue also of creative agency. For in and through Him the whole world was created, things in heaven and things on earth, things visible to the outward eye and things cog- nisable by the inward perception. His supremacy is absolute and universal. All powers in heaven and earth are subject to Him. This subjection ex- tends even to the most exalted and most potent of angelic beings, whether they be called Thrones or Domina- tions or Princedoms or Powers, or whatever title of dignity men may confer upon them. Yes: He is first and He is last. Through Him, as the
mediatorial Word, the universe has been created ; and unto Him, as the final goal, it is tending. In Him is no before or after. He is pre-existent and self-existent before all the worlds, And in Him, as the binding and sus- taining power, universal nature co- heres and consists.’
15. ὅς ἐστιν «.7.A.| The Person of Christ is described jirst in relation more especially to Deity, as εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, and secondly in relation more especially to created things, aS πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως. The fundamental conception of the Logos involves the idea of mediation between God and creation. A per- verted view respecting the nature of the mediation between the two lay, as we have seen, at the root of the heretical teaching at Colossz (p. 34, p. 101 sq., p. 115 sq.), and required to be met by the truo doctrine of Christ as the Eternal Logos.
εἰκών] ‘the image’ This expres- sion is used repeatedly by Philo, asa description of the Logos; de Mund. Op. ὃ (1. p. 6) τὸν ἀόρατον καὶ νοητὸν θεῖον λόγον εἰκόνα λέγει Θεοῦ, de Confus. ling. 20 (1. p. 419) τὴν εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ, τὸν ἱερώτατον λόγον, ab. § 28 (1. p. 427) τῆς ἀϊδίου εἰκόνος αὐτοῦ λό- you τοῦ ἱερωτάτου κιτιλ., de Profug. 19 (I. p. 561) ὁ ὑπεράνω τούτων λόγος θεῖος... αὐτὸς εἰκὼν ὑπάρχων Θεοῦ, de Monarch. ii. 5 (il. p. 225) λόγος δέ ἐστιν εἰκὼν Θεοῦ δι οὗ σύμπας ὁ κό- opos ἐδημιουργεῖτο, de Somn. i. 41 (I. p. 656), etc. For the use ahiel Philo made of the text Gen. i. 26, 27, κατ᾽ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν, κατ᾽ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ, see the note on iii, 10. Still earlier than Philo, before the idea of the λό- γος had assumed such a definite form, the term was used of the Divine codia personified in Wisd. vii. 26 ἀπαύγασμα yap ἐστι φωτὸς ἀϊδίου... καὶ εἰκὼν τῆς ἀγαθότητος αὐτοῦ. St Paul himself applies the term to our Lord in an earlier epistle, 2 Cor. iv. 4 τῆς δόξης
E15]
τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ (comp. iii. 18 τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα μετα- μορφούμεθα). Closely allied to εἰκὼν also is χαρακτήρ, which appears in the same connexion in Heb. i. 3 ὧν ἀπαύ- γασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑπο- στάσεως αὐτοῦ, a passage illustrated by Philo de Plant. 5 (1. Ρ. 332) oppa- yids Θεοῦ ἧς ὁ χαρακτήρ ἐστιν ἀΐδιος λόγος. See also Phil. ii. 6 ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων.
Beyond the very obvious notion of likeness, the word εἰκών involves two other ideas ;
(1) Representation. In this re- spect it is allied to χαρακτήρ, and dif- fers from ὁμοίωμα. In ὁμοίωμα the resemblance may be accidental, as one egg is like another; but εἰκών implies an archetype of which it is a copy, as Greg. Naz. Orat. 30 (I. p. 554) Says αὔτη yap εἰκόνος φύσις μίμημα εἶναι τοῦ ἀρχετύπου. So too Io. Da- mase. de Imag. i. 9 (I. p. 311) εἰκών ἐστιν ὁμοίωμα χαρακτηρίζον τὸ πρωτότυπον ; comp. Philo de Mund. Op. 23 (I. p. 16). On this difference see Trench WV. 7. Synon. ὃ xv. p. 47. The εἰκὼν might be the result of direct imitation (μιμητική) like the head of a sovereign on a coin, or it might be due to natural causes (φυσική) like the parental features in the child, but in any case it was derived from its prototype: see Basil. de Spir. Sanct. 18 § 45 (1. p. 38). The word itself however does not necessarily imply perfect representation. Thus man is said to be the image of God; I Cor. xi. 7 εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα Θεοῦ ὑπάρ- χων, Clem. Rom. 33 ἄνθρωπον...τῆς ἑαυτοῦ εἰκόνος χαρακτῆρα. Thus again an early Judzeo-Christian writer so designates the duly appointed bishop, as the representative of the Divine au- thority ; Clem. Hom. iii. 62 ὡς εἰκόνα Θεοῦ προτιμῶντας. The idea of per- Jection does not lie in the word itself, but must be sought from the context (e.g. πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα ver. 19). The use which was made of this expression, and especially of this passage, in the
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
143
Christological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries may be seen from the patristic quotations i in Petay, Theol. Dogm. de Trin. ii. 11. 9 8q., Wis δ 6.
(2) Manifestation. This idea comes from the implied contrast to rod do- ράτου Θεοῦ. St Chrysostom indeed maintains the direct opposite, arguing that, as the archetype is invisible, 80 the image must be invisible also, ἡ τοῦ ἀοράτου εἰκὼν καὶ αὐτὴ ἀόρατος καὶ ὁμοίως ἀόρατος. So too Hilary ¢. Const. Imp. 21 (u. p. 378) ‘ut imago invisibilis Dei, etiam per id quod i ipse invisibilis est, invisibilis Dei imago esset.” And this was the view of the Nicene and post-Nicene fathers gene- rally. But the underlying idea of the εἰκών, and indeed of the. Neves gene-
rally, is the manifestation of the hid- den : comp. Philo de Vit. Moys. ii. 12 (Il. p. 144) εἰκὼν τὴς ἀοράτου φύσεως ἐμφανής. And adopted into Christian theology, the doctrine of the λόγος expresses this conception still more prominently by reason of the Incarna- tion; comp. Tertull. adv. Mare. v. 19 ‘Scientes filium semper retro visum, si quibus visus est in Dei nomine, ut imaginem ipsius, Hippol. c. Noet. 7 διὰ yap τῆς εἰκόνος ὁμοίας τυγχανούσης εὔγνωστος ὃ πατὴρ γίνεται, tb. § 12, 13, Orig. im Loann. vi. ὃ 2 (rv. p- 104). Among the post-Nicene fa- thers too St Basil has caught the right idea, Epist. xxxviii. 8 (m1. p. 121) ὁ τῆς εἰκόνος κατανοήσας κάλλος ἐν περι- νοίᾳ τοῦ ἀρχετύπου γίνεται...βλέπειν διὰ «τὸ ἀγέννητον κάλλος ἐν τῷ γεννητῷ κατοπτεύσας. The Word, whether pre-incarnate or incarnate, is the revelation of the unseen Father : comp. John i. 18 Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρα- κεν πώποτε" μονογενὴς Θεύς, ὁ ὧν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγή- σατο; xiv. 9; 10 ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώ- ρακεν τὸν πατέρα" πῶς σὺ λέγεις, Δεῖξον ἡμῖν τὸν πατέρα; (compared with vi. 46 οὐχ ὅτι τὸν πατέρα ἑώρακέν τις κιτλ). The epithet ἀοράτου how- ever must not be confined to the ap-
, > ~ TOUTOU εκεινον..
144
prehension of the bodily senses, but will include the cognisance of the in- ward eye also.
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως) ‘the First-born of all creation.” The word πρωτότοκος has a twofold parentage :
(1) Like εἰκών it is closely con- nected with and taken from the Alex- andrian vocabulary of the Logos. The word however which Philo applies to the λόγος is not πρωτότοκος but mpo- royovos: de Agric. 12 (1. p. 308) mpo- στησάμενος τὸν ὀρθὸν αὐτοῦ λόγον πρω- τόγονον υἱόν, de Somn. i. 37 (I. p. 653) ὁ πρωτόγονος αὐτοῦ θεῖος λύγος, de Oonfus. ling. i. 28 (1. p. 427) σπουδα- ἕέτω κοσμεῖσθαι κατὰ τὸν πρωτόγονον αὐτοῦ λόγον : comp. ib. i. 14 (I. p. 414) τοῦτον πρεσβύτατον υἱὸν 6 τῶν ὄντων ἀνέτειλε πατήρ, ον ἑτέρωθι πρωτόγονον ὠνόμασε : and this designation πρεσ- βύτατος υἱὸς is several times applied to the λόγος. Again in Quis rer. div. her. § 24 (1. p. 489) the language of Exod. xiii. 2 ἁγίασόν μοι πᾶν πρωτότο- κον πρωτογενές K.7.A. is So interpreted as to apply tothe Divine Word. These appellations, ‘the first-begotten, the eldest son, are given to the Logos by Philo, because in his philosophy it includes the original conception, the archetypal idea, of creation, which was afterwards realised in the mate- rial world. Among the early Chris- tian fathers Justin Martyr again and again recognises the application of the term πρωτότοκος to the Word; Apol. i. 23 (p. 68) λόγος αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχων καὶ πρωτότοκος καὶ δύναμις, 2b. § 46 (p. 83) τὸν Χριστὸν πρωτότοκον τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι .. λόγον ὄντα οὗ πᾶν γένος ἀνθρώπων μετέσχε, ib. § 33 (p. 75 6) τὸν λόγον ὃς καὶ πρωτότοκος τῷ Θεῷ ἐστι. So too Theophilus ad Autol. ii. 22 τοῦτον τὸν λόγον ἐγεννησεν προφορικόν, πρωτότο- κον πάσης κτίσεως.
(2) The word πρωτότοκος had also another not less important link of connexion with the past. The Mes- sianic reference of Ps. Ixxxix. 28, ἐγὼ πρωτότοκον θήσομαι αὐτὸν K.T.A., Seems to have beon generally allowed. So
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
[I. 15
at least it is interpreted by R. Nathan in Shemoth Rabba 19, fol. 118. 4, ‘God said, As I made Jacob a first-born (Exod. iv. 22), so also will I make king Messiah a first-born (Ps, Ixxxix, 28). Hence ‘the first-born’ ὁ πρωτό- tokos (1122) used absolutely, became a recognised title of Messiah. The way had been paved for this Messianic reference of πρωτότοκος by its prior application to the Israelites, as the prerogative race, Exod. iv. 22 ‘ Israel is my son, my first-born’: comp. Psalm. Salom. xviii. 4 ἡ παιδεία σου ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς ὡς υἱὸν πρωτότοκον μονογενῆ, 4 Esdr. vi. 58 ‘nos populus tuus, quem vocasti primogenitum, unigenitum, where the combination of the two titles applied in the New Testament to the Son is striking. Here, as elsewhere (see the note on Gal. iii. 16 καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν k.7.A.), the terms are transferred from the race to the Messiah, as the repre- sentative, the embodiment, of the race.
As the Person of Christ was the Divine response alike to the philoso- phical questionings of the Alexan- drian Jew and to the patriotic hopes of the Palestinian, these two currents of thought meet in the term πρωτό- rokos aS applied to our Lord, who is both the true Logos and the true Messiah. For this reason, we may suppose, as well as for others, the Christian Apostles preferred πρωτό- tokos tO πρωτόγονος, Which (as we may infer from Philo) was the favourite term with the Alexandrians, because the former alone would include the Messianic reference as well.
The main ideas then which the word involves are twofold; the one more directly connected with the Alexan- drian conception of the Logos, the other more nearly allied to the Pales- tinian conception of the Messiah.
(1) Priority to all creation. In other words it declares the absolute pre-existence of the Son. At first sight it might seem that Christ is here regarded as one, though the earliest, of created beings. This in-
| |
I. 15]
terpretation however is not required by the expression itself. The fathers of the fourth century rightly called attention to the fact that the Apostle
writes not πρωτόκτιστος, but πρωτό-
roxos; 6.5. Basil. c. Hunom. iv (1. p. 292). Much earlier, in Clem. Alex. Exc. Theod. το (p. 970), though with- out any direct reference to this pas- sage, the μονογενὴς καὶ πρωτότοκος is contrasted with the πρωτόκτιστοι, the highest order of angelic beings; and the word πρωτόκτιστος occurs more than once elsewhere in his writings (e.g. Strom. v. 14, p. 699). Nor again does the genitive case necessarilyimply that the πρωτότοκος Himself belonged to the κτίσις, as will be shown presently. And if this sense is not required by the words themselves, it is directly exclud- ed by the context. It is inconsistent alike with the universal agency in creation which is ascribed to Him in the words following, ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη ta πάντα, and with the absolute pre- existence and self-existence which is claimed for Him just below, αὐτὸς ἔστιν πρὸ πάντων. We may add also that it is irreconcilable with other passages in the Apostolic writings, while it contradicts the fundamental idea of the Christian consciousness. More especially the description πρωτό- Tokos πάσης κτίσεως must be interpret- ed in such a way that it is not incon- sistent with His other title of povoye- ms, unicus, alone of His kind and therefore distinct from created things. The two words express the same eternal fact; but while μονογενής states it in itself, πρωτότοκος places it in relation to the Universe. The correct interpretation is supplied by Justin Martyr, Dial. § 100 (p. 326 Ὁ) πρωτότοκον τοῦ Θεοῦ Kai πρὸ πάν- των τῶν κτισμάτων. He does not indeed mention this passage, but it was doubtless in his mind, for he else- where uses the very expression πρω- ToTokos πάσης κτίσεως, Dial. ὃ ὃς (p. 311 8), ὃ 138 (p. 367 D); comp. also § 84 (p. 310 Β), where the words πρω-
COL.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
145
TOTOKOS TOY πάντων ποιημάτων OCCUr.
(2) Sovereignty over all creation. God’s ‘first-born’ is the natural ruler, the acknowledged head, of God’s household. The right of primogeni- ture appertains to Messiah over all created things. Thus in Ps. lxxxix. 28 after πρωτότοκον θήσομαι αὐτὸν the explanation is added, ὑψηλὸν mapa τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν τῆς γῆς, i.e. (as the original implies) ‘above all the kings of the earth.’ In its Messianic reference this secondary idea of sovereignty predominated in the word πρωτότοκος, 80 that from this point of VieW πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως would mean ‘Sovereign Lord over all crea- tion by virtue of primogeniture.’ The ἔθηκεν κληρόνομον πάντων of the Apo- stolic writer (Heb. i. 2) exactly cor- responds to the θήσομαι πρωτότοκον of the Psalmist (Ixxxix. 28), and doubtless was tacitly intended as a paraphrase and application of this Messianic passage. So again in Heb. ΧΙ. 23, ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων, the most probable explanation of the word is that which makes it equivalent to ‘heirs of the kingdom,’ all faithful Christians being ipso facto πρωτότοκοι, because all are kings. Nay, so com- pletely might this idea of dominion by virtue of priority eclipse the primary sense of the term ‘first-born’ in some of its uses, that it is given as a title to God Himself by R. Bechai on the Pen- tateuch, fol. 124. 4, ‘Who is primo- genitus mundi, adw Sy y3 Sine, 1.0 ὅς ἐστιν πρωτότοκος TOU κόσμου, as it would be rendered in Greek. [ἢ this same work again, fol. 74. 4, Exod. xiii. 2 is falsely interpreted so that God is represented as calling Himself ‘ pri- mogenitus’: see Schéttgen p. 922. For other instances of secondary uses of 22 in the Old Testament, where the idea of ‘priority of birth’ is over- shadowed by and lost in the idea of ‘pre-eminence, see Job xviii. 13 ‘the first-born of death,’ Is. xiv. 30 ‘the first-born of the poor,
πάσης κτίσεως] ‘of all creation,
TO
140
rather than ‘of every created thing, The three senses of κτίσις in the New Testament are: (1) creation, as the act of creating, e.g. Rom. i. 20 ἀπὸ κτίσεως Koopov: (2) creation, as the aggregate of created things, Mark xiii. 19 am’ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως ἣν ἔκτισεν ὁ Θεός (where the parallel passage, Matt. xxiv. 21, has am ἀρχῆς κόσμου), Kom. Vili. 22 πᾶσα ἡ Χτίσις συστενάζει: (3) 2 creation, a single created thing, a creature, e.g. Rom. viii. 39 οὔτε τις κτίσις ἑτέρα, Heb. iv. 13 οὐκ ἔστιν κτίσις ἀφανής. AS κτίσις without the definite article is sometimes used of the created world generally (6, g. Mark xiii. 19), and indeed belongs to the category of anarthrous nouns like κόσμος, γῆ, οὐρανός, ete. (see Winer § xix. p. 1498q.), it is best taken so here. Indeed πάσης κτίσεως, in the sense of πάντος κτίσματος, would be awkward in this connexion; for πρω- τότοκος seems to require either a col- lective noun, or a plural πασῶν τῶν κτίσεων. In ver. 23 the case is differ- ent (see the note there). The anar- throus πᾶσα κτίσις is found in Judith ix. 12 βασιλεῦ πάσης κτίσεώς σου, while πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις occurs in Judith xvi. 14, Mark xvi. 15, Rom. viii. 22, Clem. Rom. 19, Mart. Polyc. 14. For πᾶς, signifying ‘all,” and not ‘every, when attached to this class of nouns, see Winer § xviii. p. 137.
The genitive case must be inter- preted so as to include the full mean- ing of πρωτότοκος, as already ex- plained. It will therefore signify : ‘He stands in the relation of πρωτό- τόκος to all creation, i.e. ‘He is the Firstborn, and, as the Firstborn, the absolute Heir and sovereign Lord, of all creation.’ The connexion is the same as in the passage of R. Bechai already quoted, where God is called primogenitus mundi. Another ex- planation which would connect the genitive with the first part of the com- pound alone (πρωτό-), comparing Joh. i. 15, 30, πρῶτός μου ἦν, unduly strains the grammar, while it excludes the
The history of the Ὁ exegesis of this expression is a ἃ pain- ful interest. All the fathers of the second and third centuries without exception, so far as 1 have noticed, correctly refer it to the Eternal Word and not to the Incarnate Christ, to the Deity and not to the hu- manity of our Lord. So Justin ἃ 6.) Theophilus 7.¢., Clement of Alexan- dria Lac. Theod. 7, 8, 19 (pp. 967, 973), Tertullian adv. Prax. 7, adv. Mare. v. το. Uippolytus Her. x. 33, Origen c. Cels. vi. 47, 63, 64, ete., in Ioann. i. § 22 (tv. p. 21), Xix. § 5 (p. 305), xxviii. § 14 (p. 392), Cyprian Test. il. τ, Noyatian de Trin. 16, and the Synod of Antioch (Routh’s Rel. Sacr. IL. pp. 290, 293). The Arian controversy however gave ἃ dif- ferent turn to the exegesis of the passage. The Arians fastened upon the expression πρωτότοκος πάσης KTi- σεως, and drew from it the inference that the Son was a created being. The great use which they made of the text appears from the document n Hilary, “ragm. Hist. Op. m p. 644. The right answer to this false interpretation we have already seen. Many orthodox fathers however, not satisfied with this, transferred the expression into a new sphere, and maintained that πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως describes the Incarnate Christ. By so doing they thought to cut up the Arian argument by the roots. As a consequence of this interpretation, they were obliged to understand the κτίσις and the κτίζεσθαι in the context of the new spiritual creation, the καινὴ κτίσις Of 2 Cor. v. 17, Gal. vi. 15. Thus interpreted, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως here becomes nearly equiva- lent to πρωτότοκος ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς in Rom. viii. 29. The arguments al- leged in favour of this interpretation are mainly twofold: (1) That, if ap-' plied to the Divine nature, πρωτότοκος would contradict μονογενὴς which else- where describes the nature of the
I. 15]
Eternal Son. But those who main- tained, and rightly maintained, that πρωτότοκος (Luke ii. 7) did not neces- sarily imply that the Lord’s mother had other sons, ought not to have been led away by this fallacy. (2) That πρωτότοκος in other passages (e.g. Rom. viii. 29, Rey. i. 5, and just be- low, ver. 18) is applied to the hu- manity of Christ. But elsewhere, in Heb. i. 6 ὅταν δὲ πάλιν εἰσαγάγῃ τὸν πρωτότοκον κιτ.Ὰλ., the term must al- most necessarily refer to the pre- existence of the Son; and moreover the very point of the Apostle’s lan- guage in the text (as will be seen pre- sently) is the parallelism in the two relations of our Lord—His relation to the natural creation, as the Eternal Word, and His relation to the spiritual creation, as the Head of the Church— so that the same word (πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως Ver. 15, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν Ver. 18) is studiously used of both. A false exegesis is sure to bring a nemesis on itself. Logical consistency required that thisinterpretation should be carried farther; and Marcellus, who was never deterred by any considera- tions of prudence, took this bold step. He extended the principle to the whole context, including even εἰκὼν Tov ἀοράτου Θεοῦ, which likewise he interpreted of our Lord’s humanity. In this way a most important Christo- logical passage was transferred into an alien sphere; and the strongest argument against Arianism melted away in the attempt to combat Arian- ism on false grounds. The criticisms of Eusebius on Marcellus are perfectly just: Ποῖ. Theol. i. 20 (p. 96) ταῦτα περὶ τῆς θεότητος Tov υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, κἂν μὴ Μαρκέλλῳ δοκῇ, εἴρηται᾽ οὐ γὰρ περὶ τῆς σαρκὸς εἶπεν ἂν τοσαῦτα ὁ θεῖος ἀπόστολος x.T.A.; Comp. ib. ii. 9 (p. 67), iii. 6 5ᾳ. (p. 175), ¢. Marcell. i. I (p. 6), i. 2 (p. 12), i. 3 (pp. 43, 46 sq., 48). The objections to this interpretation are threefold: (1) It disregards the history of the terms in their connexion with the pre-
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
147
Christian speculations of Alexandrian Judaism. These however, though di- rectly or indirectly they were present to the minds of the earlier fathers and kept them in the right exegetical path, might very easily have escaped a writer in the fourth century. (2) It shatters the context. To suppose that such expressions as ἐν αὐτῷ ἐ- κτίσθη τὰ πάντα [ τὰ] ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς Kat [ra] ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ΟΥ̓ τὰ πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ «ἔκτισται, OY τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέ- στηκεν, refer to the work of the Incar- nation, is to strain language in a way which would reduce all theological exegesis to chaos; and yet this, as Marcellus truly saw, is a strictly logi- cal consequence of the interpretation which refers πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως to Christ’s humanity. (3) It takes no account of the cosmogony and angel- ology of the false teachers against which the Apostle’s exposition here is directed (see above, pp. IOI sq., I10sq., 115 8q.). This interpretation is given by St Athanasius c. Arian. ii. 62 sq. (I. p. 4198q.) and appears again in Greg. Nyss. c. Hunom. ii. (II. pp. 451—453, 492), ἐδ. iii. (τι. p. 540—545), de Perf. (II. p. 290 8q.), Cyril Alex. Thes. 25, p. 236 sq., de Trin. Dial. iv. p. 517 sq., vi. p. 625 8q., Anon. Chrysost. Op. VII. p. 223, appx. (quoted as Chrysostom by Photius Bibl. 277). So too Cyril expresses himself at the Council of Ephesus, Labb. Conc. 1. p. 652 (ed. Colet). St Athanasius indeed does not confine the expression to the condescension (συγκατάβασις) of the Word in the In- carnation, but includes also a prior condescension in the Creation of the world (see Bull Def. Fid. Nic. iii. 9 § 1, with the remarks of Newman Select Treatises of S. Athanasius I. pp. 278, 368 sq.). This double reference how- ever only confuses the exegesis of the passage still further, while theo- logically it might lead to very serious difficulties. In another work, Hapos. Fid. 3 (1. p. 80), he seems to take a truer view of its meaning. St Basil,
10—2
148
, / 16 TAONS KTLOEWS*
who to an equally clear appreciation of doctrine generally unites a sounder exegesis than St Athanasius, while men- tioning the interpretation which refers the expression to Christ’s human na- ture, himself prefers explaining it of the Eternal Word; δ. Hunom. iv. (1. p. 292). Of the Greek commentators on this passage, Chrysostom’s view is not clear; Severianus (Cram. Cat. p. 303) and Theodoret understand it rightly of the Eternal Word ; while Theodore of Mopsuestia (Cram. Cat. pp. 306, 308, 309, Rab. Maur. Op. VI. p. 511 sq. ed. Migne) expresses him- self very strongly on the opposite side. Like Marcellus, he carries the interpretation consistently into the whole context, explaining ἐν αὐτῷ to refer not to the original creation {κτί- ais) but to the moral re-creation (ἀνάκτισις), and referring εἰκών to the Incarnation in the same way. At a later date, when the pressure of an immediate controversy has passed away, the Greek writers generally concur in the earlier and truer inter- pretation of the expression. Thus John Damascene (de Orthod. Fd. iv. 8, I. p. 258sq.), Theophylact (ad loc.), and (icumenius (ad loc.), all explain it of Christ’s Divine Nature. Among Latin writers there is more diver- sity of interpretation. rius Victorinus (adv. Ariwm i. 24, p. 1058, ed. Migne), Hilary of Poictiers (Tract. in ti Ps.§ 28 8q., I. p. 47 8q.; de Trin. Viii. 50, 1. p. 248 sq.),and Hilary the commentator (ad loc,), take it of the Divine Nature, Augustine (Zapos. ad Rom. 56, tt. p. 914) and Pelagius (ad loc.) understand it of the Incarnate Christ. This sketch of the history of the interpretation of the expression would not be complete without a re- ference to another very different ex- planation. Isidore of Pelusium, /pist. iii. 31 (p. 268), would strike out a new path of interpretation altogether (εἰ καὶ δόξαιμί τισι καινοτέραν ἑρμηνείας
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS,
While Με
[I. 16
J > ’ a 3 , \ ΄ \ ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη Ta πάντα, [τὰ]
ἀνατέμνειν ὁδόν), and for the passive πρωτότοκος suggests reading the active πρωτοτόκος, alluding to the use of this latter word in Homer (7. xvii. 5 μήτηρ πρωτοτύκος...οὐ πρὶν εἰδυῖα τόκοιο: comp. Plat. Thewt. 151 0 ὥσπερ at πρωτοτόκοι). Thus St Paul is made to say that Christ πρῶτον τετοκέναι, τουτέστι, πεποιηκέναι τὴν κτίσιν.
16. ὅτι κιτ.λ.] We have in this sen- tence the justification of the title given to the Son in the preceding clause, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως. It must therefore be taken to explain the sense in which this title is used. Thus connected, it shows that the πρωτότοκος Himself is not included in πᾶσα κτίσις; for the expression used is not τὰ ἄλλα or τὰ λοιπά, but τὰ πάντα extic6y—words which are absolute and comprehensive, and will admit no exception.
ev αὐτῷ] ‘in Him, as below ver. 17 ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν. position comp. Acts xvii. 28 ἐν αὐτῷ yap ζῶμεν καὶ κινούμεθα καί ἐσμεν. All the laws and purposes which
guide the creation and government —
of the Universe reside in Him, the ternal Word, as their meeting-point. The Apostolic doctrine of the Logos teaches us to regard the Eternal
Word as holding the same relation to —
the Universe which the Incarnate Christ holds to the Church. He is the source of its life, the centre of all its developments, the mainspring of all its motions. The use of ἐν to describe His relations to the Church abounds in St Paul (e.g. Rom. viii. 1, 2, xii. 5, xvi. 3, 7, 9, ete 1 Cor. 50. iv. 15, 17, Vii. 39, xv. 18, 22, ete.), and more especially in the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians (e.g. below ii. 7, 10). In the present passage, as in ver. 17, the same preposition is applied also to His relations to the Universe; comp. Joh. 1. 4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν (more especially if we connect the preceding ὃ γέγονεν with it),
For the pre- —
1. 16]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
149
- ᾽ =~ \ \ 3 \ = =~ ε ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ [Ta] ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ
Thus it is part of the parallelism which runs through the whole pas- sage, and to which the occurrence of πρωτότοκος in both relations gives the key. The Judzeo-Alexandrian teachers represented the Logos, which in their view was nothing more than the Divine mind energizing, as the τόπος where the eternal ideas, the νοητὸς κόσμος, had their abode; Philo de Mund. Op. 4 (I. p. 4) ὅσαπερ ἐν ἐκείνῳ νοητά, wv. § 5 (p. 4) οὐδὲ ὁ ἐκ τῶν ἰδεῶν κόσμος ἄλλον ἂν ἔχοι τόπον ἢ τὸν θεῖον τω τὸν ταῦτα διακοσμήσαντα, ἐδ. § 10 (Pp. 8) ὁ ἀσώματος κόσμος... ἱδρυθεὶς ἐν τῷ θείῳ λόγῳ ; and see especially de Migr. “Abr. 1 A p- 437) οἶκος ἐν ᾧ διαιτᾶται...ὅσα ἂν ἐνθυμή- ματα τέκῃ, ὥσπερ ἐν οἴκῳ τῷ λόγῳ δια- θείς. The Apostolic teaching is an enlargement of this conception, inas- much as the Logos is no longer a philosophical abstraction but a Di- vine Person: see Hippol. Her. x. 33 αἴτιον τοῖς γινομένοις Adyos ἦν, ἐν ἑαυτῷ φέρων τὸ θέλειν τοῦ γεγεννη- κότος...ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὰς ἐν τῷ πατρὶ προεννοηθείσας ἰδέας ὅθεν κελεύοντος πατρὸς γίνεσθαι κόσμον τὸ κατὰ ἕν Λό- γος ἀπετελεῖτο ἀρέσκων Θεῷ : comp. Orig. in Ioann. 1. § 22, Iv. p. 21. ἐκτίσθη] The aorist is used here; the perfect below. ᾿Εκτίσθη describes the definite historical act of creation ; ἔκτισται the continuous and present
-relations of creation to the Creator:
comp. Joh. 1. 3 χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ev With ib. ὃ γέγονεν, I Cor. ix. 22 ἐγενόμην τοῖς ἀσθενέσιν ἀσθενής with ib. τοῖς πᾶσιν γέγονα πάντα, 2 Cor. xii. 17 μή τινα ὧν ἀπέσταλκα With ver. 18 καὶ συναπέστειλα τὸν ἀδελφόν, I Joh. iv. 9 τὸν μονογενῆ ἀπέσταλκεν ὃ Θεὸς εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἵνα ζήσωμεν OV av- τοῦ with ver. 10 ὅτι αὐτὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς καὶ ἀπέστειλεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ. τὰ πάντα] ‘the universe of things, not πάντα ‘all things severally,’ but τὰ πάντα ‘all things collectively. With very few exceptions, wherever this
phrase occurs elsewhere, it stands ina similar connexion; see below, vv. 17, 20, ili, 11, Rom. xi. 36, I Cor. viii. 6, Mi 125 ΧΙ Ὁ; Vi 27. 25 2 ΟΣ 19. Kph.. 1 10, 11, 23; ἵν. τὸ; Heb: i; 3; ii, ὃ, Rev. iv. 11. Compare Rom. viii. 32 τὰ πάντα ἡμῖν χαρίσεται, 2 Cor. iv. 15. τὰ πάντα δι᾽ ὑμᾶς, with 1 Cor. iii. 22 εἴτε κόσμος.. ὑμῶν ; and Phil. iii. ὃ τὰ πάντα ἐζημιώθην with Matt. xvi. 26 ἐὰν τὸν κόσμον ὅλον κερδήσῃ. Thus it will appear that τὰ πάντα is nearly equivalent to ‘the universe’ It stands midway between πάντα and τὸ πᾶν. The last however is not a scrip- tural phrase; for, while with τὰ πάντα it involves the idea of connexion, it suggests also the unscriptural idea of self-contained unity, the great world- soul of the Stoic pantheist.
ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς k.T.A.] This division of the universe is not the same with the following, as if [τὰ] ἐν rots οὐρανοῖς were equivalent to τὰ ἀόρατα and [τὰ] ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς to τὰ ὁρατά. It should rather be compared with Gen. i, 1 ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ THY γῆν, li. 1 συνετελέσθησαν ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ καὶ πᾶς 6 κύσμος αὐτῶν, Xiv. 19 ὃς ἔκτισεν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν, Rey. x. 6 ὃς ἔκτισεν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ. It is a classification by locality, as the other is a Classification by essences. Heaven aud earth together com- prehend all space; and all things whether material or immaterial are conceived for the purposes of the classification as having their abode in space. Thus the sun and the moon would belong to ὁρατά, but they would be ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ; while the human soul would be classed among ἀόρατα but would be regarded as ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ; see below ver. 20.
It is difficult to say whether ra...ra should be expunged or retained. The elements in the decision are; (1) The facility either of omission or of ad- dition in the first clause, owing to the
150
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
[1. 16
Te yf iA J / > > > ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες, εἴτε ἀρχαὲ εἴτε
termination οἵ πάντα : (2) The much greater authority for the omission in the first clause than in the second. These two combined suggest that ra was omitted accidentally in the first elause, and then expunged purposely in the second for the sake of uni- formity. On the other hand there is (3) The possibility of insertion in both cases either for the sake of gram- matical completeness or owing to the parallel passages, ver. 20, Ephes. i. ro. On the whole the reasons for their omission preponderate. At all events we can hardly retain the one without the other.
τὰ ὁρατὰ κιτιλ.] ‘Things material and immaterial, or, according to the language of philosophy, φαινόμενα and νούμενα: comp. Plato Phaed. 79 A θώμεν οὖν, εἰ βούλει, ἔφη, δύο εἴδη τῶν ὄντων, τὸ μὲν ὁρατόν, τὸ δὲ ἀειδές, k.T.r.
εἴτε κιτ.λ. ‘whether they be thrones or lordships, etc” The subdivision is no longer exhaustive. The Apostle singles out those created beings that from their superior rank had been or might be set in rivalry with the Son.
A comparison with the parallel passage Ephes. i. 21, ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ κυριότητος καὶ παντὸς k.T.A., brings out the-following points :
(1) No stress can be laid on the sequence of the names, as though St Paul were enunciating with authority some precise doctrine respecting the grades of the celestial hierarchy. The names themselves are not the same in the two passages. While ἀρχή, ἐξ- ουσία, κυριότης, are common to both, θρόνος is peculiar to the one and δύναμις to the other. Nor again is there any correspondence in the se- quence. Neither does δύναμις take the place of θρόνος, nor do the three words common to both appear in the same order, the sequence being apy. ἐξ. [δύν.] κυρ. in Eph. rh 21, and [Opov.} kup. apx. ἐξ. here.
(2) An expression in Eph. i. 21 shows the Apostle’s motive in intro- ducing these lists of names: for he there adds καὶ παντὸς ὀνόματος ὀνο- μαζομένου οὐ μόνον ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι, 1.9. “ of every dignity or title (whether real or imagi- nary) Which is reverenced, etc.; for this is the force of παντὸς ὀνόματος ὀνομαζομένου (see the. notes on Phil. ii. 9, and Eph./.c.). Hence it appears that in this catalogue St Paul does not profess to describe objective realities, but contents himself with repeating subjective opinions. He brushes away all these speculations
without enquiring how much or how —
little truth there may be in them, because they are altogether beside the question. shows the same spirit of impatience with this elaborate angelology, as in ii. 18.
(3) Some commentators have re- ferred the terms used here solely to earthly potentates and dignities. There can be little doubt however that their chief and primary reference is tc the orders of the celestial hier- archy, as conceived by these Gnostic Judaizers. This appears from the con- text; for the words ra ἀόρατα imme- diately precede this list of terms, while in the mention of πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα and in other expressions the Apostle clearly contemplates the rivalry of spiritual powers with Christ. It is also demanded by the whole design and purport of the letter, which is written to combat the worship paid to angels. The names too, more especially θρόνοι, are especially connected with the speculations of Jewish angelology. But when this is granted, two questions still remain. First; are evil as well as good spirits included, demons as well as angels?) And next; though the primary reference is to spiritual powers, is it not possible that the expression was intended to be compre-
His language here —
L 16]
hensive and to include earthly dignities as well? The clause added in the parallel passage, οὐ μόνον ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ κιτιλ., encourages us thus to extend the Apostle’s meaning ; and we are led in the same direction by the comprehensive words which have pre- ceded here, [ra] ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς κιτιλ. Nor is there anything in the terms themselves which bars such an extension; for, as will be seen, the combination ἀρχαὶ καὶ ἐξουσίαι is applied not only to good angels but to bad, not only to spiritual powers but to earthly. Compare Ignat. Smyrn. 6 τὰ ἐπουράνια καὶ ἡ δόξα τῶν ἀγγέλων καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες ὁρατοί τε καὶ ἀόρατοι.
Thus guided, we may paraphrase the Apostle’s meaning as follows: ‘You dispute much about the succes- sive grades of angels; you distinguish each grade by its special title; you can tell how each order was generated from the preceding; you assign to each its proper degree of worship. Meanwhile you have ignored or you have degraded Christ. I tell you, it is not so. He is first and foremost, Lord of heaven and earth, far above all thrones or dominations, all prince- doms or powers, far above every dignity and every potentate—whether earthly or heavenly—whether angel or demon or man—that evokes your reyerence or excites your fear. See above, pp. IOI sq.
Jewish and Judzo-Christian specu- lations respecting the grades of the celestial hierarchy took various forms, In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Levi 3), which as coming near to the Apostolic age supplies a valuable illustration (see Galatians p- 307 sq.), these orders are arranged as follows: (1) θρόνοι, ἐξουσίαι, these two in the highest or seventh heaven; (2) οἱ ἄγγελοι of φέροντες tas ἀπο- κρίσεις τοῖς ἀγγέλοις τοῦ προσώπου in the sixth heaven; (3) οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ προσώπου in the fifth heaven; (4) of ἅγιοι in the fourth heaven; (5) ai duva-
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
151
pets τῶν παρεμβολῶν in the third heaven ; (6) ra πνεύματα τῶν ἐπαγωγῶν (i.e. of visitations, retributions) in the second heaven: or perhaps the denizens of the sixth and fifth heavens, (2) and (3), should be transposed. The lowest heaven is not peopled by any spirits. In Origen de Prine. i. 5. 3, i. i. 6. 2, I. pp. 66, 70 (comp. i. 8. 1, ib. p.74), we have five classes, which are given in an ascending scale in this order; (1) angels (sancti angeli, τάξις dyye- λική); (2) princedoms (principatus, δύναμις ἀρχική, apxat); (3) powers (po- testates, ἐξουσίαι); (4) thrones (thront vel sedes, θρόνοι); (5) dominations (dominationes, κυριότητες); though elsewhere, in Loann. i. § 34, IV. p. 34, he seems to have a somewhat differ- ent classification in view. In Ephrem Syrus Op. Syr. τ. p. 270 (where the translation of Benedetti is altogether faulty and misleading) the ranks are these : (1) θεοί, θρόνοι, κυριότητες ; (2) ἀρχάγγελοι, ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι; (3) ἄγγελοι, δυνάμεις, χερουβίμ, σεραφίμ; these three great divisions being represented by the χιλίαρχοι, the ἑκατόνταρχοι, and the πεντηκόνταρχοι respectively in Deut. i. 15, on which passage he is comment- ing. The general agreement between these will be seen at once. This grouping also seems to underlie the conception of Basil of Seleucia Orat. 39 (p. 207), who mentions them in this order; θρόνοι, κυριότητες, ἀρχαί, ἐξ- ουσίαι, δυνάμεις, χερουβίμ, σεραφίμ. On the other hand the arrangement of the pseudo-Dionysius, who so largely influenced subsequent speculations, is quite different and probably later (Dion. Areop. Op. I. p. 75, ed. Cord.); (1) θρόνοι, χερουβίμ, σεραφίμ; (2) ἐξου- σίαι, κυριότητες, δυνάμεις; (3) ἄγγελοι, ἀρχάγγελοι, ἀρχαί. But the earlier lists for the most part seem to suggest as their common foundation a classification in which θρόνοι, κυριότη- res, belonged to the highest order, and ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι to the next below. Thus it would appear that the Apo- stle takes as an illustration the titles
BPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. {1.16
4
rhe ‘ , ΄σ \ > > \ / 5
ἐξουσίαι" τὰ πάντα Ol αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν €KTLO TALS ~
182
assigned to the two highest grades in a system of the celestial hierarchy which he found current, and which probably was adopted by these Gnos- tic Judaizers. See also the note on ii. 18.
θρόνοι] In all systems alike these ‘thrones’ belong to the highest grade of angelic beings, whose place is in the immediate presence of God. The meaning of the name however is doubtful: (1) It may signify the occu- pants of thrones which surround the throne of God; as in the imagery of Rey. iv. 4 κύκλοθεν τοῦ θρόνου θρόνοι εἴκοσι τέσσαρες (Comp. Xi. 16, XX. 4). The imagery is there taken from the court of an earthly king: see Jer. lii. 32. This is the interpretation given by Origen de Prine. i. 5.3 (p. 66), i. 6. 2 (p. 70) ‘judicandi vel regendi... habentes officium.’ Or (2) They were so called, as supporting or forming the throne of God ; just as the chariot- seat of the Almighty is represented as resting on the cherubim in Hzek. Ἐ 20,1%. 03, Ὁ 186, ΧΙ 22) 8. ΣΎ ΠῚ LO, 1 Chron, xxviii. 18. So apparently Clem. Alex. Proph. Ecl. 57 (p. 1003) θρόνοι ἂν εἶεν...διὰ TO ἀναπαύεσθαι ἐν αὐτοῖς τὸν Θεόν. From this same imagery of the prophet the later mys- ticism of the Kabbala derived its name ‘wheels,’ which it gave to one of its ten orders of Sephiroth. Adopt- ing this interpretation, several fathers identify the ‘thrones’ with the che- rubim: e.g. Greg. Nyss. c. Hunom. i (IL. p. 349 8q.), Chrysost. de Incompr. Nat. iii. καὶ (1. p. 467), Theodoret (ad loc.), August. in Psalm. xeviii. § 3 (Iv. p. 1061). This explanation was adopted also by the pseudo-Dionysius de Cel. Hier.7 (1. p. 80), without how- ever identifying them with the cheru- bim ; and through his writings it came to be generally adopted. The former interpretation however is more pro- bable; for (1) The highly symbolical character of the latter accords better
with a later stage of mystic speculation, like the Kabbala; and (2) It seems
best to treat θρόνοι as belonging to the ©
same category with κυριότητες, ἀρχαΐ, ἐξουσίαι, which are concrete words borrowed from different grades of human rank and power. As implying regal dignity, θρόνοι naturally stands at the head of the list.
κυριότητες] ‘dominations, as Ephes. i. 21. These appear to have been re- garded as belonging to the first grade, and standing next in dignity to the θρόνοι. This indeed would be sug- gested by their name.
ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι] as Ephes. i. 21. These two words occur very frequently together. In some places they refer to human dignities, as Luke xii. 11, Tit. iii, 1 (comp. Luke xx. 20); in others to a spiritual hierarchy. And here again there are two different uses: sometimes they designate good angels, e.g. below ii. 10, Ephes. iii, 10; sometimes evil spirits, eg. 11, 15, Ephes. yi. 12: while in one passage at least (1 Cor. xv. 24) both may be in- cluded. In Rom. viii. 38 we have ap- xai without ἐξουσίαι (except as av. 1.), and in 1 Pet. iii. 22 ἐξουσίαι without ἀρχαί, in connexion with the angelic orders.
δι αὐτοῦ κιτιλ] ‘As all creation passed out from Him, so does it all con- verge again towards Him.’ For the combination of prepositions see Kom. xi. 36 ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς av- τὸν τὰπάντα. Heis ποῦ only the a but also the ὦ, not only the ἀρχή but also the τέλος of creation, not only the first but also the last in the history of the Universe: Rev. xxii. 13. For this double relation of Christ to the Universe, as both the initial and the final cause, see Heb. ii. 10 δι ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ δι οὗ τὰ πάντα, Where dv ὃν is nearly equivalent to εἰς αὐτὸν of the text.
In the Judaic philosophy of Alex- andria the preposition διὰ with the
the Word to the Creator, 6. δ᾽
I. 17]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
153
\ J \ / \ \ / 3 ᾽ “- “καὶ αὐτὸς ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων, καὶ Ta TayTa ἐν αὐτῳ
genitive was commonly used to de- scribe the function of the Logos in the creation and government of the world; e.g. de Cherub. 35 (I. p. 162) where Philo, enumerating the causes which combine in the work of Crea- tion, describes God as ὑφ᾽ οὗ, matter as ἐξ ov, and the Word as δι οὗ ; comp. de Mon. ii. 5 (11. p. 225) λόγος... δ οὗ σύμπας ὁ κόσμος ἐδημιουργεῖτο. The Christian Apostles accepted this use of διὰ to describe the mediatorial function of the Word in creation; e.g. John i. 3 πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο κιτὰλ., ib. ver. 10 ὁ κόσμος δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, Heb. i. 2 Sv οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας. This mediatorial function however has entirely changed its character. To the Alexandrian Jew it was the work of a passive tool or instru- ment (de Cherub. 1.6. δ οὗ, τὸ épya- λεῖον, ὄργανον...δ ov); but to the Christian Apostle it represented a cooperating agent. Hence the Alex- andrian Jew frequently and consist- ently used the simple instrumental dative 6 to describe the relation of - Quod Deus immut. 12 (1. p. 281) ᾧ καὶ τὸν κόσμον εἰργάζετο, Leg. All. 9 (1 Ῥ. 47) τῷ περιφανεστάτῳ καὶ ane στάτῳ ἑαυτοῦ λόγῳ ῥήματι ὁ Θεὸς ἀμ- φύτερα ποιεῖ, comp. ἐφ. iil. 31 (I. p. 106) ὃ λόγος.. «ᾧ καθάπερ ὀργάνῳ προσχρη- σάμενος. This mode of speaking is not found in the New Testament.
εἰς αὐτόν] ‘unto Him’ As of the Father it is said elsewhere, 1 Cor. viii. 6 ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, so here of the Son we read τὰ πάντα 60 αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτόν. All things must find their meeting-point, their re- conciliation, at length in Him from whom they tvok their rise—in the Word as the mediatorial agent, and through the Word in the Father as the primary source. The Word is the final cause as well as the creative agent of the Universe. This ultimate goal of the present dispensation in
time is similarly stated in several pas- sages. Sometimes it is represented as the birth-throe and deliverance of all creation through Christ; as Rom. Vili. 19 sq. αὐτὴ ἡ κτίσις ἐλευθερωθή- σεται, πασαή κτίσις..-συνωδίνει. Some- times it is the absolute and final sub- jection of universal nature to Him; as 1 Cor. xv. 28 ὅταν ὑποταγῇ αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα. Sometimes it is the recon- ciliation of all things through Him; as below, ver. 20 δ αὐτοῦ ἀποκαταλλάξαι ta πάντα. Sometimes it is the reca- pitulation, the gathering up in one head, of the Universe in Him; as Hphes. i. 10 ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ. The image in- volved in this last passage best illus- trates the particular expression in the text εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται; but all alike enunciate the same truth in different terms. The Eternal Word is the goal of the Universe, as He was the starting- point. It must end in unity, as it proceeded from unity: and the centre of this unity is Christ. This expres- sion has no parallel, and could have none, in the Alexandrian phraseology and doctrine.
17. καὶ αὐτὸς κιτ.λ.] ‘and HE IS before all things’: comp. Joh. viii. 58 πρὶν ᾿Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι, ἐγὼ εἰμὶ (and perhaps also viii. 24, 28, xiii. 19). The imperfect ἦν might have sufficed (comp. Joh. i. 1), but the present ἔστιν declares that this pre-existence is absolute existence. The ayToc €CTIN here corresponds exactly to the erw ΕΙΜΙ in St John, and this again is illus- trated by Exod. iii.14. The verb there- fore is not an enclitic, but should be ac- centuated ἔστιν. See Basiladv. Hunom. iv (I. p. 294) ὁ ἀπόστολος εἰπών, Πάντα δύ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται, ὥφειλεν εἰπεῖν, Καὶ αὐτὸς ἐγένετο πρὸ πάντων, εἰπὼν δέ, Καὶ αὐτὸς ἔστι πρὸ πάντων, ἔδειξε τὸν μὲν ἀεὶ ὄντα τὴν δὲ κτίσιν γενομένην. The αὐτός is as necessary for the completeness of the meaning,
154
/ 18 συνεσ ΤΉΚεν.
as the ἔστιν. The one emphasizes the personalily, as the other declares the pre-cxistence. For this emphatic av- ros see again ver. 18; comp. Ephes. ii. 14, iv. 10, 11, 1 Joh. ii, 2, and esp. Rev. xix. 15 καὶ αὐτὸς. rromaret...Kat αὐτὸς πατεῖ. ‘The other interpretation which explains πρὸ πάντων of superi- ority in rank, and not of priority in time, is untenable for several reasons. (1) This would most naturally be ex- pressed otherwise in Biblical language, as ἐπὶ πάντων (e.g. Rom. ix. 5, Eph. iv. 6), or ὑπὲρ πάντα (ph. i. 22), or ὑπερ- ἄνω πάντων (Eph. 1. 21, iv. 10). (2) The key to the interpretation is given by the analogous words in the con- text, esp. πρωτότοκος, VV. 15, 18. (3) Nothing short of this declaration of absolute pre-existence would be ade- quate to introduce the statement which follows, καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν.
πρὸ πάντων] ‘before all things’ In the Latin it was translated ‘ ante omnes,’ i.e. thronos, dominationes, etc. ; and so Tertullian adv. Mare. v. 19 ‘Quomodo enim ante omnes, si non ante omnia? Quomodo ante omnia, si non primogenitus conditionis ?”? But the neuter τὰ πάντα, standing in the context before and after, requires the neuter here also.
συνέστηκεν) ‘hold together, cohere.’ He is the principle of cohesion in the universe. He impresses upon creation that unity and solidarity which makes it a cosmos instead of a chaos. Thus (to take one instance) the action of gravitation, which keepsin their places things fixed and regulates the mo- tions of things moving, is an expres- sion of His mind. Similarly in Heb. i. 3 Christ the Logos is described as Φέρων τὰ πάντα (sustaining the Uni- verse) τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ. Here again the Christian Apostles accept the language of Alexandrian Judaism, which describes the Logos as the δεσμὸς of the Universe; eg.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
[1. 18
\ / a καὶ αὐτὸς ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώ-
Philo de Profug. 20 (1. p. 562) 6 τε yap τοῦ ὄντος λόγος δεσμὸς ὧν τῶν ἁπάντων... καὶ συνέχει τὰ μέρη πάντα καὶ σφίγγει καὶ κωλύει αὐτὰ διαλύεσθαι καὶ διαρτᾶσθαι, de Plant. 2 (1. p. 331) συνάγων τὰ μέρη πάντα καὶ σφίγγων" δεσμὸν γὰρ αὐτὸν ἄρρηκτον τοῦ παντὸς ὁ γεννήσας ἐποίει πατήρ, Quis rer. din. her. 38 (I. p. 507) λόγῳ σφίγγεται θείῳ" κύλλα γάρ ἐστι καὶ δεσμὸς οὗτος τὰ πάντα τῆς οὐσίας ἐκπεπληρωκώς : and for the word itself see Quis rer. div. her. 12 (1. p. 481) συνέστηκε καὶ ζω- πυρεῖται προνοίᾳ Θεοῦ, Clem. Rom. 27 ev λόγῳ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης αὐτοῦ συνε- στήσατο τὰ πάντα. In the same con- nexion σύγκειται is used, Ecclus. xliii. 26. The indices to Plato and Aristotle amply illustrate this use of συνέστηκεν. This mode of expression was common with the Stoics also.
18. ‘And not only does He hold this position of absolute priority and sovereignty over the Universe—the natural creation. He stands also in the same relation to the Church— the new spiritual creation. He is its head, and itis His body. This is His prerogative, because He is the source and the beginning of its life, being the First-born from the dead. Thus in all things—in the spiritual order as in the natural—in the Church as in the World—He is found to have the pre-eminence.’
The elevating influence of this teaching on the choicest spirits of the subapostolic age will be seen from a noble passage in the noblest of early Christian writings, Epist. ad Diogn. ὃ 7 τὸν λόγον τὸν aytov...av- θρώποις ἐνίδρυσε...οὐ, καθάπερ ἄν τις εἰκάσειεν, ἀνθρώποις ὑπηρέτην τινὰ πέμ- Ψψας ἢ ἄγγελον ἢ ἄρχοντα ἤ τινα τῶν διεπόντων τὰ ἐπίγεια ἤ τινα τῶν πεπισ- τευμένων τὰς ἐν οὐρανοῖς διοικήσεις, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸν τεχνίτην καὶ δημιουργὸν τῶν ὅλων... .ᾧ πάντα διατέτακται καὶ διώρισ- ται καὶ ὑποτέτακται, οὐρανοὶ καὶ τὰ eb
ἼΕ 18]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
155
΄σ > , e/ > > , ματος, τῆς εκκλησίας" OS ἐστιν ἀρχή; πρωτότοκος
τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, γῆ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῆ K.T.A. See the whole context.
καὶ αὐτός] ‘and He, repeated from the preceding verse, to emphasize the identity of the Person who unites in Himself these prerogatives: see on ver. 17, and comp. ver. 18 αὐτός, ver. 19 δ αὐτοῦ. The Creator of the World is also the Head of the Church. There is no blind ignorance, no im- perfect sympathy, no latent conflict, in the relation of the demiurgic power to the Gospel dispensation, as the heretical teachers were disposed con- sciously or unconsciously to assume (see above, p. 99 sq., p. 108 sq.), but an absolute unity of origin.
ἡ κεφαλή] ‘the head, the inspiring, ruling, guiding, combining, sustaining power, the mainspring of its activity, the centre of its unity, and the seat of its life. In his earlier epistles the relations of the Church to Christ are described under the same image (1 Cor. xii. 12—27; comp. vi. 15, x. 17, Rom. xii. 4 sq.); but the Apostle there takes as his starting-point the various functions of the members, and not, as in these later epistles, the originating and controling power of the Head. Comp. i. 24, ii. 19, Eph. © 22 84., 11. 16, iv. 4, 12, 15 8q., V. 23, 30.
τῆς ἐκκλησίας} in apposition with τοῦ σώματος : Comp. i. 24 τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ, 6 ἐστιν ἡ ἐκκλησία, Eph. i. 23.
ἀρχή] ‘the origin, the beginning, The term is here applied to the In- carnate Christ in relation to the Church, because it is applicable to the Eternal Word in relation to the Universe, Rev. iii. 14 ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτί- σεως τοῦ Θεοῦ. The parallelism of the two relations is kept in view through- out. The word ἀρχή here involves two ideas: (1) Priority in time; Christ was the first-fruits of the dead, ἀπαρχή (1 Cor. xv. 20, 23): (2) Originating power; Christ was also the source of life, Acts iii. 14 ὁ ἀρχηγὸς τῆς ζωῆς; comp. Acts v. 31, Heb. ii. το. He is
not merely the principium princi- piatum but the principium princi- pians (see Trench L£pistles to the Seven Churches p. 1838q.). He rose first from the dead, that others might rise through Him.
The word ἀρχή, like πρῶτος (seo the note on Phil. i. 5), being absolute in itself, does not require the definite article. Indeed the article is most commonly omitted where ἀρχή occurs as a predicate, as will appear from several examples to be gathered from the extracts in Plut. Mor. p. 875 sq., Stob. Eel. Phys.i. το. 1284. Comp.also Aristot. Met. x. 7, p. 1064, τὸ θεῖον... ἂν εἴη πρώτη καὶ κυριωτάτη ἀρχή, Onatas in Stob. Eel. Phys. i. 2. 39 αὐτὸς yap [Θεὸς] ἀρχὰ καὶ πρᾶτον, Tatian. ad αγώο. 4 Θεὸς..-μόνος ἄναρχος ὧν καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπάρχων τῶν ὅλων ἀρχή, Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 25, p. 638, ὁ Θεὸς δὲ ἄναρχος, ἀρχὴ τῶν ὅλων παντελής, ἀρχῆς ποιητικός, Method. de Creat. 3 (p. 100, ed. Jahn) πάσης ἀρετῆς ἀρχὴν καὶ πη- γὴν ... ἡγῇ τὸν Θεόν, pseudo-Dionys. de Div. Nom. ν. ὃ 6 ἀρχὴ γάρ ἐστι τῶν ὄντων, § Τὸ πάντων οὖν ἀρχὴ καὶ τελευ- τὴ τῶν ὄντων ὁ προώῶν.
The text is read with the definite article, ἡ ἀρχή, in one or two excel- lent authorities at least; but the ob- vious motive which would lead a scribe to aim at greater distinctness renders the reading suspicious.
πρωτότοκος) Comp. Rev. i. 5 ὁ πρω- TOTOKOS TOY νεκρῶν καὶ ὁ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς. His resurrection from the dead is His title to the headship of the Church; for ‘the power of His resurrection’ (Phil. iii 10) is the life of the Church. Such passages as Gen. xlix. 3, Deut. xxi. 17, where the πρωτότοκος is called ἀρχὴ τέκνων and superior privileges are claimed for him as such, must neces- sarily be only very faint and partial illustrations of the connexion between ἀρχὴ and πρωτότοκος here, where the subject-matter and the whole context
156 HPISTLE ΤῸ
THE COLOSSIANS.
[1165
’ ε a J / > - air Ἅ / εκ Τῶν VEKPWV, va YEVITAL EV πασιν AUTOS TPWTEVWY*
o*¢ , > lad > / ΄σ \ / ~ "OTL ἐν auTw εὐδόκησεν πᾶν TO πλήρωμα κατοικη-
point toa fuller meaning of the words. The words πρωτύτοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν here correspond to πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως Ver. 15,80 that the parallelism between Christ’s relations to the Uni- verse and to the Church is thus em- phasized.
ἵνα γένηται κιτιλ.}] As He is first with respect to the Universe, so it was ordained that He should become first with respect to the Church as well. The γένηται here answers in a manner to the ἔστιν of ver.17. Thus ἔστιν and γένηται are contrasted as the absolute being and the histo- rical manifestation. The relation be- tween Christ’s headship of the Uni- verse by virtue of His Eternal God- head and His headship of the Church by virtue of His Incarnation and Passion and Resurrection is some- what similarly represented in Phil. 11, 6sq. ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων.. «μορφὴν δούλου λαβών.. “γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου...διὸ καὶ ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύ- ψωσεν k.T.d.
ἐν πᾶσιν] ‘in all things, not in the Universe only but in the Church also. Kat γάρ, writes Theodoret, ὡς Θεός, πρὸ πάντων ἐστὶ καὶ σὺν TO πατρί ἐστι, καὶ ὡς ἄνθρωπος, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ τοῦ σώματος κεφαλή. Thus ἐν πᾶσιν is neuter and not mas- culine, as it is sometimes taken. Hi- ther construction is grammatically correct, but the context points to the former interpretation here; and this is the common use of ἐν πᾶσιν, e.g. iii. 11, Eph. i. 23, Phil. iv. 12. For the neuter compare Plut. Mor. p. 9 σπεύδοντες τοὺς παῖδας ἐν πᾶσι τάχιον πρωτεῦσαι. On the other hand in [Demosth.] Amat. p. 1416 κράτιστον εἶναι TO πρωτεύειν ev ἅπασι the context shows that ἅπασι is masculine.
αὐτός] ‘He Himself’; see the note
ON καὶ αὐτὸς above. 19, 20. ‘And this absolute supre-
macy is His, because it was the Father’s good pleasure that in Him all the plenitude of Deity should have its home; because He willed through Him to reconcile the Universe once more to Himself. It was God’s pur- pose to effect peace and harmony through the blood of Christ’s cross, and so to restore all things, whatso- ever and wheresoever they be, whe- ther on the earth or in the heavens, 19. ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κιτιλ.] The eternal indwelling of the Godhead explains the headship of the Church, not less than the headship of the Universe. The resurrection of Christ, whereby He became the ἀρχὴ of the Church, was the result of and the testimony to His deity; Rom. 1. 4 rod ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ Θεοῦ...ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν. εὐδόκησεν) 86. ὁ Θεός, the nomina- tive being understood; see Winer § lviii. p. 655 sq., ὃ lxiv. p. 735 8q.; comp. James i. 12 (the right reading), iv. 6. Here the omission is the more easy, because εὐδοκία, εὐδοκεῖν ete. (like θέλημα), are used absolutely of God’s good purpose, e.g. Luke ii. 14 ἐν av- θρώποις εὐδοκίας (or εὐδοκία), Phil. ii. 13 ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας, Clem. Rom. ὃ 40 πάντα τὰ γινόμενα ἐν εὐδοκήσει: see the note on Clem. Rom. ὃ 2. For the ex- pression generally comp. 2 Mace. xiv. 35 ov, Κύριε, εὐδόκησας ναὸν τῆς σῆς κατασκηνώσεως ἐν ἡμῖν γενέσθαι. The alternative is to consider πᾶν τὸ πλή- popa personified as the nominative ; but it is difficult to conceive St Paul so speaking, more especially as with εὐδόκησεν personification would sug- gest personality. The πλήρωμα in- deed is personified in Clem. Alex. Exac. Theod. 43 (p. 979) συναινέσαντος καὶ τοῦ πληρώματος, and in Iren. i. 2. 6 βουλῇ μιᾷ καὶ γνώμῃ TO πᾶν πλήρωμα τῶν αἰώνων K.T.A., 1. 12. 4 πᾶν τὸ πλή- popa ηὐδόκησεν [δ αὐτοῦ δοξάσαι τὸν
πατέρα]; but the phraseology of the
I. 20]
near, * Valentinians, to which these passages refer, cannot be taken as an indica- tion of St Paul’s usage, since their view of the πλήρωμα was wholly different. A third interpretation is found in Tertullian adv. Mare. v. 19, who trans- lates ἐν αὐτῷ in semetipso, taking ὁ Χριστὸς as the nominative to εὐδόκη- σεν : and this construction is followed by some modern critics. But, though grammatically possible, it confuses the theology of the passage hope- lessly.
τὸ πλήρωμα] ‘the plenitude, a re- cognised technical term in theology, denoting the totality of the Divine powers and attributes; comp. ii. 9. See the detached note on πλήρωμα. On the relation of this statement to the speculations of the false teach- ers at Colossze see the introduction, pp. 100,110, Another interpretation, which explains τὸ πλήρωμα as refer- ring to the Church (comp. Ephes. i. 22), though adopted by several fathers, is unsuited to the context and has nothing to recommend it.
κατοικῆσαι) ‘should have its per- manent abode.” The word occurs again in the same connexion, ii. 9. The false teachers probably, like their later counterparts, maintained only a partial and transient connexion of the πλήρωμα With the Lord. Hence St Paul declares in these two passages that it is not ἃ παροικία but a κατοι- kia. ‘The two words κατοικεῖν, παροι- κεῖν, occur in the Lxx as the common renderings of 10 and i respect- ively, and are distinguished as the permanent and the transitory ; e.g. Gen. XXxxvi. 44 (xxxvii. 1) κατῴκει δὲ Ἰακὼβ ἐν τῇ γῇ οὗ παρῴκησεν ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ἐν γῇ Καναάν (comp. Hos. x. 5), Philo Sacr. Ab. et Ca. 10 (I. p. 170 M) ὁ Tots ἐγκυκλίοις μόνοις ἐπανέχων παροικεῖ σοφίᾳ, οὐ κατοικεῖ, Greg. Naz. Orat. Xiv (1. p. 271 ed. Caillau) τίς τὴν κάτω σκηνὴν Kal THY ἄνω πόλιν; Tis παροι- κίαν καὶ κατοικίαν ; comp. Orat. Vii
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
157
\ > 3 ~ > y \ , > Kal δὶ αὐτου ἀποκαταλλαξαι ΠΟ OLY Εἰς
(I. p. 200). See also the notes on Ephes. ii. 19, and on Clem. Rom. 1.
20. The false teachers aimed at effecting a partial reconciliation be- tween God and man through the in- terposition of angelic mediators. The Apostle speaks of an absolute and complete reconciliation of universal nature to God, effected through the mediation of the Incarnate Word. Their mediators were ineffective, be- cause they were neither human nor divine. The true mediator must be both human and divine. It was necessary that in Him all the pleni- tude of the Godhead should dwell. It was necessary also that He should be born into the world and should suffer as ἃ man.
d¢ αὐτοῦ) i.e. τοῦ Χριστοῦ, as ap- pears from the preceding ἐν αὐτῷ, and the following διὰ τοῦ αἵματος Tov σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ, δι’ αὐτοῦ. This expression 6.’ αὐτοῦ has been already applied to the Preincarnate Word in relation to the Universe (ver. 16); it is now used of the Incarnate Word in relation to the Church.
ἀποκαταλλάξαι] 80. εὐδόκησεν ὁ Beds. The personal pronoun αὐτόν, instead of the reflexive ἑαυτόν, is no real ob- stacle to this way of connecting the words (see the next note). The al- ternative would be to take τὸ πλή- popa as governing ἀποκαταλλάξαι, but this mode of expression is harsh and improbable.
The same double compound ἀποκατ- αλλάσσειν is used below, ver. 21 and Ephes. ii. 16, in place of the usual κατ- αλλάσσειν. It may be compared With ἀποκατάστασις, Acts iii. 21. Ter- tullian, arguing against the dualism of Marcion who maintained an anta- gonism between the demiurge and the Christ, lays stress on the compound, adv. Mare. v. 19 ‘conciliari extraneo possent, reconciliart vero non alii quam suo.” The word ἀποκαταλλάσ- σειν corresponds to ἀπηλλοτριωμένους
158
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
[I. 21
el 3 , > \ ΄- τὴ i Α͂ auTODV, ELONVOTTOLNT AS Ola TOU ALMATOS TOU aT avpov
΄σ > ᾽ ΄σ »" \ > \ -~ ~ > ΄ αὐτοῦ, δι αὐτοῦ εἴτε τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς εἴτε τὰ ἐν τοῖς
, rk 1 \ ε ~ \ 7 > / \ οὐρανοῖς, “Kal ὑμᾶς ποτε ὄντας ἀπηλλοτριωμενοὺυς καὶ
here and in Ephes. ii. 16, implying a restitution to a state from which they had fallen, or which was potentially theirs, or for which they were destined. Similarly St Augustine on Gal. iv. 5 remarks that the word used of the υἱοθεσία is not accipere (λαμβάνειν) but recipere (dmohapBavey). Seo the note there.
τὰ πάντα]! The whole universe of things, material as well as spiritual, shall be restored to harmony with God. How far this restoration of universal nature may be subjective, as involved in the changed perceptions of man thus brought into harmony with God, and how far it may have an objective and independent existence, it were vain to speculate.
εἰς αὐτόν] ‘to Him, i.e. ‘to Him- self’? The reconciliation is always represented as made to the Father. The reconciler is sometimes the Fa- ther Himself (2 Cor. v. 18, 19 ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ καταλλάξαντος ἡμᾶς ἑαυτῷ διὰ Χριστοῦ...Θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον καταλλάσσων ἑαυτῷ), sometimes the Son (Ephes. ii. 16: comp. Rom. vy. 10, 11). Excellent reasons are given (Bleek Hebr. τι. p. 69, A. Buttmann Gramm. p. 97) for supposing that the reflexive pronoun ἑαυτοῦ etc. is never contracted into αὑτοῦ etc. in the Greek Testament. But at the same time it is quite clear that the oblique cases of the personal pronoun αὐτός are there used very widely, and in cases where we should commonly fiud the reflexive pronoun in classical authors : e.g. Ephes. i. 4, 5 ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς... εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ..-προορίσας ἡμᾶς εἰς υἱοθεσίαν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς αὐτόν. See also the instances given in A. Butt- mann p. 98. It would seem indeed that αὐτοῦ etc. may be used for éav-
τοῦ etc, in almost every connexion, except where it is the direct object of the verb.
eipnvoromoas| The word occurs in the Lxx, Prov. x. 10, and in Hermes in Stob. £cl. Phys. xli. 45. The sub- stantive εἰρηνοποιός (see Matt. v. 9) is found seyeral times in classical writers.
δ avtrov|] The external authority for and against these words is nearly evenly balanced: but there would obviously be a tendency to reject them as superfluous. They are a re- sumption of the previous δ αὐτοῦ. For other examples see ii. 13 ὑμᾶς, Rom. viii. 23 καὶ αὐτοί, Gal. ii. 15, 16 ἡμεῖς, Ephes. i. 13 ἐν ᾧ καί, ili. I, 14 τούτου χάριν, where words are simi- larly repeated for the sake of emphasis or distinctness. In 2 Cor. xii. 7 there is a repetition of iva μὴ ὑπεραίρωμαι, where again it is omitted in several excellent authorities.
21—23. ‘And ye too—ye Gentiles— are included in the terms of this peace. In times past ye had estranged yourselves from God. Your hearts were hostile to Him, while ye lived on in your evil deeds. But now, in Christ’s body, in Christ’s flesh which died on the Cross for your atonement, ye are reconciled to Him again. He will present you a living sacrifice, an acceptable offering unto Himself, free from blemish and free even from censure, that ye may stand the pierec- ing glance of Him whose scrutiny no defect can escape. But this can only be, if ye remain true to your old allegiance, if ye hold fast (as I trust ye are holding fast) by the teaching of Epaphras, if the edifice of your faith is built on solid foundations and not reared carelessly on the sands, if ye suffer not yourselyes to bo
I. 22]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
159
\ - / > - oS ΄ ΄ \ \
ἐχθροὺς TH διανοίᾳ ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς πονηροῖς, νυνὶ δὲ ff 5 lod / A \ > An
ἀποκατηλλάγητε “ἐν τῷ σωματι τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ διὰ
21. νυνὶ δὲ ἀποκατήλλαξεν.
shifted or shaken but rest firmly on the hope which ye have found in the Gospel—the one universal unchange- able Gospel, which was proclaimed to every creature under heaven, of which I Paul, unworthy as I am, was called to be a minister.’
21. ἀπηλλοτριωμένους] ‘estranged, not ἀλλοτρίους, ‘strangers’; comp. Ephes. ii. 12, iv. 18. See the note on ἀποκαταλλάξαι, ver. 20.
ἐχθρούς] ‘hostile to God, as the consequence of ἀπηλλοτριωμένους, not ‘hateful to God, as it is taken by some. The active rather than the passive sense of ἐχθρούς is required by the context, which (as commonly in the New Testament) speaks of the sinner as reconciled to God, not of God as reconciled to the sinner: comp. Rom. Υ. 10 εἰ yap ἐχθροὶ ὄντες κατηλ- λάγημεν τῷ Θεῷ κιτιλ. It 15 the mind of man, not the mind of God, which must undergo a change, that a re- union may be effected.
τῇ διανοίᾳ] ‘in your mind, intent.’ For the dative of the part affected compare Ephes. iv. 18 ἐσκοτωμένοι τῇ διανοίᾳ, Luke i. 51 ὑπερηφάνους διανοίᾳ καρδίας αὐτῶν. So καρδίᾳ, καρδίαις, Matt. v. 8, xi. 29, Acts vii. 51, 2 Cor. m7, Τὸ Thess. li. 17; φρεσίν, τ Cor. Xiv. 20.
ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις κιτ.λ.] ‘in the midst of, in the performance of your wicked works’ ; the same use of the preposi- tion as e.g. ii. 23, iv. 2.
νυν) Here, as frequently, viv (νυνί) admits an aorist, because it de- notes not ‘at the present moment, but ‘in the present dispensation, the present order of things’: comp. e.g. ver. 26, Rom. v. 11, vii. 6, xi. 30, 31, xvi. 26, Ephes. ii. 13, iii. 5, 2 Tim. i. πο τὶ Pet, 1: 10, ii. 10, 25. In) all these passages there is a direct con- trast between the old dispensation
and the new, more especially as af- fecting the relation of the Gentiles to God. The aorist is found also in Classical writers, where a similar con- trast is involved; e.g. Plato Symp. 193 A πρὸ Tov, ὥσπερ λέγω, ἕν ἤμεν" νυνὶ δὲ διὰ τὴν ἀδικίαν διῳκίσθημεν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, Iszeus de Cleon. her. 20 τότε pev...vuvi δὲ... ἐβουλήθη. ἀποκατηλλάγητε!] The reasons for preferring this reading, though the direct authority for it is so slight, are given in the detached note on the various readings. But, whether ἀπο- κατηλλάγητε ΟΥ̓ ἀποκατήλλαξεν be pre- ferred, the construction requires ex- planation. If ἀποκατήλλαξεν be a- dopted, it is perhaps best to treat δὲ as introducing the apodosis, the foregoing participial clause serving as the protasis : ‘ And you, though yewere once estranged... yet now hath he reconciled, in which case the first ὑμᾶς will be governed directly by ἀπο- κατήλλαξεν; see Winer Gramm. § liii. p. 553. If this construction be adopted, παραστῆσαι ὑμᾶς will describe the re- sult of ἀποκατήλλαξεν, ‘80 as to pre- sent you’; but ὁ Θεὸς will still be the nominative to ἀποκατήλλαξεν as in 2 Cor. v. 19. If on the other hand ἀποκατηλλάγητε be taken, it is best to regard νυνὶ δὲ ἀποκατηλλάγητε as a direct indicative clause substituted for the more regular participial form νυνὶ δὲ ἀποκαταλλαγέντας for the sake of greater emphasis: see the note on ver. 26 τὸ ἀποκεκρυμμένον... -νῦν δὲ ἐφα- νερώθη. In this case παραστῆσαι will be governed directly by εὐδόκησεν, and will itself govern ὑμᾶς πότε ὄντας κιτιλ., the second ὑμᾶς being a repe- tition of the first; ‘And you who once were estranged...but now ye have been reconciled...to present you, 1 say, holy and without blemish’? For the repetition of ὑμᾶς, which was
160
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
΄σ .} ~ it e σε € / ‘ i A TOU θανάτου [αὐτοῦ], σαραστησαι ὑμᾶς αγιοὺς και ἀμω-
/ if “ f / μους Kal ἀνεγκλήτους κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ, El γε ἐπιμέ-
΄σ / ΝΕ ΤΕ ΄ \ ΑἹ VETE TH πίστει τεθεμελιωμένοι και ἑδραῖοι καὶ μὴ μετα-
needed to disentangle the construc- tion, see the note on δ αὐτοῦ ver. 20.
22. τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ] It has been sup- posed that St Paul added these words, which are evidently emphatic, with a polemical aim either; (1) To combat docetism. Of this form of error how- ever there is no direct evidence till a somewhat later date: or (2) To com- bat a false spiritualism which took offence at the doctrine of an atoning sacrifice. But for this purpose they would not have been adequate, because not explicitenough. It seems simpler therefore to suppose that they were added for the sake of greater clear- ness, to distinguish the natural body of Christ intended here from the mystical body mentioned just above, ver. 18. Similarly in Hphes. 11. 14 ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ is used rather than ἐν τῷ σώματι αὐτοῦ, because σῶμα occurs in the context (ver. 16) of Christ’s mystical body. The same expression, τὸ σῶμα τῆς σαρκός, Which we have here, occurs also below, ii. II, but with a different emphasis and meaning. There the emphasis is on τὸ σῶμα, the contrast lying between the whole body and a single member (see the note); whereas here τῆς cap- kos is the emphatic part of the ex- pression, the antithesis being between the material and the spiritual. Com- pare also Heclus. xxiii. 16 ἄνθρωπος πόρνος ἐν σώματι σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ.
Marcion omitted τῆς σαρκὸς as in- consistent with his views, and ex- plained ἐν τῷ σώματι to mean the Church. Hence the comment of Tertullian adv. Mare. ν. 19, ‘utique in 60. corpore, in quo mori potuit per carnem, mortuus est, non per eccle- siam sed propter ecclesiam, corpus commutando pro corpore, carnale pro spiritali’
παραστῆσαι) If the construction which I have adopted be correct, this is said of God Himself, as in 2 Cor, iv. 14 ὁ ἐγείρας τὸν Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν καὶ ἡμᾶς σὺν Ἰησοῦ ἐγερεῖ καὶ παραστή- σει σὺν ὑμῖν. This construction seems in all respects preferable to connect- ing παραστῆσαι directly with ἀποκα- τηλλάγητε and interpreting the words, ‘ Ye have been reconciled so that ye should present yourselves (ipas)...be- Sore Him, This latter interpretation leaves the καὶ ὑμᾶς ποτὲ ὄντας K.tT.d. without a government, and it gives to the second ὑμᾶς a reflexive sense (as if ὑμᾶς αὐτοὺς or ἑαυτούς), which is at least harsh.
ἀμώμους] ‘without blemish, rather than ‘without blame, in the language of the New Testament; see the note on Hphes.i. 4. It is a sacrificial word, like τέλειος, ὁλόκληρος, etc. The verb παριστάναι also is used of presenting a sacrifice in Rom. xii. παραστῆσαι Ta σώματα ὑμῶν θυσίαν ζῶσαν ἁγίαν κιτιλ., Lev. xvi. 7 (v. 1.): comp. Luke 11. 2
dveykAnrovs| An advance upon ἀμώ- μους, ‘in whom not only no blemish is found, but against whom no charge is brought’: comp. 1 Tim. vi. 14 ἄσπι- λον, ἀνεπίλημπτον. The word avey- kAnros occurs again in 1 Cor. i. 8, 1 Tim. 111: τὸ Tit. 16,172
κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ] ‘before Him, i.e.
‘Himself? as in the parallel passage, Hphes. i. 4; if the construction here adopted be correct. For this use of the personal pronoun instead of the reflexive see the note on εἰς αὐτόν, ver. 20. But does κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ refer to God’s future judgment or His present approbation? The latter seems more probable, both because the expression certainly has this meaning in the parallel passage, Ephes. A and because κατενώπιον, ἐνώπιον,
[[. 28.
᾿
ἘΞ 23]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
101
, > \ > 3 / ~ > / ‘came? / κινούμενοι ἀπὸ τῆς ἐλπίδος TOU εὐαγγελίου οὗ ἠκούσατε,
΄ ἢ , 7ὔ ΄σ \ \ > 7 ἊΣ τοῦ κηρυχθέντος ἐν πασή κτίσει τῇ ὑπὸ TOV οὐρανὸν, οὗ
’ \ - ἐγενόμην ἐγὼ Παῦλος διακονος.
κατέναντι, etc., are commonly so used ; 20M. Xiv. 22, 1 Cor. i. 29, 2 ΝΡ αὐ 17, iv. 2, vii. 12, xii. 19, etc. On the other hand, where the future judgment is intended, a dif- ferent expression is found, 2 Cor. v. 10 ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ βήματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Thus God is here regarded, not as the judge who tries the accused, but as the μωμοσκόπος who examines the victims (Polye. Phil. 4, see the note on Ephes. i. 4). Compare Heb. iv. 12, 13, for a clesety allied metaphor. The passage in Jude 24, στῆσαι κατενώπιον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ ἀμώμους ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει, though perhaps referring to final ap- proval, is too different in expression to influence the interpretation of St Paul’s language here.
23. εἴ ye] On the force of these par- ticles see Gal. iii. 4. They express a pure hypothesis in themselves, but the indicative mood following converts the hypothesis into a hope.
ἐπιμένετε) “ye abide by, ye adhere to, with a dative; the common con- struction of ἐπιμένειν in St Paul: see the note on Phil. i. 24. In this con- nexion τῇ πίστει is perhaps ‘your faith, rather than ‘the faith”
τεθεμελιωμένοι κιτ.λ.} ‘built on a foundation and so firm’; not like the house of the foolish man in the parable who built χωρὶς θεμελίου, Luke Vi. 49. For τεθεμελιωμένοι comp. Ephes. iii. 17. The consequence of re- θεμελιωμένοι is ἑδραῖοι : Clem. Rom. 33 ἥδρασεν ἐπὶ τὸν ἀσφαλῆ τοῦ ἰδίου βουλήματος θεμέλιον. The words ἑδραῖος, ἑδράζω, etc., are ποῦ uncom- monly applied to buildings, e.g. ἑδραί- ὧμα 1 Tim. iii. 15. Comp. Ign. Ephes. 10 ὑμεῖς ἑδραῖοι τῇ πίστει.
μὴ μετακινούμενοι] ‘not constantly shifting, a present tense; the same idea as ἑδραῖοι expressed from the ne- gative side, as in 1 Cor. xv. 58 ἑδραῖοι
COL.
γίνεσθε, ἀμετακίνητοι, Polye. Phil. to ‘firmi in fide et immutabiles.’
τῆς ἐλπίδος κιτιλ.] ‘the hope held out by the Gospel, τοῦ εὐαγγελίου be- ing a subjective genitive, as in Ephes. i. 18 ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς κλήσεως (comp. iv. 4).
ev πάσῃ κτίσει) ‘among every crea- ture, in fulfilment of the Lord’s last command, Mark xvi. 15 κηρύξατε ro εὐαγγέλιον πάσῃ TH κτίσει. Here how- ever the definitive article, though found in the received text, ἐν πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει, must be omitted in accordance with the best authorities. For the meanings of πᾶσα κτίσις, πᾶσα ἡ κτί- σις, see the note on ver. 15. The ex- pression πᾶσα κτίσις must not be limit- ed to man. The statement is given in the broadest form, all creation animate and inanimate being included, as in Rey. v. 13 πᾶν κτίσμα.. καὶ Ta ἐν av- τοῖς πάντα ἤκουσα λέγοντα κιτιλ. For the hyperbole ἐν πάσῃ κτίσει compare 1 Thess. i. ὃ ἐν παντὶ τύπῳ. ΤῸ demand statistical exactness in such a context would be to require what is never re- quired in similar cases. The motive of the Apostle here is at once to em- phasize the universality of the genuine Gospel, which has been offered with- out reserve to all alike, and to appeal to its publicity, as the credential and guarantee of its truth: see the notes on ver. 6 ἐν παντὶ τῷ κύσμῳ and on ver. 28 πάντα ἄνθρωπον.
ov ἐγενόμην κιτιλ.)] Why does St Paul introduce this mention of him- self so abruptly? His motive can hardly be the assertion of his Aposto- lic authority, for it does not appear that this was questioned; otherwise he would have declared his commis- sion in stronger terms. We can only answer that impressed with the dig- nity of his office, as involving the offer of grace to the Gentiles, he camot
II
162
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
[I. 24
24No ih 2 πὰ θη ye ἃ con ‘ vy xalpw ἐν τοις WAUNMATLVY UTEP υμῶν, Kat
refrain from magnifying it. At the same time this mention enables him to link himself in bonds of closer sym- pathy with the Colossians, and he passes on at once to his relations with them: comp. Ephes. iii. 2—9, 1 Tim. i. 11 8q., in which latter passage the introduction of his own name is equally abrupt.
ἐγὼ Παῦλος] i.e. ‘weak and unwor- thy as Iam’: comp. Ephes. iii. ὃ ἐμοὶ τῷ ἐλαχιστοτέρῳ πάντων ἁγίων.
24—27. ‘Now when I see the full extent of God’s mercy, now when 1 ponder over His mighty work of re- conciliation, I cannot choose but re- joice in my sufferings. Yes, I Paul the persecutor, I Paul the feeble and sinful, am permitted to supplement— I do not shrink from the word—to supplement the afflictions of Christ. Despite all that He underwent, He the Master has left something still for me the servant to undergo. And so my flesh is privileged to suffer for His body—His spiritual body, the Church. I was appointed a minister of the Church, a steward in God’s household, for this very purpose, that I might administer my office on your behalf, might dispense to you Gentiles the stores which His bountiful grace has provided. Thus I was charged to preach without reserve the whole Gospel of God, to proclaim the great mystery which had remained a secret through all the ages and all the gene- rations from the beginning, but which now in these last times was revealed to His holy people. For such was His good pleasure. God willed to make known to them, in all its nexhaustible wealth thus displayed through the call of the Gentiles, the glorious reve- lation of this mystery—Christ not the Saviour of the Jews only, but Christ dwelling in you, Christ become to you the hope of glory.’
24. Νῦν χαίρω] A sudden outburst of thanksgiving, that he, who was less
than the least, who was not worthy to be called an Apostle, should be allowed to share and even to supplement the sufferings of Christ. The relative ὅς, which is found in some authorities, is doubtless the repetition of the final syllable of διάκονος ; but its insertion would be assisted by the anxiety of scribes to supply a connecting link between the sentences. The genuine reading is more characteristic of St Paul. The abruptness, which dis- penses with a connecting particle, has a parallel in 1 Tim. 1. 12 χάριν ἔχω τῷ ἐνδυναμώσαντί pe Χριστῷ «.T.A., where also the common text inserts a link of connexion, καὶ χάριν ἔχω κιτιλ. Com- pare also 2 Cor. vii. 9 νῦν χαίρω, οὐχ ὅτι κιτιλ., Where again there is no con- necting particle.
The thought underlying viv seems to be this: ‘If ever I have been disposed to repine at my lot, if ever I have felt my cross almost too heavy to bear, yet now—now, when I contemplate the lavish wealth of God’s mercy— now when I see all the glory of bear- ing a part in this magnificent work— my sorrow is turned to joy,’
ἀνταναπληρῶ “7 fill up on my part, ‘Tsupplement. The single compound ἀναπληροῦν occurs several times (e.g. 1 Cor. xiv. 16, xvi. 17, Gal. vi. 2); an- other double compound προσαναπλη- ροῦν twice (2 Cor. ix. 12, xl. 9; comp, Wisd. xix. 4, v. 1.); but ἀνταναπληροῦν only here in the txx or New Testa- ment. For this verb compare De- mosth. de Symm. Ὁ. 182 τούτων τῶν συμμοριῶν ἑκάστην διελεῖν κελεύω πέντε μέρη κατὰ δώδεκα ἄνδρας, ἀνταναπλὴη- ροῦντας πρὸς τὸν εὐπορώτατον ἀεὶ τοὺς ἀπορωτάτους (where τοὺς ἀπορω- τάτους should be taken as the subject te ἀνταναπληροῦντας), Dion Cass. xliv. 48 iv ὅσον.--ἐνέδει, τοῦτο ἐκ τῆς Tapa τῶν ἄλλων συντελείας ἀνταναπληρωθῆ, Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. 12 p. 878 οὗ- τος...τὴν ἀποστολικὴν ἀπουσίαν ἀνταναπληροῖ, Apollon. Constr. Or. 1. 3
=
ΕΠ 2: EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
163
> ΄“ \ ε / a ~ y ἀνταναπλήρω Ta υστερήματα τῶν θλίψεων του Χρι-
(p. 13 34.) ἡ ἀντωνυμία ἀνταναπλη- ροῦσα καὶ τὴν θέσιν τοῦ ὀνόματος καὶ τὴν τάξιν τοῦ ῥήματος, Ptol. Math. Comp. vi. 9 (I. p. 435 ed. Halma) ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἡ μὲν ἐλλείπειν ἐποίει τὴν ἀπο- κατάστασιν ἡ δὲ πλεονάζειν κατά τινα συντυχίαν ἣν ἴσως καὶ ὁ Ἵπ- παρχος ἀνταναπληρουμένην πὼς κατα- νενοήκει κιτιλ. The substantive ἀντα- ναπλήρωσις occurs in Diog. Laert. x. 48. So too ἀνταναπλήθειν Xen. Hell. ii. 4. 11, 12 EvveraEavto ὥὦστε ἐμπλῆ- σαι τὴν ὁδόν...οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς φυλῆς ἀντανέπλησαν...τὴν ὁδόν. Compare also ἀντανισοῦν Themist. Paraphr. Arist. 43 Β οὐδὲν κυλύει κατὰ ταὐτὸν ἄλλοθί που μεταβάλλειν ἀέρα εἰς ὕδωρ καὶ ἀντανισοῦσθαι τὸν σύμπαντα ὄγκον, and ἀντανίσωμα Joseph. Ant. xviii. 9. 7- The meaning of ἀντὶ in this compound will be plain from the passages quoted. It signifies that the supply comes from an opposite quarter to the deficiency. This idea is more or less definitely ex- pressed in the context of all the pas- sages, in the words which are spaced. The force of ἀνταναπληροῦν in St Paul is often explained as denoting simply that the supply corresponds in ex- tent to the deficiency. This inter- pretation practically deprives ἀντί of any meaning, for ἀναπληροῦν alone would denote as much. If indeed the supply had been the subject of the verb, and the sentence had run τὰ παθήματά μου ἀνταναπληροῖ τὰ ὑστη- ρήματα κ.τ.λ., this idea might perhaps be reached without sacrificing the sense of ἀντί ; but in such a passage as this, where one personal agent is mentioned in connexion with the sup- ply and another in connexion with the deficiency, the one forming the subject and the other being involved in the object of the verb, the ἀντὶ can only describe the antithesis of these personal agents. So interpreted, it is eminently expressive here. The point of the Apostle’s boast is that Christ the sinless Master should have left something for Paul the unworthy
servant to suffer. The right idea has been seized and is well expressed by Photius AmpAil. 121 (τ. p. 709 Migne) οὐ yap ἁπλῶς φησιν ᾿Δναπληρῶ, ἀλλ᾽ ᾿Ανταναπληρῶ; τουτέστιν, ᾿Αντὶ δεσπό- του καὶ διδασκάλου ὁ δοῦλος ἐγὼ καὶ μαθητὴς κιτιλ. Similar in meaning, though not identical, is the expres- sion in 2 Cor. i. 5, where the suffer- ings of Christ are said to ‘overflow’ (περισσεύειν) upon the Apostle. The theological difficulty which this plain and natural interpretation of dyrava- πληροῦν 18. supposed to involve will be considered in the note on τῶν θλίψεων.
τὰ ὑστερήματα] ‘the things lack- ing. This same word ὑστέρημα ‘ de- ficiency’ occurs with ἀναπληροῦν 1 Cor. xvi. 17, Phil. ii. 30, and with προσανα- πληροῦν 2 Cor. ix. 12, xi. 9. Its direct opposite is περίσσευμα ‘abundance, superfluity,’ 2 Cor. viii. 13, 14 ; comp. Luke xxi. 4. Another interpretation, which makes ὑστέρημα an antithesis to προτέρημα, explaining it ‘the later’ as opposed to the earlier ‘sufferings of Christ,’ is neither supported by the usage of the word nor consistent with ἀνταναπληρῶ.
τῶν θλίψεων τοῦ Χριστοῦ] ‘of the afflictions of Christ, i.e. which Christ endured. This seems to be the only natural interpretation of the words. Others have explained them as mean- ing ‘the afflictions imposed by Christ,’ or ‘the afflictions endured for Christ’s sake,” or ‘the afflictions which re- semble those of Christ.” All such interpretations put a more or less forced meaning on the genitive. All alike ignore the meaning of ἀντὶ in ἀνταναπληρῶ. which points to a dis- tinction of persons suffering. Others again suppose the words to describe St Paul’s own afflictions regarded as Christ’s, because Christ suffers in His suffering Church ; e.g. Augustine 7 Psalm. exlii. § 3 (Iv. p. 1590) ‘ Patitur, inquit, adhuec Christus pressuram, non in carne sua in qua ascendit in czelum,
101 Ὁ
164.
EPISTLE TO THE VCULOSSIANS.
[I. 25
΄σ ᾽ ΄σ / ε \ A 7 ΄σ ἘΝ στοῦ ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ μου ὑπερ τοῦ σώματος αὐτου, ὃ
ἢ es ene 25 > / ᾽ \ ὃ ΤᾺΣ \ \ €OTLY ἢ ἐκκλησία WS εγενομὴήν EYW OLAKOVOS KATA Τὴν
sed in carne mea απο adhue laborat in terra, quoting Gal. 11. 20. This last is a very favourite explanation, and has much to recommend it. It cannot be charged with wresting the meaning of αἱ θλίψεις τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Moreover it harmonizes with St Paul’s mode of speaking elsewhere. But, like the others, it is open to the fatal ob- jection that it empties the first pre- position in ἀνταναπληρῶ of any force. The central idea in this interpretation is the identification of the suffering Apostle with the suffering Christ, whereas ἀνταναπληρῶ emphasizes the distinction between the two. It is therefore inconsistent with this con- text, however important may be the truth which it expresses.
The theological difficulty, which these and similar explanations are in- tended to remove, is imaginary and not real. There is a sense in which it is quite legitimate to speak of Christ’s afflictions as incomplete, a sense in which they may be, and in- deed must be, supplemented. For the sufferings of Christ may be con- sidered from two different points of view. They are either satisfactorie or edificatorie. They have their sacrificial efficacy, and they have their ministerial utility. (1) From the former point of view the Passion of Christ was the one full perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satis- faction for the sins of the whole world, In this sense there could be no ὑστέρημα of Christ’s sufferings; for, Christ’s sufferings being different in kind from those of His servants, the two are incommensurable. But in this sense the Apostle would surely have used some other expression such as τοῦ σταυροῦ (i. 20, Eph. 1]. 16 etc.), or tov θανάτου (i. 22, Rom. y. 10, Heb. ii. 14, etc.), but hardly τῶν θλίψεων. Indeed θλίψις, ‘afflic-
tion, is not elsewhere applied in the New Testament in any sense to Christ’s sufferings, and certainly would not suggest a sacrificial act. (2) From the latter point of view it is a simple matter of fact that the afflictions of every saint and mar- tyr do supplement the afflictions of Christ. The Church is built up by repeated acts of self-denial in succes- sive individuals and successive gene- rations. They continue the work which Christ began. They bear their part in the sufferings of Christ (2 Cor. i. 7 κοινωνοὶ τῶν παθημάτων, Phil. iii. 10 κοινωνίαν τῶν παθημάτων); but St Paul would have been the last to say that they bear their part in the atoning sacrifice of Christ. This being so, St Paul does not mean to say that his own sufferings filled up all the ὑσ- tepnpara, but only that they eent to- wards filling them up. ‘The present tense ἀνταναπληρῷῶ denotes an incho- ate, and not a complete act. These ὑστερήματα Will never be fully supple- mented, until the struggle of the Church with sin and unbelief is brought to a close.
Thus the idea of expiation or sa- tisfaction is wholly absent from this passage; and with it is removed the twofold temptation which has beset theologians of opposite schools. (1) On the one hand Protestant commen- tators, rightly feeling that any inter- pretation which infringed the com- pleteness of the work wrought by Christ’s death must be wrong, be- cause it would make St Paul contra- dict himself on a cardinal point of his teaching, have been tempted to wrest the sense of the words. They have emptied ἀνταναπληρῶ of its proper force ; or they have assigned a false meaning to ὑστερήματα ; or they have attached a non-natural sense to the genitive τοῦ Χριστοῦ. (2) On the
I. 26]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
165
᾽ ᾽ὔ ~ “ A ΄σ ᾿ ᾽ ε ΄σ ΄ οἰκονομίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι εἰς ὑμάς, πληρῶσαι ; Pe - \ , Ws , τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, ““τὸ μυστήριον TO ἀποκεκρυμμένον
other hand Romanist commentators, while protesting (as they had a right to do) against these methods of inter- pretation, have fallen into the opposite error. They have found in this pas- sage an assertion of the merits of the saints, and (as a necessary conse- quence) of the doctrine of indul- gences. They have not observed that, if the idea of vicarious satisfaction comes into the passage at all, the satis- faction of St Paul is represented here as the same in kind with the satisfac- tion of Christ, however different it may be in degree; and thus they have truly exposed themselves to the reproach which Estius indignantly repudiates on their behalf, ‘quasi Christus non satis passus sit ad redemptionem nos- tram, ideoque supplemento martyrum opus habeat; quod impium est sen- tire, quodque Catholicos dicere non minus impie calumniantur heeretici.’ It is no part of a commentator here to enquire generally whether the Ro- man doctrine of the satisfaction of the saints can in any way be reconciled with St Paul’s doctrine of the satis- faction of Christ. It is sufficient to say that, so far as regards this par- ticular passage, the Roman doctrine can only be imported into it at the cost of a contradiction to the Pauline doctrine. It is only fair to add how- ever that Estius himself says, ‘ que quidem doctrina, etsi Catholica et Apostolica sit, atque aliunde satis probetur, ex hoc tamen Apostoli loco nobis non yidetur admodum solide statui posse’ But Roman Catholic commentators generally find this meaning in the text, as may be seen from the notes of ἃ Lapide.
Tov σώματος αὐτοῦ] An antithesis of the Apostle’s own flesh and Christ’s body. This antithetical form of ex- pression obliges St Paul to explain what he means by the body of Christ,
ὅ ἐστιν ἡ ἐκκλησία; comp. ver. 18. Contrast the explanation in ver. 22 ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, and see the note there.
25. τὴν οἰκονομίαν k.t.d.] ‘steward- ship in the house of God’? The word οἰκονομία seems to have two senses: (1) ‘The actual administration of a household’; (2) ‘the office of the ad- ministrator.” For the former mean- ing see the note on Ephes. i. 10; for the latter sense, which it has here, compare I Cor. 1x. 17 οἰκονομίαν πεπί- στευμαι, Luke xvi. 2—4, Isaiah xxii. 19, 21. So the Apostles and minis- ters of the Church are called οἰκονόμοι, τ Cor. iv. 1, 2) ΠῚ Ὁ 7:5) comp: 1, Pet: iv. 10.
eis ὑμᾶς] ‘to youward, i.e. ‘for the benefit of you, the Gentiles’; εἰς ὑμᾶς being connected with τὴν δοθεῖ- σάν pot, as in Hphes, iii. 2 τὴν οἰκονο- μίαν τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς δοθείσης μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς; comp. Rom. xv. 16 διὰ τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰς τὸ εἶναι με λειτουργὸν Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη.
πληρῶσαι] ‘to fulfil, i.e. ‘to preach fully, ‘to give its complete develop- ment to’; as Rom. xy. 19 wate pe ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλὴμ καὶ κύκλῳ μέχρι τοῦ Ἰλλυρικοῦ πεπληρωκέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Thus ‘the word οἵ God’ here is ‘the Gospel, as in most places (1 Cor. xiv. 36, 2 Cor. ii. 17, iv. 2, etc.), though not always (e.g. Rom. ix. 6), in St Paul, as also in the Acts. The other interpretation, ‘to accom- plish the promise of God, though suggested by such passages as I Kings ii. 27 πληρωθῆναι τὸ ῥῆμα Κυρίου, 2 Chron, Χχχυϊ. 21 πληρωθῆναι λόγον Κυρίου, etc., is alien to the context here.
26. τὸ μυστήριον! This is not the only term borrowed from the ancient mysteries, which St Paul employs to describe the teaching of the Gospel
166
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
[I. 27
4 5 ἃ ΄ ld VO sean σ΄ - ral Ades , ATO Τῶν ALWYWV καὶ ATTO Τῶν YVEVEWV, VUV δὲ ἐφανερώθη
~ ε 7 > ~ 47 “Ὁ ᾽θέ ε \ 7 7 τοῖς ὠγίοις αὐτου, “οἷς ἢ λησεν ὁ Θεὸς γνωρίσαι τι
τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης TOU
The word τέλειον just below, ver. 28, seems to be an extension of the same metaphor. In Phil. iv. 12 again we have the verb μεμύημαι: andin Ephes. i. 14 σφραγίζεσθαι is perhaps an image derived from the same source. So too the Ephesians are addressed as Παῦλου συμμύσται in Ign. Ephes. 12. The Christian teacher is thus regarded as ἃ ἱεροφάντης (see Epict. iii. 21. 13 sq.) who initiates his disciples into the rites. There is this difference howeyer ; that, whereas the heathen mysteries were strictly confined to a narrow circle, the Christian mysteries are freely communicated toall. There is therefore an intentional paradox in the employment of the image by St Paul. See the notes on πάντα ἄνθρω- mov τέλειον below.
Thus the idea of secresy or reserve disappears when μυστήριον is adopted into the Christian vocabulary by St Paul: and the word signifies simply ‘a truth which was once hidden but now is revealed, ‘a truth which with- out special revelation would have been unknown.’ Of the nature of the truth itself the word says nothing. It may be transcendental, incomprehensible, mystical, mysterious, in the modern sense of the term (1 Cor. xv. 51, Eph. vy. 32): but this idea is quite acciden- tal, and must be gathered from the special circumstances of the case, for it cannot be inferred from the word itself. Hence μυστήριον is almost universally found in connexion with words denoting revelation or publica- tion; 6. 5. ἀποκαλύπτειν, ἀποκάλυψις, Rom. xvi. 25, Ephes. iii. 3, 5, 2 Thess. ii. 7; γνωρίζειν Rom. xvi. 26, Ephes. i. Q, iii. 3, 10, Vi. 19; φανεροῦν Col. iv. 3, Rom. xvi. 26, 1 Tim. iii. 16; λαλεῖν iv. 3, 1 Cor. ii. 7, xiv. 2; λέγειν, 1 Cor. i Si
But the one special ‘mystery’ which
/ / > ~ μυστηριου TOUTOU €EV TOLS
absorbs St Paul’s thoughts in the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephe- sians is the free admission of the Gentiles on equal terms to the pri- vileges of the covenant. For this he is a prisoner; this he is bound to proclaim fearlessly (iv. 3, Ephes. vi. 19); this, though hidden from all time, was communicated to him by a special revelation (Ephes. iii. 3sq.); in this had God most signally displayed the lavish wealth of His goodness (ver. 27, 1]. 2 sq., Ephes. i. 6sq., iii. 8sq.). In one passage only throughout these two epistles is μυστήριον applied to any- thing else, Ephes. v. 32. The same idea of the μυστήριον appears very prominently also in the thanksgiving (added apparently later than the rest of the letter) at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, xvi. 25 sq. μυστηρίου... eis ὑπακοὴν πίστεως εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη γνωρισθέντος.
ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων x.t.r.]| The pre- position is doubtless temporal here, being opposed to νῦν, as in the pa- rallel passage, Ephes. iii. 9: comp. Rom. xvi. 25 κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν μυστη- plov χρόνοις αἰωνίοις σεσιγημένου, I Cor. ii. 7 Θεοῦ σοφίαν ἐν μυστηρίῳ τὴν ἀποκεκρυμμένην ἣν προώρισεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων. So too ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος, Acts iii. 21, xv. 18, Ps. xcii. 3, etc.; ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, Matt. xiii, 35, XXvV. 34, etc.
τῶν γενεῶν] An αἰὼν is made up of many yeveat; comp. Ephes. iii. 21 εἰς πάσας Tas γενεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώ- νων, Is. li. 9 ὡς γενεὰ αἰῶνος (where the Hebrew has the plural ‘gene- rations’). Hence the order here. Not only was this mystery unknown in remote periods of antiquity, but even in recent generations. It came upon the world as a sudden surprise. The moment of its revelation was the moment of its fulfilment.
I. 28]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
167
/ .«“ἦ \ - > \ “-
ἔθνεσιν, ὅ ἐστιν Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης" A ~ / πὸ / J
δϑὸν ἡμεῖς καταγγέλλομεν νουθετοῦντες πάντα ἀνθρω-
27.
νῦν δὲ κιτιλ.] An indicative clause is substituted for a participial, which would otherwise have been more na- tural, for the sake of emphasizing the statement; comp. ver. 22 νυνὶ δὲ ἀπο- κατηλλάγητε, andsee Winer §1xiii. p.7 17.
27. ἠθέλησεν" willed, ‘was pleased.’ It was God’s grace: it was no merit of their own. See the note on i. I διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ.
τὸ πλοῦτος] The ‘eealth of God,’ as manifested in His dispensation of grace, is a prominent idea in these epistles: comp. ii. 2, Ephes. i. 7, 18, iii, 8, 16; comp. Rom. xi. 33. See above, p. 43 sq. St Paul uses the neuter and the masculine forms in- differently in these epistles (e.g. ro πλοῦτος Ephes. i. 7, ὁ πλοῦτος Ephes. i. 18), as in his other letters (e.g. τὸ πλοῦτος 2 Cor. Vill. 2, ὁ πλοῦτος Rom. ix. 23). In most passages however there are various readings. On the neuter forms τὸ πλοῦτος, τὸ ζῆλος, ete., see Winer § ix. p. 76.
τῆς δόξης) 1.6. ‘of the glorious manifestation’ This word in Hel- lenistic Greek is frequently used of a bright light; e.g. Luke ii. 9 περιέλαμ- Wev, Acts xxii. I1 τοῦ φωτός, I Cor. XV. 41 ἡλίου, σελήνης, etc., 2 Cor. ili. 7 τοῦ προσώπου Μωυσέως). Hence it is applied generally to a divine mani- Jestation, even where there is no phy- sical accompaniment of light; and more especially to the revelation of God in Christ (e. g. Joh. i. 14, 2 Cor. iv. 4, etc.). The expression πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης occurs again, Rom. ix. 23, Ephes. i. 18, iii. 16. See above, ver. 11 with the note.
ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν] i.e. ‘as exhibited among the Gentiles. It was just here that this ‘mystery, this dispen- sation of grace, achieved its greatest triumphs and displayed its transcend- ant glory; φαίνεται μὲν yap καὶ ev ἑτέ- pos, writes Chrysostom, πολλῷ δὲ
Os ἐστιν.
πλέον ἐν τούτοις ἡ πολλὴ TOU μυστηρίου δόξα. Here too was its wealth ; for it overflowed all barriers of caste or race. Judaism was ‘beggarly’ (Gal. iv. 9) in comparison, since its treasures sufficed only for a few.
ὅ ἐστινὶ The antecedent is pro- bably rod paornpiov; comp. ii. 2 τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ ἐν ᾧ εἰσιν πάντες K.T-A.
Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν] ‘Christ in you, i.e. ‘you Gentiles’ Not Christ, but Christ given freely to the Gentiles, is the ‘mystery’ of which St Paul speaks; see the note on μυστήριον above. Thus the various reading, ὃς for 6, though highly supported, inter- feres with the sense. With Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν compare μεθ’ ἡμῶν Θεός Matt. i. 23. It may be a question however, whether ἐν ὑμῖν means ‘within you’ or ‘among you. The former is per- haps the more probable interpreta- tion, as suggested by Rom. viii. Io, 2), Gor; ΧΗ 5, Gall ἵν. 10; comp: Ephes. 111. 17 κατοικῆσαι τὸν Χριστὸν διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν.
ἡ ἐλπίς) Comp. 1 Tim. i. 2; so ἡ [κοινὴ] ἐλπὶς ἡμῶν Ign, Hph. 21, Magn. 11, Philad. 5, etc., applied to our Lord.
28, 29. ‘This Christ we, the Apo- stles and Evangelists, proclaim with- out distinction and without reserve. We know no restriction either of persons or of topics. We admonish every man and instruct every man. We initiate every man in all the mys- teries of wisdom. It is our single aim to present every man fully and perfectly taught in Christ. For this end 1 train myself in the discipline of self-denial; for this end I commit my- self to the arena of suffering and toil, putting forth in the conflict all that energy which He inspires, and which works in me so powerfully,’
28. ἡμεῖς] ‘we,’ the preachers; the same opposition as in 1 Cor. iy. 8, 10,
168
\ / / / > / / mov καὶ διδάσκοντες πάντα avOpwrov ἐν πάση σοφίᾳ, ε / /S , ᾽ ~ ἵνα παραστήσωμεν πάντα ἄνθρωπον τέλειον ἐν Χριστῷ"
ἸΣ. 11, 2 Cor. Xl. 5᾽86., 1 elhess, 1]. 1384., etc. The Apostle hastens, as usual, to speak of the part which he was privileged to bear in this glorious dispensation. He is constrained to magnify his office. See the next note, and comp. ver. 23.
ov ἡμεῖς κιτ.λ.] As in St Paul’s own language at Thessalonica, Acts xvii. 3 ov ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν, and at Athens, Acts xvii. 23 τοῦτο ἐγὼ κα- ταγγέλλω ὑμῖν, in both which pas- sages, as here, emphasis is laid on the person of the preacher,
νουθετοῦντες] ‘admonishing.” The two words νουθετεῖν and διδάσκειν pre- sent complementary aspects of the preacher’s duty, and are related the one to the other, as μετάνοια to πίστις, ‘warning to repent, instructing in the faith” For the relation of νουθετεῖν to μετάνοια see Plut. Mor. p. 68 ἔνεστι τὸ νουθετοῦν καὶ μετάνοιαν ἐμποιοῦν, Ρ. 452 ἡ νουθεσία καὶ ὁ ψόγος ἐμποιεῖ μετάνοιαν καὶ αἰσχύνην. The two verbs νουθετεῖν and διδάσκειν are connected in Plato Protag. 323 p, Legg. 845 B, Plut. Wor. p. 46 (comp. p. 39), Dion Chrys. Or. xxxili. p. 369; the sub- stantives διδαχὴ and νουθέτησις in Plato Resp. 399 B. Similarly νουθε- τεῖν and πείθειν occur together in Arist. het. ii. 18. For the two func- tions of the preacher’s office, cor- responding respectively to the two words, see St Paul’s own language in Acts xx. 21 διαμαρτυρόμενος.. τὴν eis Θεὸν μετάνοιαν καὶ πίστιν εἰς τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν.
πάντα ἄνθρωπον] Three times re- peated for the sake of emphasizing the wniversality of the Gospel. This great truth, for which St Paul gave his life, was now again endangered by the doctrine of an intellectual ex- clusiveness taught by the Gnosticizers at Colossz, as before it had been endangered by the doctrine of a
EPISTLE TO THE
COLOSSIANS. [I. 28
ceremonial exclusiveness taught by the Judaizers in Galatia, See above, pp. 75, 90,96 sq. For the repetition of πάντα compare especially 1 Cor. x. I sq., Where πάντες is five times, and ib. xii. 29, 30, where it is seven times repeated ; see also Rom. ix. 6, 7, xi. 32, I Cor, xii..13, xiii. 7, Σιν. 31, eve Transcribers have been offended at this characteristic repetition here, and consequently have omitted πάντα ἄν- θρωπον in one place or other.
ev πάσῃ σοφίᾳ] The Gnostic spoke of a blind faith for the many, of a higher γνῶσις for the few. St Paul declares that the fullest wisdom is offered to all alike. The character of the teaching is as free from restriction, as are the qualifications of the recipi- ents. Comp. ii. 2, 3 πᾶν πλοῦτος τῆς πληροφορίας τῆς συνέσεως... πάντες οἱ θησαυροὶ τῆς σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως.
παραστήσωμεν] See the note on παραστῆσαι, Ver. 22.
τέλειον] So 1 Cor. ii. 6, 7 σοφίαν δὲ λαλοῦμεν ἐν τοῖς τελείοις.. «Θεοῦ σο- φίαν ἐν μυστηρίῳ τὴν ἀποκεκρυμμένην. In both these passages the epithet τέλειος is probably a metaphor bor- rowed from the ancient mysteries, where it seems to have been applied to the fully instructed, as opposed to the novices: comp. Plato Phedr. 249 © τελέους del τελετὰς τελούμενος τέλεος ὄντως μόνος ylyveTat...250 B, C εἶδόν τε καὶ ἐτελοῦντο τελετῶν ἣν θέμις λέγειν μακαριωτάτην..--μυούμενοί τε καὶ ἐποπτεύοντες ἐν αὐγῇ καθαρᾷ, Symp. 209 E ταῦτα... κἂν σὺ μυηθείης" τὰ δὲ τέλεα καὶ ἐποπτικά.. οὐκ οἶδ᾽ εἰ οἷός τ᾽ ἂν εἴης, Plut. Mragm. de An. vi. 2 (v. p. 726 Wyttenb.) ὁ παντελὴς ἤδη καὶ μεμυημένος (with the context), Dion Chrys. Or. xii. p. 203 τὴν ὁλό- KAnpov καὶ τῷ ὄντι τελείαν τελετὴν μυούμενον; see Valeknaer on Eurip. Hippol. 25,and Lobeck Aglaoph. p. 33 Sq., p. 126sq. Somewhat similarly in
I. 29]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
169
A ‘ - , \ \ ee, :
Melis ὃ καὶ κοπιῶ ἀγωνιζόμενος κατα τῆν ἐνεργειαν αὖ- “ \ 2 / > > \ > ,
τοῦ τὴν ἐνεργουμένην ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐν δυνάμει.
the ΙΧΧ, 1 Chron. xxv. 8 τελείων καὶ μανθανόντων stands for ‘the teachers (or the wise) and the scholars.’ So also in 2 Pet. i. 16 ἐπόπται γενηθέντες τῆς ἐκείνου μεγαλειότητος We seem to have the same metaphor. Asan illus- tration it may be mentioned that Plato and Aristotle called the higher philosophy ἐποπτικόν, because those who have transcended the bounds of the material, οἷον ἐντελῆ []. ἐν τε- λετῇ] τέλος ἔχειν φιλοσοφίαν [φιλοσο- φίας] νομίζουσι, Plut. Mor. 382 D, E. For other metaphorical expressions in St Paul, derived from the myste- ries, see above on μυστήριον ver. 26. Influenced probably by this heathen use of τέλειος, the early Christians applied it to the baptized, as opposed to the catechumens: e.g. Justin Dial. 8 (p. 225 C) πάρεστιν ἐπιγνόντι σοι τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τελείῳ γενομένῳ εὐδαιμονεῖν, Clem. Hom. 111. 29 ὑποχω- ρεῖν μοι κελεύσας, ὡς μήπω εἰληφότι τὸ πρὸς σωτηρίαν βάπτισμα, τοῖς ἤδη τε- λείοις ἔφη κ-τιλ., X1. 36 βαπτίσας...ἤδη λοιπὸν τέλειον ὄντα κιτ.λ.; and for later writers see Suicer Thes. s. vv. τε- λειόω, τελείωσις. At all events we may ascribe to its connexion with the mysteries the fact that it was adopted by Gnostics at a later date, and most probably by the Gnosticizers at this time, to distinguish the possessors of the higher γνῶσις from the vulgar herd of believers: see the passages quoted in the note on Phil. iii. 15. While employing the favourite Gnostic term, the Apostle strikes at the root of the Gnostic doctrine. The lan- guage descriptive of the heathen mys- teries is transferred by him to the Christian dispensation, that he may thus more effectively contrast the things signified. The true Gospel also has its mysteries, its hierophants, its initiation: but these are open to all alike. In Christ every believer is re-
A)
Aevos, for he has been admitted as ἐπόπτης of its most profound, most awful, secrets) See again the note ON ἀπόκρυφοι, ii. 3.
29. εἰς ὃ] 1 6. eis TO παραστῆσαι πάντα ἄνθρωπον τέλειον, ‘that I may initiate all mankind in the fulness of this mys- tery, ‘that I may preach the Gospel to all without reserve’ If St Paul had been content to preach an exclu- sive Gospel, he might have saved him- self from more than half the troubles of his life.
κοπιῶ] This word is used especi- ally of the labour undergone by the athlete in his training, and therefore fitly introduces the metaphor of ἀγω- νιζόμενος : comp. I Tim. iy. 10 εἰς τοῦ- To γὰρ κοπιῶμεν καὶ ἀγωνιζόμεθα (the correct reading), and see the passages quoted on Phil. ii. 16.
ἀγωνιζόμενος] ‘contending in the lists; the metaphor being continued in the next verse (ii. 1), ἡλίκον ἀγῶνα; comp. iv. 12. These words ἀγών, ayw- via, ἀγωνίζεσθαι, are Only found in St Paul and the Pauline writings (Luke, Hebrews) in the New Testament. They occur in every group of St Paul’s Epistles. The use here most resembles 1 Thess. ii. 2 λαλῆσαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς TO εὐαγγέλιον Tov Θεοῦ ἐν πολλῷ ἀγῶνι.
ἐνεργουμένην) Comp. Eph.iii.20. For the difference between ἐνεργεῖν and ἐνεργεῖσθαι see the note on Gal. v. 6.
Il. 1—3. ‘I spoke of an arenaand a conflict in describing my apostolic labours. The image was not lightly chosen. I would have youknow thatmy care is not confined to my own direct and personal disciples. I wish you to understand the magnitude of the struggle, which my anxiety for you costs me—for you and for your neigh- bours of Laodicea, and for all who, like yourselves, have never met me face to face in the flesh. I am con- stantly wrestling in spirit, that the
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
(IL Τρ
/ ε ~ 2Q/ ε > ~ / ε IL. "Θέλω yap ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι, ἡλίκον ἀγῶνα ἔχω ὑπὲρ
αν \ ze 3 / NU hie/ ? / \ ὑμῶν καὶ τῶν ἐν Λαοδικίᾳ καὶ ὅσοι οὐχ ἑώρακαν τὸ
, , > / «.« ΄σ ς προσωπον μου ἐν σαρκί, "ἵνα παρακληθῶσιν αἱ καρδίαι
hearts of all such may be confirmed and strengthened in the faith; that they may be united in love; that they may attain to all the unspeakable wealth which comes from the firm conviction of an understanding mind, may be brought to the perfect know- ledge of God’s mystery, which is no- thing else than Christ—Christ con- taining in Himself all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden away’
I. Θέλω κιτιλ.] As in 1 Cor. xi. 3. The corresponding negative form, οὐ θέλω [θέλομεν] ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, is the more common expression in St Paul; Rom. 113. ΣἸ 25, ΤΟΥ, Χο, kin 2, Cor: i, 8, 1 Thess. iv. 13.
ἀγῶνα] The arena of the contest to which ἀγωνιζόμενος in the preceding verse refers may be either outward or inward. It will include the ‘fightings without, as well as the ‘fears within’ Here however the inward struggle, the wrestling in prayer, is the predo- niinant idea, as in iv. 12 πάντοτε ἀγωνι- ζόμενος ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐν ταῖς προσευχαῖς ἵνα σταθῆτε κτλ.
τῶν ev Aaodikia] The Laodiceans were exposed to the same doctrinal perils as the Colossians: see above, pp. 2, 41 sq. The Hierapolitans are doubtless included in καὶ ὅσοι κιτ.λ. (comp. iv. 13), but are not mentioned here by name, probably because they were less closely connected with Co- lossee (see iv. 15 sq.),and perhaps also because the danger was less threaten- ing there.
kal ὅσοι κιτιλ.] ‘and all who, like yourselves, have not seen, ete.’ ; where the καὶ ὅσοι introduces the whole class to which the persons previously enu- merated belong; so Acts iv. 6”Avvas ὃ ἀρχιερεὺς καὶ Καϊάφας καὶ ᾿Ιωάννης καὶ ᾿Αλέξανδρος καὶ ὅσοι ἦσαν ἐκ γένους ἀρχιερατικοῦ, Rey. xviii. 17 καὶ πᾶς κυ- βερνήτης καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἐπὶ τόπον πλέων καὶ
ναῦται καὶ ὅσοι τὴν θάλασσαν ἐργάζον- ται. Ἰὕγϑῃ asimple καὶ will sometimes introduce the general after the parti- cular, e.g. Acts v. 29 ὁ Πέτρος καὶ oi ἀπόστολοι, Ar. Nub. 413 ἐν ᾿Αθηναίοις καὶ τοῖς Ἕλλησι, ete.; see Kihner Gramm. § 521, τι. p.791. Onthe other hand καὶ ὅσοι, occurring in an enume- ration, sometimes introducesa different class from those previously mentioned, as e.g. in Herod, vii. 185. As a pure grammatical question therefore it is uncertain whether St Paul’s language here implies his personal acquaintance with his correspondents or the con- trary. But in all such cases the sense of the context must be our guide. In the present instance καὶ ὅσοι is quite out of place, unless the Colos- sians and Laodiceans also were per- sonally unknown to the Apostle. There would be no meaning in singling out individuals who were known to him, and then mentioning compre- hensively a// who were unknown to him: see above, p. 28, note 4. Hence we may infer from the expression — here, that St Paul had never visited — Colossze—an inference which has been — already shown (p. 23 sq.) to accord — both with the incidental language of this epistle elsewhere and with the direct historical narrative of the Acts.
ἑώρακαν] For this ending of the 3rd pers. plur. perfect in -αν see Winer § xiii. p. 90. The received text reads ἑωράκασι. In this passage the ὦ form has the higher support; but below in ver. 18 the preponderance of au- thority favours ἑόρακεν rather than ἑώρακεν. On the use of the form in o see Buttmann Ausf. Griech. Sprachl. § 84, I. p. 325.
2. παρακληθῶσιν͵]Πἠ ‘encouraged, confirmed, i.e. ‘comforted’ in the older and wider meaning of the word (‘confortati’), but not with its mo-
ΓΕ 3]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
171
i len 4 2 > , \ 3 ΄σ a αὐτῶν, συμβιβασθέντες ἐν ἀγάπη Kal εἰς πᾶν πλοῦτος
Am - / > > / ΄- τῆς πληροφορίας τῆς συνέσεως, εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν TOU μυ-
7] ΄σ ΄- ΄ 3 > - > \ / ε στηρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ, Χριστου δἐν ᾧ εἰσίν παντες Οἱ θη-
Jern and restricted sense: see παρά- Anois Phil. ii. 1. For παρακαλεῖν τὰς καρδίας comp. iv. 8, Ephes. vi. 22, 2 Thess, ii. 17.
ai καρδίαι] They met the Apostle neart to heart, though not face to ace. We have here the same oppo- sition of καρδία and πρόσωπον as in | Thess. ii. 17, though less directly *xpressed ; see ver. 5.
αὐτῶν] Where we should expect ἡμῶν, but the substitution of the third gerson for the second is suggested by he immediately preceding καὶ ὅσοι. This substitution confirms the inter- retation of καὶ ὅσοι already given. Unless the Colossians are included in σοι, they must be excluded by αὐτῶν. Yet this exclusion is hardly conceiva- yle in such a context.
συμβιβασθέντες] ‘they being united, ompacted, for συμβιβάζειν must here lave its common meaning, as it has lsewhere in this and the companion pistle: ver. 19 διὰ τῶν ἁφῶὼν καὶ συνδέσμων... .συμβιβαζόμενον, Hphes. iv. (6 πᾶν τὸ σῶμα συναρμολογούμενον καὶ γσυμβιβαζόμενον. Otherwise we might ye disposed to assign to this verb here he sense which it always bears in the mx (e.g. in Is. xl. 13, 14, quoted n 1 Cor. ii. 16), ‘instructed, taught, is it is rendered in the Vulgate. Its isage in the Acts is connected with his latter sense; e.g. ix. 22 συμβιβάζων proving, xvi. 10 συμβιβάζοντες ‘con- lauding’; and so in xix. 33 συνεβίβα- ταν ᾿Αλέξανδρον (the best supported eading) can only mean ‘instructed Alexander. For the different sense ~f the nominative absolute see the ote on iii. 16. The received text substitutes συμβιβασθέντων here.
ev ἀγάπῃ] For love is the σύνδεσμος iii. 14) of perfection.
καὶ εἰς] ‘and brought unto, the thought being supplied from the pre-
ceding συμβιβασθέντες, which involves an idea of motion, comp. Joh. xx. 7 ἐντετυλιγμένον εἰς ἕνα τόπον.
πᾶν πλοῦτος] This reading is better supported than either πᾶν τὸ πλοῦτος or πάντα πλοῦτον, While, as the inter- mediate reading, it also explains the other two.
τῆς πληροφορίας] ‘the full assu- rance, for such seems to be the meaning of the substantive wherever it occurs in the New Testament; 1 Thess. i. 5 ἐν πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ, Heb. Vi. 11 πρὸς τὴν πληροφορίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος, X. 22 ἐν πληροφορίᾳ πίστεως, Comp. Clem. Rom. 42 μετὰ πληροφορίας πνεύ- patos ayiov. With the exception of 1 Thess. i. 5 however, all the Biblical passages might bear the other sense ‘fulness’: see Bleek on Heb. vi. 11. For the verb see the note on πεπλη- podopnueva below, iv. 12.
ἐπίγνωσιν] See the note on i. 9.
τοῦ μυστηρίου κιτιλ.}] ‘the mystery of God, even Christ in whom, etc., Χριστοῦ being in apposition with τοῦ μυστηρίου; comp. i. 27 TOU μυστηρίου τούτου. .0 ἐστιν Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, I Tim. lil. 16 τ TO τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον, Ὅς ἐφανερώθη κιτιλ. The reasons for adopt- ing the reading τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ are given in the detached note on various readings. Other interpretations of this reading are; (1) ‘the God Christ,’ taking Χριστοῦ in apposition with Θεοῦ ; or (2) ‘the God of Christ,’ making it the genitive after Θεοῦ : but both expressions are without a parallel in St Paul. The mystery here is not ‘Christ,’ but ‘Christ as containing in Himself all the treasures of wisdom’; see the note on i. 27 Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν. For the form of the sentence comp. Ephes. iv. 15, 16 ἡ κεφ- adn, Χριστὸς ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα κ.Οτ.λ.
4. πάντες] So πᾶν πλοῦτος ver. 2, πάσῃ σοφίᾳ fly 28. These repetitions
172
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
[If. 4
\ ~ / \ / > / 4 ΄ σαυροι τῆς σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως αἀποκρυῴῷοι. “τοῦτο
serve to emphasize the character of the Gospel, which is as complete in itself, as it is universal in its appli- cation.
σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως] The two words occur together again Rom. xi. 33 ὦ βάθος πλούτου καὶ σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως Θεοῦ, I Cor. xii. 8. They are found in conjunction also several times in the χχ of Eccles. i. 7, 16, 18, ii. 21, 26, ix. 10, where ΠΣΠ is repre- sented by σοφία and ΠΡ by γνῶσις. While γνῶσις is simply intuitive, σοφία is ratiocinative also. While γνῶσις applies chiefly to the appre- hension of truths, copia superadds the power of reasoning about them and tracing their relations. When Bengel on I Cor. xii. 8 sq. says, ‘ Cognitio [γνῶσις] est quasi visus ; sapientia [σοφία] visus cum sapore,’ he is so far right; but when he adds, ‘ cogni- tio, rerum agendarum; sapientia, re- rum éeternarum, he is quite wide of the mark. Substantially the same, and equally wrong, is St Augustine’s distinction de Trin. xii. 20, 25 (vmt. Pp. 923, 926) ‘intelligendum est ad contemplationem sapientiam [σοφίαν], ad actionem scientiam |-yvéouw] perti- nere...quod alia [σοφία] sit intellec- tualis cognitio zternarum rerum, alia [γνῶσις |rationalis temporalium (comp. xiv. 3, p. 948), and again de Div. Quest. ad Simpl. ii. 2 § 3 (VI. p. 114) ‘ita discerni probabiliter solent, ut sapientia pertineat ad inteilectum seternorum, scientia vero ad ea quze sensibus corporis experimur. This is directly opposed to usage. In Aris- totle Hth. Nic. i. 1 γνῶσις is opposed to πρᾶξις. In St Paul it is connected with the apprehension of eternal mys- teries, I Cor. xili. 2 εἰδῶ τὰ μυστή- pia πάντα καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γνῶσιν. On the relation οἵ σοφία to σύνεσις see above, i. 9. 1,
ἀπόκρυφοι] So 1 Cor.(i) 7 λαλοῦμεν Θεοῦ σοφίαν ἐν μυστηρίῳ, τὴν ἀπο- κεκρυμμένην. As before in τέλειος
(i. 28), so here again in ἀπόκρυφοι the Apostle adopts a favourite term of the Gnostic teachers, only that he may refute a favourite doctrine. The word apocrypha was especially applied to those esoteric writings, for which such sectarians claimed an auctoritas secreta (Aug. c. Faust. xi. 2, VI. p. 219) and which they carefully guarded from publication after the manner of their Jewish prototypes the Essenes (see above, p. 89 sq.): comp. Iren. i. 20. 1 ἀμύθητον πλῆθος ἀποκρύφων καὶ νόθων γραφών, Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. 15 (p. 357) βίβλους ἀποκρύφους τάν- δρὸς τοῦδε of τὴν Προδίκου pertiovres αἵρεσιν αὐχοῦσι κεκτῆσθαι, ἐφ. iii 4 (Ρ. 524) ἐρρύη δὲ αὐτοῖς τὸ δόγμα ἔκ τινος ἀποκρύφου. See also the appli- cation of the text Prov. ix. 17 ἄρτων κρυφίων ἡδέως ἅψασθε to these heretics in Strom. i. 19 (p. 375). Thus the word apocrypha in the first instance was an honourable appellation applied by the heretics themselves to their eso- teric doctrine and their secret books; but owing to the general character of these works the term, as adopted by orthodox writers, got to signify ‘false, ‘spurious.’ The early fathers never apply it, as it is now applied, to deutero-canonical writings, but confine it to swpposititious and he- retical works: see Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible s. v. In the text St Paul uses it καταχρηστικῶς, as he uses μυστήριον. “ All the richest treasures of that secret wisdom,’ he would say, ‘on which you lay so much stress, are buried in Christ, and being buried there are accessible to all alike who seek Him,” But, while the term azo- kpupos is adopted because it was used to designate the secret doctrine and writings of the heretics, it is also entirely in keeping with the metaphor of the ‘treasure’; e.g. Is. xlv. 3 δώσω σοι θησαυροὺς σκοτεινοὺς ἀποκρύφους, 1 Mace. i. 23 ἔλαβε τοὺς θησαυροὺς τοὺς ἀποκρύφους, Dan. Xi. 43 ἐν τοῖς
| |
II. 5]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
173
, .“ \ ε io / » λέγω, ἵνα μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς παραλογίζηται ἐν πιθανολογίᾳ" Ἕ 3 \ \ ΄“ \ » > \ ΄- pad! \ εἰ yap καὶ Ty σαρκι ἄπειμι, ἀλλα Tw πνεύματι συν
ἀποκρύφοις τοῦ χρυσοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀργύρου: comp. Matt. xiii. 44.
The stress thus laid on ἀπόκρυφοι will explain its position. It is not connected with εἰσίν, but must be taken apart as a secondary predicate: comp. ver. IO ἐστὲ ἐν αὐτῷ πεπληρω- μένοι, ili. τ οὗ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ καθήμενος, James 1. 17 πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον ἄνωθέν ἐστιν, καταβαῖ- νον κιτ.λ.
4—7. ‘I do not say this without a purpose. I wish to warn you against any one who would lead you astray by specious argument aud persuasive rhetoric. For I am not an indifferent spectator of your doings. Although 1 am absent from you in my flesh, yet Iam present with you in my spirit. I rejoice to behold the orderly array and the solid phalanx which your faith towards Christ presents against the assaults of the foe. I entreat you therefore not to abandon the Christ, as you learnt from Epaphras to know Him, even Jesus the Lord, but to walk still in Him as heretofore. 1 would have you firmly rooted once for all in Him. I desire to see you built up higher in Him day by day, to see you growing ever stronger and stronger through your faith, while you remain true to the lessons taught you of old, so that you may abound in it, and thus abounding may pour forth your hearts in gratitude to God the giver of all’
4. τοῦτο λέγω κιτ.λ.} ‘I say all this to you, lest you should be led astray by those false teachers who speak of another knowledge, of other mysteries.’ In other connexions rov- To λέγω will frequently refer to the words following (e.g. Gal. iii. 17, 1 Cor. 1.12); but with ἵνα it points to what has gone before, as in Joh. v. 34 ταῦτα λέγω iva ὑμεῖς σωθῆτε.
The reference in τοῦτο λέγω extends over vy. I—3, and involves two state-
ments; (1) The declaration that all knowledge is comprehended in Christ, vy. 2, 3; (2) The expression of his own personal anxiety that they should re- main stedfast in this conviction, vv. 1,2. This last point explains the lan- guage which follows, εἰ yap καὶ τῇ σαρκὶ k.T.A.
παραλογίζηται) ‘lead you astray by Jalse reasoning, as in Daniel xiv. 7 μηδείς σε παραλογιζέσθω (LXX): comp. James i. 22, Ign. Magn. 3. It is not an uncommon word either in the Lxx or in classical writers. The system against which St Paul here contends professed to be a φιλοσοφία (ver. 8) and had a λόγον σοφίας (ver. 23).
ev πιθανολογίᾳαᾳἨἠἨ The words πιθανο- λογεῖν (Arist. Eth. Nic. i. 1), πιθανολο- yia (Plat. Theat. 162 Ἐ), πιθανολογι- kos (Epictet. i. 8. 7), occur occasion- ally in classical writers, but do not bear a bad sense, being most fre- quently opposed to ἀπόδειξις, as pro- bable argument to strict mathemati- cal demonstration. This contrast pro- bably suggested St Paul’s language in 1 Cor. ii. 4 οὐκ ἐν πειθοῖς σοφίας λό- yous GAN ἐν ἀποδείξει πνεύματος κιτιλ., and may possibly have been present to his mind here.
5. ἀλλά] Frequently introduces the apodosis after εἰ or εἰ καὶ in St Paul; e.g. Rom. vi. 5, 1 Cor. ix. 2, 2 Cor. iv. τόν. LO, ΧΙ 6. xiii. 4) (v1)!
τῷ πνεύματι] ‘in my spirit, not ‘by the Spirit? We have here the common antithesis of flesh and spirit, or body and spirit: comp. 1 Cor. v. 3 ἀπὼν τῷ σώματι, παρὼν δὲ TO πνεύματι. St Paul elsewhere uses another anti- thesis, προσώπῳ and καρδίᾳ, to express this same thing; 1 Thess. ii. 17.
χαίρων καὶ βλέπων] ‘rejoicing and beholding,” This must not be regarded as a logical inversion. The contem- plation of their orderly array, though it might have been first the cause,
174
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS,
[Π| 6
« ~ , / / \ / « ~ \ / \ \ ὑμῖν εἰμί, χαίρων Kat βλέπων ὑμῶν τὴν TaEW Kal TO
~ > \ / € ~ στερέωμα τῆς εἰς Χριστον πίστεως ὑμῶν.
CWS οὖν παρ-
΄- \ / ΄ι ελάβετε τὸν Χριστόν, Ἰησοῦν Tov Κύριον, ἐν αὐτῷ περι-
was afterwards the consequence, of the Apostle’s rejoicing. He looked, because it gave him satisfaction to look.
τὴν τάξιν] ‘your orderly array, a military metaphor: comp. e.g. Xen. Anab. i. 2. 18 ἰδοῦσα τὴν λαμπρότητα καὶ τὴν τάξιν τοῦ στρατεύματος ἐθαύ- pace, Plut. Vit. Pyrrh. 16 κατιδὼν τάξιν τε καὶ φυλακὰς Kal κόσμον αὐτῶν καὶ τὸ σχῆμα τῆς στρατοπεδείας ἐθαύ- pace. ‘The enforced companionship of St Paul with the soldiers of the preetorian guard at this time (Phil. i. 13) might have suggested this image. At all events in the contemporary epistle (Hphes. vi. 14.sq.) we have an elaborate metaphor from the armour of a soldier.
τὸ στερέωμα] ‘solid front, close phalanx, a continuation of the me- taphor: comp. 1 Mace. ix. 14 εἶδεν ᾿Ιούδας ὅτι Βακχίδης καὶ τὸ στερέωμα τῆς παρεμβολῆς ἐν τοῖς δεξιοῖς. Some- what similar are the expressions στε- ρεοῦν τὸν πόλεμον 1 Mace. x. 50, κατὰ τὴν στερέωσιν τῆς μάχης Heclus. xxviii. 10. For the connexion here compare 1 Pet. v. 9 ἀντίστητε στερεοὶ τῇ πίστει, Acts XVi. 5 ἐστερεοῦντο τῇ πίστει.
6. ὡς οὖν παρελάβετε κιτιλ.) 1.0. ‘Let your conviction and conduct be in perfect accordance with the doc- trines and precepts of the Gospel as it was taught to you.’ For this use of παρελάβετε ‘ye received from your teachers, were instructed in,’ comp. TAC ON XVer il, 5, ral, bn ἵν Ὁ; 1 Thess. ii. 13, iv. 1, 2 Thess. iii. 6, The word παραλαμβάνειν implies either ‘to receive as transmitted,’ or ‘ to re- ceive for transmission’: see the note on Gal. 1. 12. The os of the protasis suggests a οὕτως in the apodosis, which in this case is unexpressed but must be understood. The meaning of ὡς
παρελάβετε here is explained by the καθὼς ἐμάθετε ἀπὸ ᾿Επαφρᾶ in i. 7; see the note there, and comp. below, ver. 7 καθὼς ἐδιδάχθητε.
τὸν Χριστόν] ‘the Christ, rather than ‘the Gospel, because the central point in the Colossian heresy was the subversion of the true idea of the Christ.
Ἰησοῦν τὸν Κύριον) ‘even Jesus the Lord, in whom the true conception
of the Christ is realised: comp. Ephes.
iv. 20, 21, ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐχ οὕτως ἐμάθετε τὸν Χριστόν, εἴγε αὐτὸν ἠκούσατε καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ ἐδιδάχθητε, καθώς ἐστιν ἀλή- θεια ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, where the same idea is more directly expressed. The genuine doctrine of the Christ con- sists in (1) the recognition of the his- torical person Jesus, and (2) the ac- ceptance of Him as the Lord. This doctrine was seriously endangered by the mystic theosophy of the false teachers. The same order which we have here occurs also in Ephes. iii. 11 ev τῷ Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν (the correct reading).
7. ἐρριζωμένοι] Two points may be noticed here; (1) The expressive change of tenses; ἐρριζωμένοι “ firmly rooted’ once for all, ἐποικοδομούμενοι, BeBacovpevor, ‘built up and strength- ened’ from hour to hour. (2) The rapid transition of metaphor, περι- πατεῖτε, ἐρριζωμένοι, ἐποικοδομούμενοι, the path, the tree, the building: comp. Ephes. iii. 17 ἐρριζωμένοι καὶ τεθεμε- λιωμένοι. The metaphors of the plant and the building occur together in 1 Cor. iii. 9 Θεοῦ γεώργιον, Θεοῦ oiko- δομή. The transition in this passage is made easier by the fact that ῥιζοῦν (Plut. AZor, 321 Ὁ), ἐκριζοῦν (Jer. i. 10, t Mace. v. 51), πρόρριζος (Jos. B. J. vii. 8. 7), ete, are not uncommonly used of cities and buildings.
Il. 7]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
175
- ᾿ 72 Σ / As , > 5) = \ TATELTE, ἐρριζωμένοι Kal ἐποικοδομούμενοι εν αὐτῷ Και
βεβαιούμενοι TH πίστει, καθὼς ἐδιδάχθητε, περισσεύ-
> oe a) > / OVTES EV αυτή εν ευχαριστίιαᾳ.
ἐποικοδομούμενοι] ‘being built up, as in 1 Cor. iii. 1o—14, After this verb we might have expected én’ αὐτῷ or én’ αὐτόν (1 Cor. iii. 12) rather than ἐν αὐτῷ; but in this and the companion epistle Christ is represented rather as the binding element than as the foundation of the building: e.g. Ephes. ii. 20 ἐποικοδο- μηθέντες ἐπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ προφητῶν, ὄντος ἀκρογωνιαίου αὐτοῦ Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, ἐν ᾧ πᾶσα [ἡ] οἰκοδομὴ αὔξει εἰς ναὸν ἅγιον ἐν Κυρίῳ, ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς συνοικοδομεῖσθε. The ἐπὶ ἴῃ ἐποικοδομεῖν does not neces- sarily refer to the original foundation, but may point to the continued pro- gress of the building by successive layers, as e.g. [Aristot.] Rhet. ad Alex, 4 (p. 1426) ἐποικοδομοῦντα τὸ ἕτερον ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ ἕτερον αὔξειν. Hence ἐποικο- δομεῖν is frequently used absolutely, ‘to build up’ (e.g. Jude 20, Polyb. 111, 27.4), as here. The repetition of ev αὐτῷ emphasizes the main idea of the passage, and indeed of the whole epistle.
τῇ πίστει] ‘by your faith, the dative of the instrument; comp. Heb. ΧΙ, 9 καλὸν yap χάριτι βεβαιοῦσθαι τὴν καρδίαν. Faith is, as it were, the cement of the building: comp. Clem. Rom. 22 ταῦτα πάντα βεβαιοῖ ἡ ἐν Χριστῷ πίστις.
καθὼς ἐδιδάχθητε) i.e. ‘ remaining true to the lessons which you re- ceived from Epaphras, and not led astray by any later pretenders’; comp. i. 6,7 ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, καθὼς ἐμάθετε ἀπὸ ἜἘπαφρᾶ.
ἐν αὐτῇ κιτιλ.1] The same ending occurs in iv. 2. Thanksgiving is the end of all human conduct, whether exhibited in words or in works. For the stress laid on thanksgiving in St Paul’s epistles generally, see the note
on Phil. iv. 6. The words εὐχάριστος, εὐχαριστεῖν, εὐχαριστία, occur in St Paul’s writings alone of the Apostolic epistles. In this epistle especially the duty of thanksgiving assumes a peculiar prominence by being made a refrain, as here and in iii. 15, 17, iv. 2: see also i. 12.
8—15. ‘Be on your guard; do not suffer yourselves to fall a prey to certain persons who would lead you captive by a hollow and deceitful system, which they call philosophy. They substitute the traditions of men for the truth of God. They enforce an elementary discipline of mundane ordinances fit only for children. Theirs is not the Gospel of Christ. In Christ the entire fulness of the Godhead abides for ever, having united itself with man by taking a human body. And so in Him—not in any inferior mediators—ye have your life, your being, for ye are filled from His fulness. He, I say, is the Head over all spiritual beings—call them prin- cipalities or powers or what you will, In Him too ye have the true circum- cision—the circumcision which is not made with hands but wrought by the Spirit—the circumcision which divests not of a part only but of the whole carnal body—the circumcision which is not of Moses but of Christ. This circumcision ye have, because ye were buried with Christ to your old selves beneath the baptismal waters, and were raised with Him from those same waters to a new and regenerate life, through your faith in the power- ful working of God who raised Him from the dead. Yes, you—you Gen- tiles who before were dead, when ye walked in your transgressions and in the uncircumcision of your unchastened carnal heathen heart—evyen you did
176
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
ΠΙ.8
> , / ε ΄“- " . “ εἰ δΒλέπετε μή τις ὑμᾶς ἐσται ὁ συλαγωγών διὰ
8. μή τις ἔσται ὑμᾶς.
God quicken into life together with Christ; then and there freely for- giving all of us—Jews and Gentiles alike—all our transgressions ; then and there cancelling the bond which stood valid against us (for it bore our own signature), the bond which engaged us to fulfil all the law of ordinances, which was our stern pitiless tyrant. Aye, this very bond hath Christ put out of sight for ever, nailing it to His cross and rending it with His body and killing it in His death. Taking upon Him our human nature, He stripped off and cast aside all the powers of evil which clung to it like a poisonous garment. Asa mighty con- queror He displayed these His fallen enemies to an astonished world, lead- ing them in triumph on His cross.’
ὃ. Βλέπετε x.t.A.| The form of the sentence is a measure ofthe imminence of the peril. The usual construction with βλέπειν μὴ is a conjunctive; e.g. in Luke xxi. ὃ βλέπετε μὴ πλανηθῆτε. Here the substitution of an indicative shows that the danger is real; comp. Heb. iii. 12 βλέπετε μήποτε ἔσται ἔν τινι ὑμῶν καρδία πονηρὰ ἀπιστίας. For an example of μὴ with a future indi- cative see Mark xiv. 2 μήποτε ἔσται θόρυβος; and comp. Winer § lvi. p. 631 sq.
tis] This indefinite rvs is frequently used by St Paul, wher speaking of opponents whom he knows well enough but does not care to name: see the note on Gal. i. 7. Comp. Ign. Smyrn. 5 ὅν τινες ἀγνοοῦντες ἀρνοῦν- Tav...7a δὲ ὀνόματα αὐτῶν, ὄντα ἄπιστα; οὐκ ἔδοξέ μοι ἐγγράψαι.
συλαγωγῶν] ‘makes you his prey, carries you off body and soul’ The word appears not to occur before St Paul, nor after him, independently of this passage, tilla late date: e.g. Heliod. Aeth. X. 35 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τὴν ἐμὴν θυ- γατέρα συλαγωγήσας. In Tatian ad Graec. 22 ὑμεῖς δὲ ὑπὸ τούτων συλαγω-
γεῖσθε it seems to be a reminiscence of St Paul. Its full and proper mean- ing, aS appears from the passages quoted, is not ‘to despoil,’ but ‘to carry off as spoil, in accordance with the analogous compounds, δουλαγω- yeiv, σκευαγωγεῖν. So too the closely allied word λαφυραγωγεῖν in Plut. Mor. p. 5 πόλεμος yap ov Aapupaywyet ἀρετήν, Vit. Galb. 5 τὰ μὲν Γαλατῶν, ὅταν ὑποχείριοι γένωνται, λαφυραγωγή- σεσθαι. The Colossians had been res- cued from the bondage of darkness ; they had been transferred to the kingdom of light; they had been settled there as free citizens (i. 12, 13); and now there was danger that they should fall into a state worse than their former slavery, that they should be carried off as so much booty. Comp. 2 Tim. iii. 6 αἰχμαλω- τίζοντες γυναικάρια.
For the construction ἔσται 6 συλα- - γωγῶν see the notes on Gal. 1. 7, iii. 21. The former passage is a close parallel to the words here, εἰ μή τινές εἰσιν ot ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς κιτιλ. The expres- sion 6 συλαγωγῶν gives a directness and individuality to the reference, which would have been wanting to the more natural construction ὃς συλαγω- γήσει.
διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας κιτ.λ.] ‘through his philosophy which is an empty de- ceit. The absence of both preposition and article in the second clause shows that κενῆς ἀπάτης describes and quali- fies φιλοσοφίας. Clement therefore (Strom. vi. 8, p. 771) had a right to contend that St Paul does not here condemn ‘ philosophy’ absolutely. The φιλοσοφία καὶ κενὴ ἀπάτη οἵ this pas- sage corresponds to the ψευδώνυμος γνῶσις of 1 Tim. vi. 20.
But though ‘philosophy’ is not condemned, it is disparaged by the connexion in which it is placed. St Chrysostom’s comment is not altoge- ther wrong, ἐπειδὴ δοκεῖ σεμνὸν εἶναι τὸ
‘Tl. 8]
~~ \ ~~ τῆς φιλοσοφίας Kat κενῆς
τῆς φιλοσοφίας, προσέθηκε καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης. The term was doubtless used by the false teachers themselves to de- scribe theirsystem. Though essentially Greek as a name and as an idea, it had found its way into Jewish circles. Philo speaks of the Hebrew religion and Mosaic law as ἡ πάτριος φιλοσο- gia (Leg. ad Gai. 23, τι. p. 568, de Somn. ii. 18, 1. Ὁ. 675) or ἡ Ἰουδαϊκὴ φιλοσοφία (Leg. ad Gai. 33, τι. Ὁ. 582) or ἡ κατὰ Μωῦσῆν φιλοσοφία (de Mut. Nom. 39, I. p. 612). The system of the Essenes, the probable progenitors of the false teachers at Colossze, he describes as ἡ δίχα περιεργείας Ἕλλη- νικῶν ὀνομάτων φιλοσοφία (Omn. prob. fib. 13, τι. p. 459). So too Josephus speaks of the three Jewish sects as τρεῖς puiocodia (Ant. xviii. 1. 2, comp. B.J. ii. 8. 2). It should be remem- bered also, that in this later age, owing to Roman influence, the term was used to describe practical not less than speculative systems, so that it would cover the ascetic life as well as the mystic theosophy of these Colos- sian heretics. Heuce the Apostle is here flinging back at these false teach- ers a favourite term of theirown, ‘their vaunted philosophy, which is hollow and misleading.’
The word indeed could claim a truly noble origin; for it is said to have arisen out of the humility of Py- thagoras, who called himself ‘a lover of wisdom,’ μηδένα yap εἶναι σοφὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀλλ᾽ ἢ Θεόν (Diog. Laert. Procem. 8 12; comp. Cic. Tusc. v. 3). In such a sense the term would en- tirely accord with the spirit and teach- ing of St Paul; for it bore testimony to the insufficiency of the human in- tellect and the need of a revelation. But in his age it had come to be asso- ciated generally with the idea of subtle dialectics and profitless speculation ; while in this particular instance it was combined with a mystic cosmogony and angelology which contributed a
COL.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 177
Δ \ \ 7, ATATNS, κατὰ THY Tapa-
fresh element of danger. As ccn- trasted with the power and fulness and certainty of revelation, all such philosophy was ‘foolishness’ (1 Cor. i.20). It is worth observing that this word, which to the Greeks denoted the highest effort of the intellect, oc- curs here alone in St Paul, just as he uses ἀρετή, Which was their term to express the highest moral excellence, in a single passage only (Phil. iv. 8; see the note there). The reason is much the same in both cases. The Gospel had deposed the terms as inadequate to the higher standard, whether of knowledge or of practice, which it had introduced.
On the attitude of the fathers to- wards philosophy, while philosophy was a living thing, see Smith’s Dic- tionary of the Bible sv. Clement, who was followed in the main by the earlier Alexandrine fathers, regards Greek philosophy not only as a pre- liminary training (προπαιδεία) for the Gospel, but even as in some sense a covenant (διαθήκη) given by God to the Greeks (Strom. i. 5, p.331, vi. 5, p. 761, ib.§ 8, p. 771 sq.). Others, who were the great majority and of whom Ter- tullian may be taken as an extreme type, set their faces directly against it, seeing in it only the parent of all heretical teaching: 6. g. de Anim.2, 3, Apol. 46, 47. In the first passage, referring to this text, he says, ‘ Ab apostolo jam tunc philosophia con- cussio veritatis providebatur’; in the second he asks, ‘Quid simile philo- sophus et Christianus?’ St Paul’s speech at Athens, on the only oc- casion when he is known to have been brought into direct personal contact with Greek philosophers(Acts xvii. 18), shows that his sympathies would have been at least as much with Clement’s representations as with Tertullian’s.
κατὰ «.t.A.| The false teaching is described (1) As regards its source—
12
178
- , / \ - ΄σ / δοσιν Τῶν ἀνθρώπων, κατὰ Ta TTOLVELA TOV KOO}AOU,
‘the tradition of men’; (2) As regards its subject matter—‘ the rudiments of the world?
τὴν παράδοσιν κιτιλ.] Other systems, as for instance the ceremonial mishna of the Pharisees, might fitly be de- scribed in this way (Matt, xv. 2 sq., Mark vii. 3 sq.): but such a descrip- tion was peculiarly appropriate to a mystic theosophy like this of the Co- lossian false teachers. The teaching might be oral or written, but it was essentially esoteric, essentially tradi- tional. It could not appeal to sacred books which had been before all the world for centuries. The LEssenes, the immediate spiritual progenitors of these Colossian heretics, distinct- ly claimed to possess such a source of knowledge, which they carefully guarded from divulgence; B. J. ii. 8.7 συντηρήσειν ὁμοίως τά TE τῆς αἱρέσεως αὐτῶν βιβλία καὶ τὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων ὀνό- ματα (see above pp. 87, 88 sq., 93). The various Gnostic sects, their direct or collateral spiritual descendants, almost without exception traced their doctrines to a similar source: e.g. Hippol. Haer.v. 7 ἃ φησὶ παραδεδω- κέναι Μαριάμνῃ τὸν ᾿Ιάκωβον τοῦ Kv- ρίου τὸν ἀδελφόν, Vii. 20 φασὶν εἰρηκέναι Ματθίαν αὐτοῖς λόγους ἀποκρύφους ovs ἤκουσε παρὰ τοῦ σωτῆρος, Clem. Alex. Strom. Vii. 17 (p. 898) καθάπερ ὁ Βασι- λείδης, κἂν Τλαυκίαν ἐπιγράφηται διδά- σκαλον, ὡς αὐχοῦσιν αὐτοί, τὸν Πέτρου ἑρμηνέα᾽ ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ Οὐαλεντῖνον coda διακηκοέναι φέρουσιν, γνώριμος δὲ οὗτος ἐγεγόνει Παύλου. So too a later mystic theology of the Jews, which had many affinities with the teaching of the Christianized Essenes at Colossze, was self-designated Kab- bala or ‘tradition,’ professing to have been handed down orally from the patriarchs. See the note on ἀπόκρυφοι, i. 3.
τὰ στοιχεῖα] ‘the rudiments, the elementary teaching’; comp. ver. 20. The same phrase occurs again Gal. iy.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
[18
3 (comp. ver. 9). As στοιχεῖα signifies primarily ‘the letters of the alphabet, so as a secondary meaning it denotes ‘rudimentary instruction” Accord- ingly it is correctly interpreted by Clement Strom. vi. ὃ (p.771) Παῦλος ... οὐκ ἔτι παλινδρομεῖν ἀξιοῖ ἐπὶ τὴν Ἕλ- ληνικὴν φιλοσοφίαν, στοιχεῖα τοῦ κό- σμου ταύτην ἀλληγορῶν, στοιχειωτικήν τινα οὖσαν (i.e. elementary) καὶ προ- παιδείαν τῆς ἀληθείας (comp. ἐδ. Vi. 15, p. 799), and by Tertullian adv. Mare. v. 19 ‘secundum elementa mundi, non secundum caeclum et terram dicens, sed secundum litteras seculares”’ A large number of the fathers however explained the expression to refer to the heavenly bodies (called στοιχεῖα), as marking the seasons, so that the observance of ‘festivals and new- moons and sabbaths’ was a sort of bondage to them. It would appear from Tertullian’s language that Mar- cion also had so interpreted the words. On this false interpretation see the note on Gal. iv. 3. It is quite out of place here: for (1) The context suggests some mode of instruction, e.g. τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων here, and δογματίζεσθε in ver. 20; (2) The keeping of days and seasons is quite subordinate to other external ob- servances. The rite of circumcision (ver. 11), and the distinction of meats (ver. 21), respectively, are placed in close and immediate connexion with τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου in the two places where it occurs, whereas the observance of days and seasons (ver. 16) stands apart from either.
τοῦ κόσμου] ‘of the world) that is, ‘belonging to the sphere of material and external things.’ See the notes on Gal. iv. 3, Vi. 14.
‘In Christ,’ so the Apostle seems to say, ‘you have attained the liberty and the intelligence of manhood; do not submit yourselves again to a rudi- mentary discipline fit only for chil- dren (τὰ στοιχεῖα). In Christ you
IL. 9, 10]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
179
\ Ε \ ’ ΜΞ ο “' 3 " ΄ = ~ A Kal οὐ Κατα Χριστον OTE ἘΜ αὐτῶ Κατοίκει TAY TO
, ΄σ- / ΄σ \ > ‘ > “ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματίικως, TKaL ἐστε ἐν αὐτῷ
have been exalted into the sphere of the Spirit: do not plunge yourselves again into the atmosphere of material and sensuous things (τοῦ κόσμουλ.᾽
ov κατὰ Χριστόν] “ not after Christ.’ This expression is wide in itself, and should be interpreted so as to supply the negative to both the preceding clauses ; ‘ Christ is neither the author nor the substance of their teaching: not the author, for they listen to hu- man traditions (κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων); not the substance, for they replace Him by formal ordinances (κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κύσμου) and by angelic mediators.’
gsq. In explaining the true doc- trine which is ‘after Christ? St Paul condemns the two false principles, which lay at the root of this heretical teaching; (1) The theological error of substituting inferior and created be- ings, angelic mediators, for the divine Head Himself (vv. 9, 10); and (2) The practical error of insisting upon ritual and ascetic observances as the foun- dation of their moral teaching (vv. 11 —14). Their theological speculations and their ethical code alike were at fault. On the intimate connexion be- tween these two errors, as springing out of a common root, the Gnostic dualism of these false teachers, see the introduction, pp. 33 sq. 77, 85, II2 sq.
ὅτι κιτιλ.] The Apostle justifies the foregoing charge that this doctrine was not κατὰ Χριστόν; ‘In Christ dwells the whole pleroma, the entire fulness of the Godhead, whereas they represent it to you as dispersed among several spiritual agencies. Christ is the one fountain-head of all spiritual life, whereas they teach you to seek it in communion with inferior creatures.’ The same truths have been stated be- fore (i. 14 sq.) more generally, and they are now restated, with direct and im-
mediate reference to the heretical teaching.
κατοικεῖ) ‘has its fixed abode? On the force of this compound in relation to the false teaching, see the note on 1 19;
πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα] ‘all the plenitude, ‘the totality of the divine powers and attributes.’ On this theological term see i. 19, and the detached note at the end of the epistle.
τῆς θεότητος) ‘of the Godhead, ‘Non modo divinae virtutes, sed ipsa divina natura, writes Bengel. For the difference between θεότης ‘ deitas, the essence, and θειότης ‘ divinitas,’ the quality, see Trench N. 7. Syn. § ii, p. 6. The different force of the two words may be seen by a comparison of two passages in Plu- tarch, Mor. p. 857 A πᾶσιν Αἰγυπτίοις θειότητα πολλὴν καὶ δικαιοσύνην pap- τυρήσας (where it means a divine inspiration or faculty, and where no one would have used θεότητα), and Mor. 415 © ἐκ δὲ ἡρώων eis δαίμονας at βελτίονες ψυχαὶ τὴν μεταβολὴν λαμβά- νουσιν, ἐκ δὲ δαιμόνων ὀλίγαι μὲν ἔτι χρόνῳ πολλῷ OL ἀρετῆς καθαρθεῖσαι παντάπασι θεότητος μετέσχον (where θειότητος Would be quite out of place, because all δαίμονες without exception were θεῖοι, though they only became θεοὶ in rare instances and after long probation and discipline). In the New Testament the one word occurs here alone, the other in Rom. i. 20 alone. So also τὸ θεῖον, a very favour- ite expression in Greek philosophy, is found once only, in Acts xvii. 29, where it is used with singular propriety; for the Apostle is there meéting the hea- then philosophers on their own ground and arguing with them in their own language. Hlsewhere he instinctively avoids a term which tends to obscure the idea of a personal God. In the Latin versions, owing to the poverty of
A= 2
180 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
’ ε b] πεπληρώμενοι, OS ETTLY ἢ
the language, both θεότης and θειότης are translated by the same term divi- nitas; but this was felt to be inade- quate, and the word deitas was coined ut a later date to represent θεότης: August. de Civ. Det vii. § 1, VIL p. 162 (quoted in Trench) ‘Hane divinitatem vel, ut sic dixerim, deitatem: nam et hoc verbo uti jam nostros non piget, ut de Graeco expressius transferant id quod illi θεότητα appellant ete.’ σωματικῶς] ‘bodily-wise, ‘corpo- really, i.e. ‘assuming a bodily form, becoming incarnate” This is an ad- dition to the previous statement in i. 19 ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησεν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι. The indwelling of the ple- roma refers to the Eternal Word, and not to the Incarnate Christ: but σω- ματικῶς is added to show that the Word, in whom the pleroma thus had its abode from all eternity, crowned His work by the Incarnation. Thus while the main statement κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος of St Paul corresponds to the opening sentence ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος of St John, the subsidiary ad- verb σωματικῶς of St Paul has its counterpart in the additional state- ment καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο Of St John. All other meanings which have been assigned to σωματικῶς here, as ‘wholly’ (Hieron. 7 Js. xi. I sq., IV. p. 156, ‘nequaquam per partes, ut in ceteris sanctis’), or ‘really’ (Aug. Epist. exlix, IL p. 513 ‘Ideo corporaliter dixit, quia illi umbratiliter seducebant’), or ‘essentially’ (Hilar. de Z’rin. viii. 54, Il. p. 252 ‘ Dei ex Deo significat veri- tatem οἷο. Cyril. Alex. in Theodoret. Op. ν. p. 34 τουτέστιν, οὐ σχετικῶς, 1514. Pelus. Zp. iv. 166 ἀντὶ τοῦ οὐσι- des), are unsupported by usage. Nor again can the body be understood of anything else but Christ’s human body ; as for instance of the created World (Theod. Mops. in Rab. Op. vi. p. 522) or of the Church (Anon. in Chrysost. ad luc.). According to these two last inter-
[II. 16
\ / ᾿ ΄: \ κεφαλὴ TATNS ἀρχῆς και
pretations τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεύτητος is taken to mean the Universe (‘ univer- sain naturam repletam ab eo’) and the Church (τὴν ἐκκλησίαν πεπληρωμένην ὑπὸ τῆς θεότητος αὐτοῦ, see Kphes. i. 23) respectively, because either of these may be said to reside in Him, as the source of its life, and to stand to Him in the relation of the body to the head (σωματικῶς). But these forced interpretations have nothing to re- commend them.
St Paul’s language is carefully guarded. He does not say ἐν σώματι, for the Godhead cannot be confined to any limits of space; nor σωματοει- Sas, for this might suggest the un- reality of Christ’s human body; but σωματικῶς, ‘in bodily wise, ‘with a bodily manifestation” The relation of σωματικῶς to the clause which it quali- fies will vary with the circumstances, e.g. Plut. Mor. p. 424 Β τὸ μέσον οὐ τοπικῶς ἀλλὰ σωματικῶς λέγεσθαι, i.e. ‘ratione corporis habita,’ Athan. Exp. Fid. 4 (1. p. 81) σωματικῶς eis τὸν Ἰησοῦν γέγραπται, i.e. ‘secundum corpus, Ptolem. in Epiphan. Haer. XXXiii. 5 κατὰ μὲν TO φαινόμενον καὶ σωματικῶς ἐκτελεῖσθαι ἀνῃρέθη, Orig. ὁ. Cels. ii. 69 ἀφανῆ γενέσθαι σωματικῶς, 7b. vi. 68 καὶ σωματικῶς γε λαλούμενος, Macar. Magn. ili. 14 σωματικῶς χωρί- ζειν τῶν μαθητῶν.
10. καὶ ἐστὲ ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘and ye are in Him, where ἐστὲ should be sepa- rated from the following πεπληρωμέ- vor; comp. John xvii. 21, Acts xvii. 28. True life consists in union with Him, and not in dependence on any inferior being; comp. ver. 19 οὐ κρατῶν τὴν κεφαλήν, ἐξ οὗ KT.
πεπληρωμένοι] ‘being fulfilled, with a direct reference to the preceding πλήρωμα; ‘Your fulness comes from His fulness; His πλήρωμα is trans- fused into you by virtue of your in- corporation in Him? So too John i. 16 ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν, Ephes, iii. 19 ἵνα πλη-
IL. 11]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
18I
> / = II 2? - - \ / s ~ > xt ἐξουσίας: “ἐν ᾧ καὶ περιετμήθητε περιτομῇ ἀχειρο
ρωθῆτε εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, ly. 13 εἰς μέτρον ἡλικίας τοῦ πληρώμα- τὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ, comp. Ign. “Ephes. init. τῇ εὐλογημένη ἐν μεγέθει Θεοῦ πατρὸς πληρώματι. Hence also the Church, as ideally regarded, is called the πλήρωμα of Christ, because all His graces and energies are communicated to her; Ephes. i. 23 ἥτις ἐστὶν τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, TO πλήρωμα τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶ- σιν πληρουμένου.
és] For the various reading 6 see the detached note. It was perhaps a correction made on the false suppo- sition that ἐν αὐτῷ referred to the πλήρωμα. At all events it must be re- garded as an impossible reading; for the image would be altogether con- fused and lost, if the πλήρωμα were represented as the head. And again ἡ κεφαλὴ is persistently said elsewhere of Christ; i. 18, ii. 19, Ephes. 1. 22, iv. 15, v. 23. Hilary de Trin. ix. ὃ (τ. p. 264) explains the 6 as referring to the whole sentence τὸ εἶναι ev αὐτῷ memAnpopevous, but this also is an in- conceivable sense. Again it has been suggested that ὅ ἐστιν (like τουτέστιν) may be taken as equivalent to sci/ivet (comp. Clem. Hom. viii. 22); but this would require τῇ κεφαλῇ, even if it were otherwise admissible here.
ἡ κεφαλή | The image expresses much more than the idea of sovereignty: the head is also the centre of vital force, the source of all energy and life; see the note on ver. 19.
πάσης ἀρχῆς κιτ.λ.] ‘of every prin- cipality and power, and therefore of those angelic beings whom the false teachers adopted as mediators, thus transferring tu the inferior mem- bers the allegiance due to the Head: comp. ver. 18 sq. For ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξου- σίας, see the note on i. 16.
11. The previous verses have dealt with the theological tenets of the false teachers. The Apostle now turns to their practical errors; ‘You do not need the circumcision of the flesh;
for you have received the circumcision of the heart. The distinguishing fea- tures of this higher circumcision are threefold. (1) It is not external but inward, not made with hands but wrought by the Spirit. (2) It divests not of a part only of the flesh, but of the whole body of carnal affections. (3) It is the circumcision not of Moses or of the patriarchs, but of Christ.’ Thus it is distinguished, as regards jirst its character, secondly its extent, and thirdly its author.
περιετμήθητε) The moment at which this is conceived as taking place is defined by the other aorists, συντα- φέντες, συνηγέρθητε, etc., as the time of their baptism, when they ‘put on Christ.’
axetporrounre | i.e. ‘immaterial,’ ‘spi- ritual,’ as Mark xiv. 58, 2 Cor. v. 1. So χειροποίητος, which is used in the N. T. of material temples and their furniture (Acts vii. 48, xvii. 24, Heb. ix. 11, 24,comp. Mark JZ. c.), and of the material circumcision (Hphes. ii. 11 τῆς λεγομένης περιτομῆς ἐν σαρκὶ χει- ροποιήτου). In the Lxx χειροποίητα occurs exclusively as a rendering of idols (O°2"2N, e.g. Lev. xxvi. 1, 1s. 1]. 18, etc.), false gods (D128 Is, xxi. 9, where perhaps they read ods), or images (0°30 Lev. xxvi. 30), except in one passage, Is. xvi. 12, where it is applied to an idol’s sanctuary. Owing to this association of the word the application which we find in the New Testament would sound much more depreciatory to Jewish ears than it does to our own; 6. δ΄. ἐν χειροποιήτοις κατοικεῖ in St Stephen’s speech, where the force is broken in the received text by the interpolation of ναοῖς.
For illustrations of the typical sig- nificance of circumcision, as a symbol of purity, see the note on Phil. iii. 3.
ev τῇ «.T.A.] The words are chosen to express the completeness of the spiri- tual change. (1) It is not an ἔκδυσις nor an ἀπόδυσις, but an ἀπέκδυσις.
182
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
(Il.
’ =~ > , a / = , ποιήτω, ἐν τῆ ἀπεκδύσει τοῦ σώματος τῆς σαρκος, ‘ ‘ 3 γᾶς ΄:- 4 ΄σ' / > rot ἐν τῆ περιτομὴ TOU Χριστοῦ, “ouvtapevTes αὐτῷ ἐν ‘ ‘
The word ἀπέκδυσις is extremely rare, and no earlier instances of it are pro- duced; see the note on ver. 15 ἀπεκδυ- σάμενος. (2) It is not a single mem- ber but the whole body, which is thus cast aside; see the next note. Thus the idea of completeness is brought out both in the energy of the action and in the extent of its operation, as in iii, 9 ἀπεκδυσάμενοι τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον.
τοῦ σώματος κοιτ.λ.} ‘the whole body which consists of the flesh, i.e. ‘ the body with all its corrupt and carnal affections’; as ili, 5 νεκρώσατε οὖν τὰ μέλη. For illustrations of the expression see Rom. vi. 6 iva καταρ- γηθῆ τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, Vil. 24 τοῦ σώματος τοῦ θανάτου τούτου, Phil. iii. 21 τὸ σῶμα τῆς ταπεινώσεως ἡμῶν. Thus τὸ σῶμα τῆς σαρκός here means ‘the fleshly body’ and not ‘the entire mass of the flesh’; but the contrast between the whole and the part still remains. In i. 22 the same expression τὸ σῶμα τῆς σαρκός Occurs, but with a different emphasis and meaning: sce the note there.
The words τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, inserted be- tween τοῦ σώματος and τῆς σαρκός in the received text, are clearly a gloss, and must be omitted with the vast majority of ancient anthorities.
12. Baptism is the grave of the old man, and the birth of the new. As he sinks beneath the baptismal waters, the believer buries there all his corrupt affections and past sins ; as he emerges thence, he rises re- generate, quickened to new hopes and a new life. This it is, because it is not only the crowning act of his own faith but also the seal of God’s adoption and the earnest of God’s Spirit. Thus baptism is an image of his participation both in the death and in the resurrection of Christ. See Apost. Const. iii. 17 ἡ κατάδυσις τὸ
συναποθανεῖν, ἡ ἀνάδυσις TO συναναστῆ- ναι. For this twofold image, as it presents itself to St Paul, see es- pecially Rom. vi. 3 sq.
ἐν τῷ βαπτισμῷ)] ‘in the act of baptism. A distinction seems to be observed elsewhere in the New Tes- tament between βάπτισμα ‘ baptism’ properly so called, and βαπτισμὸς ‘lustration’ or ‘washing’ of divers kinds, e.g. of vessels (Mark vii. 4, [8,] Heb. ix. 10), Even Heb. vi. 2 βαπ- τισμῶν διδαχῆς, Which at first sight might seem to be an exception to this rule, is perhaps not really so (Bleek ad loc.). Here however, where the various readings βαπτισμῷ and βαπ- τίσματε appear in competition, the preference ought probably to be given to βαπτισμῷ as being highly supported in itself and as the less usual word in this sense. There is no ὦ priori reason why St Paul should not have used βαπτισμὸς with this meaning, for it is so found in Jo- sephus Ant. xvili. 5. 2 βαπτισμῷ συν- ιέναι (οἵ John the Baptist). Doubtless the form βάπτισμα Was more appro- priate to describe the one final and complete act of Christian baptism, and it very soon obtained exclusive possession of the ground in Greek ; but in St Paul’s age the other form βαπτισμὸς may not yet have been banished. In the Latin Version bap- tisma and baptismus are used indis- criminately: and this is the case also with the Latin fathers. The substan- tive ‘baptism’ occurs so rarely in any sense in St Paul (only Rom. vi. 4, Eph. iv. 5, besides this passage), or indeed elsewhere in the N. T. of Christian baptism (only in 1 Pet. iii. 21), that we have not suflicient data for a sound induction. So far as the two words have any inherent difference of meaning, βαπτισμὸς denotes rather the act in process and βάπτισμα the result.
ΕΠ 12]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
183
΄ - > ἊΣ \ , \ = ! τῷ βαπτισμῷ, ἐν ᾧ Kal συνηγέρθητε διὰ τῆς πίστεως Ξ > 7 Ἷ ΄σ Ξ ΄σ ΄σ > fa ’ \ ’ ΄σ τῆς ἐνεργείας τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ [τῶν]
12. τῷ βαπτίσματι.
ἐν ᾧ] ie. βαπτισμῷ. Others would understand Χριστῷ for the sake of the parallelism with ver. 11 ἐν ᾧ καὶ...ἐν ᾧ καί. But this parallelism is not suggested by the sense: while on the other hand there is obviously a yery close connexion between συντα- φέντες and συνηγέρθητε as the two complementary aspects of baptism; comp. Rom. vi. 4 sq. συνετάφημεν αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος ἵνα ὥσπερ ἠγέρθη Χριστὸς.. οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς...εἰ γὰρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τῷ ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἐσόμεθα, 2 Tim, ii. 11 εἰ γὰρ συναπεθάνομεν, καὶ συν ζή- σομεν. In fact the idea οἵ Χριστῷ must be reserved for συνηγέρθητε where it is wanted, ‘ye were raised together with Him,
διὰ τῆς πίστεως κιτ.λ.1 ‘through your faith in the operation, ἐνεργείας being the objective genitive. So St Chrysostom, πίστεως ὅλον ἐστίν᾽ ἐπι- στεύσατε ὅτι δύναται ὁ Θεὸς ἐγεῖραι; καὶ οὕτως ἠγέρθητε. Only by a belief in the resurrection are the benefits of the resurrection obtained, because only so are its moral effects produced. Hence St Paul prays that he may “know the power of Christ’s resurrec- tion’ (Phil. iii. 10). Hence too he makes this the cardinal article in the Christian’s creed, ‘If thou...believest in thy heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved’ (Rom. x. 9). For the influence of Christ’s resurrection on the moral and spiritual being, see the note on Phil. le. Others take τῆς ἐνεργείας as the subjective genitive, ‘faith which comes from the operation etc., arguing from a mistaken interpretation of the par- allel passage Ephes. i. 19 (where xara τὴν ἐνέργειαν Should be connected, not with τοὺς πιστεύοντας, but with τί τὸ
ὑπερβάλλον μέγεθος κιτ.λ.). The former explanation however yields a better sense, and the genitive after πίστις far more commonly describes the ob- ject than the source of the faith, e.g. Rom. iii. 22, 26, Gal. iii. 22, Ephes. iii. 12, Phil. i. 27, iii. 9, 2 Thess. ii. 13.
13. In the sentence which follows it seems necessary to assume a change of subject. There can be little doubt that ὁ Θεὸς is the nominative to συν- εζωοποίησεν : for (1) The parallel pas- sage Ephes. ii. 4, 5 directly suggests this. (2) This is uniformly St Paul's mode of speaking elsewhere. It is always God who ἐγείρει, συνεγείρει, ζωοποιεῖ, συνζωοποιεῖ, etc., with or in or through Christ. (3) Though it might be possible to assign σὺν αὐτῷ to the subject of συνεζωοποίησεν (see the note on i. 20), yeta reference to some other person is more natural. These reasons seem to decide the subject of συνεζω- οποίησεν. But at the same time it appears quite impossible to continue the same subject, ὁ Θεός, to the end of the sentence. No grammatical mean- ing can be assigned to ἀπεκδυσάμενος, by which it could be understood of God the Father. We must suppose therefore that a new subject, ὁ Xpic- Tos, is introduced meanwhile, either with ἦρκεν or with ἀπεκδυσάμενος it- self; and of the two the former seems the easier point of transition. Fora similar instance of abrupt transition, which is the more natural owing to the intimate connexion of the work of the Son with the work of the Father, see @:25.1 17 8a:
καὶ ὑμᾶς] i.e. ‘you Gentiles.” This will appear from a study of the parallel passages iii. 7, 8, Ephes. i. 13, 11 56.; Il, 13) 17, 22) lls 2. ἵν 17 see the notes on Ephes. i. 13, and on τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ just below.
184
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
[II. 13
΄ > ε A \ v ΄ fe VEKOWV" τ καὶ υμας VEKPOUS ὄντας TOLS σπαραπτωμασιν
co > ΄σ \ ε ΄σ / καὶ TH ἀκροβυστίᾳ τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν, συνεζωοποίησεν
τοῖς παραπτώμασιν k.T.r.] ‘by reason of your transgressions ete. The πα- ραπτώματα are theactual definite trans- gressions, while the ἀκροβυστία τῆς σαρκὸς is the impure carnal disposition which prompts to them. For the da- tive comp. Ephes. ii. 1, 5, where the same expression occurs ; see Winer Gramm. § xxxi. p. 270. On the other hand in Rom. vi. 11 νεκροὺς μὲν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, ζῶντας δὲ τῷ Θεῷ, the dative has a wholly different meaning, as the context shows. The ἐν of the received text, though highly supported, is doubt- less an interpolation for the sake of grammatical clearness.
τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ κιτ.λ.] The external fact is here mentioned, not for its own sake but for its symbolical meaning. The outward uncircumcision of the Gentiles is a type of their unchastened carnal mind. In other words, though the literal meaning is not excluded, the spiritual reference is most promi- nent, aS appears from ver. 11 ἐν τῇ ἀπεκδύσει τοῦ σώματος. Hence Theo- dore’s comment, ἀκροβυστίαν (ἐκάλε- σεν) τὸ περικεῖσθαι ἔτι τὴν θνητότητα. At the same time the choice of the expression shows that the Colossian converts addressed by St Paul were nainly Gentiles.
συνεζωοποίησεν] It has been ques- tioned whether the life here spoken of should be understood in a spiritual sense of the regeneration of the moral being, or in a literal sense of the fu- ture life of immortality regarded as conferred on the Christian potentially now, though only to be realised here- after. But is not such an issue alto- gether superfluous ? Is there any rea- son to think that St Paul would have separated these two ideas of life? To him the future glorified life is only the continuation of the present moral and spiritual life. The two are the same in essence, however the accidents
may differ. Moral and spiritual rege- neration is salvation, is life.
ὑμᾶς) ‘The pronoun is repeated for the sake of emphasis. The omission in some good copies is doubly ex- plained ; (1) By the desire to simplify the grammar ; (2) By the wish to re- lieve the awkwardness of the close proximity between ὑμᾶς and ἡμῖν. This latter consideration has led a few good authorities to substitute ἡμᾶς for ὑμᾶς, and others to substitute ὑμῖν for ἡμῖν. For instances of these emphatic repetitions in St Paul see the note on i. 20 δι᾽ αὐτοῦ.
σὺν αὐτῷ] ‘ with Christ,’ as in Ephes. il, 5 συνεζωοποίησεν τῷ Χριστῷ. On the inadmissibility of the reading αὑτῷ see the note on εἰς αὐτὸν i. 20.
χαρισάμενος] ‘having Jorgiven, as in Luke vii. 42 sq., 2 Cor. ii. 7, 10, xii. 13, Ephes. iv. 32; see also the note on iii. 13 below. The idea of sin as a debt incurred to God (Matt. vi. 12 τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν, comp. Luke xi. 4) underlies this expression, as it does also the commoner term for pardon, ἄφεσις ‘remission.’ The image is carried out in the cancelled bond, ver. 14.
ἡμῖν) The person is changed; ‘not to you Gentiles only, but to us all alike. St Paul is eager to claim his share in the transgression, that he may claim it also in the forgiveness. For other examples of the change from the second to the first person, see 1. IO—13, lll. 3, 4, Ephes. ii. 2, 3, 13, 14, Iv. 31, 32, v. 2.(the correct reading), 1 Thess. v. 5, where the mo- tive of the change is similar. See also Gal. iii. 25, 26, iv. 5, 6, where there is the converse transition.
14. ἐξαλείψας] ‘having cancelled’ The word ἐξαλείφειν, like διαγράφειν, signifying ‘to blot out, to erase,’ is commonly opposed to ἐγγράφειν ‘to enter a name, ete’; e.g. Arist. Pax
II. 14]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 185
Ee \ oe , One , \ , ὑμᾶς σὺν αὐτῷ, χαρισάμενος ἡμῖν πάντα Ta παραπτώ-
> \ > ε ΄ / = ματα, "ἰἐξαλείψας τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς
1181, Lysias c. Nicom. Ὁ. 183, Plato Resp. vi. p. 501 B. More especially is it so used in reference to an tfem in an account, e.g. Demosth. c. Aristog. i. p. 791 ἐγγράφονται πάντες οἱ ὀφλι- σκάνοντες.. .ἐξαλήλιπται τὸ ὄφλημα.
τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν x.t.d.] ‘the bund stand- ing against us. The word χειρόγρα- gov, which means properly an auto- graph of any kind, is used almost ex- clusively for a note of hand, a bond or obligation, as having the ‘ sign-manual’” of the debtor or contractor : e.g. Tobit y. 3 (comp. ix. 5) ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ τὸ χειρό- γραφον, Plut. Mor. p. 829 A τῶν χειρο- γράφων καὶ συμβολαίων. It is more common in Latin than in Greek, e.g. Cic. Fam. vii. 18 ‘ Misi cautionem chi- rographi mei,’ Juv. Sat. xvi. 41 ‘ De- bitor aut sumptos pergit non reddere nummos, Vana supervacui dicens chirographa ligni’ (comp. xiii. 137). Hence chirographum, chirographarius, are frequent terms in the Roman law- books; see Heumann-Hesse Hand- lexicon zu den Quellen des rémischen Rechts s.v. p. 74.
In the case before us the Jewish people might be said to have signed the contract when they bound them- selves by a curse to observe all the enactments of the law (Deut. xxvii. 14—26; comp. Exod. xxiv. 3); and the primary reference would be to them. But ἡμῖν, ἡμῶν, seem to in- clude Gentiles as wellas Jews, so that a wider reference must be given to the expression. The δόγματα there- fore, though referring primarily to the Mosaic ordinances, will include all forms of positive decrees in which moral or social principles are embo- died or religious duties defined ; and the ‘bond’ is the moral assent of the conscience, which (as it were) signs and seals the obligation. The Gen- tiles, though ‘not having a law, area law to themselves,’ οἵτινες ἐνδείκνυνται
TO ἔργον τοῦ νόμου γραπτὸν ev ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν, συμμαρτυρούσης αὐτῶν τῆς συνειδήσεως, Rom. ii. 14,15. Sce the notes on Gal. ii. 19, iv. 11. Comp. Orig. Hom. in Gen. xiii. 4 (IL p- 96).
τοῖς δόγμασιν] ‘consisting in ordi- nances’: comp. Ephes. ii. 15 τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν. The word δόγμα is here used in its proper sense of a ‘decree,’ ‘ordinance,’ correspond- ing to δογματίζεσθε below, ver. 20. This is its only sense in the N. T.; e.g. Luke ii. 1, Acts xvii. 7, of the emperor’s decrees ; Acts xvi. 4 of the Apostolic ordinances. Here it refers especially to the Mosaic law, as in Joseph. Ant. xv. 5. 3 ra κάλλιστα τῶν δογμάτων Kal τὰ ὁσιώτατα τῶν ἐν τοῖς νόμοις, Philo Leg. All. i. 16 (1. p. 54) διατήρησις τῶν ἁγίων δογμάτων, 3 Mace. 1. 3 τῶν πατρίων δογμάτων. Comp. Iren. Fragm. 38 (p. 855 Stieren) where, immediately after a reference to our text, τοῖς τῶν Ιουδαίων δόγμασι mpov- έρχεσθαι iS Opposed to πνευματικῶς λειτουργεῖν. In the parallel passage, Ephes. ii. 15, this is the exclusive reference; but here (for reasons ex- plained in the last note) it seems best to give the term a secondary and more extensive application.
The dative is perhaps best explained as governed by the idea of yeypap- μένον involved in χειρόγραφον (comp. Plat. Ep. vil. p. 243 A ta γεγραμμένα τύποις); asin I Tim. ii. 6 τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις, Where καιροῖς depends on an implied μεμαρτυρημένον. Other- wise it is taken as closely connected with καθ᾽ ἡμῶν, ‘the bond which was in force against us by reason of the ordinances’: see Winer § xxxi. p. 273, A. Buttmann p. 80. Possibly an ἐν has dropped out of the text before τοῖς δόγμασιν, owing to the similar ending ΧΕΙΡΟΓΡΑΦΟΝΕΝ (comp. Ephes. iil. 15); but, if so, the omission must
186
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Ἷ
{II. 14
« Μ conan \ \ 4 δόγμασιν, ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν: καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ
date from the earliest age, since no existing authorities exhibit any traces of such a reading; see the note on ver. 18 ἃ ἑόρακεν, and comp. Phil. ii. I εἴ τις σπλάγχνα.
A wholly different interpretation however prevails universally among Greek commentators both here and in Ephes. ii. 15. They take τοῖς δόγ- μασιν, ἐν δόγμασιν, to mean the ‘ doc- trines or precepts of the Gospel, and so to describe the instrument by which the abrogation of the law was effected. So Chrysostom, Severianus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theo- doret, followed by the later commen- tators @icumenius and Theophylact. Strangely enough they do not allude to the correct interpretation; nor (with the exception of the passage ascribed to Irenzeus which is quoted above) have I found any distinct traces of it in any Greek father. The grammati- cal difficulty would be taken to favour this interpretation, which moreover was characteristic of the age when the battle of creeds was fought. But it has been universally abandoned by modern interpreters, as plainly inap- propriate to the context and also as severing the substantive δόγμα here from the verb doypari¢ewin ver.20. The Latin fathers, who had either decretis or sententiis in their version, were saved from this false interpretation ; e.g. Hilar. de Trin. i. 12 (IL p. 10), ix. 10 (11. p. 265 sq.), Ambros. “οί. Dat. 13 (1. p. 698), de Fid. iii, 2 (τ. p. 499), August. de Pecc. Mer. i. 47 (x. p. 26): though they very commonly took τοῖς δόγμασιν, ἐν δόγμασιν, to refer to the decree of condemnation. Jerome however on HEphes. 11. 15 (vir. p. 581) follows the Greeks. The later Christian sense of δόγμα, mean- ing ‘ doctrine,’ came from its secondary classical use, where it was applied to the authoritative and categorical ‘sen- tences’ of the philosophers: comp. Just, Mart. Ayol, i. 7 (p. 56 D) of ἐν
Ἕλλησι τὰ αὐτοῖς ἀρεστὰ Soyparioavres ἐκ παντὸς τῷ ἑνὶ ὀνόματι φιλοσοφίας προσαγορεύονται, καίπερ τῶν δογμάτων ἐναντίων ὄντων, Cic. Acad. ii. 9 ‘de suis decretis quae philosophi vocant δόγματα; Senec. Epist, xev. 10 ‘ Nulla ars contemplativa sine decretis suis est, quae Graeci vocant dogmata, nobis vel decreta licet adpellare vel scita vel placita” See the indices to Plu- tarch, Epictetus, etc., for illustrations of the use of the term. There is an approach towards the ecclesiastical meaning in Ignat. Magn. 13 BeBaw- θῆναι ἐν τοῖς δόγμασιν τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων, Barnab. § 1 τρία οὖν δόγματά ἐστιν Κυρίου (comp. § 9, 10). ὃ ἦν κιτ.λ.] ‘which was directly op- posed tous” The former expression, τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν, referred to the validity of the bond; the present, ὃ ἦν ὕπεναν- τίον ἡμῖν, describes its actice hostility. 10 is quite a mistake to suppose that the first preposition in ὑπεναντίος mitigates its force, as in ὑποδήλωσις, UmoXevKoS, ὑπομαίνομαι, ὑποσημαίνειν, etc. Neither in classical writers nor in the Lxx has the word any shade of this meaning. It is very commonly used, for instance, of things which are directly antagonistic and mutually exclusive: e.g. Aristot. de Gen. et Corr. 1. 7 (p. 323) Anmoxpiros... φησὶ...τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ ὅμοιον εἶναι TO τε ποιοῦν καὶ τὸ πάσχον...ἐοίκασι δὲ οἱ τοῦτον τὸν τρύπον λέγοντες ὑπεναντία (i.e. self-contradictory) φαίνεσθαι λέ- yew" αἴτιον δὲ τῆς ἐναντιολογίας k.T.A., [Plato] Alcib. Sec. 138 0 SQ. Τὸ μαί- νεσθαι dpa ὑπεναντίον σοι δοκεῖ τῷ φρονεῖν; ΑΛ. Πάνυ μὲν οὖν...130.8Β SQ. Καὶ μὴν δύο γε ὑπεναντία ἑνὶ πράγματι πῶς ἂν ein; (i.e. how can one thing have two direct opposites 1), where the whole argument depends on this sense of ὑπεναντίος. In compounds with ὑπὸ the force of the preposition will generally be determined by the meaning of the other element in the courpound; and, as ἐναντίος (ἔναντι)
II. 15]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
187
΄σ ’ > \ ΄σ ΄σ > TOU μέσου, προσηλωσας αὐτό TW σταυρῳ" 15 ἀπεκδυ-
implies locality, a local sense is commu- nicated to vro. Thus ὑπεναντίος may be compared with ὑπαλλάσσειν, v- παντᾶν, ὑπαντιάζειν, ὑποτρέχειν (Xen. Cyrop. i. 2. 12 λῃστὰς ὑποδραμεῖν ‘ to hunt down’), ὑπελαύνειν (Xen. Anab. i. 8.15 ὑπελάσας ὡς συναντῆσαι, ‘riding up’), ὑφιστάναι (Polyb.i. 50 6 ὑπέστη- ge τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ναῦν ἀντίπρωρον τοῖς πολεμίοις, he brought up’ his own ship). With this meaning, ‘over against,’ ‘close in upon,’ the preposition does not weaken but enhance the force of ἐναντίος, so that the compound will denote ‘ direct, ‘ close,’ or ‘ persistent opposition,’
καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν κιτ.λ. ‘and He, i.e. Christ, hath taken it away.” There is a double change in this clause: (1) The participles (χαρισάμενος, ἐξαλεί- Was) are replaced by a finite verb. (2) The aorists (συνεζωοποίησεν, xa- ρισάμενος, ἐξαλείψας) are replaced by a perfect. The substitution of ἦρεν for ἦρκεν in some copies betrays a consciousness on the part of the scribes of the dislocation produced by the new tense. As a new subject, o Χριστός, must be introduced some- Where (see the note on ver. 13), the severance thus created suggests this as the best point of transition. The perfect ἦρκεν, ‘He hath removed it, is suggested by the feeling of relief and thanksgiving, which rises up in the Apostle’s mind at this point. For the strong expression αἴρειν ἐκ [τοῦ μέσου, ‘to remove and put out of sight, comp. uxx Is. lvii. 2, Epictet. iii. 3. 15, Plut. Afor. p. 519 D; so 2 Thess. ii. 7 ἐκ μέσου γένηται.
προσηλώσας κιτιλ.] ‘ The abrogation was even more emphatic. Not only was the writing erased, but the do- cument itself was torn up and cast aside” By προσηλώσας is meant that the law of ordinances was nailed to the cross, rent with Christ’s body, and destroyed with His death: see tho notes on Gal. vi. 14 δ οὗ [τοῦ
σταυροῦ] ἐμοὶ κόσμος (the world, the sphere of material ordinances) ἐσταύ- peta κἀγὼ κόσμῳ, Where the idea is thesame. It has been supposed that in some cities the abrogation of a decree was signified by running a nail through it and hanging it up in public. The image would thus gain force, but there is no distinct evi- dence of such a custom.
15. ἀπεκδυσάμενος «.t.A.] This word appears not to occur at all be- fore St Paul, and rarely if ever after his time, except in writers who may be supposed to have his language be- fore them; e.g. Hippol. Haer. i. 24 ἀπεκδυσάμενον TO σῶμα ὃ περικεῖται. In Joseph. Ant. vi. 14. 2 ἀπεκδὺς is only a variation for μετεκδὺς which seems to be the correct reading. The word also appears in some texts of Babrius Fw). xviii. 3, but it is merely a conjectural emendation. Thus the occurrence Of ἀπεκδύεσθαι here and in iii. 9, and of ἀπέκδυσις above in ver. 11, is remarkable; and the choice of an unusual, if not a wholly new, word must have been prompted by the de- sire to emphasize the completeness of the action. The force of the double compound may be inferred from a pas- sage of Lysias, where the two words ἀποδύεσθαι and ἐκδύεσθαι occur toge- ther; c. Theomn. i. 10 (p. 117) φά- σκων θοιμάτιον ἀποδεδύσθαι ἢ τὸν χιτω- νίσκον ἐκδεδύσθαι. Here however the sense of ἀπεκδυσάμενος is difficult. The meaning generally assigned to it, ‘having spoiled, stripped of their arms,’ disregards the middle voice. St Jerome is chiefly responsible for this common error of interpretation: for in place of the Old Latin ‘ exuens se” which was grammatically correct, he substituted ‘exspolians’ in his re- vised version. In his interpretation however he was anticipated by the commentator Hilary, who read ‘exu- ens’ for ‘exuens se’ in his text. Dis- carding this sense, as inconsistent with
188
, \ ‘ σάμενος τὰς ἄρχας Kat the voice, we have the choice of two interpretations,
(1) The common interpretation of the Latin fathers, ‘putting off the body,’ thus separating ἀπεκδυσάμενος from τὰς ἀρχὰς κιτιλ. and understand- ing τὴν σάρκα ΟΥ̓ τὸ σῶμα With it; comp. 2 Cor. ν. 3 ἐνδυσάμενοι. So Novat. de Trin. 16 ‘exutus carnem’; Ambros. Expos. Luc. γ. § 107 (I. p. 1381) ‘ex- tens se carnem,’ comp. de Lid. iii. 2 (11. p. 499); Hilar. de Trin. 1. 13 (τι. p. 10) ‘exutus carnem’ (comp. ix. 10, p. 265), x. 48 (p. 355) ‘spolians se carne’ (comp. ix. II, p. 266); Au- gustin. Hpist. 149 (11. p. 513) ‘exuens se carne,’ ete. This appears to have been the sense adopted much earlier ina Docetic work quoted by Hippol. Haer. viii. 10 ψυχὴ ἐκείνη ἐν τῷ σώματι τραφεῖσα, ἀπεκδυσαμένη τὸ σῶμα καὶ προσηλώσασα πρὸς τὸ ξύλον καὶ θριαμ- βεύσασα κιτιλ. It is so paraphrased likewise in the Peshito Syriac and the Gothic. The reading ἀπεκδυσάμενος τὴν σάρκα καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας (omitting τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ), found in some an- cient authorities, must be a corrup- tion from an earlier text, which had inserted the gloss τὴν σάρκα after ἀπεκδυσάμενος, While retaining τὰς ἀρχὰς καί, and which seems to have been in the hands of some of the La- tin fathers already quoted. This in- terpretation has been connected with a common metaphorical use of ἀπο- δύεσθαι, signifying ‘to strip’ and so “to prepare for a contest’; e.g. Plut. Mor. 811 B πρὸς πᾶσαν ἀποδυόμενοι τὴν πολιτικὴν πρᾶξιν, Diod. Sic. ii. 29 ἐπὶ φιλοσοφίαν ἀποδύντεςς "The seri- ous objection to this rendering is, that it introduces an isolated metaphor which is not explained or suggested by anything in the context.
(2) The common interpretation of the Greek fathers; ‘ having stripped off and put away the powers of evil, making ἀπεκδυσάμενος govern τὰς ap- xas «7A. So Chrysostom, Severianus,
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
(II. 15
‘ ’ te , 2 ,
TUS ECOVGlaS EOELY MATL Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodo- ret. This also appears to have been the interpretation of Origen, in Matt, xii. § 25 (111. p. 544), Ὁ. ὃ 40 (p. 560), in Ioann. vi. ὃ 37 (IV. p. 155), 0, XX. § 29 (p. 356), though his language is not explicit, and though his transla- tors, e.g. in Libr. Les. Hom. vii. § 3 (Ir. p. 413), make him say otherwise, The meaning then will be as follows, Christ took upon Himself our human nature with allits temptations (Heb. iv. 15). The powers of evil gathered about Iiim. Again and again they assailed Him; but each fresh assault ended in a new defeat. In the wilderness He was tempted by Satan ; but Satan retired for the time baffled and defeated (Luke iv. 13 ἀπέστη aw αὐτοῦ ἄχρι καιροῦ). Through the voice of His chief disciple the temp- tation was renewed, and He was entreated to decline His appointed sufferings and death. Satan was again driven off (Matt. xvi. 23 ὕπαγε ὀπίσω pov, Σατανᾶ, σκάνδαλον εἶ ἐμοῦ : comp. Matt. viii.31). Then the last hour came. This was the great crisis of all, when ‘the power of darkness’ made itself felt (Luke xxii. 53 ἡ ἐξου- σία τοῦ σκότους ; See above i.13), When the prince of the world asserted his tyranny (Joh. xii. 31 ὁ ἄρχων rod κύσμου). ‘The final act in the conflict began with the agony of Gethsemane; it ended with the cross of Calvary. The victory was complete. The enemy of man was defeated. The powers of evil, which had clung like a Nessus robe about His humanity, were torn off and cast aside for ever. And the victory of mankind is involved in the victory of Christ. In His cross we too are divested of the poisonous clinging garments of temptation and sin and death; τῷ ἀποθέσθαι τὴν θνητότητα, siys Theodore, ἣν ὑπὲρ τῆς κοινῆς ἀφεῖλεν εὐεργεσίας, ἀπεδύσατο κἀκείνων ((. 6. τῶν ἀντικειμένων δυνά- μεων) τὴν αὐθεντείαν ἧπερ ἐκέχρηντο
11. 15]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
189
> 7 ᾽ \ ΄σ σεν ἐν παρρησίᾳ, θριαμβεύσας αὐτοὺς ἐν αὐτῷ.
καθ᾽ ἡμῶν. For the image of the gar- ‘ments comp. Is. lxiv. 6, but especially Zech. iii. 1 sq.,‘ And he showed me Joshua the high-priest standing be- fore the angel of the Lord and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan... Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments... And He answered and spake unto those that stood before Him, saying, Take away the filthy gar- ments from him. And unto him He said, Behold, Z have caused thine ini- quity to pass from thee? In this prophetic passage the image is used of His type and namesake, the Jesus of the Restoration, not in his own person, but as the high-priest and re- presentative of a guilty but cleansed and forgiven people, with whom he is identified. For the metaphor of ἀπεκ- δυσάμενος more especially, see Philo Quod det. pot. ins. 13 (I. p. 199) ἐξανα- στάντες δὲ Kal διερεισάμενοι τὰς ἐντέχ- νους αὐτῶν περιπλοκὰς εὐμαρῶς ἐκδυ- σόμεθα, where the image in the con- text is that of a wrestling bout.
This interpretation is grammatical; it accords with St Paul’s teaching; and itis commended by the parallel uses of the substantive in ver. 11 ἐν τῇ ἀπεκ- δύσειτοῦ σώματος τῆς σαρκός, τα of the verb in iii. 9 ἀπεκδυσάμενοι τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον κιτιλ. The ἀπέκδυσις accom- plished in us when we are baptized into Hisdeath is a counterpart to the ἀπέκ- δυσις Which He accomplished by His death. With Him indeed it was only the temptation, with us it is the sin as well as temptation; but otherwise the parallel is complete. In both cases it is a divestiture of the powers of evil, a liberation from the dominion of the flesh. On the other hand the common explanation ‘ spoiling’ is not less a violation of St Paul’s usage (iii. 9) than of grammatical rule.
ras ἀρχὰς k.7.’.] What powers are especially meant here will appear from
Ephes. vi. 12 πρὸς τὰς ἀρχάς, πρὸς τὰς ἐξουσίας, πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας τοῦ σκότους τούτου, πρὸς τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας κιτιλ. See the note oni. 16.
ἐδειγμάτισεν)] ‘displayed, as a vic- tor displays his captives or trophies in a triumphal procession: Hor. Zpis¢. 1.17. 33 ‘ captos ostendere civibus hos- tes.” ‘the word is extremely rare; Matt. 1. 19 μὴ θέλων αὐτὴν δειγματίσαι (where it ought probably to be read for the more common word παραδειγ- patioa), Act. Paul. et Petr. 33 ἔλεγε πρὸς τὸν λαὸν ἵνα μὴ μύνον ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ Σίμωνος ἀπάτης φύγωσιν ἀλλὰ καὶ δειγ- ματίσουσιν αὐτόν. Nowhere does the word convey the idea of ‘making an example’ (παραδειγματίσαι) but signi- fies simply ‘to display, publish, pro- claim.” In the context of the last passage we have as the consequence, ὥστε πάντας τοὺς εὐλαβεῖς ἄνδρας βδε- λύττεσθαι Σίμωνα τὸν μάγον καὶ ἀνόσιον αὐτὸν καταγγέλλ εἰν, Le. to proclaim his impieties. The substantive occurs on the Rosetta stone 1. 30 (Boeckh C. I. 4697) τῶν συντετελεσμένων τὰ πρὸς τὸν δειγματισμὸν διάφορα.
ἐν παρρησίᾳ" δοίαϊγ,᾽ not ‘ publicly. AS παρρησία is ‘unreservedness, plain- ness of speech’ (rav-pyoia, its opposite being ἀρρησία ‘silence’), so while applied still to language, it may be opposed either (1) to ‘fear,’ as John vii. 13, Acts iv. 29, or (2) to ‘am- biguity, reserve, Joh. xi. 14, xvi. 25,29; but ‘ misgiving, apprehension’ in some form or other seems to be always the correlative idea. Hence, when it is transferred from words to actions, it appears always to retain the idea of ‘ confidence, boldness’; e.g. 1 Mace. iv. 18 AnWere τὰ σκῦλα μετὰ παρρησίας, Test. xii Patr. Rub. 4 οὐκ εἶχον παρρησίαν ἀτενίσαι εἰς πρόσωπον ;Ἴακωβ, Jos. Ant. ix. το. 4 ὑπ᾽ αἰσχύνης τε τοῦ συμβεβηκότος δεινοῦ καὶ τοῦ μη- κέτ᾽ αὐτῷ παρρησίαν εἶναι. The idea οἵ publicity may sometimes be connected with the word as a secondary notion,
190
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
[Il. 16
16 \ ἫΝ ε - , ? / Ares / ΠῚ My OUV TLS UMAS KPLVETW EV βρώσει καὶ EV ποσει ἢ
16. ἢ ἐν πόσει.
e. g. in Joh. vii. 4, where ἐν παρρησίᾳ εἶναι ‘to assume a bold attitude’ is opposed to ἐν κρυπτῷ ποιεῖν (comp. xviii. 20); but it does not displace the primary sense.
θριαμβεύσας) ‘leading them in tri- umph, the same metaphor asin 2 Cor. ii. 14 τῷ πάντοτε θριαμβεύοντι ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ κιτιλ, where it is wrongly translated in the A.V. ‘ causeth us to triumph.’ Here however it is the de- feated powers of evil, there the sub- jugated persons of men, who are led in public, chained to the triumphal car of Christ. This is the proper meaning and construction of θριαμ- Bevew, as found elsewhere. This verb takes an accusative (1) of the person over whom the triumph is celebrated, eg. Plut. Vit. Arat. 54 τοῦτον Αἰμίλιος ἐθριάμβευσε, Thes. et Rom. Comp. 4 βασιλεῖς ἐθριάμβευσε: (2) of the spoils exhibited in the triumph, eg. Tatian c. Graec. 26 παύσασθε λόγους ἀλλοτρί- ovs OptapBevorres καί, ὥσπερ ὁ κολοιός, οὐκ ἰδίοις ἐπικοσμούμενοι πτεροῖς: (3) more rarely of the substance of the triumph, e.g. Vit. Camill. 30 ὁ δὲ Κάμιλλος ἐθριάμβευσε... τὸν ἀπολωλυίας σωτῆρα πατρίδος γενόμενον, i.e. ‘in the character of his country’s saviour.’ The passive θριαμβεύεσθαι is ‘to beled in triumph,’ ‘to be triumphed over,’ e.g. Vit. C. Mare. 35. So the Latins say ‘triumphare aliquem’ and ‘trium- phari,
ἐν αὐτῷ) 1.€. τῷ σταυρῷ: comp. Ephes. ii. 16 ἀποκαταλλάξῃ τοὺς ἀμφο- τέρους..«διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ. The violence of the metaphor is its justification. The paradox of the crucitixion is thus placed in the strongest light—triumph in helplessness and glory in shame, The convict’s gibbet is the victor’s car.
16—19. ‘Sceing then that the bond is cancelled, that the law of ordinances is repealed, beware of subjecting your- sclves to its tyranny again. Suffer no
man to call you to account in the matter of eating or drinking, or again of the observance of a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These are only shadows thrown in advance, only types of things to come. The sub- stance, the reality, in every case be- longs to the Gospel of Christ. The prize is now fairly within your reach, Do not suffer yourselves to be robbed of it by any stratagem of the false teachers. Their religion is an οἵδε cious humility which displays itself in the worship of angels. They make a parade of their visions, but they are following an empty phantom. They profess humility, but they are puffed up with their vaunted wisdom, which is after all only the mind of the flesh. Meanwhile they have substituted in- ferior spiritual agencies for the One true Mediator, the Eternal Word. Clinging to these lower intelligences, they have lost their hold of the Head; they have severed their connexion with Him,on whom the whole body depends; from whom it derives its vitality, and to whom it owes its unity, being supplied with nourishment and knit together in one by means of the several joints and attachments, so that it grows with a growth which comes from God Himself
16 sq. The two main tendencies of the Colossian heresy are discernible in this warning (vv. 16—19), as they were in the previous statement (vv. 9 —1i15). Here however the order is reversed. The practical error, an ex- cessive ritualism and ascetic rigour, is first dealt with (vv. 16, 17); the theological error, the interposition of angelic mediators, follows after (vv. 18, 19). The first is the substitution of a shadow for the substance; the second is the preference of an inferior member to the head. The reversal of order is owing to the connexion of the paragraphs; the opening subject in
ἘΠ 17]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
IOI
᾽ , 4 ε ΄σ aX / a / 17 ἘΝ 15 Q ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ veounvias ἡ σαββάτων, ad ἐστιν σκιὼ
17. ὅ ἐστιν σκιὰ.
the second paragraph being.a conti- nuation of the concluding subject in the first, by the figure called chiasm: comp. Gal. iv. 5.
κρινέτω] not ‘condemn you, but ‘take you to task’; as e.g. Rom. xiv. 3584. The judgment may or may not end in an acquittal ; but in any case it is wrong, since these matters ought not to be taken as the basis of ἃ jJudg- ment.
ἐν βρώσει κιτ.λ.] Sin eating and in drinking’; Rom. xiv. 17 ov yap ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία Tov Θεοῦ βρῶσις καὶ πόσις, ἀλλὰ δικαιοσύνη κιτ.λ., Heb. ix. 10 ἐπὶ βρώμασιν καὶ πόμασιν καὶ δια- φύροις βαπτισμοῖς, δικαιώματα σαρκός, comp. 1 Cor. viii. 8 βρῶμα δὲ ἡμᾶς οὐ παραστήσει τῷ Θεῷ κιτλ. The first indication that the Mosaic distinctions of things clean and unclean should be abolished is given by our Lord Him- self: Mark vii. 14 sq. (the correct read- ing in ver. 19 being καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα). They were afterwards form- ally annulled by the vision which ap- peared to St Peter: Acts x. 11 sq. The ordinances of the Mosaic law applied almost exclusively to meats. It contained no prohibitions respect- ing drinks except in a very few cases; e.g. of the priests ministering in the tabernacle (Lev. x. 9), of liquids con- tained in unclean vessels etc, (Lev. xi. 34, 36), and of Nazarite vows (Num. vi. 3). These directions, taken in connexion with the rigid obser- vances which the later Jews had grafted on them (Matt. xxiii. 24), would be sufficient to explain the ex- pression, when applied to the Mosaic law by itself, as in Heb. 1.c. The rigour of the Colossian false teachers how- ever, like that of their Jewish proto- types the Essenes, doubtless went far beyond the injunctions of the law. It is probable that they forbad wine and animal food altogether: see the intro- duction pp. 86, 104 sq. For allusions
in St Paul to similar observances not required by the law, see Rom. xiv. 2 ὁ δὲ ἀσθενῶν λάχανα ἐσθίει, Ver. 21 κα- λὸν τὸ μὴ φαγεῖν κρέα μηδὲ πιεῖν οἶνον καιλ., τ Tim. iv. 2, 3 κωλυόντων... ἀπέ- χεσθαι βρωμάτων ἃ ὁ Θεὸς ἔκτισεν K.T.X., Tit. i. 14 μὴ προσέχοντες... ἐντολαῖς ἀνθρώπων... «πάντα καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς. The correct reading seems to be καὶ ἐν πόσει, thus connecting together the words between which there is a natu- ral affinity. Comp. Philo Vit. Moys. i. § 33 (IL p. 110) δεσποίναις χαλεπαῖς συνεζευγμένου βρώσει καὶ πόσει, Ign. Τγαϊί. 2 οὐ γὰρ βρωμάτων καὶ ποτῶν εἰσὶν διάκονοι.
ἐν μέρει] ‘in the matter of, οἷο. ; comp. 2 Cor. iii. 10, ix. 3 ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ. The expression seems origi- nally to mean ‘in the division or cate- gory, and in classical writers most commonly occurs in connexion with such words as τιθέναι, ποιεῖσθαι, ἀριθ- μεῖν, etc.: comp. Demosth. c. Aristocr. § 148 ὅσα..-.στρατιώτης ὧν ἐν σφενδο- νήτου καὶ ψιλοῦ μέρει...ἐστράτευται, i.e. ‘in the capacity of’ Hence it gets to signify more widely, as here, ‘with respect to,’ ‘by reason of’; comp. Philo Quod det. pot. ins. $2 (I. p. 192) ev μέρει λόγου τοῦ προκόπτοντος κατὰ τὸν πατέρα κοσμοῦνται, ἴῃ Flace. 20 (um. Ρ. 542) ὅ ὅσα ἐν μέρει χάριτος καὶ δω- ρεᾶς ἔλαβον. But lian V. .Η΄. viii. 3 κρίνοντες ἕκαστον ἐν τῷ μέρει φόνου, quoted by the commentators, is a false parallel: for φόνου is there governed by κρίνοντες and ἐν τῷ μέρει Means ‘in his turn,’
ἑορτῆς κιτιλ.] The same three words occur together, as an exhaustive enu- meration of the sacred times among the Jews, in 1 Chron. xxiii. 31, 2 Chron, ii. 4, xxxi. 3, Ezek. xlv. 17, Hos. ii. 11, Justin Dial. 8, p. 226; comp. Is. i. 13, 14. See also Gal. iv. Io ἡμέρας παρα- τηρεῖσθε καὶ μῆνας καὶ καιροὺς καὶ ἐνι- αὐτούς, where the first three words correspond to the three words used
192
~ , \ ‘ ~ ~ ~ τῶν μελλόντων, TO δὲ σώμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ.
here, though the order is reversed. The ἑορτή here, like the καιροί there, refers chiefly to the annual festivals, the passover, pentecost, etc. The veo- μηνία here describes more precisely the monthly festival, which is there designated more vaguely as μῆνες. The σάββατα here gives by name the aeelily holy-day, which is there indi- cated more generally by ἡμέραι.
veopnvias] See Num, xxviii. 11 sq. The forms νεομηνία and νουμηνία seem to be used indifferently in the common dialect, though the latter is more common. In the Attic νουμηνία alone was held to be correct; see Lobeck Phryn. p. 148. On the whole the preference should perhaps be given to νεομηνίας here, as supported by some authorities which are generally trustworthy in matters of orthography, and as being the less usual form in itself.
σαββάτων) ‘a sabbath-day, not, as the A. V., ‘sabbath days’; for the co- ordinated words ἑορτῆς, veounyias, are in the singular. The word σάββατα is derived from the Aramaic (as dis- tinguished from the Hebrew) form ΠΣ», and accordingly preserves the Aramaic termination in a. Hence it was naturally declined as a plural noun, σάββατα, σαββάτων. The gene- ral use of σάββατα, when a single sab- bath-day was meant, will appear from such passages as Jos, Ant. i. I. I ἄγο- μεν THY ἡμέραν, προσαγορεύοντες αὐτὴν σάββατα, ib. iii. το. 1 ἑβδόμην ἡμέραν ἥτις σάββατα καλεῖται, Plut. Mor. Ιύ9 σα Ἰουδαῖοι σαββάτων ὄντων ἐν ἀγνάμπτοις καθεζόμενοι, ib. 671 F οἶμαι δὲ καὶ τὴν τῶν σαββάτων ἑορτὴν μὴ παντά- πασιν ἀπροσδιόνυσον εἶναι, Hor. Sat. i. 9. 69 ‘hodie tricesima sabbata.’ In the New Testament σάββατα is only once used distinctly of more than a single day, and there the plurality of meaning is brought out by the at- tached numeral; Acts xvii. 2 ἐπὶ σαβ- Bura τρία.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
{II. 18
᾿ὃ μηδεὶς
On the observance of days and sea- sons see again Gal. iv. 10, Rom. xiv, 5, 6. A strong anti-Judaic view on the subject is expressed in the Zpist. ad Diogn.§ 4. Origen c. Cels. viii. 21, 22, after referring to Thucyd. i. 70 μήτε ἑορτὴν ἄλλο τι ἡγεῖσθαι ἢ τὸ τὰ δέοντα πρᾶξαι, SAYS ὁ τέλειος, ἀεὶ ἐν τοῖς λό- yous ὧν καὶ τοῖς ἔργοις καὶ τοῖς διανοή- μασι τοῦ τῇ φύσει κυρίου λόγου Θεοῦ, ἀεί ἐστιν αὐτοῦ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις καὶ ἀεὶ ἄγει κυριακὰς ἡμέρας, and he then goes on to explain what is the παρασκευή, the πάσχα, the πεντηκοστή, of such a man. The observance of sacred times was an integral part of the old dispen- sation. Under the new they have ceased to have any value, except as a means to an end. The great principle that ‘the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath, though underlying the Mosaic ordinances, was first distinctly pronounced by our Lord. The setting apart of special days for the service of God is a con- fession of our imperfect state, an avowal that we cannot or do not de- vote our whole time to Him. Sab- baths will then ultimately be super- seded, when our life becomes one eternal sabbath. Meanwhile the A po- stle’s rebuke warns us against attri- buting to any holy days whatever a meaning and an importance which is alien to the spirit of the New Covenant. Bengel on the text writes, ‘Sabba- tum non laudatur, non imperatur ; dominica memoratur, non praecipitur. Qui profundius in mundi negotiis hae- rent, his utilis et necessarius est dies definitus: qui semper sabbatizant, majori libertate gaudent.’ Yes: but these last are just they who will most scrupulously restrict their liberty, so as ἀπρόσκοποι γίνεσθαι.
17. Two ideas are prominent in this image. (1) The contrast between the ordinances of the Law and the teaching of the Gospel, as the shadow and the substance respectively; Philo
4
ae -
II. 18]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
193
ὑμᾶς καταβραβευέτω θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνη καὶ
de Conf. ling. 37 (I. p. 434) νομίσαντας τὰ μὲν ῥητὰ τῶν χρησμῶν σκιάς τινας ὡσανεὶ σωμάτων εἶναι, Joseph. B. J. li. 2. 5 σκιὰν αἰτησόμενος βασιλείας ἧς ἥρπασεν ἑαυτῷ τὸ σῶμα; comp. Philo im Flace. 19 (11. p. 541) σκιὰ πραγ- μάτων ἄρ᾽ ἦσαν, ov πράγματα. (2) The conception of the shadow as thrown before the substance (ἡ δὲ σκιὰ mporpe- χει TOU σώματος, says a Greek commen- tator),so that the Law was a type and presage of the Gospel; Heb. x. 1 σκιὰν ἔχων ὁ νόμος τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν (comp. viii. 5). Thus it implies both the unsubstantiality and the super- session of the Mosaic ritual.
ἅ] ‘which things, whether dis- tinctions of meats or observances of times. If the other reading 6 be ta- ken, it will refer to the preceding Sentence generally, as if the antece- dent were ‘the whole system of ordi- nances.’
τὸ δὲ σῶμα κιτιλ] As the shadow belonged to Moses, so ‘the substance belonys to Christ’; i.e. the reality, the antitype, in each case is found in the Christian dispensation. Thus the passover typifies the atoning sacrifice; the unleayened bread, the purity and sincerity of the true believer; the pentecostal feast, the ingathering of the first fruits; the sabbath, the rest of God’s people ; etc.
18. The Christian’s career is the contest of the stadium (δρόμος, Acts KX. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 7); Christ is the umpire, the dispenser of the rewards (2 Tim. iv. 8); life eternal is the bay wreath, the victor’s prize (βραβεῖον, I Cor. ix. 24, Phil. iii. 14). The Co- lossians were in a fair way to win this prize; they had entered the lists duly ; they were running bravely: but the false teachers, thrusting themselves in the way, attempted to trip them up or otherwise impede them in the race, and thus to rob them of their just reward. For the idea of καταβρα- βευέτω compare especially Gal. v. 7
COL.
ἐτρέχετε καλῶς" Tis ὑμᾶς ἐνέκοψεν K.T.A.
καταβραβευέτω] ‘rob of the prize, the βραβεῖον"; comp. Demosth. Mid. Ρ. 544 (one of the documents) ἐπιστά- μεθα Στράτωνα ὑπὸ Μειδίου καταβρα- βευθέντα καὶ παρὰ πάντα τὰ δίκαια ἀτιμωθέντα, which presents a close parallel to the use of καταβραβεύειν here. See also Eustath. on Z/. i. 403 sq. (p. 43) καταβραβεύει αὐτόν, ὥς φασιν οἱ παλαιοί, ib. Opusc. 277, etc. The false teachers at Colossee are not re- garded as umpires nor as successful rivals, but simply as persons frustrat- ing those who otherwise would have won the prize. The word καταβραβεύειν is wide enough to include such. The two compounds καταβραβεύειν and πα- paBpaBevew (Plut. Mor. p. 535 © οἱ mapaSpaBevortes ἐν τοῖς ἀγῶσι) only differ in this respect, that deprivationis the prominent idea in the former word and trickery in the latter. Jerome, Epist, cxxi ad Algas, (1. p. 879), sets down this word, which he wrongly interprets ‘brayium accipiat adversum vos, as one of St Paul’s Cilicisms. The passages quoted (whether the document in the Midias be authentic or not) are sufficient to show that this statement is groundless.
θέλων ἐν] ‘taking delight in) ‘ de- voting himself to’ The expression is common in the Lxx, most frequently as a translation of “2 ὙΠ, 1 Sam. Xviii. 22, 2 Sam. xv. 26, 1 Kings x. 9, 2 Chron. ix. 8, Ps. cxi. 1, exlvi. 10, but in one passage of “2 AS, 1 Chron. xxviil. 4. So too Test. wii Pair. Asher 1 ἐὰν οὖν ἡ ψυχὴ θέλῃ ἐν καλῷ. Comp. also 1 Mace. iy. 42 θελητὰς νόμου, and see ἐθελοθρησκεία below. Against this construction no valid objection has been urged. Other- wise θέλων is taken absolutely, and various senses have been assigned to it, such as ‘imperiously’ or ‘ design- edly’ or ‘wilfully’ or ‘gladly, readily’; but these are either unsupported by
13
104
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
'
[1]. 18
/ ΄σ ᾽ / Oe OL ἢ ~ θρησκείᾳ τών ἀγγέλων, ἃ ἑόρακεν ἐμβατεύων, εἰκῇ φυ-
usage or inappropriate to the context. Leclere (ad loc.) and Bentley (Crit. Sacr. p. 59) conjectured θέλγων ; Toup (Emend. in Suid. τι. p. 63) more plau- sibly ἐλθών ; but the passages quoted show that no correction is needed.
ταπεινοφροσύνῃ] Humility is a vice with heathen moralists, but a virtue with Christian Apostles; see the note on Phil. ii. 3. In this passage, which (with ver. 23) forms the sole exception to the general language of the Apo- stles, the divergence is rather appa- rent than real. The disparagement is in the accompaniments and not in the word itself. Humility, when it be- comes self-conscious, ceases to have any value; and self-consciousness at least, if not affectation, is implied by θέλων ἐν. Moreover the character of the ταπεινοφροσύνη in this case is fur- ther defined as θρησκεία τῶν ἀγγέλων, which was altogether a perversion of the truth.
θρησκείᾳ] This word is closely con- nected with the preceding by the vin- culum of the same preposition. There was an officious parade of humility in selecting these lower beings as inter- cessors, rather than appealing di- rectly to the throne of grace. The word refers properly to the external rites of religion, and so gets to sig- nify an over-scrupulous devotion to external forms; as in Philo Quod det. pot. ins. 7 (1. p. 195) θρησκείαν ἀντὶ ὁσιότητος ἡγούμενος, Plut, Vit, Alex. 2 δοκεῖ καὶ τὸ Opnokevew ὄνομα ταῖς κατακόροις γενέσθαι καὶ περιέργοις ἱερουργίαις : comp. Acts xxvi. 5, and see the well-known remarks of Cole- ridge on James i. 26, 27, in Aids to Reflection p. 14. In the Lxx θρη- σκεύειν, θρησκεία, together occur four times (Wisd. xi. 16, xiv. 16, 18, 27), and in all these examples the refer- ence is to idolatrous or false worship. Indeed generally the usage of the word exhibits a tendency to a bad sense.
τῶν ἀγγέλων] For the angelology and the angelolatry of these Colossian false teachers, more especially in its connexion with Essene teaching, see the introduction, pp. 89 sq., IOI sq., 110,115 86. For the prominence which was given to angelology in the specu- lations of the Jews generally, see the Preaching of Peter quoted in Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 5 (p. 760) μηδὲ κατὰ Ιουδαίους σέβεσθε, καὶ yap ἐκεῖνοι... οὐκ ἐπίστανται λατρεύοντες ἀγγέλοις καὶ ἀρχαγγέλοις, Celsus in Orig. ὁ. Οοἴ5.. v. 6 (I. p. 580) πρῶτον οὖν τῶν Ἰουδαίων θαυμάζειν ἄξιον, εἰ τὸν μὲν οὐρανὸν καὶ τοὺς ἐν τῷδε ἀγγέλους σέβουσι K.T.A., comp. Ὁ. i. 26 (p. 344). From Jews it naturally spread to Judaizing Christians; e.g. Clem. Hom. iii. 36 ἀγγέλων ὀνόματα γνωρίζειν, Vill. 12 56. Test. wit Patr. Levi 3 (quoted above on 1. 16). The interest however ex- tended to more orthodox circles, as appears from the passage in Ignat. Trall. 5 μὴ οὐ δύναμαι τὰ ἐπουράνια γράψαι ;:..«δύναμαι νοεῖν τὰ ἐπουράνια καὶ τὰς τοποθεσίας τὰς ἀγγελικὰς καὶ τὰς συστάσεις τὰς ἀρχοντικάς K.T-A. (SEC | the note there). Of angelology among Gnostic sects see Iren. ii. 30. 6, ii. 32. 5, Orig. c. Cels. vi. 30 sq. (I. p. 653), Clem. Alex. δυο. Theod. p. 970 sq., Pistis Sophia pp. 2, 19, 23, ete.
ἃ ἑόρακεν κ-τ.λ.] literally ‘invading what he has seen, which is generally explained to mean ‘parading’ or ‘por- ing over his visions.’ For this sense of ἐμβατεύειν, Which takes either a geni- tive or a dative or an accusative, comp. Philo de Plant. Noe ii. 19 (1 p. 341) οἱ προσωτέρω χωροῦντες τῶν ἐπιστη-᾿ μῶν καὶ ἐπὶ πλέον ἐμβατεύοντες αὐταῖς, 2 Mace. ii. 30 τὸ μὲν ἐμβατεύοντες καὶ περὶ πάντων ποιεῖσθαι λόγον καὶ πολυ- πραγμονεῖν ἐν τοῖς κατὰ μέρος. At ἃ later date this sense becomes com- mon, e.g. Nemesius de Nat. Hom. p. 64 (ed. Matthsei) οὐρανὸν ἐμβατεύει τῇ θεωρίᾳ. In Xen. Symp. iv. 27 ev τῷ αὐτῷ βιβλίῳ ἀμφότεροι euBarevere
II 19]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
105
/ \ ~ \ > \ > lox \ σιούμενος ὑπὸ TOV voos τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, “Kal οὐ
τι, the reading may be doubtful. But though ἃ ἑόρακεν singly might mean ‘his visions, and ἐμβατεύων “ busying himself with, the combination ‘ inva- ding what he has seen, thus inter- preted, is so harsh and incongruous as to be hardly possible; and there was perhaps some corruption in the text prior to all existing authorities (see the note on Phil. ii. 1 for a par- allel case). Did the Apostle write ἐώρᾳ (Or al@pa) κενεμβατεύων ? In this case the existing text aewpakenem BATEYN might be explained partly by an attempt to correct the form ἐώρᾳ into aiwpa or conversely, and partly by the perplexity of transcribers when confronted with such unusual words. This reading had suggested itself to me independently without the knowledge that, so far as regards the latter word, it had been antici- pated by others in the conjecture ἃ ἑώρα (OY ἃ ἑώρακεν) κενεμβατεύων. The word κενεμβατεῖν ‘to walk on empti- ness,’ ‘to tread the air’ and so meta- phorically (like depoBareiv, aidepoBa- γεῖν, αἰθερεμβατεῖν, etc.) ‘to indulge in vain speculations, is not an uncommon word. For its metaphorical sense espe- cially see Plut. M/or. p. 336 F οὕτως ἐρέμ- Sero κενεμβατοῦν Kal σφαλλόμενον ὑπ᾽ ivapxias τὸ μέγεθος αὐτῆς, Basil. Op. L Ῥ. 135 τὸν νοῦν..-μυρία πλανηθέντα καὶ πολλὰ κενεμβατήσαντα k.T.r., iD. τ. ρ. 596 σοῦ δὲ μὴ κενεμβατείτω ὁ νοῦς, Synes. de Znsomn. p. 156 οὔτε γὰρ κε- νεμβατοῦντας τοὺς λόγους ἐξήνεγκαν. Though the precise form κενεμβατεύειν does not occur, yet it is unobjection- able in itself. For the other word which I have ventured to suggest, ἐώρᾳ OY aidpa, see Philo de Soman. ii. 6 (1. p. 665) ὑποτυφούμενος ὑπ᾽ ai- ὥρας φρενῶν καὶ κενοῦ φυσήματος, ib. ἢ 9 (p. 667) τὴν ἐπ’ αἱ ὥρας φορουμέ- my κενὴν δόξαν, Quod Deus immut. § 36 (1. p. 298) ὥσπερ em αἰώρας τι- νὸς ψευδοῦς καὶ ἀβεβαίου δόξης φορεῖ- σθαι κατὰ κενοῦ βαίνοντα. The
first and last passages more especially present striking parallels, and show how germane to St Paul’s subject these ideas of ‘suspension or ba- lancing in the air’ (ἐώρα or αἰώρα) and ‘treading the void’ (κενεμβατεύειν) would be, as expressing at once the spiritual pride and the emptiness of these speculative mystics; see also de Somn. ii. 2 (p. 661) ἐμφαίνεται καὶ τὸ τῆς κενῆς δόξης, ἐφ᾽ ἣν, ὡς ἐφ᾽ ἅρμα, διὰ τὸ κοῦφον ἀναβαίνει, φυσώ- μενος καὶ μετέωρον ἡ ὡρηκὼ ς ἑαυτόν. The substantive, ἐώρα or αἰώρα, is used sometimes of the instrument for sus- pending, sometimes of the position of suspension. In this last sense it de- scribes the poising of a bird, the float- ing of a boat on the waters, the ba- lancing on a rope, and the like. Hence its expressiveness when used as a me- taphor.
In the received text a negative is inserted, ἃ μὴ ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύων. This gives a very adequate sense ‘in- truding into those things which he has not seen’; ov yap εἶδεν ἀγγέλους, says Chrysostom, καὶ οὕτω διάκειται ws ἰδών : comp. Ezek. xiii. 3 οὐαὶ τοῖς προ- φητεύουσιν ἀπὸ καρδίας αὐτῶν καὶ τὸ καθόλου μὴ βλέπουσιν. But, though the difficulty is thus overcome, this cannot be regarded as the original reading of the text, the authorities showing that the negative was an after insertion. See the detached note on various readings.
For the form ἕόρακεν, which is bet- ter supported here than ἑώρακεν, see the note on ii. 1.
εἰκῇ φυσιούμενος ‘ vainly puffed up,’ Their profession of humility was a cloke for excessive pride: for, as St Paul says elsewhere (1 Cor. viii. 1), ἡ γνῶσις φυσιοῖ. It may be ques- tioned whether εἰκῇ should be con- nected with the preceding or the fol- lowing words. Its usual position in St Paul, before the words which it qualifies (Rom. xiii. 4, 1 Cor. xv. 2,
13---2
196
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
7
[il. 19
κρατῶν τὴν κεφαλήν, ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα διὰ τῶν ἁφών
Gal. iv. 11; there is an exceptional reason for the exceptional position in Gal. iii. 4), points to the latter con- struction.
τοῦ νοὸς καιλ] ‘the mind of his Jiesh, i.e. unenlightened by the Spirit; comp. Rom. viii. 7 τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκός. It would seem that the Apostle is here taking up some watch- word of the false teachers. They doubtless boasted that they were di- rected ὑπὸ τοῦ voos. Yes, he answers, but it is ὁ νοῦς τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν. Com- pare Rey. ii. 24, where the favourite Gnostic boast γινώσκειν τὰ βαθέα is characterized by the addition of rod Σατανᾶ (see Galatians p. 298, note 3). Comp. August. Conf: x. 67 ‘Quem invenirem qui me reconciliaret tibi? Ambiendum mihi fuit ad angelos? Qua prece? quibus sacramentis? Multi conantes ad te redire, neque per se ipsos valentes, sicut audio, ten- taverunt haec et inciderunt in deside- rium curiosarum visionum et digni habiti sunt illusionibus. Elati enim te quaerebant doctrinae fastu, ete.’
19. ov κρατῶν] ‘not holding fast.’ This is the most common construction and meaning of κρατεῖν in the New Testament; e.g. Mark vii. 8 ἀφέντες τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ κρατεῖτε THY παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ; comp. Cant. iii. 4 εὗρον ὃν ἠγάπησεν ἡ Ψυχή μου, ἐκράτησα αὐτὸν καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκα αὐτόν.
τὴν κεφαλήν] ‘the Head’ regarded as a title, so that a person is at once suggested, and the relative which follows is masculine, ἐξ οὗ ; comp. the parallel passage, Ephes. iv. 16 ὅς ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλή, Χριστὸς ἐξ ov πᾶν τὸ σῶμα κτλ. The supplication and worship of angels is a substitution of inferior members for the Head, which is the only source of spiritual life and energy. See the introduction pp. 34, 76, 99 8q., 113 86.
διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν κιτ.λ.} ‘through the junctures and ligaments.’ Galen, when describing the structure of the human
frame, more than once specifies the elements of union as twofold: the body owes its compactness partly to the articulation, partly to the attach- ment; e.g. Op. τι. p. 734 (ed. Kiihn) ἔστι δὲ ὁ τρόπος τῆς συνθέσεως αὐτῶν διττὸς κατὰ γένος, ὁ μὲν ἕτερος κατὰ ἄρθρον, ὁ δὲ ἕτερος κατὰ σύμφυσιν. Similarly, though with a more general reference, Aristotle speaks of two kinds of union, which he describes as ἁφή ‘contact’ and σύμφυσις ‘cohesion’ respectively ; Metaph. iv. 4 (p. 1014) διαφέρει δὲ σύμφυσις ἁφῆς" ἔνθα μὲν γὰρ οὐθὲν παρὰ τὴν ἁφὴν ἕτερον ἀνάγκη εἶναι, ἐν δὲ τοῖς συμπεφυκύσιν ἐστί τι ἕν τὸ αὐτὸ ἐν ἀμφοῖν ἃ ποιεῖ ἀντὶ τοῦ ἅπτεσθαι συμπεφυκέναι καὶ εἶναι ἕν κιτιλ., Phys. Ausc. iv. 6 (Ὁ. 213) τούτοις ἁφή ἐστιν σύμφυσις δέ, ὅταν ἄμφω ἐνεργείᾳ ἕν γένωνται (comp. tb. ν. 3, p. 227), Metaph. x. 3 (p. 1071) ὅσα ἐστὶν ἁφῇ καὶ μὴ συμφύσει. The relation of contiguous surfaces and the connexion of different parts to- gether effect structural unity. This same distinction appears in the A- postle’s language here. Contact and attachment are the primary ideas in apai and σύνδεσμοι respectively.
Of the function of adn, ‘ contact,’ in physiology (περὶ ἁφῆς τῆς ἐν τοῖς φυσι- κοῖς) Aristotle speaks at some length in one passage, de Gen. et Corr.i. 6 (p. 322 sq.) It may be mentioned, as illustrating St Paul’s image, that Aristotle in this passage lays great stress on the mutual sympathy and influence of the parts in contact, de- scribing them as παθητικὰ καὶ ποιητικά and as κινητικὰ καὶ κινητὰ ὑπ᾽ ἀλλήλων. Elsewhere, like St Paul here, he uses the plural ai agai; de Caelo i. 11 (p. 280) τὸ ἄνευ φθορᾶς ὁτὲ μὲν ὃν ὁτὲ δὲ μὴ Ov, οἷον τὰς ἀφά ς, ὅτι ἄνευ τοῦ Pet ρεσθαι πρότερον οὖσαι ὕστερον οὐκ εἰσίν,
τῶν διαφανῶν οὔτε διὰ τῶν πόρων, Ww. δ 9 (p. 327) εἰ γὰρ διακρίνεσθαι δύναται
ΓΙ. 10]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
197
\ , ᾽ , \ , kal συνδέσμων ἐπιχορηγούμενον Kat συνβιβαζόμενον
κατὰ τὰς adas, ὥσπερ φασί τινες, κἂν μήπω ἢ διηρημένον, ἔσται διηρημένον" δυνατὸν γὰρ διαιρεθῆναι : comp. [ Plat. | Azxioch. p. 365 A συνειλεγμένον τὰς ἁφὰς καὶ τῷ σώματι ῥωμαλέον. It is quite clear from these passages of Aristotle, more especially from the distinction of agai and πόροι, that ai apai are the joinings, the junctures. When applied to the human body they would be ‘ joints? provided that we use the word accurately of the re- lations between contiguous limbs, and not loosely (as it is often used) of the parts of the limbs themselves in the neighbourhood of the contact. Hip- pocrates indeed used adaias a physio- logical term in a different sense, em- ploying it as a synonyme for ἅμματα i.e. the fasciculi of muscles (see Galen Op. χιχ. p. 87), but this use was quite exceptional and can have no place here. Thus ai adai will be almost a synonyme for τὰ ἄρθρα, differing how- ever (1) as being more wide and com- prehensive, and (2) as not emphasizing so strongly the adaptation of the contiguous parts.
The considerations just urged seem decisive as to the meaning of the word. Some eminent modern critics however explain ai adpai to be ‘the senses,’ following Theodoret on Ephes. iv. 16 ἁφὴν δὲ τὴν αἴσθησιν προσηγό- ρευσεν, ἐπειδὴ καὶ αὕτη μία τῶν πέντε αἰσθήσεων, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ μέρους τὸ πᾶν ὠνόμασε. St Chrysostom had led the way to this interpretation, though his language is less explicit than Theo- doret’s. To such a meaning how- ever there are fatal objections. (1) This sense of ἁφή is wholly unsup- ported. It is true that touch lies at the root of all sensations, and that this fact was recognised by ancient physiologists: e.g. Aristot. de Anim. i. 13 (p. 435) ἄνευ μὲν yap ἁφῆς ovde- μίαν ἐνδέχεται ἄλλην αἴσθησιν ἔχειν. But here the connexion ends; and unless more cogent examples not hitherto ad-
ducedare forthcoming, we are justified in saying that ai agai could no more be used for ai αἰσθήσεις, than in English ‘ the touches’ could be taken as a synonyme for ‘the senses.’ (2) The image would be seriously marred by such a meaning. The d¢ai and avy δεσμοι would no longer be an ex- haustive description of the elements of union in the anatomical structure ; the conjunction of things so incon- gruous under the vinculum of the same article and preposition, δεὰ τῶν apav καὶ συνδέσμων, would be un- natural; and the intrusion of the ‘senses’ would be out of place, where the result specified is the supply of nourishment (ἐπιχορηγούμενον) and the compacting of the parts (συνβιβαζό- μενον). (3) All the oldest versions, the Latin, the Syriac, and the Memphitie, explain it otherwise, so as to refer in some way to the connexion of the parts of the body; e.g. in the Old Latin it is rendered nexus here and junctura in Ephes. iv. 16,
συνδέσμων] ‘bands, ‘ligaments. The Greek σύνδεσμος, likethe English ‘ liga- ment,’ hasageneral andaspecial sense. Inits general and comprehensive mean- ing it denotes any of the connecting bands which strap the body together, such as muscles or tendons or liga- ments properly so called; in its special and restricted use it is a ‘ligament’ in the technical sense; comp. Galen Op. Iv. p. 369 σύνδεσμος yap ἐστιν, ὁ γοῦν ἰδίως, οὐ κοινῶς ὀνομαζόμενος, σῶ- μα νευρῶδες ἐξ ὀστοῦ μὲν ὁρμώμενον πάντως διαπεφυκὸς δὲ ἢ εἰς ὀστοῦν ἢ εἰς μῦν. OF the σύνδεσμοι or ligaments properly so called Galen describes at length the several functions and uses, more especially as binding and holding together the διαρθρώσεις; Op. 1. 236, π. 268, 739, II. 149, Iv. 2, ete., comp. Tim. Locr. de An. Mund. p. 557 συν- δέσμοις ποττὰν κίνασιν τοῖς νεύροις συνᾶψε τὰ ἄρθρα (Opusc. Mythol. etc. ed. Gale). In our text indeed συν-
198
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
(II. 20
’ \ sf ΄σ ~ ΝᾺ > > , \ wa αὔξει τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ. ““εἰ ἀπεθανετε σὺν Χριστῷ
δεσμοι must be taken in its compre- hensive sense; but the relation of the apai to the σύνδεσμοι in St Paul still remains the same-as that of the διαρ- θρώσεις to the σύνδεσμοι in Galen.
ἐπιχορηγούμενον κιτιλ.} The two fune- tions performed by the agai and σύν- δεσμοι are first the supply of nutri- ment etc. (ἐπιχορηγούμενον), and se- condly the compacting of the frame (συνβιβαζόμενον. In other words they are the communication of life and energy, and the preservation of unity and order. The source of all (ἐξ ov) is Christ Himself the Head; but the channels of communication (διὰ τῶν κιτ.λ.) are the different members of His body, in their relation one to another. For ἐπιχορηγούμενον ‘bounti- fully furnished’ see the note on Gal. iii. 5. Somewhat similarly Aristotle speaks of σώμα κάλλιστα πεφυκὸς καὶ κεχορηγημένον, Pol. iv. 1 (p. 1288). For examples of χορηγία applied to functions of the bodily organs, see Galen. Op. 1. p. 617 ἐν ταῖς εἰσπνοαῖς χορηγίᾳ ψυχρᾶς ποιότητος, Alex. Probl. i. 81 τὸ πλεῖστον τῆς τροφῆς ἐξυδαρού- μενον χορηγεῖται πρὸς γένεσιν τοῦ πά- θους. For συνβιβαζόμενον, ‘joined to- gether, compacted, see the note on ii. 2. In the parallel passage, Ephes. iv. 16, this part of the image is more distinctly emphasized, συναρμολογούμε- νον kat συνβιβαζόμενον. The difference corresponds to the different aims of the two epistles. In the Colossian letter the vital connexion with the Head is the main theme; in the Ephesian, theunity in diversity among the members.
αὔξει τὴν αὔξησιν κιτ.λ.] By the two- fold means of contact and attach- ment nutriment has been diffused and structural unity has been attained, but these are not the ultimate result ; they are only intermediate processes ; the end is growth. Comp. Arist. Metaph. iv.4(p.1014) av ξησιν ἔχει δ᾽
eae 2, a 9& \ ΄ ἑτέρου τῷ ἅπτεσθαι καὶ συμπεφυκέ-
ναι..«διαφέρει δὲ σύμφυσις ἁφῆς, ΠΟΥ growth is attributed to the same two physiological conditions as here,
tov Θεοῦ] i.e. ‘which partakes of God, which belongs to God, which has its abode in God’ Thus the finite is truly united with the Infinite; the end which the false teachers strove in vain to compass is attained; the Gospel vindicates itself as the true theanthropism, after which the hnman heart is yearning and the human in- tellect is feeling. See above, p. 115 sq. With this conclusion of the sen- tence contrast the parallel passage Ephes. iv. 16 τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ σώματος ποιεῖται εἰς οἰκοδομὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἐν ἀγάπῃ, Where again the different endings are determined by the dif- ferent motives of the two epistles.
The discoveries of modern physi- ology have invested the Apostle’s language with far greater distinctness and force than it can have worn to his own contemporaries. Any expo- sition of the nervous system more especially reads like a commentary on his image of the relations between the body and the head. At every turn we meet with some fresh illustration which kindles it with a flood of light. The volition communicated from the brain to the limbs, the sensations of the extremities telegraphed back to the brain, the absolute mutual sym- pathy between the head and the members, the instantaneous paralysis ensuing on the interruption of con- tinuity, all these add to the com- pleteness and life of the image. But the following passages will show how even ancient scientific speculation was feeling after those physiological truths which the image involves; Hippoer. de Morb. Sacr. p. 309 (ed. Foese) κατὰ ταῦτα νομίζω τὸν ἐγκέφαλον δύναμιν πλείστην ἔχειν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ....οἱ δὲ ὀφθαλμοὶ καὶ τὰ οὔατα καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες καὶ οἱ πόδες, οἷα ἂν ὁ ἐγκέ- datos γινώσκῃ, τοιαῦτα ὑπηρετοῦσι...-
II. 20]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
199
\ σ΄ ,ὔ ΄ ,ὔ ε or > ἀπο τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ κόσμου, τί ὡς ζώντες ἐν κόσμω
ἐς δὲ τὴν σύνεσιν ὁ ἐγκέφαλος ἐστὶν ὁ διαγγέλλων. ...διότε φημὶ τὸν ἐγκέφαλον εἶναι τὸν ἑρμηνεύοντα τὴν σύνεσιν, αἱ δὲ φρένες ἄλλως ὄνομα ἔχουσι τῇ τύχῃ κεκτημένον.. «λέγουσι δέ τινες ὡς φρονέ- ομεν τῇ καρδίῃ καὶ τὸ ἀνιώμενον τοῦτο ἐστι καὶ τὸ φροντίζον᾽ τὸ δὲ οὐχ οὕτως ἔχει.. τῆς..«φρονήσιος οὐδετέρῳ μέτεσ- τιν ἀλλὰ πάντων τουτέων ὁ ἐγκέφαλος αἴτιός ἐστιν..«πρῶτος αἰσθάνεται ὁ ἐγ- κέφαλος τῶν ἐν τῷ σώματι ἐνεόντων (where the theory is mixed up with some curious physiological specula- tions), Galen. Op. I. 235 αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ ἐγκέφαλος ὅτι μὲν ἀρχὴ τοῖς νεύροις ἅπασι τῆς δυνάμεώς ἐστιν, ἐναργῶς ἐμάθομεν.. "πότερον δὲ ὡς αὐτὸς τοῖς νεύροις, οὕτω ἐκείνῳ πάλιν ἕτερόν τι μόριον ἐπιπέμπει, 5 πηγή τις αὐτῶν ἐστίν, ἔτ᾽ ἄδηλον, tb. Iv. p. 11 ἀρχὴ μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν (. 6. τῶν νεύρων) ὁ ὁ ἐγκέφαλός ἐστι, καὶ τὰ πάθη εἰς αὐτὸν φέρει, οἷον εἰς ἄρουράν τινα τῆς λογιστικῆς ψυχῆς" ἔκφυσις δ᾽ ἐντεῦθεν, οἷον πρέμνου τινὸς εἰς δένδρον ἀνήκοντος μέγα, ὁ νωτιαῖός ἐστι μυελὸς...σύμπαν δ᾽ οὕτω τὸ σῶμα μεταλαμβάνει 60 αὐτῶν πρώτης μὲν καὶ μάλιστα κινήσεως, ἐπὶ ταύτῃ δ᾽ αἰσθή- σεως, XIV. p. 313 αὕτη γὰρ (i.e. ἡ κεφαλή) καθάπερ τις ἀκρόπολίς ἐστι τοῦ σώματος καὶ τῶν τιμιωτάτων καὶ ἀναγ- καιοτάτων ἀνθρώποις αἰσθήσεων οἰκητή- ριον. Plato had made the head the central organ of the reason (Tim. 69 8q.: see Grote’s Plato m1. pp. 272 287, Aristotle τι. Ὁ. 179 sq.), if in- deed the speculations of the Timzeus may be regarded as giving his serious physiological views ; but he had postu- lated other centres of the emotions and the appetites, the heart and the abdomen. Aristotle, while rightly re- fusing to localise the mind as mind, had taken a retrograde step physio- logically, when he transferred the centre of sensation from the brain to the heart; e.g. de Part. Anim. ii. 10 (p. 656). Galen, criticizing his pre- decessors, says of Aristotle δῆλός ἐ ἐστι κατεγνωκὼς μὲν αὐτοῦ (1.6. τοῦ ἐγκεφά-
λου) τελέαν ἀχρηστίαν, φανερῶς δ᾽ ὁμο- λογεῖν αἰδούμενος (Op. τιτ. Ρ. 625). The Stoics however (Ζήνων καὶ Χρύσιππος ἅμα τῷ σφετέρῳ χορῷ παντί) were even worse offenders ; and in reply to them more especially ‘Galen elsewhere dis- cusses the question πότερον ἐγκέφαλος ἢ καρδία τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔχει, Op. V. p. 213 sq. Bearing in mind all this diversity of opinion amongancient physiologists, we cannot fail. to be struck in the text not only with the correctness of the image but also with the propriety of the terms; and we are forcibly reminded that among the Apostle’s most intimate companions at this time was one whom he calls ‘ the beloved physician’ (iv. 14).
20—23. ‘You died with Christ to your old life. All mundane relations have ceased for you. Why then do you—you who have attained your Spiritual manhood—submit still to the rudimentary discipline of children? Why do you—you who are citizens of heaven—bow your necks afresh to the tyranny of material ordinances, as though you were still living in the world? It is the same old story again ; the same round of hard, meaningless, vexatious prohibitions, ‘ Handle not, ‘Taste not,’ ‘Touch not’ What folly! When all these things—these meats and drinks and the like—are earthly, perishable, wholly trivial and unim- portant! They are used, and there is an end of them. What is this, but to draw down upon yourselves the denunciations uttered by the prophet of old? What is this but to abandon God’s word for precepts which are issued by human authority and inculk cated by human teachers? All such things have a show of wisdom, I grant. There is an officious parade of re- ligious devotion, an eager affectation of humility ; there is a stern ascetic rigour, which ill-treats the body: but there is nothing of any real value to check indulgence of the flesh.’
200
δογματίζεσθε; “Μὴ ἅψη
20. From the theological tenets of the false teachers the Apostle turns to the ethical—from the objects of their worship to the principles of their conduct. The baptism into Christ, he argues, is death to the world. The Christian has passed away to another sphere of existence. Mundane ordinances have ceased to have any value for him, because his mundane life has ended. They be- long to the category of the perishable; he has been translated to the region of the eternal. It is therefore a denial of his Christianity to subject himself again to their tyranny, to return once more to the dominion of the world. See again the note on iii. 1.
εἰ ameOavere| ‘if ye died, when ye were baptized into Christ.’ For this connexion between baptism and death see the notes on ii. 11, iii. 3. This death has many aspects in St Paul’s teaching. It is not only a dying with Christ, 2 Tim. ii. 11 εἰ yap συναπεθά- νομεν ; but itis also a dying to or,from something. This is sometimes repre- sented as sir, Rom. vi. 2 οἵτινες ἀπεθά- νομεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ (comp. vv. 7, 8); sometimes as se/f, 2 Cor. v. 14, 15 dpa οἱ πάντες ἀπέθανον.. ἵνα ot ζῶντες μηκέτι ἑαυτοῖς ζῶσιν; sometimes as the daw, Rom. vii. 6 κατηργήθημεν ἀπὸ τοῦ vo- μου ἀποθανόντες, Gal. li. 19 διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον ; sometimes still more widely as the world, regarded as the sphere of all material rules and all mundane interests, so here and iii. 3 ἀπεθάνετε yap. In all cases St Paul uses the aorist ἀπέθανον, never the perfect τέθνηκα ; for he wishes to em- phasize the one absolute crisis, which was marked by the change of changes. When the aorist is wanted, the com- pound verb ἀποθνήσκειν is used ; when the perfect, the simple verb θνήσκειν ; see Buttmann Ausf Gramm. § 114. This rule holds universally in the Greek Testament.
ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχείων κ-τ.λ.] 1.6. ‘from
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
“4
(II. 21, 22
μηδὲ γεύση μηδὲ θίγης (a the rudimentary, disciplinary, ordi- nances, whose sphere is the mundane and sensuous’: see the note on ver, 8. For the pregnant expression ἀπο- θανεῖν ἀπὸ comp. Gal. v. 4 κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ (so too Rom. vii. 2, 6), 2 Cor. xi. 3 φθαρῇ... ἀπὸ τῆς ἁπλότητος, and see A. Buttmann p. 277 note.
δογματίζεσθε)] ‘are ye overridden with precepts, ordinances? In the Lxx the verb δογματίζειν is used seve- ral times, meaning ‘to issue a decree, Esth. iii. 9, 1 Esdr. vi. 33, 2 Mace. x. 8, xv. 36, 3 Mace. iv. 11. Elsewhere it is applied most commonly to the precepts of philosophers ; e.g. Justin Apol. i. 7 of ἐν Ἕλλησι τὰ αὐτοῖς ἀρεστὰ δογματίσαντες ἐκ παντὸς τῷ ἑνὶ ὀνόματι φιλοσοφίας προσαγορεύ- ονται (comp. § 4), Epict. iii. 7. 17 sq. εἰ θέλεις εἶναι pirocogos...doyparitov τὰ αἰσχρά. Here it would include alike the δόγματα of the Mosaic law (ver. 14) and the δόγματα of the ‘ phi- losophy’ denounced above (ver. 8). Both are condemned; the one as super- seded though once authoritative, the other as wholly vexatious and un- warrantable. Hxamples are given in the following verse, μὴ ἅψῃ κιτιλ. For the construction here, where the more remote object, which would stand in the dative with the active voice (2 Macc. x. ὃ ἐδογμάτισαν.. «τῷ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων ἔθνει), becomes the nominative of the passive, compare χρηματίζεσθαι Matt. ii. 12, 22, διακο- νεῖσθαι Mark x. 45, and see Winer § xxxix. p. 326, A. Buttmann p. 163, Kihner ὃ 378, π. p. 109.
21. Μὴ ἅψῃ «.r.A.| The Apostle dis- paragingly repeats the prohibitions of the false teachers in their own words, ‘Handle not, neither taste, neither touch.’ The rabbinical passages quoted in Schodttgen show how exactly St Paul’s language reproduces, not only the spirit, but even the form, of these injunctions. The Latin commenta- tors, Hilary and Pelagins, suppose
II. 22]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
201
: , > \ a 3 , \ \ ἐστιν πάντα εἰς φθορὰν τῆ ἀποχρήσει), κατὰ τὰ
these prohibitions to be the Apostle’s own, thus making acompleteshipwreck of the sense. So too St Ambrose de Noe et Arca 25 (1. p. 267), de Abr. i. 6 (I. p. 300). We may infer from the language of St Augustine who argues against it, that this was the popular interpretation in his day: Hpist. exix (I. p. 512) ‘tanquam praeceptum pu- tatur apostoli, nescio quid tangere, gustare, attaminare, prohibentis.’ The ascetic tendency of the age thus fastened upon a slight obscurity in the Greek and made the Apostle recommend the very practices which he disparaged. For a somewhat simi- lar instance of a misinterpretation commonly received see the note on τοῖς δόγμασιν ver. 14. Jerome how- ever (1. p.878) had rightly interpreted the passage, illustrating it by the pre- cepts of the Talmud. At a still earlier date Tertullian, Adv. Mare. v. 109, gives the correct interpretation.
These prohibitions relate to defile- ment contracted in divers ways by contact with impure objects. Some were doubtless reenactments of the Mosaic law; while others would be exaggerations or additions of a rigor- ous asceticism, such as we find among the Essene prototypes of these Colos- sian heretics, e.g. the avoidance of oil, of wine, or of flesh-meat, the shunning of contact with a stranger or a re- ligious inferior, and the like; see pp. 83 sq. For the religious bearing of this asceticism, as springing from the dualism of these heretical teachers, see above, pp. 77, 102 sq.
ἅψῃ] The difference between ἅπτεσ- θαι and θιγγάνειν is not great, and in some passages where they occur toge- ther, it is hard to distinguish them: e.g. Exod. xix. 12 προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς τοῦ ἀναβῆναι eis τὸ ὄρος καὶ θιγεῖν τι αὐ- τοῦ" πᾶς ὁ ἁψάμενος τοῦ ὄρους θανάτῳ τελευτήσει, Hur. Bacch. 617 οὔτ᾽ ἔθιγεν οὔθ᾽ Ayal’ ἡμῶν, Arist. de Gen. οἱ Corr. i.8 (p. 326) διὰ τί ov γίγνεται ἁψάμενα
ἕν, ὥσπερ ὕδωρ ὕδατος ὅταν θίγῃ; Dion Chrys. Or. xxxiv (IL p. 50) οἱ δ᾽ ἐκ παρέργου προσίασιν ἁπτόμενοι μόνον τοῦ πράγματος, ὥσπερ οἱ σπονδῆς θιγγάνοντες, Themist. Paraphr. Arist. 95 τὴν δὲ ἁφὴν αὐτῶν ἅπτεσθαι τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἀναγκαῖον" καὶ γὰρ τοὔ- νομα αὐτῆς ἐκ τοῦ ἅπτεσθαι καὶ θιγ- γάνειν. But ἅπτεσθαι is the stronger word of the two. This arises from the fact that it frequently suggests, though it does not necessarily involve, the idea of a voluntary or conscious effort, ‘to take hold of ’—a suggestion which is entirely wanting to the co- lourless word θιγγάνειν ; comp. The- mist. Paraphr. Arist. 94 ἡ τῶν ζώων ἁφὴ κρίσις ἐστὶ καὶ ἀντίληψις τοῦ θιγ- γάνοντος. Hence in Xen. Cyrop.i. 3. 5 ὅτι σε, φάναι, ὁρῶ, ὅταν μὲν τοῦ ἄρτου ἅψῃ, εἰς οὐδὲν τὴν χεῖρα ἀποψώμενον, ὅταν δὲ τούτων τινὸς θίγῃς, εὐθὺς ἀποκα- θαίρει τὴν χεῖρα εἰς τὰ χειρόμακτρα κ.τ.λ. Thus the wordschosenin the Latin Ver- sions, tangere for ἅπτεσθαι and attami- nare or contrectare for θιγεῖν, are un- fortunate, and ought to be transposed. Our English Version, probably influ- enced by the Latin, has erred in the same direction, translating ἅπτεσθαι by ‘touch’ and θιγεῖν by ‘handle’ Here again they must be transposed. ‘Handle’ is too strong a word for ei- ther; though in default of a better it may stand for ἅπτεσθαι, which it more nearly represents. Thus the two words ἅψῃ and θίγῃς being separate in mean- ing, yevon may well interpose ; and the three together will form a descending series, so that, as Beza (quoted in Trench N. 7. Syn. § xvii. p. 57) well expresses it, ‘decrescente semper oratione, intelligatur crescere super- stitio.’
On the other hand dy has been interpreted here as referring to the relation of husband and wife, as e.g. in 1 Cor. vii. 1 γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσθαι: and the prohibition would then be illustrated by the teaching of the he-
202
ENTAAMATA καὶ retics in 1 Tim. iv. 3 κωλυόντων γαμεῖν. But, whatever likelihood there may be that the Colossian false teachers also held this doctrine (see above, p. 83 sq.), it nowhere appears in the context, and we should not expect so import- ant a topic to be dismissed thus cur- sorily. Moreover θιγγάνειν is used as commonly in this meaning as ἅπτεσθαι (see Gataker Op. Crit. p. 79, and ex- amples might be multiplied); so that all ground for assigning it to ἅπτεσ- θαι especially is removed. Both ἅπ- τεσθαι and θιγγάνειν refer to defile- ment incurred through the sense of touch, though in different degrees ; ‘Handle not, nor yet taste, nor even touch.’
22. ‘Only consider what is the real import of this scrupulous avoidance. Why, you are attributing an inherent value to things which are fleeting ; you yourselves are citizens of eternity, and yet your thoughts are absorbed in the perishable.’
a| ‘which things, i.e. the meats and drinks and other material objects, regarded as impure to the touch. The antecedent to a is implicitly involved in the prohibitions μὴ ἅψῃ κ-τιλ.
ἐστιν εἰς φθοράν) ‘are destined for corruption.” For similar expressions see Acts vili. 20 εἴη εἰς ἀπώλειαν (comp. ver. 23 εἰς χολὴν πικρίας καὶ σύνδεσμον ἀδικίας.. ὄντα), 2 Pet. ii. 12 γεγεννημένα .....- εἰς ἅλωσιν καὶ φθοράν. For the word φθορά, involving the idea of ‘decomposition, see the note on Gal. vi. 8. The expression here corresponds to els ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκβάλλεται (ἐκπορεύε- ται), Matt. xv. 17, Mark vii. 19.
τῇ ἀποχρήσει] ‘in the consuming, Comp. Senec. de Vit. beat. 7 ‘in ipso usu sui periturum.’ While the verb ἀποχρῶμαι is common, the substantive ἀπόχρησις is extremely rare: Plut. Mor. p. 267 F χαίρειν ταῖς τοιαύταις ἀποχρήσεσι καὶ συστολαῖς TOY περιττῶν (i.e. ‘by such modes of consuming and abridging superfluities’), Dion. Hal.
HPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS,
λιλδοκδλίδο
τῶν ἀνθρώπων᾽ A. R. i. 58 ἐν ἀποχρήσει γῆς μοίρας. The unusual word was chosen for its expressiveness: the χρῆσις here was an ἀπόχρησις ; the things could not be used without rendering them unfit for further use. The subtlety of the expression in the original cannot be reproduced in any translation.
On the other hand the clause is sometimes interpreted as a continua- tion of the language of the ascetic teachers ; ‘Touch not things which all lead to ruin by their abuse” This in- terpretation however has nothing to recommend it. It loses the point of the Apostle’s argument; while it puts upon εἶναι εἰς φθοράν a meaning which is at least not natural.
κατὰ x.7.A.] connected directly with Vy. 20, 21, so that the words a éorw... τῇ ἀποχρήσει are a parenthetical com- ment.
τὰ ἐντάλματα κιτ.λ.] The absence of both preposition and article before δὲ- δασκαλίας shows that the two words are closely connected. They are placed here in their proper order ; for ἐντάλ- para describes the source of authority and διδασκαλίας the medium of com- munication. The expression is taken ultimately from Isaiah xxix. 13, where the words run in the LXx, μάτην δὲ σέβονταί pe, διδάσκοντες ἐντάλματα av- θρώπων καὶ διδασκαλίας. The Evan- gelists (Matt. xv. 9, Mark vii. 7), quot- ing the passage, substitute in the latter clause διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλ- ματα ἀνθρώπων.
The coincidences in St Paul’s lan- guage here with our Lord’s words as related in the Gospels (Matt. xv. I—20, Mark vii. 1—23) are striking, and suggest that the Apostle had this discourse in his mind. (1) Both alike argue against these vexatious ordi- nances from the perishableness of meats. (2) Both insist upon the indif- ference of such things in themselves. In Mark vii. 19 the Hyangelist em- phasizes the importance of our Lord’s
(Il. 2a
ΠΤ 23]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
203
7 7 3 / "» > > Barwa ἐστιν λόγον μεν ἔχοντα σοφίας ἐν ἐθελοθρη-
words on this occasion, as practically abolishing the Mosaic distinction of meats by declaring all alike to be clean (καθαρίζων; see the note on ver. 16). (3) Both alike connect such or- dinances with the practices condemn- ed in the prophetic denunciation of Isaiah.
23. ‘ All such teaching is worthless. It may bear the semblance of wisdom ; but it wants the reality. It may make an officious parade of religious service ; it may vaunt its humility; it may treat the body with merciless rigour ; but it entirely fails in its chief aim. It is powerless to check indulgence of the flesh.’
ἅτινα] ‘which sort of things’ Not only these particular precepts, μὴ ἅψῃ καλ., but all precepts falling under the same category are condemned. For this force of ἅτινα as distinguished from ἅ, see the notes on Gal. iv. 24, v. 19, Phil. iv. 3. The antecedent here is not ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκα- λίας κιτιλ., but the prohibitions given in ver. 21.
λόγον μὲν κιτ.λ.] ‘having a reputa- tion for wisdom, but not the reality. The corresponding member, which should be introduced by δέ, is sup- pressed; the oppositive clause being postponed and appearing later in a new form, οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινι κα.λ. Such suppressions are common in classical writers, more especially in Plato; see Kithner ὃ 531, 11. p. 813 sq., Jelf § 766, and comp. Winer § lxiii. p. 719 sq. Jerome therefore is not warranted in attributing St Paul’s language here to ‘imperitia artis grammaticae’ (Hpist. exxi, Op. τι. p. 884). On the contrary it is just the license which an adept in a language would be more likely to take than a novice.
In this sentence λόγον ἔχοντα σο- dias is best taken as a single predicate, so that ἐστιν is disconnected from ἔχοντα. Otherwise the construction ἐστιν ἔχοντα (for ἔχει) would be
supported by many parallels in the Greek Testament ; see Winer § xlyv. Ρ. 437.
The phrase λόγον ἔχειν τινός, so far as I have observed, has four meanings. (A) Two as applied to the thinking subject. (i) ‘To take account of, to hold in account, to pay respect to’: e.g. Asch. Prom. 231 βροτῶν δὲ τῶν τα- λαιπώρων λόγον οὐκ ἔσχεν οὐδένα, De- mosth. de Coron. ὃ 199 εἴπερ ἢ δόξης ἢ προγόνων ἢ τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος εἶχε λόγον, Plut. Vit. Philop. 18 πῶς ἄξιον ἐκείνου λόγον ἔχειν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς κατὰ. (ii) “Τὸ possess the reason or account or definition of, ‘to have a scientific knowledge of’; Plato Gorg. p. 465 A τέχνην δὲ αὐτὴν οὔ φημι εἶναι ἀλλ᾽ ἐμπειρίαν, ὅτι οὐκ ἔχει λόγον οὐ- δένα ὧν προσφέρει, ὁποῖα ἄττα τὴν φύ- σιν ἐστίν, and so frequently. These two senses are recognised by Aristotle, Eth. Nic. i. 13 (p. 1102), where he distinguishes the meaning of the ex- pressions ἔχειν λόγον τοῦ πατρὸς ἢ τῶν φίλων and ἔχειν λόγον τῶν μαθητικῶν. (Β) Two as applied to the object of thought. (iii) ‘To have the credit or reputation of, as here. This sense of ἔχειν λόγον, ‘to be reputed,’ is more commonly found with an infinitive: e.g. Plato Epin. 987 B αὑτὸς ’Adpodi- της εἶναι σχέδον ἔχει λόγον. (iv) ‘To fulfil the definition of, to possess the characteristics, to have the nature of’; e.g. Philo Vit. Cont. 4 (11. p. 477) ἑκά- τερον δὲ πηγῆς λόγον ἔχον, Plut. Mor. p. 637 D τὸ δὲ wor οὔτε ἀρχῆς ἔχει λό- γον, οὐ γὰρ ὑφίσταται πρῶτον, οὔτε ὅλου φύσιν, ἀτελὲς γάρ ἐστιν, 10. 640 Ε δεῖ πρὸς τὸ ἐμφυτευόμενον χώρας λόγον ἔχειν τὸ δεξόμενον. The senses of λό- γον ἔχειν with other constructions, or as used absolutely, are very various, e.g. ‘to be reasonable, ‘to hold dis- course,’ ‘to bear a ratio, etc., but do not come under consideration here. Nor again does such an expression as Plut. Mor. p. 550 © μήτε τὸν λόγον ἔχων τοῦ νομοθέτου, ‘not being in pos-
204
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
[IL 2a
σκείᾳ Kal ταπεινοφροσύνη [ καὶ] ἀφειδείᾳ σώματος, οὐκ
session of, not knowing, the intention of the legislator’; for the definite ar- ticle removes it from the category of the cases considered.
ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ] ‘in volunteered, self-imposed, officious, supererogatory service. One or both of these two ideas, (i) ‘ excessive readiness, officious zeal,’ (ii) ‘affectation, unreality,’ are in- volved in this and similar compounds ; e.g. ἐθελοδουλεία, ἐθέλοκάκησις, ἐθελο- κίνδυνος, ἐθελοκωφεῖν, ἐθελορήτωρ, ἐθε- λοπρόξενος : these compounds being used most frequently, though not al- ways (as this last word shows), in a bad sense. This mode of expression was naturalised in Latin, as appears from Augustine Hpist. exlix. 27 (1. p. 514) ‘Sic enim et vulgo dicitur qui divitem affectat thelodives, et qui sa- pientem thelosapiens, et cetera hujus- modi.’ Hpiphanius, when writing of the Pharisees, not content with the word here supplied by St Paul, coins a double compound ἐθελοπερισσοθρη- oxeia, Haer. i. 16 (p. 34).
tarewoppoovrvy| The word is here disparaged by its connexion, as in ver. 18 (see the note there). The force of ἐθελο- may be regarded as carried on to it. Real genuine ταπεινοφροσύνη is commended below; iii. 12.
ἀφειδείᾳ σώματος] ‘ hard treatment of thebody. The expression ἀφειδεῖν τοῦ σώματος is not uncommon, being used most frequently, not as here of ascetic discipline, but rather of cou- rageous exposure to hardship and danger in war, e.g. Lysias Or. Fun. 25, Joseph. B. J. iii. 7. 18, Lucian Anach. 24, Plut. Vit. Pericl. 10; in Plut. Mor. p. 137 α however, of a stu- dent’s toil, and 7. p. 135 E, more gene- rally of the rigorous demands made by the soul on the body. The substan- tive ἀφείδεια or ἀφειδία does not often occur. On the forms in -ea and -ia derived from adjectives in -ns see Buttmann Ausf. Gramm. § 119, 1. p. 416 sq. The great preponderance
of manuscript authority favours the form ἀφειδείᾳ here: but in such ques- tions of orthography the fact car- ries less weight than in other matters. The καὶ before ἀφειδείᾳ should proba- bly be omitted; in which case ἀφειδείᾳ becomes an instrumental dative, ex- plaining λόγον ἔχοντα σοφίας. While the insertion would naturally occur to scribes, the omission gives more point to the sentence. The ἐθελοθρησκεία καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνη as the religious elements are thus separated from the ἀφείδεια σώματος as the practical rule.
οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ K.T-A.] ‘yet not really of any value to remedy indulgence of the flesh.’ So interpreted the words supply the oppositive clause to λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας, as the presence of the negative οὐκ naturally suggests. If the sentence had been undisturbed, this oppositive clause would naturally have been introduced by δέ, but the interposition of ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ x.T.X. has changed its form by a sort of at- traction. For this sense of ἐν τιμῇ comp. Lucian Merc. cond. 17 τὰ καινὰ TOV ὑποδημάτων ἐν τιμῇ τινὶ καὶ ἐπιμε- λείᾳ ἐστίν: similarly Hom. 7. ix. 319 ev δὲ ἰῇ τιμῇ καὶλ. The preposition πρός, like our English ‘for, when used after words denoting utility, value, sufficiency, etc, not uncommonly in- troduces the object to check or prevent or cure which the thing is to be em- ployed. And even though utility may not be directly expressed in words, yet if the idea of a something to be remedied is present, this preposition is freely used notwithstanding. See Isocr. Phil. 16 (p. 85)mpos τοὺς BapBa- ρους χρήσιμον, Arist. H. A. 111. 21 (p. 522) συμφέρει πρὸς τὰς Svappoias ἡ τοι- αὐτη μάλιστα, de Respir. 8 (p. 474) ἀνάγκη γίνεσθαι κατάψυξιν, εἰ μέλλει τεύξεσθαι σωτηρίας" τοῦτο γὰρ βοηθεῖ πρὸς ταύτην τὴν φθοράν, Lucian Pisce. 27 χρήσιμον γοῦν καὶ πρὸς ἐκείνους τὸ τοιοῦτον, Galen Op. XII. p. 399 χρωμέ- vo γε τίνι πρὸς TO πάθος ἀρκτείῳ στέ-
II. 23}
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
205
΄σ \ \ \ ~ , ἐν τιμὴ τινὶ πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός. ἐ
att, Pp. 420 τοῦ δόντος αὐτὰ πρὸς ἀλω- πεκίας φαλακρώσεις κ-τ.λ., P. 430 συνέ- θηκαν.. «φάρμακα πρὸς ῥεούσας τρίχας, Pp- 476 βραχυτάτην ἔχοντι δύναμιν ὡς πρὸς τὸ προκείμενον σύμπτωμα, p. 482 τοῦτο δὲ καὶ πρὸς τὰ ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ σώματι ἐξανθήματα σφόδρα χρήσιμόν ἐστιν, 0.514 χρηστέον δὲ πᾶσι τοῖς ἀναγεγραμμένοις βοηθήμασι πρὸς τὰς γινομένας δι’ ἔγκαυ- σιν κεφαλαλγίας, p. 601 κάλλιστον πρὸς αὐτὴν φάρμακον ἐγχεόμενον νάρδινον μύρον. These examples from Galen are only a fewoutofprobably some hun- dreds, which might be collected from the treatise in which they occur, the de Compositione Medicamentorum.
The language, which the Colossian false teachers would use, may be in- ferred from the account given by Philo of a Judaic sect of mystic ascetics, who may be regarded, not indeed as their direct, but as their collateral ancestors (see p. 84, note 2, p. 92), the Therapeutes of Egypt; de Vit. Cont. § 4 (IL p. 476 sq.) τρυφῶσιν ὑπὸ σο- pias ἑστιώμενοι πλουσίως καὶ ἀφθόνως τὰ δόγματα χορηγούσης, ὡς καὶ...μό- Ais δὲ ἕξ ἡμερῶν ἀπογεύεσθαι τρο- φῆς ἀναγκαίας...σιτοῦνται δὲ.. ἄρτον εὐ- τελῆ, καὶ ὄψον ἅλες... «πότον ὕδωρ ναμα- τιαῖον αὐτοῖς ἐστίν... πλησμονὴν ὡς ἐχθρόν τε καὶ ἐπίβουλον ἐκτρεπόμενοι Ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος. St Paul appa- rently has before him some similar exposition of the views of the Colos- sian heretics, either in writing or (more probably) by report from Epa- phras. In reply he altogether denies the claims of this system to the title of copia; he disputes the value of these δόγματα; he allows that this πλησμονή is the great evil to be check- ed, the fatal disease to be cured; but he will not admit that the remedies prescribed have any substantial and lasting efficacy.
The interpretation here offered is not new, but it has been strangely overlooked or despised. The pas- sages adduced will I trust show the
groundlessness of objections which have been brought against it owing to the use of the preposition; and in all other respects it seems to be far pre- ferable to any rival explanation which has been suggested. The favourite interpretations in ancient or modern times divide themselves into two classes, according to the meaning as- signed to πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός. (1) It is explained in a good sense: ‘to satisfy the reasonable wants of the body.’ In this case οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινί is generally interpreted, ‘ not holding it (the body) in any honour” So the majority of the fathers, Greek and Latin. This has the advantage of preserving the continuity of the words οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινὶ πρὸς πλησμονὴν K.T.A. ? but it assigns an impossible sense to πλησμονὴ τῆς σαρκός. For πλησμονή always denotes ‘repletion,’ ‘ surfeit- ing, ‘excessive indulgence, and can- not be used of a reasonable attention to the physical cravings of nature; as Galen says, Op. XV. p. 113 πάντων εἰω- θότων ov μόνον ἰατρῶν ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἄλ- λων “Ἑλλήνων τὸ τῆς πλησμονῆς ὄνομα μᾶλλόν πὼς ἐπιφέρειν ταῖς ὑπερβο- λαῖς τῆς συμμέτρου ποσότητος: and certainly neither the Apostle ΠΟΥ the Colossian ascetics were likely to depart from this universal rule. To the long list of passages quoted in Wetstein may be added such refer- ences as Philo Leg. ad Gat. ὃ 1 (11. p- 546), Clem. Hom. viii. 15, Justin Dial. 126, Dion. Alex. in Euseb. HZ. vii. 25; but they might be increased to any extent. (2) A bad sense is attached to πλησμονή, as usage de- mands. And here two divergent in- terpretations have been put forward. (i) The proper continuity of the sen- tence is preserved, and the words οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινὶ πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός are regarded as an exposition of the doctrine of the false teachers from their own point of view. So Theo- dore of Mopsuestia, οὐ τίμιον νομίζον-
200
ΤΊ].
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
(IL
"Εἰ οὖν συνηγέρθητε τῷ Χριστῷ, Ta ἄνω Cy-
~ iG ε > > « ΄σ΄ ΄σ' a v7 TELTE, οὐ O Χριστός εστιν EV δεξιᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ καθήμενος"
τας τὸ διὰ πάντων πληροῦν τὴν σάρκα, ἀλλὰ γὰρ μᾶλλον αἱρουμένους ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν πολλῶν διὰ τὴν τοῦ νόμου παράδο- ow. This able expositor however is evidently dissatisfied, for he intro- duces his explanation with the words ἀσαφὲς μέν ἐστι, βούλεται δὲ εἰπεῖν καιλ.; and his explanation has not been adopted by others. Hither the sentence, so interpreted, becomes flat and unmeaning, though it is obviously intended to clinch the whole matter ; or the Apostle is made to confirm the value of the very doctrines which he is combating. (ii) The sentence is regarded as discontinuous; and it is interpreted, ‘not of any real value’ (or ‘not consisting in anything com- mendable, or ‘not holding the body in any honour’) but ‘tending to gra- tify the carnal desires’ or ‘mind.’ This in some form or other is almost universally adopted by modern inter- preters, and among the ancients is found in the commentator Hilary. The objections to it are serious. (a) The dislocation of the sentence is in- explicable. There is no indication either in the grammar or in the voca- bulary that a separate and oppositive clause begins with πρὸς πλησμονὴν x.T.A., but on the contrary everything points to an unbroken continuity. (8) The sense which it attaches to πλησ- μονὴ τῆς σαρκός is either forced and unnatural, or it makes the Apostle say what he could not have said. If πλησμονὴ τῆς σαρκός could have the sense which Hilary assigns to it, ‘sa- gina carnalis sensus traditio humana est,’ or indeed if it could mean ‘the mind of the flesh’ in any sense (as it is generally taken by modern com- mentators), this is what St Paul might well have said. But obviously πλησ- μονὴ τῆς σαρκός Conveys a very differ- ent idea from such expressions as τὸ φυσιοῦσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκός
(ver. 18) or τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκός (Rom. viii. 6, 7), which include pride, self-sufficiency, strife, hatred, bigotry, and generally everything that is earth- bound and selfish. On the other hand, if πλησμονὴ τῆς σαρκός be taken in its natural meaning, as applying to coarse sensual indulgences, then St Paul could not have said without qualifi- cation, that this rigorous asceticism conduced πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός. Such language would defeat its own object by its extravagance.
III. 1—4. ‘Ifthis beso; if ye were raised with Christ, if ye were trans- lated into heaven, what follows? Why you must realise the change. All your aims must centre in heaven, where reigns the Christ who has thus ex- alted you, enthroned on God’s right hand. All your thoughts must abide in heaven, not on the earth. For, I say it once again, you have nothing to do with mundane things: you died, died once for all to the world: you are living another life. This life in- deed is hidden now: it has no out- ward splendour as men count splen- dour ; for it is a life with Christ, a life in God. But the veil will not always shroud it. Christ, our life, shall be manifested hereafter; then ye also shall be manifested with Him and the world shall see your glory.’
I. Εἰ οὖν συνηγέρθητε κ-τ.λ.] ‘If then ye were raised, not ‘have been raised. The aorist συνηγέρθητε, like ἀπεθάνετε (ii. 20), refers to their bap- tism; and the εἰ οὖν here is a resump- tion of the εἰ in ii. 20. The sacra- ment of baptism, as administered in the Apostolic age, involved a twofold symbolism, a death or burial and a resurrection: see the note on ii. 12. In the rite itself these were re- presented by two distinct acts, the disappearance beneath the water and the emergence from the water: but
:
ἘΠῚ 2, 3]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
207
\ ΚΓ - \ Ἂν \ > ~ 3 , τα ἀνω φρονεῖτε, μὴ Ta ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. δἀπεθάνετε yap, \ \ ΄σ / \ ΄σ a > ΄σ ~ καὶ ἡ ζωὴ UM@V κέκρυπται σὺν τώ Χριστῷ ἐν τῷ Θεώ"
in the change typified by the rite they are two aspects of the same thing, ‘like the concave and convex in a circle, to use an old simile. The ne- gative side—the death and burial— implies the positive side—the resur- rection. Hence the form of the Apo- stle’s resumption, εἰ ἀπεθάνετε, εἰ οὖν συνηγέρθητε.
The change involved in baptism, if truly realised, must pervade a man’s whole nature. It affects not only his practical conduct, but his intellectual conceptions also. It is nothing less than a removal into a new sphere of being. He is translated from earth to heaven; and with this translation his point of view is altered, his stan- dard of judgment is wholly changed. Matter is to him no longer the great enemy ; his position towards it is one of absolute neutrality. Ascetic rules, ritual ordinances, have ceased to have any absolute value, irrespective of their effects. Ail these things are of the earth, earthy. The material, the transitory, the mundane, has given place to the moral, the eternal, the heavenly.
τὰ ave ζητεῖτε κιτ.λ.)] ‘Cease to concentrate your energies, your thoughts on mundane ordinances, and realise your new and heavenly life, of which Christ is the pole-star,
ἐν δεξιᾷ κιτ.λ.] ‘being seated on the right hand of God, where καθήμενος must not be connected with ἐστιν ; see the note on ἀπόκρυφοι, ii. 3. This participial clause is pertinent and emphatic, for the session of Christ implies the session of the believer also ; Ephcs. ii. 4—6 ὁ δὲ Θεός... ἡμᾶς... συνεζωοποίησεν....--καὶ συνήγειρεν καὶ συνεκάθισεν ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ “Inood «.r.d.; comp. Rev. iii. 21 ὁ νικῶν, δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ μου, ὡς κἀγὼ ἐνίκησα καὶ ἐκάθισα μετὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἐν τῷ
θρόνῳ αὐτοῦ, in the message addressed to the principal church of this dis- trict: see above, p. 42. Βαβαί, says Chrysostom, ποῦ τὸν νοῦν ἀπήγαγε τὸν ἡμέτερον ; πῶς φρονήματος αὐτοὺς ἐπλή- pooe μεγάλου ; οὐκ ἤρκει Τὰ ἄνω εἰ- πεῖν, οὐδὲ, Οὗ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ τί; Ἔν δεξιᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ καθήμενος" ἐκεῖ- θεν λοιπὸν τὴν γῆν ὁρᾶν παρεσκεύαζε.
2. τὰ ἄνω] The same expression repeated for emphasis; ‘ You must not only seek heaven; you must also think heaven.’ For the opposition of τὰ ἄνω andra ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς in connexion with φρονεῖν, comp. Puil. iii. 19, 20 οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες, ἡμῶν yap τὸ πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς ὑπάρχει; see also Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 17. Extremes meet. Here the Aposile points the antithesis to controvert a Gnostic asceticism : in the Philippian letter he uses the same contrast to denounce an Epicurean sensualism. Both alike are guilty of the same fun- damental error; both alike concen- trate their thoughts on material, mun- dane things.
3. ἀπεθάνετε) ‘ye died’ in baptism. The aorist ἀπεθάνετε denotes the past act; the perfect κέκρυπται the perma- nent effects. For ἀπεθάνετε see the notes on ii. 12, 20.
κέκρυπται] ‘is hidden, is buried out of sight, to the world” The Apo- stle’s argument is this: ‘When you sank under the baptismal water, you disappeared for ever to the world. You rose again, it is true, but you rose only to God. The world hence- forth knows nothing of your new life, and (as a consequence) your new life must know nothing of the world ‘Neque Christum,’ says Bengel, ‘ne- que Christianos novit mundus ; ac ne Christiani quidem planeseipsos’ ; comp. Joh. xiv. 17—I9Q τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀλη- θείας ὃ ὁ κόσμος οὐ δύναται λαβεῖν, ὅτι οὐ θεωρεῖ αὐτὸ οὐδὲ γινώσκει
208
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
(IIL. 4
4 « ε 7 \ ΄σ ε « \ ~ / ᾿ ὕταν 0 X plo TOs φανερωθῇ, " Con ἥμων, TOTE Kat ὑμεῖς σὺν αὐτῷ φανερωθήσεσθε ἐν δοξη.
4. ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν.
αὐτὸ, ὑμεῖς [δὲ] γινώσκετε αὐτό...ὁ κό- σμος με οὐκ ἔτι θεωρεῖ, ὑμεῖς δὲ θεω- ρεῖτέ pe’ ὅτι ἐγὼ ζῶ, καὶ ὑμεῖς ζήσετε.
4. ὃ Χριστός) A fourth occur- rence of the name of Christ in this context; comp. ver. 2 τῷ Χριστῷ, ὁ Χριστός, ver. 3 σὺν τῷ Χριστῷ. A pronoun would have been more natu- ral, but less emphatic.
ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν] This is an advance on the previous statement, ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν κέκρυπται σὺν TO Χριστῷ, in two re- spects: (1) It is not enough to have said that the life is shared with Christ. The Apostle declares that the life is Christ. Comp. 1 Joh. y. 12 ὁ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει τὴν ζωήν, Ign. Ephes.7 ἐν θα- νάτῳ ζωὴ ἀληθινή (of Christ), Smyrn. 4 Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἡμῶν ζῆν, Ephes. 3 ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς τὸ ἀδιάκριτον ἡμῶν ζῆν, Magn. τ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ διαπαντὸς ἡμῶν ζῆν. (2) For ὑμῶν is substituted ἡμῶν. The Apostle hastens to include himself among the reci- pients of the bounty. For this cha- racteristic transition from the second person to the first see the note on ii. 13. The reading ὑμῶν here has very high support, and on this account I have given it as an alternative ; but it is most probably a transcriber’s cor- rection, for the sake of uniformity with the preceding.
τότε καὶ ὑμεῖς k.T.A.] ‘The veil which now shrouds your higher life from others, and even partly from your- selves, will then be withdrawn. The world which persecutes, despises, ig- nores now, wil! then be blinded with the dazzling glory of the revelation.’ Comp. 1 Joh. iii. 1, 2 ὁ κόσμος ov γινώσκει ἡμᾶς, ὅτι οὐκ ἔγνω αὐτόν. ἀγαπητοί, νῦν τέκνα Θεοῦ ἐσμέν, καὶ οὔπω ἐφανερώθη τί ἐσόμεθα" οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἐὰν φανερωθῇ, ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσό- μεθα κιτιλ., Clem. Rom. 50 ot φανερω-
θήσονται ἐν τῇ ἐπισκοπῇ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ Χριστοῦ.
ἐν δόξη Joh. xvii. 22 τὴν δόξαν ἣν δέδωκάς μοι, δέδωκα αὐτοῖς, Rom. viil. 17 ἵνα καὶ συνδοξασθῶμεν.
5—11. ‘So then realise this death to the world; kill all your earthly members. Is it fornication, impurity of whatever kind, passion, evil desire ? Or again, is it that covetousness which makes a religion, an idolatry, of greed ? Do not deceive yourselves. For all these things God’s wrath will surely come. In these sins ye, like other Gentiles, indulged in times past, when your life was spent amidst them. But now everything is changed. Now you also must put away not this or that desire, but all sins whatsoever. An- ger, wrath, malice, slander, filthy abuse; banish it from your lips. Be not false one to another in word or deed; but cast off for ever the old man with his actions, and put on the new, who isrenewed from day to day, growing unto perfect knowledge and refashioned after the image of his Creator. In this new life, in this regenerate man, there is not, there cannot be, any distinction of Greek or Jew, of circumcision or uncircumci- sion; there is no room for barbarian, for Scythian, for bond or free. Christ has displaced, has annihilated, all these; Christ is Himself all things and in all things.’
5. The false doctrine of the Gnos- tics had failed to check sensual indul- gence (ii. 23). The true doctrine of the Apostle has power to kill the whole carnal man. The substitution of a comprehensive principle for special precepts—of the heavenly life in Christ for a code of minute ordi- nances—at length attains the end after which the Gnostic teachers have striven, and striven in vain.
:
III. 5]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
209
5N ’ τ \ aN Nias, \ > ΄σ < ὔ εκρώσατε οὖν τὰ μέλη τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς" πορνείαν, , / 5 / , \ Ne ἀκαθαρσίαν, πάθος, ἐπιθυμίαν κακήν, Kat τὴν πλεον-
Νεκρώσατε οὖν] i.e. ‘Carry out this principle of death to the world (ii. 20 ἀπεθάνετε, 111. 3 ἀπεθάνετε), and kill everything that is mundane and car- nal in your being.’
τὰ μέλη κιτ.λ.)] Each person has a twofold moral personality. There is in him the ‘old man, and there is in him also ‘the new’ (vy. 9, 10). The old man with all his members must be pitilessly slain. It is plain that ra μέλη here is used, like ἄνθρωπος in ver. 9, not physically, but morally. Our actual limbs may be either τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς OY τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐράνοις, accord- ing as they are made instruments for the world or for Christ: just as we— our whole being—may identify our- selves with the παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος or with the νέος ἄνθρωπος of our twofold potentiality. For this use of the phy- sical, as a symbol of the moral of which it is the potential instrument, compare Matt. v. 29 sq. εἰ δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλ- pros σου ὁ δεξιὸς σκανδαλίζει oe, ἔξελε αὐτὸν κ-τ.λ.
I have ventured to punctuate after τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Thus πορνείαν k7.A. are prospective accusatives, which should be governed directly by some such word as ἀπόθεσθε. But several dependent clauses interpose ; the last of these incidentally suggests a contrast between the past and the present; and this contrast, predomi- nating in the Apostle’s mind, leads to an abrupt recasting of the sentence, νυνὶ δὲ ἀπόθεσθε καὶ ὑμεῖς τὰ πάντα, in disregard of the original construc- tion. This opposition of ποτέ and νῦν has a tendency to dislocate the-con- struction in St Paul, as in i. 22 νυνὶ dé ἀποκατηλλάγητεί(ογ ἀποκατήλλαξεν),1. 26 νῦν δὲ ἐφανερώθη . see the note on this latter passage. For the whole run of the sentence (the parenthetic relative clauses, the contrast of past and pre- sent, and the broken construction)
COL.
compare Ephes. ii. I—5 καὶ vpas...év ais ποτέ...ἐν οἷς Kal.--TOTE...0 δὲ Θεός... καὶ ὄντας ἡμᾶς συνεζωοποίησεν.
With the common punctuation the interpretation is equally awkward, whether we treat τὰ μέλη and πορ- νείαν κιτιλ. a8 in direct apposition, or as double accusatives, or in any other way. ‘The case is best put by Seve- rianus, σάρκα καλεῖ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, ἧς καὶ τὰ μέλη καταριθμεῖ...ὁ παλαιὸς ἄνθρω- πός ἐστιν τὸ φρόνημα τὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας, μέλη δὲ αὐτοῦ αἱ πράξεις τῶν ἁμαρτη- μάτων; but this is an evasion of the difficulty, which consists in the direct apposition of the instruments and the activities, from whatever point they are viewed.
πορνείαν κιτ.λ.] The general order is from the less comprehensive to the more comprehensive. Thus πορνεία is a special kind of uncleanness, while ἀκαθαρσία is uncleanness in any form, Ephes. v. 3 πορνεία δὲ καὶ ἀκαθαρσία maga; comp. Gal. Vv. 19 πορνεία, ἀκα- θαρσία, ἀσέλγεια, With the note there. Thus again πάθος, though frequently referring to this class of sins (Rom. i. 26, τ Thess. iv. 5), would include other base passions which do not fall under the category of ἀκαθαρσία, as for in- stance gluttony and intemperance.
πάθος, ἐπιθυμίαν] The two words occur together in 1 Thess. iv. 5 μὴ ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας. So ina passage closely resembling the text, Gal. v. 24 of δὲ Tov Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τὴν σάρκα ἐσταύρω- σαν σὺν τοῖς παθήμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἐπιθυ- pias. The same vice may be viewed as a πάθος from its passive and an ἐπι- θυμία from its active side. The word ἐπιθυμία is not used here in the re- stricted sense which it has e.g. in Arist. Eth. Nic. ii. 4, where it ranges with anger, fear, etc, being related to πάθος as the species to the genus (see Gal. 1. ec. note). In the Greek Testament ἐπιθυμία has a much more
14
210
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
'
(III. 6
c / ΒΝ of ε εξίαν, ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδωλολατρεία, “δι᾿ ἃ ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ
comprehensive sense; e.g. Joh. viii. 44 τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν θέλετε ποιεῖν. Here, if anything, ἐπιθυμία is wider than πάθος. While πάθος in- cludes all ungovernable affections, ém,- θυμία κακή reaches to all evil longings. ᾿Ιδού, says Chrysostom, γενικῶς τὸ πᾶν ele’ πάντα γὰρ ἐπιθυμία κακή, βασκα- via, ὀργή, λύπη. The epithet is added because ἐπιθυμία is capable of a good sense: comp. I Cor. x. 6 ἐπιθυμητὰς κακῶν.
καὶ τὴν πλεονεξίαν] ‘and especially σουθέοτιϑγη)055. Impurity and covet- ousness may be said to divide between them nearly the whole domain of hu- man selfishness and vice; ‘Si avaritia prostrata est, exsurgit libido’ (Cypr. de Mort. 3). The one has been already dealt with; the other needs now to be specially denounced; comp. Ephes. V. 3 πορνεία δὲ καὶ ἀκαθαρσία πᾶσα ἢ πλεονεξία. “ Homo extra Deum, says Bengel (on Rom. i. 29), ‘quaerit pabu- lum in creatura materiali vel per vo- luptatem vel per avaritiam. Comp. Test. ati Patr. Jud. 18 φυλάξασθε οὖν, τέκνα μου, ἀπὸ τῆς πορνείας Kal τῆς φιλαργυρίας... .ὅτι ταῦτα ἀφιστᾷ νόμου Θεοῦ. Similarly Lysis Pythag. 4 (Zpi- stol. Graec. p. 602, ed. Hercher) ovo- μάξαιμι δ᾽ ἂν αὐτῶν [i.e. the vices] πρᾶτον ἐπελθὼν τὰς ματέρας ἀκρασίαν τε καὶ πλεονεξίαν ἄμφω δὲ πολύγονοι πεφύκαντι. It must be remembered that πλεονεξία is much wider than φιλαργυρία (see Trench VN. 7. Syn. § xxiv. p. 77 8q.), which itself is called ῥίζα πάντων τῶν κακῶν (1 Tim. vi. 10).
The attempt to give πλεονεξία here and in other passages the sense of ‘im- purity’ (see e.g. Hammond on Rom. i. 29) is founded on a misconception. The words πλεονεκτεῖν, πλεονεξία, will sometimes be used in relation to sins of uncleanness, because such may be acts of injustice also. Thus adultery is not only impurity, but it is robbery also: hence 1 Thess. iv. 6 τὸ μὴ ὑπερ- βαίνειν καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν ἐν τῷ πράγματι
τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ (see the note there). In other passages again there will be an accidental connexion; e.g, Hphes. iv. 19 eis ἐργασίαν ἀκαθαρσίας πάσης ev πλεονεξίᾳ, 1.6. ‘With greedi- ness,’ ‘with entire disregard for the rights of others.” But nowhere do the words in themselves suggest this meaning. Here the particles καὶ τὴν show that a new type of sin is intro- duced with πλεονεξίαν: and in the parallel passage Ephes. v. 3 (quoted above) the same distinction is indi- cated by the change from the con-
junctive particle καὶ to the disjunctive
7. It is an error to suppose that this sense of πλεονεξία is supported by Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 12 (p. 551 sq.) ὡς yap ἡ πλεονεξία πορνεία λέγεται, TH αὐταρκείᾳ ἐναντιουμένη. On the con- verse error of explaining ἀκαθαρσία to mean ‘ greediness,’ ‘covetousness,’ see the note on 1 Thess. ii. 3.
ἥτις κιτιλ] ‘for tt is idolatry’: comp. Ephes. v. 5 πλεονέκτης; 6 (or ὅς) ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης, Polye. Phil. 11 ‘Si quis non abstinuerit se ab avari- tia, ab idololatria coinquinabitur’ (see Philippians p. 63 on the misunder- standing of this passage). The covet- ous man sets up another object of worship besides God. There is a sort of religious purpose, a devotion of the soul, to greed, which makes the sin of the miser so hateful. The idea of avarice as a religion may have been suggested to St Paul by our Lord’s words, Matt. vi. 24 ov δύνασθε Θεῷ δουλεύειν καὶ μαμωνᾷ, though it is a mistake to suppose that Mammon was the name of a Syrian deity. It ap- pears however elsewhere in Jewish | writers of this and later ages: eg. Philo de Mon. i. 2 (I. p. 214 54.) παν- ταχόθεν μὲν ἀργύριον καὶ χρυσίον ἐκπο- ρίζουσι, τὸ δὲ πορισθὲν ὡς ἄγαλμα θεῖον ἐν ἀδύτοις θησαυροφυλακοῦσιν (with the | whole context), and Shemoth Rabba fol. 121. 3 ‘Qui opes suas multiplicat per foenus, ille est idololatra’ (with |
III. 7, 8]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
PALM
~ ~ 3 € \ ~ / / / τοῦ Θεοῦ: 7év οἷς καὶ ὑμεῖς περιεπατήσατε ποτε; OTE
“. 7 ἐζῆτε ἐν τούτοις" Ξ
other passages quoted by Wetstein and Schéttgen on Ephes. v. 5). St Chrysostom, Hom. in Joann. laxv (vill. p. 392 8q.), enlarges on the cult of wealth—the consecration of it, the worship paid to it, the sacrifices de- manded by it: ἡ δὲ φιλαργυρία λέγει, Θῦσόν μοι τὴν σαυτοῦ ψυχήν, καὶ πείθει" ὁρᾷς οἵους ἔχει βωμούς, οἷα δέχεται θύ- ματα (p. 393). The passage in Test. ait Patr. Jud. 18 ἡ φιλαργυρία πρὸς εἴδωλα ὁδηγεῖ is no real parallel to St Paul’s language, though at first sight it seems to resemble it. For ἥτις, ‘seeing that it,’ see the note on Phil. ἵν. 3.
6,7. δ ἃ κιτλ] The received text requires correction in two points. (1) It inserts the words ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας after τοῦ Θεοῦ. Though this insertion has preponderating sup- port, yet the words are evidently in- terpolated from the parallel passage, Ephes. v. 6 διὰ ταῦτα γὰρ ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπει- θείας. We are therefore justified in rejecting them with other authorities, few in number but excellent in cha- racter. See the detached note on va- rious readings. When the sentence is thus corrected, the parallelism of dv ἅ...ἐν οἷς kal...may be compared with Ephes. i. 11 ἐν ᾧ καὶ exAnpoOnper...ev ᾧ kal ὑμεῖς...ἐν ᾧ καὶ πιστεύσαντες ἐσφρα- γίσθητε, and ii. 21, 22 ἐν ᾧ πᾶσα [ἡ] οἰκοδομὴ...ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς συνοικοδο- μεῖσθε. (2) The vast preponder- ance of authority obliges us to substi- tute τούτοις for αὐτοῖς.
6. ἔρχεται] This may refer either to the present and continuous dispen- sation, or to the future and final judg- ment. The present ἔρχεσθαι is fre- quently used to denote the certainty of a future event, e.g. Matt. xvii. 11, Joh. iv. 21, xiv. 3, whence 6 ἐρχόμενος is a designation of the Messiah : sce Winer § xl. p. 332.
aye ey, Nee at t= \ 7, νυνε OE ἄποθεσθε και UMELS Τὰ σταντας
7. ἐν οἷς κιτ.λ.] The clause ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας having been struck out, ἐν οἷς must necessarily be neuter and refer to the same as δι ad. Inde- pendently of the rejection of the clause, this neuter seems more proba- ble in itself than the masculine: for (1) The expression περιπατεῖν ἐν is most commonly used of things, not of persons, especially in this and the companion epistle: iv. 5, Hphes. ii, 2, 10, iv. 17, V. 2; (2) The Apostle would hardly denounce it as a sin in his Co- lossian converts that they ‘ walked among the sons of disobedience’; for the Christian, though not of the world, is necessarily in the world: comp. 1 Cor. v. 10. The apparent parallel, Ephes. ii. 3 ἐν ois καὶ ἡμεῖς πάντες ave- στράφημέν ποτε ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν (where ois seems to be masculine), does not hold, because the addition ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις x.7.’. makes all the difference. Thus the rejection of the clause, which was decided by textual considerations, is confirmed by exegetical reasons.
καὶ ὑμεῖς] ye, like the other heathen’ (i. 6 καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν), but in the next verse καὶ ὑμεῖς is rather ‘ye your- selves,’ ‘ye notwithstanding your for- mer lives.’
ὅτε ἐζῆτε κιτ.λ.] ‘When ye lived in this atmosphere of sin, when ye had not yet died to the world”
ev τούτοις] ‘in these things’ We should have expected αὐτοῖς, but τούτοις is substituted as more empha- tic and condemnatory: comp. Ephes. vy. 6 διὰ ταῦτα yap ἔρχεται κιτιλ. The two expressions ζῆν ἐν and περιπατεῖν ἐν involve two distinct ideas, denoting the condition of their life and the cha- racter of their practice respectively. Their conduct was conformable to their circumstances. Comp. Gal. v. 25 εἰ ζῶμεν πνεύματι, πνεύματι Kal στοι- χῶμεν.
1 “5
212
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
‘
(IIL. 9
> / / / > ,
ὀργήν, θυμον, κακίαν, βλασφημίαν, αιἰσχρολογίαν ἐκ a / « ΄σ 9 \ / ’ ᾽ 7 >
τοῦ στόματος ὑμῶν" 9 μὴ ψεύδεσθε εἰς ἀλλήλους: ἀπεκ-
8. The errors of the past suggest the obligations of the present. Thus the Apostle returns to the topic with which the sentence commenced. But the violence of the contrast has broken up the grammar of the sentence; sce the note on ver. 5.
τὰ πάντα] ‘not only those vices which have been specially named before (ver. 5), but add of whatever kind” The Apostle accordingly goes on to spe- cify sins of a wholly different type from those already mentioned, sins of uncharitableness, such as anger, detraction, malice, and the like.
ὀργήν, θυμόν] ‘anger, wrath. The one denotes a more or less settled feeling of hatred, the other a tumul- tuous outburst of passion. This dis- tinction of the two words was fixed chiefly by the definitions of the Stoics : Diog. Laert. vii. 114 ὁ δὲ θυμός ἐστιν ὀργὴ ἀρχομένη. So Ammonius θυμὸς μέν ἐστι πρόσκαιρος, ὀργὴ. δὲ πολυχρό- νιος μνησικακία, Greg. Naz. Carm. 34 (τ. p. 612) θυμὸς μέν ἐστιν ἀθρόος ζέσις φρενός, ὀργὴ δὲ θυμὸς ἐμμένων. They may be represented in Latin by ira and furor ; Senec. de Ira ii. 36 ‘ Aja- cem in mortem egit furor, in furorem ira,’ and Jerome in Ephes. iv. 31 ‘ Fu- ror incipiens ira est’: see Trench N. T. Syn. § xxxvii, p. 123 sq. On other synonymes connected with θυ- pos and ὀργή see the note on Ephes. iv. 31.
κακίαν] ‘ malice, or ‘malignity, as it may be translated in default of a better word. Itis not (at least in the New Testament) vice generally, but the vicious nature which is bent on doing harm to others, and is well de- fined by Calvin (on Ephes. iv. 31) ‘ani- mi pravitas, quae humanitati et aequi- tatt est opposita. This will be evi- dent from the connexion in which it appears, e.g. Rom. i. 29, Eph. iv. 31, Tit. iii, 3. Thus κακία and πονηρία
(which frequently occur together, e.g. 1 Cor. v. 8) only differ in so far as the one denotes rather the vicious dispo- sition, the other the active exercise of it. The word is carefully investigated in Trench WV. 7. Syn. ὃ xi. p. 35 sq.
βλασφημίαν] ‘evil speaking, rail- ing, slandering, as frequently, e.g. Rom. iii. 8, xiv. 16, 1 Cor. iv. 13 (v. 1), x. 30, Ephes. iv. 31, Tit. 11: 2. The word has the same twofold sense, ‘ evil speaking ’ and ‘ blasphemy,’ in classi- cal writers, which it has in the New Testament.
αἰσχρολογίαν ‘ foul-mouthed abuse.’ The word, as used elsewhere, has two meanings: (1) ‘ /ilthy-talking, as de- fined in Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 6 (p. 189 sq.), where it is denounced at length: comp. Arist. Pol. vii. 17, Epict. Man, 33, Plut. Mor. 9, and so com- monly; (2) ‘Abusive language, as e.g. Polyb. viii. 13. 8, Kil. 13. 3, XxxiL 10.4. If the two senses of the word had been quite distinct, we might have had some difficulty in choosing be- tween them here. The former sense is suggested by the parallel passage Ephes. v. 4 αἰσχρότης καὶ μωρολογία ἢ εὐτραπελία; the second by the con- nexion with βλασφημία here. But the second sense is derived from the first. The word can only mean ‘ abuse,’ when the abuse is ‘foul-mouthed.’ And thus we may suppose that both ideas, ‘ filthiness’ and ‘ evil-speaking,’ are included here.
9. ἀπεκδυσάμενοι κ.τ.λ.} ‘ puiting off? Do these aorist participles de- scribe an action coincident with or prior to the ψεύδεσθε In other words are they part of the command, or do they assign the reason for the command? Must they be rendered ‘ putting off, or ‘ seeing that ye did (at your baptism) put οἵ The former seems the more probable interpreta- tion; for (1) Though both ideas are
| : |
HIE, το, 11]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
213
\ \ »" \ ~ / δυσάμενοι τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον σὺν ταῖς πραξεσιν ΄- > / \ i7 \ / αὐτοῦ, Kal ἐνδυσάμενοι TOV νέον, τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον
ae ἢ > 7 7 «“ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτον" “ὅπου
found in St Paul, the imperative is the more usual; e.g. Rom. xiii. 12 sq. ἀποθώ- μεθα οὖν τὰ ἔργα τοῦ σκύτους, ἐνδυσώ- μεθα δὲ τὰ ὅπλα τοῦ φωτός... ἐνδύσασθε τὸν Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, Ephes. vi. 11 ἐνδύσασθε τὴν πανοπλίαν With ver. 14 στῆτε οὖν...ἐνδυσάμενοι K.t.r., I Thess. vy. ὃ νήφωμεν ἐνδυσάμενοι κιτιλ. The one exception is Gal. iii. 27 ὅσοι γὰρ ‘eis Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνε- δύσασθε. (2) The ‘putting on’ in the parallel passage, Ephes. iv. 24, is imperative, not affirmative, whether we read ἐνδύσασθαι or ἐνδύσασθε. (3) The participles here are followed immediately by an imperative in the context, ver. 12 ἐνδύσασθε οὖν, where the idea seems to be the same. For the synchronous aorist participle see Winer ὃ xlv. p. 430. St Paul uses ἀπεκδυσάμενοι, ἐνδυσάμενοι (not ἀπεκ- δυόμενοι, ἐνδυόμενοι), for the same reason for which he uses ἐνδύσασθε (not ἐνδύεσθε), because it is a thing to be done once for all. For the double compound ἀπεκδύεσθαι see the notes on ii. ΤΙ, 15.
παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον] as Rom. vi. 6, Ephes. iv. 22. With this expression compare ὁ ἔξω, ὁ ἔσω ἄνθρωπος, Rom. Vii. 22, 2 Cor. iv. 16, Ephes. iii. 16; ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος, I Pet. lil. 4.5 ὁ μικρός μου ἄνθρωπος, ‘my in- significance, Polycr. in Euseb. H. £. V. 24.
10. τὸν νέον x.t.’.] In Ephes. iy. 24 it is ἐνδύσασθαι τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρω- πον. Of the two words νέος and και- vos, the former refers solely to time, the other denotes quality also; the one is new as being young, the other new as being fresh: the one is op- posed to long duration, the other to effeteness; see Trench NV. 7. Syn. § lx. p. 206. Here the idea which is wanting to véos,and which καινὸς gives
in the parallel passage, is more than supplied by the addition τὸν ἀνακαι- νούμενον K.T.A.
The νέος or καινὸς ἄνθρωπος in these passages is not Christ Himself, as the parallel expression Χριστὸν ἐνδύσα- σθαι might suggest, and asit is actu- ally used in Ign. Ephes. 20 εἰς τὸν και- νὸν ἄνθρωπον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, but the regenerate man formed after Christ. The idea here is the same as in καινὴ κτίσις, 2 Cor. v. 17, Gal. vi. 15: comp. Rom. vi. 4 καινότης ζωῆς, Barnab. 16 ἐγενόμεθα καινοί, πάλιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς κτιζό- μενοι.
τὸν dvakawovpevor | ‘which tis ever being renewed, The force of the pre- sent tense is explained by 2 Cor. iv. 16 ὁ ἔσω ἡμῶν [ἄνθρωπος] ἀνακαινοῦται ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἡμέρᾳ. Compare also the use of the tenses in the parallel pas- sage, Ephes. iv. 22 sq. ἀποθέσθαι, ἀνα- νεοῦσθαι, ἐνδύσασθαι. For the op- posite see Ephes. iv. 22 τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν φθειρόμενον κ.τιλ.
εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν] ‘unto perfect know- ledge, the true knowledge in Christ, as opposed to the false knowledge of the heretical teachers. For the im- plied contrast see above, pp. 44,97 sq. (comp. the notes on i. 9, ii. 3), and for the word ἐπίγνωσις the note on i. 9. The words here are to be connected closely with ἀνακαινούμενον : comp. Heb. vi. 6 πάλιν ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς pe- Tavo.ay.
κατ᾽ εἰκόνα κιτιλ.] The reference is to Gen. i. 26 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεός, Ποιή- σωμεν ἄνθρωπον κατ᾽ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν kK.T.A.3 Comp. ver. 28 κατ᾽ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτόν. See also Ephes. iv. 24 τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν κατὰ Θεὸν κτι- σθέντα. This reference however does not imply an identity of the creation here mentioned with the creation of Genesis, but only an analogy between
214
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
(IIL. 11
> ᾽ 7 3 = \ > οὐκ ἔνι Ἕλλην καὶ Ἰουδαῖος, περιτομή καὶ ἀκροβυστια,
the two. The spiritual man in each believer’s heart, like the primal man in the beginning of the world, was created after God’s image. The καινὴ κτίσις in this respect resembles the ἀρχαία κτίσις. The pronoun αὐτὸν cannot be referred to anything else but the νέος ἄνθρωπος, the regene- rate man; and the aorist κτίσαντος (compare κτισθέντα in the parallel passage Hphes. iv. 24) refers to the time of this ἀναγέννησις in Christ. See Barnab. 6 ἀνακαινίσας ἡμᾶς ev τῇ ἀφέσει TOY ἁμαρτιῶν ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς ἄλλον τύπον... ὡσὰν δὴ ἀναπλάσ σον- τος αὐτοῦ ἡμᾶς, after which Gen. i. 26 is quoted. The new birth was a re- creation in God’s image; the subse- quent life must be a deepening of this image thus stamped upon the man. The allusion to Genesis therefore requires us to understand τοῦ κτίσαν- τος of God, and not of Christ, as it is taken by St Chrysostom and others ; and this seems to be demanded also by the common use of ὁ κτίσας. But if Christ is not ὁ κτίσας, may He not be intended by the εἰκὼν τοῦ κτίσαντος Ἷ In favour of this interpretation it may be urged (1) That Christ elsewhere is called the εἰκὼν of God, i. 15, 2 Cor. iv. 4; (2) That the Alexandrian school interpreted the term in Gen. i. 26 as denoting the Logos; thus Philo de Mund. Op. 6 (I. p. 5M) τὸ ἀρχέτυπον παράδειγμα, ἰδέα τῶν ἰδεῶν ὁ Θεοῦ λό- γος (comp. ib. δδ 7, 23, 24, 48), Mragm. 1. p.625 M θνητὸν yap οὐδὲν ἀπεικονισ- θῆναι πρὸς τὸν ἀνωτάτω καὶ πατέρα τῶν ὅλων ἐδύνατο, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸν δεύτε- pov Θεὸν ὅς ἐστιν ἐκείνου λόγος k.T.A. Leg. Alleg. i. 31, 32 (I. p. 106 sq.). Hence Philo speaks of the first man as εἰκὼν εἰκόνος (de Mund. Op. 6), and as παγκάλου παραδείγματος πάγκαλον μίμημα (ib. ὃ 48). A pregnant mean- ing is thus given to κατά, and κατ᾽ εἰ- xova is rendered ‘after the fashion (or pattern) of the Image’ But this in- terpretation seems very improbable in
St Paul; for (1) In the parallel pas- sage Ephes. iv. 24 the expression is simply κατὰ Θεόν, which may be re- garded as equivalent ἴο κατ᾽ εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος here; (2) The Alexandrian explanation of Gen. i. 26 just quoted is very closely allied to the Platonic doctrine of ideas (for the εἰκών, 80 in- terpreted, is the archetype or ideal pattern of the sensible world), and thus it lies outside the range of those conceptions which specially recom- mended the Alexandrian terminology of the Logos to the Apostles, as a fit vehicle for communicating the truths of Christianity.
II. ὅπου] ie. ‘in this regenerate life, in this spiritual region into which the believer is transferred in Christ,’
οὐκ ἔνι] ‘Not only does the dis- tinction not exist, but it cannot exist’ Tt is a mundane distinction, and there- fore it has disappeared. For the sense of ἔνι, negativing not merely the fact, but the possibility, see the note on Gal. iii. 28.
Ἕλλην κιτ.λ.] Comparing the enume- ration here with the parallel passage Gal. iii, 28, we mark this difference. In Galatians the abolition of all dis- tinctions is stated in the broadest way by the selection of three typical instances; religious prerogative (Iov- datos,’ Ἕλλην), social caste (doddos, ἐλεύ- Gepos), natural sex (ἄρσεν, θῆλυ). Here on the other hand the examples are chosen with special reference to the immediate circumstances of the Co- lossian Church. (1) The Judaism of the Colossian heretics is met by"EAAny καὶ Ἰουδαῖος, and as it manifested it- self especially in enforcing circumci- sion, this is further emphasized by περιτομὴ καὶ ἀκροβυστία (see above, Ῥ. 71). (2) Their Gnosticism again is met by βάρβαρος, Σκύθης. They laid special stress on intelligence, penetra- tion, gnosis. The Apostle offers the full privileges of the Gospel to barba- rians and even barbarians of the low-
III. 11]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
215
βάρβαρος, Σκύθης, δοῦλος, ἐλεύθερος, ἀλλὰ Ta πάντα
est type (see p. 97 sq.). In Rom. i. 14 the division “Ἑλλησίν τε καὶ βαρβάροις is almost synonymous with σοφοῖς τε καὶ ἀνοήτοις. (3) Special cir- cumstances, connected with an emi- nent member of the Church of Colos- see, had directed his attention at this moment to the relation of masters and slaves. Hence he cannot leave the subject without adding δοῦλος, ἐλεύ- Gepos, though this has no special bear- ing on the Colossian heresy. See above, p. 33, and the note on iii. 22, together with the introduction to the Epistle to Philemon.
περιτομὴ «.7.A.] Enforcing and ex- tending the lesson of the previous clause. This abolition of distinctions applies to religious privilege, not only as inherited by birth (Ἕλλην καὶ Ἰου- datos), but also as assumed by adop- tion (περιτομὴ καὶ dxpoBvoria). If it is no advantage to be born a Jew, it is none to become as a Jew; comp. 1 Cor. Vii. 19, Gal. v. 6, vi. 15.
βάρβαρος] To the Jew the whole world was divided into Ἰουδαῖοι and Ἕλληνες, the privileged and unprivi- leged portions of mankind, religious prerogative being taken as the line of demarcation (see notes Gal. ii. 3). To the Greek and Roman it was similarly divided into Ἕλληνες and βάρβαροι, again the privileged and unprivileged portion of the human race, civilisation and culture being now the criterion of distinction. Thus from the one point of view the Ἕλλην is contrasted disadvantage- ously with the ᾿Ιουδαῖος, while from the other he is contrasted advantage- ously with the βάρβαρος. Both dis- tinctions are equally antagonistic to the Spirit of the Gospel. The Apostle declares both alike null and void in Christ. The twofold character of the Colossian heresy enables him to strike at these two opposite forms of error with one blow.
The word βάρβαρος properly deno-
ted one who spoke an inarticulate, stammering, unintelligible language; see Max Miller Lectures on the Sci- ence of Language ist ser. p. 81 sq., 114 sq., Farrar Families of Speech p. 21: comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 11. Hence it was adopted by Greek exclusiveness and pride to stigmatize the rest of mankind, a feeling embodied in the proverb πᾶς μὴ Ἕλλην βάρβαρος (Ser- vius on Verg. Aen. ii. 504); comp. Plato Polit. 262 B τὸ μὲν Ἑλληνικὸν ὡς ἕν ἀπὸ πάντων ἀφαιροῦντες χωρίς, σύμπασι δὲ τοῖς ἄλλοις γένεσιν...βάρ- βαρον μιᾷ κλήσει προσείποντες αὐτὸ κιτιὰλ., Dionys. Hal. het. xi. 5 διπλοῦν δὲ τὸ ἔθνος, Ἕλλην ἢ βάρβαρος κτλ. So Philo Vit. Moys. ii. 5 (a. p. 138) speaks of τὸ ἥμισυ τμῆμα τοῦ ἀνθρώ- Tov γένους; τὸ βαρβαρικόν, as Opposed to τὸ ᾿Ελληνικόν. It is not necessary to suppose that they adopted it from the Egyptians, who seem to have call- ed non-Egyptian peoples berber (see Sir G. Wilkinson in Rawlinson’s He- rod. ii. 158); for the onomatopeeia will explain its origin independently, Stra- bo xiv. 2. 28 (p. 662) οἶμαι δὲ τὸ βάρ- βαρον κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς ἐκπεφωνῆσθαι οὕτως κατ᾽ ὀνοματοποιίαν ἐπὶ τῶν δυσεκφόρως καὶ σκληρῶς καὶ τραχέως λαλούντων, ὡς τὸ βατταρίζειν καιιλ. The Latins, adopting the Greek culture, adopted the Greek distinction also, e.g. Cie. de Fin. ii. 15 ‘Non solum Graecia et Ita- lia, sed etiam omnis barbaria’: and accordingly Dionysius, Ant. Rom. i.69, classes the Romans with the Greeks as distinguished from the ‘ barbarians’ —this twofold division of the human race being taken for granted as abso- lute and final. So too in y. 8, having mentioned the Romans, he goes on to speak of of ἄλλοι Ἕλληνες. The older Roman poets however, writing from a Greek point of view, (more than half in irony) speak of themselves as bar- bari and of their country as barbaria; e.g. Plaut. Mil. Glor. ii. 2. 58 ‘poetae barbaro’ (of Naevius), Asin. Prol. 11.
216
\ > ~ 7 , καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν Χριστος.
‘Maccus vortit barbare, Poen. iii, 2. 21 ‘in barbaria boves.’
In this classification the Jews ne- cessarily ranked as ‘barbarians’; Orig. c. Cels. i, 2. At times Philo seems tacitly to accept this designation (Vit. Moys. 1. c.); but elsewhere he resents it, Leg. ad Gai. 31 (II. p. 578) ὑπὸ φρο- νήματος, ὡς μὲν ἔνιοι τῶν διαβαλλόντων εἴποιεν ἂν, βαρβαρικοῦ, ὡς δ᾽ ἔχει τὸ ἀληθές, ἐλευθερίου καὶ εὐγενοῦς. On the other hand the Christian A polo- gists with a true instinct glory in the ‘barbarous’ origin of-their religion : Justin Apol. i. 5 (p. 56 A) ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν βαρβάροις ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Λόγου μορφωθέν- Tos καὶ ἀνθρώπου γενομένου, ib. § 46 (p. 83 D) ἐν βαρβάροις δὲ ᾿Αβραάμ x.r.A., Tatian. ad Graec. 29 γραφαῖς τισὶν ἐντυχεῖν βαρβαρικαῖς, ib. 31 τὸν δὲ (Μωυσῆν) πάσης βαρβάρου σοφίας ἀρ- χηγόν, ib. 35 τῆς καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς βαρβάρου φιλοσοφίας. By glorying in the name they gave a practical comment on the Apostle’s declaration that the distinc- tion of Greek and barbarian was abolished in Christ. In a similar spirit Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 16 (p. 361) en- deayours to prove that ov μόνον φιλο- σοφίας ἀλλὰ καὶ πάσης σχεδὸν τέχνης εὑρεταὶ βάρβαροι.
‘Not till that word barbarian, writes Prof. Max Miller (1. c. p. 118), ‘was struck out of the dictionary of mankind and replaced by brother, not till the right of all nations of the world to be classed as members of one genus or kind was recognised, can we look even for the first beginnings of our science. This change was effected by Christianity... Humanity is a word which you look for in vain in Plato or Aristotle; the idea of mankind as one family, as the children of one God, is an idea of Christian growth: and the science of mankind, and of the lan- guages of mankind, is a science which, without Christianity, would never have sprung into life. When people had been taught to look upon all men as
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
. yond the
(III. 12
> , oy « > ΔῈ ᾿ένδύσασθε οὖν, ὡς ἐκλεκτοὶ
brethren, then and then only, did the variety of human speech present itself as a problem that called for a solution in the eyes of thoughtful observers : and I therefore date the real begin- ning of the science of language from the first day of Pentecost... The com- mon origin of mankind, the differences of race and language, the susceptibi- lity of all nations of the highest men- tal culture, these become, in the new world in which we live, problems of scientific, because of more than scien- tific interest” St Paul was the great exponent of the fundamental principle in the Christian Church which was symbolized on the day of Pentecost, when he declared, as here, that in Christ there is neither Ἕλλην nor βάρβαρος, or as in Rom. i. 14 that he himself was a debtor equally “Ἑλλησίν τε καὶ βαρβάροις.
The only other passage in the New Testament (besides those quoted) in which βάρβαρος occurs is Acts xxviii. 2, 4, where it is used of the people of Melita. If this Melita be Malta, they would be of Pheenician descent.
Σκύθης) The lowest type of barba- rian. There is the same collocation of words in Dionys. Halic. Rhet. xi. 5, 6 πατήρ, βάρβαρος, Σκύθης, νέος, Aesch. σ. Cles. 172 Σκύθης, βάρβαρος, ἑλληνίζων τῇ φωνῇ (of Demosthenes). The savageness of the Scythians was proverbial. The earlier Greek writers indeed, to whom omne ignotum was pro magnifico, had frequently spoken of them otherwise (see Strabo vii. 3. 7 Sq.,p. 300 sq.). Aeschylus for instance called them εὔνομοι Σκύθαι, Fragm. 189 (comp. Lum. 703). Like the other Hyperboreans, they were a simple, righteous people, living be- vices and the miseries of civilisation. But the common estimate was far different, and pro- bably far more true: e.g. 3 Mace. Vil. 5 νόμου Σκυθῶν ἀγριωτέραν.. .ὠμό- tyra (comp. 2 Mace. iv. 47), Joseph.
,
;
III. 12]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
217
= > J \ ’ / y 5) ~ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἁγιοι [καὶ] ἡγαπήμενοι, σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμοῦ,
6. Ap. ii. 37 Σκύθαι... βραχὺ τῶν θηρίων διαφέροντες, Philo Leg. ad Gai. 2 (Il. p. 547) Sapparay γένη καὶ Σκυθῶν, ἅπερ οὐχ ἧττον ἐξηγρίωται τῶν Τερμανι- κῶν, Tertull. adv. Mare. i. 1 ‘Scytha tetrior, Orig. c. Cels.i. 1 Σκυθῶν, καὶ εἴτι Σκυθῶν ἀσεβέστερον. In Vit. Moys. ij. 4 (I. p. 137) Philo seems to place the Egyptians and the Scythians at the two extremes in the scale of barbarian nations. The passages given in Wet- stein from classical writers are hardly less strong in the same direction. Anacharsis the Scythian is said to have retorted ἐμοὶ δὲ πάντες Ἕλληνες σκυθί- ζουσιν, Clem. Strom. i. 16 (p. 364). The Jews had a special reason for their unfavourable estimate of the Scythians. In the reign of Josiah hordes of these northern barbarians had deluged Palestine and a great part of Western Asia (Herod. i. 103 —106). The incident indeed is passed over in silence in the historical books; but the terror inspired by these in- yaders has found expression in the prophets (Ezek. xxviii, xxxix, Jer. i. 13 sq., Vi. I sq.), and they left behind them a memorial in the Greek name of Beth-shean, Σκυθῶν πόλις (Judith iii. 10, 2 Mace. xii. 29: comp. Judges i. 27 LXX) Or Σκυθόύπολις, Which seems to have been derived from a settlement on this occasion (Plin. WV. ZZ. v. 16; see Ewald Gesch. 1. p. 689 sq., Grove s.v. Scythopolis in Smith’s Bibl. Dict.). Hence Justin, Dial. § 28 (p. 246 a), describing the largeness of the new dispensation, says κἂν Σκύθης ἢ τις ἢ Πέρσης, ἔχει δὲ τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ γνῶσιν καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ φυλάσσει τὰ αἰώνια δίκαια...φίλος ἐστὶ τῷ Θεῷ, where he singles out two different but equally low types of barbarians, the Scythians being notorious for their ferocity, the Persians for their licen- tiousness (Clem. Alex. Paed. i. 7, p. 131, Strom. 111. 2, ἢ. 515, and the Apologists generally). So too the Pseudo-Lucian, Philopatris 17, sati-
rising Christianity, KP. τόδε εἶπε, εἰ καὶ τὰ τῶν Σκυθῶν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἐγχαράτ- τουσι. TP. πάντα, εἰ τύχοι γε χρηστὸς καὶ ἐν ἔθνεσι. From a misconception of this passage in the Colossians, heresiologers distinguished four main forms of heresy in the pre-Christian world, βαρβαρισμός, σκυθισμός, ἑλλη- νισμός, ἰουδαϊσμός ; So Epiphan. Epist. ad Acac. 2 σαφῶς yap περὶ τούτων τῶν τεσσάρων αἱρέσεων ὁ ἀπόστολος ἐπιτε- μὼν ἔφη, Ἔν γὰρ Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ ov βάρ- Bapos, οὐ Σκύθης, οὐχ Ἕλλην, οὐκ Ἴου- δαῖος, ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις : comp. Haer. i. 4, 7 84.. 1. pp. 5, 8 sq., “Anaceph. τι. pp. 127, 129 sq.
τὰ πάντα xtA.| ‘Christ is all things and in all things? Christ has dispossessed and obliterated all distinctions of religious prerogative and intellectual preeminence and so- cial caste; Christ has substituted Himself for all these; Christ occupies the whole sphere of human life and permeates all its developments : comp. Ephes. i. 23 τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν πλη- poupevov. For τὰ πάντα, which is stronger than οἱ πάντες, see Gal. iii. 22 συνέκλεισεν ἡ γραφὴ τὰ πάντα ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν with the note. In this pas- sage ἐν πᾶσιν is probably neuter, as ἼΠῚ2 (ΟἹ: ΣΙ Ὁ: Phils iy: 12; 1 ΠῚ ΠῚ" ΗΠ 11, 2 Tims 11. 7, iv. 5, Ephes: ἵν. ὁ; vie 16.
In the parallel passage Gal. iii. 28 the corresponding clause is πάντες ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστὲ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. The inversion here accords with a chief motive of the epistle, which is to as- sert the absolute and universal supre- macy of Christ; comp. i. 17 sq., ii. 10 sq., 19. The two parts of the anti- thesis are combined in our Lord’s saying, Joh. xiv. 20 ὑμεῖς ἐν ἐμοί, κἀγὼ ἐν ὑμῖν.
12—15. ‘Therefore, as the elect of God, as a people consecrated to His service and specially endowed with His love, array yourselves in hearts of compassion, in kindliness and humi-
218
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
(IIL. 12
, oh χρηστότητα, ταπεινοφροσύνην, πραύτητα, μακροθυ-
lity, in a gentle and yielding spirit. Bear with one another, forgive freely among yourselves. As your Master forgave you His servants, so ought ye to forgive your fellow-servants. And over all these robe yourselves in love; for this is the garment which binds together all the graces of perfection. And let the one supreme umpire in your hearts, the one referee amidst all your difficulties, be the peace of Christ, which is the destined goal of your Christian calling, in which is realised the unity belonging to mem- bers of one body. Lastly of all; show your gratitude by your thanksgiving’
12. ἐνδύσασθε οὖν] ‘ Put on there- Fore, as men to whom Christ has be- come all in all. The incidental men- tion of Christ as superseding all other relations gives occasion to this argu- mentative ody: comp. iii. I, 5.
ὡς ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘as elect ones of God’ Comp. Rom. viii. 3, Tit. i. 1. Jn the Gospels κλητοί and ἐκλεκτοί are distinguished as an outer and an in- ner circle (Matt. xxii. 14 πολλοὶ yap εἰσιν KANTO, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί), KANTOL being those summoned to the privi- leges of the Gospel and ἐκλεκτοί those appointed to final salvation (Matt. XXiv. 22, 24, 31, Mark xiii. 20, 22, 27, Luke xviii. 7). But in St Paul no such distinction can be traced. With him the two terms seem to be coex- tensive, as two aspects of the same pro- cess, κλητοί having special reference to the goal and ἐκλεκτοί to the starting- point. The same persons are ‘ called’ to Christ, and ‘chosen out’ from the world. Thus in 1 Thess. i. 4 εἰδότες τὴν ἐκλογὴν ὑμῶν k.T.A. the word clearly denotes election to Church-member- ship. Thus also in 2 Tim. ii. 10, where St Paul says that he endures all things διὰ τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς, adding ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ σωτηρίας τύχωσιν k.T.A., the uncertainty implied in these last words clearly shows that election to final salvation is not meant. In the same sense he
speaks of an individual Christian as ‘elect, Rom. xvi. 13. And again in 1 Cor. i. 26, 27 βλέπετε τὴν κλῆσιν ULOV...TA μῶρα τοῦ κόσμου ἐξελέξατο, the words appear as synonymes. The same is also the usage of St Peter. Thus in an opening salutation he ad- dresses whole Christian communities as ἐκλεκτοί (1 Pet. i. 1; comp. Vv. 13 ἡ συνεκλεκτὴ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι, i.e. probably ἐκκλησία), ἃ5 St Paul under similar circumstances (Rom. i. 6, 7, 1 Cor. i. 2) designates them κλητοί; and in another passage (2 Pet. i. 10) he ap- peals to his readers to make their κλῆσις and ἐκλογή sure. The use of ἐκλεκτὸς in 2 Joh. 1, 13, is apparently the same; and in Apoc. xvii. 14 of μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ κλητοὶ καὶ ἐκλεκτοὶ καὶ πι- στοί this is also the case, as we may infer from the addition of πιστοί, which points to those who have been true to their ‘ calling and election.’ Thus the Gospels stand alone in this respect. In fact ἐκλογή denotes election by God not only to final salvation, but to any special privilege or work, whe- ther it be (1) Church-membership, as in the passages cited from the epistles; or (2) The work of preaching, as when St Paul (Acts ix. 15) is called σκεῦος — ἐκλογῆς, the object of the ‘election’ being defined in the words following, Tov βαστάσαι τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐνώπιον [τῶν] ἐθνῶν τε καὶ βασιλέων κ.τ.λ.; OF (3) The Messiahship, 1 Pet. ii. 4, 6; or (4) The fatherhood of the chosen people, as in the case of Isaac and Ja- cob, Rom. ix. 11; or (5) The faithful remnant under the theocracy, Rom. xi. 5,7, 28. This last application pre- sents the closest analogy to the idea of final salvation: but even here St Paul treats κλῆσις and ἐκλογή as Co- extensive, Rom. xi. 28, 29 κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἐκλογὴν ἀγαπητοὶ διὰ τοὺς πατέρας" ἀμεταμέλητα γὰρ τὰ χαρίσματα καὶ ἡ κλῆσις τοῦ Θεοῦ.
ἅγιοι κιτ.λ.] These are not to be taken as vocatives, but as predicates
ἘΠῚ: 13]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
219
᾿ / > fA \ / € ~ μίαν" 13 ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων, Kat χαριζόμενοι εαυτοῖς,
further defining the meaning of ἐκλεκ- roi. All the three terms ἐκλεκτοί, ἅγιοι, ἠγαπημένοι, are transferred from the Old Covenant to the New, from the Israel after the flesh to the Israel after the Spirit. For the two former comp. I Pet. ii. 9 γένος ἐκλεκτόν ...<Ovos ἅγιον; and for the sense of ἅγιοι, ‘ the consecrated people of God,’ see the note on Phil. i. 1. For the third word, ἠγαπημένοι, see Is. v. 1 “Ago δὴ τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ κ-ιτιλ., Hos. ii. 25 τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην ἠγαπημένην (as quoted in Rom. ix. 25). In the New Testament it seems to be used always of the objects of God’s love ; e.g. I Thess. i. 4 εἰδότες, ἀδελφοὶ ἠγα- πημένοι ὑπὸ Θεοῦ, τὴν ἐκλογὴν ὑμῶν, 2 Thess. 11,13 ἀδελφοὶ ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ Κυρίου (comp. Jude 1); and so proba- bly Rev. xx. 9 τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἠγαπημέ- νην. For the connexion of God’s elec- tion and God’s love see Rom. xi. 28 (quoted above), 1 Thess. 1. 9, The καὶ is omitted in one or two excellent copies (though it has the great pre- ponderance of authorities in its fa- vour), and it is impossible not to feel how much the sentence gains in force by the omission, ἐκλεκτοὶ Θεοῦ, ἅγιοι, ἠγαπημένοι ; comp. 1 Pet. ii. 6.
σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμοῦ)] ‘a heart of pity” For the meaning of σπλάγχνα see the note on Phil. i. 8, and for the whole expression comp. σπλάγχνα ἐλέ- ovs Lukei. 78, Test. xii Patr. Zab. 7, 8.
χρηστότητα κιτιλ.}] The two words χρηστότης and ταπεινοφροσύνη, ‘ kind- liness’? and ‘humility, describe the Christian temper of mind generally, and this in two aspects, as it affects either (1) our relation to others (χρησ- τότης), or (2) our estimate of self (ra- πεινοφροσύνη). For χρηστότης see the note on Gal. v. 22: for ταπεινοφροσύνη, the note on Phil. ii. 3.
πραὔτητα κιτιλ.)] These next two words, mpaitns and μακροθυμία, de- note the ewvercise of the Christian temper in its outward bearing to-
wards others. They are best distin- guished by their opposites. πραύτης is opposed to ‘rudeness, harshness,’ ἀγριότης (Plato Symp. 197 D), χαλεπό- της (Arist. 12. 4.. ix. 1); μακροθυμία to ‘resentment, revenge, wrath,’ ὀργή (Prov. xve. 32), ὀξυχολία (Herm. Mand. Vv. 1, 2). For the meaning of paxpo- θυμία see above, oni. 11; for the form of mpavtns (πραότης), on Gal. v. 23. The words are discussed in Trench N. Τ᾿ Syn. § xiii. p. 140 8q., § xliii. p- 145 sq., ὃ liii, p. 184 sq. They ap- pear in connexion Ephes. iv. 2, Ign. Polyc. 6 μακροθυμήσατε οὖν per ἀλλή- λων ἐν πραὕὔτητι.
13. ἀλλήλων, ἑαυτοῖς) The pro- noun is varied, as in Ephes. iv. 32 γίνεσθε εἰς ἀλλήλους χρηστοί... χαρι- ζύόμενοι ἑαυτοῖς κιτιλ., I Pet. iv.8—I1o τὴν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς ἀγάπην ἐκτενῆ ἔχοντες «ὐφιλόξενοι εἰς ἀλλήλους. ..εἰς ἑαυ- τοὺς αὐτὸ [τὸ χάρισμα] διακονοῦντες. The reciprocal ἑαυτῶν differs trom the reciprocal ἀλλήλων in emphasizing the idea of corporate unity: hence it is more appropriate here (comp. Ephes. iv. 2, 32) with χαριζόμενοι than with ἀνεχόμενοι : Comp. Xen. Mem. iii. 5. 16 ἀντὶ μὲν τοῦ συνεργεῖν ἑαυτοῖς τὰ συμ- φέροντα, ἐπηρεάζουσιν ἀλλήλοις, καὶ φθονοῦσιν ἑαυτοῖς μᾶλλον ἢ τοῖς ἀλ- λοις ἀνθρώποις...καὶ προαιροῦνται μᾶλ- λον οὕτω κερδαίνειν ἀπ᾿ ἀλλήλων ἢ συνωφελοῦντες αὑτούς, where the pro- priety of the two words in their re- spective places will be evident: and ib, ii. 7. 12 ἀντὶ ὑφορωμένων ἑαυτὰς ἡδέως ἀλλήλας ἑώρων, Where the vari- ation is more subtle but not less ap- propriate.- For instances of this use of ἑαυτῶν see Bleek Hebrierbrief iii. 13 (p. 453 8q.), Kithner Griech. Gramm. § 455 (IL. p. 497 8q.).
χαριζόμενοι] i.e. ‘ forgiving’; see the note on ii. 13. An ὦ fortiori argu- ment lurks under the use of ἑαυτοῖς (rather than ἀλλήλοις) : if Christ for- gave them, much more should they forgive themselves.
220
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
[III. 14
> 7 / / / \ \ ε rf εαν TIS πρὸς TWA EXN μομφην' καθὼς καὶ ὃ Κύριος
> / cA « δι τε - > \ lal \ / ἐχαρίσατο υμῖν, οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς" τ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν δὲ τούτοις
μομφήν] ‘a complaint” ΔΒ μέμ- φεσθαι 15" to find fault with, referring most commonly to errors of omission, so μομφή here is regarded as a debt, which needs to be remitted. The rendering of the A. V. ‘a quarrel’ (=querela) is only wrong as being an archaism. The phrase μομφὴν ἔχειν occurs several times in classical Greek, but generally in poetry: e.g. Eur, Orest. 1069, Arist. Pax 664.
καθὼς καὶ κιτιλ.] This must not be connected with the preceding words, but treated as an independent sen- tence, the καθὼς καί being answered by the οὕτως καί. For the presence of καί in both clauses of the comparison see the note on i. 6. The phenomenon is common in the best classical writers, e.g. Xen. Mem. i. 6.3 ὥσπερ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἔργων οἱ didacKadot...ovT@ καὶ σύ κιτιλ.; see the references in Hein- dorf on Plato Phaedo 64 ©, Sophist. 217 B, and Kiihner Griech. Gramm. § 524 (IL. p. 799).
ὁ Κύριος] This reading, which is better supported than ὁ Χριστός, is also more expressive. It recalls more directly the lesson of the parable which enforces the duty of fellow- servant to fellow-servant; Matt. xviii. 27 σπλαγχνισθεὶς δὲ ὁ κύριος τοῦ δούλου ἐκείνου ἀπέλυσεν αὐτὸν καὶ τὸ δάνειον ἀφῆκεν αὐτῷ k.7.d.: comp. below iv. I εἰδότες ὅτι καὶ ὑμεῖς ἔχετε κύριον ἐν οὐρανῷ. The reading Χριστὸς perhaps comes from the parallel passage Ephes. iv. 32 χαριζόμενοι ἑαυτοῖς, καθὼς Kal ὁ Θεὸς ἐν Χριστῷ ἐχαρίσατο ἡμῖν (or ὑμῖν).
οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς) SC. χαρίζεσθε ἑαυ- τοῖς.
14. ἐπὶ πᾶσιν] “οτοῦ απο above all these, comp. Luke iii. 20 προσέθηκεν καὶ τοῦτο ἐπὶ πᾶσιν. In Luke xvi. 26, Hphes. vi. 16, the correct reading is probably ἐν πᾶσιν. Love is the outer garment which holds the others in their places.
τὴν ἀγάπην] sc. ἐνδύσασθε, from ver. 12;
6|‘ which thing, i.e. ‘love’; comp, Ephes. v. 5 πλεονέκτης, 6 ἐστιν εἰδωλο- λάτρης, lgn. Lom. 7 ἄρτον Θεοῦ θέλω, ὅ ἐστιν σὰρξ Χριστοῦ, Magn. 10 μετα- βάλεσθε εἰς νέαν ζύμην ὅ ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, Trall. ὃ ἀνακτήσασθε ἑαυτοὺς ἐν πίστει ὅ ἐστιν σὰρξ τοῦ Κυρίου. Though there are various readings in the passages of the Ignatian Epistles, the 6 seems to be generally right. These instances will show that 6 may be referred to τὴν ἀγάπην alone. O- therwise we might suppose the ante- cedent to be τὸ ἐνδύσασθαι τὴν ἀγάπην, but this hardly suits the sense. The common reading ἥτις is obviously a scribe’s correction.
σύνδεσμος k.t.d.] ‘the bond of per- fection, i.e. the power, which unites and holds together all those graces and virtues, which together make up perfection. Πάντα ἐκεῖνα, says Chry- sostom, αὕτη avadtyyet’ ὅπερ ἂν εἴπῃς ἀγαθόν, ταύτης ἀπούσης οὐδέν ἐστιν ἀλλὰ διαρρεῖ : comp. Clem. Rom. 49 τὸν δεσμὸν τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ Θεοῦ τίς δύναται ἐξηγήσασθαι; Thus the Pytha- goreans (Simplic. in Hpictet. p. 208 A) περισσῶς τῶν ἄλλων ἀρετῶν τὴν φιλίαν ἐτίμων καὶ σύνδεσμον αὐτὴν πασῶν τῶν ἀρετῶν ἔλεγον. So too Themist. Orat. i. (p. 5 6) βασιλικὴ (ἀρετὴ) παρὰ τὰς ἄλλας εἰς ἣν ξυνδοῦνται καὶ αἱ λοιπαί, ὥσπερ εἰς μίαν κορυφὴν ἀνημμέναι. The word will take a genitive either of the object bound or of the binding force: eg. Plato Polit. 310 A τοῦτον θειότερον εἶναι τὸν ξύνδεσμον ἀρετῆς μερῶν φύσεως ἀνομοίων καὶ ἐπὶ τἀναντία φερομένων, where the ἀρετὴ ξυνδεῖ and the μέρη φύσεως ξυνδεῖται. We have an instance of the one genitive (the objective) here, of the other (the sub- jective) in Ephes. iv. 3 ἐν τῷ συνδέσμῳ τῆς εἰρήνης (see the note there).
Another explanation makes σύνδεσ-
«Ὁ
111. 15]
7 chs 7 A“ 7 τὴν ἀγάπην, ὃ ἐστιν σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητος.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
221
\ SKal
ε > / ~ ~ 7 ’ ~ fi € r 1) εἰρηνῆ του Χριστοῦ βραβευέτω εν ταις καρδίαις υμῶων,
> aA \ > 7 > CA ΄ εἰς ἣν καὶ ἐκλήηήθητε ἐν Evi σώματι.
μος--σύνθεσις here, ‘the bundle, the totality, as e.g. Herodian. iv. 12 πάν- Ta TOY σύνδεσμον τῶν ἐπιστολῶν (coMmp- Ign. Trall. 3 σύνδεσμον ἀποστόλων) ; but this unusual metaphor is highly improbable and inappropriate here, not to mention that we should expect the definite article 6 σύνδεσμος in this case. With either interpretation, the function assigned to ἀγάπη here is the same as when it is declared to be πλήρωμα νόμου, Rom. xiii. 10 (comp. Gal. ν. 14). See also the all-embracing office which is assigned to it in 1 Cor. xiii.
15. ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ Χριστοῦ] ‘ Christ’s peace, which He left as ἃ legacy to His disciples: Joh. xiv. 27 εἰρήνην ἀφίημι ὑμῖν, εἰρήνην THY ἐμὴν δίδωμι ὑμῖν; comp. Ephes. ii. 14 αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν with the context. The common reading ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ Θεοῦ has a parallel in Phil. iv. 7.
βραβευέτω] ‘be umpire, for the idea of a contest is only less promi- nent here, than in βραβεῖον 1 Cor. ix. 24, Phil. iii. 14 (see the note there). Στάδιον ἔνδον ἐποίησεν ἐν τοῖς λογισμοῖς, writes Chrysostom, καὶ ἀγῶνα καὶ ἄθλη- σιν καὶ βραβευτήν. Wherever there is a conflict of motives or impulses or reasons, the peace of Christ must step in and decide which is to prevail: M7 θυμὸς βραβευέτω, says Chrysostom again, μὴ φιλονεικία, μὴ ἀνθρωπίνη εἰρήνη" ἡ γὰρ ἀνθρωπίνη εἰρήνη ἐκ τοῦ ἀμύνεσθαι γίνεται, ἐκ τοῦ μηδὲν πάσχειν δεινόν.
For this metaphor of some one paramount consideration acting as umpire, where there is a conflict of internal motives, see Polyb. ii. 35. 3 ἅπαν τὸ γιγνόμενον ὑπὸ τῶν Γαλάτων θυμῷ μᾶλλον ἢ λογισμῷ βραβεύε- σθαι, Philo de Migr. Abr. 12 (Lp. 446) πορεύεται ὁ ἄφρων δι’ ἀμφοτέρων θυμοῦ τε καὶ ἐπιθυμίας ἀεὶ... τὸν ἡνίοχον
καὶ εὐχαριστοι
καὶ βραβευτὴν λόγον ἀποβαλών (comp. de Ebriet. το, 1. p. 368), Jos. B,J. vi. 2. 6 ἐβράβευε τὰς τόλμας ὁ... φόβος. Somewhat similarly τύχη (Polyb. xxvii. 14. 4) or φύσις (Athen. XY. p. 670 A) are made βραβεύειν. In other passages, where ὁ Θεὸς or τὸ θεῖον is said βραβεύειν, this implies that, while man proposes, God dis- poses. In Philo ἀλήθεια βραβεύουσα (Qui rer. div. her. το, τ. p. 486) is a rough synonyme for ἀλήθεια δικάζουσα (de Abrah. 14, τι. p. το, ete.): and in Josephus (Ant. vi. 3. 1) δικάζειν and βραβεύειν are used together of the same action. In all such cases it ap- pears that the idea of a decision and an award is prominent in the word, and that it must not be taken to de- note simply rule or power.
eis ἣν x.7.A.] Comp. I Cor. vii. 15 ev δὲ εἰρήνῃ κέκληκεν ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεός.
ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι) ‘As ye were called as members of one body, so let there be one spirit animating that body’: Ephes. iv. 4 ἕν σῶμα καὶ ἕν πνεῦμα. This passage strikes the keynote of the companion Epistle to the Ephe- sians (see esp. ii. 16 sq., iv. 3 sq.).
εὐχάριστοι] “ And to crown all for- get yourselves in thanksgiving towards God’: see the notes on i. 12, ii. 7. The adjective εὐχάριστος, though not oc- curring elsewhere in the Greek Bible, is not uncommon in classical writers, and like the English ‘grateful,’ has two meanings; either (1) ‘pleasurable’ (e.g. Xen. Cyr. ii. 2.1) ; or (2) ‘ thank- ful’ (e.g. Boeckh Οἱ... no. 1625), as here.
16,17. ‘ Let the inspiring word of Christ dwell in your hearts, enriching you with its boundless wealth and en- dowing you with all wisdom. Teach and admonish one another with psalms, with hymns of praise, with spiritual songs of all kinds. Only let them be
222
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
[IIL 16
ς / a om 3 / > Pee = γίνεσθε. *°O λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐνοικείτω ἐν ὑμῖν πλου-
/ . / tit} σίως EY TATH σοφιᾳ"
pervaded with grace from heaven. Sing to God in your hearts and not with your lips only. And generally ; whatever ye do, whether in word or in deed, let everything be done in the name of Jesus Christ. And (again I repeat it) pour out your thanksgiving to God the Father through Him.’
16. ‘O λύγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ] ‘the word of Christ, τοῦ Χριστοῦ being the sub- jective genitive, so that Christ is the speaker. Though 6 λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ and ὁ λόγος τοῦ Κυρίου occur fre- quently, ὁ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ is found here only. There seems to be πὸ di- rect reference in this expression to any definite body of truths either written or oral, but ὁ λόγος τοῦ Χρισ- τοῦ denotes the presence of Christ in the heart, as an inward monitor: comp. I Joh. ii 14 ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν μένει, With vb. 1. 10 ὁ λόγος av- τοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν, and so perhaps Acts xvill. 5 συνείχετο τῷ λόγῳ (the correct reading).
ev ὑμῖν] ‘inyour hearts, not‘among you’ ; comp. Rom. viii. 9, 11 τὸ ἐνοικοῦν αὐτοῦ πνεῦμα ev ὑμῖν, 2 Tim. i. 5, 14, and Ley. xxvi. 12, as quoted in 2 Cor. Vi. τό, ἐνοικήσω ἐν αὐτοῖς.
πλουσίως} See above, p. 43 sq., and the note on i. 27.
ἐν πᾶσῃ σοφίᾳ) ‘in every kind of wisdom. It seems best to take these words with the preceding clause, though Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 4 (p. 194) attaches them to what follows. For this position of ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ, at the end of the sentence to which it refers, comp. i. 9, Ephes. i. 8. The connexion here adopted is also favoured by the parallel passage Ephes. v. 18, 19 (see the note below). Another passage i. 28 νουθετοῦντες πάντα ἄνθρωπον καὶ διδάσκοντες πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ has a double bearing: while the connexion favours our taking ἐν πάσῃ copia here with the following words,
διδάσκοντες καὶ
νουθετοῦντες
the order suggests their being at- tached to the preceding clause.
διδάσκοντες κιτ.λ.}] The participles are here used for imperatives, as fre- quently in hortatory passages, e.g. Rom, xii. 9 sq., 16 sq., Ephes. iv. 2, 3, Hebr. xiii. 5, 1 Pet. ii. 12[?], 111. 1,7, 95 15,16. It is not, as some insist, that the participle itself has any imperati- val force; nor,as maintained by others, that the construction should be ex- plained by the hypothesis of a prece- ding parenthesis or of a verb sub- stantive understood or by any other expedient to obtain a regular gram- matical structure (see Winer, ὃ xlv. p. 441 sq., ὃ lxii. p. 707, § lxiii. p. 716, § lxiv. p. 732). But the absolute par- ticiple, being (so far as regards mood) neutral in itself, takes its colour from the general complexion of the sen- tence. Thus it is sometimes indica- tive (e.g. 2 Cor. vii. 5, and frequently), sometimes imperative (as in the pas- sages quoted), sometimes optative (as above, ii. 2, 2 Cor. ix. 11, comp. Ephes. iii. 17). On the distinction of διδά- σκειν and νουθετεῖν see the note oni. 28 ; they describe respectively the posi- tive and the negative side of instruc- tion. On the reciprocal ἑαυτούς see the note on 11]. 13.
ψαλμοῖς κιτ.λ.] To be connected with the preceding sentence, as suggested by Ephes. v. 18 sq. ἀλλὰ πληροῦσθε ἐν πνεύματι, λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς [ἐν] Ψαλ- pois καὶ ὕμνοις καὶ dais [πνευματικαῖς], ἄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ. The datives describe the instruments of the διδαχή and vov- θεσία.
The three words ψαλμός, ὕμνος, ody, are distinguished, so far as they are distinguishable, in Trench V.7. Syn. § Ixxviii. p. 279 sq. They are cor- rectly defined by Gregory Nyssen in Psalm. ο. iii (1. p. 295) Ψαλμὸς μέν ἐστιν ἡ διὰ τοῦ ὀργάνου τοῦ μουσικοῦ
ἡ
III. 16]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
223
ε \ -~ ad 9 ~ ~ > ~ ἑαυτοὺς ψαλμοῖς ὕμνοις ὠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς ἐν τῆ
μελωδία, Bd δὲ ἡ διὰ στόματος γενο- μένη τοῦ μέλους μετὰ ῥημάτων ἐπιφώ- νησις..«ὕμνος δὲ ἡ ἐπὶ τοῖς ὑπάρχουσιν ἡμῖν ἀγαθοῖς ἀνατιθεμένη τῷ Θεῷ εὐφη- pia; see also Hippol. p. 191 sq. (ed. de Lagarde). In other words, while the leading idea of ψαλμός is a musi- cal accompaniment and that of ὕμνος praise to God, #57 is the general word for a song, whether accompanied or unaccompanied, whether of praise or on any other subject. Thus it was quite possible for the same song to be at once Wadpos, ὕμνος, and δή. In the text the reference in ψαλμοῖς, we may suppose, is specially, though not exclusively (1 Cor. xiv. 26), to the Psalms of David, which would early form part of the religious wor- ship of the Christian brotherhood. On the other hand ὕμνοις would more appropriately designate those hymns of praise which were composed by the Christians themselves on distinctly Christian themes, being either set forms of words or spontaneous effu- sions of the moment. The third word @dais gathers up the other two, and extends the precept to all forms of song, with the limitation however that they must be πνευματικαί. St Chry- sostom treats ὕμνοι here as an advance upon Ψαλμοί, which in one aspect they are; οἱ ψαλμοί, he says, πάντα ἔχουσιν, οἱ δὲ ὕμνοι πάλιν οὐδὲν ἀνθρώπινον" ὅταν ἐν τοῖς ψαλμοῖς μάθη, τότε καὶ ὕμ- νους εἴσεται, ἅτε θειότερον πρᾶγμα. Psalmody and hymnody were highly developed in the religious services of the Jews at this time: see Philo in Flace. 14 (1. p. 535) πάννυχοι δὲ δια- τελέσαντες ἐν ὕμνοις καὶ @dais, de Vit. Cont. § 3 (τι. p. 476) ποιοῦσιν ᾷσματα καὶ ὕμνους εἰς Θεὸν διὰ παντοίων μέτρων καὶ μελῶν, ἃ ῥυθμοῖς σεμνοτέροις ἀναγ- καίως χαράττουσι, § 10 (p. 484) ὁ ἀνα- στὰς ὕμνον ἄδει πεποιημένον εἰς τὸν Θεόν, ἢ καινὸν αὐτὸς πεποιηκὼς ἢ ἀρ- χαῖόν τινα τῶν πάλαι ποιητῶν" μέτρα γὰρ καὶ μέλη καταλελοίπασι πολλὰ ἐπῶν
τριμέτρων, προσοδίων, ὕμνων, παρα- σπονδείων, παραβωμίων, στασίμων, χο- ρικῶν, στροφαῖς πολυστρόφοις εὖ διαμε- μετρημένων κιτιλ., § ττ (p. 485) ἄδουσι πεποιημένους εἰς τὸν Θεὸν ὕμνους TOA- λοῖς μέτροις καὶ μέλεσι x.t.A., With the whole context. They would thus find their way into the Christian Church from the very beginning. For instances of singing hymns or psalins in the Apostolic age see Acts ἵν. 245 xvi 25,1 Cor. SIV. bse 20, Hence even in St Paul’s epistles, more especially his later epistles, fragments of such hymns appear to be quoted; e.g. Ephes. v. 14 (see the note there). For the use of hymnody in the early Church of the succeeding generations see Plin. Epist. x. 97 ‘Ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem, Anon. { Hippolytus] in Euseb. H. Δ. v. 28 ψαλμοὶ δὲ ὅσοι καὶ ὠδαὶ ἀδελφῶν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ὑπὸ πι- στῶν γραφεῖσαι τὸν Λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν Χριστὸν ὑμνοῦσι θεολογοῦντες. The reference in the text is not solely or chiefly to public worship as such. Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 4 (p. 194) treats it as applying to social gatherings; and again Tertullian says of the agape, Apol. 39 ‘Ut quisque de scripturis sanctis vel de proprio ingenio potest, provocatur in medium Deo canere,’ and of the society of husband and wife, Ad Uzor. ii. 8 ‘Sonant inter duos psalmi et hymni, et mutuo pro- yocant quis melius Domino suo cantet.’ On the psalmody ete. of the early Christians see Bingham Antig. xiv. c. 1, and especially Probst Lehre und Gebet p. 256 sq.
ἐν τῇ χάριτι] ‘in God’s grace’; comp. 2 Cor. i. 12 οὐκ ἐν σοφίᾳ σαρ- κικῇ GAN ἐν yxapite Θεοῦ. These words are perhaps best connected with the preceding clause, as by Chryso- stom. Thus the parallelism with ev πάσῃ σοφίᾳ is preserved. The cor- rect reading is ἐν τῇ χάριτι, not ev χάριτι. For ἡ χάρις, ‘Divine grace’
EPISTLE
224
TO THE COLOSSIANS.
(ILL. 17, 18
, / , ~ a/ e ΄σ ΄σ ~ 17 \ χάριτι, ἄδοντες CV STs KAPOLlals υμῶὼν TW Θεῴ: Kat
΄σ ε aN ΄σ / \ 7 / πᾶν ὅ TL ἐὰν ποιῆτε ἐν λόγῳ ἢ ἐν ἔργῳ, πάντα ἐν
> 7 r / > ~ > ~ ~ ~ \ ὀνόματι Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ, εὐχαριστοῦντες TH Θεῷ πατρί
OL αὐτοῦ.
18 ΄ σ΄. ε 7 0 ~ > Δ / c » es Αἱ γυναῖκες, ὑποτασσεσθε τοῖς ανὸράσιν, ὡς ανῆ-
see Phil. i. 7 συνκοινωνούς μου τῆς χάριτος with the note. ‘The definite article seems to exclude all lower senses of χάρις here, such as ‘accept- ableness, ‘sweetness’ (see iv. 6). The interpretation ‘with gratitude, if otherwise tenable (comp. 1 Cor. x. 30), seems inappropriate here, because the idea of thanksgiving is introduced in the following verse.
ἄδοντες «.7.A.] This external mani- festation must be accompanied by the inward emotion. There must be the thanksgiving of the heart, as well as of the lips; comp. Ephes. v. 19 ἄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες τῇ καρδίᾳ (probably the correct reading), where τῇ καρδίᾳ ‘with the heart’ brings out the sense more distinctly.
17. πᾶν 6 τι κιτιλ.] This is proba- bly a nominative absclute, as Mati. x. 32 πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ὁμολογήσει... ὁμο- λογήσω κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ (comp. Luke xii. 8), Luke xii. 10 πᾶς ὃς ἐρεῖ λόγον «««ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ, John xvii. 2 πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῷ, δώσῃ αὐτοῖς κααλ.; comp. Matt. vii. 24 (v. 1.).
πάντα] SC. ποιεῖτε, as the following εὐχαριστοῦντες Suggests; comp. ver. 3:
ἐν ὀνόματι κιτ.λ.] This is the great practical lesson which flows from the theological teaching of the epistle, Hence the reiteration of Κυρίῳ, ἐν Κυρίῳ, etc., VV. 18, 20, 22, 23, 24. See above, p. 102.
εὐχαριστοῦντες] On this refrain see the notes on i. 12, ii. 7.
τῷ Θεῷ πατρί] This, which is quite the best authenticated reading, gives a very unusual, if not unique, colloca- tion of words, the usual form being either ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατήρ ΟΥ̓ Θεὸς πατήρ. The καί before πατρί in the received
LS)
text is an obvious emendation. See the note on i. 3, and the appendix on various readings.
18—21. ‘Ye wives, be subject to your husbands, for so it becomes you in Christ. Ye husbands, love and cherish your wives, and use no harsh- ness towards them. Ye children, be obedient to your parents in all things; for this is commendable and lovely in Christ. Ye parents, vex not your children, lest they lose heart and grow sullen!
18 sq. These precepts, providing for the conduct of Christians in private households, should be compared with Ephes. v. 22—vi. 9, 1 Pet. ii. 18 —iii. 7, Tit. ii. I sq.; see also Clem. Rom. 1, Polye. Phil. 4 sq.
Αἱ γυναῖκες] ‘ Ye wives, the nomina- tive with the definite article being used for a yocative, as frequently in the New Testament, e.g. Matt. xi. 26, Mark y. 41, Luke viii. 54; see Winer § xxix. p. 227sq. The frequency of this use is doubtless due to the fact that it is a reproduction of the He- brew idiom. In the instances quoted from classical writers (see Bernhardy Syntax p. 67) the address is not so directly vocative, the nominative being used rather to define or select than to swmmon the person in ques- tion.
τοῖς ἀνδράσιν] The ἰδίοις of the received text may have been inserted (as it is inserted also in Ephes, v. 24) from Ephes. v. 22, Tit. ii. 5, 1 Pet. iii. I, 5, in all which passages this same injunction occurs. The scribes how- ever show a general fondness for this adjective; e.g. Mark xv. 20, Luke ii. 3, Acts i. 19, Ephes. iv. 28, 1 Thess. 11: ΤΡ αν ΤΠ
ω
III. 19—22]
κεν ἐν Κυρίῳ. é
A 3 / μὴ πικραίνεσθε πρὸς αὐτας.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 225
19 Oi / ὃ ΕΣ ΄σ ae \ - \ t ay PES, AYaATATE TAS YUVALKAS Και
\ J / 2°°Ta τέκνα. UTAKOVETE 3
= ΄σ \ / ΄σ \ / / τοῖς γονεῦσιν κατὰ πάντα τοῦτο Yap εὐάρεστον ἐστιν
ἐν Κυρίῳ. 4 \ 3 as ἵνα μὴ ἀθυμώσιν.
ἀνῆκεν] The imperfect, as Ephes. v. 4 ἃ οὐκ ἀνῆκεν (the correct reading) ; comp. Clem. Hom. Contest. 3 τοῦδε μὴ μεταδοῦναι χάριν, ὡς οὐ προσῆκεν, Xen. de Re Equestr. xii. 14 ἃ ἱππάρχῳ προσῆκεν εἰδέναι Te καὶ πράττειν ; and see D’Orville on Charito viii. 2 (p. 699 sq.). The common uses of the imper- fect ἔδει, ἔπρεπεν, etc., in classical wri- ters do not present a very exact parallel; for they imply that the thing which ought to have been done has been left undone. And so we might interpret Acts xxii. 22 οὐ yap καθῆ- κεν αὐτὸν ζῆν (the correct reading). Here however there can hardly be any such reference; and the best illustration is the English past tense ‘ought’ (=‘ owed’), which is used in the same way. The past tense per- haps implies an essential a priori obligation. The use of χρῆν, ἔχρην, occasionally approximates to this; e.g. Eur. Andr. 423.
The idea of ‘ propriety’ is the link which connects the primary meaning of such words as ἀνήκειν, προσήκειν, καθήκειν, ‘aiming at or pertaining to,’ with their ultimate meaning of moral obligation. The word ἀνήκειν occurs in the New Testament only here and in the contemporary epistles, Ephes. y. 4, Philem. 8.
ev Κυρίῳ] Probably to be connected with ὡς ἀνῆκεν, rather than with ὑπο- τάσσεσθε; comp. ver. 20 εὐάρεστόν ἐστιν ev Κυρίῳ.
19. μὴ πικραίνεσθε κιτιλ. ‘show no bitterness, behave not harshly’; comp. Lynceus in Athen. vi. p. 242 © πικραν- θείη πρός τινα τῶν συζώντων, Joseph. Ant. v. 7.1 δεινῶς πρὸς τοὺς τοῦ δι- καίου προϊσταμένους ἐκπικραινόμενος,
Plut. Mor. p. 457 ἃ πρὸς γύναια δια-
β COL,
ε / \ 7 \ / a Οἱ πατέρες, μὴ ἐρεθίζετε Ta τέκνα ὑμών, 2 ε = ε ΄ / *2Qi δοῦλοι, ὑπακούετε κατὰ πάντα
πικραίνονται. So also πικραίνεσθαι ἐπί τινα in the Lxx, Jerem. xliv (xxxvili). 15, 3 Esdr. iv. 31. This verb πικραί- veo$a and its compounds occur fre- quently in classical writers.
20. κατὰ πάντα] As in ver.22. The rule is stated absolutely, because the exceptions are so few that they may be disregarded.
εὐάρεστόν ἐστιν] ‘is well pleasing, commendable” The received text supplies this adjective with a dative of reference τῷ Κυρίῳ (from Ephes. Υ. 10), but ἐν Κυρίῳ is unquestionably the right reading. With the reading thus corrected εὐάρεστον, like ἀνῆκεν ver. 18, must be taken absolutely, as perhaps in Rom. xii. 2 τὸ θέλημα Tov Θεοῦ τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ εὐάρεστον καὶ τέλειον : comp. Phil. iv. ὃ ὅσα σεμνά ...o7a προσφιλῆ. The qualification ev Κυρίῳ implies ‘as judged by a Christian standard” ‘as judged by those who are members of Christ’s body.’
21. ἐρεθίζετε] ‘provoke, irritate’ The other reading παροργίζετε has higher support, but is doubtless taken from the parallel passage, Ephes. vi. 4. ‘Irritation’ is the first consequence of being too exacting with children, and irritation leads to moroseness (d6v- pia) In 2 Cor. ix. 2 ἐρεθίζειν is used in a good sense and produces the opposite result, not despondency but energy.
ἀθυμῶσιν) ‘lose heart, become spi- ritless, i.e. ‘go about their task in a listless, moody, sullen frame of mind.’ ‘fractus animus, says Ben- gel, ‘ pestis juventutis. In Xen. Cyr. i. 6. 13 ἀθυμία is opposed to προθυμία, and in Thue. ii. 88 and elsewhere ἀθυμεῖν is opposed to θαρσεῖν.
~
15
226
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
[111,25
τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα κυρίοις, μὴ ἐν ὀφθαλμοδουλείᾳ ws > > > ε / , ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἁπλότητι καρδίας, φοβούμενοι
τὸν Κύριον.
23 ἊΝ ΄σ > Ι τ > / 0 ε O ἘΜ TOLNTE, EK wuxns epya εσῦε WS
22. ἐν ὀφθαλμοδουλείαις.
22—iv. 1. ‘Ye slaves, be obedient in all things to the masters set over you in the flesh, not rendering them service only when their eyes are upon you, as aiming merely to please men, but serving in all sincerity of heart, as living in the sight of your Heavenly Master and standing in awe of Him. And in everything that ye do, work faithfully and with all your soul, as labouring not for men, but for the great Lord and Master Himself; know- ing that ye have a Master, from whom ye will receive the glorious inheritance as your recompense, whether or not ye may be defrauded of your due by men. Yes, Christ is your Master and ye are his slaves. He that does a wrong shall be requited for his wrong- doing. I say not this of slaves only, but of masters also. There is no par- tiality, no respect of persons, in God’s distribution of rewards and punish- ments. Therefore, ye masters, do ye also on your part deal justly and equi- tably by your slaves, knowing that ye too have a Master in heaven.’
22. Οἱ δοῦλοι] The relations of masters and slaves, both here and in the companion epistle (Ephes. vi. 5—9), are treated at greater length than is usual with St Paul. Here especially the expansion of this topic, compared with the brief space assign- ed to the duties of wives and husbands (vv. 18, 19), or of children and parents (vv. 20, 21), deserves to be noticed. The fact is explained by a contempo- rary incident in the Apostle’s private life. His intercourse with Onesimus had turned his thoughts in this di- rection. See above, p.33, and the in- troduction to the Epistle to Philemon: comp. also the note on ver. 11.
ὀφθαλμοδουλείᾳ]ἠ ‘ eye-service, as Ephes. vi. 6: comp. Apost. Const. iv.
12 μὴ ὡς ὀφθαλμόδουλος ἀλλ᾽ ὡς φι- λοδέσποτος. ‘This happy expression would seem to be the Apostle’s own coinage. At least there are no traces of it earlier. Compare ἐθελοθρησκεία ii. 23. The reading ὀφθαλμοδουλείᾳ is better supported than ὀφθαλμοδου- λείαις, though the plural is rendered slightly more probable in itself by its greater difficulty.
ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι] Again in Ephes. vi. 6. It is a ἸΙΧχ word, Ps. lii. 6, where the Greek entirely departs from the Hebrew: comp. also ἀνθρωπαρεσκεῖν Ign. Rom. 2, ἀνθρωπαρέσκεια Justin Apol.i. 2 (p. 53 E). So ὀχλοαρέσκης or ὀχλοάρεσκος, Timo Phlias. in Diog. Laert. iv. 42 (vv. IL).
ἁπλότητι καρδίας] As in Ephes. vi. 5, 1. 6. ‘with undivided service’; a Lxx expression, I Chron. xxix. 17, Wisd. i. 1.
tov Κύριον] ‘the one Lord and Master, as contrasted with τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα κυρίοις: the idea being carried out in the following verses. The re- ceived text, by substituting τὸν Θεόν, blunts the edge of the contrast.
23. ἐργάζεσθε) 1.6. ‘do it dili- gently,’ an advance upon ποιῆτε.
οὐκ ἀνθρώποις) For the use of οὐ rather than μὴ in antitheses, see Wi- ner § ly. p. 601 sq. The negative here is wholly unconnected with the imperative, and refers solely to τῷ Κυρίῳ.
24. ἀπὸ Κυρίου] ‘ However you may be treated by your earthly masters, you have still @ Master who will re- compense you.’ The absence of the definite article here (comp. iv. 1) is the more remarkable, because it is studiously inserted in the context, vy. 22—24, τὸν Κύριον, τῷ Κυρίῳ, τῷ Κυ- pio. In the parallel passage Ephes. vi. 8 it is παρὰ Κυρίου: for the differ- ence between the two see Gal. i. 12.
ἘΠῚ 24, 25]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
227
΄σ > \ τῷ Κυρίῳ, καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις, **eid0Tes ὅτι ἀπὸ Κυρίου ἐ > / \ > / ΄σ 7 A ~ ἀπολήμψεσθε τὴν ἀνταπόδοσιν τῆς κληρονομίας τῷ ΄- [4 [2 > ΄σ ε Κυρίῳ Χριστῷ δουλεύετε. “ὁ yap ἀδικῶν κομίσεται ὃ
τὴν ἀνταπόδοσιν] ‘the just recom- pense, a common word both in the Lxx and in classical writers, though not occurring elsewhere in the New Testament; comp. ἀνταπόδομα Luke xiv. 12, Rom. xi. 9. The double com- pound involves the idea of ‘ exact re- quital.’
τῆς κληρονομίας] ‘which consists in the inheritance, the genitive of appo- sition: see the note on τὴν μερίδα τοῦ κλήρου, i. 12. There is a paradox in- volved in this word: elsewhere the δοῦλος and the κληρονόμος are con- trasted (Matt. xxi. 35—38, etc., Rom. Vili. 15—17, Gal. iv. 1, 7), but here the δοῦλος is the κληρονόμος. This he is because, though δοῦλος ἀνθρώπων, he is ἀπελεύθερος Κυρίου (1 Cor. vii. 22) and thus κληρονόμος διὰ Θεοῦ (Gal. iv. 7); comp. Hermas Sim. Vv. 2 ἵνα συγ- κληρονόμος γένηται ὁ δοῦλος τῷ υἱῷ (with the context).
τῷ Κυρίῳ κ-τ.λ.} 1. 6. ‘ you serve as your master the great Master Christ,’ This clause is added to explain how is meant by the preceding ἀπὸ Κυρίου. For this application of Κύριος com- pare (besides the parallel passage, Ephes. vi. 6—9) 1 Cor. vii. 22 ὁ yap ev Κυρίῳ κληθεὶς δοῦλος ἀπελεύθερος Κυρίου ἐστίν κιτιλ. It seems best to take δουλεύετε here as an indicative, rather than as an imperative; for (1) The indicative is wanted to explain the previous ἀπὸ Κυρίου; (2) The im- perative would seem to require ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ, as in Ephes. vi. 7 (the correct text). On the other hand see Rom. xii. II.
25. ὁ yap ἀδικῶν κιτ.λ.}] Who is this unrighteous person? The slave who defrauds his master of his ser- vice, or the master who defrauds his slave of his reward? Some interpret- ers confine it exclusively to the for- mer; others to the latter. It seems
best to suppose that both are included. The connexion of the sentence 6 yap ἀδικῶν (where yap, not δέ, is certainly the right reading) points to the slave. On the other hand the expression which follows, τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὴν ἰσό- τητα κιτιὰλ., Suggests the master. Thus there seems to be a twofold reference; the warning is suggested by the caso of the slave, but it is extended to the case of the master; and this accords with the parallel passage, Ephes. yi. ὃ ἕκαστος ὃ ἂν ποιήσῃ ἀγαθὸν τοῦτο κομί- σεται παρὰ Κυρίου, εἴτε δοῦλος εἴτε ἐλεύθερος.
The recent fault of Onesimus would make the Apostle doubly anxious to emphasize the duties of the slave to- wards the master, lest in his love for the offender he should seem to con- done the offence. This same word ἠδίκησεν is used by St Paul to describe the crime of Onesimus in Philem. 18. But on the other hand it is the Apo- stle’s business to show that justice has a double edge. There must be a reciprocity between the master and theslave. The philosophers of Greece taught, and the laws of Rome assumed, that the slave was a chattel. Buta chattel could have norights, It would be absurd to talk of treating a chattel with justice. St Paul places the rela- tions of the master and the slave in a wholly different light. Justice and equity are the expression of the Di- vine mind: and with God there is no προσωπολημψία. With Him the claims of the slave are as real as the claims of the master.
κομίσεται] For this sense of the middle, ‘to recover, ‘to get back,’ and so (with an accusative of the thing to be recompensed), ‘to be requited for’, see e.g. Lev. Xx. 17 ἁμαρτίαν κομι- ovvrat, 2 Cor. v. 10 κομίσηται ἕκαστος τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος ; comp. Barnab,
15--2
228
a7 \ , oS / ἠδίκησεν, καὶ οὐκ ἐστιν προσωπολημψιία.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
(IV. 1
IV. "Gy
te \ / \ αὐ 3 / ~ / / κύριοι, TO δίκαιον καὶ τὴν ἰσότητα τοῖς δούλοις παρε-
a7 > , c ε ~ oS > a χεσθε, εἰδότες OTL καὶ ὑμεῖς ἔχετε Κύριον ἐν οὐρανῷ.
§ 4 ὁ Κύριος ἀπροσωπολήμπτως κρινεῖ τὸν κόσμον ἕκαστος, καθὼς ἐποίησεν, κομιεῖται. In the parallel passage Ephes. vi. 8, the form is certainly κο- μίσεται : here it is more doubtful, the authorities being more equally divided between κομιεῖται and κομίσεται. See however the note on γνωρίσουσιν iv. 9.
προσωπολημψία)] On this word see the note Gal. ii. 6. This προσωπολημ- wWia, though generally found on the side cf rank and power, may also be exercised in favour of the opposite ; Levy. xix. 15 ov λήψη πρόσωπον πτω- χοῦ οὐδὲ μὴ θαυμάσῃς πρόσωπον δυνά- στου. There would be ἃ tendency in the mind of the slave to assume that, because the προσωπολημψία of man was on the side of the master, there must be a corresponding προσωπο- λημψία of God on the side of the slave. This assumption is corrected by St Paul.
IV. τ. τὴν ἰσότητα] “ equity, ‘fair- ness’; comp. Plut. Sod. οἱ Popl. Comp. 3 νόμων ἰσότητα παρεχόντων. Somewhat similarly Lysias Or. Fun. 77 (speak- ing of death) οὔτε yap τοὺς πονηροὺς ὑπερορᾷ οὔτε τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς θαυμάζει, ἀλλ᾽ ἴσον ἑαυτὸν παρέχει πᾶσιν. It seems a mistake to suppose that ἰσότης here has anything to do with the treatment of slaves as equals (comp. Philem. 16). When connected with τὸ δίκαιον, the word naturally sug- gests an even-handed, impartial treat- ment, and is equivalent to the Latin aequitas: comp. Arist. Top. vi. 5 (p- 143) ὁ τὴν δικαιοσύνην (λέγων) ἕξιν ἰσό- τητος ποιητικὴν ἢ διανεμητικὴν τοῦ ἴσου, Philo de Creat. Princ. 14 (11. p. 373) ἔστι yap ἰσότης...μήτηρ δικαιοσύνης, Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 6 (p. 764) μετὰ δικαιοσύνης καὶ ἰσότητος τῆς πρὸς τοὺς ἐπιστρέφοντας. Thus in Arist. Zth. Nic. v. τ τὸ δίκαιον and τὸ ἴσον are regarded as synonymes, and in Plut.
Mor. p. 719 the relation of ἰσότης to δικαιότης is discussed. The word here is used in the same sense in which the adjective occurs in the common ex- pressions ἴσος δικαστής, ἴσος ἀκροατής, etc. Philo, describing the Hssene condemnation of slavery, says, Omn. prob. lib. 12 (π. p. 457) καταγινώσκουσί τε τῶν δεσποτῶν, ov μόνον ὡς ἀδίκων, ἰσότητα λυμαινομένων, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὡς ἀσε- βῶν κιτιλ., but he possibly does mean ‘equality’ rather than ‘ equity.’ παρέχεσθε] ‘exhibit on your part. The middle παρέχεσθαι, ‘to afford from oneself, will take different shades of meaning according to the context, as ‘to furnish one’s quota’ (e.g. Herod. viii. 1,2) or ‘to put forward one’s re- presentative’ (esp. of witnesses, e.g. Plato Apol. 19 D). Here the idea is ‘reciprocation, the master’s duty as corresponding to the slave’s.
ἔχετε Κύριον) As Ephes. vi. 9; comp. 1 Cor. vii. 22 ὁ ἐλεύθερος κληθεὶς Sov- λός ἐστιν Χριστοῦ.
2—6. ‘Be earnest and unceasing in prayer; keep your hearts and minds awake while praying: remember also (as I have so often told you) that thanksgiving is the goal and crown of prayer. Meanwhile in your petitions forget notus—myself Paul—my fellow- labourer Timothy —- your evangelist Epaphras — all the teachers of the Gospel ; but pray that God may open a door for the preaching of the word, to the end that we may proclaim the free offer of grace to the Gentiles— that great mystery of Christ for which I am now a prisoner in bonds. So shall I declare it fearlessly, as I am bound to proclaim it. Walk wisely and discreetly in all your dealings with unbelievers; allow no opportunity to slip through your hands, but buy up every passing moment. Let your lan- guage be always pervaded with grace
IV. 2—4]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
229
"ΤΊ προσευχῆ προσκαρτερεῖτε, γρηγοροῦντες ἐν αὐτῆ ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ: "προσευχόμενοι ἅμα καὶ περὲ ἡμῶν, ἵνα ὁ Θεὸς ἀνοίξη ἡμῖν θύραν τοῦ λόγον, λαλῆσαι τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, δι ὃ καὶ δέδεμαι: 1 ἵνα φανε-
and seasoned with salt. So will you know how to give a fit answer to each man, as the occasion demands,’
2. mpooxaptepeire| ‘cling closely to’, ‘remain constant to’ (comp. Mark iii. 9, Acts viii. 13, x. 7), and so ‘con- tinue stedfast in’ This word occurs again with τῇ προσευχῇ, ταῖς mpocev- xais, Acts i. 14, ii. 42, vi. 4, Rom. xii. 12. The construction is with a simple dative both in the New Testament (ll. ec.) and in classical writers, except where it stands absolutely (Acts ii. 46, Rom. xiii. 6). The injunction here corresponds to the ἀδιαλείπτως προσ- εύχεσθε of 1 Thess. v. 17.
γρηγοροῦντες) Long continuance in prayer is apt to produce listlessness. Hence the additional charge that the heart must be awake, if the prayer is to have any value. The word is not to be taken literally here, but meta- phorically. In Matt. xxvi. 41 etc., ypy- yopeire καὶ προσεύχεσθε, the ideais not quite the same.
ev εὐχαριστίᾳ] As the crown of all prayer; see the notes on i. 12, ii. 7.
3. ἡμῶν) ‘us, ‘the Apostles and preachers of the Gospel,’ with refer- ence more especially to Timothy (i. 1) and Epaphras (iv. 12, 13). Where the Apostle speaks of himself alone, he uses the singular (ver. 3, 4 δέδεμαι, φανερώσω). Indeed there is no rea- son to think that St Paul ever uses an ‘epistolary’ plural, referring to himself solely: see on 1 Thess. iii. 1.
iva κιτιλ.1] On the sense of iva after προσεύχεσθαι etc., see the note on i. 9.
θύραν τοῦ λόγου] ‘a door of admis- sion for the word, i.e. ‘an oppor- tunity of preaching the Gospel,’ as I Cor. xvi. 9 θύρα γάρ po ἀνέῳγεν μεγάλη καὶ ἐνεργής, 2 Cor. ii, 12 θύρας μοι ἀνεῳγμένης ἐν Κυρίῳ : comp.
Plut. Mor. p. 674 ν ὥσπερ πύλης ἀν- οιἰχθείσης, οὐκ ἀντέσχον. ..συνεισιοῦσι παντοδαποῖς ἀκροάμασιν. Similarly εἴσο- δος is used in 1 Thess. 1. 9, 11. 1. The converse application of the metaphor appears in Acts Xiv. 27 ἤνοιξεν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν θύραν πίστεως, Where the door is opened not to the teachers, but to the recipients of the Gospel. Accord- ing to another interpretation (suggest- ed by Ephes. vi. 19 iva μοι δοθῇ λόγος ἐν ἀνοίξει τοῦ στόματός pov) it is ex- plained ‘the door of our speech, 1. 6. ‘our mouth’: comp. Ps. exli (cxl). 3, Mic. vii. 5, Ecclus. xxviii.25. But the parallel passages do not favour this sense, nor will the words themselves admit it. In that case for ἡμῖν θύραν τοῦ λόγου we should require τὴν θύραν τῶν λύγων [ἡμῶν]. ‘The word’ here is ‘the Gospel,’ as frequently.
λαλῆσαι) ‘so as to speak, the in- finitive of the consequence, like εἰδέναι ver. 6; see Winer ὃ xliv. p. 400.
τὸ μυστήριον κ.τ.λ.] 1. 6. the doctrine of the free admission of the Gentiles. For the leading idea which St Paul in these epistles attaches to ‘the mys- tery’ of the Gospel, see the note on i. 26.
é¢ 6] St Paul might have been still at large, if he had been content to preach a Judaic Gospel. It was be- cause he contended for Gentile liberty, and thus offended Jewish prejudices, that he found himself a prisoner. See Acts xxi. 28, xxii 21, 22, xxiv. 5, 6, xxv. 6, 8. The other reading, δι’ ὅν, destroys the point of the sentence.
καὶ δέδεμαι] 2 Tim. ii. 9 μέχρι δεσ- μῶν, Philem. 9 νυνὶ δὲ καὶ δέσμιος.
4. ἵνα φανερώσω κιτ.λ.] This is best taken as dependent on the pre- vious clause iva ὁ Θεὸς...τοῦ Χριστοῦ. For instances of a double ἵνα, where
230
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
{IV. 5,6
» ΄ ~ ~ > , τς ρώσω αὐτό, ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι. 55ἐν σοφίᾳ περιπατεῖτε
A) \ ‘ πρὸς ποὺς ἔξω, τον καιρον
the second is not coordinated with, but subordinated to, the first, see the note on Gal. iii. 14. The immediate purport of the Colossians’ prayers must be that the Apostle should have all opportunities of preaching the Gospel: the ulterior object, that he should use these opportunities boldly.
5. ἐν σοφίᾳ] Matt. x. 16 γίνεσθε οὖν φρόνιμοι ὡς οἱ ὄφεις.
τοὺς ἔξω] ‘those without the pale’ of the Church, the unbelievers; as in 1 Cor. Y. 12, 13, 1 Thess. iv. 12. ‘Soci ἔξωθεν, τ Tim. iii. 7. The believers on the other hand are οἱ ἔσω, 1 Cor. vy. 12. This mode of speaking was derived from the Jews, who called the heathen DSN (Schéttgen on 1 Cor. L. c.), translated οἱ ἐκτός Ecclus. Prol. and oi ἔξωθεν Joseph. Ant. xv. 9. 2.
ἐξαγοραζόμενοι k.t.A.] ‘buying up the opportunity jor yourselves, let- ting no opportunity slip you, of saying and doing what may further the cause of God’: comp. Ephes. v. 16. The ex- pression occurs also in Dan. ii. 8 οἶδα ὅτι καιρὸν ὑμεῖς ἐξαγοράζετε, i.e. ‘are eager to gain time’? Somewhat simi- lar are the phrases τὸν χρόνον κερδαί- νειν, TO παρὸν κερδαίνειν. So too Seneca Ep. i. 1 ‘Tempus...collige et serva.’ In much the same sense Ignatius says, Polyc. 3 τοὺς καιροὺς καταμάνθανε. For this sense of ἐξαγοράζω ‘coemo’ (closely allied in meaning to συναγοραζω), see Polyb. iii. 42. 2 ἐξηγόρασε παρ᾽ αὐτῶν τά τε μονόξυλα πλοῖα πάντα K.T.dy Plut. Vit. Crass. 2. More commonly the word signifies ‘to redeem’ (see the note on Gal. iii. 13), and some would assign this sense to it here; but no ap- propriate meaning is thus obtained. In Mart. Polyc. 2 διὰ μιᾶς ὥρας τὴν aid- νιον κόλασιν ἐξαγοραζόμενοι it means ‘buying off a sense in which ἐξωνεῖ- σθαι occurs several times. The reason for the injunction is added in Ephes. V. 16, ὅτι ai ἡμέραι πονηραί εἰσιν: the
ἐξαγοραζόμενοι: “ὁ λόγος
prevailing evil of the times makes the opportunities for good more precious,
6. ἐν χάριτι] ‘with grace, favour, ie. ‘acceptableness,’ ‘ pleasingness’; comp. Eccles. x. 12 λόγοι στόματος σοφοῦ χάρις, Ps. xliv (xlv). 3 ἐξεχύθη χάρις ἐν χείλεσί σου, Ecclus. xxi. 16 ἐπὶ χείλους συνετοῦ εὑρεθήσεται χάρις. In classical writers χάρις λόγων is a still more common connexion; e.g. Demosth, c. Phil. i. 38, Dionys. Hal. de Lys. §$ 10, 11, Plut. Vit. Mar. 44.
ἅλατι] Comp. Mark ix. 50 ἐὰν δὲ τὸ ἅλας ἄναλον γένηται, ἐν Tin αὐτὸ ἀρτύσετε; ἔχετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἅλα. The salt has a twofold purpose. (1) It gives a flavour to the discourse and recommends it to the palate: comp. Job vi. 6 εἰ βρωθήσεται ἄρτος ἄνευ ἁλός; εἰ δὲ καὶ ἔστι γεῦμα ἐν ῥήμασι κενοῖς; in which passage the first clause was rendered by Symmachus μήτι βρωθήσεται ἀνάρτυτον τῷ μὴ ἔχειν ἅλα; This is the primary idea of the metaphor here, as the word ἠρ- Tupevos seems to show. (2) It preserves from corruption and renders whole- some; Ign. Magn. 10 ἁλίσθητε ἐν αὐτῷ ἵνα μὴ διαφθαρῇ τις ἐν ὑμῖν, ἐπεὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀσμῆς ἐλεγχθήσεσθε. Hence the Pythagorean saying, Diog. Laert. viii. I. 35 of ἅλες πᾶν σώζουσιν 6 τι kal παραλάβωσι. It may be in- ferred that this secondary applica- tion of the metaphor was present to the Apostle’s mind here, because in the parallel epistle, Ephes. iv. 29, he Say8 πᾶς λόγος σαπρὸς ἐκ τοῦ στό- ματος ὑμῶν μὴ ἐκπορευέσθω κιτιλ. In the first application the opposite to ἅλατι ἠρτυμένος Would be μωρός ‘in- sipid’ (Luke xiv. 34); in the second, campos ‘corrupt.’
Heathen writers also insisted that discourse should be ‘seasoned with salt’; e.g. Cic. de Orat. i. 34 ‘ facetia- rum quidam lepos quo, tanquam sale, perspergatur omnis oratio” They
LY. 7]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 231
΄σ ’ 3 7 ε 9 , Ὁ) ς ΄σ ὑμών TAVTOTE ἐν χαριτι, ἅλατι ἠρτυμένος, εἰδέναι ὑμᾶς
~ me e ᾽ὔ > / πώς δεῖ Evi ἑκάστω ἀποκρίνεσθαι. γ) \ aS: \ ’ , Ca , 4 > Ta κατ᾽ ἐμὲ παντα γνωρίσει ὑμῖν Τύχικος ὁ ἀγα-
likewise dwelt on the connexion be- tween χάρις and dies; e.g. Plut. Mor. Pp. 514 F χάριν τινὰ παρασκευάζοντες ἀλλήλοις, ὥσπερ ἁλσὶ τοῖς λόγοις ἐφη- δύνουσι τὴν διατριβήν, p.697 D (comp. p. 685 A) of πολλοὶ χάριτας καλοῦσιν [τὸν ἅλα], ὅτι ἐπὶ τὰ πλεῖστα μιγνύμενος εὐάρμοστα τῇ γεύσει καὶ προσφιλῆ ποιεῖ καὶ κεχαρισμένα, p. 669 A ἡ δὲ τῶν ἁλῶν δύναμις... χάριν αὐτῷ καὶ ἡδονὴν προσ- τίθησι, Dion Chrys. Or. xviii. § 13. Their notion of ‘salt’ however was wit, and generally the kind of wit which degenerated into the evrpaze- Xia denounced by St Paul in Ephes. v. 4 (see the note there).
The form ἅλας is common in the Lxx and Greek Testament. Other- wise it is rare: see Buttmann Gramm. I. p. 220, and comp. Plut. Mor. 668 F.
εἰδέναι] ‘so as to know’; see the note on λαλῆσαι Ver. 3.
ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ) ‘Not only must your conversation be opportune as regards the time; it must also be appropriate as regards the person.’ The Apostle’s precept was enforced by his own ex- ample, for he made it a rule to be- come τοῖς πᾶσιν πάντα, ἵνα πάντως τι- vas σώσῃ (I Cor, ix. 22).
7—9. ‘You will learn everything about me from Tychicus, the beloved brother who has ministered to me and served with me faithfully in the Lord, This indeed was my purpose in sending him to you: that you might be informed how matters stand with me, and that he might cheer your hearts and strengthen your resolves by the tidings. Onesimus will accom- pany him—a faithful and beloved bro- ther, who is one of yourselves, a Co- lossian. These two will inform you of all that is going on here’
7. Ta κατ᾽ ἐμὲ πάντα] ‘all that relates to me’; see the note on Phil. i. 12, and comp. Bion in Diog.
Laert. iv. 47. So Acts xxv. 14 τὰ κατὰ τὸν Παῦλον.
γνωρίσει) On this word see the note Phil. i. 22.
Τύχικος] Tychicus was charged by St Paul at this same time with a more extended mission. He was entrusted with copies of the circular letter, which he was enjoined to deliver in the principal churches of proconsular Asia (see above, p. 37, and the intro- duction to the Epistle to the Ephe- sians). This mission would bring him to Laodicea, which was one of these great centres of Christianity (see p. 8); and, as Colossze was only a few miles distant, the Apostle would naturally engage him to pay a visit to the Co- lossians, At the same time the pre- sence of an authorised delegate of St Paul, as Tychicus was known to be, would serve to recommend Onesimus, who owing to his former conduct stood in every need of such a recom- mendation. The two names Τύχικος and ᾿Ονήσιμος occur in proximity in Phrygian inscriptions found at Alten- tash (Bennisoa?) Boeckh 3857r sq. appx.
Tychicus was a native of proconsu- lar Asia (Acts xx. 4) and perhaps of Ephesus (2 Tim. iv. 12: see Philippi- ans p. 11). He is found with St Paul at three different epochs in his life. (1) He accompanied him when on his way eastward at the close of the third missionary journey a.D. 58 (Acts xx. 4), and probably like Trophimus (Acts xxi. 29) went with him to Jeru- salem (for the words ἄχρι τῆς ᾿Ασίας must be struck out in Acts xx. 4). It is probable indeed that Tychicus, to- gether with others mentioned among St Paul’s numerous retinue on this occasion, was a delegate appointed by his own church according to the Apo- stle’s injunctions (1 Cor, xvi. 3, 4) to
232
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
[IV. 8
\ > \ \ \ / > πητὸς ἀδελφὸς Kal πιστὸς διάκονος καὶ σύνδουλος ἐν
κε 8. ἃ " \ Κυρίῳ ὃν ἔπεμψα πρὸς bear the contributions of his brethren to the poor Christians of Judeea; and if so, he may possibly be the person commended as the brother οὗ ὁ éra- vos ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ διὰ πασῶν τῶν ἐκ- κλησιῶν (2 Cor. vill. 18): but this will depend on the interpretation of the best supported reading in Acts xx. 5 οὗτοι δὲ προσελθόντες ἔμενον ἡμᾶς ἐν Τρωάδι. (2) We find Tychicus again in St Paul’s company at the time with which we are immediately concerned, when this epistle was written, proba- bly towards the end of the first Ro- man captivity, A.D. 62, 63 (see Philip- pians Ὁ. 31 sq.). (3) Once more, at the close of St Paul’s life (about A.D. 67), he appears again to have associated himself with the Apostle, when his name is mentioned in connexion with a mission to Crete (Tit. 111, 12) and another to Ephesus (2 Tim. iv. 12). For the legends respecting him, which are slight and insignificant, see Act. Sanct. Boll. April 29 (11. p. 619). Tychicus is not so common a name as some others which occur in the New Testament, e.g. Onesimus, Tro- phimus; but it is found occasionally in inscriptions belonging to Asia Mi- nor, e.g. Boeckh C. £. 2918, 3665, [3857 6], 3857 r, (comp. 3865 i, etc.); and persons bearing it are commemo- rated on the coins of both Magnesia ad Maeandrum (Mionnet IL. p. 153 sq., Suppl. vi. p. 236) and Magnesia ad Sipylum (ἐδ. Iv. p. 70). The name occurs also in Roman inscriptions; e.g. Muratori, pp. DCCCCXVII, MCcOxcIV, mMLY. Along with several other proper names similarly formed, this word is commonly accentuated Τυχικός (Chandler Greek Accentuation § 255), and so it stands in all the critical editions, though according to rulo (Winer § vi. p. 58) it should be Τύχικος. καὶ πιστὸς K.7.A.| The connexion of the words is not quite obvious. It seems best however to take ἐν Κυρίῳ
ὑμᾶς εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο, ἵνα as referring to the whole clause πιστὸς διάκονος καὶ σύνδουλος rather than to σύνδουλος alone: for (1) The two sub- stantives are thus bound together by the preceding πιστός and the following ev Κυρίῳ in a natural way: (2) The at- tachment of ἐν Κυρίῳ to πιστὸς διάκο- vos is suggested by the parallel pas- sage Ephes. vi. 21 Τύχικος ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς καὶ πιστὸς διάκονος ἐν Κυρίῳ. The question of connecting ἐν Κυρίῳ With ἀδελῴός as well need not be en- tertained, since the idea of ἀδελφός, ‘a Christian brother, is complete in itself: see the note on Phil.i.14. The adjective πιστός will here have its passive sense, ‘trustworthy, stedfast,’ a3 also in ver. 9: see Galatians p. 154 sq.
διάκονος] ‘minister, but to whom? To the churches, or to St Paul him- self? The following σύνδουλος sug- gests the latter as the prominent idea here. So in Acts xix. 22 Timothy and Erastus are described as δύο τῶν δια- κονούντων αὐτῷ. Tychicus himself also was one of several who ministered to St Paul about that same time (Acts xx. 4). It is not probable however, that διάκονος has here its strict official sense, ‘a deacon, as in Rom. xvi. 1, Phil ina, 0 Tim: igs, 2
σύνδουλος)] The word does not oc- cur elsewhere in St Paul, except in i. 7, where it is said of Epaphras. It is probably owing to the fact of St Paul’s applying the term in both these pas- sages to persons whom he Calls διάκο- vot, that σύνδουλος seems to have been adopted as a customary form of ad- dress in the early Church on the part of a bishop, when speaking of a deacon. In the Ignatian letters for instance, the term is never used except of dea- cons; Ephes. 2, Magn. 2, Philad. 4, Smyrn. 12. Where the martyr has occasion to speak of a bishop or a presbyter some other designation is used instead.
IV. 9]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 233
- \ ᾿ εὖ π \ , \ , ee γνῶτε Ta πέρι μων και παρακαλεσή Tas καρδίας UMW,
ϑσὺν ᾿Ονησί 9 ᾿ 17 LW Tw πιστω ἐστιν ἐξ ὑμών. πάντα ὑμῖν
8. ἔπεμψα) “SI send, or ‘I have sent, ἔπεμψα being the epistolary aorist; see the note on ἔγραψα, Gal. vi. 11. Tychicus appears to have ac- companied the letter itself. For simi- lar instances of the epistolary ἔπεμψα, ἐπέστειλα, etc., see 2 Cor. vill. 18, 22, ax 3, Ephes. vi. 22, Phil. ii. 25, 28, Philem. 11, Hebr. xiii. 22, Polye. Phil. 13.
γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν] This must be preferred to the received reading, γνῷ τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν, for two independent reasons. (1) The preponderance of aucient authority is decidedly in its favour. (2) The emphatic εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο iva seems imperatively to de- mand it. St Paul in the context twice states the object of Tychicus’ Visit to be that the Colossians might be informed about the Apostle’s own doings, ra κατ᾽ ἐμὲ πάντα γνωρίσει ὑμῖν (ver. 7), and πάντα ὑμῖν γνωρίσουσιν τὰ ὧδε. He could hardly therefore have described ‘the very purpose’ of his Mission in the same breath as some- thing quite different.
It is urged indeed, that this is a scribe’s alteration to bring the passage into accordance with Ephes. vi. 21. But against this it may fairly be ar- gued that, on any hypothesis as re- gards the authorship and relation of the two letters, this strange varia- tion from γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν to γνῷ τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν in the author himself is improbabie. On the other hand a transcriber was under a great temp- tation to substitute γνῷ for γνῶτε ow- ing to the following παρακαλέσῃ, and this temptation would become almost irresistible, if by any chance περὶ ὑμῶν had been written for περὶ ἡμῶν in the copy before him, as we find to be the case in some Mss. See the detached note on various readings.
παρακαλέσῃ k.t.A.] i.e. ‘encourage
\ 3 ~ 3 ΄σ / και Serie ἀδελφῷ, ὃς γνωρίσουσιν Ta woe.
you to persevere by his tidings and ex- hortations.’ The phrase occurs again, Ephes. vi. 22, 2 Thess, ii. 17: see above ii. 2. The prominent idea in all these passages is not comfort or consolation but perseverance in the right way.
9. σὺν ᾿᾽οΟνησίμῳ] See above, p. 33, and the introduction to the Epistle to Philemon.
τῷ πιστῷ k.t-A.] The man whom the Colossians had only known hitherto, if they knew him at all, as a worthless runaway slave, is thus commended to them as no more a slave but a brother, no more dishonest and faithless but trustworthy, no more an object of con- tempt but of love; comp. Philem. 11, 106.
γνωρίσουσιν] This form has rather better support from the mss than γνωριοῦσιν : see also above iii. 25. On the Attic future from verbs in -if in the Greek Testament generally see Winer § xiii. p. 88, A. Buttmann p. 32 sq. Is there any decisive instance of these Attic forms in St Paul, except in quotations from the Lxx (e.g. Rom. x. 19, XV. 12) 4
1o—14. ‘I send you greeting from Aristarchus who is ἃ fellow-prisoner with me; from Marcus, Barnabas’ cousin, concerning whom I have al- ready sent you directions, that you welcome him heartily, if he pays you a visit; and from Jesus, surnamed Justus; all three Hebrew converts. They alone of their fellow-countrymen have worked loyally with me in spread- ing the kingdom of God; and their stedfastness has indeed been a com- fort to me in the hour of trial. Greet- ing also from Epaphras, your fellow- townsman, a true servant of Christ, who is ever wrestling in his prayers on your behalf, that ye may stand firm in the faith, perfectly instructed and fully convinced in every will and pur-
234
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
ΠΥ. τὰ
το Ασπαΐεται vuas ᾿Δρίσταργος ὁ συναιγμαλωτος ρίσταρ; χμ
pose of God. I bear testimony to the earnestness with which he labours for you and the brethren of Laodicea and those of Hierapolis. Greeting also from Luke the physician, my very dear friend, and from Demas.’
10. The salutations to Philemon are sent from the same persons as to the Colossians, except that in the former case the name of Jesus Justus is omitted.
᾿Αρίσταρχος] the Thessalonian. He had started with St Paul on his voy- age from Jerusalem to Rome, but probably had parted from the Apostle at Myra (see Philippians p. 33 54.) If so, he must have rejoined him at Rome at a later date. On this Aristarchus see Philippians Ῥ. 10, and the introduction to the Epistles to the Thessalonians. He would be well known in proconsular Asia, which he had visited from time to time ; Acts xix. 29, xX. 4, XXVil. 2.
συναιχμάλωτός μου] In Philem. 23 this honourable title is withheld from Arisiarchus and given to Epaphras. In Rom. xvi. 7 St Paul’s kinsmen, Andronicus and Junias, are so called. On the possibility of its referring to a spiritual captivity or subjection see Philippians p. 11. In favour of this meaning it may be urged, that, though St Paul as a prisoner was truly a δέσ- puos, he was not strictly an αἰχμάλωτος ‘a prisoner of war’; nor could he have called himself so, except by a confu- sion of the actual and metaphorical. If on the other hand συναιχμάλωτος refers to a physical captivity, it cannot easily be explained by any known fact. The incident in Acts xix. 29 is hardly adequate. The most probable solu- tion would be, that his relations with St Paul in Rome excited suspicion and led to a temporary confinement. Another possible hypothesis is that he voluntarily shared the Apostle’s captivity by living with him.
Μάρκος] doubtless John Mark, who
had been associated with St Paul in his earlier missionary work; Acts xii. 25, xv. 37 sq. This commendatory notice is especially interesting as be- ing the first mention of him since the separation some twelve years before, Acts xv. 390. In the later years of the Apostle’s life he entirely effaced the unfavourable impression left by his earlier desertion ; 2 Tim.iv. 11 ἔστιν yap μοι εὔχρηστος eis διακονίαν.
This notice is likewise important in two other respects. (1) Mark appears here as commended to a church of proconsular Asia, and intending to visit those parts. Τὸ the churches of this same region he sends a salutation in 1 Pet. v. 13; and in this district apparently also he is found some few years later than the present time, 2 Tim. iv. 11. (2) Mark is now resid- ing at Rome. His connexion with the metropolis appears also from 1 Pet. v. 13, if Βαβυλών there (as seems most probable) be rightly interpreted of Rome; and early tradition speaks of his Gospel as having been written for the Romans (Iren. iii. L 1; comp. Papias in Euseb. H. £. iii. 39).
ὁ ἀνεψιός] ‘the cousin? The term ἀνεψιοί is applied to cousins german, the children whether of two brothers or of two sisters or of a brother and sister, as it is carefully defined in Pollux iii. 28. This writer adds that αὐτανέψιοι Means neither more nor less than ἀνεψιοί, AS a synonyme we find ἐξάδελφος, which however is condemned as a vulgarism; Phryn. p. 306 (ed. Lobeck). Many instances of ἀνεψιοί are found in different authors of various ages (e.g. Herod. vii. 5, 82, ix. 10, Thucyd. i. 132, Plato Charm. 1548, Gorg. 471 B, Andoc. de Myst. § 47, Isaeus Hagn. Her. ὃ 8 86; Demosth. c. Macart. ὃ 24, 27, 636.» Dion. Hal. A. BR. i. 79, Plut. Vit. Thes. 7, Vit. Caes. 1, Vit. Brut. 13, Lucian Dial. Mort. xxix. 1, Hegesipp. in Euseb. 27. E, iy. 22), where the rela-
IV. 10]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
235
pov, καὶ Μάρκος 6 ἀνεψιὸς Βαρνάβα, περὶ ov ἐλάβετε
tionship is directly defined or already known, and there is no wavering as to the meaning. This sense also it has in the uxx, Num. xxxvi. 11. In very late writers however (e.g. Io. Malalas Chron. xvii. p. 424, lo. Damase. adv. Const. Cab. 12, τι. p.621; but in Theodt, H. E. vy. 39, which is also quoted by E. A. Sophocles Gr. Lez. s. v. for this meaning, the text is doubtful) the word comes to be used for a nephew, properly ἀδελφιδοῦς; and to this later use the rendering of our English versions must be traced. The German translations also (Luther and the Ziirich) have ‘Nefie.” The earliest of the ancient versions (Latin, Syriac, Egyptian) seem all to translate it correctly ; not so in every case ap- parently the later. There is no reason to suppose that St Paul would or could have used it in any other than its proper sense. St Mark’s relation- ship with Barnabas may have been through his mother Mary, who is men- tioned Acts xii. 12. The incidental notice here explains why Barnabas should have taken a more favourable view of Mark’s defection than St Paul, Acts xv. 37—39. The notices in this passage and in 2 Tim. iv. 11 show that Mark had recovered the Apo- stle’s good opinion. The studious re- commendation of St Mark in both passages indicates a desire to efiace the unfavourable impression of the past.
The name of Mark occurs in five different relations, as (1) The early disciple, John Mark, Acts xii. 12, 25, xy. 39; (2) The later companion of St Paul, here and Philem. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 11; (3) The companion and ‘son’ of St Peter, 1 Pet. v. 13; (4) The evan- gelist ; (5) The bishop of Alexandria. Out of these notices some writers get three or even four distinct persons (see the note of Cotelier on Apost. Const. ii. 57). Even Tillemont (JZem. £ecl. τι. p. 89 sq., 503 564.) assumes two
Marks, supposing (1) (2) to refer to one person, and (3) (4) (5) to another. His main reason is that he cannot reconcile the notices of the first with the tradition (Euseb. H. £. ii. 15, 16) that St Mark the evangelist accom- panied St Peter to Rome in a.p. 43, having first preached the Gospel in Alexandria (p. 515). To most persons however this early date of St Peter’s visit to Rome will appear quite ir- reconcilable with the notices in the Apostolic writings, and therefore with them Tillemont’s argument will carry no weight. But in fact Euse- bius does not say, either that St Mark went with St Peter to Rome, or that he had preached in Alexandria before this. The Scriptural notices suggest that the same Mark is intended in all the occurrences of the name, for they are connected together by personal links (Peter, Paul, Barnabas); and the earliest forms of tradition likewise identify them.
Βαρνάβα] On the affectionate tone of St Paul’s language, whenever he mentions Barnabas after the colli- sion at Antioch (Gal. ii. 11 sq.) and the separation of missionary spheres (Acts xy. 39), see the note on Gal. ii. 13. It has been inferred from the reference here, that inasmuch as Mark has rejoined St Paul, Barnabas must have died before this epistle was written (about A.D. 63); and this has been used as an argument against the genuineness of the letter bear- ing his name (Hefele Sendschr. d. Apost. Barnab. p. 29 sq.); but this argument is somewhat precarious, From 1 Cor. ix.6 we may infer that he was still living, a.p. 57. The notices bearing on the biography of Barnabas are collected and discussed by Hefele, p. 1 sq.
ἐλάβετε ἐντολάς] These injunctions must have been communicated pre- viously either by letter or by word of mouth; for it cannot be a question
236
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
{IV. 1
> , \ af c ΄ 7 évtoAas, Ἔαν ἔλθη πρὸς ὑμάς, δέξασθε αὐτόν, " καὶ
΄σ « / ΄σ « , > a Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Ἰοῦστος, οἱ ὄντες EK περιτομῆς" - / \ > \ ΄σ ΄' ε οὗτοι μόνοι συνεργοὶ εἰς THY βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, οἵτινες
here of an epistolary aorist. The natural inference is, that they were sent by St Paul himself, and not by any one else, e.g. by St Peter or St Barnabas, as some have suggested. Thus the notice points to earlier com- munications between the Apostle and Colossee.
But what was their tenour? It seems best .to suppose that this is given in the next clause ἐὰν ἔλθῃ καὶ. By an abrupt change to the oratio recta the injunction is repeat- ed as it was delivered; comp. Ps. cv (civ). 15 ἤλεγξεν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν Ba- σιλεῖς" Μὴ ἅψησθε κιτιλ. After verbs signifying ‘to command, charge, etc.,’ there is a tendency to pass from the oblique to the direct; e.g. Luke v. 14, Acts i. 4, xxiii. 22. The reading δέ- ξασθαι gives the right sense, but can hardly be correct. If this construc- tion be not accepted, it is vain to speculate what may have been the tenour of the injunction.
II. καὶ Ἰησοῦς) He is not men- tioned elsewhere. Even in the Epi- stle to Philemon his name is omitted. Probably he was not a man of any prominence in the Church, but his personal devotion to the Apostle prompted this honourable mention. For the story which makes him bishop of Eleutheropolis in Palestine, see Le Quien Oriens Christ. m1. p. 633.
Ἰοῦστος] A common name or sur- name of Jews and proselytes, denot- ing obedience and devotion to the law. It is applied to two persons in the New Testament, besides this Je- sus; (1) Joseph Barsabbas, Acts i. 23; (2) A proselyte at Corinth, Acts xviii. 7. It occurs twice in the list of early Jewish Christian bishops of Jerusa- lem, in Euseb. H. £. iii. 35, iv. 5. It was borne by a Jew of Tiberias who wrote the history of the Jewish war
(Joseph. Vit. §§ 9, 65), and by a son of the historian Josephus himself (7b, δ 1). It oceurs in the rabbinical writ- ings (NOD) or Di, Schéttgen on Acts i. 23, Zunz Judennamen p. 20), and in monumental inscriptions from Jewish cemeteries in various places (Boeckh Οἱ 1 no. 9922, 9925; Revue, Archéologique 1860, 11. p. 348; Gar rucei Dissertaziont Archeologiche τι. p. 182). So also the corresponding female name Justa (Garrucci ὦ. δ. Ῥ. 180). In Clem. Hom. ii. 19, tii. 73, Iv. I, xiii. 7, the Syrophcenician woman of the Gospels is named Ἰοῦστα, doubtless because she is represented in this Judaizing romance as a prose- lytess (προσήλυτος xiii. 7) who strictly observes the Mosaic ordinances (τὴν νόμιμον ἀναδεξαμένη πολιτείαν 11. 20), and is contrasted with the heathen ‘dogs’ (ra ἔθνη ἐοικότα κυσίν ii. 19) who disregard them. In some cases Justus might be the only name of the person, as a Latin rendering of the Hebrew Zadok; while in others, as here and in Acts i. 23, it is a surname, Its Greek equivalent, ὁ δίκαιος, is the recognised epithet of James the Lord’s brother: see Galatians, p. 348.
of ὄντες x.7.A.] 1.6. ‘converts from Judaism’ (see the note Gal. ii. 12), or perhaps ‘belonging to the Cir- cumcision’; but in this latter case περιτομῆς, though without the article, must be used in a concrete sense, like τῆς περιτομῆς, for ‘the Jews, Of Mark and of Jesus the fact is plain from their name or their con- nexions. Of Aristarchus we could not have inferred a Jewish origin, inde- pendently of this direct statement.
μόνοι] 1.6. of the Jewish Christians in Rome. On this antagonism of the converts from the Circumcision in the metropolis, see Philippians p. 16 sq. The words however must not be closely
ἘΝ. 12]
ἐγενήθησαν μοι παρηγορία.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
237
"ἀσπάζεται ὑμάς Ἐπαφρᾶς
3 oa “" x τῷ “ 3
ὁ ἐξ ὑμῶν, δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, πάντοτε ἀγωνιζό- \ ~ » = co J >
pevos ὑπερ ὑμῶν ἐν ταῖς προσευχαῖς, ἵνα σταθῆτε TE-
pressed, as if absolutely no Jewish Christian besides had remained friend- ly; they will only imply that among the more prominent members of the body the Apostle can only name these three as stedfast in their alle- giance: comp. Phil. ii. 20 οὐδένα ἔχω ἰσόψυχον ... πάντες yap x.t.A. (with the note).
τὴν βασιλείαν κιτ.λ.] See the note on Ὁ 13.
οἵτινες κιτιλ.] ‘men whom I found etc.’; comp. Acts xxviii. 15 οὖς ἰδὼν ὁ Παῦλος εὐχαριστήσας τῷ Θεῷ ἔλαβεν θάρσος, and see Philippians p. 17. For οἵτινες, not specifying the indi- yiduals, but referring them to their class characteristics, see the notes on Gal. iv. 24, v. 19, Phil. iii. 7, iv. 3.
παρηγορία) ‘ encouragement, ‘ com- fort. The range of meaning in this word is even wider than in παραμυ- Gia or παράκλησις (see the note Phil. li. 1). The verb παρηγορεῖν denotes either (1) ‘ to exhort, encourage’ (He- rod. v. 104, Apoll. Rhod. ii. 64); (2) ‘to dissuade’ (Herod. ix. 54, 55); (3) ‘to appease, ‘quiet’ (Plut. Vit. Pomp. 13, Mor. p. 737 ©); or (4) ‘to console, comfort’ (Aesch. Hum. 507). The word however, and its derivates παρηγορία, παρηγόρημα, παρηγορικύς, παρηγορητικός, were used especially as medical terms, in the sense of ‘as- suaging, ‘alleviating’; e.g. Hippocr. PP. 392, 393, 394, Galen xIv. p. 335, 446, Plut. Mor. pp. 43 D, 142 D; and perhaps owing to this usage, the idea of consolation, comfort, is on the whole predominant in the word; e.g. Plut. Mor. p. 56 A ras ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀτυχήμασι παρηγορίας, p. 118 A τοῖς ἀφαιρουμένοις tas λύπας διὰ τῆς γενναίας καὶ σεμνῆς παρηγορίας, Vit. Cim. 4 ἐπὶ παρηγορίᾳ τοῦ πένθους. In Vlut. 2707. p. 599 Β παρηγορία and συνηγορία are contrast-
ed, as the right and wrong me- thod of dealing with the sorrows of the exile; and the former is said to be the part of men παρρησιαζομένων kat διδασκόντων ὅτι TO λυπεῖσθαι καὶ ταπεινοῦν ἑαυτὸν ἐπὶ παντὶ μὲν ἄχρη- στόν ἐστι κιτιλ.
12. ’Exadpas] His full name would be Epaphroditus, but he is always called by the shortened form Epa- phras, and must not be confused with the Philippian Epaphroditus (see Ph7- lippians p. 60), who also was with St Paul at one period of his Roman captivity. Of Epaphras, as the Evan- gelist of Colossze, and perhaps of the neighbouring towns, see above, pp. 29 8q-, 34 Sq.
ὁ ἐξ ὑμῶν) “τοῖο belongs to you, ‘who is one of you, i.e. a native, or at least an inhabitant, of Colossze, as in the case of Onesimus ver. 9 ; comp. Acts iv. 6, xxi 8, Rom. xvi. 10, 11, 1 Cor. xii. 16, Phil. iv. 22, ete.
δοῦλος X. Ἰ.] This title, which the Apostle uses several times of himself, is not elsewhere conferred on any other individual, except once on Timothy (Phil. i. 1), and probably points to exceptional services in the cause of the Gospel on the part of Epaphras.
ἀγωνιζόμενος] ‘wrestling’; comp. Rom. xv. 30 συναγωνίσασθαί μοι ἐν ταῖς προσευχαῖς. See also the great ἀγωνία of prayer in Luke xxii. 44. Comp. Justin Apol. ii. 13 (p. 51 B) kal εὐχόμενος καὶ παμμάχως ἀγωνιζό- μενος. See 4180 1. 29, ii. 1, with the notes.
σταθῆτε] ‘stand fast, doubtless the correct reading rather than στῆτε which the received text has; comp. Matt. ii. 9, xxvii. 11, where also the received text substitutes the weaker word,
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
δ,
(IV. 13
\ / > ΄“
Actor καὶ πεπληροφορημένοι ἐν παντὶ θελήματι τοῦ la 13 ~ \ ᾽ “ ed oS \ / ε \
Θεοῦ. "Ῥμαρτυρώ yap αὐτῷ ὅτι ἔχει πολὺν πόνον ὑπὲρ
πεπληροφορημένοι] ‘fully persuad- ed. The verb πληροφορεῖν has several senses. (1) ‘ To fulfil,accomplish’; 2 Tim. iv. 5 τὴν διακονίαν σου πληρο- φόρησον, ib. ver. 17 τὸ κήρυγμα πλη- ροφορηθῇ, Clem. Hom. xix. 24 πεπλη- ροφορημένων νῦν ἤδη τριῶν ἡμερῶν. So perhaps Hermas Sim. 2 πληροφο- ροῦσι τὸν πλοῦτον αὐτῶν... πληροφο- ροῦσι τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν, though it is a little difficult to carry the same sense into the latter clause, where the word seems to signify rather ‘to satisfy? (2) ‘To persuade fully, to convince’; Rom. iv. 21 πληροφορηθεὶς ὅτι ὃ ἐπήγ- γελται δυνατός ἐστιν καὶ ποιῆσαι, Xiv. 5 ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ vot πληροφορείσθω, Clem. Rom. 42 πληροφορηθέντες διὰ τῆς ἀνα- στάσεως κιτιλ., Ign. Magn. 8 εἰς τὸ πληροφορηθῆναι τοὺς ἀπειθοῦντας, ib. 11 πεπληροφορῆσθαι ἐν τῇ γεννήσει K.Td., Philad. inser. ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει αὐτοῦ πεπληροφορημένῃ ἐν παντὶ ἐλέει, SMYTN, I πεπληροφορημένους εἰς τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν, Mart. Ign. 7 πληροφορῆσαι τοὺς ἀσθενεῖς ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ τοῖς προγεγονόσιν, Clem. Hom. Ep. ad Tac. 10 πεπληροφο- ρημένος ὅτι ἐκ Θεοῦ δικαίου, ib, xvii. 13, 14, XIX. 24 συνετιθέμην ὡς πληρο- φορούμενος. So ὕοο ΤΧΧ Eceles. viii. 11 ἐπληροφορήθη καρδία τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὸ πονηρόν. (3). ΤῸ fill’; Rom. xv. 13 πλη- ροφορήσαι ὑμᾶς πάσης yapas(a doubtful v.1.),Clem. Rom. 54 τίς πεπληροφορημέ- νος ἀγάπης ; Test. xit Patr. Dan 2 τῇ πλεονεξίᾳ ἐπληροφορήθην τῆς ἀναιρέσεως αὐτοῦ, Where it means ‘I was filled with, i.e. ‘I was fully bent on) a sense closely allied tothe last. From this account it will be seen that there is in the usage of the word no justification for translating it ‘most surely believed’ in Luke i. 1 τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων, and it should therefore be rendered ‘fulfilled, accomplished’ The word is almost exclusively biblical and ec- clesiastical ; and it seems clear that the passage from Ctesias in Photius
(Bibl. 72) πολλοῖς λόγοις καὶ ὅρκοις πληροφορήσαντες Μεγάβυζον is not quoted with verbal exactness. In Isocr. Trapez. § 8 the word is now expunged from the text on the autho- rity of the mss. For the substantive πληροφορία see the note on ii. 2 above, The reading of the received text here, πεπληρωμένοι, must be rejected as of inferior authority.
ev παντὶ κιτ.λ.] Sin every thing willed by God’; comp. 1 Kings ix. 11. So the plural ra θελήματα in Acts xiii. 22, Ephes. ii. 3, and several times in the Lxx. The words are best con- nected directly with πεπληροφορημένοι. The passages quoted in the last note amply illustrate this construction. The preposition may denote (1) The abode of the conviction, as Rom. xiv. 5 ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ vot; or (2) The object of the conviction, as Ign. Magn. 11 ἐν τῇ γεννήσει, Philad. inser. ἐν τῇ ἀναστά- σει; or (3) The atmosphere, the surroundings, of the conviction, as Philad. inser. ἐν παντὶ ἐλέει. This last seems to be its sense here. The connexion σταθῆτε. ..ἐν, though legiti- mate in itself (Rom. vy. 2, 1 Cor. xv. 1), is not favoured by the order of the words here.
13. πολὺν πόνον] ‘much toil, both inward and outward, though from the connexion the former notion seems to predominate, as in ἀγῶνα ii. I ; comp. Plat. Phaedr. p. 247 B πόνος τε καὶ ἀγὼν ἔσχατος Ψυχῇ πρόκειται. OF the two variations which transcribers have substituted for the correct read- ing ζῆλον emphasizes the former idea and κόπον the latter. The true read- ing is more expressive than either. The word πόνος however is very rare in the New Testament (occur- ring only Rev. xvi. 10, II, xxi. 4, besides this passage), and was there- fore liable to be changed.
καὶ τῶν κιτ.λ.}ὺ The neighbouring cities are taken in their geographical
IV. 14]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 239
΄σ ~ 7 \ ΄σ > / ὑμῶν καὶ τῶν ἐν Λαοδικίᾳ καὶ τῶν ἐν Ἱεραπόλει.
> / ε ΄- ~ 3 \ ε , \ “ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς Λουκάς 6 ἰατρὸς ὁ ἀγαπητὸς, Kal
Δημάς.
order, commencing from Colossze; see above, p. 2. Epaphras, though a Co- lossian, may have been the evangelist of the two larger cities also.
Λαοδικίᾳ] This form has not the same overwhelming preponderance of au- thority in its favour here and in vv. 15, 16, as in ii. 1, but is probably cor- rect in all these places. It is quite possible however, that the same per- son would write Λαοδικια and Λαοδικεια indifferently. Even the form Λαο- δικηα is found in Mionnet, Suppl. vu. p. 581. Another variation is the con- traction of Aaod- into Aad-; e.g. Aa- δικηνός, Which occurs frequently in the edict of Diocletian.
14. Λουκᾶς] St Luke had travelled with St Paul on his last journey to Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 1 sq). He had also accompanied him two years later from Jerusalem to Rome (Acts xxvii. 2 84.) And now again, probably after another interval of two years (see Philippians p. 31 sq.), we find him in the Apostle’s company. It is not probable that he remained with St Paul in the meanwhile (P/il- ippians, p. 35), and this will account for his name not occurring in the Epistle to the Philippians. He was at the Apostle’s side again in his second captivity (2 Tim. iv. 11).
Lucas is doubtless a contraction of Lucanus. Several Old Latin msg write out the name Zucanus in the superscription and subscription to the Gospel, just as elsewhere Apollos is written in full Apollonius. On the frequent occurrence of this name Lu- canus in inscriptions see Lphem. Epigr. τι. p. 28 (1874). The shortened form Lucas however seems to be rare. He is here distinguished from of ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς (ver. 11). This alone is fatal to his identification (mentioned as a tradition by Origen
ad loc.) with the Lucius, St Paul’s ‘kinsman’ (i.e. a Jew; see Philip- pians pp. 17, 171, 173), who sends a salutation from Corinth to Rome (Rom. xvi. 21). It is equally fatal to the somewhat later tradition that he was one of the seventy (Dial. c. Mare. § 1 in Orig. Op. 1. p. 806, ed. De la Rue ; Epiphan. H/aer. li. 11). The iden- tification with Lucius of Cyrene (Acts xiii. 13) is possible but not probable. Though the example of Patrobius for Patrobas (Rom. xvi. 14) showsthat such a contraction is not out of the ques- tion, yet probability and testimony alike point to Lucanus, as the longer form of the Evangelist’s name.
ὁ ἰατρός] Indications of medical knowledge have been traced both in the third Gospel and in the Acts; see on this point Smith’s Voyage and Shipwreck of St Paul p.6 sq. (ed. 2). It has been observed also, that St Luke’s first appearance in company with St Paul (Acts xvi. 10) nearly syn- chronizes with an attack of the Apo- stle’s constitutional malady (Gal. iv. 13, 14); so that he may have joined him partly in a professional capacity. This conjecture is perhaps borne out by the personal feeling which breathes in the following ὁ ἀγαπητός. But whatever may be thought of these points, there is no ground for ques- tioning the ancient belief (Iren. iii. 14. I sq.) that the physician is also the Evangelist. St Paul’s motive in spe- cifying him as the Physician may not have been to distinguish him from any other bearing the same name, but to emphasize his own obligations to his medical knowledge. The name in this form does not appear to have been common. The tradition that St Luke was a painter is quite late (Niceph. Call. ii. 43). It is worthy of notice that the two Evangelists are men-
240
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS,
(IV. 15,16
'S Agracacbe ποὺς ἐν Λαοδικίᾳ ἀδελφοὺς καὶ Νυμ-
΄- \ \ ‘> > ~ > / φᾶν καὶ τὴν κατ᾽ OlKOV αὐτῶν ἐκκλησίαν.
tioned together in this context, as also in Philem. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 11.
ὁ ἀγαπητός ‘the beloved one, not to be closely connected with ὁ ἰατρός, for ὁ ἀγαπητός is complete in itself ; comp. Philem. 1, Rom. xvi. 12 (comp. vv. 5, ὃ, 9), 3 Joh.1. For the form compare the expression in the Gospels, Matt. iii. 17, etc. ὁ vids μου, ὁ ἀγαπητός K.T.A. ; where a comparison of Is. xlii. 1, as quoted in Matt. xii. 18, seems to show that ὁ ἀγαπητός x.7.d. forms a distinct clause from 6 vids pov.
Δημᾶς] On the probability that this person was a Thessalonian (2 Tim. iv. 10) and that his name was Demetrius, see the introduction to the Epistles to the Thessalonians. He appears in close connexion with St Lukein Philem. 24, as here. In 2 Tim. iv. Ito their conduct is placed in direct contrast, Anas pe eyxareXurrev...Aodkas ἐστὶν μό- vos pet ἐμοῦ. There is perhaps a fore- shadowing of this contrast in the lan- guage here. While Luke is described with special tenderness as ὁ iarpés, ὁ ἀγαπητός, Demas alone is dismissed with a bare mention and without any epithet of commendation.
15—17. ‘Greet from me the bre- thren who are in Laodicea, especially Nymphas, and the church which as- sembles in their house. And when this letter has been read among you, take care that it is read also in the Church of the Laodiceans, and be sure that ye also read the letter which I have sent to Laodicea, and which ye will get from them. Moreover give this message from me to Archippus; Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received from me in Christ, and discharge it fully and faithfully
15. Nuudav] As the context shows, an inhabitant of Laodicea. The name in full would probably be Nymphodo- rus, as Artemas (Tit. iii. 12) for Arte- midorus, Zenas (Tit. iii. 13) for Zeno-
6 \ / Kat ὅταν
dorus, Theudas (Acts y. 16) for The- odorus, Olympas (Rom. xvi. 15) for Olympiodorus, and probably Hermas (Rom. xvi. 14) for Hermodorus (see Philippians, p. 174). Other names in as occurring in the New Testament and representing different termina- tions are Amplias (Ampliatus, a 2, /.), Antipas (Antipater), Demas (Deme- trius 1), Epaphras (Epaphroditus), Lu- cas (Lucanus), Parmenas (Parme- nides), Patrobas (Patrobius), Silas (Sylvanus), Stephanas (Stephanepho- rus), and perhaps Junias (Junianus, Rom. xvi. 7). For a collection of names with this contraction, found in different places, see Chandler Greek Accentuation § 34; comp. Lobeck Pa- thol. p. 505 sq. Some remarkable instances are found in the inscrip- tions ; 6.5. ᾿Ασκλᾶς, Δημοσθᾶς, Διομᾶς, Ἑρμογᾶς, Νικομᾶς, ᾿Ονησᾶς, Τροφᾶς, etc.; see esp. Boeckh C. J. m1. pp. 1072, 1097. The name Nymphodorus is found not unfrequently ; e.g. Herod. vii. 137, Thue. ii. 29, Athen. i. p. 19 F, vi. p. 265 c, Mionnet Suppl. vt. p. 88, Boeckh Ο 1 no. 158, ete. The con- tracted form Νυμῴᾶς however is very rare, though it occurs in an Athenian inscription, Boeckh Οἱ I. 269 Νυνφᾶς, and apparently also in a Spartan, tb. 1240 Evrvxos Nuvpa. In Murat. MDXXXvV. 6, is an inscription to one Vu. Aquilius Nymphas,a freedman, where the dative is Mymphadi. Other names from which Nymphas might be contracted are Nymphius, Nymphi- cus, Nymphidius, Nymphodotus, the first and last being the most common.
Those, who read αὐτῆς in the fol- lowing clause, take it as a woman’s name (Νύμφαν, not Nupdav); and the name Nymphe, Nympha, Nympa, ete., occurs from time to time in Latin inscriptions; e.g. C. Z. Z. τι. 1099, 1783, 3763, III. 525, V.607, etc. Mura- tor. CMXXIV. I, MCLIX. ὃ, MCOXCY. 9,
iV. 16]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
241
- a « > ’ , 74 \ avay νωσθῇ map v μὶν ἡ ἐπιστολὴ, ποιήσατε ἵνα Kat t i
MDXCI. 3. But a Doric form of the Greek name here seems in the highest degree improbable.
τὴν κατ᾽ οἶκον x.t.A.] The same ex- pression is used of Prisca and Aquila both at Rome (Rom. xvi. 5) and at Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 19), and also of Philemon, whether at Colossz or at Laodicea is somewhat uncertain (Phi- lem. 2); comp. Acts xii. 12 τὴν οἰκίαν τῆς Mapias...o8 ἦσαν ἱκανοὶ συνηθροισμένοι καὶ προσευχόμενοι, and see Philippi- ans p. 56. Perhaps similar gather- ings may be implied by the expres- sions in Rom. xvi. 14, 15 τοὺς σὺν av- τοῖς ἀδελφούς, τοὺς σὺν αὐτοῖς πάντας ἁγίους (Probst Kirchliche Disciplin Ῥ. 182, 1873). See also Act. Mart. Justin. § 3 (II. p. 262 ed. Otto), Clem. Recogn. x. 71 ‘Theophilus ... domus suae ingentem basilicam ecclesiae no- mine consecraret’ (where the word ‘basilica’ was probably introduced by the translator Ruffinus). Of the same kind must have been the ‘ colle- gium quod est in domo Sergiae Pau- linae’ (de Rossi Roma Sotterranea 1. p. 209); for the Christians were first recognised by the Roman Government as ‘ collegia’ or burial clubs, and pro- tected by this recognition doubtless held their meetings for religious wor- ship. There is no clear example of a separate building set apart for Chris- tian worship within the limits of the Roman empire before the third cen- tury, though apartments in private houses might be specially devoted to this purpose. This, I think, appears as a negative result from the passages collected in Bingham viii. 1. 13 and Probst p. 181 sq. with a different view. Hence the places of Christian assem- bly were not commonly called ναοί till quite late (Ignat. Magn. 7 is not really an exception), but οἶκοι Θεοῦ, οἶκοι ἐκκλησιῶν, οἶκοι εὐκτήριοι, and the like (Euseb. H. £. vii. 30, viii. 13, ix. 9, etc.).
αὐτῶν] The difficulty of this read-
COL.
ing has led to the two corrections, av- τοῦ and αὐτῆς, of which the former appears in the received text, and the latter is supported by one or two very ancient authorities. Of these alter- native readings however, αὐτοῦ is con- demned by its simplicity, and αὐτῆς has arisen from the form Nupday, which prima facie would look like a woman’s naine, and yet hardly can be so. We should require to know more of the circumstances to feel any con- fidence in explaining αὐτῶν. A sim- ple explanation is that αὐτῶν denotes ‘Nymphas and his friends,’ by a trans- ition which is common in classical writers; e.g. Xen. Anab. iii. 3. 7 προσ- nee μὲν (MiOpidarns)...mpos τοὺς Ἕλλη- vas’ ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἐγγὺς ἐγένοντο κιτιλ., iV. 5. 33 ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἦλθον πρὸς Χειρίσοφον, κατελάμβανον καὶ ἐκείνους σκηνοῦν- tas: see also Kithner Gramm. ὃ 371 (ir. p. 77), Bernhardy Syntax p. 288. Or perhaps τοὺς ἐν Λαοδικίᾳ ἀδελφούς may refer not to the whole body of the Laodicean Church, but to a family of Colossian Christians established in Laodicea. Under any circumstances this ἐκκλησία is only a section of ἡ Λαοδικέων ἐκκλησία mentioned in ver. 16. On the authorities for the vari- ous readings see the detached note.
16. ἡ ἐπιστολή] ‘the letter, which has just been concluded, for these salutations have the character of a postscript; comp. Rom. xvi. 22 Tép- τιος ὁ γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολήν, 2 Thess. iii. 14 διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς, Mart. Polyc. 20 τὴν ἐπιστολὴν διαπέμψασθε. Such examples however do not countenance the explanation which refers ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ev τῇ ἐπιστολῇ in I Cor. v. g to the First Epistle itself, occurring (as it does) in the middle of the letter (comp. 2 Cor. vii. 8).
ποιήσατε ἵνα] ‘cause that’; so John xi. 37, Apoc. xiii. 15. In such cases the iva is passing away from its earlier sense of design to its later sense of result. A corresponding classical
16
242
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
[1V. 17
“- / > / > ΄ ἐν ti Λαοδικέων ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀναγνωσθήῆ, καὶ τὴν ἐκ ‘ ‘
/ c/ \ ε ~ > ~~ Λαοδικίας νὰ και υμεις AVAYVWTE.
A Kat εἴπατε ᾿Αρ-
7 / \ / “Ὁ / > χίππῳ; Βλέπε τὴν διακονίαν ἣν παρέλαβες εν Κυρίῳ,
« > \ ~ ἵνα αὐτὴν πληροῖς.
expression is ποιεῖν ὡς Or ὅπως, 0. δ΄. Xen. Cyr. vi. 3. 18.
A similar charge is given in 1 Thess. y.27. The precaution here is proba- bly suggested by the distastefulness of the Apostle’s warnings, which might lead to the suppression of the letter.
τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικίας] i.e. ‘ the letter left at Laodicea, which you will procure thence.” For this abridged expres- sion compare Luke xi. 13 ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐξ odpavod δώσει πνεῦμα ἅγιον, XVi. 26 (v. 1) μηδὲ οἱ ἐκεῖθεν πρὸς ἡμᾶς διαπερῶσιν, Susann. 26 ὡς δὲ ἤκουσαν τὴν κραυγὴν ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ οἱ ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας, εἰσεπήδησαν κιτιλ. For instances of this proleptic use of the preposi- tion in classical writers, where it is ex- tremely common, see Kithner Gr. §448 αι. p. 474), Jelf Gr. § 647, Matthize Gr. ὃ 596: e.g. Plat. Apol. 32 B τοὺς οὐκ ἀνελομένους τοὺς ἐκ τῆς ναυμαχίας, Xen. Cyr. vii. 2. 5 ἁρπασόμενοι τὰ ἐκ τῶν οἰκιῶν, Isocr. Paneg. § 187 τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν τὴν ἐκ τῆς ᾿Ασίας εἰς τὴν Εὐρώπην διακομίσαιμεν. There are good reasons for the belief that St Paul here alludes to the so-called Epistle to the Ephesians, which was in fact a circular letter addressed to the principal churches of proconsular Asia (see above, p. 37, and the intro- duction to the Epistle to the Ephe- sians). Tychicus was obliged to pass through Laodicea on his way to Co- lossze, and would leave a copy there, before the Colossian letter was deli- vered. For other opinions respecting this ‘letter from Laodicea’ see the detached note.
ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς κιτ.λ.] ‘see that ye also read. At first sight it might seem as though this ἵνα also were governed by ποιήσατε, like the former; but, inas- much as ποιήσατε would be somewhat
awkward in this connexion, itis perhaps better to treat the second clause as independent and elliptical, (βλέπετε) ἵνα κιτιλ. This is suggested also by the position of τὴν ἐκ Aaodikias be- fore ἵνα; comp. Gal. 11, 10 μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν (with the note). LEllipses before iva are fre- quent; e.g. John ix. 3, 2 Cor. vill. 13, 2 Thess. iii. 9, 1 Joh, ii. 19.
17. Kat εἴπατε] Why does not the Apostle address himself directly to Archippus? It might be answered that he probably thought the warning would come with greater emphasis, when delivered by the voice of the Church. Or the simpler explanation perhaps is, that Archippus was not resident at Colossze but at Laodicea: see the introduction to the Epistle to Philemon. On this warning itself see above, p. 42.
Βλέπε] ‘Look to,’ as 2 Joh. 8 βλέπετε ἑαυτοὺς ἵνα μὴ kA. More commonly it has the accusative of the thing to be avoided; see Phil. iii. 2 (with the note).
τὴν διακονίαν) From the stress which is laid upon it, the διακονία here would seem to refer, as in the case of Timo- thy cited below, to some higher func- tion than the diaconate properly so called. In Acts xii. 25 the same phrase, πληροῦν τὴν διακονίαν, is used of a temporary ministration, the col- lection and conveyance of the alms for the poor of Jerusalem (Acts xi. 29); but the solemnity of the warning here points to a continuous office, rather than an immediate service.
παρέλαβες] i.e. probably παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ. The word suggests, though it does not necessarily imply, a mediate rather than a direct reception: see the note Gal. i. 12. Archippus received the
IV. 18]
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
243
ς \ ΄σ ΄σ 7) δ Ὁ ἀσπασμὸς TH ἐμῇ χειρὶ Παύλου. Μνημονεύετέ ‘ ‘
μου τῶν δεσμῶν.
charge immediately from St Paul, though ultimately from Christ. ‘Non enim sequitur,’ writes Bengel, ‘a Domino (1 Cor. xi. 23), sed in Domi- no.
mAnpois| ‘fulfil? i.e. ‘discharge fully’; comp. 2 Tim. iv. 5 τὴν διακο- νίαν σου πληροφόρησον.
18. ‘I add this salutation with my own hand, signing it with my name Paul. Be mindful of my bonds. God’s grace be with you,
Ὃ aonacpos x.t.d.| The letter was evidently written by an amanuensis (comp. Rom. xvi. 22). The final salu- tation alone, with the accompanying sentence μνημονεύετε x.7.\., Was in the Apostle’s own handwriting. This seems to have been the Apostle’s general practice, even where he does not call attention to his own signature. In 2 Thess. iii. 17 sq., 1 Cor. xvi. 21, as here, he directs his readers’ notice to the fact, but in other epistles he is silent. In some cases however he writes much more than the final sen- tence. Thus the whole letter to Philemon is apparently in his own handwriting (see ver. 19), and in the Epistle to the Galatians he writes a long paragraph at the close (see the note on Vi. 11).
τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ Παύλου] The same phrase occurs in 2 Thess. iii. 17,1 Cor. xvi. 21. For the construction comp. e.g. Philo Leg.ad Gat. 8 (1. p. 554) ἐμόν ἐστι τοῦ Μάκρωνος ἔργον Γάϊος, and see Kiihner ὃ 406 (11 p. 242), Jelf § 467.
τῶν δεσμῶν] His bonds establish an additional claim to hearing. He who is suffering for Christ has a right to speak on behalf of Christ. The
Ἡ χάρις μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν.
appeal is similar in Ephes. iii. 1 τούτου χάριν ἐγὼ ἸΤαῦλος ὁ δέσμιος τοῦ Χ. Ἰ.» which is resumed again (after a long digression) in iv. 1 παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ ὁ δέσμιος ἐν Κυρίῳ ἀξίως περι- πατῆσαι κιτιὰλ. (comp. Vi. 20 ὑπὲρ οὗ πρεσβεύω ἐν ἁλύσει). So too Philem. 9 τοιοῦτος ὧν ὡς Παῦλος ... δέσμιος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. These passages seem to show that the appeal here is not for himself, but for his teaching—not for sympathy with his sufferings but for obedience to the Gospel. His bonds were not his own; they were ra δεσμὰ Tov εὐαγγελίου (Philem. 13), In Heb. X. 34 the right reading is not τοῖς δεσ- pots μου, but τοῖς δεσμίοις συνεπα- θήσατε (comp. xiii. 3). Somewhat simi- lar is the appeal to his στίγματα in Gal. vi. 17, ‘Henceforth let no man trouble me.’ See the notes on Philem. 10, 13.
Ἢ χάρις κιτ.λ.] This very short form of the final benediction appears only here and in 1 Tim. vi. 21, 2 Tim. iv. 22. In Tit. ii 15 πάντων is inserted, and so in Heb. xiii.25. In Ephes. vi. 24 the form so far agrees with the ex- amples quoted, that ἡ χάρις is used absolutely, though the end is length- ened out. In all the earlier epistles 7 χάρις is defined by the addition of τοῦ Κυρίου [ἡμῶν] Ἰησοῦ [Χριστοῦ]; 1 Thess. y. 28, 2 Thess. iii. 18, 1 Cor. xvi. 23, 2 Cor. xiii. 13, Gal. vi. 18, Rom. xvi. 20, [24], Phil. iv. 23. Thus the abso- lute ἡ χάρις in the final benediction may be taken as a chronological note, A similar phenomenon has been al- ready observed (τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ταῖς ἐκ- κλησίαις) in the opening addresses: see the note on i. 2.
16—2
244 EPISTLE TO TILE COLOSSIANS. On some Various Readings in the Epistle’. eee In one respect the letters to the Ephesians and Colossians hold a unique istle read-
position among the Epistles of St Paul, as regards textual criticism. They
aaa alone have been exposed, or exposed in any considerable degree, to those harmonizing tendencies in transcribers, which have had so great an influence on the text of the Synoptic Gospels.
Prepon- In such cases there is sometimes no difficulty in ascertaining the correct
derant reading. The harmonistic change is condemned by the majority of the
Aen oldest and best authorities; or there is at least a nearly even balance of
correct external testimony, and the suspicious character of the reading is quite
reading; sufficient to turn the scale. Thus we cannot hesitate for a moment about
such readings as i. 14 διὰ Tod αἵματος αὐτοῦ (from Ephes. i. 7), or ili. 16 ψαλ- pois καὶ ὕμνοις καὶ @dais πνευματικαῖς, and τῷ Κυρίῳ (for τῷ Θεῷ) in the same verse (both from Ephes. v. 19).
In other instances again there can hardly be any doubt about the text, the correct even though the vast preponderance of authority is in favour of the harmo- reading. nistic reading; and these are especially valuable because they enable us Examples. to test the worth of our authorities. Such examples are :
iii. 6, iii. 6. The omission of the words ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας (taken words in- from Ephes. v. 6). Apparently the only extant ms in favour of the omission serted. is B. In D however they are written (though by the first hand) in smaller letters and extend beyond the line (in both Greek and Latin), whence we may infer that they were not found in a copy which was before the tran- scriber. They are wanting also in the Thebaic Version and in one form of the Ethiopic (Polyglott). They were also absent from copies used by Cle- ment of Alexandria (Paed. iii, 11, p. 295, where however they are inserted in the printed texts; Stvom. ili. 5, Ὁ. 531), by Cyprian (Zpist. lv. 27, p. 645
(2) against
1 The references to the patzistic quo- Wilkins being commonly adopted,
tations in the following pages have all been verified. I have also consulted the Egyptian and Syriac Versions in every case, and the Armenian and Latin in some instances, before giving the readings. As regards the mss, I have contented myself with the colla- tions as given in Tregelles and Tisch- endorf, not verifying them unless I had reason to suspect an error.
The readings of the Memphitic Ver- sion are very incorrectly given even by the principal editors, such as Tregelles and Tischendorf; the translation of
though full of errors, and no attention being paid to the various readings of Boetticher’s text. Besides the errors corrected in the following pages, I haye also observed these places where the text of this version is incor- rectly reported; ii. 7 ἐν αὐτῇ not omitted; ii. 13 the second ὑμᾶς not omitted; ii. 17 the singular (8), not the plural (a); iii. 4 ὑμῶν, not ἡμῶν ; ili. 16 τῷ Θεῷ, not τῴ Κυρίῳ; iil. 22 τὸν Κύριον, not τὸν Θεόν; iv. 3 doubtful whether δ᾽ ὅ or 6¢ ὅν; and probably there are others,
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 245
ed. Hartel), by an unknown writer (de Sing. Cler. 39, in Cypr. Op. Il. p. 215), by the Ambrosian Hilary (ad loc.),and by Jerome (£pist. xiv. 551. p. 32) though now found apparently in all the Latin ss.
iii. 21. ἐρεθίζετε is only found in B K and in later hands of D (with its iii. 21 transcript E) among the uncial mss. All the other uncials read παροργίζετε, ἐρεθίζετε. which is taken from Ephes. vi. 4. In this case however the reading of B is supported by the greater number of cursives, and it accordingly has a place in the receivedtext. The versions (so far as we can safely infer their read- ings) go almost entirely with the majority of uncials. The true readings of Syriac the Syriac versions are just the reverse of those assigned to them even by version the chief critical editors, Tregelles and Tischendorf. Thus in the Peshito, me
sented. the word used is the Aphel of WW the same mood of the same verb being
employed to translate παροργίζειν, not only in Rom. x. 19, but even in
the parallel passage Ephes. vi. 4. The word in the text of the Harclean
is the same «οὐἣ td, but in the margin the alternative «αἷς τὸ δι
is given. White interprets this as saying that the text is ἐρεθίζετε and the margin παροργίζετε, and he is followed by Tregelles and Tischendorf. But
in this version, as in the Peshito, the former word translates rapopyitew in Rom. x. 19, Ephes. vi. 4; while in the Peshito the latter word is adopted
to render ἐρεθίζειν in 2 Cor. ix. 2 (the only other passage in the N. T. where ἐρεθίζειν occurs). In the Harclean of 2 Cor. ix, 2 a different word from either, drasdiss, is used. It seems tolerably clear therefore that mapopyitere was read in the text of both Peshito and Harclean here, while ἐρεθίζετε Was given in the margin of the latter. The Latin versions seem Latin also to have read παροργίζετε ; for the Old Latin has ad iram (or in tram Versions. or ad iracundiam) provocare, and the Vulgate ad indignationem provo-
care here, while both have ad iracundiam provocare in Ephes. vi. 4.
The Memphitic too has the same rendering Y2swi7 in both passages. Of
the earlier Greek fathers Clement, Strom. iv. 8 (p. 593), reads ἐρεθίζετε:
and it is found in Chrysostom and some later writers.
These examples show how singularly free B is from this passion for Great harmonizing, and may even embolden us to place reliance on its authority value of Β, in extreme cases.
For instance, the parallel passages Ephes. vy. 19 and Col. iii. 16 stand Parallel
thus in the received text : | EE EPHESIANS. CoLOssIANs. Col. iii. 16, λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς ψαλμοῖς καὶ ὕμ- διδάσκοντες καὶ νουθετοῦντες ἑαυ- Eph. v. 19.
νοις καὶ @dais πνευματικαῖς ἄδοντες | τοὺς Ψαλμοῖς καὶ ὕμνοις καὶ φδαῖς καὶ ψάλλοντες ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν | πνευματικαῖς ἐν χάριτι ἄδοντες ἐν τῇ τῷ Κυρίῳ. καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ.
And A carries the harmonizing tendency still further by inserting ἐν χάριτι before ἄδοντες in Ephes. from the parallel passage.
In B they are read as follows:
΄-. € cal > ~ , ~~ λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς ἐν ψαλμοῖς καὶ διδάσκοντες καὶ νουθετοῦντες ἑαυ- LA ‘ > ΄ ΝΜ , r r ὕμνοις καὶ @dais ἄδοντες καὶ ψάλ- Trois Wadrpois ὕμνοις @dais πνευμα- ~ , c ΄“- ~ ΄σ col ~ λοντες τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ. τικαῖς ἐν τῇ χάριτι ἄδοντες ἐν ταῖς
, «ε ΄ r ΄ καρδίαις ὑμῶν τῷ Θεῷ.
246 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Altera- Tere are seven divergences from the received text. (1) The insertion of ἐν
ee ce before ψαλμοῖς in Ephes.; (2) The omission of καί, καί, attaching ψαλμοῖς,
harmon. ὕμνοις, ᾧδαῖς in Col.; (3) The omission of πνευματικαῖς in Ephes.; (4) The
izing. insertion of τῇ before χάριτι in Col.; (5) The omission of ἐν before τῇ καρ- dia in Ephes.; (6) The substitution of rats καρδίαις for τῇ καρδίᾳ in Col. ; (7) The substitution of τῷ Θεῷ for τῷ Κυρίῳ in Col.
Of these seven divergences the fourth alone does not affect the question: of the remaining six, the readings of B in (2), (6), (7) are supported by the great preponderance of the best authorities, and are unquestionably right. In (1), (3), (5) however the case stands thus:
ἐν ψαλμοῖς. (1) ἐν ψαλμοῖς B, P, with the cursives 17, 67**, 73, 116, 118, and the Latin, ἃ, e, vulg., with the Latin commentators Victorinus, Hilary, and Jerome. Of these however it is clear that the Latin autho- rities can have little weight in such a case, as the preposition might have been introduced by the translator. All the other Greck mss with several Greek fathers omit ἐν.
πνευματι- (3) πνευματικαῖς omitted in Β, d,e. Of the Ambrosian Hilary Tischen-
kais, dorf says ‘fluct. lectio’; but his comment ‘In quo enim est spiritus, semper spiritualia meditatur’ seems certainly to recog- nise the word. It appears to be found in every other authority.
τῇ καρδίᾳ. (5) τῇ καρδίᾳ ΔῈ B with Origen in Cramer’s Catena, p. 201.
ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ K L, and the vast majority of later mss, the Armenian and Ethiopic Versions, Euthalius (Tischendorf’s ms), Theodoret, and others. The Harclean Syriac (text) is quoted by Tischen- dorf and Tregelles in favour of ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ, but it is im- possible to say whether the translator had or had not the pre- position. ev ταῖς καρδίαις $A Ὁ F GP, 47, 8" ; the Old Latin, Vulgate, Mem-
phitic, Peshito Syriac, and Gothic Versions, together with the margin of the Harclean Syriac; the fathers Basil (11. p. 464), Victorinus (probably), Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Ambrosian Hilary, Jerome, and others. Chrysostom (as read in the existing texts) wavers between ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ and ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις. This form of the reading is an attempt to bring Ephes. into harmony with Col., just as (6) is an attempt to bring Col. into harmony with Ephes.
It will be seen how slenderly B is supported; and yet we can hardly resist the impression that it has the right reading in all three cases. In the omission of πνευματικαῖς more especially, where the support is weakest, this impression must, I think, be very strong.
Excellence ‘This highly favourable estimate of B is our starting-point; and on the of B else- whole it will be enhanced as we proceed. Thus for instance in i. 22 andii. 2 where. —_ we shall find this ms alone (with one important Latin father) retaining the correct text; in the latter case amidst a great complication of various read- ings. And when again, as in iy. ὃ, we find B for once on the side of a reading which might otherwise be suspected as a harmonistic change, this support alone will weigh heavily in its favour, Other cases in which B (with more or less support) preserves the correct reading against the mass of authorities are il. 2 πᾶν πλοῦτος, ii. 7 τῇ πίστει, ii. 13 τοῖς παραπτώμασιν (omitting ἐν,
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 247
y. 12 σταθῆτε, together with several instances which will appear in the course of the following investigation. On the other hand its value must
not be overestimated. Thus in iv. 3 τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ dv ὃ καὶ δέδεμαι" there can be little doubt that the great majority of ancient autho- False rities correctly read δ 6, though B F G have δι’ ὅν: but the variation is seeees easily explained. A single stroke, whether accidental or deliberate, alone τ would be necessary to turn the neuter into a masculine and make the relative agree with the substantive nearest to it in position. Again in
ii. 10 ὅς ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλή, the reading of B which substitutes 6 for és is plainly wrong, though supported in this instance by D F G 47*, by the Latin
text d, and by Hilary in one passage (de Trin. ix. 8, τι. p. 263), though else- where (ib. i. 13, I. p. 10) he reads 6. But here again we have only an in- stance of a very common interchange. Whether for grammatical reasons or from diplomatic confusion or from some other cause, five other instances of
this interchange occur in this short epistle alone; i. 15 6 for ὅς F G; i. 186
for ὅς F G; i. 24 ὅς for 6 C D* etc; 1. 27 ὅς foro δὲ Ο Ὁ Καὶ L ete; iii. 14 ὅς
ἴον ὅ 8* D. Such readings again as the omission of καὶ αἰτούμενοι i. 9 by
B K, or of δι αὐτοῦ ini. 20 by B D* F ἃ ete., or of ἡ ἐπιστολή in iv. 16 by
B alone, need not be considered, since the motive for the omission is obvious, and the authority of B will not carry as great weight as it would
in other cases. Similarly the insertion of ἡ in i. 18, 7 ἀρχή, by B, 47, 67**,
b**, and of καί in ii. 15, καὶ ἐδειγμάτισεν, by B alone, do not appear to deserve consideration, because in both instances these readings would suggest themselves as obvious improvements. In other cases, as in the omission of
τῆς before γῆς (i. 20), and of ἑνί in ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι (iii. 15), the scribe of B has erred as any scribe might err.
The various readings in this epistle are more perplexing than perhaps in any portion of St Paul’s Epistles of the same length. The following de- serve special consideration.
i. 3 τῷ θεῷ TaTpl.
On this very unusual collocation I have already remarked in the notes j, 3 τῷ
(p. 133). The authorities stand as follows: θεῷ πατρί, (1) τῷ θεῷ πατρί Β ΟἿ, (2) τῷ θεῷ τῷ πατρί D* F G Chrysostom.
One or other is also the reading of the Old Latin (d, e, g, harl.**), of the Memphitic, the two Syriac (Peshito and Harclean), the Ethiopic, and the Arabic (Erpenius, Bedwell, Leipzig) Versions; and of Augustine (de Unit.
Eccl. 45, 1X. p. 368) and Cassiodorus (11. p. 1351, Migne).
(3) τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί τὰ A ΟἹ D° K ΤΙ P and apparently all the other Mss; the Vulgate and Armenian Versions; Euthalius (Tischendorf’s ms), Theodore of Mopsuestia (transl.), Theodoret, the Ambrosian Hilary, and others.
A comparison of these authorities seems to show pretty clearly that τῷ θεῷ πατρί was the original reading. The other two were expedients
1 In this passage B (with some few _ expression (ii. 2, 1 Cor. iv. 1, Rev. x. other authorities) has τοῦ Θεοῦ for τοῦ 7; comp. 1 Cor. ii. 1, v. 1.) for a less Χριστοῦ, thus substituting acommoner common (Ephes. iii. 4),
248 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
for getting rid of a very unusual collocation of words. The scribes have
compared felt the same difficulty again in fii. 17 εὐχαριστοῦντες τῷ θεῷ πατρὶ δὲ
withiii.17, αὐτοῦ, and there again we find καί inserted before πατρί. In this latter instance however the great preponderance of ancient authority is in favour of the unusual form τῷ θεῷ πατρί.
and i. 12. It is worth observing also that in i. 12, where τῷ πατρί has the highest support, there is sufficient authority for τῷ θεῷ πατρί to create a suspicion that there too it may be possibly the correct reading. Thus τῷ θεῷ πατρί is read in δὲ 37, while θεῷ τῷ πατρί stands in F G. One or other must haye been the reading of some Old Latin and Vulgate texts (f, g, m, fuld.), of the Peshito Syriac, of the Memphitic (in some texts, for others read τῷ πατρί simply), of the Arabic (Bedwell), of the Armenian (Uscan), and of Origen (τ. p. 451, the Latin translator); while several other authorities, Greek and Latin, read τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί.
Unique There is no other instance of this collocation of words, ὁ Θεὸς πατήρ,
colloca- in the Greek Testament, so far as I remember; and it must be regarded
non: as peculiar to this epistle.
i. 4 THN ἀγάπην [HN ἔχετε].
4. Here the various readings are ; SACRE AU (1) τὴν ἀγάπην B. exer: (2) τὴν ἀγάπην ἣν ἔχετε ANC D* FG P 17, 37, 47; the Old
Latin and Vulgate, Memphitic (apparently), and Harclean Syriac Versions; the Ambrosian Hilary, Theodore of Mopsuestia (transl.), and others.
(3) τὴν ἀγάπην τήν. 1)" Καὶ L; the Peshito Syriac (apparently) and Armenian (apparently) Versions; Chrysostom, Theo- doret and others.
If the question were to be decided by external authority alone, we could not hesitate. It is important however to observe that (2) conforms to the parallel passage Philem. 5 ἀκούων σου τὴν ἀγάπην καὶ τὴν πίστιν ἣν ἔχεις, While (3) conforms to the other parallel passage Ephes, i. 15 καὶ [τὴν ἀγάπην] τὴν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους. Thus, though ἣν ἔχετε is so highly sup- ported and though it helps out the sense, it is open to suspicion. Still the omission in B may be an instance of that impatience of apparently super- fluous words, which sometimes appears in this Ms.
i. 7 ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν AldKONOC. 1. 7 Here there is a conflict between mss and Versions. ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. (1) ἡμῶν A Β δὲ Κ D* FG, 3, 13, 33, 43, 52, 80,91, 109. This must also have been the reading of the Ambrosian Hilary though the editors make him write ‘pro vobis’), for he ex- plains it ‘qui eis ministravit gratiam Christi vice apostoli
(2) ὑμῶν 8 C DK L Ρ, 17, 37, 47, and many others ; the Vul- gate, the Peshito and Harclean Syriac, the Memphitic, Gothic, and Armenian Versions; Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia (transl.), and Theodoret (in their respec- tive texts, for with the exception of Chrysostom there is nothing decisive in their comments), with others.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 249
The Old Latin is doubtful; ἃ, e having vobis and g nobis.
Though the common confusion between these two words even in the best Mss is a caution against speaking with absolute certainty, yet such a combination of the highest authorities as we have here for ἡμῶν docs not leave much room for doubt: and considerations of internal criticism point in the same direction. See the note on the passage.
i, 12 τῷ IKAN@CANTI.
Against this, which is the reading of all the other ancient authorities, 1, τ2 we have ἱκανώσαντι. (2) τῷ καλέσαντι D* F G, 17, 80, with the Latin authorities d, e, f, g, m, and the Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopic Ver- sions. It is so read also by the Ambrosian Hilary, by Didymus de Trin. iii. 4 (p. 346), and by Vigilius Thap- sensis c. Varim. i. 50 (p. 409). (3) τῷ καλέσαντι καὶ ἱκανώσαντι, found in B alone. Here the confusion between TwiKANG@CANTI and TawikadecanTti would be easy, more especially at a period prior to the earliest existing Mss, when the iota adscript was still written; while at the same time καλέσαντι would suggest itself to scribes as the obvious word in such a connexion. It is a Western reading. The text of B obviously presents a combination of both readings.
i. 14 ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν.
For ἔχομεν B, the Memphitic Version, and the Arabic (Bedwell, Leipzig), j, 4 read ἔσχομεν. This is possibly the correct reading. In the parallel pas- ἔχομεν or sage, Ephes. i. 7, several authorities (X* D*, the Memphitic and Ethiopic ἔσχομεν ὃ Versions, and the translator of Irenzeus y. 14. 3) similarly read ἔσχομεν for ἔχομεν. It may be conjectured that ἔσχομεν in these authorities was a harmonistic change in Ephes. i. 7, to conform to the text which they or their predecessors had in Col.i. 14. Tischendorf on Ephes. 1]. ¢. says ‘aut utroque loco ἐχομεν aut ecxouey Paulum scripsisse puto’; but if any infer- ence can be drawn from the phenomena of the mss, they point rather to a different tense in the two passages.
i. 22 ATIOKATHAAASHTE.
This reading is perhaps the highest testimony of all to the great value i, 22 of B. ἀποκατηλ-
The variations are ; λάγητε.
(1) ἀποκατηλλάγητε Β. This also seems to be the reading of Hilary of Poitiers In “οὶ Psalm. 9 (1. p. 270), who trans- fers the Apostie’s language into the first person, ‘cum aliquando essemus alienati et inimici sensus ejus in factis malis, nunc autem reconciliati sumus corpore carnis ejus.’
(2) ἀποκατηλλάκηται 17.
(3) ἀποκαταλλαγέντες D* F G, and the Latin authorities ἃ, 6, g,
li. 2 τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ.
Original reading.
Varia- tions ;
(a) by in- terpreta- tion,
(6) by, omission,
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
m, the Gothic Version, the translator of Lrengeus (v. 14. 3},
and others. (4) ἀποκατήλλαξεν, all the other authorities.
Of these (2) is obviously a corruption of (1) from similarity of sound; |
and (3) is an emendation, though a careless emendation, of (1) for the sake
of the grammar. It should have been ἀποκαταλλαγέντας. The reading
therefore must lie between ἀποκατηλλάγητε and ἀποκατήλλαξεν. This latter however is probably a grammatical correction to straighten the syntax.
In the Memphitic a single letter ax for ag would make the difference
between ἀποκατηλλάγητε and ἀποκατήλλαξεν; but no variation from the latter is recorded. ii. 2 TOY θεοΥ, ΧΡΙΟΤΟΥ͂.
The various readings here are very numerous and at first sight per- plexing; but the result of an investigation into their several claims is far from unsatisfactory. The reading which explains all the rest may safely be adopted as the original.
(1) Toy OEoy ypicToy.
This is the reading of B and of Hilary of Poitiers, de Trin. ix. 62 (I. p. 306), who quotes the passage sacramenti Dei Christi in quo ete., and wrongly explains it ‘Deus Christus sacramentum est.’
All the other variations are derived from this, either by explanation or by omission or by amplification.
By explanation we get ;
(2) TOY G8E0Y O ECTIN ypICTOC, the reading of D, with the Latin authorities d, e, which have Det quod est Christus. So it is quoted by Vigilius Thapsensis c. Varim. i. 20 (p. 380), and in a slightly longer form by Augustine de Trin. xiii. 24 (Υ ΠῚ, p. 944) mysterium Dei quod est Christus Jesus.
(3) Toy @E0Y EN YPICTO.
So it is twice quoted by Clement of Alexandria Strom. v. 10 (p. 683), ib. 12 (p. 694); or
TOY ΘΕΟΥ TOY EN XPICTO, the reading of 17.
So the Ambrosian Hilary (both text and commentary) has Dei in Christo. And the Armenian has the same lengthened out, Dei in Christo Jesu (Lohrab) or Det patris in Christo Jesu (Uscan).
(4) Domini quod de Christo is the Ethiopic rendering. Whether this represents another various read- ing in the Greek or whether the paraphrase is the translator’s own, it is impossible to say.
The two following variations strive to overcome the difficulty by omission ;
(5) ΤΟΥ 8E0y, the reading of D by a second hand, of P, 37, 67**, 71, 80, 116.
(6) oY xpicToy, the reading of Euthalius in Tischendorf’s ms; but Tischendorf adds the caution ‘sed non satis apparet.’
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 251
All the remaining readings are attempts to remedy the text by ampli- (c) by fication. They fall into two classes; those which insert πατρός so as to ana make Χριστοῦ dependent on it, (7), (8), and those which separate Θεοῦ from Χριστοῦ by the interposition of a καί, (9), (10), (11).
(7) Toy @€0y TaTpoc ypicToy, (i) by in- the reading of δὲ (by the first hand). Tischendorf also adds b* and Sete o**; but I read Scrivener’s collations differently (Cod. dug. p. 506): or govern
Toy ΘΕΟΥ TMaTpoc ΤΟΥ ypicToy, Χριστοῦ; the reading of A Ὁ, 4.
One or other is the reading of the Thebaic Version (given by Gries- bach) and of the Arabic (Leipz.).
A lengthened form of the same, Dei patris Christi Jesu, appears in the oldest mss of the Vulgate, am. fuld. f: and the same is also the reading of the Memphitic (Boetticher).
(8) ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ Kal TATPOC TOY yPICTOY.
So δὲ (the third hand) ὑπ΄, o, and a corrector in the Harclean Syriac.
>
(9) TOY ΘΕΟΥ ΚΑΙ yPicToy, (ii) by the simplest form of the other class of emendations by amplification. separating It is found in Oyril. Thes. p. 287. elise
(10) TOY ΘΕΟΥ TATPOC KAI TOY ypPicToY. ie con-
So 47, 73, the Peshito Syriac (ed. princeps and Schaaf). And so it Junction. stands in the commentators Chrysostom (but with various readings) and Theodore of Mopsuestia (Spicil. Solesm. τ. p. 131 Det patris et Christi, but in Rab. Maur. Op. vi. p. 521 Dei patris Christi Jesu).
Pelagius has Dei patris et Christi Jesu, and so the Memphitic (Wilkins)
(11) TOY ΘΕΟΥ KAI TATPpOC KAI TOY ΥὙΡΙΟΤΟΥ. The com-
This, which may be regarded as the latest development, is the reading oa Hien of the received text. It is found in D (third hand) KL, and in the great qoyeioy. majority of cursives; in the text of the Harclean Syriac, and in Theodoret ment. and others.
Besides these readings some copies of the Vulgate exhibit other varia- tions; 6. 5. demid. Dei patris et domini nostri Christi Jesu, tolet. Det Christi Jesu patris et Domini.
It is not necessary to add any remarks. The justification of τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ as the original reading will have appeared in the variations to which it has given rise. The passage is altogether an instructive lesson in textual criticism.
ii, 16 ἐν βρώσει Kal ἐν πόξσει.
In this reading B stands alone among the Mss; but it is supported by ij, 16 the Peshito Syriac and Memphitic Versions, by Tertullian (adv. Mare. ν. καί or 7? 19), and by Origen (in Joann. x. § 11, Iv. p. 174). The testimony of Ter- tullian however is invalidated by the fact that he uses e¢ as the connecting particle throughout the passage; and the Peshito Syriac also has ‘and’ for 7 in the two last clauses, though not in the second
[8] Ut to
ii. 18, the omission of the
negative,
The form ἑόρακεν.
1], 23. 15 καί to be omitted?
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
The rest have ἐν βρώσει ἢ ἐν πόσει. This may be explained as a very obvious, though not very intelligent, alteration of scribes to conform to the disjunctive particles in the context, ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ veopnvias ἢ σαββάτων.
In this same context it is probable that B retains the right form veo- μηνίας (supported here by F G and others) as against the Attic νουμηνίας.. In the same way in 111, 25 κομίσεται and iv. 9 γνωρίσουσιν B (with some others) has resisted the tendency to Attic forms.
ii, 18 ἃ ἑόρδκεν.
That this is the oldest reading which the existing texts exhibit, will appear from the following comparison of authorities.
(1) ἃ ἑώρακεν (ἑόρακεν) A BN* D*, 17*, 28, 67** ; the Old Latin au- thorities ἃ, e, m; the Memphitic, Ethiopic, and Arabic (Leipz.) Versions; Tertull. c. Marc. v. 19 (‘ex visionibus angelicis’ ; and apparently Marcion himself also); Origen (6. Cels. v. 8, I. p. 583, though the negative is here inserted by De la Rue, and in Cant. ii, 11. p. 63, in his quae videt); Lucifer (De non conv. δ. haer. p. 782 Migne); the Ambrosian Hilary (ad loc. explaining it ‘Inflantur motum pervidentes stellarum, quas angelos vocat’). So too the unknown author of Quaest. ex N. T. ii. 62 in August. Op. m1. Appx. p. 156. Jerome (Epist. caxiad Alg. § το, τ. p. 880) mentions both readings (with and without the negative) as found in the Greek text: and Augus- tine (Zpist. 149, τι. p. 514), while giving the preference to quae non vidit, says that some mss have quae vidit.
(2) ἃ μὴ ἑώρακεν (ἑόρακεν) δὰ» Ο Τὴ Καὶ Τί P, and the great majority of cursives ;
(3) ἃ οὐκ ἑώρακεν F G.
The negative is also read in g; in the Vulgate, the Gothic, both the Syriac and the Armenian Versions; in the translator of Origen Zn Rom. ix. § 42 (Iv. p. 665),in Ambrose in Psalm. caviiit Exp. xx. (I. p. 1222), and in the commentators Pelagius, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia (Spice. Solesm. τ. Ὁ. 132 ‘quae nec sciunt’), Theodoret, and others.
From a review of these authorities we infer that the insertion of the negative was a later correction, and that ἃ ἑώρακεν (or ἑόρακεν) represents the prior reading. In my note I have expressed my suspicion that ἃ ἑώρα- κεν (or ἑόρακεν) is itself corrupt, and that the original reading is lost.
The unusual form ἑόρακεν is found in δὲ B* C Ὁ P, and is therefore to be preferred to ἑώρακεν.
ii. 23 [kal] ἀφειλία οώμάτοο.
Here καί is found in all the Greek copies except B, but is omitted in these Latin authorities, m, the translator of Origen (Jn Rom. ix. ὃ 42, Iv. p. 665), Hilary of Poitiers (Tract. in xiv Ps. § 7, p. 73), the Ambrosian Hilary, Ambrose (de Noe 25, p. 267), and Paulinus (Zpist. 50, p. 292 sq.). We have more than once found B and Hilary alone in supporting the correct reading (i. 22, li, 2); and this fact gives weight to their joint authority here. The omission also seems to explain the impossible reading of d, e, which
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
have in religione et humilitate sensus et vexationem corporis, where for et vexationem we should perhaps read ad vexationem, as in the Ambrosian Hilary. There was every temptation for a scribe to insert the καί so as to make ἀφειδίᾳ range with the other datives: while on the other hand a finer appreciation of the bearing of the passage suggests that St Paul would have dissociated it, so as to give it a special prominence.
A similar instance occurs in ili. 12 ὡς ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἅγιοι Kal Hya- πημένοι, Where B omits the καί with 17 and the Thebaic Version. In 219 καὶ ἅγιοι is read for ἅγιοι καί. The great gain in force leads to the suspicion that this omission may be correct, notwithstanding the enormous prepon- derance of authority on the other side.
ἵν. 8, Γνῶτε TA περὶ ἡμῶν.
Of the various readings of this passage I have already spoken (p. 29 56:; note I, p. 233).
The authorities are as follows :
(1) γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν A B D*FG P, το, 17, 33, 35, 371 44, 47, 71, 111, 116, 137; d,e,g; the Armenian and Ethiopic Versions; Theodore of Mopsuestia!, Theodoret?, Jerome (on Ephes. vi. 21 sq., Vi. p. 682), and Euthalius (Tischendorf’s Ms). This is also the reading of 8*, except that it has ὑμῶν for ἡμῶν. (2) γνῷ τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν 8° CD’? Καὶ L and the majority of cursives ; ‘ the Memphitic, Gothic, Vulgate, and both Syriac Versions ; the Ambrosian Hilary, Jerome (on Philem. 1, vir. p. 748), Chrysostom (expressly), and others.
The internal evidence is considered in the note on the passage, and found to accord with the vast preponderance of external authority in favour of γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν. The reading of S by the first hand exhibits a transitional stage. It would appear as though the transcriber intended it to be read γνῷ τε τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν. At all events this is the reading of 111 and of Io. Damase. Op. I. p. 214. The variation γνῷ τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν is thus easily explained. (1) ἡμῶν would be accidentally substituted for ὑμῶν; (2) γνῶτε would then be read γνῷ re; (3) the awkward and superfluous re would be omitted. In illustration of the tendency to conform the persons of the two verbs γνῷ, παρακαλέσῃ (see p. 233), it may be mentioned that 17 reads γνώτε, παρακαλέσητε, both here and in Ephes. vi. 22.
1 Tt is true that in the text (Spicil. Solesm. 1. p. 123, Rab. Maur. Op. vu. p- 539, Migne) he is credited with the later Latin reading wt cognoscat quae circa vos sunt, but his comment im- plies the other; ‘Quoniam omnia vobis nota faciet Tychicus illa quae erga me sunt, propterea a me directus est cum Onesimo fratre qui a yobis venerat, ut nota vobis faciant quae erga nos sunt [-- γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν]
et oblectent vos per suum adventum [=kai παρακαλέσῃ Tas καρδίας ὑμῶν], omnia quae hic aguntur manifesta facientes vobis.’ See Spicil. Solesm. l.c.; the comment is mutilated in Rab. Maur. Op. 1. ὁ.
2 In the text; but in the commen- tary he is made to write Wa yw γάρ, φησί, τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν, an impossible reading.
iv. 8 γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν.
The vari- ous read- ings ac- counted for,
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
iv. 15. KAT οἶκον ἀγτῶν.
The readings here are:
(1) αὐτῶν δὲ A CP, 5, 9, 17, 23, 34, 39, 47, 73; together with the Memphitic Version, the Arabic (Leipz.), and Huthalius (Tisch- endorf’s Ms). The Memphitic Version is commonly but wrongly quoted in favour of αὐτοῦ, owing to a mistranslation of Wilkins. But both Wilkins and Boetticher give without any various reading πο ἯΙ, i.e. οἶκον αὐτῶν. This seems also to be the reading of Theodore of Mopsuestia (Spic. Solesm. i. p. 133) quae in domo eorwm est ecclesia; though in Rab, Maur. Op. vi. p. 540 his text runs guae in domo ejus est eccle- siam, and he is made to say Nympham cum omnibus suis qui in domo ejus sunt.
(2) αὐτῆς Β 67**,
(3) αὐτοῦ D FG Καὶ Land the great majority of cursives; and so the Gothic Version, Chrysostom, and Theodoret (the latter distinctly).
The singular, whether αὐτοῦ or αὐτῆς, is the reading of the old Latin and Vulgate, which have ejus, and of the Armenian. The pronoun is also sin- gular in the Peshito and Harclean Syriac. In this language the same con- sonants express masculine and feminine alike, the difference lying in the pointing and vocalisation. And here the copies are inconsistent with them- selves. In the Peshito (both the editio princeps and Schaaf) the proper name is yocalised as a feminine Numphé (-- Νύμφη), and yet means The Syriac 15 treated as having a masculine affix, κατ᾽ οἶκον αὐτοῦ. Inthe text of the versions. Harclean cles is pointed thus, as a feminine αὐτῆς; while the margin
gives the alternative reading cals π (without the point)=avrov. The name
itself is written Nympha, which according to the transliteration of this version
might stand either for a masculine (as Barnaba, Luka, in the context, for
Βαρνάβας, Λουκᾶς) or for a feminine (since Demas, Epaphras, are written with
The Latin 22s). The Latin ejus leaving the gender undetermined, the Latin commen-
tators were free to take either Nymphas or Nympha; and, as Nympha was a
common Latin form of Νύμφη, they would naturally adopt the female name. So the commentator Hilary distinctly.
It should be added that the word is accentuated as a masculine νυμφᾶν
in De L P, and as a feminine νύμφαν in Band Euthalius (Tischendorf’s ms).
Nymphas or Nym- pha?
author- ities.
1 More probably the latter. In Rom. xvi the terminations -a and ἃς for the feminine and masculine names respectively are carefully reproduced in the Harclean Version. In ver. 15 indeed we have Julias, but the trans-
lator doubtless considered the name to be a contraction for Julianus. The proper Syriac termination -a seems only to be employed for the Greek -as in very familiar names such as Bar- naba, Luka.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 255
On the meaning of πλήρωμα.
THE verb πληροῦν has two senses. It signifies either (1) ‘To fill’, 6. g. The mean-
Acts ii. 2 ἐπλήρωσεν ὅλον τὸν οἶκον ; or (2) “Τὸ fulfil, complete, perfect, ing of the verb
accomplish’, e.g. Matt. xxvi. 56 iva πληρωθῶσιν αἱ γραφαί, Rom. xiii. ἘΞ Ὡς
νόμον πεπλήρωκεν, Acts xii. 25 πληρώσαντες τὴν διακονίαν. The latter sense
indeed is derived from the former, but practically it has become separate
from it. The word occurs altogether about a hundred times in the New
Testament, and for every one instance of the former sense there are at
least four of the latter.
In the investigations which have hitherto been made into the significa- False issue tion of the derived substantive πλήρωμα, as it occurs in the New Testa- pecan ment, an almost exclusive prominence has been given to the former mean- pene ing of the verb; and much confusion has arisen in consequence. The question has been discussed whether πλήρωμα has an active or a passive sense, whether it describes the filling substance or the filled receptacle : and not unfrequently critics have arrived at the result that different grammatical senses must be attached to it in different passages, even resulting within the limits of the same epistle. Thus it has been maintained that in theolo- the word has a passive sense ‘id quod impletur’ in Ephes. i. 23 τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ saepaan ἥτις ἐστὶν τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν πληρουμένου, and an active sense ‘id quod implet’ in Ephes. iii. 19 ἵνα πληρωθῆτε εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ. Indeed so long as we see in πληροῦν only the sense ‘to fill’, and refuse to contemplate the sense ‘to complete’, it seems im- possible to escape from the difficulties which meet us at every turn, other- wise than by assigning to its derivative πλήρωμα both an active and a passive sense; but the greatest violence is thus done to the connexion of theological ideas.
Moreover the disregard of lexical rules is not less violent! Substan- and disre- tives in -μα, formed from the perfect passive, appear always to have a gard of passive sense. They may denote an abstract notion or a concrete thing; eras they may signify the action itself regarded as complete, or the product of the action; but in any case they give the result of the agency involved in Meaning the corresponding verb. Such for example are ἄγγελμα ‘a message’, dupa of substan ‘a knot’, ἀργύρωμα ‘a silver-made vessel’, βούλευμα “ἃ plan’, δικαίωμα * a ie a righteous deed’ or ‘an ordinance’, ζήτημα ‘an investigation’, κήρυγμα “ἃ Ί proclamation’, κώλυμα ‘a hindrance’, ὁμοίωμα ‘a likeness’, ὅραμα ‘a vision’,
‘id quod imple- the
1 The meaning of this word πλήρωμα it two main senses,
is the subject of a paper De vocis πλή- ρωμα vario sensu in Ν. T. in Storr’s Opusc. Acad. τ. p. 144.8q., and of an ela- borate note in Fritzsche’s Rom. 11. p. 469 sq. Storr attempts to show that it always has an active sense ‘id quod implet’ in the New Testament. Fritz- sche rightly objects to assigning a persistently active sense to a word which has a directly passive termi- nation: and he himself attributes to
tur’ and ‘id quo res impletur’, latter being the more common. He apparently considers that he has sur- mounted the difficulties involved in Storr’s view, for he speaks of this last as a passive sense, though in fact it is nothing more than ‘id quod implet’ expressed in other words. In Rom. xiii. 10 πλήρωμα νόμου he concedes an active sense ‘legis completio’, ἢ. 6. ‘obseryatio’.
Apparent excep- tions.
πλήρωμα connected with the second sense of πληροῦν.
Its uses in classical writers.
(1) ‘A ship’s crew.’
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
στρῶμα “ἃ carpet’, σφαίρωμα ‘a round thing’, etc. In many cases the sume word will have two meanings, both however passive; it will denote both the completed action and the result or object of the action: e.g. ἅρπαγμα the ‘robbery’ or the ‘booty’, ἀντάλλαγμα the ‘exchange’ or the ‘thing given or taken in exchange’, θήρευμα the ‘hunt’ or the ‘prey’, πάτημα the ‘tread’ or the ‘carpet’, and the like. But in all cases the word is strictly passive; it describes that which might have stood after the active verb, either as the direct object or as the cognate notion. The apparent exceptions are only apparent. Sometimes this deceptive appear- ance is in the word itself. Thus κάλυμμα ‘a veil’ seems to denote ‘that which covers’, but it is really derived from another sense and construction of καλύπτειν, not ‘to hide’, but ‘to wrap round’ (e.g. Hom. 771. v. 315 πρόσθε δέ οἱ πέπλοιο φαεινοῦ πτύγμ᾽ ἐκάλυψεν, XXi. 321 τόσσην οἱ dow καθύπερθε καλύψω), and therefore is strictly passive. Sometimes again we may be led astray by the apparent connexion with the following genitive. Thus in Plut. Mor. 78 Ἑ δήλωμα τοῦ προκόπτειν the word does not mean, as might appear at first sight, ‘a thing showing’ but ‘a thing shown’, ‘a demon- stration given’; nor in 2 Thess. i. 5 ἔνδειγμα τῆς δικαίας κρίσεως must we explain ἔνδειγμα ‘a thing proving’, but ‘a thing proved’, ‘a proof’, And the same is probably the case also with such expressions as συμποσίων ἐρέθισμα (Critias in Athen. xiii. p. 600 D), τόξου ῥῦμα (Asch. Pers. 147), and the like; where the substantives in -μα are no more deprived of their passive sense by the connexion, than they are in ὑπόδημα ποδῶν or στρῶμα κλίνης ; though in such instances the license of poetical construction may often lead to a false inference. Analogous to this last class of cases is Eur. Troad. 824 Ζηνὸς ἔχεις κυλίκων πλήρωμα, καλλίσταν λατρείαν, not ‘the filling’, but ‘the fulness of the cups, the brimming cups, of Zeus.’
Now if we confine ourselves to the second of the two senses above ascribed to πληροῦν, it seems possible to explain πλήρωμα in the same way, at all events in all the theological passages of St Paul and St John, without doing any violence to the grammatical form. As πληροῦν is ‘to complete’, SO πλήρωμα is ‘that which is completed’, i.e. the complement}, the full tale, the entire number or quantity, the plenitude, the perfection.
This indeed is the primary sense to which its commonest usages in classical Greek can be most conveniently referred. Thus it signifies (1) ‘A ship’s crew’: e.g. Xen. Hell. i. 6. 16 διὰ ro ἐκ πολλῶν πληρωμάτων ἐς ὀλίγας (ναῦς) ἐκλελέχθαι τοὺς ἀρίστους ἐρέτας. In this sense, which is very frequent, it is generally explained as having an active force, ‘that which fills the ships’; and this very obvious explanation is recommended by the fact that πληροῦν ναῦν is a recognised expression for ‘manning a ship’, e.g.
1 The English word complement has two distinct senses. It is either (i) the complete set, the entire quantity or number, which satisfies a given standard or cadre, as e.g. the com- plement of a regiment; or (ii) the number or quantity which, when added to a preexisting number or quantity, produces completeness; as e.g. the
complement of an angle, i.e. the angle by which it falls short of being a complete right angle. In other words, it is either the whole or the part. As a theological term, πλήρωμα corre- sponds to the first of these two senses; and with this meaning alone the word ‘complement’ will be used in the fol- lowing dissertation.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 257
Xen. Hell. i. 6.24. But πλήρωμα is used not only of the crew which mans
a ship, but also of the ship which is manned with a crew; e.g. Polyb. i. 49,
4, 5, THY παρουσίαν τῶν πληρωμάτων...τὰ προσφάτως παραγεγονότα πληρώ-
para, Lucian Ver. Hist. ii. 37, 38, ἀπὸ δύο πληρωμάτων ἐμάχοντο. ..πέντε γὰρ
εἶχον πληρώματα ; and it is difficult to see how the word could be trans-
ferred from the crew to the ship as a whole, if the common explanation
were correct. Fritzsche (Rom. τι. p. 469 sq.), to whom I am chiefly indebted
for the passages quoted in this paragraph, has boldly given the word two
directly opposite senses in the two cases, explaining it in the one ‘ea quibus
naves complentur, /.¢. vel socii navales vel milites classiarii vel utrique’,
and in the other ‘id quod completur, δ. δ. navigium’; but this severance of
meaning can hardly be maintained. On the other hand, if we suppose that
the crew is so called as ‘the complement’, (i.e. ‘not that which fills the
ship’, but ‘that which is itself full or complete in respect of the ship’),
we preserve the passive sense of the word, while at the same time the transference to the fully equipped and manned vessel itself becomes natural.
In this sense ‘a complement’ we have the word used again of an army,
Aristid. Or. 1. p. 381 μήτε αὐτάρκεις ἔσεσθαι πλήρωμα ἑνὸς οἰκείου στρατεύματος (2) *Popu- παρασχέσθαι. (2) It sometimes signifies ‘the population of a city’, Arist. lation,’ Pol. iii. 13 (p. 1284) μὴ μέντοι δυνατοὶ πλήρωμα παρασχέσθαι πόλεως (COMP.
iv. 4, p. 1291). Clearly the same idea of completeness underlies this
meaning of the word, so that here again it signifies ‘the complement’:
comp. Dion. Hal. A. 2. vi. 51 τοῦ δ᾽ ὀλίγου καὶ οὐκ ἀξιομάχου πληρώματος
τὸ πλεῖόν ἐστι δημοτικόν κιτιλ., Eur. Lon 663 τῶν φίλων πλήρωμ᾽ ἀθροίσας (3) ‘Total ‘the whole body of his friends’. (3) ‘The entire sum’, Arist. Vesp. 660 amount.’ τούτων πλήρωμα τάλαντ᾽ ἐγγὺς δισχίλια γίγνεται ἡμῖν, ‘ From these sources a (4) ‘Entire total of nearly two thousand talents accrues to us’. (4) ‘The full term’, term.’ Herod. iii. 22 ὀγδώκοντα δ᾽ ἔτεα Cons πλήρωμα ἀνδρὶ μακρότατον προκέεσθαι. (5) ‘Fulfil- (5) ‘The perfect attainment’, ‘ the full accomplishment’, e.g. Philo de Abr. ment.’ 46 (IL. p. 39) πλήρωμα χρηστῶν ἐλπίδων. In short the fundamental mean-
ing of the word generally, though perhaps not universally, is neither ‘the
filling material’, nor ‘the vessel filled’; but ‘that which is complete in
itself’, or in other words ‘ plenitude, fulness, totality, abundance’.
In the Gospels the uses of the word present some difficulty. (1) In Use of Matt. ix. 16 αἴρει yap τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱματίου Kal χεῖρον σχίσμα πλήρωμα γίνεται, it refers to the ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου which has gone before; but te — πλήρωμα need not therefore be equivalent to ἐπίβλημα so as to mean the Siac: ix. patch itself, as is often assumed. The following pronoun αὐτοῦ is most 16. naturally referred to ἐπίβλημα; and if so πλήρωμα describes ‘the com- pleteness’, which results from the patch. The statement is thus thrown into the form of a direct paradox, the very completeness making the garment more imperfect than before. In the parallel passage Mark Mark ii. ii. 21 the variations are numerous, but the right reading seems certainly 21. to be αἴρει τὸ πλήρωμα ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, τὸ καινὸν τοῦ παλαιοῦ κιτιλ. The received text omits the preposition before αὐτοῦ, but a glance at the authorities is convincing in favour of its insertion. In this case the construction will be αἴρει τὸ πλήρωμα (nOM.) ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ (i.e. τοῦ ἱματίου, which has been men- tioned immediately before), τὸ καινὸν (πλήρωμα) τοῦ παλαιοῦ (ἱματίου) ;
‘The completeness takes away from the garment, the new completeness
COL, 17
258
Mark vi. oy
Mark viii. 20.
Usage in St Paul’s Epistles
1 Cor. x. 26.
Rom. xiii. Io.
Rom, xv.
29.
Gal. iv. 4. Eph. i. το.
Rom. xi. 25.
Rom. xi. 12.
General result.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
of tho old garment’, where the paradox is put still more emphatically. (2) In Mark vi. 43 the right reading is καὶ ἦραν κλασμάτων δώδεκα κοφί- vous πληρώματα, i.e. ‘full’ or ‘complete measures’, where the apposition to κοφίνους obviates the temptation to explain πληρώματα as ‘ea quae im- plent’. On the other hand in Mark viii. 20 πόσων σπυρίδων πληρώματα κλασμάτων ἤρατε; this would be the prima facie explanation; comp. Kecles. iv. 6 ἀγαθόν ἐστι πλήρωμα δρακὸς ἀναπαύσεως ὑπὲρ πληρώματα δύο δρακῶν μόχθου. But it is objectionable to give an active sense to πλήρωμα under any circumstances; and if in such passages the patch itself is meant, it must still be so called, not because it fills the hole, but because it is itself fulness or full measure as regards the defect which needs sup- plying.
‘From the Gospels we pass to the Epistles of St Paul, whose usage bears more directly on our subject. And here the evidence seems all to tend in the same direction. (1) In 1 Cor. x. 26 τοῦ Κυρίου yap ἡ γῆ καὶ τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτῆς it occurs in a quotation from Ps, xxiv (xxiii), 1. The ex- pressions τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς γῆς; TO πλήρωμα τῆς θαλάσσης, occur several times in the Luxx (e.g, Ps. xevi (xev). 11, Jer. viii. 16), where τὸ πλήρωμα is ἃ translation of xp, a word denoting primarily ‘fulness’, but having in its secondary uses a considerable latitude of meaning ranging between ‘con- tents’ and ‘abundance’. This last sense seems to predominate in its Greek rendering πλήρωμα, and indeed the other is excluded altogether in some passages, e.g. Cant. v. 13 ἐπὶ πληρώματα ὑδάτων. (2) In Rom. xiii. 10 πλήρωμα νόμου ἡ ἀγάπη, the best comment on the meaning of the word is the context, ver. 8 ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἕτερον νόμον πεπλήρωκεν, SO that πλήρωμα here means the ‘completeness’ and so ‘fulfilment, accomplishment’: see the note on Gal. v.14. (3) In Rom. xv. 29 ἐν πληρώματι εὐλογίας Χριστοῦ ἐλεύσομαι, it plainly has the sense of ‘fulness, abundance’. (4) In Gal. iv. 4 ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου and Ephes. i. 10 εἰς οἰκονομίαν τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν, its force is illustrated by such passages as Mark i. 15 πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς καὶ ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία κιτιλ., Luke xxi. 24 ἄχρι οὗ πληρωθῶσιν καιροὶ ἐθνῶν (comp. Acts ii. I, Vil. 23, 30, ix. 23, XXiv. 27), so that the expressions will mean ‘the full measure of the time, the full tale of the seasons’. (5) In Rom. xi. 25 πώρωσις ἀπὸ μέρους τῷ ᾿Ισραὴλ γέγο- νεν ἄχρις οὗ TO πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν εἰσέλθῃ, it seems to mean ‘the full num- ber’, ‘the whole body’, (whether the whole absolutely, or the whole rela- tively to God’s purpose), of whom only a part had hitherto been gathered into the Church. (6) In an earlier passage in this chapter the same expression occurs of the Jews, xi. 12 εἰ δὲ τὸ παράπτωμα αὐτῶν πλοῦτος κόσμου καὶ TO ἥττημα αὐτῶν πλοῦτος ἐθνῶν, πόσῳ μᾶλλον TO πλήρωμα αὐτῶν.
Here the antithesis between ἥττημα and πλήρωμα, “ failure’ and ‘fulness’, is —
not sufficiently direct to fix the sense of πλήρωμα; and (in the absence of anything to guide us in the context) we may fairly assume that it is used in the same sense of the Jews here, as of the Gentiles in ver. 25.
Thus, whatever hesitation may be felt about the exact force of the | word as it occurs in the Gospels, yet substantially one meaning runs —
through all the passages hitherto quoted from St Paul. In these πλήρωμα has its proper passive force, as a derivative from πληροῦν ‘to make com- plete’. It is ‘the full complement, the entire measure, the plenitude, the
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
fulness’.
There is therefore a presumption in favour of this meaning in
other passages where it occurs in this Aposile’s writings. We now come to those theological passages in the Epistles to the Theologi- Colossians and Ephesians and in the Gospel of St John, for the sake of 68] pas-
which this investigation has been undertaken.
They are as follows ;
Col. i. 19 ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησεν πᾶν TO πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι. ε
= - A aT an , Ξ a Epl
Col. ii. 9 ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς, Kal and Ephe-
> ἌΣ 8. δὲ σὰ λ ΄ εστε EV αὐτῷ πεπληρωμένοι.
Ephes. i. 23 αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν κεφαλὴν ὑπὲρ πάντα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἤτις ἐστὶν τὸ
σῶμα αὐτοῦ, τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν πληρουμένου. Ephes. iii, 19 ἵνα πληρωθῆτε εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ. Ephes. iv. 13 εἰς ἄνδρα τέλειον, εἰς μέτρον ἡλικίας τοῦ πληρώματος τοῦ
Χριστοῦ.
John i. 14, 16, καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν (καὶ ἐθεα- σάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός) πλήρης χάριτος
\ , 2 “ , > Arnie - , ty ν , ean καὶ ἀληθείας...ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν καὶ χάριν ἀντὶ
χάριτος.
To these should be added two passages from the Ignatian Epistles},
which as belonging to the confines of the Apostolic age afford valuable illustration of the Apostolic language.
Ephes. inser. ᾿Ἰγνάτιος, ὁ καὶ Geoddpos, TH εὐλογημένῃ ἐν μεγέθει Θεοῦ Ὕ ᾽ POs, Τῇ YORE ΜΕΥ A , 9 ΄ » ν᾿ ΄“ 3.5 ’ - A > > ΄ πατρὸς πληρωώματι"...τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τῇ ἀξιομακαρίστῳ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Ἐφέσῳ κιτὰλ. ᾽ , ( ς , “ > U Trail. inser. ᾿Ιγνάτιος, ὁ καὶ Θεοφόρος...ἐκκλησίᾳ ayia τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Τράλλε- σιν.. «ἣν καὶ ἀσπάζομαι ἐν τῷ πληρώματι, ἐν ἀποστολικῷ χαρακτῆρι.
It will be evident, I think, from the passages in St Paul, that the word The term
πλήρωμα ‘fulness, plenitude’, must have had a more or less definite theo- This inference, which is suggested by the
logical value when he wrote.
frequency of the word, seems almost inevitable when we consider the form of the expression in the first passage quoted, Col. i. 19. The absolute use of the word, πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα ‘all the fulness’, would otherwise be unintelli- gible, for it does not explain itself. Ia my notes I have taken ὁ Θεός to be
8."
the nominative to εὐδόκησεν,
but if the subject of the verb were πᾶν τὸ
πλήρωμα, as some suppose, the inference would be still more necessary. The word however, regarded as a theological term, does not appear to have been
1 The first of the two passages is containedin the short Syriac recension, though loosely translated; the other is wanting there. I need not stop to en- quire whether the second was written by Ignatius himself or not. Theseyven epistles, even if not genuine (as I now believe them to be), can hardly date later than the middle of the second century and are therefore early enough to afford valuable illustrations of the Apostles’ language.
2 The common texts read καὶ πληρώ- ματι, but there can be little doubt (from a comparison of the authorities) that καὶ should be struck out. The
present Syriac text has et perfectae for πληρώματι; but there is no reason for supposing thet the Syriac trans- lator had anotner reading before him. A slight change in the Syriac,
ralmazs for réaloaz sa,
would bring this version into entire accordance with the Greek; and the confusion was the more easy, because the latter word occurs in the imme- diate context. Or the translator may have indulged in a paraphrase ac- cording to his wont; just as in the longer Latin version πληρώματι here is translated repletae.
iv
259
sages in Colossians
§1ans,
St John.
Ignatius,
has a re- cognised value
260 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
adopted, like so many other expressions in the Apostolic writers!, from the derived nomenclature of Alexandrian Judaism. At least no instance of its occur- from Pa- yence in this sense is produced from Philo. We may therefore conjecture tere naan that it had a Palestinian origin, and that the Essene Judaizers of Colossz, andria. 4 Whom St Paul is confronting, derived it from this source. In this case it
would represent the Hebrew xd, of which it is a translation in the Lxx, and the Aramaic walan or some other derivative of the same root, such being its common rendering in the Peshito. It denotes The sense in which St Paul employs this term was doubtless the sense the totality which he found already attached to it. He means, as he explicitly states in
oe Di- the second Christological passage of the Colossian Epistle (ii. 9), the ple- © pow- : ee
ers, ete, roma, the plenitude of ‘the Godhead’ or ‘of Deity’. In the first passage in the (i. 19), though the word stands without the addition τῆς θεότητος, the signi-
Colossian fication required by the context is the same. The true doctrine of the one dette, Christ, who is the absolute mediator in the creation and government of the world, is opposed to the false doctrine of a plurality of mediators, ‘ thrones, dominions, principalities, powers’. An absolute and unique position is claimed for Him, because in Him resides ‘all the pleroma’, ie. the full complement, the aggregate of the Divine attributes, virtues, energies. This is another way of expressing the fact that He is the Logos, for the Logos is the synthesis of all the various δυνάμεις, in and by which God manifests
Himself whether in the kingdom of nature or in the kingdom of grace. Analogyto ‘This application is in entire harmony with the fundamental meaning of its usage the word. The term has been transferred to the region of theology, but in Be: itself it conveys exactly the same idea as before. It implies that all the
sie . . . . .
several elements which are required to realise the conception specified are in Philo, present, and that each appears in its full proportions. Thus Philo, describing ace the ideal state of prosperity which will result from absolute obedience the family: ‘ Men shall be fathers and fathers too of goodly sons, and women shall be mothers of goodly children, so that each household shall be the pleroma of a numerous kindred, where no part or name is wanting of all those which are used to designate relations, whether in the ascending line, as parents, uncles, grandfathers, or again in the descending line in like manner, as brothers, nephews, sons’ sons, daughters’ sons, cousins, cousins’ and in sons, kinsmen of all degrees?’ So again Aristotle, criticizing the Re- Aristotle, m»yblic of Plato, writes; ‘Socrates says that a city (or state) is composed of ame four classes, as its indispensable elements (τῶν ἀναγκαιοτάτων) : by these he j means the weaver, the husbandman, the shoemaker, and the builder; and again, because these are not sufficient by themselves, he adds the smith and persons to look after the necessary cattle, and besides them the mer- chant and the retail dealer: these together make up the pleroma of a city in its simplest form (ταῦτα πάντα γίνεται πλήρωμα τῆς πρώτης πόλεως);
1 See the notes on Col. i. 15 sq. ἢ ὀνόματος τῶν ὅσα ἐπιφημίζεται κ-.τ.λ.
2 de Praem. et Poen. 18 (11. p. 425). The construction of the subsequent The important words are ὡς ἕκαστον part of the sentence is obscure; and οἶκον πλήρωμα εἶναι πολυανθρώπου cvy- for ὁμοίους we should probably read γενείας, μηδενὸς ἐλλειῴθέντος ἢ μέρους ὁμοίως.
to God’s law, mentions among other blessings the perfect development οὗ
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
thus he assumes that a city is formed to supply the bare necessities of life (τῶν ἀναγκαίων χάριν) etc”. From these passages it will be seen that the adequacy implied by the word, as so used, consists not less in the variety of the elements than in the fulness of the entire quantity or number.
261
So far the explanation seems clear. But when we turn from the Colos- Transition sian letter to the Ephesian, it is necessary to bear in mind the different from Co- aims of the two epistles. While in the former the Apostle’s main object fossieve to
is to assert the supremacy of the Person of Christ, in the latter his prin- giang,
cipal theme is the life and energy of the Church, as dependent on Christ. So the pleroma residing in Christ is viewed from a different aspect, no
longer in relation to God, so much as in relation to the Church. It is that Corre- sponding applica- tion of
plenitude of Divine graces and virtues which is communicated through Christ to the Church as His body. The Church, as ideally regarded, the
bride ‘without spot or wrinkle or any such thing’, becomes in a manner πλήρωμα
identified with Him*. All the Divine graces which reside in Him are to the
imparted to her; His ‘fulness’ is communicated to her: and thus she may Church.
be said to be His pleroma (i. 23). This is the ideal Church. The actual militant Church must be ever advancing, ever struggling towards the attainment of this ideal. Hence the Apostle describes the end of all offices and administrations in the Church to be that the collective body may attain its full and mature growth, or (in other words) may grow up to the complete stature of Christ’s fulness But Christ’s fulness is God’s fulness. Hence in another passage he prays that the brethren may by the indwelling of Christ be fulfilled till they attain to the pleroma of God (iii. 19). It is another way of expressing the continuous aspiration and effort after hvliness which is enjoined in our Lord’s precept, ‘Ye shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect’.
The Gospel of St John, written in the first instance for the same Gospel of churches to which the Epistle to the Ephesians was sent, has numerous and St John.
striking points of resemblance with St Paul’s letter. This is the case here. As St Paul tells the Ephesians that the ideal Church is the pleroma of Christ and that the militant Church must strive to become the pleroma of Christ, so St John (i. 14 sq.) after describing our Lord as μονογενής, i.e. the unique and absolute representative of the Father, and as such ‘full (πλήρης) of grace and of truth’, says that they, the disciples, had ‘received out of His pleroma’ ever fresh accessions of grace. Each indi-
1 Arist. Pol. iv. 4 (p. 1291).
2 See the notes on Col. ii. 19 (p. 198).
3 Ephes. v. 27 sq.
4The Apostle in this passage (Ephes. iv. 13) is evidently contem- plating the collective body, and not the individual believers. He writes οἱ πάντες, NOt πάντες, and ἄνδρα τέλειον, not ἄνδρας τελείου. As he has said before év? ἑκάστῳ ἡμῶν ἐδόθη [ἢ] χάρις κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ Χρι- στοῦ, so now he describes the result of
these various partial graces bestowed on individuals to be the unity and mature growth of the whole, ‘the building up of the body’, μεχρὶ καταν- τήσωμεν ol πάντες eis THY ἑνότητα... els ἄν δρα τέλειον, els μέτρον ἡλικίας τοῦ πληρώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. ‘This cor- porate being must grow up into the one colossal Man, the standard of whose spiritual and moral stature is nothing less than the pleroma of Christ Himself.
5 Matt. v. 48.
Tenatian letters.
Gnostic sects.
The Ce-
rinthians,
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
vidual believer in his degree receives a fraction of that pleroma which is oommunicated whole to the ideal Church.
‘Fhe use of the word is not very different in the Ignatian letters. St Ignatius greets this same Ephesian Church, to which St Paul and St John successively here addressed the language already quoted, as ‘blessed in greatness by the pleroma of God the Father’, i.e. by graces imparted from the pleroma. To the Trallians again he sends a greeting ‘in the ple- roma’, where the word denotes the sphere of Divine gifts and operations, so that ἐν τῷ πληρώματι is almost equivalent to ἐν τῷ Κυρίῳ or ἐν τῷ πνεύματι.
When we turn from Catholic Christianity to the Gnostie sects we find this term used, though (with one important exception) not in great fre- quency. Probably however, if the writings of the earlier Gnostics had been preserved, we should have found that it occupied a more important place than at present appears. One class of early Gnostics separated the spiritual being Christ from the man Jesus; they supposed that the Christ entered Jesus at the time of His baptism and left him at the moment of His crucifixion. Thus the Christ was neither born as a man nor suffered as a man.. In this way they obviated the difficulty, insuperable to the Gnostic mind, of conceiving the connexion between the highest spi- ritual agency and gross corporeal matter, which was involved in the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation and Passion, and which Gnostics of another type more effectually set aside by the theory of docetism, i.e. by assuming that the human body of our Lord was only a phantom body and
not real flesh and blood. Irenzeus represents the former class as teaching —
that ‘Jesus was the receptacle of the Christ’, and that the Christ ‘de- scended upon him from heayen in the form of a dove and after He had declared (to mankind) the nameless Father, entered (again) into the ple- roma imperceptibly and invisibly’!. Here no names are given. But in another passage he ascribes precisely the same doctrine, without however naming the pleroma, to Cerinthus”. And in a third passage, which links together the other two, this same father, after mentioning this heresiarch, again alludes to the doctrine which maintained that the Christ, having descended on Jesus at his baptism, ‘flew back again into His own ple- roma’*, In this last passage indeed the opinions of Cerinthus are men-
1 jii. τό. 1 ‘Quoniam autem sunt qui dicunt Iesum quidem receptaculum Christi fuisse, in quem desuper quasi columbam descendisse, et quum indi- casset Innominabilem Patrem, incom- prehensibiliter et invisibiliter intrasse in pleroma’.
2 i. 26. 1 ‘post baptismum descen- disse in eum ab ea principalitate, quae est super omnia, Christum figura co- lumbae; et tune annuntiasse incog- nitum Patrem et virtutes perfecisse: in fine autem revolasse iterum Christum de Iesu et Iesum passum esse et resurrexisse, etc.’
3 ili. 11. 1 ‘iterum revolasse in suum
pleroma’. This expression is the con- necting link between the other two passages. This third passage is quoted more at length above, p. το, In this passage however the reference of illi in ‘quemadmodum illi dicunt’ is doubtful. Several critics refer it to the Valentinians, and certainly some characteristic errors of the Valentinian teaching are specified immediately after. The probable explanation seems to be that it is intended to include the Gnosties generally, and that Ire- nus mentions in illustration the principal errors of Gnostic teaching, irrespective of the schools to which
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 263
tioned in connexion with those of other Gnostics, more especially the Valentinians, so that we cannot with any certainty attribute this expression
to Cerinthus himself. But in the first passage the unnamed heretics who maintained this return of the Christ ‘into the pleroma’ are expressly dis- tinguished from the Valentinians; and presumably therefore the allusion
is to the Cerinthians, to whom the doctrine, though not the expression, is
ascribed in the second passage. Thus there seems to be sufficient reason Connexion for attributing the use of the term to Cerinthus!. This indeed is probable of this use on other grounds. The term pleroma, we may presume, was common to wa δὲ a St Paul and the Colossian heretics whom he controverts. To both alike it Jit) the conveyed the same idea, the totality of the divine powers or attributes or Colossian agencies or manifestations. But after this the divergence begins. They heretics. maintained that a single divine power, a fraction of the pleroma, resided in
our Lord: the Apostle urges on the contrary, that the whole pleroma has
its abode in Him’. The doctrine of Cerinthus was a development of the Colossian heresy, as I have endeavoured to show above*. He would therefore inherit the term pleroma from it. At the same time he The ple- seems to have given a poetical colouring to his doctrine, and so doing roma.
to have treated the pleroma as a locality, a higher spiritual region, localised. from which this divine power, typified by the dove-like form, issued
forth as on wings, and to which, taking flight again, it reascended
before the Passion. If so, his language would prepare the way for the still
more elaborate poetic imagery of the Valentinians, in which the pleroma, conceived as a locality, a region, an abode of the divine powers, is con- spicuous.
The attitude of later Gnostics towards this term is widely divergent. The term The word is not, so far as Iam aware, once mentioned in connexion with avoided by the system of Basilides. Indeed the nomenclature of this heresiarch be- Basilides, longs to a wholly different type; and, as he altogether repudiated the doctrine of emanations‘, it is not probable that he would have any fondness for a term which was almost inextricably entangled with this doctrine.
On the other hand with Valentinus and the Valentinians the doctrine but promi- of the pleroma was the very key-stone of their system; and, since at first nent in sight it is somewhat difficult to connect their use of the term with St Paul’s, vee a few words on this subject may not be out of place. ;
Valentinus then dressed his system in a poetic imagery not unlike the Poetic
teaching
they belong. He goes on to say that St John in his Gospel desired to ex- clude ‘omnia talia’.
ΤῚ have not been able however to verify the statement in Harvey’s Ire- néus 1. p. lxxiii that ‘The Valentinian notion of a spiritual marriage between the souls of the elect and the angels of the Pleroma originated with Ce- rinthus’,
2 See p. 99 sq., and the notes on i. 19.
3 p. 105 sq.
4 Hippol. R. H. vii. 22 φεύγει yap πάνυ Kal δέδοικε τὰς κατὰ προβολὴν τῶν γεγονότων οὐσίας ὁ Βασιλείδης. Basi- lides asked why the absolute First Cause should be likened to a spider spinning threads from itself, or a smith or carpenter working up his materials, The later Basilideans, apparently in- fluenced by Valentinianism, super- added to the teaching of their founder in this respect; but the strong language quoted by Hippolytus leaves no doubt about the mind of Basilides himself.
204
of Valen- tinus.
Topogra- phical conception of the ple- roma. Antithesis of pleroma and keno- ma,
Pleroma the abode of the ffons.
Different forms of Valenti- nianism.
τονα δῇ
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
myths of his master Plato. But a myth or story involves action, and action requires a scene of action. Hence the mysteries of theology and cosmogony and redemption call for a topographical representation, and the pleroma appears not as an abstract idea, but us a locality.
The Valentinian system accordingly maps out the universe of things into two great regions, called respectively the p/eroma and the kenoma, the ‘fulness’ and the ‘void’. From a Christian point of view these may be described as the kingdoms of light and of darkness respectively. From the side of Platonism, they are the regions of real and of phenomenal existences—the world of eternal archetypes or ideas, and the world of material and sensible things. The identification of these two antitheses was rendered easy for the Gnostic; because with him knowledge was one with morality and with salvation, and because also matter was absolutely bound up with evil. It is difficult to say whether the Platonism or the Christianity predominates in the Valentinian theology; but the former at all events is especially prominent in their conception of the relations between the pleroma and the kenoma.
The pleroma is the abode of the ons, who are thirty in number. These Hons are successive emanations, of which the first pair sprang im- mediately from the preexistent Bythus or Depth. This Bythus is deity in itself, the absolute first principle, as the name suggests; the profound, unfathomable, limitless, of whom or of which nothing can be predicated and nothing known. Here again we have something like a local repre- sentation. The Mons or emanations are plainly the attributes and energies of deity; they are, or they comprise, the eternal ideas or archetypes of the Platonic philosophy. In short they are deity relative, deity under self- imposed limitations, deity derived and divided up, as it were, so as at length to be conceivable.
The topographical relation of Bythus to the derived Alons was dif- ferently given in different developments of the Valentinian teaching. According to one representation he was outside the pleroma; others placed his abode within it, but even in this case he was separated from the rest by Horus (Ὅρος), a personified Boundary or Fence, whom none, not even the Alons themselves, could pass. The former mode of representa-
former type. There are good, though perhaps not absolutely decisive, rea- sons for supposing that this father gives
1 For the various modes in which the relation of the absolute first prin- ciple to the pleroma was represented
in different Valentinian schools, see TORS Tip. Wy Ty PS 4. 1. ΣΤ Uy By Bip Ho ΤΩ: 1, etc. The main distinction is that stated in the text; the first principle was represented in two ways; either (i) as a monad, outside the pleroma ; or (ii) as a dyad, a syzygy, most com- monly under the designation of Βυθός and Σιγή, included within the pleroma but fenced off from the other xons. The Valentinian doctrine as given by Hippolytus (vi. 29 sq.) represents the
the original teaching of Valentinus himself. For (1) this very doctrine of the monad seems to point to an earlier date. It is the link which connects the system of Valentinus not only with Pythagoreanism to which (as Hippolytus points out) he was so largely indebted, but also with the teaching of the earlier heresiarch Ba- silides, whose first principle likewise was a monad, the absolute nothing, the non-existent God. The conception
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
tion might be thought to accord better with the imagery, at the same time that it is more accurate if regarded as the embodiment of a philosophical conception. Nevertheless the latter was the favourite mode of delinea- tion; and it had at least this recommendation, that it combined in one all that is real, as opposed to all that is phenomenal. In this pleroma every existence which is suprasensual and therefore true has its abode.
Separated from this celestial region by Horus, another Horus or Boundary, which, or who, like the former is impassable, lies the ‘kenoma’ or ‘void ’—the kingdom of this world, the region of matter and material things, the land of shadow and darkness’. Here is the empire of the Demiurge or Creator, who is not a celestial Mon at all, but was born in this very void over which he reigns. Here reside all those phenomenal, decep- tive, transitory things, of which the eternal counterparts are found only in the pleroma.
It is in this antithesis that the Platonism of the Valentinian theory reaches its climax. All things are set off one against another in these two regions”: just as
The swan on still St Mary’s lake Floats double, swan and shadow.
Not only have the thirty ons their terrestrial counterparts; but their subdivisions also are represented in this lower region. The kenoma too has its ogdoad, its decad, its dodecad, like the pleroma*®. There is one Sophia in the supramundane region, and another in the mundane; there is one Christ who redeems the AZons in the spiritual world, and a second Christ who redeems mankind, or rather a portion of mankind, in the sensible world. There is an Mon Man and another Hon Ecclesia in the celestial kingdom, the ideal counterparts of the Human Race and the Christian Church in the terrestrial. Even individual men and women, as we shall see presently, have their archetypes in this higher sphere of intelligible being.
of the first principle asadyad seems _ of his exposition. It seems most na-
to have been a later, and not very happy, modification of the doctrine of the founder, being in fact an extension of the principle of syzygies which Va- lentinus with a truer philosophical con- ception had restricted to the derived essences. (2) The exposition of Hip- polytus throughout exhibits a system at once more consistent and more simple, than the luxuriant develop- ments of the later Valentinians, such as Ptolemezus and Marcus. (3) The sequence of his statement points to the same conclusion. He gives a con- secutive account of some one system, turning aside from time to time to notice the variations of different Va- lentinian schools from this standard and again resuming the main thread
tural therefore that he should have taken the system of the founder as his basis. On the other hand Irenezus (i. 11. 1) states that Valentinus re- presented the first principle as a dyad ("Appyros or Βυθός, and Σιγή): but there is no evidence that he had any direct or indirect knowledge of the writings of Valentinus himself, and his information was derived from the later disciples of the school, more especially from the Ptolemzans.
LIBS Hh 75 Tig 2, ΠΡ 5. 1 4 ἘΠῚ li. 5. 1, li. 8. I—3, Hi. 14. 3, lll. 25. 6, 7, etc.
4 Tren./i5, ὅ: 5, 1- 7:15η: 1: 12. 2 ii. 15. 3 8q., ll. 20. 5, ii. 30. 3, ete.
OMG, te 2, ivi, DR ova Hippol. vi. 34.
265
Kenoma, the region of pheno- mena.
Platonism of this an- tithesis.
266
The locali- sation of the plero- ma carried out in de- tail.
The con- nexion with St Paul’s use of the term obscured,
owing partly to the false antithesis κένωμα
EPISTLE TO TITE COLOSSIANS,
The topographical conception of the pleroma moreover is carried out in the details of the imagery. The second Sophia, called also Achamoth, is the desire, the offspring, of her elder namesake, separated from her mother, cast out of the pleroma, and left ‘stranded’ in the void beyond’, being prevented from returning by the inexorable Horus who guards the frontier of the supramundane kingdom. The second Christ—a being com- pounded of elements contributed by all the Alons*—was sent down from the pleroma, first of all at the eve of creation to infuse something like order and to provide for a spiritual element in this lower world; and secondly, when He united Himself with the man Jesus for the sake of redeeming those who were capable of redemption’, At the end of all things Sophia Achamoth, and with her the spiritual portion of mankind, shall be redeemed and received up into the pleroma, while the psychical portion will be left outside to form another kingdom under the dominion of their father the Demiurge. This redemption and ascension of Achamoth (by a perversion of a scriptural image) was represented as her espousals with the Saviour, the second Christ; and the pleroma, the scene of this happy union, was called the bridal-chamber*. Indeed the localisation of the pleroma is as complete as language can make it. The constant repetition of the words ‘within’ and ‘without’, ‘above’ and ‘beneath’, in the development of this philoso- phical and religious myth still further impresses this local sense on the term®.
In this topographical representation the connexion of meaning in the word pleroma as employed by St Paul and by Valentinus respectively seems at first sight to be entirely lost. When we read of the contrast be- tween the pleroma and the kenoma, the fulness and the void, we are naturally reminded of the plenum and the vacuwm of physical specula- tions. The sense of pleroma, as expressing completeness and so denoting the aggregate or totality of the Divine powers, seems altogether to have disappeared. But in fact this antithesis of κένωμα was, so far as we can make out, a mere afterthought, and appears to have been borrowed, as Irenzeus states, from the physical theories of Democritus and Epicurus®, It would naturally suggest itself both because the opposition of πλήρης and κενὸς Was obvious, and because the word κένωμα materially assisted the imagery as a description of the kingdom of waste and shadow. But in
1 Tren. i. 4. 1 λέγουσιν ἐν σκιαῖς ii. 7 ἑαυτὸν éxévwoev; Clem. Alex. Exc.
[σκιᾶς] καὶ κενώματος τόποις ἐκβεβρά- σθαι κιτιλ. The Greek ms reads καὶ σκηνώματος, but the rendering of the early Latin translation ‘in umbrae [602] vacuitatis locis’ leaves no doubt about the word in the original text. Tertullian says of this Achamoth (adv. Valent. 14) ‘explosa est in loca lu- minis aliena...in vacuum atque inane illud Epicuri’. See note 6.
2 Tren. i. 2. 6, Hippol. vi. 32.
3 They quoted, as referring to this descent of the second Christ into the kenoma, the words of St Paul, Phil,
Theod. 35 (p. 978).
4 Tren. i. 7. 1 καὶ τοῦτο εἶναι vup- φίον καὶ νύμφην, νυμφῶνα δὲ τὸ πᾶν πλήρωμα: comp. Hippol. vi. 34 ὁ νυμ- φίος αὐτῆς.
5 This language is so frequent that special references are needless. In Tren. ii. 5. 3 we have a still stronger expression, ‘in yentre pleromatis’.
6 Tren. ii. 14. 3 ‘Umbram autem et vacuum ipsorum a Democrito et Epi- curo sumentes sibimetipsis aptaverunt, quum illi primum multum sermonem fecerint de vacuo et de atomis’,
7
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 267
itself it is a false antithesis. The true antithesis appears in another, and borrowed probably an earlier, term used to describe the mundane kingdom. In this from phy- earlier representation, which there is good reason for ascribing to Valen- sel phi- 5 Ξ ΠΩΣ Σ ει ΣΑΣ» osophers; tinus himself, it is called not κένωμα ‘the void’, but ὑστέρημα ‘the defi- put Το. ciency, incompleteness’, Moreover the common phraseology of the appears in Valentinian schools shows that the idea suggested by this opposition to their com- κένωμα was not the original idea of the term. They speak of τὸ πλήρωμα 1198 Phra- 2 +e 7 2 SF 2 seology. τῶν αἰώνων, τὸ πᾶν πλήρωμα τῶν αἰώνων, ‘the whole aggregate of the fZons’2, And this (making allowance for the personification of the ons) corresponds exactly to its use in St Paul.
Again the teaching of the Valentinian schools supplies other uses The origi- which serve to illustrate its meaning. Not only does the supramundane Dal mean- kingdom as a whole bear this name, but each separate on, of which that 158 Shown
: : Se Aa: : : : by other kingdom is the aggregation, is likewise called a pleroma®. This designa- yses, tion is given to an Alon, because it is the fulness, the perfection, of which its mundane counterpart is only a shadowy and defective copy. Nor does the narrowing of the term stop here. There likewise dwells in this higher region a pleroma, or eternal archetype, not only of every comprehensive mundane power, but of each individual man; and to wed himself with this heavenly partner, this Divine ideal of himself, must be the study of his life. Interpre- The profound moral significance which underlies the exaggerated Plato- tation of nism and perverse exegesis of this conception will be at once apparent. John iv. But the manner in which the theory was carried out is curiously illus- *” re trated by the commentary of the Valentinian Heracleon on our Lord’s
discourse with the Samaritan woman*, This woman, such is his explana-
1 Hippol. vi. 31 καλεῖται δὲ ὅρος μὲν οὗτος ὅτι ἀφορίζει ἀπὸ τοῦ πληρώματος ἔξω τὸ ὑστέρημα: μετοχεὺς δὲ ὅτι μετέ- χει καὶ τοῦ ὑστερήματος (i.e. as standing between the πλήρωμα and ὑστέρημα)" σταυρὸς δέ, ὅτι πέπηγεν ἀκλινώς καὶ ἀμετα- νοήτως, ὡς μὴ δύνασθαι μηδὲν τοῦ ὑστερή- ματος καταγενέσθαι ἐγγὺς τῶν ἐντὸς πλη- ρώματος αἰώνων. Irenzus represents the Marcosians as designating the Demi- urge καρπὸς ὑστερήματος 1. 17. 2, 1. 19. T, il. pracf. 1, ii. τ. 1 (comp. 1. £4. 1). This was perhaps intended originally as an antithesis to the name of the Christ, who was καρπὸς πληρώματος. The Marcosians however apparently meant Sophia Achamoth by this ὑστέ- pnua. This transference from the whole to the part would be in strict accordance with their terminology: for as they called the supramundane ons πληρώματα (Iren. i. 14. 2,5; quoted in Hippol. vi. 43, 46), so also by analogy they might designate the mundane powers ὑστερήματα (comp. Iren. i. 16. 3). The term, as it occurs in the docu-
ment used by Hippolytus, plainly de- notes the whole mundane region.
Hippolytus does not use the word κένωμα, though so common in Irenzus, This fact seems to point to the earlier date of the Valentinian document which he uses, and so to bear out the result arrived at in a previous note (p. 264) that we have here a work of Valentinus himself, The word ὑστέ- pnua appears also in Exc, Theod, 22 (Pp. 974).
2 e.g. Hippol. vi. 34, Iren. i. 2. 6. See especially Iren. 11. 7. 3 ‘Quoniam enim pleroma ipsorum triginta Aeones sunt, ipsi testantur’.
3 See the passages from Irenzus quoted above, note 1; comp. Ezc. Theod. 32, 33 (p- 977). Similarly λόγοι is ἃ synonym for the ons, ὁμωνύμως τῷ Λόγῳ, Exc. Theod. 25 (p. 975):
4 Heracleon in Orig. in Ioann. xiii, Iv. p. 205sq. The passages are collect- ed in Stieren’s Irenezus Ὁ. 947 54. See especially p. 950 οἴεται [ὁ Ἡρακλέων] τῆς
268
Valenti- nians ac- cept St Paul and St John,
and quote them in support of their views.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
tion, belongs to the spiritual portion of mankind. But she had had six? husbands, or in other words she had entangled herself with the material world, had defiled herself with sensuous things. The husband however, whom she now has, is not her husband ; herein she has spoken rightly: the Saviour in fact means ‘her partner from the pleroma’. Hence she is bidden to go and call him; that is, she must find ‘her pleroma, that coming to the Saviour with him (or it), she may be able to obtain from Him the power and the union and the combination with her pleroma’ (τὴν δύναμιν καὶ τὴν ἕνωσιν καὶ τὴν ἀνάκρασιν THY πρὸς TO πλήρωμα αὐτῆς). ‘For’, adds Heracleon, ‘ He did not speak of a mundane (κοσμικοῦ) husband when He told her to call him, since He was not ignorant that she had no lawful husband’.
Impossible as it seems to us to reconcile the Valentinian system with the teaching of the Apostles, the Valentinians themselves felt no such difliculty. They intended their philosophy not to supersede or contradict the Apostolic doctrine, but to supplement it and to explain it on philo- sophical principles. Hence the Canon of the Valentinians comprehended the Canon of Catholic Christianity in all its essential parts, though some Valentinian schools at all events supplemented it with Apocryphal wri- tings. More particularly the Gospel of St John and the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians were regarded with especial favour; and those passages which speak of the pleroma are quoted more than once in their writings to illustrate their teaching. By isolating a few words from the context and interpreting them wholly without reference to their setting, they had no difficulty in finding a confirmation of their views, where we see only an incongruity or even a contradiction. For instance, their second Christ—the redeemer of the spiritual element in the mundane world—was, as we saw, compacted of gifts contributed by all the Alons of the pleroma. Hence he was called ‘the common fruit of the pleroma’, ‘the fruit of all the pleroma’’, ‘the most perfect beauty and constellation of the pleroma’’; hence
Σαμαρείτιδος τὸν λεγόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ cw- participation in this higher region)
τῆρος ἄνδρα τὸ πλήρωμα εἶναι αὐτῆς, ἵνα σὺν ἐκείνῳ γενομένη πρὸς τὸν σωτῆρα κομίσεσθαι παρ αὐτοῦ τὴν δύναμιν καὶ τὴν ἕνωσιν καὶ τὴν ἀνάκρασιν τὴν πρὸς τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτῆς δυνηθῇ" οὐ γὰρ περὶ ἀνδρός, φησί, κοσμικοῦ ἔλεγεν....... λέγων αὐτῇ τὸν σωτῆρα εἰρηκέναι, Φώ- νησόν σου τὸν ἄνδρα καὶ ἐλθὲ ἐνθάδε" δη- λοῦντα τὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ πληρώματος σύ- ἕυγον. Lower down Heracleon says ἣν αὐτῆς ὁ ἀνὴρ ἐν τῷ ΔΑἰῷνι. By this last expression I suppose he means that the great eon Man of the Ogdoad, the eternal archetype of mankind, com- prises in itself archetypes correspond- ing to each individual man and woman, not indeed of the whole human race (for the Valentinian would exclude the psychical and carnal portion from any
but of the spiritual portion thereof,
1 Origen expressly states that Hera- cleon read ἕξ for πέντε. The number six was supposed to symbolize the material creature; see Heracleon on ‘the forty and six years’ of John ii. 20 (Stieren p. 947). There is no reason to think that Heracleon falsified the text here; he appears to have found this various reading already in his copy.
2 The expression is ὁ κοινὸς τοῦ πλη- ρώματος καρπὸς in Hippolytus vi. 32, 34, 36 (pp. 190, 191, 192, 193, 196). In Treneus i. 8. 5 it is καρπὸς παντὸς τοῦ πληρώματος.
3 Tren. i. 2. 6 τελειότατον κάλλος τε καὶ ἄστρον τοῦ πληρώματος.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
also he was designated ‘ All’ (πᾶν) and ‘All things’ (πάντα). Accordingly, to this second Christ, not to the first, they applied these texts; Col. iii. 11 ‘And He is all things’, Rom. xi. 36 ‘ All things are unto Him and from Him are all things’, Col. ii. 9 ‘In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead’, Ephes. i. 10 ‘To gather together in one all things in Christ through God’4. So too they styled him Evdcxnros, with a reference to Col. i. 19, because ‘all the pleroma was pleased through Him to glorify the Father’*. And inasmuch as this second Christ was according to the Valentinian theory instrumental in the creation of the mundane powers, they quoted, or rather misquoted, as referring to this participation in the work of the Demiurge, the passage Col. i. 16 ‘In Him were created all things, visible and invisible, thrones, deities, dominions’4. Indeed it seems clear that these adaptations were not always afterthoughts, but that in several instances at least their nomenclature was originally chosen for the sake of fitting the theory to isolated phrases and expressions in the Apostolic writings, however much it might conflict with the Apostolic doctrine in its main lines®.
269
The heretics called Docetae by Hippolytus have no connexion with Use of the
docetism, as it is generally understood, i.e. the tenet that Christ’s body was not real flesh and blood, but merely a phantom body. Their views on this point, as represented by this father, are wholly different®. Of their system generally nothing need be said here, except that it is largely satu- rated with Valentinian ideas and phrases. From the Valentinians they evidently borrowed their conception of the pleroma, by which they under- stood the aggregate, or (as localised) the abode, of the Hons. With them, as with the Valentinians, the Saviour is the common product of all the fons’; and in speaking of him they echo a common Valentinian phrase ‘the pleroma of the entire Hons’®.
The Ophite heresy, Proteus-like, assumes so many various forms, that
term by the Doce-
tae,
and by
the skill of critics has been taxed to the utmost to bind it with cords two Ophite
and extract its story from it. It appears however from the notices of Hippolytus, that the term pleroma was used in a definite theological sense by at least two branches of the sect, whom he calls Naassenes and Peratae.
Of the Naassenes Hippolytus tells us that among other images bor- rowed from the Christian and Jewish Scriptures, as well as from heathen poetry, they described the region of true knowledge—their kingdom of
ἘΠ πΟΙΝ 1- 2.10; 1- 354%
2 Tren. i. 3. 4. The passages are given in the text as they are quoted by Trenzus from the Valentinians. Three out of the four are incorrect.
3 Tren. i. 12. 4; comp. Exc. Theod. 31 (Ρ. 977) εἰ ὁ κατελθὼν εὐδοκία τοῦ ὅλου ἦν" ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα ἣν σωματικῶς.
4 Tren. i. 4. 5 ὅπως ἐν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα κτισθῇ, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, θρόνοι, θεότητες, κυριότητες, where the mis- quotation is remarkable. In Eze. Theod. 43 (p. 979) the words run πάντα yap ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ
ἀόρατα, θρόνοι, κυριότητες, βασιλεῖαι, θεό- τητες, λειτουργίαι" διὸ καὶ ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν κ-τ.Ἃ. (the last words being taken from Phil. il. 9 sq.).
5 Thus they interpreted Ephes. iii. a1 els πάσας τὰς γενεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων as referring to their generated wons: Iren. i. 3. 1. Similar is the use which they made of expressions in the opening chapter of St John, where they found their first Ogdoad described: UD ein 8. ἢ:
6 R. H. viii. 10 (p. 267).
7 ib. Vill. Q.
8 ib. viii. 10 (p. 266).
sects.
(i) Naas- senes,
iS) “NI Ο
(ii)Peratae.
Their theology
and corre- sponding applica- tion of πλήρωμα.
Pistis Sophia.
Frequent use of the term,
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
heaven, which was entered by initiation into their mysteries—as the Jand flowing with milk and honey, ‘which when the perfect (the true Gnostics, the fully initiated) have tasted, they are freed from subjection to kings (4Ba- σιλεύτους) and partake of the pleroma. Here is a plain allusion to Joh, i. 16. ‘This’, the anonymous Naassene writer goes on to say, ‘is the ple- roma, through which all created things coming into being are produced and fulfilled (πεπλήρωται) from the Uncreated’*, Here again, as in the Valentinian system, the conception of the pleroma is strongly tinged with Platonism. The pleroma is the region of ideas, of archetypes, which intervenes between the author of creation and the material world, and communicates their specific forms to the phenomenal existences of the latter.
The theology of the second Ophite sect, the Peratae, as described by Hippolytus, is a strange phenomenon. ‘They divided the universe into three regions, the uncreate, the self-create, and the created. Again the middle region may be said to correspond roughly to the Platonic kingdom of ideas. But their conception of deity is entirely their own. They postulate three of every being; three Gods, three Words, three Minds (i.e. as we may suppose, three Spirits), three Men. Thus there is a God for each region, just as there isa Man. In full accordance with this per- verse and abnormal theology is their application of St Paul’s language. Their Christ has three natures, belonging to these three kingdoms respec- tively ; and this completeness of His being is implied by St Paul in Col. i, 19, li. 9, Which passages are combined in their loose quotation or para- phrase, ‘ All the pleroma was pleased to dwell in him bodily, and there is in him all the godhead’, i.e. (as Hippolytus adds in explanation) ‘of this their triple division (τῆς οὕτω διῃρημένης τριάδος)". This application is altogether arbitrary, having no relation whatever to the theological mean- ing of the term in St Paul. It is also an entire departure from the conception of the Cerinthians, Valentinians, and Naassenes, in which this meaning, however obscured, was not altogether lost. These three heresies took a horizontal section of the universe, so to speak, and applied the term as coextensive with the supramundane stratum. The Peratae on the other hand divided it vertically, and the pleroma, in their interpretation of the text, denoted the whole extent of this vertical section. There is nothing in common between the two applications beyond the fundamental meaning of the word, ‘completeness, totality’.
The extant Gnostic work, called Pistis Sophia, was attributed at one time on insufficient grounds to Valentinus. It appears however to exhibit a late development of Ophitism®, far more Christian and less heathen in its character than those already considered. In this work the word pleroma occurs with tolerable frequency; but its meaning is not easily fixed. Early in the treatise it is said that the disciples supposed a certain ‘mystery’, of which Jesus spoke, to be ‘the end of all the ends’ and ‘the head (κεφαλήν) of the Universe’ and ‘the whole pleroma’‘, Here we seem to have an allusion to the Platonic kingdom of ideas,
> Fats Jal We 8. 5. ἫΣ ΓΟ. τὸς Tiibingen 1854, p. 185. 3 See Késtlin in Theolog. Jahrb. 4 Pistis Sophia p. 3 sq.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 271
1.6. of intelligible being, of absolute truth, as reproduced in the Valenti- nian pleroma. And the word is used sometimes in connexion with the completeness of revelation or the perfection of knowledge. Thus our Lord is represented as saying to His disciples, ‘I will tell you the whole mystery and the whole pleroma, and I will conceal nothing from you from this hour; and in perfection will I perfect you in every pleroma and in every perfection and in every mystery, which things are the perfection of all the perfections and the pleroma of all the pleromas’}, Elsewhere however Mary, to whom Jesus is represented as making some of His chief revelations, is thus addressed by Him; ‘Blessed art thou above (παρὰ) all women that are on the earth, for thou shalt be pleroma of all the pleromas and perfection of all the perfections’*, where the word must be used in a more general sense.
One heresy still remains to be noticed in connexion with this word. Monoimus Hippolytus has preserved an account of the teaching of Monoimus the the Ara- Arabian, of whom previously to the discovery of this father’s treatise we 124: knew little more than the name. In this strange form of heresy the absolute first principle is the uncreate, imperishable, eternal Man. I need not stop to enquire what this statement means. It is sufficient for the present purpose to add that this eternal Man is symbolized by the letter 1, the ‘one iota’, the ‘one tittle’ of the Gospel’; and this 1, as representing the number ten, includes in itself all the units from one to nine. - ‘This’, added Monoimus, ‘is (meant by) the saying (of scripture) All the ple- roma was pleased to dwell upon the Son of Man bodily’* Here the original idea of the word as denoting completeness, totality, is still preserved.
1 ib. Ὁ. 15 8q.: comp. pp. 4, 60, 75, parently in the sense of ‘comple- 187, 275. tion’.
2 ib. p. 28 sq.: comp. p. 56. Onp.7 3 Matt. v. 18. πλήρωμα is opposed to ἀρχή, ap- O 1 Jal; Vali, 15.
to INT to
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
The Epistle from Laodicea’.
Different THe different opinions respecting the epistle thus designated by theories St Paul, which have been held in ancient or modern times, will be seen classified. from the following table;
1. An Epistle written by the Laodiceans; to (a) St Paul; (8) Epaphras ; (vy) Colossee. 2. An Epistle written by St Paul from Laodicea. (a) 1 Timothy; (8) 1 Thessalonians; (y) 2 Thessalonians; (5) Galatians.
3. An Epistle addressed to the Laodiceans by (a) St John (the First Epistle) ; (Ὁ) Some companion of St Paul (Epaphras or Luke) ; (c) St Paul himself; (i) A lost Epistle. (ii) One of the Canonical Epistles. (a) Hebrews; (8) Philemon; (y) Ephesians, (iii) The Apocryphal Epistle. In this maze of conflicting hypotheses we might perhaps be tempted to despair of finding our way and give up the search as hopeless. Yet I ven- ture to think that the true identification of the epistle in question is not, or at least ought not to be, doubtful. A I. The opinion that the epistle was addressed by the Laodiceans to epistle St Paul, and not conversely, found much support in the age of the Greek written by commentators. It is mentioned by St Chrysostom as held by ‘some per- read sons’, though he himself does not pronounce a definite opinion on the sub- A pes ject? It is eagerly advocated by Theodore of Mopsuestia. He supposes
that the letter of the Laodiceans contained some reflexions on the Colos-
of this theory. sian Church, and that St Paul thought it good for the Colossians to hear
1 The work οὗ Anger, Ueber den Laodicenerbrief (Leipzig 1843), is very complete. He enumerates and dis- cusses very thoroughly the opinions of his predecessors, omitting hardly anything relating to the literature of the subject which was accessible at the time when he wrote. His expo- sition of his own view, though not less
elaborate, is less satisfactory. A later monograph by A. Sartori, Ueber den Laodicenserbrief (Lubeck 1853),is much slighter and contributes nothing new.
2 ad loc. τινὲς λέγουσιν ὅτι οὐχὶ Thy Παύλου πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἀπεσταλμένην, ἀλλὰ τὴν παρ᾽ αὐτῶν Παύλῳ" οὐ γὰρ εἶπε τὴν πρὸς Λαοδικέας ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐκ Λαοδι- κείας.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
what their neighbours said of ὑπο, Theodoret, though not mentioning Theodore by name, follows in his footsteps» The same opinion is also expressed in a note ascribed to Photius in the Cicumenian Catena. This view seems to have been very widely entertained in ancient times. It possibly underlies the Latin Version ‘ea quze Laodicensium est’?: it is distinctly expressed in the rendering of the Peshito, ‘that which was written by the Laodiceans’% At a more recent date too it found great favour. It was adopted on the one hand by Calvin® and Beza® and Davenant and Lightfoot’, on the other by Baronius® and a Lapide and Estius, besides other very considerable names*. Latterly its popularity has declined, but it has secured the support of one or two commentators even in the present century,
273
The underlying motive of this interpretation was to withdraw the sup- Reasons
port which the apocryphal epistle seemed to derive from this reference, for it.
without being obliged at the same time to postulate a lost epistle of St Paul. The critical argument adduced in its support was the form of ex-
pression, τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας. The whole context however points to a different Objections
explanation. The Colossian and Laodicean Epistles are obviously regarded to it.
as in some sense companion epistles, of which the Apostle directs an inter- change between the two churches. And again, if the letter in question had
1 Rab. Maur. Op. νι. p. 540 (Migne) Laodicea.’ The difference depends on
‘Non quia ad Laodicenses scribit. Unde quidam falsam epistolam ad Laodicenses ex nomine beati Pauli confingendam esse existimaverunt ; nec enim erat vera epistola. Aistima- verunt autem quidam illam esse, que in hoe loco est significata. Apostolus vero non [ad] Laodicenses dicit sed ex Laodicea; quam illi scripserunt ad apostolum, in quam aliqua repre- hensionis digna inferebantur, quam etiam hac de causa jussit apud eos legi, ut ipsi reprehendant seipsos discentes que de ipsis erant dicta etc.’ (see Spic. Solesm. 1. p. 133).
2 After repeating the argument based on the expression τὴν ἐκ Λαοδι- kelas, Theodoret says εἰκὸς δὲ αὐτοὺς ἢ τὰ ἐν Κολασσαῖς γενόμενα αἰτιάσασθαι ἢ τὰ αὐτὰ τούτοις νενοσηκέναι.
* This however may be questioned. On the other hand Beza (ad loc.), Whitaker (Disputation on Scripture pp. 108, 303, 468 sq., 526, 531, Parker Society’s ed.), and others, who explain the passage in this way, urge that it is required by the Greek ἐκ Λαοδικείας, and complain that the other interpre- tation depends on the erroneous Latin rendering.
4 Or, ‘that which was written from
COL.
the vocalisation of anna which
may be either (1) ‘Laodicea,’ as in vv. 13, 15, or (2) ‘the Laodiceans,’ as in the previous clause in this same ver. 16.
5 Calvin is very positive; ‘Bis hallucinati sunt qui Paulum arbi- trati sunt ad Laodicenses scripsisse. Non dubito quin epistola fuerit ad Paulum missa ... Impostura autem nimis crassa fuit, quod nebulo nescio quis hoc pretextu epistolam supponere ausus est adeo insulsam, ut nihil a Pauli spiritu magis alienum fingi queat.’ The last sentence reveals the motive which unconsciously led so many to adopt this unnatural inter- pretation of St Paul’s language.
6 ad loc. ‘Multo fcedius errarunt qui ex hoe loco suspicati sunt quan- dam fuisse epistolam Pauli ad Lao- dicenses ...... quum potius significet Paulus epistolam aliquam ad se missam Laodicea, aut potius qua re- sponsuri essent Laodicenses Colos- sensibus.’
7 Works τι. p. 326.
8 Ann. Eccl. 5. a. 60, § xiii.
9 e.g. Tillemont Mem. Eccl. 1. p.
576. 18
274
Views
respecting the person addressed,
2. A letter written from Lao- dicea by St Paul.
1 Timothy.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
been written by the Laodiceans to St Paul, why should he enjoin the Colos- sians to get it from Laodicea? How could he assume that a copy had been kept by the Laodiceans; or, if kept, would be given up when required? In- deed the difficulties in this hypothesis are so great, that nothing but the most imperious requirements of the Greek language would justify its acceptance. But the expression in the original makes no such demand. It is equally competent for us to explain τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας either ‘the letter written from Laodicea’, or ‘the letter to be procured from Laodi- cea’, as the context may suggest. The latter accords at least as well with Greek usage as the former?.
The vast majority of those who interpret the expression in this way assume that the letter was written to (a) St Paul. The modifications of this view, which suppose it addressed to some one else, need hardly be considered. The theory for instance, which addresses it to (8) Epaphras?, removes none of the objections brought against the simpler hypothesis. Another opinion, which takes (y) the Colossians themselves to have been the recipients*, does indeed dispose of one difficulty, the necessity of assuming a copy kept by the Laodiceans, but it is even more irreconcile- able with the language of the context. diously charge them to see that they read it? Why above all should he say καὶ ὑμεῖς, ‘ye also’, when they were the only persons who would read it as a matter of course ?
2. <A second class of identifications rests on the supposition that it was a letter written from Laodicea, though not by the Laodiceans them- selves. The considerations which recommend this hypothesis for accept- ance are the same as in the last case. It withdraws all support from the apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans, and it refrains from postulating a lost Apostolic epistle. It is not exposed to all the objections of the other theory, but it introduces new difficulties still more serious. Here a choice of several epistles is offered to us. (a) The First Epistle to Timothy. This view is distinctly maintained by John Damascene‘ and by Theophy- lact®; but it took its rise much earlier. It appears in the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac®, and it seems to have suggested the subscriptions found in many authorities at the close of that epistle. The words ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Λαοδικείας are found in AKL 47 etc., and many of these define the place meant by the addition ἥτις ἐστὶ μητρόπολις Φρυγίας τῆς Πακατιανῆς. A similar note is found in some Latin mss. It is quite possible that this subscription was prior to the theory respecting the interpretation of Col. iv. 16, and gave rise to it; but the converse is more probable, and in some
Why then should St Paul so stu- |
1 See the note on iy. 16.
2 e.g. Storr Opusc. τι. p. 124 56.
3 So for instance Corn. ἃ Lapide, as an alternative, ‘vel certe ad ipsos Colossenses, ut vult Theodor.’; but I do not find anything of the kind in Theodoret. This view also commends itself to Beza.
4 Op. τι. p. 214 (ed. Lequien) τὴν πρὸς Τιμόθεον πρώτην λέγει. But he adds τινὲς φασὶν ὅτι οὐχὶ τὴν Παύλου
πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἐπεσταλμένην... ἀλλὰ τὴν map αὐτῶν Παύλῳ ἐκ Λαοδικείας γρα- φεῖσαν.
5 ad loc. τίς δὲ ἣν ἡ ἐκ Λαοδικείας ; ἡ πρὸς Τιμόθεον πρώτη" αὕτη γὰρ ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἐγράφη. τινὲς δέ φασιν ὅτι ἣν οἱ Λαοδικεῖς Παύλῳ ἐπέστειλαν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ οἷδα τί ἂν ἐκείνης ἔδει αὐτοῖς πρὸς βελτίωσιν.
6 ad loc. ‘Propter eam que est ad Timotheum dixit.’
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 275
Mss (απ 74) the bearing of this subscription on Col. iv. 16 is emphasized,
ἰδοὺ δὴ καὶ ἡ ἐκ Λαοδικείας. This identification has not been altogether without support in later times'. (8) The First Epistle to the Thessalo- τ Thessa- nians. A final colophon in the Philoxenian Syriac asserts that it was lonians. ‘written from Laodicea’: and the same is stated in a later hand of d, ‘scribens a Laodicea.’ Again an Ethiopic ms, though giving Athens as
the place of writing, adds that it was ‘sent with Timotheus, Zychicus, and Onesimus®’” This identification was perhaps suggested by the fact that
1 Thessalonians follows next after Colossians in the common order of St
Paul’s Epistles. (y) The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, In the 2 Thessa- Peshito (as given by Schaaf?) there is a final colophon stating that this lonians. epistle ‘was written from Laodicea of Pisidia and was sent by the hand of Tychicus*’ Though the addition of Pisidia wrongly defines the place as Laodicea Combusta, instead of Laodicea ad Lycum, yet the mention of
the messenger’s name shows plainly that the identification with the missing
epistle of Col. iv. 16 was contemplated. So too the Memphitic ‘ per Silva-
num et Tychicum’, and a Latin prologue ‘per Titum et Onesimum?
Again, an Ethiopic Ms points to the same identification, though strangely confused in its statements. In the superscription we are told that this
epistle was written when the Apostle was at Laodicea, but in the sub- scription that it ‘was written at Athens to Laodicea and sent by Tychicus’;
while the prolegomena state that it was written and left at Laodicea, and
that afterwards, when St Paul wrote his letter to the Colossians from
Rome, he gave directions that it should be transmitted to the Thessalonians
by the Colossians. (6) The Lpistle to the Galatians®, This might have Galatians. been chosen, partly because it affords no internal data for deciding where
it was written, partly because like the Colossian Epistle it is directed against a form of Judaism, and the advocates of this hypothesis might not
be careful to distinguish the two types, though very distinct in themselves.
I find no support for it in the subscriptions, except the notice ‘per Tychi-
cum’ in some Slavonic Mss.
The special difficulties attending this class of solutions are manifold. Objections (1) It does not appear that St Paul had ever been at Laodicea when he to these wrote the letter to the Colossians. (2) All the epistles thus singled out ®!utions. are separated from the Colossian letter by an interval of some years at least. (3) In every case they can with a high degree of probability be shown to have been written elsewhere than at Laodicea. Indeed, as St Paul had been long a prisoner either at Czesarea or at Rome, when he wrote to Colossz, he could not have despatched a letter recently from Laodicea.
1 It is adopted by Erasmus in his paraphrase; ‘vicissim vos legatis e- pistolam que Timotheo scripta fuit ex Laodicensium urbe’: but in his commentary he does not commit him- self toit. For other names see Anger p. 17, note k.
2 Catal. Bibl. Bodl. Cod. Aithiop.
p. 236
3 In the editio princeps (Vienna 1555) the latter part of this colophon, ‘and was sent by the hand of Tychi- cus,’ is wanting.
4 Catal. Bibl. Bodl. Cod. Athiop.
. 23. ᾿ δ Bloch, quoted in Anger p. 17, note l,
18—2
276
3. A letter tothe Lao- makes it a letter written to the Laodiceans.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
3. Thus we are thrown back on some form of the solution which
And here we may at once
Beene b reject the hypothesis that the writer was (a) St John’. The First Epistle (a) St ἊΣ of St John, which has been selected, was written (as is allowed on all hands) John much later than this date. Nor again does St Paul’s language favour
(Ὁ) A com- the alternative, which others have maintained, that the letter in question an was written by (Ὁ) one of St Paul’s companions, e.g. Epaphras or Luke*. (c) StPaul, Lhe writer must therefore have been (c) St Paul himself.
On this assumption three alternatives offer themselves.
(i) We may suppose that the epistle in question has been lost. It has been pointed out elsewhere that the Apostle must have written many letters which are not preserved in our Canon’, Thus there is no a priori ob- jection to this solution; and, being easy and obvious in itself, it has found common support in recent times. If therefore we had no positive reasons for identifying the Laodicean letter with one of the extant epistles of our Canon, we might at once close with this account of the matter. But such reasons do exist. And moreover, as we are obliged to suppose that at least three letters—the Epistles to the Colossians, to the Ephesians, and to Philemon—were despatched by St Paul to Asia Minor at the same time, it is best not to postulate a fourth, unless we are obliged to do so.
(i) A lost letter.
(ii) A Ca- (ii) But, if it was not a lost letter, with which of the Canonical nonical Epistles of St Paul can we identify it with most probability? Was it epistle. (a) The Epistle to the Hebrews ? The supporters of this hypothesis are (a) He- Sn
brews. able to produce ancient evidence of a certain kind, though not such as Philas- carries any real weight. Philastrius, writing about the close of the fourth trius. century, says that some persons ascribed the authorship of the Epistle to
the Hebrews to Luke the Evangelist, and adds that it was asserted (appa- rently by these same persons, though this is not quite clear) to have been written to the Laodiceans*, Again in the Greeco-Latin ms G of St Paul’s
1 A conjecture of Lightfoot (Works II. pp. 326, 339, London 1684), but he does not lay much stress on it. He offers it ‘rather then conceive that any epistle of Paul is lost.’ See also Anger p. 17, note m.
2 Baumgarten Comm. ad loc., quoted by Anger p. 25, note g.
3 Philippians p. 136 sq.
4 Her. Ixxxix ‘Sunt alii quoque qui epistolam Pauli ad Hebreos non adserunt esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut Barnabe esse apostoli aut Clementis de urbe Roma episcopi; alii autem Luce evangeliste aiunt epistolam etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam. Ht quia addiderunt in ea quedam non bene sentientes, inde non legitur in ecclesia; et si legitur a quibusdam, non tamen in ecclesia legitur populo, nisi tredecim epistole ipsius, et ad
Hebreos interdum. Et in ea quia thetorice scripsit, sermone plausibili, inde non putant esse ejusdem apostoli; et quia factum Christum dicit in ea [Heb. iii. 2], inde non legitur; de peenitentia autem [Heb. vi. 4, x. 26] propter Novatianos eque. Cum ergo factum dicit Christum, corpore, non divinitate, dicit factum, cum doceat ibidem quod divine sit et paterne substantie filius, Qui est splendor gloria, inquit, et imago substantie ejus [Heb. i. 3]’ etc. Ocehler punc- tuates the sentence with which we are concerned thus: ‘alii autem Luca evangelist. Aiunt epistolam etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam,’ and in his note he adds ‘videlicet Pauli esse apostoli.’ Thus he supposes the clause to refer to the apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans: and Fa-
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 277
Epistles, the Codex Boernerianus, probably written in the ninth century, Supposed after the Epistle to Philemon, which breaks off abruptly at ver. 20, a testimony vacant space is left, as if for the conclusion of this epistle: and then follows OE Ce a fresh title ad _laudicenses incipit epistola
TPOC AdOYAAKHCAC = APYETAL — ETTICTOAH This is evidently intended as the heading to another epistle. No other epistle however succeeds, but the leaf containing this title is followed by several leaves, which were originally left blank, but were filled at a later date with extraneous matter. What then was this Epistle to the Laodi- ceans, which was intended to follow, but which the scribe was prevented from transcribing? As the Epistle to the Hebrews is not found in this Ms, and as in the common order of the Pauline Epistles it would follow the Epistle to Philemon, the title has frequently been supposed to refer to it. This opinion however does not appear at all probable. Anger? in- deed argues in its favour on the ground that in the companion Ms F, the Codex Augiensis, which (so far as regards the Greek text) must have been derived immediately from the same archetype’, the Epistle to the Hebrews does really follow. But what are the facts? It is plain that the Greek Relation texts of G and F came from the same original: but it is equally plain that οἱ ἃ. to F. the two scribes had different Latin texts before them—that of G being the Old Latin, and that of F Jerome’s revised Vulgate. No argument there- fore derived from the Latin text holds good for the Greek. But the phenomena of both mss alike? show that the Greek text of their common archetype ended abruptly at Philem. 20 (probably owing to the loss of the final leaves of the volume). The two scribes therefore were left severally to the rescurces of their respective Latin mss. The scribe of F, whose Greek and Latin texts are in parallel columns, concluded the Epistle to Philemon in Latin, though he could not match it with its proper Greek ; and after this he added the Epistle to the Hebrews in Latin, no longer however leaving a blank column, as he had done for the last few verses of Philemon. On the other hand the Latin text in G is interlinear, the Latin
1 Laodicenerbrief p. 29 56. 2 If indeed the Greek text of F was
bricius explains the notice similarly. Such a reference however would be
quite out of place here. The whole paragraph before and after is taken up with discussing the Epistle to the Hebrews; and the interposition of just six words, referring to a wholly different matter, is inconceiv- able. We must therefore punctuate either ‘alii autem Luce evangeliste aiunt epistolam, etiam ad Laodi- censes scriptam’, or ‘alii autem Luce evangelist aiunt; epistolam etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam.’ In either case it will mean that some persons supposed the Epistle to the Hebrews to have been written to the Laodi- ceans.
not copied immediately from G, as maintained by Dr Hort in the Journal of Philology ut. p. 67. The divergent phenomena of the two Latin texts seem to me unfavourable to this hypo- thesis; but it ought not to be hastily rejected.
3 Volkmar, the editor of Credner’s Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Ka- non p. 299, with strange carelessness speaks of ‘the appearance (das Vor- kommen) of the Laodicean Epistle in both the Codices Augiensis and Boer- nerianus which in other respects are closely allied.’ There is no mention of it in the Codex Augiensis,
The spu- rious Lao- dicean Epistle intended.
This iden- tification unsatis- factory.
(8) Phile-
mon,
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
words being written above the Greek to interpret them. When therefore the Greek text came to an end, the scribe’s work was done, for he could no longer intexlineate. But he left a blank space for the remainder of Phile- mon, hoping doubtless hereafter to find a Greek ms from which he could fill it in; and he likewise gave the title of the epistle which he found next in his Latin copy, in Greék as well as in Latin. The Greek title however he had to supply for himself. This is clear from the form, which shows it to have been translated from the Latin by a person who had the very smallest knowledge of Greek. No Greek in the most barbarous age would have written AaoyAakHcac for AAoAIKeAc or AAOAIKHNOYC, The aoy is a Latin corruption az for ao, and the termination ἂς is a Latin’s notion of
the Greek accusative. Thus the whole word is a reproduction of the Latin ‘Laudicenses,’ the en being represented as usual by the Greekn'. If 80, we have only to ask what writing would probably appear as Epistola ad Laudicenses in a Latin copy; and to this question there can be only one answer. The apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans occurs frequently in the Latin Bibles, being found at least two or three centuries before the ms G was written. Though it does not usually follow the Epistle to Philemon, yet its place varies very considerably in different Latin copies, and an instance will be given below? where it actually occurs in this position.
Thus beyond the notice in Philastrius there is no ancient support for the identification of the missing letter of Col. iv. 16 with the Epistle to the Hebrews; and doubtless the persons to whom Philastrius alludes had no more authority for their opinion than their modern successors, Critical conjecture, not historical tradition, led them to this result. The theory therefore must stand or fall by its own merits, It has been maintained by one or two modern writers*, chiefly on the ground of some partial coincidences between the Epistles to the Hebrews and the Colossians; but the general character and purport of the two is wholly dissimilar, and they obviously deal with antagonists of a very different type. The insuperable difficulty of supposing that two epistles so unlike in style were written by the same person to the same neighbourhood at or about the same time would still remain, even though the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews should be for a moment granted.
(8) The Epistle to Philemon has been strongly advocated by Wieseler 4,
1 It is curious that this ms, which was written by an Irish scribe, should give the same corrupt form, Laudac- for Laodac-, which we find in the Book of Armagh ; see below, p. 282.
2 See p. 286. It occurs also in this position in the list of Aelfric (see below p- 362), where the order of the Pauline Epistles is ... Col., Hebr., 1, 2 Tim., Tit., Philem., Laod.
3 See especially Schneckenburger Beitrige p. 153 sq.
4 Some earlier writers who main-
tained this view are mentioned by Anger, p.25,notef. It has since been more fully developed and more vigor- ously urged by Wieseler, first in a programme Commentat. de Epist. Lao- dicena quam vulgo perditam putant 1844, and afterwards in his well-known work Chronol. des Apostol. Zeit. p. 405 sq. It may therefore be iden- tified with his name. He speaks of it with much confidence as ‘scarcely open to a doubt,’ but he has not succeeded in convincing others,
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 279
as the letter to which St Paul refers in this passage. For this identification
it is necessary to establish two points; (1) that Philemon lived not at
Colossae, but at Laodicea; and (2) that the letter is addressed not to a
private individual, but to a whole church. For the first point there is
something to be said. Though for reasons explained elsewhere the abode
of Philemon himself appears to have been at Colossee, wherever Archippus
may have resided, still two opinions may very fairly be held on this point.
But Wieseler’s arguments entirely fail to establish his other position. The This epis-
theme, the treatment, the whole tenour of the letter, mark it as private: and tle does
the mere fact that the Apostle’s courtesy leads ‘San to include in the open- nae e condi-
ing salutation the Christians who met at Philemon’s house is powerless to tions.
change its character. Why should a letter, containing such intimate
confidences, be read publicly in the Church, not only at Laodicea but at
Colossze, by the express order of the Apostle? The tact and delicacy
of the Apostle’s pleading for Onesimus would be nullified at one stroke
by the demand for publication.
(y) But may we not identify the letter in question with the Epistle to the (y) Ephe- Ephesians, which also is known to have been despatched at the same time 535: with the Epistle to the Colossians? Unlike the Epistle to Philemon, it was addressed not to a private person but to a church or churches. If therefore it can be shown that the Laodiceans were the recipients, either alone or with others, we have found the object of our search. The argu- This is the ments in favour of this solution are reserved for the introduction to that true solu- epistle. Meanwhile it is sufficient to say that educated opinion is tending, “°"* though slowly, in this direction, and to express the belief that ulti- mately this view will be generally received”.
(iii) Another wholly different identification remains to be mentioned. (iii) The It was neither a lost epistle nor a Canonical epistle, thought some, but extant un- the paling which is extant under the title of the ‘Epistle to the Laodi- πες ceans, though not generally received by the Church. Of the various ae Laodi- opinions held respecting this apocryphal letter I shall have to speak ceans. presently. It is sufficient here to say that the advocates of its genuineness fall into two classes. Either they assign to it a place in the Canon with the other Epistles of St Paul, or they acquiesce in its exclusion, holding that the Church has authority to pronounce for or against the canonicity even of Apostolic writings.
The apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans is a cento of Pauline General phrases strung together without any definite connexion or any clear object. petite They are taken chiefly from the Epistle to the Philippians, but here and ° spurious there one is borrowed elsewhere, e.g. from the Epistle to the Galatians. epistle. Of course it closes with an injunction to the Laodiceans to exchange epistles with the Colossians. The Apostle’s injunction in Col. iv. 16 suggested the forgery, and such currency as it ever attained was due to the support which that passage was supposed to give to it. Unlike most forgeries, it had no ulterior aim. It was not framed to advance any
1 See the introduction to the Epistle to Philemon. 2 See above p. 37.
280
ay
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
particular opinions, whether heterodox or orthodox. It has no doctrinal peculiarities. Thus it is quite harmless, so far as falsity and stupidity combined can ever be regarded as harmless.
Among the more important Mss which contain this epistle are the following. The letters in brackets [7 give the designations adopted in the apparatus of various readings which follows.
1. uldensis [F]. The famous ms of the Vulgate Ν, T. written for Victor Bishop of Capua, by whom it was read and corrected in the years 546, 547; edited by Ern. Ranke, Marburgi et Lipsiae 1868. The Laodicean Epistle occurs between Col. and 1 Tim. without any indication of doubtful authenticity, except that it has no argument or table of contents, like the other epistles. The scribe however has erroneously interpolated part of the argument belonging to 1 Tim. between the title and the epistle ; see p. 291 sq. of Ranke’s edition.
2. Cavensis[K]. A ms of the whole Latin Bible, at the Monastery of La Cava near Salerno, ascribed to the 6th or 7th or 8th century. See Vercellone Var. Lect. Vulg. Lat. Bibl. τ. p. \xxxviii, and also Mai Woo. Patr. Biblioth. τ. 2, p. 62. The readings in the Laodicean Epistle are here given from a collation which the Rev. J. Wordsworth, now Bishop of Salisbury, kindly made for me. They are not supplied by Vercel- lone. Laod. occurs in this Ms between Col. and 1 Thess. (Mai p. 62). Dr Westcott (Smith’s Dict. of the Bible s. v. Vulgate, p. 1713) has remarked that the two oldest authorities for the interpolation of the three heavenly witnesses in 1 Joh. v. 7, this La Cava ms and the Speculum published by Mai, also support the Laodicean Epistle (see Mai l. ὁ. pp. 7, 62 sq.). The two phenomena are combined in another very ancient Ms, Brit. Mus, Add. 11,852, described below.
3. Armachanus [A], A ms of the N. T., now belonging to Trinity College, Dublin, and known as the ‘ Book of Armagh.’ It was written in the year 807, as ascertained by Bp. Graves; see the Proceedings of the Royal Trish Academy mm. pp. 316, 356. The Laodicean Epistle follows Colossians on fol. 138, but with the warning that Jerome denies its genuineness. The text of the Laodicean Epistle in this Ms is not so pure as might have been anticipated from its antiquity. I owe the collation of readings which is given below to the kindness of Dr Reeves, who is engaged in editing the ms.
4. Darmstadiensis [D]. <A fol. ms of the whole Bible, defective from Apoe. xxii. 12 to the end, now in the Grand-ducal library at Darmstadt, but formerly belonging to the Cathedral Library at Cologne; presented by Hermann Pius, Archbishop of Cologne from Α.Ὁ. 890—925. Laod. fol- lows Col. A collation was made for Anger, from whom (p. 144) this account is taken.
5. Bernensis no. 334[B]. A 4to ms of miscellaneous contents, end- ing with the Pauline Epistles, the last being the Epistle to the Laodiceans; written in the 9th cent. The Laodicean Hpistle is a fragment, ending with ‘ Gaudete in Christo et praecavete sordibus in lucro’ (ver. 13). This account is taken by Anger from Sinner Catal, Cod. MSS. Bibl. Bern. τ. p. 28. In his Addenda (p. 179) Anger gives a collation of this s.
6. Toletanus [T]. A Ms of the Latin Bible belonging to the Cathedral Library at Toledo, and written about the 8th century: see Westcott in Smith’s
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Dict. of the Bible, s.v. Vulgate p. 1710, Vercellone Var, Lect. τ. p. Ixxxiv. sq. The readings in the Laodicean Epistle are taken from the copy of Palomares given in Bianchini Vind. Canon. Script. Vulg. Lat. Edit. p. excv (Romae, 1740). In my first edition I had followed Joh. Mariana Schol. in Vet. et Nov. Test. p. 831 (Paris, 1620), where also this evistle is printed in full from the Toledo ms. The two differ widely, and the copy of Mariana is obviously very inaccurate. Anger (see p. 144) does not mention Bianchini’s copy. In this ms Laod. follows Col
7. Parisiensis Reg. Lat. 3 (formerly 3562)! [P,]. A Latin Bible, in one volume fol., called after Anowaretha by whom it was given to the monastery of Glanfeuille (St Maur), and ascribed in the printed Catalogue to the 9th cent. Laod. follows Col. on fol. 379.
8. Parisiensis Reg. Lat.6[P,]. A ms of the Latin Bible in 4 vols. fol., according to the Catalogue probably written in the roth cent. [1]. It belonged formerly to the Duc de Noailles. Laod. follows Col. It contains numerous corrections in a later hand either between the lines or in the margin. The two hands are distinguished as P,*, P,**.
9. Parisiensis Reg. Lat. 250 (formerly 3572)[P;}| A fol. ms of the N.'l., described in the Catalogue as probably belonging to the end of the 9th cent. Laod. follows Col, It has a few corrections in a later hand. The two hands are distinguished as P,*, P,**.
These three Parisian Mss I collated myself, but I had not time to ex- amine them as carefully as I could have wished.
10. Brit. Mus. Add. 11,852 |G]. An important ms of St Paul’s Epistles written in the gth cent, It formerly belonged to the monastery of St Gall, being one of the books with which the library there was enriched by Hartmot who was Abbot from A.p. 872 to 884 or 885. Laod. follows Heb. and has no capitula like the other epistles.
11. Brit. Mus. Add. το,546 6]. A fol. ms of the Vulgate, commonly known as ‘Charlemagne’s Bible, but probably belonging to the age of Charles the Bald (+ 877). Laod. stands between Heb. and Apoc. It has no argument or capitula.
12, Brit. Mus. Reg. 1. E. vii, viii [R]. An English ms of the Latin Bible from Christ Church, Canterbury, written about the middle of the 1oth cent. Laod. follows Heb. This is the most ancient Ms, so far as I am aware, in which the epistle has capitulations. It is here given in its fullest form, and thus presents the earliest example of what may be called the modern recension.
13. Brit. Mus. Harl. 2833, 2834 [Hi]. As of the 13th cent. written for the Cathedral of Angers. Laod. follows Apoc.
The readings of the four preceding mss are taken from the collations in Westcott Canon Appx. E p. 572 sq. (ed. 4).
14. Brit. Mus. Harl. 3131 [H,]. A smallish 4to of the 12th cent., said to be of German origin, with marginal and interlinear glosses in some parts. Laod. stands between Philem. and Heb. It has no heading but only a red initial letter P. At the end is ‘Expl. Hpla ad Laodicenses. Prologus ad Ebreos.’
1 So at least I find the number given in my notes. But in Bentl. Crit. Sacr. p. XXxvii it is 3561.
281
282
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
15. Brit. Mus. Sloane 539 [5]. Asmall fol. of the 12th cent., said to be German. It contains St Paul’s Epistles with glosses. The gloss on Col. iv. 16 ‘et ea quae est Laodicensium ete.’ runs ‘quam ego eis misi ut ipsi michi ut videatis hic esse responsum,. Laod. follows Heb., and has no glosses.
The two last mss I collated myself.
16. Bodl, Laud. Lat. 13 (formerly 810) [L,]. A 4to ms in double columns of the 13th cent. containing the Latin Bible. See Catal. Bibl. Laud. Cod. Lat. Ῥ. το. aod. follows Col. Notwithstanding the date of the ms, it gives avery ancient text of this epistle.
17. Bodl. Laud. Lat. 8 (formerly 757) [1]. A fol. ms of the Latin Bible, belonging to the end of the 12th cent. See Catal. Bibl. Laud. Cod. Lat. p.9. This is the same ms, which Anger describes (p. 145) as 115 C (its original mark), and of which he gives a collation. Laod. stands between 2 Thess. and 1 Tim.
I am indebted for collations of these two Laudian mss to the kindness of the Rev. J. Wordsworth, Fellow of Brasenose College.
18. Vindob. 287 [} The Pauline Epp., written by Marianus Scotus (i.e. the Irishman), a.D. 1079. See Alter Nov. Test. ad Cod. Vindob. Graece Expressum it. p. 1040 sq., Denis Cod. MSS Lat. Bibl. Vindob. τ. no. Wiii, Zeuss Grammatica Celtica p. xviii (ed. 2). The Epistle to the Laodiceans is transcribed from this ms by Alter 1. ὁ. p. 1067 sq. It follows Col.
19. Trin. Coll. Cantabr. B. 5. 1 [X]. A fol. ms of the Latin Bible, written probably in the 12th century. Laod. follows Col. I have given a collation of this ms, because (like Brit. Mus. Reg. 1. E. viii) it is an early example of the completed form. The epistle is preceded by capitula, as follows.
IncrPIUNT CAPITULA EPISTOLE AD LAODICENSES.
1. Paulus apostolus pro Laodicensibus domino gratias refert et horta- tur eos ne a seductoribus decipiantur.
2. De manifestis vinculis apostoli in quibus letatur et gaudet.
3. Monet Laodicenses apostolus ut sicut sui audierunt praesentia ita retineant et sine retractu faciant.
4. Hortatur apostolus Laodicenses ut fide sint firmi et quae integra et vera et deo placita sunt faciant. et salutatio fratrum. Expiicrunt Capiru- LA. IncrpiT EpIsToLa BEATI PauLtr APosTOLI AD LAODICENSES.
These capitulations may be compared with those given by Dr Westcott from Reg. τ. E. viii, with which they are nearly identical.
Besides these nineteen mss, of which (with the exception of Cavensis) collations are given below, it may be worth while recording the following, as containing this epistle.
Among the Lambeth mss are (i) no. 4, large folio, 12th or 13th cent. Laod. stands between Col. and 1 Thess. (11) no. 90, small folio, 13th or 14th cent. Laod. stands between Col. and 1 Thess. without title or heading of any kind. Apparently a good text. (iii) no. 348, 4to, i5th cent. Laod. stands between Col. and 1 Thess., without heading ete. (iv) no. 544, 8vo, 15th cent. Laod. stands between Col. and 1 Thess., without heading ete. (v) no. 1152, 4to, 13th or 14th cent. Laod. occupies the same position as in the four preceding mss and has no heading or title. The first and last
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
of these five mss are collated by Dr Westcott (Canon p. 572 sq.). I in- _spected them all.
In the Bodleian Library at Oxford, belonging to the Canonici collection, are (i) Canon. Bibl. 82 (see Catal. p. 277), very small 4to, 13th cent., con- taining parts of the N.T. St Paul’s Epp. are at the end of the volume, following Apoc. lLaod. intervenes between Tit. and Philem., beginning ‘Explicit epistola ad titum. Incipit ad laud’, and ending ‘ Explicit epistola ad laudicenses. Incipit ad phylemonem’. (ii) Canon. Bibl. 7 (see Catal. p. 251), small 4to, beginning of 14th cent., containing Evv., Acts, Cath. Epp., Apoc., Paul. Epp. Laod. is at the end. (iii) Canon. Bibl. 16 (Catal. p. 256), small 4to, containing the N. T., 15th cent., written by the hand ‘Stephani de Tautaldis’. Laod. follows Col. (iv) Canon. Bibl. 25 (Catal. p. 258), very small 4to, mutilated, early part of the 15th cent. It contains a part of St Paul’s Epp. (beginning in the middle of Gal.) and the Apoca- lypse. Laod. follows Col. For information respecting these mss I am indebted to the Rev. J. Wordsworth.
In the University Library, Cambridge, I have observed the Epistle to the Laodiceans in the following mss. (i) Dd. 5. 52 (see Catal. τ. p. 273), 4to, double columns, 14th cent. Laod. is between Col. and 1 Thess. (ii) Ee. 1. 9 (see Catal. τι. p. 10), 4to, double columns, very small neat hand, 15th cent. It belonged to St Alban’s. lLaod. is between Col. and 1 Thess. (iii) Mm. 3. 2 (see Catal. 1v. p. 174), fol., Latin Bible, double columns, 13th cent. Laod. is between Col. and 1 Thess., but the heading is ‘ Explicit epistola ad Colocenses, et hic incipit ad Thesalocenses’, after which Laod. follows immediately. At the top of the page is ‘Ad Laudonenses’, (iv) Ee. 1. 16 (see Catal. τι. p. 16), 4to, double columns, Latin Bible, 13th or 14th cent. The order of the N. T. is Evv., Acts, Cath. Epp., Paul. Epp., Apoc. Here Laod. is between Heb. and Rev.; it is treated like the other books, except that it has no prologue.
In the College Libraries at Cambridge I have accidentally noticed the following Mss as containing the epistle; for I have not undertaken any systematic search. (i) St Peter’s, O. 4. 6, fol., 2 columns, 13th cent., Latin Bible. The order of the N. T. is Evy., Acts, Cath. Epp., Paul Epp., Apoc. The Epistle to the Laodiceans is between Heb. and Apoc. (ii) Sidney A. 5. 11, fol., 2 columns, Latin Bible, 13th cent. The order of the N.T. is Evy., Paul. Epp., Acts, Cath. Epp., Apoc.; and Laod. is between 2 Thess. and 1 Tim. (iii) Emman. 2. 1. 6, large fol., Latin Bible, early 14th cent. The order of the N.T. is different from the last, being Evv., Acts, Cath. Epp., Paul. Epp., Apoc.; but Laod. is in the same position, between 2 Thess. and 1 Tim.
Notice of a few other Mss, in which this epistle occurs, will be found in Hody de Bibl. Text. Orig. p. 664, and in Anger p. 145 sq.
This list, slight and partial as it is, will serve to show the wide circula- tion of the Laodicean Epistle. At the same time it will have been ob- served that its position varies very considerably in different copies.
(i) The most common position is immediately after Colossians, as the notice in Col. iv. 16 would suggest. This is its place in the most ancient authorities, e.g. the Fulda, La Cava, and Toledo mss, and the Book of Armagh.
283
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
(ii) Another positionis after 2 Thess. So Laud. Lat. 8, Sidn. A. 5. 11, Emman. 2. 1.6: see also Mss in Hody Bibl. Text. Orig. p. 664. It must be remembered that in the Latin Bibles the Epistles to the Thessalonians sometimes precede and sometimes follow the Epistle to the Colossians, Hence we get three arrangements in different Mss; (1) 1, 2 Thess., Col. Laod.; (2) Col., Laod., 1, 2 Thess.; (3) Col., 1, 2 Thess., Laod.
(iii) It occurs at least in one instance between Titus and Philemon ; Oxon. Bodl. Canon. 82. Mai also (Nov. Patr. Bibl. 1. 2. p. 63) men- tions a ‘very ancient Ms’, in which it stands between Titus and 1 John; but he does not say how Titus and 1 John appear in such close neighbour- hood.
(iv) Again it follows Philemon in brit. Mus. Harl. 3131. This also must have been its position in the Latin ms which the scribe of the Codex Boernerianus had before him: see above p. 280.
(v) Another and somewhat common position is after Hebrews; e.g. Brit. Mus. Add. 11,852, Add. 10,546, Reg. τ. HE. viii, Sloane 539, Camb. Univ. He. 1. 16, Pet. O. 4. 6. See also Hody 1c.
(vi) It is frequently placed at the end of the New Testament, and so after the Apocalypse when the Apocalypse comes last, e.g. Harl. 2833. Sometimes the Pauline Epistles follow the Apocalypse, so that Laod. occurs at the end at once of the Pauline Epistles and of the N. T.; e.g. Bodl. Canon. Lat. 7.
Other exceptional positions, e.g. after Galatians or after 3 John, are found in versions and printed texts (see Anger p. 143); but no authority of Latin Mss is quoted for them.
The Codex Fuldensis, besides being the oldest ms, is also by far the —
most trustworthy. In some instances indeed a true reading may be pre- served in later mss, where it has a false one; but such cases are rare. The text however was already corrupt in several places at this time; and the variations in the later Mss are most frequently attempts of the scribes to render it intelligible by alteration or amplification. Such for instance is the case with the mutilated reading ‘quod est’ (ver. 13), which is amplified, even as early as the Book of Armagh, into ‘quod- cunque optimum est’, though there can be little doubt that the expression represents τὸ λοιπόν of Phil. iii. 2, and the missing word therefore is ‘reli- quum’. The greatest contrast to F is presented by such Mss as RX, where the epistle has not only been filled out to the amplest proportions, but also supplied with a complete set of capitulations like the Canonical books. Though for this reason these two Mss have no great value, yet they are interesting as being among the oldest which give the amplified text, and I have therefore added a collation of them. On the other hand some much later Mss, especially Ly, preserve a very ancient text, which closely resem- bles that of F.t
1 The epistle has been critically In the apparatus of various readings, edited by Anger Laodicenerbrief p.155 which is subjoined to the epistle, I sq. and Westcott Canon App. E. p. 572. have not attempted to give such mi- Thave already expressed my obligations nute differences of spelling as e and ae, to both these writers for their colla- orc and ὁ (Laodicia, Laoditia), nor is tions of mss, ᾿ the punctuation of the mss noted.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 285
| AD LAODICENSES. |
Pauus Apostolus non ab hominibus neque per hominem sed per Text of the | Thesum Christum, fratribus qui sunt Laodiciae. * Gratia vobis et pax epic: a Deo patre et Domino Thesu Christo.
*Gratias ago Christo per omnem orationem meam, quod perma- nentes estis in eo et perseverantes in operibus eius, promissum ex- pectantes in diem iudicii. *Neque destituant vos quorundam vanilo- quia insinuantium, ut vos avertant a veritate evangelii quod a me praedicatur. ° Et nunc faciet Deus ut qui sunt ex me ad profectum veritatis evangelii deservientes et facientes benignitatem operum quae salutis vitae aeternae.
* Et nunc palam sunt vincula mea quae patior in Christo; quibus
Ine. ad laodicenses F; Incipit epistola (aepistola K) ad laodicenses (laudicen- ses KP,R) KBDTP,P,P,CRH,SV; Epistola ad laodicenses M (if this heading be not due to the editor); Incipit epistola pauli ad laodicenses GH, ; Incipit epistola beati pauli ad laodicenses X; Incipit aepistola ad laudicenses sed hirunimus eam negat esse pauli A: no heading in L,L,H,.
apostolus] om. KTM. hominibus] homine G. ihesum christum] christum ihesum T. christum] add. ‘et deum patrem omnipotentem qui suscitavit eum a mortuis’ RX. fratribus qui sunt] his qui sunt fratribus A. For fratribus B has fratres. laodiciae] laudociae T; ladoicie L; laudaciae A; laudiciae KR; laodiceae B.
2. patre] et patre nostro L,; patre nostro H,H,SM; nostro A. domino] add. nostro P,P,RGL,.
3. christo] deo meo DP,P,P,CL,; deo meo et christo ihesu RX. oratio- nem omnem] homnem horationem K. meam] memoriam M. permanentes estis] estis permanentes AGR. in operibus eius] in operibus bonis H,H.S; om. KBDTP,P,P,CM. promissum expectantes] promissum spectantes T; et promissum expectantes M; promissionem expectantes V; sperantes promissio- nem AG; sperantes promissum RX. diem] die BTDP,P,GCRH,H,SL,VMX; diae Κ, iudicii] iudicationis GRX.
4- neque] add. enim R. destituant] distituant A; destituunt H, ; destituat M, Spec.; destituit KDTP,P,CM; distituit B; destitui P,. vanilo- quia] vaniloquentia KBDTP,P,P,GCVM; vaneloquentia, Spec. insinuantium] insinuantium se GM; insanientium H,S. ut] hut K; sed ut BAT; sed peto ne R; seductorem ne X. avertant] Spec.; evertant FKTML,; evertent B. evangelii] aevanguelii A (and so below). a] ha K.
5. et nunc...veritatis evangelii] om. L. faciet deus] deus faciet AG. ut] hut K; add. sint G. qui] que (altered from qui) P,* (or P,**). me] add. perveniant KTM; add. proficiant V. ad profectum] imperfectum A; ad perfectum R; in profectum G. _ veritatis evangelii] evangelii veritatis V. de- servientes] add. sint P,**P,**H,H,S. For deservientes RX have dei servientes. et facientes] repeated in Ly. operum] hoperum K; eorum RX; operam T; opera L,. quae] om. M; add. sunt AP,**GCRH,H,SVX. It is impossible to say in many cases whether a scribe intended operum quae or operumque, Ranke prints operumque in F, salutis] add. Ly. vitae] om. K.
6. nunc] nd=non I,. palam sunt] sunt palam G; sunt (om. palam) A.
286
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Textofthe laetor et gaudeo. 7Et hoc mihi est ad salutem perpetuam ; quod
episile,
ipsum factum orationibus vestris et administrante Spiritu sancto, sive per vitam sive per mortem, ἢ Est enim mihi vivere in Christo et mori gaudium. ° Et id ipsum in vobis faciet misericordia sua, ut eandem dilectionem habeatis et sitis unianimes.
” Ergo, dilectissimi, ut audistis praesentia mei, ita retinete et facite in timore Dei, et erit vobis vita in aeternum: "Est enim Deus qui operatur in vos. * Et facite sine retractu quaecumque facitis.
15 Et quod est [reliquum], dilectissimi, gaudete in Christo ; et prae- cavete sordidos in lucro. ‘“ Omnes sint petitiones vestrae palam apud Deum ; et estote firmi in sensu Christi, “ἢ Et quae integra et vera et
Christo] add. Ihesu (1658) DP,P,P,CVX. quibus] in quibus KTRMP,. et] ut Ὁ.
7. mihi] michi H,S (and so below); enim (for mihi) M. factum] fletum KTL,M; factum est P,**H,S. orationibus] operationibus B. vestris] meis DP,. et] esi KTM: om. GRL,X. administrante spiritu sancto] adminis- trantem (or ad ministrantem) spiritum sanctum FBTL,; amministrante spiritum sanctum DCP,P,* (but there is an erasure in P,). For administrante L,X have amministrante; and for spiritu sancto G transposes and reads sancto spiritu. per mortem] mortem (om. per) H,.
8. mihi] om. M. vivere] vivere vita DTP,P,P,CVH,H,S; vere vita FKL,RMX; vera vita B; vere (altered into vivere prima manu) vita L,. gaudium] lucrum et gaudium A; gaudium ut lucrum H,P,**; gaudium vel lucrum H,S.
9. et] quiV. idipsum] in ipsum FBL,; in idipsum L,V; ipsum TP,GM; ipse AH,H,SRX. in vobis] yobis P,; in nobis H,. misericordia sua] misericordiam suam FBDAP,P,P,CH,H,RSVL,L,X (but written misericordia sua in several cases). ut] hut K. et] om. L,; ut V. unianimes] unani- mes BDTP,P,P,GCH,RL,L,VMSX; hunanimes K.
Io. ergo] ego Hy. ut] hut Καὶ; et Ly. praesentia mei] praesentiam ei DP; praesentiam mei KT; praesentiam G**; in praesentia mei P,**; praesen- tiam mihi M; presenciam eius L,; praesentiam dei A; presentiam domini (dni) P,**H,H,S. ita] om. KDP,P,**P,CX. retinete] retinere A. in] cum TM; om. B. timore] timorem AB. dei] domini H,S. vita] pax et vita RX. in aeternum] in aeterno A; in aeterna αὖ; aeterna (eterna) G**PL,.
II. enim] om. B. operatur] hoperatur K. yos] vobis KGATH,H,SR Wipe (ΡΞ bya eine
12. retractu] retractatu BP,RL,; retractatione AGV; tractu T; reatu H,S. In P,** ut peccato is added; in H, t peccato. quaecumque] quodecumque TM.
13. quod est reliquum] quod est FKBTDP,P,*P,*RCL,L,MX; quod est optimum GH,H,SV; quodcunque optimum est A; quodcunque est obtimum P,**; quod bonum est P,**: see p. 290. dilectissimi] dilectissime B. _christo] domino DP,P,P,CX. sordidos] add. omnes P,**H,H,S; add. homines A. in] ut L,. lucro] lucrum RX.
14. omnes] in omnibus G; homines (attached to the preceding sentence) KTM. petitiones] petiones T. sint] omitted here and placed after palam ἘΠῚ: apud] aput F; ante AG. deum] dominum A. estote] stote T. firmi in sensu christi] sensu firmi in christo ihesu R.
15. quae] add. sunt RB. integra] intigra A. vera] add. sunt DP,P,P,
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 287
pudica et iusta et amabilia, facite. ‘'° Et quae audistis et accepistis in Text of the corde retinete ; et erit vobis pax. erie
*®Salutant vos sancti.
19 Gratia Domini Ihesu cum spiritu vestro.
» Et facite legi Colosensibus et Colosensium vobis.
CVX. pudica et iusta] iusta et pudica R. iusta] iusta et casta AGV; casta et iusta P,**H,H.S. amabilia] add. sunt KTH,H.SM; add. et sancta RX.
16. et] om. K, audistis] add. et vidistis L,. accepistis] accipistis A. pax] add. ver. 17, salutate omnes fratres (sanctos for fratres GV) in osculo sancto AGP,**H,H,SRVX.
18. sancti] omnes sancti AGRH,SVX; sancti omnes H,; add. in christo ihesu RX,
19. domini ihesu] domini nostri ihesu (iesu) christi KDTAP,P,P,;GCH,H,S VMRX.
20. et] add. hanc H,H,SP,**. legi] add. epistolam L,P,**. colosen- sibus et] om. FKTDP,P,*P,CVL,L,. colosensium] add. epistolam L,. The words colosensibus, colosensium, are commonly written with a single s, more especially in the oldest MSS. In L, the form is cholosensium, in K colossensium.
The last sentence et facite etc. is entirely omitted in M. In RX it is ea- panded into et facite legi colosensibus hane epistolam et colosensium (colosen- sibus R) vos legite. deus autem et pater domini nostri ihesu christi custodiat vos immaculatos in christo ihesu cui est honor et gloria in secula seculorum. amen.
Subscriptions. Explicit P,P,H,; Exp. ad laodicenses F; Explicit epistola ad laodicenses (laudicenses R) DP,GCH.SRVX; Finis T. Ἕ ere is no subscrip- tion in AL, L,, and none is given can M.
The following notes are added for the sake of elucidating one or two Notes on points of difficulty in the text or interpretation of the epistle. the epis-
4 Neque] This is the passage quoted in the Speculum § 50 published by tle: Mai Nor. Patr. Bibl. τ. 2. p. 62 sq., ‘Item ad Laodicenses: Neque destituat vos quorundam vaneloquentia (sic) insinuantium, ut vos avertant a veritate evangelii quod a me praedicatur’. We ought possibly to adopt the reading ‘destituat...vaniloquentia’ of this and other old mss in preference to the ‘destituant...vaniloquia’ of F. ‘ Vaniloquium’ however is the rendering of paraodoyia τ Tim. i. 6, and is supported by such analogies as inaniloquium, maliloquium, multiloquium, stultiloquium, etc.; see Hagen Sprachl. Erorter. zur Vulgata p. 74, Roensch Das Neue Testament Tertullians p. 710.
destituant] Properly ‘leave in the lurch’ and so ‘ cheat’, ‘beguile’, e.g. Cic. pro Rosc. Am. 40 ‘induxit, decepit, destituit, adversariis tradidit, omni fraude et perfidia fefellit.’ In Heb. ix. 26 εἰς ἀθέτησιν τῆς ἁμαρτίας is trans- lated ‘ad destitutionem peccati’. The original here may have been ἐξαπα- τήσωσιν ΟΥ̓ ἀθετήσωσιν. insinuantium] In late Latin this word means little more than ‘to communicate’, ‘to inculcate’, ‘to teach’: see the refer- ences in Roensch Jala τι. Vulgata p. 387, Heumann-Hesse Handlexicon des rémischen Rechts 8. v., Ducange Glossarium 8. v. So too ‘insinuator’ Tertull. ad Nat. ii. 1, ‘insinuatrix’ August. Zp. 110 (1. p. 317). In Acts xvii. 3 it is the rendering of παρατιθέμενος.
288
Notes on the epis- tle.
EPISTLE TO TILE COLOSSIANS.
5 ut qui sunt ete.) The passage, as it stands, is obviously corrupt; and a comparison with Phil. i. 12 τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ μᾶλλον eis προκοπὴν τοῦ evay- γελίου ἐλήλυθεν scems to reveal the nature of the corruption. (1) For ‘qui’ we should probably read ‘quae’, which indeed is found in some late Mss of no authority. (2) There is a lacuna somewhere in the sen- tence, probably after ‘evangelii’. The original therefore would run in this form ‘ut quae sunt ex me ad profectum veritatis [eveniant]...deservientes etc.’, the participles belonging to a separate sentence of which the beginning is lost. The supplements ‘perveniant’, ‘ proficiant’, found in some Mss give the right sense, though perhaps they are conjectural. The Vulgate of Phil. i. 12 is ‘quae circa me sunt magis ad profectum venerunt evangelii’. In the latter part of the verse it is impossible in many cases to say whether a Ms intends ‘operum quae’ or ‘operumque’; but the former is probably correct, as representing ἔργων τῶν τῆς σωτηρίας : unless indeed this sen- tence also is corrupt or mutilated.
7 administrante etc.] Considering the diversity of readings here, we may perhaps venture on the emendation ‘administratione spiritus sancti’, as this more closely resembles the passage on which our text is founded, Phil. i. 19 διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν δεήσεως καὶ ἐπιχορηγίας τοῦ πνεύματος K.T.A.
12 retractu] ‘wavering’, ‘hesitation’. For this sense of ‘retractare’, ‘to rehandle, discuss’, and so ‘to question, hesitate’, and even ‘to shirk’, ‘decline’, see Oehler Tertullian, index p. exciii, Roensch NW. T. Tertullians p. 669, Ducange Glossarium s. y.: comp. e.g. Iren.v. 11. 1 ‘ne relinqueretur quaestio his qui infideliter retractant de eo’. So ‘retractator’ is equivalent to ‘detractator’ in Tert. de Jejun. 15 ‘retractatores hujus officii’ (see Oehler’s note); and in 1 Sam. xiv. 39 ‘absque retractatione morietur’ is the rendering of ‘dying he shall die’, θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖται. Here the expression probably represents χωρὶς...διαλογισμῶν of Phil. ii. 14, which in the Old Latin is ‘sine...detractionibus’. ΑἸ] three forms occur, retractus (Tert. Scorp. 1), retractatus (Tert. Apol. 4, adv. Mare. i. τ, v. 3, adv. Prax. 2, and frequently), retractatio (Cic. usc. v. 29, ‘sine retractatione’ and so frequently; 1 Sam. l.c.). Here ‘retractus’ must be preferred, both as being the least common form and as having the highest ms authority. In Tert. Scorp. 1 however it is not used in this same sense.
13 quod est reliquum] I have already spoken of this passage, p. 286, and shall have to speak of it again, p. 291. The oldest and most trustworthy mss have simply ‘quod est’. The word ‘reliquum’ must be supplied, as Anger truly discerned (p. 163); for the passage is taken from Phil. iii. 1 τὸ λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί pov, χαίρετε ἐν Κυρίῳ. See the Vulgate translation of τὸ λοιπόν in 1 Cor. vii. 29. Later and less trustworthy authorities supply ‘optimum’ or ‘ bonum’.
14 in sensu Christi] ‘in the mind of Christ’: for in 1 Cor. ii. 16 νοῦν Χριστοῦ is rendered ‘sensum Christi’.
20 facite legi etc.] Though the words ‘Colosensibus et’ are wanting in very many of the authorities which are elsewhere most trustworthy, yet I have felt justified in retaining them with other respectable copies, because (1) The homeeoteleuton would account for their omission even in very an- cient mss; (2) The parallelism with Col. iv. 16 requires their insertion; (3) The insertion is not like the device of a Latin scribe, who would hardly
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS, 289
have manipulated the sentence into a form which savours so strongly of a Greek original.
It is the general, though not universal, opinion that this epistle was Theory of altogether a forgery of the Western Church!; and consequently that the a Greek Latin is not a translation from a lost Greek original, but preserves the oe a earliest form of the epistle. Though the forgery doubtless attained its ; widest circulation in the West, there are, I venture to think, strong reasons for dissenting from this opinion.
If we read the epistle in its most authentic form, divested of the addi- Frequent tions contributed by the later Mss, we are struck with its cramped style. Grecisms Altogether it has not the run of a Latin original. And, when we come to 12 the examine it in detail, we find that this constraint is due very largely to the eplatle: fetters imposed by close adherence to Greek idiom. Thus for instance we have ver. 5 ‘gui [or quae] sunt ex me’, οἱ [or τὰ] ἐξ ἐμοῦ; operum quae salutis, ἔργων τῶν τῆς σωτηρίας ; ver. 6 palam vincula mea quae patior, φανεροὶ οἱ δεσμοί μου ovs ὑπομένω ; ver. 13 sordidos in lucro, αἰσχροκερδεῖς ; ver. 20 et facite legi Colosensibus et Colosensium vobis, καὶ ποιήσατε ἵνα τοῖς Κολασσαεῦσιν ἀναγνωσθῆ Kai ἡ Κολασσαέων iva [καὶ] ὑμῖν. It is quite possible indeed that parallels for some of these anomalies may be found in Latin writers. Thus Tert. c. Marc. i. 23 ‘redundantia justitiae super scr7- barum et Pharisacorum’ is quoted to illustrate the genitive ‘Colosensium’ ver. 20%. The Greek cast however is not confined to one or two expressions but extends to the whole letter.
But a yet stronger argument in favour of a Greek original remains. Τὸ differs This epistle, as we saw, is a cento of passages from St Paul If it had been widely written originally in Latin, we should expect to find that the passages were ronan
- = : Σ Ξ atin taken directly from the Latin versions. This however is not the case. Thus ang Vul- compare ver. 6 ‘pyalam sunt vincula mea’ with Phil. i. 13 ‘ut vincula mea gate Ver- manifesta fierent’: ver. 7 ‘orationibus vestris et administrante spiritu ions. sancto’ [administratione spiritus sancti’?] with Phil. 1. 19 ‘per vestram obsecrationem (V. orationem) et subministrationem spiritus sancti’; ver. 9 ‘ut eandem dilectionem habeatis et sitis unianimes’ with Phil. ii. 2 ‘ean- dem caritatem habentes, unanimes’; ver. 10 ‘ergo, dilectissimi, ut audistis praesentia mei..,facite in timore’ with Phil. ii. 12 ‘Propter quod (V. [taque) dilectissimi mihi (V. charissimi mei) sicut semper obaudistis (V. obedis- tis)...praesentia (V. in praesentia) mei...cwm timore (V. metu)...operamint’ ; ver. 11, 12 ‘ Lst enim Deus qui operatur in vos (v. 1. vobis). Et facite sine retractu quaecumque facitis’ with Phil. ii. 13, 14 Deus enim est qui operatur in yobis...Omnia autem facite sine ..detractionibus (V. haesitationibus)’; ver. 13 ‘quod est [religuum], dilectissimi, gaudete in Christo et praecavete’ with Phil. iii. 1, 2 ‘de caetero, fratres mei, gaudete in Domino... Videte’ ; ib. ‘sordidos in lucro’ with the Latin renderings of αἰσχροκερδεῖς 1 Tim. iii. 8 “turpilucros’ (V. ‘turpe lucrum sectantes’), αἰσχροκερδῆ Tit. i. 7 turpi-
1 e.g. Anger Laodicenerbrief p.142 rum quidem, qui testetur eam a se sq., Westcott Canon p. 454 sq. (ed. 4). lectam?’ The accuracy of this state- Erasmus asks boldly, ‘Qui factum est ment will be tested presently. ut haec epistola apud Latinos extet, 2 Anger p. 165. cum nullus sit apud Graecos, ne vete-
COL. 19
290
Thus in- ternal evidence favours a Greek original.
External testimony to the same ef- fect. [Murato- rian Frag- ment. }
‘known to Greek writers, as well as Latin, at a sufficiently early date.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
lucrum (V. ‘turpis lucri cupidum’); ver. 14 ‘sint petitiones vestrae palam apud Deum?’ with Phil. iv. 6 ‘postulationes (V. petitiones) vestrae innotescant apud Deum’; ver. 20 ‘ facite legi Colosensibus et Colosensium vobis’ with Col. iv. 16 ‘facite wt et in Laodicensium ecclesia legatur et eam quae Laodicensium (mss Laodiciam) est ut (om. V.) vos legatis’. These examples tell their own tale. The occasional resemblances to the Latin Version are easily explained on the ground that reminiscences of this version would naturally occur to the translator of the epistle. The habitual divergences from it are only accounted for on the hypothesis that the original compiler was better acquainted with the New Testament in Greek than in Latin, and therefore presumably that he wrote in Greek. And, if we are led to this conclusion by an examination of the epistle itself, we shall find it confirmed by an appeal to external testimony. There is ample evidence that a spurious Epistle to the Laodiceans was A mention of such an epistle occurs as early as the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon (about A.D. 170), where the writer speaks of two letters, one to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, as circulated under the name of Paul’, The bearing of the words however is uncertain. He may be referring to the Marcionite recension of the canonical Epistle to the Ephesians, which was entitled by that heretic an epistle to the Laodiceans*, Or, if this explanation of his words be not correct (as perhaps it is not), still we should not feel justified in assuming that he is referring to the ex- tant apocryphal epistle. Indeed we should hardly expect that an epistle of this character would be written and circulated at so early a date. The reference in Col. iv. 16 offered a strong temptation to the forger, and proba-
1 Canon Murat. p. 47 (ed. Tregelles). The passage stands in the ms, ‘Fertur etiam ad Laudecenses alia ad Alexan- drinos Pauli nomine fincte ad heresem Marcionis et alia plura quae in catho- licam eclesiam yrecepi non potest.’ There is obviously some corruption in the text. One very simple emenda- tion is the repetition of ‘alia’, so that the words would run ‘ad Laudicenses alia, alia ad Alexandrinos’. In this case fincte (=finctae) might refer to the two epistles first mentioned, and the Latin would construe intelligibly. The writing described as ‘ad Laodi- censes alia’ might then be the Epistle to the Ephesians under its Marcionite title, the writer probably not having any personal knowledge of it, but sup- posing from its name that it was a dif- ferent and a forged writing. But what can then be the meaning of ‘alia ad Alexandrinos’? Is it, as some have thought, the Epistle to the Hebrews? But this could not under any circum-
stances be described as ‘fincta ad hae- resem Marcionis’, even though we should strain the meaning of the preposition and interpret the words
‘against the heresy of Marcion’. And
again our knowledge of Marcion’s Ca- non is far too full to admit the hypo- thesis that it included a spurious Epi- stle to the Alexandrians, of which no notice is elsewhere preserved. We are therefore driven to the conclusion that there is a hiatus here, as in other places of this fragment, probably after ‘Pauli nomine’; and ‘ finetae’ will then refer not to the two epistles named before, but to the mutilated epistles of Marcion’s Canon which he had ‘tampered with to adapt them to his heresy’. In this case the letter ‘ad Laudicenses’ may refer to our apocry- phal epistle or to some earlier for- gery.
2 See the Introduction to the Epi- stle to the Ephesians.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 201
bly more than one unscrupulous person was induced by it to try his hand at falsification’, But, however this may be, it seems clear that before the close
of the fourth century our epistle was largely circulated in the East and West
alike. ‘Certain persons’, writes Jerome in his account of St Paul, ‘read Jerome. also an Epistle to the Laodiceans, but it is rejected by 4112, No doubt is entertained that this father refers to our epistle. If then we find that Theodore. about the same time Theodore of Mopsuestia also mentions an Epistle to
the Laodiceans, which he condemns as spurious’, it is a reasonable inference
that the same writing is meant. In this he is followed by Theodoret*; and Theodoret. indeed the interpretations of Col. iv. 16 given by the Greek Fathers of this
age were largely influenced, as we have seen, by the presence of the spurious
epistle which they were anxious to discredit®, Even two or three centuries
later the epistle seems to have been read in the East. At the Second 2nd Coun- Council of Niczea (4. Ὁ. 787) it was found necessary to warn people against cil of
“ἃ forged Epistle to the Laodiceans’ which was ‘ circulated, having a place “"°**
in some copies of the Apostle®’
The Epistle to the Laodiceans then in the original Greek would run The Greek
somewhat as follows’:
ΠΡΟΣ AAOAIKEAZ.
ΠΑΥ͂ΛΟΣ amdctodoc οὐκ ἀπ᾿ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ AP ἀνθρώπογ 5 Gal. i. τ. ἀλλὰ Ald “IHcof¥ Χριοτοῦ, τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς τοῖς οὔοιν ἐν Λδολικείδ. Χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πὰάτρὸς Kal Kypioy ᾿Ιηοοῦ
Χριοτοῦ.
1 Timotheus, who became Patriarch of Constantinople in 511, while still a presbyter includes in a list of apocry- phal works forged by the Manicheans ἡ πεντεκαιδεκάτη [i.e. τοῦ Παύλου] πρὸς Λαοδικεῖς ἐπιστολή, Meurse p.117(quoted by Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. Ν. T. 1. Ῥ. 139). Anger (p. 27) suggests that there is a confusion of the Marcionites and Manicheans here. I am disposed to think that Timotheus recklessly credits the Manicheans with several forgeries of which they were innocent, among others with our apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans. Still it is possible that there was another Lao- dicean Epistle forged by these heretics to support their peculiar tenets.
2 Vir. Ill. 5 (τι. p. 840) ‘Legunt qui- dam et ad Laodicenses, sed ab omni- bus exploditur’.
3 The passage is quoted above, p. 273, note I.
4 zwés ὑπέλαβον καὶ πρὸς Λαοδικέας αὐτὸν γεγραφέναι: αὐτίκα τοίνυν καὶ
προσφέρουσι πεπλασμένην ἐπιστολήν.
> Anger (p. 143) argues against a Greek original on the ground that the Eastern Church, unlike the Latin, did not generally interpret Col. iv. 16 as meaning an epistle written to the Lao- diceans. The fact is true, but the in- ference is wrong, as the language of the Greek commentators themselves shows.
§ Act. vi. Tom. v (Labbe vu. p. 1125 ed. Colet.) καὶ yap τοῦ θείου ἀπο- στόλου πρὸς Λαοδικεῖς φέρεται πλαστὴ ἐπιστολὴ ἔν τισι βίβλοις τοῦ ἀποστόλου ἐγκειμένη, ἣν οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν ἀπεδοκί- μασαν ὡς αὐτοῦ ἀλλοτρίαν.
7 A Greek version is given in Elias Hutter’s Polyglott New Testament (Noreb. 1599): see Anger p. 147, note g. But I have retranslated the epistle anew, introducing the Pauline passages, of which it is almost entirely made up, as they stand in the Greek Testament. The references are given in the mar- gin.
I9—2
restored,
>Gal. i 3; Phil. i
1. 2.
292
° Phil. i. 3. “Gal. v. 5. °2 Pet. ii. 9; li. 7; of. Phil. ii. 16. €; Tim. i. 6. &2 Tim. iv. 4. ΒΌΟΟΙ. i. 5; Gal. ii. 5, 14. 'Gal i. 11 (cf. 1. 8).
KE Phil. 1. 12.
'Phil. i. 13. τὰ Matt. v. 12; ef. Phil. i. 18. a Phil’ i. 19.
9 Phil. i. 20. ΡΘΗ 1.27.
4 Phil, ii. 2. © Phil. ii. 12.
¥2 Thess. ii. 5 (see vulg.). Sih. 15 153. ἘΠ ΡΉΤΙ. ii. τὰς Χ Col. iii.17,23. y Phil. iii. 1. 51 Tim, iii. 8; ὙΠῸ. 1. γ.
® Phil. iv. 6. br Cor. xv. 58. ©; Cor. ii. 16. 4 Phil. iv. 8, 9.
6 Phil. iv. 22. € Phil. iv. 23.
2 Col. iv. τό.
Scanty cir- culation in the East,
but wide diffusion in the West.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
*eEYyapicta τῷ Χριοτῷ ἐν πᾶοῃ δεήσει Moy, ὅτι ἐοτὲ EN AYTH μένοντες κἀὶ MPOCKAPTEPOYNTEC τοῖς ἔργοις δὐτοῦ, “ATTEKAEYOMENOI THN ἐπὰάγγελίὰν “εἰς ἡμέραν κρίοεωσ.
“Λληδλὲ ὑμᾶς €ZATIATHCOOCIN ἵἱμδτδιολογίὰι τινῶν διλδοκόντων ina Ἑἁποοτρέψωοιν ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείδο ‘TOY εὐδγγελίου τοῦ εὐαγγελιοθέντος ym ἐμοῦ. ὅκδὶ NYN TrolHcel ὁ Oedc ἵνὰ ἔτὰ ἐξ ἐμοῦ εἰς προκοπὴν τῆς AAHOEIAC TOY εὐδγγελίου κα « AATPEYONTEC KAl TIOIOYNTEC χρηοτότητὰ ἔργων τῶν TAC οωτηρίδο [Kal] τῆς δἰωνίου ζωῆς. “καὶ NYN ᾿φδνεροὶ οἱ δεομοί MOY, OYC ὑπομένω ἐν Χριοτῷ, ἐν οἷς τι χαίρω Kal ἀγάλλιῶμδι. "Kal ἅτοῦτό ECTIN μοι εἷς CWTHPIAN ἀΐδιον, O καὶ ἀπέβη AIA τῆς ὑμῶν AEHCEWC Kal ἐπιχορη- riac πνεύματος ἁγίου, εἴτε διὰ ζωῆς εἴτε διὰ θανάτου. Ῥέμοὶ γὰρ τὸ Ζῆν ἐν Χριοτῷ Kal τὸ ἀποθὰνεῖν χὰρᾶ. “Kal τὸ ἀὐτὸ ποιήσει [Kal] ἐν ὑμῖν διὰ τοῦ ἐλέογο ayTOY, INA “τὴν δύτην ἀγάπην ἔχητε, οὐμ- ΨΥχοι ὄντεο. ᾿"τῶὥοτε, ἀγάπητοί, καθὼς ὑπηκούοδτε EN TH πὰρουοίδ MOY, οὕτως SMNHMONEYONTEC μετὰ φόβου Kypioy ἐργᾶζεοθε, Kal ECTAl ὑμῖν Ζωὴ εἰς τὸν ὀἰῶνδ" "Θεὸς γάρ ἐστιν 6 ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν. kal “ποιεῖτε χωρὶς λιάλογιομῶν "ὅ TI ἐὰν ποιῆτε.
Kai τὸ λοιπόν, APATTHTO!, χαίρετε ἐν Χριοτῷ. βλέπετε δὲ τοὺς “aicypokepaAeic. “4 mdNTA τὰ AITHMATA ὑμῶν γνωριζέοθω TIPUC TON Θεόν. καὶ PEApatol γίνεοθε EN “τῷ νοΐ TOY Xpictoy. *dca τε ὁλόκληρὰ κἀὶ ἀληθῆ Kal CEMNA KAl AIKAIA KAl TIPOCIAA, Tata πράσσετε. "ἃ Kal HKOYCATE Kal πὰρελάβετε, EN TH KAPAId κρδτεῖτε, Kal H εἰρήνη ECTAl MEO ὑμῶν.
18e? AcTTAZONTAl YMAC οἱ ἅγιοι.
*t°H ydpic τοῦ Kyploy ᾿Ιηοοῦ XpictoY μετὰ τοῦ TINeyMaTOC ὑμῶν.
kal ποιήοὰτε ἵνὰ τοῖς Κολδοοδεῦοιν ANAPNWCOH, KAl H τῶν KoAaccaé@n TNA καὶ YMIN.
But, though written originally in Greek, it was not among Greek Christ- ians that this epistle attained its widest circulation. In the latter part of the 8th century indeed, when the Second Council of Niczea met, it had found its way into some copies of St Paul’s Epistles, But the denunciation of this Council seems to have been effective in securing its ultimate exclusion. We discover no traces of it in any extant Greek ms, with the very doubtful exception which has already been considered”. But in the Latin Church the case was different. St Jerome, as we saw, had pronounced very de- cidedly against it. Yet even his authority was not sufficient to stamp it
1 Quoted above, p. 291, note 6. 2 See above, p. 277 54.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
out. At least as early as the sixth century it found a place in some copies of the Latin Bibles: and before the close of that century its genuineness was affirmed by perhaps the most influential theologian whom the Latin Church produced during the eleven centuries which elapsed between the age of
293
Jerome and Augustine and the era of the Reformation. Gregory the Great Gregory did not indeed affirm its canonicity. He pronounced that the Church had the Great.
restricted the canonical Epistles of St Paul to fourteen, and he found a mystical explanation of this limitation in the number itself, which was at- tained by adding the number of the Commandments to the number of the Gospels and thus fitly represented the teaching of the Apostle which com- bines the twot. But at the same time he states that the Apostle wrote fifteen ; and, though he does not mention the Epistle to the Laodiceans by name, there can be little doubt that he intended to include this as his fifteenth epistle, and that his words were rightly understood by subsequent writers as affirming its Pauline authorship. The influence of this great
name is perceptible in the statements of later writers. Haymo of Halber- Haymo of stadt, who died a.p. 853, commenting on Col. iv. 16, says, The Apostle ‘ en- Halber-
joins the Laodicean Epistle to be read to the Colossians, because though it δ δα.
is very short and is not reckoned in the Canon, yet still it has some use”’.
And between two or three centuries later Hervey of Dole (6. Α.ῬὉ. 1130), if it Hervey of
be not Anselm of Laon?, commenting on this same passage, says: ‘Although Dole.
the Apostle wrote this epistle also as his fifteenth or sixteenth‘, and it is established by Apostolic authority like the rest, yet holy Church does not reckon more than fourteen’, and he proceeds to justify this limitation of
the Canon with the arguments and in the language of Gregory®. Others
1 Greg. Magn. Mor. in Iob. xxxv. § 25 (m1. p. 433, ed. Gallicc.) ‘Recte vita ecclesiae multiplicata per decem et quattuor computatur; quia utrum- que testamentum custodiens, et tam secundum Legis decalogum quam se- cundum quattuor Evangelii libros vi- vens, usque ad perfectionis culmen extenditur. Unde et Paulus aposto- lus quamyis epistolas quindecim scrip- serit, sancta tamen ecclesia non am- plius quam quatuordecim tenet, ut ex ipso epistolarum numero ostenderet quod doctor egregius Legis et Evange- lii secreta rimasset’.
2 Patrol. Lat. cxvu. p. 765 (ed. Migne) ‘Et eam quae erat Laodicen- sium ideo praecipit Colossensibus legi, quia, licet perparva sit et in Canone non habeatur, aliquid tamen utilitatis habet’. He uses the expression ‘eam quae erat Laodicensium’, because τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας was translated in the Latin Bible ‘eam quae Laodicensium est’.
3 See Galatians p. 232 on the au- thorship of this commentary.
4 A third Epistle to the Corinthians being perhaps reckoned as the 15th; see Fabric. Cod. Apocr. Nov. Test. τι. p- 866.
5 Patrol. Lat. ΟἸΙΧΧΧτ. p. 1355 56. (ed. Migne) ‘et ea similiter epistola, quae Laodicensium est, 1.6. quam ego Laodicensibus misi, legatur vobis. Quamvis et hane epistolam quintam- decimam vel sextamdecimam aposto- lus scripserit, et auctoritas eam apo- stolica sicut caetera firmavit, sancta tamen ecclesia non amplius quam qua- tuordecim tenet, ut ex ipso epistola- rum numero ostenderet etc.’ At the end of the notes to the Colossians he adds, ‘Hucusque protenditur epistola, quae missa est ad Colossenses. Con- gruum autem videtur ut propter noti- tiam legentium subjiciamus eam quae est ad Laodicenses directa; quam, ut diximus, in usu non habet ecclesia, Est ergo talis.’ Then follows the text of the Laodicean Epistle, but it is not annotated.
204
English Church.
Aclfric.
John of Salisbury.
The epis- tle repu-
diated by Lanfranc.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
however did not confine themselves to the qualified recognition given to the epistle by the great Bishop of Rome, Gregory had carefully distinguished between genuineness and canonicity; but this important distinction was not seldom disregarded by later writers. In the English Church more especi- ally it was forgotten. Thus Aelfric abbot of Cerne, who wrote during the closing years of the tenth century, speaks as follows of St Paul: ‘Fifteen epistles wrote this one Apostle to the nations by him converted unto the faith : which are large books in the Bible and make much for our amend- ment, if we follow his doctrine that was teacher of the Gentiles’. He then gives a list of the Apostle’s writings, which closes with ‘one to Philemon and one to the Laodiceans; fifteen in all as loud as thunder to faithful people!’. Again, nearly two centuries later John of Salisbury, likewise writing on the Canon, reckons ‘Fifteen epistles of Paul included in one volume, though it be the wide-spread and common opinion of nearly all that there are only fourteen; ten to churches and four to individuals: supposing that the one addressed to the Hebrews is to be reckoned among the Epistles of Paul, as Jerome the doctor of doctors seems to lay down in his preface, where he refuteth the cavils of those who contended that it was not Paul’s, But the fifteenth is that which is addressed to the Church of the Laodi- ceans; and though, as Jerome saith, it be rejected by all, nevertheless was it written by the Apostle. Nor is this opinion assumed on the conjecture of others, but it is confirmed by the testimony of the Apostle himself: for he maketh mention of it in the Epistle to the Colossians in these words, When this epistle shall have been read among you, ete. (Col. iv. 16)”, Aelfric and John are the typical theologians of the Church in this country in their respective ages. The Conquest effected a revolution in ecclesiasti- cal and theological matters. The Old English Church was separated from the Anglo-Norman Church in not a few points both of doctrine and of disci- pline. Yet here we find the representative men of learning in both agreed on this one point—the authorship and canonicity of the Epistle to the Laodiceans. From the language of John of Salisbury however it appears that such was not the common verdict at least in his age, and that on this point the instinct of the many was more sound than the learning of the few. Nor indeed was it the undisputed opinion even of the learned in this coun- try during this interval. The first Norman Archbishop, Lanfranc, an Italian by birth and education, explains the passage in the Colossian Hpistle as referring to a letter written by the Laodiceans to the Apostle, and adds that
1 A Saxon Treatise concerning the Old and New Testament by Alfricus Abbas, Ῥ. 28 (ed. W. L’Isle, London 1623).
2 Joann. Sarisb. Hpist. 143 (1. p. 210 ed. Giles) ‘Epistolae Pauli quindecim uno volumine comprehensae, licet sit vulgata et fere omnium communis opinio non esse nisi quatuordecim, decem ad ecclesias, quatuor ad perso- nas; si tamen illa quae ad Hebraeos est connumeranda est epistolis Pauli, quod in praefatione ejus astruere vide- tur doctorum doctor Hieronymus, illo-
rum dissolvens argutias qui eam Pauli non esse contendebant. Caeterum quintadecima est ila quae ecclesiae Laodicensium scribitur; et licet, ut ait Hieronymus, ab omnibus explodatur, tamen ab apostolo scripta est: neque sententia haec de aliorum praesumitur opinione sed ipsius apostoli testimonio roboratur. Meminit enim ipsius in epistola ad Colossenses his verbis, Quum lecta fuerit apud vos haec epi- stola, etc.’
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 295
otherwise ‘there would be more than thirteen Epistles of Paul’. Thus he tacitly ignores the Epistle to the Laodiceans, with which he can hardly have been unacquainted.
Indeed the safest criterion of the extent to which this opinion prevailed, Occur- is to be found in the manuscripts. At all ages from the sixth to the rence in fifteenth century we have examples of its occurrence among the Pauline 2153 of all
Ξ Ξ AS ages and Epistles and most frequently without any marks which imply doubt respect- eountries. ing its canonicity. These instances are more common in proportion to the number of extant Mss in the earlier epoch than in the iater®. In one of the three or four extant authorities for the Old Latin Version of the Pauline Epistles it has a place*. In one of the two most ancient copies of Jerome’s revised Vulgate it is found’. Among the first class mss of this latter version its insertion is almost as common as its omission, This phenomenon moreover is not confined to any one country. Italy, Spain,
France, Ireland, England, Germany, Switzerland—all the great nations of Latin Christendom—contribute examples of early manuscripts in which this epistle has a place®.
And, when the Scriptures came to be translated into the vernacular Versions. languages of modern Europe, this epistle was not uncommonly included. Albigen- Thus we meet with an Albigensian version, which is said to belong to the Sian. thirteenth century®. Thus too it is found in the Bohemian language, both Bohemian. in manuscript and in the early printed Bibles, in various recensions’.
And again an old German translation is extant, which, judging from lin- German. guistic peculiarities, cannot be assigned to a later date than about the fourteenth century, and was printed in not less than fourteen editions of the German Bible at the close of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth centuries, before Luther’s version appeared®. In the early Eng- English. lish Bibles too it has a place. Though it was excluded by both Wycliffe and Purvey, yet it did not long remain untranslated and appears in two different and quite independent versions, in Mss written before the middle
of the fifteenth century’. two forms runs as follows:
1 Patrol. Lat. cu. p. 331 (ed. Migne) on Col. iv. 16 ‘Haec si esset apostoli, ad Laodicenses diceret, non Laodicen- sium; et plusquam tredecim essent epistolae Pauli’. We shonld perhaps read xiiii for xiii, ‘quatuordecim’ for ‘tredecim’, as Lanfranc is not likely to have questioned the Pauline author- ship of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
2 The proportion however is very different in different collections. In the Cambridge University Library I found the epistle in four only out of some thirty mss which I inspected; whereas in the Lambeth Library the proportion was far greater.
3 The Speculum of Mai, see above, p. 280.
4 The Codex Fuldensis, which was
The prologue prefixed to the commoner of the
written within a few years of the Co- dex Amiatinus.
5 The list of mss given above, p. 280 sq., will substantiate this statement.
6 An account of this Ms, which is at Lyons, is given by Reuss in the Revue de Théologie v. p. 334 (Strassb. 1852). He ascribes the translation of the New Testament to the 13th century, and dates the ms a little later.
7 This version is printed by Anger, p- 170 sq.
8 See Anger, p. 149 Sq., p. 166 sq.
9 These two versions are printed in Lewis’s New Testament translated by J. Wiclif (1731) p-998q.,and in Forshall and Madden’s Wycliffite Versions of the Holy Bible (1850) Iv. p. 438 sq. They are also given by Anger p. 168 sq.
200
English
prologue.
Two Ver-
sions of the epis- tle.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
‘Laodicensis ben also Colocenses, as tweye townes and 00 peple in
maners. and disceyuede manye.
These ben of Asie, and among hem hadden be false apostlis, Therfore the postle bringith hem to mynde of
his conuersacion and trewe preching of the gospel, and excitith hem to be
stidfast in the trewe witt and loue of Crist, and to be of oo wil.
But this
pistil is not in comyn Latyn bookis, and therfor it was but late translatid
into Englisch tunge!’
The two forms of the epistle in its English dress are as follows’.
The
version on the left hand is extant only in a single Ms ; the other, which oc- cupies the right column, is comparatively common.
‘Poul, apostle, not of men, ne bi man, but bi Jhesu Crist, to the britheren that ben of Lao- dice, grace to 30u, and pees of God the fadir, and of the Lord Jhesu Crist. Gracis I do to Crist bi al myn orisoun, that 3e be dwellinge in him and lastinge, bi the biheest abidinge in the dai of doom. Ne he vnordeynede ys of sum veyn speche feynynge, that vs ouerturne fro the sothfast- nesse of the gospel that of me is prechid. Also now schal God do hem leuynge, and doynge of blessdnesse of werkis, which heelthe of lyf is. And now openli ben my boondis, whiche I suffre in Crist Jhesu, in whiche I glad and ioie. And that is to me heelthe euerlastynge, that that I dide with oure preieris, and my- nystringe the Holy Spirit, bi lif
(1843), who takes the rarer form from Lewis and the other from a Dresden ms. Dr Westcott also has printed the commoner version in his Canon, p. 457 (ed. 4), from Forshall and Madden.
Of one of these two versions For- shall and Madden give a collation of several mss; the other is taken from a single Ms (1. p. xxxii). Lewis does not state whence he derived the rarer of these two versions, but there can be little doubt that it came from the same Ms Pepys. 2073 (belonging to Magd. Coll. Cambridge) from which it was taken by Forshall and Madden (1. p. lvii); since he elsewhere mentions using this Ms (p. 104). The version is not known to
‘Poul,apostle,not of men,ne by man, but bi Jhesu Crist, to the britheren that ben at Laodice, grace to 30u, and pees of God the fadir, and of the Lord Jhesu Crist. I do thankyngis to my God bi al my preier, that 3e be dwelling and lastyng in him, abiding the biheest in the day of doom. For neithir the veyn spekyng of summe vnwise men hath lettide 30u, the whiche wolden turne 30u fro the treuthe of the gospel, that is prechid of me. And now hem that ben of me, to the profizt of truthe of the gospel, God schal make disseruyng, and doyng benygnyte of werkis, and helthe of euerlasting lijf. And now my boondis ben open, which Y suffre in Crist Jhesu, in whiche Y glade and ioie. And that is to me to euerlast- yng helthe, that this same thing be doon by 30ure preiers, and mynys- tryng of the Holi Goost, either bi
exist in any other. Forshall and Mad- den given the date of the ms as about 1440.
1 From Forshall and Madden, rv. p. 438. The earliest mss which contain the common version of the Laodicean Epistle (to which this prologue is pre- fixed) date about a.D. 1430.
2 Printed from Forshall and Madden 1.0. I am assured by those who are thoroughly conversant with old Eng- lish, that they can discern no differ- ence of date in these two versions, and that they both belong probably to the early years of the rs5th century. The rarer version is taken from a bet- ter Latin text than the other,
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
or bi deeth. It is forsothe to me lijf into Crist, and to die ioie withouten eende. In vs he schal do his merci, that 3e haue the same louynge, and that 3e be of o wil. Therfore, derlyngis, as 3e han herd in presence of me, hold 36, and do 536 in drede of God; and it schal be to 30u lif withouten eend. It is forsothe God that worchith in vs. And do 3e withouten ony withdrawinge, what soeuere 3e doon. And that it is, derlyngis, ioie 3e in Crist, and flee 3e maad foul in clay. Alle 3oure axingis ben open anentis God, und be 3e fastned in the witt of Crist. And whiche been hool, and sooth, and chast, and rightwijs, and louable, do 3e; and whiche herden and take in herte, hold 56; and it schal be to 508 ‘pees. Holi men greeten 30u weel, in the grace of oure Lord Jhesu Crist, with the Holi Goost. And do 3e that pistil of Colosensis to be red to 30u. Amen.
lijf, either bi deeth. Forsothe to me it is lijf to lyue in Crist, and to die ioie. And his mercy schal do in 30u the same thing, that 3e moun haue the same loue, and that 3e be of oo will. Therfore, 3e weel biloued britheren, holde 3e, and do 3e in the dreede of God, as 3e han herde the presence of me; and lijf schal be to 30u withouten eende. Sotheli it is God that worchith in 30u. And, my weel biloued britheren, do 3e without eny withdrawyng what euer thingis 3e don. Joie 3e in Crist, and eschewe 3e men defoulid in lucre, either foul wynnyng. Be alle 30ure askyngis open anentis God, and be 3e stidefast in the witt of Crist. And do 3e tho thingis that ben hool, and trewe, and chaast, and inst, and able to be loued; and kepe 56 in herte tho thingis that 3e haue herd and take ; and pees schal be to 30u. Alle holi men greten30u weel. The grace of oure Lord Jhesu Crist be with 30ure spirit. And do 3e that pistil of Colocensis to be red to 30u.
297
Thus for more than nine centuries this forged epistle hovered about Revival of the doors of the sacred Canon, without either finding admission or being learning peremptorily excluded. At length the revival of learning dealt its death-
blow to this as to so many other spurious pretensions.
and con- demnation
As a rule, Roman of the
Catholics and Reformers were equally strong in their condemnation of its epistle.
worthlessness.
The language of Erasmus more especially is worth quoting
for its own sake, and must not be diluted by translation : ‘Nihil habet Pauli praeter voculas aliquot ex caeteris ejus epistolis Strictures mendicatas......Non est cujusvis hominis Paulinum pectus eflingere. Tonat, of Eras- fulgurat, meras flammas loquitur Paulus. At haec, praeterquam quod brevis- sima est, quam friget, quam jacet!...Quanquam quid attinet argumentari ? Legat, qui volet, epistolam...... Nullum argumentum eflicacius persuaserit
eam non esse Pauli quam ipsa epistola.
Et si quid mihi naris est, ejus-
dem est opificis qui naeniis suis omnium veterum theologorum omnia scripta contaminavit, conspurcavit, perdidit, ac praecipue ejus qui prae caeteris indignus erat ea contumelia, nempe 1). Hieronymi!.’
1 On Col. iv. 16. Erasmus is too hard upon the writer of this letter, when he charges him with such a mass of forgeries. He does not explain how
this hypothesis is consistent with the condemnation of the Epistle to the La- odiceans in Hieron. Vir, Ill. 5 (quoted above p. 291).
mus.
208
Excep- tions.
Pretorius.
Stapleton.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
But somo eccentric spirits on both sides were still found to maintain its genuineness. Thus on the one hand the Lutheran Steph. Preetorius prefaces his edition of this epistle (A.D. 1595) with the statement that he ‘restores it to the Christian Church’; he gives his opinion that it was written ‘ either by the Apostle himself or by some other Apostolic man’: he declares that to himself it is ‘redolent of the spirit and grace of the most divine Paul’; and he recommends younger teachers of the Gospel to ‘try their strength in explaining it’, that thus ‘accustoming themselves gradually to the Apostolic doctrine they may extract thence a flavour sweeter than ambrosia and nectar!’ On the other hand the Jesuit Stapleton was not less eager in his advocacy of this miserable cento. ΤῸ him its genuine- ness had a controversial value. Along with several other apocryphal writings which he accepted in like manner, it was important in his eyes as showing that the Church had authority to exclude even Apostolic writings from the Canon, if she judged fit?, But such phenomena were quite abnormal. The dawn of the Reformation epoch had effectually scared away this ghost of a Pauline epistle, which (we may confidently hope) has been laid for ever and will not again be suffered to haunt the mind of the Church.
1 Pauli Apostoli ad Laodicenses Epistola, Latine et Germanice, Ham- burg. 1595, of which the preface is given in Fabricius Cod. Apocr. Nov. Test, 1. p. 867. It is curious that the only two arguments against its genuineness which he thinks worthy of notice are (1) Its brevity; which he answers by appealing to the Kpistle to Philemon; and (2) Its recommenda- tion of works (‘quod scripsit opera esse facienda quae sunt salutis aeter- nae’); which he explains to refer to
works that proceed of faith.
2 See Bp. Davenant on Col. iv. 16: ‘Detestanda Stapletonis opinio, qui ipsius Pauli epistolam esse statuit, quam omnes patres ut adulterinam et insulsam repudiarunt; nee sanior con- clusio, quam inde deducere voluit, posse nimirum ecclesiam germanam et veram apostoli Pauli epistolam pro sua authoritate e Canone exclu- dere’. So also Whitaker Disputation on Scripture passim (see the references given above, p. 273, note 3).
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. ~
INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE.
HE Epistle to Philemon holds a unique place among the Unique Apostle’s writings. It is the only strictly private letter eae
which has been preserved. The Pastoral Epistles indeed are ¢Pis#e. addressed to individuals, but they discuss important matters of Church discipline and government. Evidently they were intended to be read by others besides those to whom they are immediately addressed. On the other hand the letter before us does not once touch upon any question of public interest. It is addressed apparently to a layman. It is wholly occupied with an incident of domestic life. The occasion which called it forth was altogether common-place. It is only one sample of numberless letters which must have been written to his many friends and disciples by one of St Paul’s eager temperament and warm affections, in the course of a long and chequered life. Yet to ourselves this fragment, which has been rescued, we know not how, from the wreck of a large Its value. and varied correspondence, is infinitely precious. Nowhere is the social influence of the Gospel more strikingly exerted ; nowhere does the nobility of the Apostle’s character receive a more vivid illustration than in this accidental pleading on behalf of a runaway slave.
The letter introduces us to an ordinary household in a The small town in Phrygia. Four members of it are mentioned Paqr ced, by name, the father, the mother, the son, and the slave,
1. The head of the family bears a name which, for good or 1. Phile for evil, was not unknown in connexion with Phrygian story, ae
302
Occur- rence of the name in Phry- gia.
This Phi- lemon a Colossian
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
The legend of Philemon and Baucis, the aged peasants who entertained not angels but gods unawares, and were rewarded by their divine guests for their homely hospitality and their conjugal love’, is one of the most attractive in Greek mytho- logy, and contrasts favourably with many a revolting tale in which the powers of Olympus are represented as visiting this lower earth. It has a special interest too for the Apostolic history, because it suggests an explanation of the scene at Lystra, when the barbarians would have sacrificed to the Apostles, imagining that the same two gods, Zeus and Hermes, had once again deigned to visit, in the likeness of men, those regions which they had graced of old by their presence*, Again, in historical times we read of one Philemon who obtained an unenviable notoriety at Athens by assuming the rights of Athenian citizenship, though a Phrygian and apparently a slave ἃ Otherwise the name is not distinctively Phrygian. It does not occur with any special frequency in the inscriptions belonging to this country ; and though several persons bearing this name rose to eminence in literary history, not one, so far as we know, was a Phrygian.
The Philemon with whom we are concerned was a native, or at least an inhabitant, of Colosse. This appears from the fact that his slave is mentioned as belonging to that place. It may be added also, in confirmation of this view, that in one of two epistles written and despatched at the same time St Paul
1 Ovid. Met. vii. 626 sq. ‘Jupiter huc, specie mortali, cumque parente
bant’. The familiarity with this beautiful story may have suggested to
Venit Atlantiades positis caducifer alis’ etc.
2 Acts xiv. 11 of θεοὶ ὁμοιωθέντες ἀνθρώποις κατέβησαν πρὸς ἡμᾶς K.T.d- There are two points worth observing in the Phrygian legend, as illustrating the Apostolic history. (1) It is a miracle, which opens the eyes of the peasant couple to the divinity of their guests thus disguised; (2) The im- mediate effect of this miracle is their attempt to sacrifice to their divine visitors, ‘dis hospitibus mactare para-
the barbarians of Lystra, whose ‘ Ly- caonian speech’ was not improbably a dialect of Phrygian, that the same two gods, Zeus and Hermes, had again visited this region on an errand at once of beneficence and of vengeance, while at the same time it would prompt them to conciliate the deities by a similar mode of propitiation, ἤθελον θύειν.
3 Aristoph. Av. 762 εἰ δὲ τυγχάνει τις ὧν Ppvré...ppuylros ὄρνις ἐνθάδ᾽ ἔσται, τοῦ Φιλήμονος γένους.
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
announces the restoration of Onesimus to his master, while in the other he speaks of this same person as revisiting Colossze ἡ, On the other hand it would not be safe to lay any stress on the statement of Theodoret that Philemon’s house was still standing at Colossze when he wrote’, for traditions of this kind have seldom any historical worth.
Philemon had been converted by St Paul himself®.
lessons in the Gospel, we do not know: but the Apostle’s long residence at Ephesus naturally suggests itself as the period when he was most likely to have become acquainted with a citizen of Colosse *.
303
At converted a ᾿ 2 ᾿ b what time or under what circumstances he received his first
Philemon proved not unworthy of his spiritual parentage, His evan-
Though to Epaphras belongs the chief glory of preaching the Gospel at Colossze’*, his labours were well seconded by Phi- lemon. The title of ‘fellew-labourer,’ conferred upon him by the Apostle’, is a noble testimony to his evangelical zeal. Like Nymphas in the neighbouring Church of Laodicea’, Philemon had placed his house at the disposal of the Christians at Colossze for their religious and social gatherings®. Like Gaius’, to whom the only other private letter in the Apostolic Canon is
addressed’, he was generous in his hospitalities. δ᾽ o
with whom he came in contact spoke with gratitude of his
1 Compare Col. iv. g with Philem. II sq.
2 Theodoret in his preface to the epistle says πόλιν δὲ εἶχε [ὁ Φιλήμων] τὰς Koddooas καὶ 7 οἰκία δὲ αὐτοῦ μέχρι τοῦ παρόντος μεμένηκε. This is generally taken to mean that Phile- mon’s house was still standing, when Theodoret wrote. This may be the correct interpretation, but the language is not quite explicit.
3 yer: 19.
4 See above, p. 30 sq.
5 See above, p. 31 sq.
6 ver. I συνεργῷ ἡμῶν.
7 Col. iv. 15.
8 ver. 2 τῇ κατ᾽ οἶκόν σου ἐκκλησίᾳ. The Greek commentators, Chrysostom and Theodoret, suppose that St Paul
designates Philemon’s own family (in- cluding his slaves) by this honourable title of ἐκκλησία, in order to interest them in his petition. This is plainly wrong. See the note on Col. iy. 15.
9 3 Joh. 5 sq.
10 T take the view that the κυρία addressed in the Second Epistle of St John is some church personified, as indeed the whole tenour of the epistle seems to imply: see esp. vy. 4, 7 sq. The salutation to the ‘elect lady’ (ver. τὴ from her ‘elect sister’ (ver. 15) will then bea greeting sent to one church from another; just as in 1 Peter the letter is addressed at the outset ἐκλεκτοῖς Πόντου k.7.d. (i. 1) and contains at the close a salutation from ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτή (Υ. 13).
gelical
All those and wide
hospita-
304
Legendary kindly attentions".
martyr- dom.
2. Apphia his wife.
A strictly Phrygian name,
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
Of his subsequent career we have no cer- tain knowledge. Legendary story indeed promotes him to the bishopric of Colossze*, and records how he was martyred in his native city under Nero®*. But this tradition or fiction is not entitled to any credit. All that we really know of Philemon is contained within this epistle itself.
2. It isa safe inference from the connexion of the names that Apphia was the wife of Philemon*. The commentators assume without misgiving that we have here the familiar Roman name Appia, though they do not explain the intrusion of the aspirate®. This seems to be a mistake. The word occurs very frequently on Phrygian inscriptions as a proper name, and is doubtless of native origin. At Aphrodisias and Philadelphia, at EKumenia and Apamea Cibotus, at Stratonicea, at Philo- melium, at Adzani and Cotizum and Doryleum, at almost all the towns far and near, which were either Phrygian or subject to Phrygian influences, and in which any fair number of inscrip- tions has been preserved, the name is found.
has been discovered at Colosse itself, we must remember that
If no example
not a single proper name has been preserved on any monu-
mental inscription at this place.
Apphia or Aphphia’®;
1 vv. 5, 7.
2 Apost. Const. vil. 46 τῆς δὲ ἐν Φρυγίᾳ Λαοδικείας [ἐπίσκοπος] Ἄρχιππος, Κολασσαέων δὲ Φιλήμων, Βεροίας δὲ τῆς κατὰ Μακεδονίαν ᾿Ονήσιμος ὁ Φιλήμονος. The Greek Menaea however make Phi- lemon bishop of Gaza; see Tillemont I. p. 574, note Ixvi.
3 See Tillemont 1. pp. 290, 574, for the references.
4 Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3814 Νείκ- avipos καὶ ᾿Αφφία γυνὴ αὐτοῦ. In the following inscriptions also a wife bear- ing the name Apphia (Aphphia, Aphia) or Apphion (Aphphion, Aphion) is mentioned in connexion with her hus- band; 2720, 2782, 2836, 3446, 2775 b, 6, ἃ, 2837 Ὁ, 3849, 3902 m, 3962, 4141, 4277, 4321 f, 3846 21, ete.
M. Renan (Saint Paul p. 360) says ‘Appia, diaconesse de cette ville.’
It is generally written either
more rarely Aphia, which is perhaps
Like other direct statements of this same writer, as for instance that the Colossians sent a deputation to St Paul (L’Antéchrist p. go), this asser- tion rests on no authority,
5 They speak of ᾿Απφία as a softened form of the Latin Appia, and quote Acts xxviil. 15, where however the form is ’Ammiov. Even Ewald writes the word Appia.
8 ’Argla, no. 2782, 2835, 2950, 3432, 3446, 2775 Ὁ, ¢, ἃ, 2837 b, 3902 m, 3962, 4124, 4145: ᾿Αφφία, no. 3814, 4141, 4277, 4321 f, 3827 1, 3846 z, 3846 2}, So far as I could trace any law, the form ’A¢¢ia is preferred in the northern and more distant towns like Aizani and Cotiaum, while ᾿Απῴφία prevails in the southern towns in the more immediate neighbourhood of Colosse, such as Aphrodisias. This
Ἢ
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 305
But, so far Its aftini- as I have observed, it always preserves the aspirate. Its dimi- sig nutive is Apphion or Aphphion or Aphion®. The allied form Aphphias or Aphias, also a woman’s name, is found, though
less commonly*; and we likewise frequently meet with the shorter form Apphe or Aphphe *.
due merely to the carelessness of the stonecutters *.
The man’s name correspond- The root would appear to be some Phrygian term of endearment or relation-
ing to Apphia is Apphianos, but this is rare’.
ship®. It occurs commonly in connexion with other Phrygian and ana-
ὃ . . : logies. names of a like stamp, more especially Ammia, which under- δος goes the same modifications of form, Amia, Ammias, Ammion
or Amion, Ammiane or Ammiana, with the corresponding
masculine Ammianos’.
accords with the evidence of our mss, in which ᾿Απῴία is the best supported form, though ’A¢¢ia is found in some. In Theod. Mops. (Cramer’s Cat. p. 105) it becomes ’Audia by a common cor- ruption; and Old Latin copies write the dative Apphiadi from the allied form Apphias.
The most interesting of these in- scriptions mentioning the name is no. 2782 at Aphrodisias, where there is a notice of Φλ. ᾿Απφίας ἀρχιερείας ᾿Ασίας, μητρὸς καὶ ἀδελφῆς καὶ μάμμης συνκλη- τικῶν, φιλοπάτριδος κ.τ.λ.
1 no. 2720, 3827.
5Ξ"Απῴιον or “Addiov 2733, 2836, 3295, 3849, 3902 m, 4207; ᾿Αφιον, 3846 234 and” Adevoy 3846 z*!; and even “Ardew and ΓΑῴφειν, 3167, 3278. In 3902 τῇ the mother’s name is ᾿Απφία and the daughter’s "Απῴιον.
3 ᾿Αφφίας 3697, 3983; ᾿Αφίας 3879.
Δ ᾿Αφφη 3816, 3390, 41433 “Ardy 3796, 4122.
5 It is met with at the neighbouring town of Hierapolis, in the form ’Ar- giavos no. 3911. It also occurs on coins of not very distant parts of Asia Minor, being written either ᾿Απφίανος or ᾿Αφφίανος ; Mionnet 11. p. 179, 184, Iv. p. 65, 67, Suppl. vi. p. 293, VI. p- 365.
6 Suidas "“Arg@a> ἀδελφῆς καὶ ἀδελ- gov ὑποκόρισμα, and so Bekk. Anecd. Ρ. 441. Hustath. Il. p. 565 says argav
COL.
With these we may also compare
τὴν ἀδελφὴν ᾿Αττικῶς μόνη ἡ ἀδελφὴ εἴποι ἂν, καὶ πάππαν τὸν πατέρα μόνος ὁ παῖς κιτ.λ., and he adds ἰστέον δὲ ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ὡς ἐρρέθη ἄπῴφα γίνεται καὶ τὸ ἀπῴιον, ὑποκόρισμα ὃν ἐρωμένης" τινὲς δὲ καὶ τὸ ἄπφα ὑποκόρισμά φασιν ᾽Αττι- κόν. These words were found in writers of Attic comedy (Pollux iii. 74 ἡ παρὰ τοῖς νέοις κωμῳδοῖς ἀπῴφία καὶ ἀπῴίον καὶ ἀπφάριον; comp. Xenarchus τοὺς μὲν γέροντας ὄντας ἐπικαλούμεναι πατρί- δια, τοὺς δ᾽ ἀπῴφάρια, τοὺς νεωτέρους, Meineke Fragm. Com. ut. p. 617): and doubtless they were heard com- monly in Attic homes. But were they not learnt in the nursery from Phry- gian slaves? ᾿Απῴάριον appears in two inscriptions almost as a proper name, 2637 Κλαυδία ἀπφάριον, 3277 ἀπφάριον ΔΛολλιανή. In no. 4207 (at Telmissus) we have ‘Edévy ἡ καὶ “Adduov, so that it seems sometimes to have been em- ployed side by side with a Greek name ; comp. no. 3912a Παπίας...ὁ καλούμενος Διογένης, quoted above, p. 48. This will account for the frequency of the names, Apphia, Apphion, etc. In Theoer. xy. 13 we have ἀπῴῦς, and in Callim. Hym. Dian. 6 ἄππα, as a term of endearment applied to a father.
7 This appears from the fact that Ammias and Ammianos appear some- times as the names of mother and son respectively in the same inscriptions; 6. 5. 3846 28, 3847 k, 3882 i.
20
306
Not to be confused with the Latin Appia.
Her share in the letter.
3. Archip- pus, the son,
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
Tatia, Tatias, Tation, Tatiane or Tatiana, Tatianos. Similar too is the name Papias or Pappias, with the lengthened form Papianos, to which corresponds the feminine Papiane’, So again we have Nannas or Nanas, Nanna or Nana, with their derivatives, in these Phrygian inscriptions*. There is a tend- ency in some of the allied forms of Apphia or Aphphia to drop the aspirate so that they are written with a pp, more especially in Appe®, but not in the word itself; nor have I observed con- versely any disposition to write the Roman name Appia with an aspirate, Apphia or Aphphia*, Even if such a disposition could be proved, the main point for which I am contending can hardly be questioned. With the overwhelming evidence of the inscriptions before us, it is impossible to doubt that Apphia is a native Phrygian name’.
Of this Phrygian matron we know nothing more than can be learnt from this epistle. The tradition or fiction which represents her as martyred together with her husband may be safely disregarded. St Paul addresses her as a Christian °, Equally with her husband she had been aggrieved by the mis- conduct of their slave Onesimus, and equally with him she might interest herself in the penitent’s future well-being.
3. With less confidence, but still with a reasonable degree of probability, we may infer that Archippus, who is likewise mentioned in the opening salutation, was a son’ of Philemon
4 In the Greek historians of Rome for instance the personal name is al- ways Ἄππιος and the road ᾿Αππία ; so
1 On the name Papias or Pappias see above, p. 48. 2 See Boeckh Corp. Inscr. m1. p.
1085 for the names Navas, ete.
3 We have not only the form "Δππη several times (e.g. 3827 x, 3846 p, 3846 x, 3846 α΄, etc.); but also”Ammns 3827 g, 3846 τ, 3846 277, still as a woman’s name, These all occur in the same neighbourhood, at Cotie#um and Aizani. I have not noticed any instance of this phenomenon in the names Apphia, Apphion; though pro- bably, where Roman influences were especially strong, there would be a tendency totransform a Phrygian name into a Roman, e. g. Apphia into Appia, and Apphianus into Appianus,
too in Acts xxviii. 15 it is ᾿Αππίου Popov.
5 The point to be observed is that examples of these names are thickest in the heart of Phrygia, that they di- minish in frequency as Phrygian in- fluence becomes weaker, and that they almost, though not entirely, disappear in other parts of the Greek and Roman world
6 ver, 2 τῇ ἀδελφῇ. See the note.
7 So Theodore of Mopsuestia, But Chrysostom ἕτερόν τινα tows φίλον, and Theodoret ὁ δὲ ΓΑρχιππος Tip διδασκα- λίαν αὐτῶν ἐπεπίστευτο.
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
and Apphia. The inscriptions do not exhibit the name in any such frequency, either in Phrygia or in the surrounding dis- tricts, as to suggest that it was characteristic of these parts’. Our Archippus held some important office in the Church’; but what this was, we are not told. St Paul speaks of it as Some have interpreted the term tech-
nically as signifying the diaconate; but St Paul’s emphatic
a ‘ministry’ (διακονία).
message seems to imply a more important position than this. Others again suppose that he succeeded Epaphras as bishop of Colossee, when Epaphras left his native city to join the Apostle at Rome*®; but the assumption of a regular and continuous episcopate in such a place as Colosse at this date seems to involve an anachronism. More probable than either is the Or perhaps he held a missionary charge, and belonged to the order of ‘ evangelists δ᾿ Where
was he exercising this ministry, whatever it may have been ?
hypothesis which makes him a presbyter. Another question too arises respecting Archippus. His connexion with Philemon
But in the Epistle to the Colossians his name is mentioned immediately after the salu-
At Colossze, or at Laodicea ? would suggest the former place.
tation to the Laodiceans and the directions affecting that Church; and this fact seems to connect him with Laodicea. On the whole this appears to be the more probable solution ®. Laodicea was within walking distance of Colosse®. Archippus must have been in constant communication with his parents, who lived there; and it was therefore quite natural that, writing to the father and mother, St Paul should mention the son’s name also in the opening address, though he was not on the spot. An early tradition, if it be not a critical inference
On the other hand Theo-
1 ΤΆ occurs in two Smyrnean in- scriptions, no. 3143, 3224.
2 Col. iv. 27 βλέπε τὴν διακονίαν ἣν παρέλαβες ἐν Κυρίῳ, ἵνα αὐτὴν πληροῖς.
3 So the Ambrosian Hilary on Col. iv. 17.
4 Ephes. iv. 11 bears testimony to the existence of the office of evangelist at this date.
5 It is adopted by ‘Theodore of
Mopsuestia. doret argues against this view on critical grounds; τινὲς ἔφασαν τοῦτον Λαοδικείας γεγενῆσθαι διδάσκαλον, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ πρὸς Φιλήμονα ἐπιστολὴ διδάσκει ὡς ἐν Κολασσαῖς οὗτος ᾧκει" τῷ γὰρ Φι- λήμονι καὶ τοῦτον συντάττει: but he does not allege any traditional support for his own opinion. 6 See above. pp. 2, 15.
20——Z2
307
His office
and abode,
Laodicea, rather than Colosse.
308
His career.
4. Onesi- mus.
A servile name.
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
from the allusion in the Colossian letter, makes him bishop not of Colossxe, but of Laodicea’.
Of the apprehensions which the Apostle seems to have entertained respecting Archippus, I have already spoken®. It is not improbable that they were suggested by his youth and inexperience. St Paul here addresses him as his ‘fellow- soldier *? but we are not informed on what spiritual campaigns they had served in company. Of his subsequent career we have no trustworthy evidence. Tradition represents him as having suffered martyrdom at Colosse with his father and mother.
4. But far more important to the history of Christianity The Like other words signifying utility, worth, and so forth, it naturally lent itself to this purpose *.
a very large number of examples in which it appears as the
than the parents or the son of the family, is the servant. name QOnesimus was very commonly borne by slaves.
Accordingly the inscriptions offer
name of some slave or freedman*®; and even where this is not the case, the accompaniments frequently show that the person was of servile descent, though he might never himself have been a slave*. Indeed it occurs more than once as a
fictitious name for a slave’, a fact which points significantly to
1 Apost. Const. vil. 46 quoted above, p- 306, note 1.
2 See p. 42.
3 ver. 2 τῷ συνστρατιώτῃ ἡμών. the note.
4 e.g, Chresimus, Chrestus, One- siphorus, Symphorus, Carpus, etc. So too the corresponding female names Onesime,Chreste,Sympherusa,ete.: but more commonly the women’s names are of a different cast of meaning, Arescusa, Prepusa, Terpusa, Thallusa, Tryphosa, etc.
5 e.g. in the Corp. Insecr. Lat. ut. Ῥ- 223, ΠΟ. 2146, P. 359, NO. 2723, p- 986, no. 6107 (where it is spelled Ho- nesimus); and in Muratori, cc. 6, DXXIX. 5, CMLXYIII. 4, MIII. 2, MDXVIII. 2, MDXXIII. 4, MDLI. 9, MDLXXI. 5, MDLXXV. I, ΜΌΧΟΙΙ. 8, MDXCVI. 7, ΜΏΟΥΙ. 2, MDCX. 19, MDCXIV. 17, 39; and the corre-
See
sponding female name Onesime in MCCXXXIX. 12, MDXLVI. 6, MDCXII. 9. A more diligent search than I have made would probably increase the number of examples very largely.
6 e.g. Corp. Inscr. Lat. 11. Ὁ. 238, no. 1467, Ὁ. Μ. M. AVR . ONESIMO . CAR- PION . AVG . LIB . TABVL . FILIO. In the next generation any direct notice of servile origin would disappear; but the names very often indicate it. It need not however necessarily denote low extraction: see e.g, Liv. xliv. 16.
7 Menander Inc. 312 (Meineke Fragm. Com. Iv. p. 300), where the ᾿Ονήσιμος addressed is a slave, as appears from the mention of his τρόφιμος, i. e. mas- ter; Galen de Opt. Doctr. 1 (I. Ρ. 41) ed. Kiihn), where there is a reference to a work of Phayvorinus in which was introduced one Onesimus ὁ Πλουτάρχου
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 309
the social condition naturally suggested by it. In the inscrip- tions of proconsular Asia it is found’; but no stress can be laid on this coincidence, for its occurrence as a proper name was doubtless coextensive with the use of the Greek language. More important is the fact that in the early history of Christi-
anity it attains some eminence in this region. One Onesimus Its pro- Fo) Pp
is bishop of Ephesus in the first years of the second century, ienong the when Ignatius passes through Asia Minor on his way to peers
: : ae of procon- martyrdom, and is mentioned by the saint in terms of warm sular Asia. affection and respect’.
layman, about half a century later urges Melito bishop of
Another, apparently an influential
Sardis to compile a volume of extracts from the Scriptures ; and to him this father dedicates the work when completed’. Thus it would appear that the memory of the Colossian slave had invested the name with a special popularity among Christians in this district. Onesimus represented the least respectable type of the Position
; and con- He was regarded by auct of
least respectable class in the social scale. philosophers as a ‘live chattel, a ‘live implement*’; and he had Oesimus. taken philosophy at her word. He had done what a chattel or an impiement might be expected to do, if endued with life and intelligence. He was treated by the law as having no rights°; and he had carried the principles of the law to their logical
consequences. He had declined to entertain any responsibilities.
δοῦλος ᾿Επικτήτῳ διαλεγόμενος ; Anthol. Graec. τι. p. 161, wherethe context shows that the person addressed as Onesimus is a slave; ib. 11. p. 482, where the master, leaving legacies to his servants, says Ὀνήσιμος εἴκοσι πέντε | μνᾶς ἐχέτω Δάος δ᾽ εἴκοσι μνᾶς ἐχέτω" πεντήκοντα Σύρος: Συνέτη δέκα, κιτ.λ. See also the use of the name in the Latin play quoted Suet. Galb. 13 (according to one reading).
1 Tt occurs as near to Colosse as Aphrodisias; Boeckh C, 1. no. 2743.
2 Ten. Ephes. 1 ἐν ᾿Ονησίμῳ τῷ ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἀδιηγήτῳ ὑμῶν δὲ ἐν σαρκὶ ἐπι- σκόπῳ...εὐλόγητος ὁ χαρισάμενος ὑμῖν ἀξίοις οὖσιν τοιοῦτον ἐπίσκοπον κεκτῆ-
σθαι; see also 88 2, 5, 6.
3 Melito in Euseb. H. E. iv. 26 Μελίτων ᾿Ονησίμῳ τῷ ἀδελφῴ χαίρειν. ᾿Ἐπειδὴ πολλάκις ἠξίωσας κ.τ.Ὰ.
4 Aristot. Pol. i. 4 (p. 1253) ὁ δοῦλος κτῆμά τι ἔμψυχον, Eth. Nic. viii. 13 (p. 1161) ὁ yap δοῦλος ἔμψυχον ὄργανον, τὸ δ᾽ ὄργανον ἄψυχος δοῦλος. See also the classification of ‘implements’ in Varro, de Re rust. τ. 17. 1 ‘ Instrumenti genus vocale et semivocale et mutum: vocale, in quo sunt servi; semivocale, in quo boves; mutum, in quo plaustra.’
5 Dig. iv. 5 ‘Servile caput nullum jus habet’ (Paulus); ἐδ. 1. 17 ‘In per- sonam servilem nulla cadit obligatio’ (Ulpianus).
310
His en- counter with St Paul in Rome
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
There was absolutely nothing to recommend him. He was a slave, and what was worse, a Phrygian slave; and he had confirmed the popular estimate of his class* and nation? by his own conduct. He was a thief and a runaway. His offence did not differ in any way, so far as we know, from the vulgar type of slavish offences. He seems to have done just what the representative slave in the Roman comedy threatens to do,
He had ‘packed up some goods Rome was the natural cesspool for
In the thronging crowds of
when he gets into trouble. and taken to his heels®.’ these offscourings of humanity *. the metropolis was his best hope of secresy. In the dregs of the city rabble he would find the society of congenial spirits. But at Rome the Apostle spread his net for him, and he How he first came in contact with the imprisoned missionary we can only conjecture. Was it an accidental encounter with his fellow-townsman Epaphras in the streets of Rome which led to the interview? Was it the pressure of want which induced him to seek alms from one whose large-hearted charity must have been a household word in his master’s family? Or did the memory of solemn words, which he had chanced to overhear at those weekly gather- ings in the upper chamber at Colosse, haunt him in his loneliness, till, yielding to the fascination, he was constrained to unburden himself to the one man who could soothe his
was caught in its meshes.
1 Plaut. Pseud. 1. 2, 6 ‘Ubi data oceasiost, rape, clepe, tene, harpaga, bibe, es, fuge; hoe eorum opust’; Ovid Amor. i. 15. 17 ‘Dum fallax servus.’
2 Cicero speaks thus of Phrygia and theneighbouring districts; pro Flacc. 27 ‘Utrum igitur nostrum est an vestrum hoe proverbium Phrygem plagis fiert solere meliorem? Quid de tota Caria? Nonne hoe vestra voce vulgatum est; si quid cum periculo experiri velis, in Care id potissimum esse faciendum ? Quid porro in Graeco sermone tam tritum est, quam si quis despicatui ducitur, ut Mysorum ultimus esse di- catur? Nam quid ego dicam de Lydia? Quis unquam Graecus comoediam scrip- sit in qua servus primarum partium
non lLydus esset’: comp. Alciphr. Epist. ii, 38 Φρύγα οἰκέτην ἔχω πονη- pov x.7..: Apollod. Com. (Meineke, Iv. p. 451) οὐ πανταχοῦ Φρύξ εἰμι x.7.. This last passage refers to the cowardice with which, besides all their other bad qualities, the Phrygians were credited : comp. Anon. Com. (ib. rv. p. 652) δειλότερον λαγῷ Ppvyés, Tertull. de Anim. 20 ‘Comici Phrygas timidos illudunt’: see Ribbeck Com. Lat. p. τού.
3 Ter. Phorm. i. 4. 13 ‘aliquid con- vasassem, atque hinec me protinam conjicerem in pedes.’
4 Sall. Cat. xxxvii. 5 ‘Romam sicuti in sentinam confiuxerant’: comp. Tac. Ann. XV. 44.
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 311 terrors and satisfy his yearnings? Whatever motive may have drawn him to the Apostle’s side—whether the pangs of hunger or the gnawings of conscience—when he was once within the range of attraction, he could not escape. He and con-
: : : Ε version. listened, was impressed, was convinced, was baptized. The
slave of Philemon became the freedman of Christ’. St Paul found not only a sincere convert, but a devoted friend, in his latest son in the faith. Aristotle had said that there ought not to be, and could not be, any friendship with a slave qua slave, though there might be qua man*; and others had held The Apostle did For him the conventional barrier between slave and free had altogether vanished before the dissolving presence of an eternal verity ὃ. He found in Onesimus something more than a slave, a beloved St Paul’s brother, both as a slave and as a man, ‘both in the flesh and in part the Lord*’ The great capacity for good which appears in the typical slave of Greek and Roman fiction, notwithstanding all the fraud and profligacy overlying it, was evoked and developed here by the inspiration of a new faith and the incentive of a new hope.
still stronger language to the same effect. not recognise the philosopher's subtle distinction.
The genial, affectionate, winning disposition, puri- fied and elevated by a higher knowledge, had found its proper scope. Altogether this new friendship was a solace and a strength to the Apostle in his weary captivity, which he could ill afford to forego. Paul’s heart ὅ.
But there was an imperious demand for the sacrifice. One- Necessity simus had repented, but he had not made restitution. He os could only do this by submitting again to the servitude from
To take away Onesimus was to tear out
1 x Cor. vii. 22. II. p. 2 sq. (ed. 2, 1854) with the
2 Eth. Nic. viii. 13 (p. 1161) φιλία δ᾽ οὐκ ἔστι πρὸς τὰ ἄψυχα οὐδὲ δίκαιον" ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ πρὸς ἵππον ἢ βοῦν, οὐδὲ πρὸς δοῦλον ἣ δοῦλος" οὐδὲν γὰρ κοινόν ἐστιν" ὁ γὰρ δοῦλος ἔμψυχον ὄργανον, τὸ δ᾽ ὄργανον ἄψυχος δοῦλος" 7 μὲν οὖν δοῦλος, οὐκ ἔστι φιλία πρὸς αὐτόν, ἣ δ᾽ ἄνθρωπος κιτιλ. On the views of Aristotle re- specting slavery see Becker’s Charikles
editor K. F. Hermann’s references to the literature of the subject, p. 5.
3 y Cor. vii. 21 sq., Gal. 111. 28, Col. iii. τι. With this contrast the ex- pression attributed to a speaker in Macrob, Sat. i. τι ‘quasi vero curent divina de servis.’
4 Philem., 16.
5 ver. 12.
312
notwith- standing the risk.
Mediation of Tychi- cus
supple- mented by the Apostle’s letter.
Analysis of the letter.
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
which he had escaped. Philemon must be made to feel that when Onesimus was gained for Christ, he was regained for his old master also. But if the claim of duty demanded a great sacrifice from Paul, it demanded a greater still from Onesimus. By returning he would place himself entirely at the mercy of the master whom he had wronged. Roman law, more cruel than Athenian, practically imposed no limits to the power of the master over his slave’. The alternative of life or death rested solely with Philemon, and slaves were constantly crucified for far lighter offences than his*, A thief and a runaway, he had no claim to forgiveness.
A favourable opportunity occurred for restormg Onesimus to his master. Tychicus, as the bearer of letters from the Apostle to Laodicea and Colossz, had occasion to visit those parts. He might undertake the office of mediator, and plead the cause of the penitent slave with the offended master. Under his shelter Onesimus would be safer than if he en- countered Philemon alone. But St Paul is not satisfied with this precaution. He will with his own hand write a few words of eager affectionate entreaty, identifying himself with the cause of Onesimus. So he takes up his pen.
After the opening salutation to Philemon and the members of his family, he expresses his thankfulness for the report which has reached his ears of his friend’s charitable deeds. It is a great joy and encouragement to the Apostle that so many brethren have had cause to bless his name. This wide-spread reputation for kindliness emboldens him to reveal his object in Though he has a right to command, he prefers rather He has a petition to prefer on behalf of a child of
writing. to entreat.
quo crimine seryus supplicium? quis
1 Dig. i. 6 ‘In potestate sunt servi testis adest ? quis detulit?... O demens,
dominorum; quae quidem potestas
juris gentium est: nam apud omnes peraeque gentes animadvertere possu- mus dominis in servos vitae necisque potestatem fuisse.’ Comp. Senec. de Clem. i. 18 ‘Cum in servum omnia liceant.’
2 So the mistress in Juv. Sat. vi. 210 86. ‘Pone crucem servo. Meruit
ita servus homo est? nil fecerit, esto. Hoe volo, sic jubeo, ete.’ Compare the words of the slave in Plautus Wil. Glor. ii. 4. 19 ‘Noli minitari: scio crucem futuram mihi sepulerum: Ibi mei sunt majores siti, pater, avos, proavos, abayos.’
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 313
his own. This is none other than Onesimus, whom Philemon Analysis will remember only as a worthless creature, altogether untrue eines to his name, but who now is a reformed man. He would have wished to detain Onesimus, for he can ill afford to dispense with his loving services. Indeed Philemon would doubtless have been glad thus to minister vicariously to the Apostle’s wants. But a benefit which wears the appearance of being forced, whether truly so or not, loses all its value, and therefore he sends him back. Nay, there may have been in this desertion a Divine providence which it would ill become him Paul to thwart, Onesimus may have been withheld from Philemon for a time, that he might be restored to him for ever. He may have left as a slave, that he might return more than a slave. To others— to the Apostle himself especially—he is now a dearly beloved brother. Must he not be this and more than this to Philemon, whether in earthly things or in heavenly things? He therefore begs Philemon to receive Onesimus as he would receive himself. As for any injury that he may have done, as for any money that he may owe, the Apostle makes himself responsible for this. The present letter may be accepted as a bond, a security for repayment. Yet at the same time he cannot refrain from reminding Philemon that he might fairly claim the remission of so small an amount. Does not his friend owe to him his own soul besides? Yes, he has a right to look for some filial grati- tude and duty from one to whom he stands in the relation of a spiritual father. Philemon will surely not refuse him this com- fort in his many trials. He writes in the full confidence that he will be obeyed; he is quite sure that his friend will do more than is asked of him. At the same time he trusts to see him before very long, and to talk over this and other matters. Philemon may provide him a lodging: for he hopes through their prayers that he may be liberated, and given back to them. Then follow the salutations, and the letter ends with the Apostle’s benediction.
Of the result of this appeal we have no certain knowledge. Result of the
It is reasonable to suppose however that Philemon would not ἌΡΡΕΕΙ.
314
Legendary history.
Deprecia- tion of the epistle
in early times.
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
belie the Apostle’s hopes; that he would receive the slave as a brother ; that he would even go beyond the express terms of But all this is a mere conjecture. One tradition makes Onesimus bishop of Ephesus *.
the Apostle’s petition, and emancipate the penitent.
But this obviously arises from a confusion with his namesake, who lived about half a century later*, Another story points to Bercea in Macedonia as his see*®. This is at least free from the suspicion of having been suggested by any notice in the Apostolic writings: but the authority on which it rests does not entitle it to much credit. The legend of his missionary labours in Spain and οἵ his martyrdom at Rome may have been built on the hypothesis of his continuing in the Apostle’s company, following in the Apostle’s footsteps, and sharing the Apostle’s fate. account of his martyrdom at Puteoli, seems to confuse him with
Another story, which gives a circumstantial
a namesake who suffered, or was related to have suffered, in the Decian persecution *.
The estimate formed of this epistle at various epochs has differed widely. In the fourth century there was a strong bias The ‘spirit of the age’ had no sympathy with either the subject or the handling. later age, it was enamoured of its own narrowness, which it
against it. Like the spirit of more than one
mistook for largeness of view, and it could not condescend to Its maxim seemed to be De minimis non curat evangelium. Of what account was
such trivialities as were here offered to it.
the fate of a single insignificant slave, long since dead and gone, to those before whose eyes the battle of the creeds was still raging? This letter taught them nothing about questions of
theological interest, nothing about matters of ecclesiastical disci-
1 See Acta Sanct. Boll. xvi Febr. (u. p. 857 sq. ed. nov.) for the autho- rities, if they deserve the name.
2 Τῇ we take the earlier date of the Epistles of St Ignatius, a.p. 107, we get an interval of 44 years between the Onesimus of St Paul and the Onesimus of Ignatius. His not altogether impos- sible therefore that the same person
may be intended. But on the other hand the language of Ignatius (Hphes. 1 sq.) leaves the impression that he is speaking of a person comparatively young and uniried in office.
3 Apost. Const. vii. 46, quoted above, Ῥ. 204, note 2.
4 For the legend compare Act. Sanct. 1. ὁ. p. 858 sq. See also the
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
pline; and therefore they would have none of it. They denied that it had been written by St Paul. It mattered nothing to them that the Church from the earliest ages had accepted it as genuine, that even the remorseless ‘higher criticism’ of a Marcion had not ventured to lay hands on it’. It was wholly unworthy of the Apostle. If written by him, they contended, it must have been written when he was not under the influence
of the Spirit: its contents were altogether so unedifying. We Reply
may infer from the replies of Jerome’, of Chrysostom *, and of Theodore of Mopsuestia*, that they felt themselves to be stemming a fierce current of prejudice which had set in this direction. But they were strong in the excellence of their cause, and they nobly vindicated this epistle against its assailants.
315
fathers.
In modern times there has been no disposition to under-rate High es-
its value. Even Luther and Calvin, whose bias tended to the See depreciation of the ethical as compared with the doctrinal ¥™"*-
portions of the scriptures, show a true appreciation of its beauty
and significance.
right noble lovely example of Christian love.
note on the Ignatian Mart. Rom. to.
1 Hieron. Comm. in Philem. praef. vil. p. 743 ‘ Pauli esse epistolam ad Philemonem saltem Marcione auctore doceantur : qui, quum caeteras epistolas ejusdem vel non susceperit vel quaedam in his mutaverit atque corroserit, in hanc solam manus non est ausus mit- tere, quia sua illam brevitas defende- bat.’ St Jerome has in his mind Tertullian adv. Mare. v. 21 ‘Soli huic epistolae brevitas sua profuit, ut fal- sarias manus Marcionis evaderet.’
2 ib. p. 742 Sq. ‘Qui nolunt inter epistolas Pauli eam recipere quae ad Philemonem scribitur, aiunt non sem- per apostolum nec omnia Christo in se loquente dixisse, quia nec humana imbecillitas unum tenorem Sancti Spi- ritus ferre potuisset etc... His et caeteris istius modi volunt aut epistolam non esse Pauli quae ad Philemonem scri- bitur aut, etiamsi Pauli sit, nihil ha-
Here we see how
bere quod aedificare nos possit ete.... sed mihi videntur, dum epistolam sim- plicitatis arguunt, suam imperitiam prodere, non intelligentes quid in sin- gulis sermonibus virtutis et sapientiae lateat.’
3 Argum. in Philem. ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ τινές pact περιττὸν εἶναι τὸ καὶ ταύτην προσ- κεῖσθαι τὴν ἐπιστολήν, εἴγε ὑπὲρ πράγμα- τος μικροῦ ἠξίωσεν, ὑπὲρ ἑνὸς ἀνδρός, μα- θέτωσαν ὅσοι ταῦτα ἐγκαλοῦσιν ὅτι μυρίων εἰσὶν ἐγκλημάτων ἄξιοι κιτ.λ., and he goes on to discuss the value of the epistle at some length.
4 Spicil. Solesm. τι p. 149 ‘Quid vero ex ea lucri possit acquiri, convenit manifestius explicare, quia nec omni- bus id existimo posse esse cognitum; quod maxime heri jam ipse a nobis disseri postulasti’; ib. p. 152 ‘De his et nune superius dixi, quod non omnes similiter arbitror potius se (potuisse?) prospicere.’
‘This epistle’, writes Luther, ‘showeth a Luther.
316 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
St Paul layeth himself out for poor Onesimus, and with all his means pleadeth his cause with his master: and so setteth himself as if he were Onesimus, and had himself done wrong to Philemon. Even as Christ did for us with God the Father, thus also doth St Paul for Onesimus with Philemon...We are all his Onesimi, to my thinking.” ‘Though he handleth a subject, Calvin. says Calvin, ‘which otherwise were low and mean, yet after his manner he is borne up aloft unto God. With such modest entreaty doth he humble himself on behalf of the lowest of men, that scarce anywhere else is the gentleness of his spirit por- trayed more truly to the life.’ And the chorus of admiration has been swelled by later voices from the most opposite quarters. Later ‘The single Epistle to Philemon, says one quoted by Bengel, ae very far surpasses all the wisdom of the world’? ‘ Nowhere,’ writes Ewald, ‘can the sensibility and warmth of a tender friend- ship blend more beautifully with the loftier feeling of a commanding spirit, a teacher and an Apostle, than in this letter, at once so brief, and yet so surpassingly full and signifi- cant®.’ ‘A true little chef d’ceuvre of the art of letter-writing, exclaims M. Renan characteristically*. ‘We have here,’ writes | Sabatier, ‘only a few familiar lines, but so full of grace, of salt, of serious and trustful affection, that this short epistle — gleams like a pearl of the most exquisite purity in the rich treasure of the New Testament*’ Even Baur, while laying violent hands upon it, is constrained to speak of this ‘little letter’ as ‘making such an agreeable impression by its attractive form’ and as penetrated ‘with the noblest Christian spirit *’ The epi- The Epistle to Philemon has more than once been com- a eee pared with the following letter addressed to a friend by the a letter younger Pliny on a somewhat similar occasion ὃ:
of Pliny, Your freedman, with whom you had told me you were vexed,
came to me, and throwing himself down before me clung to my feet,
1 Franke Praef. N.T.Graec.p.26,27, Paul himself gave at the end of his
quoted by Bengel on Philem. r. letter to the Colossians been better 2 Die Sendschreiben etc. p. 458. realised, ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν πάντοτε ἐν χάριτι, 3 L’Antéchrist p. 96. dare ἠρτυμένος K.7.d. (Col. iv. 6).’
4 L’ Apétre Paul p. 194. He goes on 5 Paulus p. 476. to say; ‘ Never has the precept which 6 Plin. Hp. ix. 21.
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
as if they had been yours. He was profuse in his tears and his entreaties; he was profuse also in his silence. In short, he con- vinced me of his penitence. I believe that he is indeed a reformed character, because he feels that he has done wrong. You are angry, I know; and you have reason to be angry, this also I know: but mercy wins the highest praise just when there is the most righteous cause for anger. You loved the man, and, I hope, will continue to love him: meanwhile it is enough, that you should allow yourself to yield to his prayers. You may be angry again, if he deserves it ; and in this you will be the more ready pardoned if you yield now. Concede something to his youth, something to his tears, something to your own indulgent disposition. Do not torture him, lest you torture yourself at the same time. For it zs torture to you, when one of your gentle temper is angry. I am afraid lest I should appear not to ask but to compel, if I should add my prayers to his. Yet I will add them the more fully and unréservedly, because I scolded the man himself with sharpness and severity ; for 1 threatened him straitly that I would never ask you again. This I said to him, for it was necessary to alarm him; but I do not use the same language to you. For perchance I shall ask again, and shall be successful again ; only let my request be such, as it becomes me to prefer and you to grant. Farewell.
The younger Pliny is the noblest type of a true Roman gentleman, and this touching letter needs no words of praise. Yet, if purity of diction be excepted, there will hardly be any difference of opinion in awarding the palm to the Christian Apostle. Asan expression of simple dignity, of refined courtesy, of large sympathy, and of warm personal affection, the Epistle to Philemon stands unrivalled. And its pre-eminence is the more remarkable because in style it is exceptionally loose. It owes nothing to the graces of rhetoric; its effect is due solely to the spirit of the writer.
But the interest which attaches to this short epistle as an expression of individual character is far less important than its significance as exhibiting the attitude of Christianity toa widely spread and characteristic social institution of the ancient world.
Slavery was practised by the Hebrews under the sanction of the Mosaic law, not less than by the Greeks and Romans,
317
as an ex- pression of cha- racter.
Its higher interest.
318 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
But though the same in name, it was in its actual working something wholly different. The Hebrew was not suffered either by law-giver or by prophet to forget that he himself had been a bondman in the land of Egypt; and all his relations to his dependents were moulded by the sympathy of this recollection, His slaves were members of his family; they were members also of the Holy Congregation. They had their religious, as well as their social, rights. If Hebrews, their liberty was secured to them after six years’ service at the outside. If foreigners, they were protected by the laws from the tyranny Considering the conditions of
Slavery among the Hebrews.
and violence of their masters. ancient society, and more especially of ancient warfare, slavery as practised among the Hebrews was probably an escape from alternatives which would have involved a far greater amount of human misery. Still even in this form it was only a temporary concession, till the fulness of time came, and the world was taught that ‘in Christ is neither bond nor free*.’
Among the Jews the slaves formed only a small fraction of the whole population®. They occupy a very insignificant place in the pictures of Hebrew life and history which have been handed down to us. But in Greece and Rome the case was far different. democratic Athens, we are apt to forget that the interests of the many were ruthlessly sacrificed to the selfishness of the
Large number of slaves in Greece and Rome.
In our enthusiastic eulogies of free, enlightened, —
few. The slaves of Attica on the most probable computation — were about four times as numerous as the citizens, and about —
three times as numerous as the whole free population of the state, including the resident aliens*, They were consigned for the most part to labour in gangs in the fields or the mines
1 On slavery among the Hebrews see the admirable work of Prof. Gold- win Smith Does the Bible sanction American slavery ? p. τ 54.
2 Tn Ezra ii. 65 the number of slaves compared with the number of free is a little more than one to six.
3 Boeckh Public Economy of Athens p- 35 sq. According to a census taken by Demetrius Phalereus there were in
the year 309 B.C. 21,000 citizens, 10,000 residents, and 400,000 slaves (Ctesicles in Athen. vi. p. 272 B). This would make the proportion of slaves to citizens nearly twenty to one. It is supposed however that the num- ber of citizens here includes only adult males, whereas the number of slaves may comprise both sexes and all ages. Hence Boeckh’s estimate
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
or the factories, without any hope of bettering their condition. In the light of these facts we see what was really meant by popular government and equal rights at Athens. The propor- tions of the slave population elsewhere were even greater. In the small island of gina, scarcely exceeding forty English square miles in extent, there were 470,000 slaves; in the con- tracted territory of Corinth there were not less than 460,000’. The statistics of slave-holding in Italy are quite as startling. We are told that wealthy Roman landowners sometimes possessed as many as ten or twenty thousand slaves, or even more’. We may indeed not unreasonably view these vague and general statements with suspicion: but itis a fact that, a few years before the Chris- tian era, one Claudius Isidorus left by will more than four thou- sand slaves,though he had incurred serious losses by the civil war’.
319
And these vast masses of human beings had no protection Cruelty of
from Roman law *. jugal rights. pleasure, but not marriage. His companion was sometimes assigned to him by ἰοὺ. The slave was absolutely at his
master’s disposal; for the smallest offence he might be scourged,
Cohabitation was allowed to him at his owner’s wen
mutilated, crucified, thrown to the wild beasts ἢ
which is adopted in the text. For other calculations see Wallon Histoire de VEsclavage τ. p. 221 sq.
1 Athen. l. 6. p. 272 B,D. The state- ment respecting #gina is given on the authority of Aristotle; that re- specting Corinth on the authority of Epitimeus.
2 Athen. Ll. c. ἹΡωμαίων ἕκαστος ... πλείστους ὅσους κεκτημένος οἰκέτας" καὶ γὰρ μυρίους καὶ δισμυρίους καὶ ἔτι πλείους δὲ πάμπολλοι κέκτηνται. See Becker Gallus τι. p. 113 (ed. 3).
3 Plin. N. H. xxxiil. 47.
4 On the condition of Greek and Roman slaves the able and exhaust- ive work of Wallon Histoire de VEs- clavage dans UV Antiquité (Paris 1847) is the chief authority. See also Becker and Marquardt Rom. Alterth. v. τ. p.
- 139 Sq.; Becker Charikles τι. p. 1 56.» Gallus τι. p. 99 sq. The practical
Only two or
working of slavery among the Romans is placed in its most favourable light in Gaston Bossier La Religion Romaine Il. p. 343 Sq. (Paris 1874), and in Over- beck Studien zur Gesch. d. Alten Kir- che 1. p. 158 sq.
5 Rom. Alterth.1.c. p. 184 sq. ; Gallus 1. p. 144 8q. In this, as in other respects, the cruelty of the legislature was mitigated by the humanity of in- dividual masters ; and the inscriptions show that male and female slaves in many cases were allowed to live to- gether through life as man and wife, though the law did not recognise or secure their union. It was reserved for Constantine to take the initiative in protecting the conjugal and family rights of slaves by legislature; Cod. Theod. ii. 25. 1.
6 Wallon 1. p. 177 sq.; Rém. Alterth. 1. ¢.; Gallus τι. p. 145 sq.; Rein Privat-
The slave had no relationships, no con- oes
320
Murder of Pedanius Secundus.
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
three years before the letter to Philemon was written, and probably during St Paul’s residence in Rome, a terrible tragedy Pedanius Secundus, a senator, had been slain by one of his slaves in The law demanded that in such cases all the slaves under the same roof at the time should be
had been enacted under the sanction of the law’. a fit of anger or jealousy.
put to death. On the present occasion four hundred persons The populace however interposed to rescue them, and a tumult The Senate accordingly took the matter into delibera- Among the speakers C. Cassius strongly advocated the ‘The dispositions of slaves,’ he argued,
were condemned to suffer by this inhuman enactment.
ensued. tion. enforcement of the law. ‘were regarded with suspicion by our ancestors, even when they were born on the same estates or in the same houses and Now
however, when we have several nations among our slaves, with
learnt to feel an affection for their masters from the first.
various rites, with foreign religions or none at all, it is not possible to keep down such a rabble except by fear.” These But the
roads were lined by a military guard, as the prisoners were
sentiments prevailed, and the law was put in force.
led to execution, to prevent a popular outbreak. This incident illustrates not only the heartless cruelty of the law, but also the social dangers arising out of slavery. Indeed the universal distrust had already found expression in a common proverb, ‘As many enemies as slaves*’ But this was not the only way in which slavery avenged itself on the Romans. The spread of luxury and idleness was a direct consequence of this state
of things.
because a servile occupation.
recht der Rémer p. 552 sq. Hadrian first took away from masters the power of life and death over their slaves; Spart. Vit. Hadr. 18 ‘ Servos a dominis occidi vetuit eosque jussit damnari per judices, si digni essent’. For earlier legislative enactments which had afforded a very feeble protection to slaves, see below p. 327.
1 Tac. Ann. xiv. 42. This incident
Work came to be regarded as a low and degrading, Meanwhile sensuality in its vilest
took place a.p. 61. The law in ques- tion was the Senatusconsultum Silo- nianum, passed under Augustus A. Ὁ. Io. 2 Senec. Ep. Mor. 47 ‘ Deinde ejus- dem arrogantiae provyerbium jactatur totidem hostes esse quot servos’; comp. Macrob. i. 11. 13. See also Festus p. 261 (Ed. Mueller) ‘ Quot servi tot hostes in proyerbio est’.
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
forms was fostered by the tremendous power which placed the slave at the mercy of the master’s worst passions’.
With this wide-spread institution Christianity found itself Christian- in conflict. How was the evil to be met? Slavery was in- δὰ τὴς woven into the texture of society; and to prohibit slavery was Honan: to tear society into shreds. Nothing less than a servile war with its certain horrors and its doubtful issues must have been the consequence. Such a mode of operation was altogether alien to the spirit of the Gospel. ‘The New Testament’, it has been truly said, ‘is not concerned with any political or social institutions; for political and social institutions belong to particular nations and particular phases of society.’ ‘ Nothing marks the divine character of the Gospel more than its per- fect freedom from any appeal to the spirit of political revo-
It belongs to all time: and therefore, instead of attacking special abuses, it lays down universal principles
lution *”
which shall undermine the evil. Hence the Gospel never directly attacks slavery as an in- ae stitution: the Apostles never command the liberation of slaves of the
as an absolute duty. It is a remarkable fact that St Paul in ἘΣ ΑΒΕ this epistle stops short of any positive injunction. The word ‘emancipation’ seems to be trembling on his lips, and yet he does not once utter it. He charges Philemon to take the run-
away slave Onesimus into his confidence again; to receive him
1 See the saying of Haterius in the elder Seneca Controv. iv. Praef., ‘ Im- pudicitia in ingenuo crimen est, in servo necessitas, in liberto officium’, with its context. Wallon (1. p. 332) sums up the condition of the slave thus: ‘L’esclave appartenait au mai- tre: par lui méme, il n’était rien, il nayait rien. Voila le principe; et tout ce qu’on en peut tirer par voie de conséquence formait aussi, en fait, état commun des esclaves dans la plupart des pays. A toutes les»épo- ques, dans toutes les situations de la vie, cette autorité souveraine plane sur eux et modifie leur destinée par Bes rigueurs comme par son indif-
COL.
ference. Dans l’age de la force et dans la plénitude de leurs facultés, elle les vyouait, ἃ son choix, soit au travail, soit au vice; au travail les natures grossiéres; au vice, les natures plus délicates, nourries pour le plaisir du maitre, et qui lorsqu’il en était las, étaient reléguées dans la prostitution ason profit. Avant et aprés lage du travail, abandonnés a leur faiblesse ou a leurs infirmités; enfants, ils grand- issaient dans le désordre ; viellards, ils mouraient souvent dans la misére; morts, ils étaient quelquefois délaissés sur la voie publique...’
2 G. Smith Does the Bible ete, ? pp.
95) 96. 21
His lan- guage re- specting slavery elsewhere.
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
with all affection; to regard him no more as a slave but as a brother; to treat him with the same consideration, the same love, which he entertains for the Apostle himself to whom he owes everything. In fact he tells him to do very much more than emancipate his slave, but this one thing he does not directly enjoin. St Paul’s treatment of this individual case is an apt illustration of the attitude of Christianity towards slavery in general,
Similar also is his language elsewhere. Writing to the Corinthians, he declares the absolute equality of the freeman and the slave in the sight of God’. It follows therefore that the slave may cheerfully acquiesce in his lot, knowing that all earthly distinctions vanish in the light of this eternal truth. If his freedom should be offered to him, he will do well to accept it, for it puts him in a more advantageous position”: but meanwhile he need not give himself any concern about So again, when he addresses the Ephesians and Colossians on the mutual obligations of masters and slaves, he is content to insist on the broad fact that both alike are
slaves of a heavenly Master, and to enforce the duties which
his lot in life.
1 1 Cor. vii. 21 56.
2 The clause, ἀλλ᾽ εἰ καὶ δύνασαι ἐλεύθερος γενέσθαι, μᾶλλον χρῆσαι, has been differently interpreted from early times, either as recommending the slave to avail himself of any oppor- tunity of emancipation, or as advising him to refuse the offer of freedom and to remain in servitude. The earliest commentator whose opinion I have observed, Origen (in Cram. Cat. p. 140), interprets it as favourable to liberty, but he confuses the mean- ing by giving a metaphorical sense to slavery, δοῦλον ὠνόμασεν ἀναγκαίως τὸν γεγαμηκότα. Again, Severianus (ib. p. 141) distinctly explains it as recom- mending a state of liberty. On the other hand Chrysostom, while men- tioning that ‘certain persons’ interpret it εἰ δύνασαι ἐλευθερωθῆναι, ἐλευθερώθητι, himself supposes St Paul to advise the slave’s remaining in slavery. And so Theodoret and others. The balance
of argument seems to be decidedly in favour of the former view.
(1) The actual language must be considered first. And here (i) the particles εἰ καὶ will suit either inter- pretation. Ifthey are translated ‘even though’, the clause recommends the continuance in slavery. But καὶ may be equally well taken with δύνασαι, and the words will then mean ‘if it should be in your power to obtain your free- dom’, So above ver. 11 ἐὰν δὲ καὶ χωρισθῇ : comp. Luke xi, 18 εἰ δὲ καὶ ὁ Σατανᾶς ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτὸν διεμερίσθη, τ Pet. iii. 14 ἀλλ᾽ εἰ καὶ πάσχοιτε διὰ δικαιοσύ-. νην. (ii) The expression μᾶλλον χρῆσαι seems to direct the slave to avail him- self of some new opportunity offered, and therefore to recommend liberty; comp. ix. 12, 15.
(2) The immediate context will admit either interpretation. If slavery be preferred, the sentence is con- tinuous. If liberty, the clause ἀλλ᾽ εἰ
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
flow from its recognition’. He has no word of reproach for the masters on the injustice of their position; he breathes no
hint to the slaves of a social grievance needing redress.
But meanwhile a principle is boldly enunciated, which must The
Chri in the end prove fatal to slavery. When the Gospel taught jdea fatal to slavery.
that God had made all men and women upon earth of one family ; that all alike were His sons and His daughters; that, whatever conventional distinctions human society might set up, the supreme King of Heaven refused to acknowledge any; that the slave notwithstanding his slavery was Christ’s freed- man, and the free notwithstanding his liberty was Christ’s slave; when the Church carried out this principle by admitting the slave to her highest privileges, inviting him to kneel side by side with his master at the same holy table; when in short the Apostolic precept that ‘in Christ Jesus is neither bond nor free’ was not only recognised but acted upon, then slavery was doomed. Henceforward it was only a question of time. Here was the idea which must act as a solvent, must disintegrate this venerable institution, however deeply rooted and however
widely spread. ‘The brotherhood of man, in short, is the idea
καὶ..«μᾶλλον χρῆσαι igs parenthetical. In this latter case its motive is to correct misapprehension, as if the Apostle would say, ‘ When I declare the absolute indifference of the two states in the sight of God, I do not mean to say that you should not avail yourselves of freedom, if it comes in your way; it puts youin a more ad- yantageous position, and you will do well to prefer it’. Such a corrective parenthesis is altogether after St Paul’s manner, and indeed instances occur in this very context: e.g. ver. 11 ἐὰν δὲ καὶ χωρισθῇ K.7.., Ver. 15 εἰ δὲ ὁ ἄπιστος χωρίζεται κιτιλ. This last passage is an exact parallel, for the γὰρ of ver. 16 is connected imme- diately with ver. 14, the parenthesis being disregarded as here.
(3) The argument which seems de- cisive is the extreme improbability that St Paul should have recommended slavery in preference to freedom. For
(i) Such a recommendation would be alien to the spirit of a man whose sense of political right was so strong, and who asserted his citizenship so stanchly on more than one occasion (Acts xvi. 37, xxii. 28). (ii) The in- dependent position of the freeman would give him an obvious advantage in doing the work of Christ, which it is difficult to imagine St Paul en- joining him deliberately to forego. (iii) Throughout the passage the Apo- stle, while maintaining the indifference of these earthly relations in the sight of God, yet always gives the prefer- ence to a position of independence, whenever it comes to a Christian na- turally and without any undue im- patience on his part. The spirit which animates St Pawl’s injunctions here may be seen from vv. 8, 11, 15, 26, 27 ete.
1 Ephes, vi. s—g, Col. iii. 22—iv. 1.
2 Z
3
324
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
{ts general which Christianity in its social phase has been always striving
tendency.
Its effects on slavery.
Protection and manu-
to realise, and the progress of which constitutes the social history of Christendom. With what difficulties this idea has struggled; how it has been marred by revolutionary violence, as well as impeded by reactionary selfishness; to what chimerical hopes, to what wild schemes, to what calamitous disappoint- ments, to what desperate conflicts, it has given birth; how often being misunderstood and misapplied, it has brought not peace on earth but a sword—it is needless here to rehearse. Still, as we look back over the range of past history, we can see beyond doubt that it is towards this goal that Christianity as a social principle has been always tending and still tends*.’ And this beneficent tendency of the Gospel was felt at once in its effects on slavery. The Church indeed, even in the ardour of her earliest love, did not prohibit her sons from retaining slaves in their households. It is quite plain from extant notices, that in the earlier centuries, as in the later, Christians owned slaves? like their heathen neighbours, with- out forfeiting consideration among their fellow-believers. But nevertheless the Christian idea was not a dead-letter. The chivalry of the Gospel which regarded the weak and helpless
mission of from whatever cause, as its special charge, which extended its
slaves.
Honours paid to slave mar- tyrs.
protection to the widow, the orphan, the sick, the aged, and the prisoner, was not likely to neglect the slave. Accordingly we find that one of the earliest forms which Christian benevolence took was the contribution of funds for the liberation of slaves*. But even more important than overt acts like these was the moral and social importance with which the slave was now invested. Among the heroes and heroines of the Church were found not a few members of this class. When slave girls like
1G. Smith Does the Bible etc.? p. Christian writers collected in Ba-
121.
2 Athenag. Suppl. 35 δοῦλοί εἰσιν ἡμῖν, Tots μὲν καὶ πλείους τοῖς δ᾽ ἐλάττους. It would even appear that the domes- tic servant who betrayed Polycarp (Mart. Polyc. 6) was a slave, for he was put to the torture. Comp. Justin. Apol. ii. 12. See also passages from
bington Abolition of Slavery p. 20 84.
3 Tonat. Polyc. 4 μὴ épdrwoav ἀπὰ τοῦ κοινοῦ ἐλευθεροῦσθαι, Apost. Const. iv. 9 τὰ ἐξ αὐτῶν, ὡς προειρήκαμεν, ἀθροιζόμενα χρήματα διατάσσετε διακο- νοῦντες εἰς ἀγορασμοὺς τῶν ἁγίων, pud- μενοι δούλους καὶ αἰχμαλώτους, δε- σμίους, κ.τ.Ὰ,
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 325
Blandina in Gaul or Felicitas in Africa, having won for them- selves the crown of martyrdom, were celebrated in the festivals of the Church with honours denied to the most powerful and noblest born of mankind, social prejudice had received a wound which could never be healed.
While the Church was still kept in subjection, moral in- Christ- fluence and private enterprise were her only weapons. But Aas Christianity was no sooner seated on the throne of the Cesars than its influence began to be felt in the imperial policy’. The legislation of Constantine, despite its startling inequalities, Legisla-
forms a unique chapter in the statute-book of Rome. In its ana mixed character indeed it reflects the transitional position of 19:
its author. But after all allowance made for its very patent defects, its general advance in the direction of humanity and purity is far greater than can be traced in the legislation even of the most humane and virtuous of his heathen predecessors. More especially in the extension of legal protection to slaves, and in the encouragement given to emancipation, we have an earnest of the future work which Christianity was destined to do for this oppressed class of mankind, though the relief which it gave was after all very partial and tentative’.
1 It must not however be forgotten that, even before Christianity became the predominant religion, a more hu- mane spirit had entered into Roman legislation. The important enact- ment of Hadrian has been already mentioned, p. 319, note 6. Even ear- lier the lex Petronia (of which the date is uncertain) had prohibited masters from making their slaves fight with wild beasts in mere caprice and with- out an order from a judge (Dig. xlviii. 8. 11); and Claudius (a.p. 47), finding that the practice of turning out sick slaves into the streets to die was on the increase, ordered that those who survived this treatment should have their freedom (Dion Cass. lx. 29, Suet. Claud. 25). For these and similar enactments of the heathen emperors see Wallon πη. p. 60 sq., Rim. Alterth. vy. 1. 197, Rein Privatrecht d. Rimer
p. 560sq. The character of this excep- tional legislation is the strongest im- peachment of the general cruelty of the law; while at the same time subse- quent notices show how very far from effective it was even within its own narrow limits. See for instance the passage in Galen, v. p. 17 (ed. Kiihn) λακτίζουσι καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἐξορύτ- τουσι καὶ γραφείῳ κεντοῦσιν κ.τ.Ἃ. (comp. ib. p. 584), or Seneca de Ira iii. 3. 6 ‘eculei et fidiculae et ergastula et cru- ces et circumdati defossis corporibus ignes et cadavera quoque trahens un- cus, varia vinculorum genera, varia poenarum, lacerationes membrorum, inscriptiones frontis et bestiarum im- manium cayeae.’
On the causes of these ameliorations in the law see Rém. Alterth. v. 1. p. 199.
2 On the legislation of Constan- tine affecting slavery see De Broglie
326
Subse- quent activity of the Church.
The con- quests and hopes of the pre- sent time.
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
And on the whole this part has been faithfully and courage- ously performed by the Church. There have been shameful exceptions now and then: there has been occasional timidity and excess of caution. The commentaries of the fathers on this epistle are an illustration of this latter fault’. Much may be pardoned to men who shrink from seeming to countenance But notwithstanding, it is a broad and patent fact that throughout the early and middle ages the influence of the Church was exerted strongly on the side of humanity in this matter’. regarded as the principal aim of the higher Christian life*; the amelioration of serfdom was a matter of constant solicitude with the rulers of the Church.
And at length we seem to see the beginning of the end. The rapid strides towards emancipation during the present generation are without a parallel in the history of the world. The abolition of slavery throughout the British Empire at
an enormous material sacrifice is one of the greatest moral
a violent social revolution.
The emancipation of slaves was
L’Eglise et L’Empire Romain 1. p. 304 sq. (ed. 5), Chawner Influence of Chris- tianity upon the Legislation of Con- stantine the Great p. 73 sq., Wallon 11. p. 4148q. The legislation of Justinian is still more honourably distinguished for its alleviation of the evils of slavery.
1 £.g. Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia (Spic. Solesm. 1. p. 152). Yet St Chrysostom himself pleads the cause of slaves earnestly elsewhere. In Hom. wl ad τ Cor., x. p. 385 he says of slavery, ‘It is the penalty of sin and the punishment of disobedience. But when Christ came, he annulled even this, For in Christ Jesus there is no slave nor free. Therefore it is not ne- cessary to have a slave; but, if it should be necessary, then one only or at most a second’. And he then tells his audience that if they really care for the welfare of slaves, they must ‘ buy them, and having taught them some art that they may maintain themselves, set them free.’ ‘I know,’ he adds, ‘that Iam annoying my hearers; but
what can Ido? For this purpose I am appointed, and I will not cease speak- ing 50.’ On the attitude of this father towards slavery see Mohler p. 89 sq.
2 On the influence of Christianity in this respect see Wallon 111. p. 314 8q., Biot De VAbolition de UEsclavage Ancien en Occident (1840), Ch. Ba- bington Influence of Christianity in promoting the Abolition of Slavery ete. (1846), Schmidt Essai historique sur la Société Civile dans le Monde Romain etc. p. 228 sq. (1853), Mohler Gesam- melte Schriften τι. Ὁ. 54 8q., G. Smith Does the Bible etc.? Ὁ. 95.8q., Εἰ, S. Talbot Slavery as affected by Christianity (1869), Lecky Rationalism in Europe 1. Ῥ. 255 sq., European Morals τι. Ὁ. 65 sq., Overbeck Studien etc. τ. p. 172 8q., Allard Les Esclaves Chrétiens (1876). The last-mentioned work, which ap- peared after this introduction was first published (1875), treats the question very fully.
8 Mohler p. 99 8q., Schmidt p. 246 sq., Lecky E. M. τι. p. 73 sq.
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
conquests which England has ever achieved. The liberation of twenty millions of serfs throughout the Russian dominions has thrown a halo of glory round the name of Alexander 11., which no time can dim. The emancipation of the negro in the vast republic of the New World was a victory not less important than either to the well-being of the human race. Thus within the short period of little more than a quarter of a century this reproach of civilisation and humanity has been wiped out in the three greatest empires of the world. It is a fit sequel to these achievements, that at length a well-directed attack should have been made on the central fortress of slavery and the slave-trade, the interior of Africa. May we not venture to predict that in future ages, when distance of view shall have adjusted the true relations of events, when the brilliancy of empires and the fame of wars shall have sunk to their proper level of significance, this epoch will stand out in the history of mankind as the era of liberation? If so, the Epistle to Philemon, as the earliest prelude to these magnificent social victories, must be invested with more than common interest for our generation.
ΠΡῸΣ @PIAHMONA.
WHERE THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS, THERE IS LIBERTY.
WHO IS WEAK, AND I AM NOT WEAK? WHO IS OFFENDED, AND I BURN NOT?
Such ever was loves way: to rise, ut stoops.
ΠΡΟΣ
ΦΙΛΉΜΟΝΑ.
x AYAOZX, δέσμιος Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ Τιμόθεος 6
3 ’, 7 i) ~ \ > Φ > ἀδελῴος, Φιλήμονι TW AYATNTW καὶ συνεργω ἡμῶν
Neca / ~ 5 ~ WD) 72 ΄σ / 5 και Ἀσφίᾳ τη ἀδελφῇ και Ἀρχίππῳ τῷ συνστρατιωτῇ
a \ ΄- oy: / > / ἡμῶν καὶ TH κατ᾽ οἰκὸν σου ἐκκλησίᾳ" ἐ
1-2, ‘PaAvL, now a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and TimorHy a brother in the faith, unto PHILEMON our dearly-beloved and fellow-labourer in the Gospel, and unto APPHIA our sis- ter, and unto Arcurppus our fellow- soldier in Christ, and to the Church which assembles in thy house. Grace and peace to you all from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.’
1. δέσμιος) The authoritative title of ‘Apostle’ is dropped, because throughout this letter St Paul desires to entreat rather than to command (ver. 8, 9); see the note on Phil. i. 1. In its place is substituted a designa- tion which would touch his friend’s heart. How could Philemon resist an appeal which was penned within prison walls and by a manacled hand? For this characteristic reference to his ‘bonds’ see the note on ver. 13.
Τιμόθεος] Timothy seems to have been with St Paul during a great part of his three years’ sojourn in Ephesus (Acts xix. 22), and could hardly have failed to make the acquaintance of Philemon. For the designation 6 ἀδελφός applied to Timothy see the note on Col. i. 1.
Φιλήμονε κιτ.λ.} On the persons here addressed, and the language in which they are described, see the in- troduction p. 301 sq.
συνεργῷ] It would probably be during St Paul’s long sojourn at Ephe-
βχάρις ὑμῖν sus that Philemon had laboured with him: see above p. 31 sq.
ἡμῶν] should probably be attached to ἀγαπητῷ as well as to συνεργῷ ; comp. Rom. xvi. 5, 8, 9, 1 Cor. x. 14, Phil. ii. 12.
2. τῇ ἀδελφῇ] For this the re- ceived text has τῇ ἀγαπητῇ. Internal probabilities can be urged in favour of both readings. On the one hand ἀγαπητῇ might have been introduced for the sake of conformity to the pre- ceding ἀγαπητῷ; on the other ἀδελφῇ might have been substituted for aya- πητῇ On grounds of false delicacy. Theodore of Mopsuestia (Spicil. So- lesm. 1. Ὁ. 154), who had the reading ἀγαπητῇ, feels an apology necessary : ‘Istius temporis (i.e. of the present time) homines propemodum omnes in crimine vocandos esse existimant, mo- do si audierint nomen charitatis. A- postolus vero non sic sentiebat; sed contrario etc’ I have preferred τῇ ἀδελφῇ, because the preponderance of ancient authority is very decidedly in its favour.
συνστρατιώτῃ) These spiritual cam- paigns, in which Archippus was _ his comrade, probably took place while St Paul was at Ephesus (4.D. 24—57). For the word συνστρατιώτης see Phil. ii. 25. The metaphor of στρατεία, στρατεύεσθαι, is common in St Paul.
τῇ κατ᾽ οἶκον k.t.A.] probably at Co- lossze ; see above p. 302 sq. For the
332
\ > / > ‘ καὶ εἰρηνὴ ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ.
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
[4, 5
Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ
a oe Ε , ; Ἷ “Εὐχαριστῶ τῳ Θεῴ μου πάντοτε, μνείαν σου ποιου-
> lay ~ > / \ / μένος ἐπὶ Τῶν σιροσεύχων μου, “ἀκούων σου τὴν ἀγάπην
meaning of the expression see the note on Col. iv. 15.
4—7. ‘I never cease to give thanks to my God for thy well-doing, and thou art ever mentioned in my prayers. For they tell me of thy love and faith —thy faith which thou hast in the Lord Jesus, and thy love which thou showest towards all the saints; and it ismy prayer that this active sympathy and charity, thus springing from thy faith, may abound more and more, as thou attainest to the perfect know- ledge of every good thing bestowed upon us by God, looking unto and striving after Christ. For indeed it gave me great joy and comfort to hear of thy loving-kindness, and to learn how the hearts of God’s people had been cheered and refreshed by thy help, my dear brother’.
The Apostle’s thanksgiving and in- tercessory prayer (ver. 4)—the cause of his thanksgiving (ver. 5)—the pur- port of his prayer (ver. 6)—the joy and comfort which he has in Phile- mon’s good deeds (ver. 7)—this is the very simple order of topics in these verses. But meanwhile all established principles of arrangement are defied in the anxiety to give expression to the thought which is uppermost for the moment. The clause ἀκούων κ.τ.λ. is separated from εὐχαριστῶ k.t.A., On which it depends, by the intervening clause μνείαν gov «.t.A. Which intro- duces another thought. It itself in- terposes between two clauses, μνείαν σου κιτὶλ. and ὅπως ἡ κοινωνία k.T.X., which stand in the closest logical and grammatical connexion with each other. Its own component elements are dislocated and inverted in the struggle of the several ideas for im- mediate utterance. And lastly, in ya-
pay yap «.7.d. there is again a recur- rence to a topic which has occurred in an earlier part of the sentence (τὴν ἀγάπην...εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους) but which has been dropped, before it was exhausted, owing to the pressure of another more importunate thought.
4. Ἑὐχαριστῶ] See the note on 1 Thess. i. 2.
mavrote| should probably be taken with εὐχαριστῶ (rather than with μνείαν x.t.d.), according to St Paul’s usual collocation in these opening thanksgivings: see the notes on Col. 1.3, Phila:
μνείαν σου κιτ.λ.1 ‘making mention of thee” For μνείαν ποιεῖσθαι see the note on I Thess. i. 2. Here the ‘ men- tion’ involves the idea of intercession on behalf of Philemon, and so intro- duces the ὅπως «.r.A. of ver. 6. See the note there.
5. ἀκούων] Thisinformation would probably come from Epaphras (Ool. i. 7, 8, iv. 12) rather than from Onesi- mus. The participle is connected more directly with εὐχαριστῶ than with the intervening words, and ex- plains the grounds of the Apostle’s thanksgiving.
τὴν ἀγάπην x.t.r.] 1.6. ‘the faith which thou hast towards the Lord Je- sus Christ and the love which thou showest to all the saints. The logical order is violated, and the clauses are inverted in the second part of the sen- tence, thus producing an example of the figure called chiasm; see Gal. iv. 4,5. This results here from the Apo- stle’s setting down the thoughts in the sequence in which they occur to him, without paying regard to sym- metrical arrangement. The first and prominent thought is Philemon’s love. This suggests the mention of his faith,
6] EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
399
\ \ , ἄγ A \ \ 7 9 Ξ 1 5 καὶ τὴν πιστιν ἣν ἔχεις προς TOV Κύριον Ἰησοῦν καὶ εἰς
\ Ἢ e/ / ΄σ / / πάντας TOUS Ayious, “ὅπως ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πίστεώς σου
> \ , > > / \ > ~ 7 > ἐνεργῆ" γένηται EV ἐπιγνώσει TAVTOS ἀγαθοῦ τοὺυ εν
as the source from which it springs. This again requires a reference to the object of faith. And then at length comes the deferred sequel to the first thought—the range and comprehen- siveness of his love. The transition from the object of faith to the object of love is more easy, because the love is represented as springing from the faith. Some copies transpose the order, reading τὴν πίστιν καὶ τὴν ἀγά- myv—an obvious emendation. Others would obviate the difficulty by giving to πίστιν the meaning ‘ fidelity, sted- fastness’; Winer $1. p. 511 sq. Thus they are enabled to refer both words, πίστιν καὶ ἀγάπην, equally to both the clauses which follow. But though this is a legitimate sense of πίστις in St Paul (see Galatians p. 155), yet in immediate connexion with ἣν ἔχεις πρὸς τὸν Κύριον Ἰησοῦν, it is hardly possible that the word can have any other than its proper theo- logical meaning. See the opening of the contemporary epistle, Col. i. 4. πρὸς k.t.A.| The change of prepo- sitions, πρὸς τὸν Κύριον ‘ towards the Lord’ and εἰς τοὺς ἁγίους ‘unto the saints’, deserves attention. It seems to arise from the instinctive desire to separate the two clauses, as they refer to different words in the preceding part of the sentence. Of the two pre- positions the former (mpo-s) signifies direction ‘forward to’, ‘towards’; the latter (€v-s) arrival and so contact, ‘in-to’, ‘ unto.” Consequently either might be used in either connexion; and as a matter of fact eis is much more common with πίστις (πιστεύειν), as it is also with ἀγάπη, πρός being quite exceptional (1 Thess. i. 8 ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν ἡ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν; comp. 2 Cor. iii. 4). But where a distinction is necessary, there isa propriety in using πρός of the faith which aspires towards Christ,
and εἰς of the love which is exerted upon men. Some good copies read eis here in both clauses.
6. ὅπως κιτ.λ.] to be taken with μνείαν σου ποιούμενος K.T.d., aS giving the aim and purport of St Paul’s prayer. Others connect it with ἣν ἔχεις, as if it described the tendency of Philemon’s faith, ‘ita ut’; but, even if ὅπως could bear this meaning, such a connexion is altogether harsh and improbable.
ἡ κοινωνία κ-τ.λ.] Of many interpre- tations which have been, or might be, given of these words, two seem to de- serve consideration. (1)‘ Your friendly offices and sympathies, your kindly deeds of charity, which spring from your faith’: comp. Phil. i. 5 ἐπὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ ὑμῶν εἰς TO εὐαγγέλιον, Heb. Xili, 16 τῆς εὐποιΐας καὶ κοινωνίας, Whence κοινωνία is used especially of ‘contributions, almsgiving’, Rom. ἘΝ 28) 2 COM! Υἱι1" ΣΧ san) ‘Your communion with God through faith’: comp. I Cor. i. 9, and see also 2 Core ΧΠῚ 13; 1, Johy 1.5. 6, 75 ΠΡ parallel passages strongly support the former sense. Other interpreta- tions proposed are, ‘The participa- tion of others in your faith, through your example’, or ‘your communion with me, springing out of your faith’. This last, which is widely received, is suggested by ver. 17; εἰ κοινωνὸς εἶ, φησί, κατὰ τὴν πίστιν, writes Chrysos- tom, καὶ κατὰ τὰ ἄλλα ὀφείλεις κοινω- νεῖν (comp. Tit. i. 3 κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν): but it is out of place in this context.
evepyns| ‘effective’. The Latin translators must have read ἐναργής, for they render the word evidens or manifesta, Jerome (ad. loc.) speaks of evtdens as the reading of the Latin, and eficax of the Greek text. The converse error appears in the mss of Clem. Hom. xvii. 5, ἐνέργεια for ἐνάρ-
334
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. [7
ta > / η \ \ \ oS \ / ἡμῖν εἰς Χριστὸν. 7 yapav yap πολλὴν ἔσχον καὶ παρα-
\ > > “ « \ / ΄σ ͵ὕ κλησιν ἐπὶ TH ἀγαπη σου, OTL Ta σπλαγχνα τῶν ἁγίων
> / \ “- ’ / ἀναπέπανται διὰ σοῦ, ἀδελφέ. 6. ἐν ὑμῖν εἰς Χριστόν.
γεια. See also similar vy. ll. in Orig. c. Cels. 1.25, ii. 52, ἵν. 89.
ev ἐπιγνώσει k.t.A.| Sin the perfect knowledge of every good thing’. This ἐπίγνωσις, involving as it does the complete appropriation of all truth and the unreserved identification with God’s will, is the goal and crown of the believer’s course. The Apostle does not say ‘in the possession’ or ‘in the performance’ but ‘in the know- ledge of every good thing’; for, in this higher sense of knowledge, to know is both to possess and to perform. In all the epistles of the Roman capti- vity St Paul’s prayer for his corre- spondents culminates in this word ἐπίγνωσις : see the note on Col. i. 9. This ἐπίγνωσις is the result and the reward of faith manifesting itself in deeds of love, ὅπως ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πί- στεως κιτιλ. For the sequence comp. Kphes. iv. 13 εἰς τὴν ἑνότητα τῆς πί- στεως καὶ τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως κιτιὰλ., Tit. 1. 1 κατὰ πίστιν ἐκλεκτῶν Θεοῦ καὶ ἐπί- γνωσιν ἀληθείας τῆς κατ᾽ εὐσέβειαν. The ἐπίγνωσις therefore which the Apostle contemplates is Philemon’s own. There is no reference to the force of his example on others, as it is sometimes interpreted, ‘in their re- cognition of every good thing which is wrought in you’,
τοῦ ev ἡμῖν] ‘which is in us Chris- tians’, ‘which is placed within our reach by the Gospel’; i.e. the whole range of spiritual blessings, the com- plete cycle of Christian truth. If the reading τοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν be adopted, the reference will be restricted to the brotherhood at Colossee, but the meaning must be substantially the same. Though ὑμῖν has somewhat better support, we seem to be justi- fied in preferring ἡμῖν as being much more expressive. In such cases the
Mss are of no great authority; and in the present instance scribes would be strongly tempted to alter ἡμῖν into ὑμῖν from a misapprehension of the sense, and a wish to apply the words to Philemon and his household. A similar misapprehension doubtless led in some copies to the omission of τοῦ, which seemed to be superfluous but is really required for the sense.
εἰς Χριστόν] ‘unto Christ’, i.e. lead- ing to Him as the goal. The words should be connected not with rod ἐν ἡμῖν, but with the main statement of the sentence ἐνεργὴς γένηται κιτ.λ.
7. χαρὰν γάρ] This sentence again must not be connected with the words immediately preceding. It gives the motive of the Apostle’s thanksgiving mentioned in ver. 4. This thanks- giving was the outpouring of gratitude for the joy and comfort that he had received in his bonds from the report of Philemon’s generous charity. The connexion therefore is εὐχαριστῶ τῷ Θεῷ pov...... ἀκούων σου τὴν ἀγάπην «χαρὰν γὰρ πολλὴν ἔσχον KT. For χαράν the received text (Steph. but not Elz.) reads χάριν, which is taken to mean ‘thankfulness’ (1 Tim. i. 12, 2 Tim. i. 3); but this reading is abso- lutely condemned by the paucity of ancient authority.
ta σπλάγχνα] ‘the heart, the spi- rits’, On ra σπλάγχνα, the nobler vis- cera, regarded as the seat of the emo- tions, see the note on Phil. i.8. Here the prominent idea is that of terror, grief, despondency, ete.
ἀναπέπαυται} ‘have been relieved, refreshed’, comp. ver. 20. The com- pound ἀναπαύεσθαι expresses a tem- porary relief, as the simple παύεσθαι expresses a final cessation: Plut. Vit. Lucull. 5 πολλῶν αὖθις ἀνακινούντων τὸν Μιθριδατικὸν πόλεμον ἔφη Μάρκος
8, 9]
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 355
\ 5 - J ͵ ὃ Διὸ πολλὴν ἐν Χριστῷ παρρησίαν ἔχων ἐπιτάσσειν
\ 7, A 9 \ \ > / ~ ΄- σοι τὸ ἀνῆκον, ϑδιὰ THY ἀγαπην μάλλον Tapakarw,
΄ 3 « ΄ , 4 Q\ Ve τοιοῦτος wy ws IlavAos πρεσβύτης νυνὶ O€ καὶ δεσμιος
9. νῦν δὲ καὶ δέσμιος.
αὐτὸν οὐ πεπαῦσθαι ἀλλ᾽ ἀναπε- παῦσθαι. Thus it implies ‘relaxation, refreshment’, as a preparation for the renewal of labour or suffering. It is an Ignatian as well as a Pauline word; Ephes. 2, Smyrn. 9, 10, 12, Trail. 12, Magn. 15, Rom. to.
ἀδελφέ] For the appeal suggested by the emphatic position of the word, comp. Gal. vi. 18. See also the note on ver. 20 below.
8—17. ‘Encouraged by these tid- ings of thy loving spirit, I prefer to eutreat, where I might command. My office gives me authority to dictate thy duty in plain language, but love bids me plead as a suitor. Have I not indeed a right to command—I Paul whom Christ Jesus long ago commis- sioned as His ambassador, and whom now He has exalted to the rank of His prisoner? But I entreat thee. I have a favour to ask for a son of my own— one doubly dear to me, because I be- came his father amidst the sorrows of my bonds. I speak of Onesimus, who in times past was found wholly untrue to his name, who was then far from useful to thee, but now is useful to thee—yea, and to myself also. Him I send back to thee, and I entreat thee to take him into thy favour, for in giving him I am giving my own heart. Indeed I would gladly have detained him with me, that he might minister to me on thy behalf, in these bonds with which the Gospel has invested me. Bnt I had scruples. I did not wish to do anything without thy direct consent; for then it might have seem- ed (though it were only seeming) as if thy kindly offices had been rendered by compulsion and not of free will. So I have sent him back. Indeed it may have been God’s providential de- sign, that he was parted from thee for
a season, only that thou mightest re- gain him for ever; that he left thee as a slave, only that he might return to thee a beloved brother. This indeed he is to me most of all; and, if to me, must he not be so much more to thee, both in worldly things and in spiritual ? If therefore thou regardest me as a friend and companion, take him to thee, as if he were myself?
8. Διό] 1.6. ‘Seeing that I have these proofs of thy love, I prefer to entreat, where I might command’,
παρρησίαν] ‘confidence’, literally ‘freedom’ or ‘privilege of speech’; see the notes on Col. ii. 15, Ephes. iii. 12, It was his Apostolic authority which gave him this right to command in plain language. Hence the addi- tion ἐν Χριστῴ.
τὸ ἀνῆκον] ‘what is fitting’: see the note on Col. iii. 18.
9. διὰ τὴν ἀγάπην] ‘for love’s sake’, i.e. ‘having respect to the claims of love’. It is not Philemon’s love (vv. 5, 7), nor St Paul’s own love, but love absolutely, love regarded as a principle which demands a deferential respect.
τοιοῦτος ὧν k.T.r.] ‘being such an one as Paul an ambassador, and now also a prisoner, of Christ Jesus’. Several questions of more or less diffi- culty arise on these words. (1) Is τοιοῦτος ὧν to be connected with or separated from ὡς Παῦλος x.r..? If se- parated, τοιοῦτος wy will mean ‘though as an Apostle I am armed with such authority’, and ὡς Παῦλος κιτιλ. will describe his condescension to entreaty, ‘yet as simply Paul, etc” But the other construction is much more pro- bable for the following reasons. (6) τοιοῦτος ὧν so used, implying, as it would, something of a personal boast, seems unlike St Paul’s usual mode of speaking. Several interpreters in-
336
Χριστοῦ ‘Incov. deed, taking τοιοῦτος ὦν separately, refer it to ver. 8, ‘seeing that this is my disposition’, i.e. ‘seeing that I desire to entreat’; but τοιοῦτος sug- gests more than an accidental impulse. (b) As τοιοῦτος and ὡς are correlative words, itismorenatural toconnectthem together; comp. Plato Symp. 181 E προσαναγκάζειν TO τοιοῦτον ὥσπερ καὶ κιτιλ., Alexis (Meineke “γαρηι. Com. IIL. p. 399) τοιοῦτο τὸ ζῆν ἐστιν ὥσπερ οἱ κύβοι. Such passages are an answer to the objection that τοιοῦτος would require some stronger word than os, such as οἷος, ὅς, or dare. Even after such expressions as ὁ αὐτός, τὸ αὐτό, instances occur of ὡς (ὥσπερ): see Lobeck Phryn. p. 427, Stallbaum on Plat. Phad. 86 4. Indeed it may be questioned whether any word but ὡς would give exactly St Paul’s meaning here. (c) All the Greek commentators without a single exception connect the words τοιοῦτος ὧν ὡς Παῦλος to- gether. (2) Assuming that the words τοιοῦτος ὧν ws κιτιλ. are taken toge- ther, should they be connected with the preceding or the following sen- tence? On the whole the passage is more forcible, if they are linked to the preceding words. In this case the re- sumptive παρακαλῶ (ver. 10) begins a new sentence, which introduces a fresh subject. The Apostle has before de- scrived the character of his appeal; he now speaks of its object. (3) In either connexion, what is the point of the words τοιοῦτος ὧν ὡς Παῦλος καὶλ.ῦ Do they lay down the grounds of his entreaty, or do they enforce his right to command? If the view of πρεσβύτης adopted below be correct, the latter must be the true interpre- tation; but even though πρεσβύτης be taken in its ordinary sense, this will still remain the more probable alternative; for, while πρεσβύτης and δέσμιος would suit either entreaty or command, the addition Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ suggests an appeal to authority.
ὡς Παῦλος) The mention of his per- soual name involves an assertion of
EPISTLE TO
PHILEMON. [10
σε \ A “- , "παρακαλῶ σε περὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ TEKVOU,
authority, as in Ephes. iii. 1; comp. Gal. ν. 2, with the note there. Theo- doret writes, 6 Παῦλον ἀκούσας τῆς οἰκουμένης ἀκούει τὸν κήρυκα, γῆς καὶ θαλάττης τὸν γεωργόν, τῆς ἐκλογῆς τὸ σκεῦος, K.T.A.
πρεσβύτης] Comparing a passage in the contemporary epistle, Ephes. vi. 20 ὑπὲρ ov πρεσβεύω ἐν ἁλύσει, it had occurred to me that we should read πρεσβευτής here, before I was aware that this conjecture had been anticipated by others, e.g. by Bentley (Crit. Sacr. p. 93) and by Benson (Paraphrase etc. on Six Epistles of St Paul, p. 357). It has since been suggested independently in Linwood’s Observ. qued. in nonnulla N. T. loca 1865, and probably others have enter- tained the same thought. Still believ- ing that St Paul here speaks of him- self as an ‘ambassador’, I now ques- tion whether any change is necessary. There is reason for thinking that in the common dialect πρεσβύτης may have been written indifferently for πρεσβευτής in St Paul's time; and if so, the form here may be due, not to some comparatively late scribe, but to the original autograph itself or to an immediate transcript. In 1 Macc. xiv. 21 the Sinaitic ms has οἱ πρεσβυ- tepo. (a corruption of o πρεσβυται οἱ, for the common reading is of πρεσ- Bevrai oi); in xiv. 22 it reads πρεσβυ- ται Ἰουδαιων; but in ΧΙ. 21 πρεσβευ- τας: though in all passages alike the meaning is ‘ambassadors’. Again the Alexandrian Ms has πρεσβύτας in xiii. 21, but mpecBevra in Xiv. 22, and οἱ πρεσβευτε οι (i.e. of πρεσβευταὶ of) in xiy. 21. In 2 Mace. xi. 34 this same MS has πρεσβυτε, and the reading of the common texts of the Lxx (even Tischendorf and Fritzsche) here is πρεσβῦται. Grimm treats it as mean- ing ‘ambassadors’, without even no- ticing the form. Other mss are also mentioned in Holmes and Parsons which have the form πρεσβυτης in 1 Mace. xiii. 21. In 2 Chron. xxxil. 31 again the word for ‘ambassador’
11]
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
337
’ ᾽ , 5 ΄σ σὸν τον / , , ov [ἐγὼ] ἐγέννησα ἐν Tots δεσμοῖς, Ονήσιμον, "τον ποτε
is written thus in the Vatican ΜΒ, though the ¢ is added above the line; and here too several Mss in Holmes and Parsons agree in reading mpec- Buras. Thus in the age of our earliest extant Mss at all events, the scribes used both forms indifferently in this sense. So also Eusebius on Isaiah xviii. 2 writes ὁ δὲ ᾿Ακύλας πρεσβύτας ἐξέδωκεν εἰπών, Ὃ ἀπο- στέλλων ἐν θαλάσσῃ πρεσβύτας. Again in Ignat. Smyrn. 11 θεοπρεσβύτης is the form in all the mss, though the meaning is ‘an ambassador of God.” So too in Clem. Hom. Ep. Clem, 6 the mss read ὁ τῆς ἀληθείας πρεσβύτης, Which even Schwegler and Dressel tacitly retain. See also Appian Samn. 7, where πρεσβευτοῦ is due to the later editors, and Acta Thomae § 10, where there is a v. I. πρεσβύτης in at least one ms. In Wood’s Ephesus Inscr. vi. 1, p. 24 (belonging to the age of Trajan) πρεσ- Bevrépos stands for πρεσβυτέροις.
The main reason for adopting this rendering is the parallel passage, which suggests it very strongly. The diffi- culty which many find in St Paul’s describing himself as an old man is not serious. On any showing he must have been verging on sixty at this time and may have been some years older. A life of unintermittent toil and suffering, such as he had lived, would bring a premature decay; and looking back on a long eventful life, he would naturally so think and speak of himself. Thus Roger Bacon (Opus Majust. το, p. 15,ed. Jebb; Opus Ter- tium p. 63, ed. Brewer) writes ‘me senem’, ‘nos senes’, in 1267, though he appears to have been not more than fifty-two or fifty-three at the time and lived at least a quarter of a century after (see E. Charles Roger Bacon, Sa Vie etc. pp. 4 sq. 40). So too Scott in his fifty-fifth year speaks of himself as ‘an old grey man’ and ‘aged’ (Lockhart’s Zife vu. pp. 327, 357). It is more difficult to
COL.
understand how St Paul should make his age a ground of appeal to Phi- lemon who, if Archippus was_ his son, cannot have been much younger than himself. The commentator Hi- lary says that the Apostle appeals to his friend ‘quasi coaevum aeta- tis’, but this idea is foreign to the context. The comment of Theophy- lact is, τοιοῦτος ὦν, φησι, πρεσβευ- τής, καὶ οὕτως ἄξιος ἀκούεσθαι, ὡς εἰκὸς Παῦλον πρεσβύτην, τουτέστι καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ διδασκαλικοῦ ἀξιώματος καὶ τοῦ χρόνου τὸ αἰδέσιμον ἔχοντα k.T.A. Does he mean to include both mean- ings in πρεσβύτης Or is he accident- ally borrowing the term ‘ambassador’ from some earlier commentator with- out seeing its bearing ἢ
καὶ δέσμιος] Another title to respect. The mention of his bonds might sug- gest either an appeal for commisera- tion or a claim of authority: see the note on ver. 13. Here the addition of Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ invests it with the cha- racter of an official title, and so gives prominence to the latter idea. To his old office of ‘ambassador’ Christ has added the new title of ‘ prisoner.’ The genitive Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ belongs to πρεσβύτης as well as to δέσμιος, and in both cases describes the person who confers the office or rank.
10. παρακαλῶ σεκ.τ.λ.] St Chryso- stom remarks on the Apostle’s with- holding the name, until he has favour- ably disposed Philemon both to the request and to the object of it; rocov- τοις δὲ mpodedvas αὐτοῦ τὴν ψυχήν, οὐδὲ εὐθέως ἐνέβαλε τὸ ὄνομα, ἀλλὰ τοσαύτην ποιησάμενος αἴτησιν ἀναβάλ- λεται «.7.A. The whole passage de- serves to be read.
ov ἐγέννησα k.t.A.] So too 1 Cox. iv. 15. In Gal. iv. 19 he speaks of him- self as suffering a mother’s pangs for his children in the faith. Comp. Phil. Leg. ad Cai. ὃ (1. p. 554) ἐμόν ἐστι τοῦ Μάκρωνος ἔργον Γάϊος" μᾶλλον αὐτὸν ἢ οὐχ ἧττον τῶν γονέων γεγέννηκα.
ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς] He was doubly
22
338
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. [12
᾿ k \ \ ‘ \ \ 7 A σοι ἄχρηστον, νυνὶ δὲ [καὶ] σοὶ Kal ἐμοὶ εὐχρηστον" ὃν
ἀνέπεμψνα σοι. dear to the Apostle, as being the child of his sorrows.
᾽Ονήσιμον) for ᾿Ονησίμου by attrac- tion, as e.g. Mark vi. 16 ὃν ἐγὼ ἀπεκε- φάλισα ᾿Ιωάννην, οὗτός ἐστιν. Hence- forward he will be true to his name, no longer ἀνόνητος, but ὀνήσιμος : comp. Ruth i. 20 ‘Call me not Naomi (plea- sant) but call me Mara (bitter) ete’ The word ἄχρηστος is a synonyme for ἀνόνητος, Demosth. Phil. iii. § 40 (p. 121) ἅπαντα ταῦτα ἄχρηστα ἄπρακτα ἀνόνητα καιτιλι: comp. Pseudophocyl. 37 (34) χρηστὸς ὀνήσιμός ἐστι, φίλος δ᾽ ἀδικῶν ἀνόνητος. The significance of names was a matter of special im- portance among the ancients. Hence they were careful in the inauguration of any great work that only those who had bona nomina, prospera nomina, Jausta nomina, should take part: Cie. de Div. i. 45, Plin. NV. A. xxviii. 2. 5, Tac. Hist. iv. 53. On the value at- tached to names by the ancients, and more especially by the Hebrews, see Farrar Chapters on Language p. 267 86.) where a large number of instances are collected. Here however there is nothing more than an affectionate play on a name, such as might occur to any one at any time: comp. Euseb. HE. ν. 24 ὁ Eipnvaios φερώνυμός τις ὧν τῇ προσηγορίᾳ, αὐτῷ τε τῷ τρό- πῳ εἰρηνοποιος.
11. ἄχρηστον,εὔχρηστον | Comp. Plat. Resp. iii. p. 411 A χρήσιμον ἐξ ἀχρή- στου...ἐποίησεν. Of these words, aypn- otos is found only here, εὔχρηστος occurs also 2 Tim. ii. 21, iv. 11, in the New Testament. Both appear in the Lxx. In Matt. xxv. 30 ἃ slave is de- scribed as ἀχρεῖος. For the mode of expression comp. Ephes. v. 15 μὴ ὡς ἄσοφοι ἀλλ᾽ ὡς coho. Some have dis- covered in these words a reference to χριστός, as commonly pronounced χρη- otros; comp. Theoph. ad Autol. i. 12 τὸ χριστὸν ἡδὺ Kal εὔχρηστον κοτιλ.
and see Philippians p.16 note. Any
12 > / / q 9 \ / QUTOV, TOUTEOTLY TA EMA σπλαγχνα,
such allusion however, even if it should not involve an anachronism, is far too recondite to be probable here. The play on words is exhausted in the reference to ᾽Ονήσιμος.
καὶ ἐμο]ῇ An after-thought ; comp. Phil. ii. 27 ἠλέησεν αὐτόν, οὐκ αὐτὸν δὲ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐμέ. This accounts for the exceptional order, where ac- cording to common Greek usage the first person would naturally precede the second.
ἀνέπεμψια] ‘I send back’, the epis- tolary aorist used for the present: see the notes on Phil. ii. 25,28. So too ἔγρα- wa, ver. 19, 21 (see the note). It is clear both from the context here, and from Col. iv.7—9, that Onesimus ac- companied the letter.
12. αὐτὸν κιτ.ιλ] The reading of the received text is σὺ δὲ αὐτόν, τουτ- έστι τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα, προσλαβοῦ. The words thus supplied doubtless give the right construction, but must be rejected as deficient in authority. The accusative is suspended; the sen- tence changes its form and loses itself in a number of dependent clauses ; and the main point is not resumed till ver. 17 προσλαβοῦ αὐτὸν ὡς ἐμέ, the grammar having been meanwhile dis- located. For the emphatic position of αὐτόν comp. John ix. 21, 23, Ephes. i, 22.
τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα] ‘my very heart, a mode of speech common in all lan- guages. For the meaning of σπλάγχνα see the note on Phil. i. 8. Comp. Test. Patr. Zab. 8, Neph. 4, in both which passages Christ is called ro σπλάγχνον of God, and in the first it is said ἔχετε εὐσπλαγχνίαν.. ἵνα καὶ ὁ Κύριος εἰς ὑμᾶς σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐλεήσῃ ὑμᾶς" ὅτι καίγε ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτων ἡμερῶν ὁ Θεὸς ἀποστέλλει τὸ σπλάγχνον αὐ- τοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς κιιλ. Otherwise τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα has been interpreted ‘my son’ (comp. ver. 10 ὃν ἐγέννησα κιτιλ.), and it is so rendered here in
13, 14]
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
339
13 ἃ ἀν 23 a A > \ 7 . εν ον εγω εβουλομῆν σρος εμαυτον κατέχειν, «να UTrEp
~ oe ~ ~ ~ / σοῦ μοι διακονή ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς TOU εὐαγγελίου" £
the Peshito. For this sense of σπλάγ- xva comp. Artemid. Oneir. i. 44 οἱ παῖδες σπλάγχνα λέγονται, tb. Vv. 57 τὰ δὲ σπλάγχνα [ἐσήμαινε) τὸν παῖδα, οὕτω γὰρ καὶ τὸν παῖδα καλεῖν ἔθος ἐστί. With this meaning it is used not less of the father than of the mother; e.g. Philo de Joseph. 5 (11. p. 45) Onp- ow εὐωχία καὶ θοίνη γέγονας yevoape- νοις.--τῶν ἐμῶν σπλάγχνων, Basil. Op. IIL. p. 501 ὁ μὲν προτείνεται τὰ σπλάγ- xva τιμὴν τῶν τροφῶν. The Latin vis- cera occurs still more frequently in this sense, as the passages quoted in Wetstein and Suicer show. For this latter interpretation there is much to be said. But it adds nothing to the previous ὃν ἐγέννησα x.t.d., and (what is a more serious objection) it is wholly unsupported by St Paul’s usage elsewhere, which connects σπλάγχνα with a different class of ideas: see e.g. Vv. 7, 20.
13. ἐβουλόμην] ‘I was of a mind’, distinguished from ἠθέλησα, which follows, in two respects; (1) While βούλεσθαι involves the idea of ‘pur- pose, deliberation, desire, mind’, θέ- Aew denotes simply ‘ will’; Epictet. i. 12. 13 βουλόμαι γράφειν, ὡς θέλω, τὸ Δίωνος ὄνομα; οὔ᾽ ἀλλὰ διδάσκομαι θέ- Rew ὡς δεῖ γράφεσθαι, ili. 24. 54 τοῦ- τον θέλε ὁρᾷν, καὶ ὃν βούλει ὄψει. (2) The change of tenses is significant. The imperfect implies a tentative, in- choate process; while the aorist de- scribes a definite and complete act. The will stepped in and put an end to the inclinations of the mind. In- deed the imperfect of this and similar verbs are not infrequently used where the wish is stopped at the outset by some antecedent consideration which renders it impossible, and thus prac- tically it is not entertained at all: e.g. Arist. Ran. 866 ἐβουλόμην μὲν οὐκ ἐρίζειν ἐνθάδε, Antiph. de Herod. caed. I (p. 129) ἐβουλόμην μὲν.. νῦν δὲ K.7.d. 5 Isaeus de Arist. haer. τ. (p. 79) ἐβουλό-
a χωρὶς μην pev...vov δὲ οὐκ ἐξ ἴσου κοιταλ., fisch. δ. Ctes. 2 (p. 53) ἐβουλόμην μὲν οὖν, ὦ ᾿Αθηναῖοι... ἐπειδὴ δὲ πάντα κιτιλ., Lucian Abd. I ἐβουλόμην μὲν οὖν τὴν ἰατρικὴν κ-τ.λ...-νυνὶ δὲ κιτιλ.; see Kihner § 392 ὃ (Π. Ρ. 177). So Acts xxv. 22 ἐβουλόμην καὶ αὐτὸς Tov ἀνθρώπου ἀκοῦσαι, not ‘I should wish’ (as Winer § xli. p. 353) but ‘I could have wished’, i.e. ‘if it had not been too much to ask’. Similarly ἤθελον Gal. iy. 20, ηὐχόμην Rom. ix. 3. See Revision of the English New Testament p.96. So here a not im- probable meaning would be not ‘I was desirous’, but ‘I could have de- sired’,
κατέχειν] ‘to detain’ or ‘retain’, opposed to the following ἀπέχης; ver. 15.
ὑπὲρ σοῦ κτλ. ] Comp. Phil. ii. 30 iva “ἀναπληρώσῃ τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα τῆς πρὸς μὲ λειτουργίας, 1 Cor. xvi. 17 τὸ ὑμέτερον ὑστέρημα αὐτοὶ ἀνεπλήρωσαν. See the note on Col. 1.7. With a de- licate tact the Apostle assumes that Philemon would have wished to per- form these friendly offices in person, if it had been possible.
ev τοῖς δεσμοῖς) An indirect appeal to his compassion: see vy. I, 9, 10. In this instance however (as in ver. 9) the appeal assumes a tone of author- ity, by reference to the occasion of his bonds. For the genitive rod evayye- λίου, describing the origin, comp. Col. i. 23 τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. They were not shackles which self had riveted, but a chain with which Christ had invested him. Thus they were as a badge of office or a decora- tion of honour. In this respect, as in others, the language of St Paul is echoed in the epistles of St Ignatius. Here too entreaty and triumph alter- nate; the saint’s bonds are at once a ground for appeal and a theme of thanksgiving: TZrall. 12 παρακαλεῖ ὑμᾶς ta δεσμά μου, Philad. 7 μάρτυς
525. 2
340
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
{15, 16
\ ΄σ ΄σ , ΦΧ > / ~ / ‘ « δὲ τῆς σῆς γνώμης οὐδὲν ἠθέλησα ποιήσαι, να μὴ ὡς
‘ > / \ > / 5 > \ \ c / κατα avaykKnv TO ἀγαθὸν σου ἡ; ἀλλα κατα ἐκουσιον" ‘
Beet? \ δ Δ ΚΕ στὰ > , θ \ “ «“ » ἡ ταχα γαρ la TOUTO EX WELT 1] προς ωρβᾶν, ἐνὰ ALWVLOV
᾽ \ , / ε αὐτὸν ἀπεχης; τό οὐκέτι ὡς
δέ μοι ἐν ᾧ δέδεμαι, Ephes. τι ἐν ᾧ (i.€. Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ) τὰ δεσμὰ περιφέρω, τοὺς πνευματικοὺς μαργαρίτας, Smyrn. 10 ἀντίψυχον ὑμῶν τὸ πνεῦμά μου καὶ τὰ δεσμά μου, Magn. 1 ἐν οἷς περιφέρω δεσμοῖς ἄδω τὰς ἐκκλησίας ; see also Ephes. 1, 3, 21, Magn. 12, Trail. 1,5, 10, Smyrn. 4, 11, Polyc. 2, Rom. 1, 4, 5, Philad. 5.
14. χωρὶς κιτ.λ.] “ without thy ap- proval, consent’; Polyb. ii. 21. 1, 3, χωρὶς τῆς σφετέρας γνώμης, χωρὶς τῆς αὐτοῦ γνώμης : similarly ἄνευ [τῆς] γνώμης») e.g. Polyb. xxi. 8. 7, Ign. Polyc. 4.
ὡς κατὰ ἀνάγκην] St Paul does not Say κατὰ ἀνάγκην but ὡς κατὰ ἀνάγκην. He will not suppose that it would really be by constraint; but it must not even wear the appearance (ὡς) of being so; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 17 ὡς ἐν ἀφροσύνῃ. See Plin. Lp. ix. 21 ‘Vereor ne videar non rogare sed cogere’; where, as here, the writer is asking his correspondent to forgive a domes- tic who has offended.
τὸ ἀγαθόν σου] ‘the benefit arising Jrom thee’, i.e. the good which I should get from the continued pre- sence of Onesimus, and which would be owing to thee’.
κατὰ ἑκούσιον) asin Num. xv. 3. The form καθ᾽ ἑκουσίαν is perhaps more classical: Thue. viii. 27 καθ᾽ ἑκουσίαν ἢ πάνυ ye ἀνάγκῃ. The word under- stood in the one case appears to be τρόπον (Porphyr. de Abst. i. 9 καθ᾽ ἑκούσιον τρύπον, comp. Hur. Med. 751 ἑκουσίῳ τρόπῳ); in the other, γνώμην (so ἑκουσίᾳ, ἐξ ἑκουσίας, etc.) : comp. Lobeck Phryn. p. 4.
15. τάχα yap κιτ.λ. The γὰρ ex- plains an additional motive which guided the Apostle’s decision: ‘I did not dare to detain him, however
΄σ ᾽ \ « \ ΄σ' δοῦλον, ἀλλὰ ὑπερ δοῦλον,
much I desired it. I might have de- feated the purpose for which God in His good providence allowed him to leave thee’.
ἐχωρίσθη] “ He does not say’, writes Chrysostom, ‘ Yor this cause he fled, but For this cause he was parted: for he would appease Philemon by a more euphemistic phrase. And again he does not say he parted himself, but he was parted: since the design was not Onesimus’ own to depart for this or that reason: just as Joseph also, when excusing his brethren, says (Gen. xlv. 5) God did send me hither’
πρὸς ὥραν] ‘for an hour,’ ‘for a short season’: 2 Cor. vii. 8, Gal. ii. 5. ‘It was only a brief moment after all’, the Apostle would say, ‘compared with the magnitude of the work wrought in it. He departed a repro- bate; he returns a saved man. He departed for a few months ; he returns to be with you for all time and for eternity’. This sense of αἰώνιον must not be arbitrarily limited. Since he left, Onesimus had obtained eternal life, and eternal life involves eternal interchange of friendship. His _ser- vices to his old master were no longer barred by the gates of death.
ἀπέχῃς] In this connexion ἀπέχειν may bear either of two senses : (1) ‘to have back, to have in return’ : or (2) ‘tohave to the full, to have wholly’, as in Phil. iv. 18 ἀπέχω πάντα (see the note). In other words the prominent idea in the word may be either resti- tution, or completeness. The former is the more probable sense here, as suggested by κατέχειν in verse 13 and by ἐχωρίσθη in this verse.
16. ὡς δοῦλον] St Paul does not say δοῦλον but ὡς δοῦλον. It was a
17—19]
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
341
3 \ > Λ / Π ΄σ ἀδελφὸν ἀγαπητόν, μάλιστα ἐμοί, πόσῳ δὲ μάλλον
\ \ > \ \ > / Ol Kal ἐν σαρκὶ Kal ἐν Κυρίῳ.
> > oS “Tél οὖν με ἔχεις κοι-
¢ , a > \ ε > if rss , a7 / vwvov, προσλαβοῦ αὐτον ὡς ἐμέ: El δέ TL ἠδίκησέν σε
ΕΒ). , “ > > iP ἡ ὀφείλει, τοῦτο ἐμοὶ ἐλλόγα.
matter of indifference whether he were outwardly δοῦλος or outwardly ἐλεύθερος, since both are one in Christ (Col. iii. 11). But though he might still remain a slave, he could no longer be as a slave. A change had been wrought in him, independently of his possible manumission: in Christ he had become a brother. It should be noticed also that the negative is not μηκέτι, but οὐκέτ. The negation is thus wholly independent of ἵνα... ἀπέ- xns- 1t describes not the possible view of Philemon, but the actual state of Onesimus. The‘nomoreasa slave’ is an absolute fact, whether Philemon chooses to recognise it or not.
ἀδελφὸν ἀγαπητόν] καὶ τῷ χρόνῳ ke- κέρδακας καὶ τῇ ποιότητι, Writes Chry- sostom, apostrophizing Philemon.
πόσῳ δὲ μᾶλλον κιτιλ.)] Having first said ‘most of all to me’, he goes a step further, ‘more than most of all to thee’.
καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ k.7.A.] ‘In both spheres alike, in the affairs of this world and in the affairs of the higher life’ In the former, as Meyer pointedly says, Philemon had the brother for a slave; in the latter he had the slave for a brother: comp. Ign. Trall. 12 κατὰ πάντα με ἀνέπαυσαν σαρκί Te καὶ πνεύ- ματι.
17. ἔχεις κοινωνόν] ‘thou holdest me to be a comrade, an intimate friend’ For this use of ἔχειν comp. Luke xiy. 18 ἔχε pe παρητημένον, Phil. ji. 29 τοὺς τοιούτους ἐντίμους ἔχετε. Those are κοινωνοί, who have common interests, common feelings, common work.
18—22. ‘But if hehas done thee any injury, or if he stands in thy debt, set it down to my account. Here is my signature—Pau/—in my own hand-
ἐγὼ Παῦλος ἔγραψα
writing. Accept this ἃ5 my bond. I will repay thee. For I will not in- sist,as I might, that thou art indebted to me for much more than this; that thou owest to me thine own self. Yes, dear brother, let me receive from my son in the faith such a return as a father has a right to expect. Cheer and refresh my spirits in Christ. I have full confidence in thy compli- ance, as I write this ; for I know that thou wilt do even more than I ask. At the same time also prepare to receive me on a visit; for 1 hope that through your prayers I shall be set free and given to you once more.’
18. εἰ δέ τι] The case is stated hyrothetically but the words doubt- less describe the actual offence of Onesimus. He had done his master some injury, probably had robbed him; and he had fled to escape pun- ishment. See the introduction.
ἢ ὀφείλει] defining the offence which has been indicated in ἠδίκησεν. But still the Apostle refrains from using the plain word ἔκλεψεν. He would spare the penitent slave, and avoid irritating the injured master.
ἐλλόγα] ‘ reckon it in’, ‘ set it down’. This form must be adopted instead of ἐλλόγει Which stands in the received text, as the great preponderance of authority shows. On the other hand we have ἐλλογεῖται Rom. v. 13 (though with a γ.]. ἐλλογᾶται), ἐλλογουμένων Boeckh C.J. no. 1732 A, and ἐνλογεῖ- σθαι Edict. Diocl. in Corp. Inscr. Lat. ul. p.836. But the word is so rare in any form, that these occurrences of ἐλλογεῖν afford no ground for exclud- ing ἐλλογᾶν as impossible. The two forms might be employed side by side, just as we find ἐλεᾶν and ἐλεεῖν, Evpay and ξυρεῖν, ἐρωτᾶν and ἐρωτεῖν (Matt.
342
τῆ ἐμῇ χειρί, ἐγὼ ἀποτίσω:
σεαυτόν μοι προσοφείλεις. "
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
[20
[72 \ / e/ \ ἵνα μὴ λέγω δι; OTL και
“ναί, ἀδελφέ, ἐ ἐγώ σου ovai-
μην ἐν Κυρίῳ: ἀνάπαυσον μου τὰ σπλάγχνα ἐν Χριστῷ.
xy. 23), and the like; see Buttmann Ausf. Gramm. § 112 (1. p. 53). The word λογᾶν, as used by Lucian Lexviph, 15 (where it is a desiderative ‘to be eager to speak’, like φονᾶν, @avaray, φαρμακῶν, etc.), has nothing to do with the use of ἐλλογᾶν here.
19. ἐγὼ Παῦλος] The introduc- tion of his own name gives it the cha- racter of a formal and binding signa- ture: comp. I Cor. xvi. 21, Col. iv. 18, 2 Thess. iii. 17. A signature to a deed in ancient or medieval times would commonly take this form, ἐγὼ ὁ deiva,— 780 and so’; where weshould omit the marks of the first person.
ἔγραψα] An epistolary or docu- mentary aorist, as in ver. 21; so too ἀνέπεμψα ver. 11. See the note on ἔγραψα Gal. vi. 11. The aorist is the tense commonly used in signatures; e.g. ὑπέγραψα to the conciliar de- crees.
This incidental mention of his auto- graph, occurring where it does, shows that he wrote the whole letter with his own hand. This procedure is quite exceptional, just as the pur- port of the letter is exceptional. In all other cases he appears to have employed an amanuensis, only adding a few words in his own handwriting at the close: see the note on Gal. lc.
iva μὴ λέγω] ‘not to say’, as 2 Cor. ix. 4. There isa suppressed thought, ‘though indeed you cannot fairly claim repayment’, ‘though indeed you owe me (ddeiAecs)as muchas this’,on which the ἵνα μὴ k.7.A. is dependent. Hence προσοφείλεις ‘owest besides’; for this is the common meaning of the word.
σεαυτόν] St Paul was his spiritu- al father, who had begotten him in the faith, and to whom therefore he owed his being; comp. Plato Legg. iv. Ῥ. 717 Β ὡς θέμις oeiAovta ἀποτίνειν
τὰ πρῶτά τε καὶ μέγιστα ὀφειλήματα... νομίζειν δὲ, ἃ κέκτηται καὶ ἔχει, πάντα εἶναι τῶν γεννησάντων... ἀρχόμενον ἀπὸ τῆς οὐσίας, δεύτερα τὰ τοῦ σώματος, τρίτα τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς, ἀποτίνοντα δα- νείσματα k.T.A.
20. ναί] introducing an affectionate appeal as in Phil. iv. 3 vai ἐρωτῶ καὶ σέ.
ἀδελφέ] Τῷ 15 the entreaty of a bro- ther to a brother on behalf of a bro- ther (ver. 16). For the pathetic ap- peal involved in the word see the notes on Gal. iii, 15, vi. 1, 18; and comp. ver. 7.
ἐγώ) ‘I seem to be entreating for Onesimus; but I am pleading for my- self: the favour will be done to me’; comp. ver. 17 προσλαβοῦ αὐτὸν ws ἐμέ. The emphatic ἐγώ identifies the cause of Onesimus with his own.
σου ὀναίμην] ‘may I have satis- Suction, find comfort in thee’, i.e. ‘may I receive such a return from thee, as a father has a right to expect from his child’ The common use of the word ὀναίμην would suggest the thought of filial offices; eg. Arist. Thesm. 469 οὕτως ὀναίμην τῶν τέκ- νων, Lucian Philops. 27 πρὸς τὴν ὄψιν τῶν υἱέων, οὕτως ὀναίμην, ἔφη, τούτων, Ps-Ignat. Hero 6 ὀναίμην σου, παιδίον ποθεινόν, Synes. Ep. 44 οὕτω τῆς ἱερᾶς φιλοσοφίας ὀναίμην καὶ προσ- έτι τῶν παιδίων τῶν ἐμαυτοῦ, With other passages quoted in Wetstein. So too for ὄνασθαι, ὄνησις, compare Eur. Med. 1025 sq. πρὶν σφῷν ὄνα- σθαι... ἄλλως ap ὑμᾶς, ὦ τέκν᾽, ἐξε- θρεψάμην, Alc. 333 ἅλις δὲ παίδω ν᾽ τῶνδ᾽ ὄνησιν εὔχομαι θεοῖς γενέσθαι, Philem. Jnc. 64 (Iv. Ρ. 55 Meineke) ἔτεκές με; μῆτερ, καὶ γένοιτό σοι τέκ- νων ὄνησις, ὥσπερ καὶ δίκαιόν ἐστί σοι, Ecclus, xxx. 2 ὁ παιδεύων τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ὀνήσεται en αὐτῷ (the
21, 22]
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
343
\ ΄ ε ~ A ’ > \ ε “᾿Πεποιθὼς τῇ ὑπακοὴ σου ἔγραψα σοι, εἰδὼς ὅτι καὶ ‘
€ \ ral / ’ ὑπὲρ a λέγω ποιήσεις.
J \ \ / , ἅμα δὲ Kal ἑτοίμαζέ μοι
ξενίαν" ἐλπίζω yap ὅτι διὰ τῶν προσευχῶν ὑμῶν χα-
ρισθήσομαι ὑμῖν.
only passage in the Lxx where the word occurs). The prayer ὀναίμην σου, ὀναίμην ὑμῶν, etc., occurs seyeral times in Ignatius; Polyc.1, 6, Magn. 2, 12, Ephes.2. It is not unlikely that ὀναί- μὴν here involves a reference to the name Onesimus; see the note on ver. 11. The Hebrew fondness for playing on names makes such an allusion at least possible.
ev Κυρίῳ] As he had begotten Phi- lemon ἐν Κυρίῳ (comp. I Cor. iv. 15, 17), so it was ἐν Κυρίῳ that he looked for the recompense of filial offices.
ἀνάπαυσον k.t..] See the note ver. 7.
21. ἔγραψα] ‘I write’: see the note on ver. 19.
ὑπὲρ ἃ λέγω κιτ.λ.] What was the thought upmost in the Apostle’s mind when he penned these words? Did he contemplate the manumission of Onesimus? If so, the restraint which he imposes upon himself is signifi- cant. Indeed throughout this epistle the idea would seem to be present to his thoughts, though the word never passes his lips. This reserve is emi- nently characteristic of the Gospel. Slavery is never directly attacked as such, but principles are inculcated which must prove fatal to it.
22. ἅμα δὲ x.A.] When St Paul first contemplated visiting Rome, he had intended, after leaving the me- tropolis, to pass westward into Spain; Rom. xy. 24, 28. But by this time he appears to have altered his plans, pur- posing first to revisit Greece and Asia Minor. Thus in Phil. ii. 24 he looks forward to seeing the Philippians shortly; while here he contemplates a visit to the Churches of the Lycus valley.
There is a gentle compulsion in this mention of a personal visit to Colossze. The Apostle would thus be able to
see for himself that Philemon had not disappointed his expectations. Simi- larly Serapion in Eus. H. Z. vi. 12 προσδοκᾶτέ με ἐν τάχει.
ξενίαν] ‘alodging’; comp. Clem. Hom. xii. 2 προάξωσιν τὰς ξενίας ἕτοι- μάζοντες. So the Latin parare hospi- tium Cie. ad Att. xiv. 2, Mart. Ep. ix. 1. This latter passage, ‘Vale et para hospitium’, closely resembles St Paul’s language here. In the expres- sion before us ξενία is probably the place of entertainment: but in such phrases as καλεῖν ἐπὶ ξενίᾳ, παρακαλεῖν ἐπὶ ξενίαν, φροντίζειν ξενίας, and the like, it denotes the offices of hospital- ity. The Latin hospitium also in- cludes both senses. The ξενία, as a lodging, may denote either quarters in aninn or aroom ina private house: see Philippians p.9. For the latter comp. Plato Tim. 20 © mapa Κριτίαν πρὸς τὸν Eevava, ov καὶ καταλύομεν, ἀφικόμεθα. In this case the response would doubtless bea hospitable recep- tion in Philemon’s home; but the request does not assume so much as this.
χαρισθήσομαι] “1 shall be granted to yow. The grant (χαρίζεσθαι) of one person to another, may be for purposes either (1) of destruction, as Acts xxv. II οὐδείς με δύναται αὐτοῖς χαρίσασθαι (comp. ver. 16), or (2) of preservation, as Acts iii. 14 ἡτήσασθε ἄνδρα φονέα χαρισθῆναι ὑμῖν, and here.
23—25. ‘Epaphras my fellow-cap- tive in Christ Jesus salutes you. As do also Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow-labourers. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with thee and thy household, and sanctify the spirit of you all’
23 sq. For these salutations sec the notes on Col. iv. 1osq. Epaphras
344
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
[23-25
53. Ασπάζεταιίι ce Eradpas 0 συναινμάλωτος μου ἐν f XM μ
lod ΄σ ’ > ΄σ ΄σ Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, *4Mapkos, Ἀρίσταρχος, Δημᾶς, Λουκάς,
/ οἱ συνεργοί μου.
5 Ἢ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου [ἡμῶν] Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ
΄σ Vd ~ TOU πνεύματος ὑμῶν.
is mentioned first because he was a Colossian (Coliv. 12) and, as the evan- gelist of Colossze (see p. 29 sq.), doubt- less well known to Philemon. Of the four others Aristarchus and Mark be- longed to the Circumcision (Col. iv. 11) while Demas and Luke were Gentile Christians. All these were of Greek or Asiatic origin and would probably be well known to Philemon, at least by name. On the other hand Jesus Justus, who is honourably mentioned in the Colossian letter (iv. 11), but
passed over here, may have been a Roman Christian.
ὁ συναιχμάλωτος] On the possible meanings of this title see Col. iv. 10, where itis given not to Epaphras but to Aristarchus.
25. Ἡ χάρις «.7.X.] The same form of farewell as in Gal. vi. 18; comp. 2 Tim. iv. 22.
ὑμῶν] The persons whose names are mentioned in the opening saluta- tion.
DISSERTATIONS.
On some points connected with the Essenes.
i THE NAME ESSENE.
ip ORIGIN AND AFFINITY OF THE ESSENES.
111. ESSENISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
THE NAME ESSENE.
The name is variously written in Greek : Various
3 , ase ae ... forms of 1. “Eoonvos: Joseph. Ant. xiii. 5. 9, Xill. το. 6, XV. 10. 5, ΧΙ], the name
Pree br ἢ 8. 2, τ Vat25 ἘΠῚ: δ A. voi tS. Τὴ ἘΞ GEESE (Essenus); Dion Chrys. in Synes. Dion 3; Hippol. Haer.
ix. 18, 28 (Ms éonvos); Epiphan. Haer. Ὁ. 28 sq, 127 (ed.
Pet.)
2. Ἔσσαῖος : Philo 11. pp. 457, 471, 632 (ed. Mang.); Hegesip- pus in Euseb. H. 1. iv. 22; Porphyr. de Abstin. iv. 11. So togeJasephs Ὁ. 1.7 3, li. 20, 4, 11:2: 15 Ant. xv. 10. 4; though in the immediate context of this last passage he writes "Eoonvos, if the common texts may be trusted.
3. Ὀσσαῖος : Epiphan. Haer. pp. 40 sq., 125, 462. The common texts very frequently make him write Ὀσσηνός, but see Dindorf’s notes, Epiphan. Op. 1. pp. 380, 425. With Kpi- phanius the Essenes are a Samaritan, the Osseans a Judaic sect. He has evidently got his information from two distinct sources, and does not see that the same persons are intended.
4. “Iecoatos, Epiphan. Haer. p. 11]. From the connexion the same sect again seems to be meant: but owing to the form Epiphanius conjectures (οἶμαι) that the name is derived from Jesse, the father of David.
If any certain example could be produced where the name occurs All etymo-
- ; aAt - : 5 logies to in any early Hebrew or Aramaic writing, the question of its deriva- be veiocted
tion would probably be settled; but in the absence of a single decisive Monrherd
instance a wide field is opened for conjecture, and critics have not name
348
(i) From the Greek;
(ii) From names of persons or places ;
(iii) From Hebrew roots not sapplying the right conso- nants,
THE ESSENES.
been backward in availing themselves of the license. In discussing the claims of the different etymologies proposed we may reject :
First : derivations from the Greek. Thus Philo connects the word with ὅσιος ‘holy’: Quod omn. prob. 12, p. 457 ᾿Εσσαῖοι...διαλέκτου ἑλληνικῆς παρώνυμοι ὁσιότητος, ὃ 13, Ρ. 459 τῶν ᾿Εσσαίων ἢ ὁσίων, Fragm. p. 632 καλοῦνται μὲν "Eooator, παρὰ τὴν ὁσιότητα, μοὶ δοκῶ [δοκεῖ 1], τῆς προσηγορίας ἀξιωθέντες. It is not quite clear whether Philo is here playing with words after the manner of his master Plato, or whether he holds a pre-established harmony to exist among different languages by which similar sounds represent similar things, or whether lastly he seriously means that the name was directly derived from the Greek word ὅσιος. The last supposition is the least probable ; but he certainly does not reject this derivation ‘as incor- rect’ (Ginsburg Essenes p. 27), nor can παρώνυμοι ὁσιότητος be ren- dered ‘from an incorrect derivation from the Greek homonym hosivtes’ (ib. p. 32), since the word παρώνυμος never involves the notion of false etymology. The amount of truth which probably underlies Philo’s statement will be considered hereafter. Another Greek derivation is ἴσος, ‘companion, associate,’ suggested by Rapoport, Hrech Millin p- 41. Several others again are suggested by Lowy, 5. v. Hssier, e.g. ἔσω from their esoteric doctrine, or αἶσα from their fatalism, All such may be rejected as instances of ingenious trifling, if indeed they deserve to be called ingenious.
Secondly: derivations from proper names whether of persons or of places. Thus the word has been derived from Jesse the father of David (Epiphan. 1. c.), or from one %y Jsai, the disciple of R. Joshua ben Perachia who migrated to Egypt in the time of Alexander Janneus (Τῶν in Ben Chananja 1. p. 352). Again it has been referred to the town ssa (a doubtful reading in Joseph. Ant. xiii. 15. 3) beyond the Jordan. And other similar derivations have been suggested.
Thirdly: etymologies from the Hebrew or Aramaic, which do not supply the right consonants, or do not supply them in the right order. Under this head several must be rejected ;
“DN Gsar ‘to bind,’ Adler Volkslehrer vi. p. 50, referred to by Ginsburg Lssenes p. 29.
“DM chasid ‘pious,’ which is represented by ᾿Ασιδαῖος (τ Mace. ii. 42 (v. 1.), vii. 13, 2 Mace. xiv. 6), and could not possibly assume
THE ESSENES. 349
the forin "Eocatos or Eoonvds. Yet this derivation appears in Josip- pon ben Gorion (iv. 6, 7, Vv. 24, pp. 274, 278, 451), who substitutes Chasidim in narratives where the Essenes are mentioned in the original of Josephus; and it has been adopted by many more recent writers.
NMD «cha ‘to bathe,’ from which with an Aleph prefixed we might get *NNDN as’chai ‘bathers’ (a word however which doves not occur): Gritz Gesch. der Juden ul. pp. 82, 468.
YS tsondag ‘retired, modest,’ adopted by Frankel (Zeitschrift 1846, p. 449, Monatsschrift 11. p. 32) after a suggestion by Low.
To this category must be assigned those etymologies which con- such as tain a ἢ as the third consonant of the root; since the comparison eee of the parallel forms Ἔσσαϊος and “Econvds shows that in the latter make n word the ν is only formative. On this ground we must reject: Sele
{DM chasin ; see below under jy.
sn chétsen ‘a fold’ οὗ a garment, and so supposed to signify the περίζωμα or ‘apron’, which was given to every neophyte among the Essenes (Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 5, 7): suggested by Jellinek Ben Cha- nanja IV. p. 374.
PUY eashin ‘strong’: see Cohn in Frankel’s Monatsschrift vu.
p. 271. This etymology is suggested to explain Epiphanius Haer. p. 40 τοῦτο δὲ τὸ γένος τῶν ᾿Οσσηνῶν ἑρμηνεύεται διὰ τῆς ἐκδόσεως τοῦ ὀνόματος στιβαρὸν γένος (‘a sturdy race’). The name ‘ Essene’ is so interpreted also in Makrisi (de Sacy, Chrestom. Arab. 1. p. 114, 306) ; but, as he himself writes it with Hlif and not Az, it is plain that he got this interpretation from some one else, probably from Epiphanius. The correct reading however in Epiphanius is Οσσαίων, not Ὀσσηνῶν ; and it would therefore appear that this father or his informant derived the word from the Hebrew root tty rather than from the Aramaic wy. The Ὀσσαῖοι would then be the nny, and this is so far a possible derivation, that the m does not enter into the root. Another word suggested to explain the etymology of Epiphanius is the Hebrew and Aramaic ὉΠ chasin ‘powerful, strong’ (from jpn) ; but this is open to the same objections as } wy.
When all such derivations are eliminated as untenable or impro- Other de- bable, considerable uncertainty still remains. The tst and 3rd radi- pelos cals might be any of the gutturals δὲ, n, Π, y; and the Greek a, as the ed: 2nd radical, might represent any one of several Shemitic sibilants.
(1) SON fa
THE ESSENES.
Thus we have the choice of the following etymologies, which have found more or less favour. (1) NDN dasa ‘to heal,’ whence NYDN asyd, ‘a physician.’
physician’; The Essenes are supposed to be so called because Josephus states
(2) SN "a seer’;
(B. J. ii. 8. 6) that they paid great attention to the qualities of herbs and minerals with a view to the healing of diseases (πρὸς θεραπείαν παθῶν). This etymology is supported likewise by an appeal to the name θεραπευταί, which Philo gives to an allied sect in Egypt (de Vit. Cont. § 1, τι. p. 471). It seems highly improbable however, that the ordinary name of the Essenes should have been derived from a
pursuit which was merely secondary and incidental; while the sup-
posed analogy of the Therapeutz rests on a wrong interpretation of
the word. Philo indeed (I. 6.), bent upon extracting from it as much moral significance as possible, says, θεραπευταὶ καὶ θεραπευτρίδες ka- λοῦνται, ἤτοι παρ᾽ ὅσον ἰατρικὴν ἐπαγγέλλονται κρείσσονα τῆς κατὰ πόλεις (ἡ μὲν γὰρ σώματα θεραπεύει μόνον, ἐκείνη δὲ καὶ ψυχὰς κ.τ.λ.) ἢ παρ᾽ ὅσον ἐκ φύσεως καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν νόμων ἐπαιδεύθησαν θεραπεύειν τὸ ὃν x.t.A.: but the latter meaning alone accords with the usage of the word; for θεραπευτής, used absolutely, signifies ‘a worshipper, devotee,’ not ‘a physician, healer.’ This etymology of ᾿σσαῖος is ascribed, though wrongly, to Philo by Asaria de’ Rossi (Jleor Enayim 3, fol. 33 a) and has been very widely received. Among more recent writers, who have adopted or favoured it, are Bellermann (Ueber Esser w. Therapeuten p. 7), Gfrérer (Philo 11. p. 341), Diihne (Ersch u. Gruber, s. v.), Baur (Christl. Kirche der drei erst. Jahrh. p. 20), Herzfeld (Gesch. des Judenthums τι. Ὁ. 371, 395, 397 8q.), Geiger (Urschrift p- 126), Derenbourg (/’Histoire et la Géographie de la Palestine pp- 170, 175, notes), Keim (Jesus von Nazara 1. p. 284 sq.), and Hamburger (Real-Encyclopidie fiir Bibel wu. Talmud, s. v.). Several of these writers identify the Essenes with the Baithusians ()" 18) of the Talmud, though in the Talmud the Baithusians are connected with the Sadducees. This identification was suggested by Asaria de’ Rossi (1. ο. fol. 33 6), who interprets ‘ Baithusians’ as ‘the school of the Essenes’ (δ ΟΝ '3): while subsequent writers, going a step further, have explained it ‘the school of the physicians’ (SDS M3).
(2) SIM chdza ‘to see’, whence nn chazyd ‘a seer’, in re- ference to the prophetic powers which the Essenes claimed, as the result of ascetic contemplation: Joseph. 2. J. 11. 8. 12 εἰσὶ δὲ ἐν αὐτοῖς
|
THE ESSENES. 351
Kal τὰ μέλλοντα προγινώσκειν ὑπισχνοῦνται K.t-X, For instances of such Essene prophets see Ant, xili. 11. 2, xv. 10. 5, B. J.i. 3. 5, 11. 7. 3. Suidas, 5. ν. ᾿Εσσαῖοι, says: θεωρίᾳ ta πολλὰ παραμένουσιν, ἔνθεν «αἱ ᾿Ἔσσαϊοι καλοῦνται, τοῦτο δηλοῦντος τοῦ ὀνόματος, τουτέστι, θεωρη- τικο. For this derivation, which was suggested by Baumgarten see Bellermann p. 10) and is adopted by Hilgenfeld (Jid. Apocal. », 278), there is something to be said: but Ntm is rather ὁρᾶν than )εωρεῖν ; and thus it must denote the result rather than the process, she vision which was the privilege of the few rather than the con- emplation which was the duty of all. Indeed in a later paper ‘Zeitschr. X1. p. 346, 1868) Hilgenfeld expresses himself doubtfully ubout this derivation, feeling the difficulty of explaining the oo from the ἢ. This is a real objection. In the transliteration of the LXx the ἢ is persistently represented by & and the αὶ by o. The exceptions to this rule, where the manuscript authority is beyond question, are very few, and in every case they seem capable of ex- planation by peculiar circumstances,
(3) ΠΣ easah ‘to do,’ so that ᾿Εσσαῖοι would signify ‘the (3) ney Joers, the observers of the law,’ thus referring to the strictness of pode: Essene practices: see Oppenheim in Frankel’s Monatsschrife vit. p. 272 sq. It has been suggested also that, as the Pharisees were especially designated the teachers, the Essenes were called the ‘doers’ by a sort of antithesis: see an article in Jost’s Annalen 1839, p. 145. Thus the Talmudic phrase ΠΣ ‘wx, interpreted ‘men of prac- tice, of good deeds,’ is supposed to refer to the Essenes (see Frankel’s Zeitschrift 111. p. 458, Monatsschrift ττ. p. 70). In some passages indeed (see Surenhuis Jfishna 111. p. 313) ib may possibly mean ‘ workers of miracles’ (as ἔργον Joh. ν. 20, vil. 21, x. 25, etc.); but in this sense also it might be explained of the thaumaturgic powers claimed by the Essenes. (See below, p. 362.) On the use which has been made of a passage in the Aboth of R, Nathan c. 37, as supporting this deriva- tion, I shall have to speak hereafter. Altogether this etymology has little or nothing to recommend it.
I have reserved to the last the two derivations which seem to deserve most consideration.
(4) casas chast (τε ρος» οἷ 86) Or Sagas, chasyo, ‘pious,’ in (4) chasyo Syriac. This derivation, which is also given by de Sacy (Chrestom. PELGUSy Arab. 1. p. 347), is adopted by Ewald (Gesch. des V. Isr. 1v. p. 484,
t. in i)
(5) OONYH * silent
ones.’
THE ESSENES.
ed. 3, 1864, VII. pp. 154, 477, ed. 2, 1859), who abandons in its fa- vour another etymology (j1n chazzan ‘watcher, worshipper’ = θερα- πευτής) Which he had suggested in an earlier edition of his fourth volume (p. 420). It is recommended by the fact that it resembles not only in sound, but in meaning, the Greek ὅσιος, of which it is a common rendering in the Peshito (Acts ii. 27, xiii. 35, Tit. 1, 8). Thus it explains the derivation given by Philo (see above, p. 350), and it also accounts for the tendency to write ’Occates for "Eacatos in Greek. Ewald moreover points out how an Essenizing Sibylline poem (Orac. Sib. iv ; see above, p. 96) dwells on the Greek equiva- lents, εὐσεβής, εὐσεβίη, etc. (vv. 26, 35, 42 Sq., 148 sq., 162, 165 sq., 178 sq., ed. Alexandre), as if they had a special value for the writer : see Gesch. vil. p. 154, Sibyll. Biicher p. 46. Lipsius (Schenkel’s Libel-Lexicon, s. Ὁ.) also considers this the most probable etymology. (5) NWN chasha (also pwn) Heb. ‘to be silent’; whence pxwn chashshaim ‘the silent ones,’ who meditate on mysteries. Jost (Gesch. d. Judenth, 1. p. 207) believes that this was the derivation accepted by Josephus, since he elsewhere (Ant. iii. 7. 5, ili. 8. 9) writes out jwn, choshen ‘the high-priest’s breast-plate’ (Exod. xxviii. 15 sq.), ἐσσήν or ἐσσήνης in Greek, and explains it σημαίνει τοῦτο Kata τὴν Ἑλλήνων γλώτταν λογεῖον (i.e. the ‘ place of oracles’ or ‘of reason’: comp. Philo de Mon. ii. § 5, τι. p. 226, καλεῖται λογεῖον ἐτύμως, ἐπειδὴ Ta ev οὐρανῷ πάντα λόγοις Kal ἀναλογίαις δεδημιούργηται k.7.r.), aS it is translated in the Lxx. Even though modern critics should be right in connect- ing }wn with the Arab. Becca ‘pulcher fuit, ornavit’ (see Gesen. 768. p- 535, 8. V.), the other derivation may have prevailed in Josephus’ time. We may illustrate this derivation by Josephus’ description of the Essenes, B. J. ii. 8. 5 τοῖς ἔξωθεν ὡς μυστήριόν τι φρικτὸν ἡ τῶν ἔνδον σιωπὴ καταφαίνεται ; and perhaps this will also explain the Greek equivalent θεωρητικοί, which Suidas gives for “Eooato.. The use of the Hebrew word oxwn in Mishna Shekalim v. 6, though we need not suppose that the Essenes are there meant, will serve to show how it might be adopted as the name of the sect. On this word see Levy Chaldiisches Woérterbuch p. 287. On the whole this seems the most probable etymology of any, though it has not found so much favour as the last. At all events the rules of transliteration are entirely satisfied, and this can hardly be said of the other derivations which
come into competition with it.
II.
ORIGIN AND AFFINITIES OF THE ESSENES.
HE ruling principle of the Restoration under Ezra was the isola- The prin- tion of the Jewish people from all influences of the surrounding age nations. Only by the rigorous application of this principle was it Tation. possible to guard the nationality of the Hebrews, and thus to preserve the sacred deposit of religious truth of which this nationality was the husk. Hence the strictest attention was paid to the Levitical ordi- nances, and more especially to those which aimed at ceremonial purity. The principle, which was thus distinctly asserted at the period of the national revival, gained force and concentration at a later date from the active antagonism to which the patriotic Jews were driven by the religious and political aggressions of the Syrian kings. During the Maccabean wars we read of a party or sect Rise of called the Chasidim or Asidewans ( Ἀσιδαῖοι), the ‘pious’ or ‘devout,’ nee Ῥ who zealous in their observance of the ceremonial law stoutly re- sisted any concession to the practices of Hellenism, and took their place in the van of the struggle with their national enemies, the Antiochene monarchs (1 Mace. ii. 42, vil. 13, 2 Mace. xiv. 6). But, though their names appear now for the first time, they are not men- tioned as a newly formed party; and it is probable that they had their origin at a much earlier date. The subsequent history of this tendency to exclusiveness and isolation is wrapt in the same obscurity. At a somewhat later date Phari- it is exhibited in the Pharisees and the Hssenes,; but whether these το δ ΠΣ cae
Essenism were historically connected with the Chasidim as divergent offshoots traced to
eve . 6 same of the original sect, or whether they represent independent develop- principle. ments of the same principle, we are without the proper data for
leciding. ‘The principle itself appears in the name of the Pharisees, ™ COL. 23
uw ul >
Foreign
elements in Esse- nism.
Frankel’s theory well re- ceived,
THE ESSENES.
which, as denoting ‘separation,’ points to the avoidance of all foreign and contaminating influences, On the other hand the meaning of the name /ssene is uncertain, for the attempt to derive it directly from Chasidim must be abandoned ; but the tendency of the sect is unmistakeable. If with the Pharisees ceremonial purity was a principal aim, with the Essenes it was an absorbing passion, It was enforced and guarded moreover by a special organization, While the Pharisees were a sect, the Essenes were an order, Like the Pytha- goreans in Magna Grecia and the Buddhists in India before them, like the Christian monks of the Egyptian and Syrian deserts after them, they were formed into a religious brotherhood, fenced about by minute and rigid rules, and carefully guarded from any contamination with the outer world.
Thus the sect may have arisen in the heart of Judaism. The idea of ceremonial purity was essentially Judaic. But still, when we turn to the representations of Philo and Josephus, it is impossible to overlook other traits which betoken foreign affinities. Whatever the Essenes may have been in their origin, at the Christian era at least | and in the Apostolic age they no longer represented the current type |
of religious thought and practice among the Jews. This foreign element has been derived by some from the Pythagoreans, by others from the Syrians or Persians or even from the farther East; but, whether Greek or Oriental, its existence has until lately been almost universally allowed.
The investigations of Frankel, published first in 1846 in his Zeitschrift, and continued in 1853 in his Monatsschrift, have given a different direction to current opinion. Frankel maintains that Essenism was a purely indigenous growth, that it is only Pharisaism in an exaggerated form, and that it has nothing distinctive and owes nothing, or next to nothing, to foreign influences. To establish this! point, he disparages the representations of Philo and Josephus as coloured to suit the tastes of their heathen readers, while in their place he brings forward as authorities a number of passages from tal- mudical and rabbinical writings, in which he discovers references to} this sect. In this view he is followed implicitly by some later writers, and has largely influenced the opinions of others; whil nearly all speak of his investigations as throwing great light on the subject.
THE ESSENES. } 355
It is perhaps dangerous to dissent from a view which has found but ground- less and
that, whatever value Frankel’s investigations may have as contribu- mislead- ing.
so much favour; but nevertheless I am obliged to confess my belief
tions to our knowledge of Jewish religious thought and practice, they throw little or no light on the Hssenes specially ; and that the blind acceptance of his results by later writers has greatly obscured the listinctive features of this sect. I cannot but think that any one, who will investigate Frankel’s references and test his results step by step, will arrive at the conclusion to which I myself have been led, that his talmudical researches have left our knowledge of this sect where it was before, and that we must still refer to Josephus and Philo for any precise information respecting them.
Frankel starts from the etymology of the name. He supposes His double that Ἔσσαῖος, ᾿Εσσηνός, represent two different Hebrew words, the pps former 3'pn chdsid, the latter ypyyy tsandaz, both clothed in suit- name. uble Greek dresses’, Wherever therefore either of these words xccurs, there is, or there may be, a direct reference to the Essenes.
It is not too much to say that these etymologies are impossible ; Fatal ob- and this for several reasons. (1) The two words Ἔσσαϊῖος, Ἔσσης- jj pres Ὁ yos, are plainly duplicate forms of the same Hebrew or Aramaic riginal, like Sapwatos and Σαμψηνός (Epiphan. Haer. pp. 40, 47,
[27, and even Σαμψίτης p. 46), Ναζωραῖος and Nalapnvos, Τιτταῖος und Τιττηνός (Steph. Byz. 5. v., Hippol. Her. vi. 7), with which we may compare Βοστραῖος and Βοστρηνός, Μελιταῖος and Μελιτηνός, and numberless other examples. (2) Again; when we consider either word singly, the derivation offered is attended with the most serious lifficulties. There is no reason why in ‘Eooatos the d should have lisappeared from chasid, while it is hardly possible to conceive that samuag should have taken such an incongruous form as “Eoonvds. (3) And lastly ; the more important of the two words, chasid, had ulready a recognised Greek equivalent in ᾿Ασιδαῖος ; and it seems uighly improbable that a form so divergent as ᾿Εσσαῖος should have jaken its place.
Indeed Frankel’s derivations are generally, if not universally, Depend-
vbandoned by later writers; and yet these same writers repeat his ae
1 Zeitschrift p.449 ‘Fiir Essder liegt, nach einer Bemerkung des Herrn Τὶ. ie schon von anderen Seiten bemerkt Τιῦν im Orient, das Hebr. ΣΝ nahe’; de, das Hebr. 3)pn, fiir Essener, seealsopp.454,455; Monatsschrift p.32.
23-—2
356
on the deriva- tion.
The term chasid not ap- plied specially to the Hissenes.
THE ESSENES.
quotations and accept his results, as if the references were equally valid, though the name of the sect has disappeared. They seem to be satisfied with the stability of the edifice, even when the foundation is undermined. Thus for instance Gritz not only maintains after Frankel that the Essenes ‘were properly nothing more than station- ary or, more strictly speaking, logically consistent (consequente) Chasidim,’ and ‘that therefore they were not so far removed from the Pharisees that they can be regarded as a separate sect,’ and ‘accepts entirely these results’ which, as he says, ‘rest on critical inves- tigation’ (111. p. 463), but even boldly translates chasiduth ‘the Essene mode of life’ (ib. 84), though he himself gives a wholly different derivation of the word ‘ Essene,’ making it signify ‘ washers’ or ‘baptists’ (see above, p. 349). And even those who do not go to this length of inconsistency, yet avail themselves freely of the passages where chasid occurs, and interpret it of the Essenes, while distinctly repudiating the etymology’.
But, although Ἔσσαϊος or ᾿Εσσηνός is not a Greek form of chasid, it might still happen that this word was applied to them as an epithet, though not as a proper name, Only in this case the refer- ence ought to be unmistakeable, before any conclusions are based upon it. But in fact, after going through all the passages, which Frankel gives, it is impossible to feel satisfied that in a single in- stance there is a direct allusion to the Essenes. Sometimes the word seems to refer to the old sect of the Chasidim or Asidcans, as for instance when Jose ben Joezer, who lived during the Maccabzean war, is called a chasid*®. At all events this R. Jose is known to have been a married man, for he is stated to have disinherited his children (Baba Bathra 133 6); and therefore he cannot have belonged to the stricter order of Essenes. Sometimes it is employed quite generally to denote pious observers of the ceremonial law, as for instance when it is said that with the death of certain famous teachers the Chasidim ceased*. In this latter sense the expression D'3}wN1n DDN, ‘the ancient or primitive Chasidim’ (Monatsschr. pp. 31, 62), is perhaps used ; for these primitive Chasidim again are mentioned as having
1 e.g. Keim (p. 286) and Derenbourg Frankel’s own account of this R. Jose (Ρ. 166, 461 8q.), who both derive in an earlier volume, Monatsschr. τ. Essene from N'DS ‘a physician.’ P- 405 sq.
2 Mishna Chagigah ii. 7; Zeitschr. 3 Zeitschr. p. 457, Monatsschr. Ὁ. 69 Pp. 454, Monatsschr. pp. 33, 62. See sq.; see below, p. 360.
THE ESSENES.
wives and children’, and it appears also that they were scrupulously exact in bringing their sacrificial offerings*. Thus it is impossible to identify them with the Essenes, as described by Josephus and Philo. Even in those passages of which most has been made, the reference is more than doubtful. Thus great stress is laid on the saying of R. Joshua ben Chananiah in Mishna Sotah iii. 4, ‘The foolish chasid and the clever villain (nyny yum) nYIw TDN), etc., are the ruin of the world.’ But the connexion points to a much more general meaning of chasid, and the rendering in Surenhuis, ‘ Homo pius qui insipiens, improbus qui astutus,’ gives the correct antithesis. So we might say that there is no one more mischievous than the wrong-headed conscientious man. It is true that the Gemaras illustrate the expression by ex- amples of those who allow an over-punctilious regard for external forms to stand in the way of deeds of mercy. And perhaps rightly. But there is no reference to any distinctive Essene practices in the Again; the saying in Mishna Pirke Aboth v. 10, ‘He who says Mine is thine and thine is thine is [a] chasid (non abu abu bw bw), is quoted by several writers as though it referred to the Essene community of goods*. But in the first place the idea of community of goods would require, ‘Mine is thine and
illustrations given.
thine is mine’: and in the second place, the whole context, and especially the clause which immediately follows (and which these writers do not give), ‘He who says Thine is mine and mine is mine is wicked (yy),’ show plainly that 4:p>n must be taken in its general sense ‘pious,’ and the whole expression implies not recipro- cal interchange but individual self-denial.
1 Niddah 38 a; see Lowy s.y. Es- sier.
2 Mishna Kerithuth vi. 3, Nedarim 1o a; see Monatsschr. p. 65. _ 3 Thus Gratz (11 p. 81) speaking of the community of goods among the Essenes writes, ‘From thisview springs the proverb; Every Chassid says; Wine and thine belong to thee (not me)’ thus giving a turn to the expression which in its original connexion it does not at all justify. Of the existence of such a proverb I haye found no traces. It certainly is not suggested in the pas- sage of Pirke Aboth. Later in the vo- lume (p. 467) Griitz tacitly alters the words to make them express, as he
supposes, reciprocation or community of goods, substituting ‘Thine is mine’ for ‘Thine is thine’ in the second clause; ‘The Chassid must have no property of his own, but must treat it as belonging to the Society (ssyy spon ὧν aby 3bw) At least, as he gives no reference, I suppose that he refers to the same passage. This very expression ‘mine is thine and thine is mine’ does indeed occur previously in the same section, but it is applied as a formula of disparagement to the gam haarets (see below p. 364), who expect to receive again as much as they give. In this loose way Gratz treats the whole subject. Keim (p. 204)
357
358
Possible connexion of chasid
THE ESSENES.
It might indeed be urged, though this is not Frankel’s plea, that supposing the true etymology of the word ᾿Βσσαῖος, Ἔσσηνός, to be
and chasyo the Syriac ras, ratass, ch’st, chasyo (a possible derivation),
discussed.
Usage is unfayour- able to this view.
Frankel’s second derivation tsanua ξ.
consider- ed.
chasid might have been its Hebrew equivalent as being similar in sound and meaning, and perhaps ultimately connected in deriva- tion, the exactly corresponding triliteral root xpn (comp. pn) not being in use in Hebrew’. But before we accept this explanation we have a right to demand some evidence which, if not demonstra- tive, is at least circumstantial, that chasid is used of the Essenes : and this we have seen is not forthcoming. Moreover, if the Essenes had thus inherited the name of the Chasidim, we should have ex- pected that its old Greek equivalent ᾿Ασιδαῖοι, which is still used later than the Maccabzean era, would also have gone with it; rather than that a new Greek word "Eocaios (or ᾽Ἔσσηνός) should have been invented to take its place. But indeed the Syriac Version of the
Old Testament furnishes an argument against this convertibility of β
the Hebrew chasid and the Syriac chasyo, which must be regarded as almost decisive. The numerous passages in the Psalms, where the expressions ‘My chasidim,’ ‘His chasidim, occur (xxx. 5, Xxxi. 24, Xxxvil. 28, li, 17, xxix. 2, lxxxv. 9, xcvil. 10) ΟΧΥῚ ΤῈ; ΟΣ ΣΧ ὦ exlix. 9: comp. xxxii. 6, cxlix. 1, 5), seem to have suggested the assumption of the name to the original Asideans. But in such passages ὙΠ is commonly, if not universally, rendered in the Peshito not by τε ω», aKess, but by a wholly different word msm zadtk, And again, in the Books of Maccabees the Syriac rendering for the name ᾿Ασιδαῖοι, Chasidim, is a word derived from another quite distinct root. These facts show that the Hebrew chasid and the Syriac chasyo were not practically equivalents, so that the one would suggest the other; and thus all presumption in favour of a connexion between ᾿Ασιδαῖος and Ἔσσαῖϊῖος is removed.
Frankel’s other derivation yyy, tsaniiag, suggested as an equi- valent to "Eooyves, has found no favour with later writers, and
indeed is too far removed from the Greek form to be tenable. —
Nor do the passages quoted by him’® require or suggest any allusion
quotes the passage correctly, butrefers by the later Jews because the Syrian
it nevertheless to Essene communism. Hssenes means exactly the same as 1 This is Hitzig’s view (Geschichte ‘Hasidim.’”
des Volkes Israel p. 427). He main- 2 Zeitschr. pp- 455, 4573; Monatsschr.
tains that ‘‘they were called ‘Hasidim’ Ῥ. 32.
THE ESSENES. 359
to this sect. Thus in Mishna Demai, vi. 6, we are told that the school of Hillel permits a certain license in a particular matter, but it is added, ‘The τὴν of the school of Hillel followed the pre- cept of the school of Shammai.’ Here, as Frankel himself confesses, the Jerusalem Talmud knows nothing about Essenes, but explains the word by "w5, ie. ‘upright, worthy’; while elsewhere, as he allows’, it must have this general sense. Indeed the mention of the ‘school of Hillel’ here seems to exclude the Essenes. In its com- prehensive meaning it will most naturally be taken also in the other passage quoted by Frankel, Kiddushin 71 a, where it is stated that the pronunciation of the sacred name, which formerly was known to all, is now only to be divulged to the pyyoy, ie. the discreet, among the priests ; and in fact it occurs in reference to the communication of the same mystery in the immediate context also, where it could not possibly be treated as a proper name; 4%)» YM TD) WIV PSY, ‘who is discreet and meek and has reached middle age,’ etc. Of other etymologies, which have been suggested, and through Other sup- which it might be supposed the Essenes are mentioned by name in posedieny,
the Talmud, s'px, asya, ‘a physician,’ is the one which has found oe - - pee almuds
most favour. For the reasons given above (p. 350) this derivation (1) 4sya
seems highly improbable, and the passages quoted are quite insuffi- Bees
cient to overcome the objections. Of these the strongest is in the
Talm. Jerus. Yoma iii. 7, where we are told that a certain physician
(tox) offered to communicate the sacred name to R. Pinchas the not sup-
son of Chama, and the latter refused on the ground that he ate of eee
the tithes—this being regarded as a disqualification, apparently sages |
because it was inconsistent with the highest degree of ceremonial Heine a
purity®. The same story is told with some modifications in Midrash
Qoheleth iii. 11*. Here Frankel, though himself (as we have seen)
adopting a different derivation of the word ‘ Essene,’ yet supposes
that this particular physician belonged to the sect, on the sole ground
that ceremonial purity is represented as a qualification for the
initiation into the mystery of the Sacred Name. Lowy (1. 6.) denies
that the allusion to the tithes is rightly interpreted: but even sup-
posing it to be correct, the passage is quite an inadequate basis either
1 Monatsschr. p. 32. Derenbourg p. 170 sq. 2 Zeitschr. Ὁ. 455- 4 See Liwy Krit.-Talm. Lez. 8. v.
8 Frankel Monatsschr. p. 71: comp. Hssier.
360
(2) gasah
‘to do.’
THE ESSENKS.
for Frankel’s conclusion that this particular physician was an Essene, or for the derivation of the word Essene which others maintain. Again, in tho statement of Talm. Jerus. Kethuboth ii. 3, that correct manu- scripts were called books of ‘px’, the word Asi is generally taken as a proper name. But even if this interpretation be false, there is abso- lutely nothing in the context which suggests any allusion to the Kssenes*, In like manner the passage from Sanhedrin 99 6, where a physician is mentioned *, supports no such inference, Indeed, as this last passage relates to the family of the Asi, he obviously can have had no connexion with the celibate Essenes.
Hitherto our search for the name in the Talmud has been unsuc- The talmudical writers speak of certain Rwy ‘wis ‘men of deeds’; and if (as some
suppose) the name Essene is derived from ΠΡ have we not here the
cessful. One possibility however still remains.
mention which we are seeking? Frankel rejects the etymology, but presses the identification*. The expression, he urges, is often used in connexion with chasidim. It signifies ‘miracle workers,’ and therefore aptly describes the supernatural powers supposed to be exercised by the Essenes’. Thus we are informed in Mishna Sotah ix. 15, that ‘When R. Chaninah ben Dosa died, the men of deeds ceased ; when R. Jose Ketinta died, the chasidim ceased.’ In the Jerusalem Talmud however this mishna is read, ‘With the death of R. Cha- ninah ben Dosa and R. Jose Ketinta the chasidim ceased’; while the Gemara there explains R. Chaninah to have been one of the sy33 mwyp. Thus, Frankel concludes, ‘the identity of these with o'pn becomes still more plain.’ Now it seems clear that this expression ΠΣ. woe in some places cannot refer to miraculous powers, but must mean ‘men of practical goodness,’ as for instance in Succah 51 a, 53 a; and being a general term expressive of moral excellence,
it is naturally connected with chasidim, which is likewise a general
1 Urged in favour of this derivation by Herzfeld 11. p. 398.
2 The oath taken by the Essenes (Joseph. 8. J. 11. 8. 7) συντηρήσειν... τὰ τῆς αἱρέσεως αὐτῶν βιβλία can have nothing to do with accuracy in tran- scribing copies, as Herzfeld (11. pp. 398, 407) seemstothink, The natural mean- ing of συντηρεῖν, ‘to keep safe or close’ and so ‘not to divulge’ (e.g. Polyb.
Xxxi. 6. 5 οὐκ ἐξέφαινε τὴν ἑαυτῆς γνώ- μην ἀλλὰ συνετήρει παρ᾽ ἑαυτῇ), 15 8150 the meaning suggested here by the context.
3 The passage is adduced in support of this derivation by Derenbourg p. 175.
1; See Zeitschr. Ὁ. 438, Monatsschr. pp. 68—7o. 5 See above, p. 351-
THE ESSENES.
Nor is there any reason why It is true that stories
term expressive of piety and goodness. it should not always be taken in this sense. are told elsewhere of this R. Chaninah, which ascribe miraculous powers to him’, and hence there is a temptation to translate it ‘ won- der-worker,’ as applied to him. But the reason is quite insufiicient. Moreover it must be observed that R. Chaninah’s wife is a promi- nent person in the legends of his miracles reported in Taanith 246; and thus we need hardly stop to discuss the possible meanings of ΠΝ sw, since his claims to being considered an Essene are barred at the outset by this ἰδοῦ",
It has been asserted indeed by a recent author, that one very ancient Jewish writer distinctly adopts this derivation, and as dis- tinctly states that the Essenes were a class of Pharisees*, If this were the case, Frankel’s theory, though not his etymology, would receive a striking confirmation: and it is therefore important to enquire on what foundation the assertion rests.
361
Dr Ginsburg’s authority for this statement is a passage from ze au-
the Aboth of Rabbi Nathan, ec. 37, which, as he gives it, appears be
ority this
conclusive ; ‘There are eight kinds of Pharisees...and those Phari- pases
sees who live in celibacy are Essenes.’ of the case? Jirst; This book was certainly not written by its reputed author, the R. Nathan who was vice-president under the younger Gamaliel about a.p. 140. It may possibly have been founded on an earlier treatise by that famous teacher, though even this is very doubtful: but in its present form it is a comparatively On this point all or almost all recent writers on Hebrew literature are agreed*. Secondly ; Dr Ginsburg has taken the reading ΝΣ ynpinD, without even mentioning any alternative. Whether the words so read are capable of the meaning which he has assigned to them, may be highly questionable; but at all events this cannot have been the original reading, as the parallel passages,
modern work.
1 Taanith 24 ὃ, Yoma 53 ὃ; see Su- renhuis Mishna mt. p. 313.
2 In this and similar cases it is un- necessary to consider whether the per- sons mentioned might have belonged to those looser disciples of Essenism, who married (see above, p. 83): be- cause the identification is meaningless unless the ‘strict order were intended.
3 Ginsburg in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia 8. V., I. p. 829: comp. Essenes pp. 22, 28.
4 e.g. Geiger Zeitschrift f. Jiidische Theologie v1. p. 20 sq.3; Zunz Gottes- dienstliche Vorirdge p. 108 sq.: comp. Steinschneider Catal. Heb. Bibl. Boal. col. 2032 56. These two last references are given by Dr Ginsburg himself,
raced to But what are the ἐπε an error.
THE ESSENES.
ῳΣ O*V [Ὁ]
Babl. Sotah fol. 22 ὃ, Jerus. Sotah v. 5, Jerus. Berakhoth ix. 5, (quoted by Buxtorf and Levy, s.v. wp), distinctly prove. In Babl. Sotah 1. 6., the corresponding expression is pIwWYN) *nDIn AY ‘What is my duty, and I will do it,’ and the passage in Jerus, Berakhoth 1.0. is to the same effect, These parallels show that the reading ΠΟ ΟΝ Nin md) must be taken also in Aboth ο. 37, so that the passage will be rendered, ‘The Pharisee who says, What is my duty, and I will do it.’ Thus the Essenes and celibacy dis- appear together. Lastly ; Inasmuch as Dr Ginsburg himself takes a wholly different view of the name Essene, connecting it either with yyn ‘an apron,’ or with spn ‘pious’,’ it is difficult to see how he could translate "νι" ‘Essene’ (from xwy ‘to do’) in this passage, except on the supposition that R. Nathan was entirely ignorant of the orthography and derivation of the word Essene. Yet, if such igno- rance were conceivable in so ancient a writer, his authority on this question would be absolutely worthless, But indeed Dr Ginsburg would appear to have adopted this reference to R. Nathan, with the reading of the passage and the interpretation of the name, from some other writer*. At all events it is quite inconsistent with
his own opinion as expressed previously.
Are the But, though we have not succeeded in finding any direct mention paren o, of this sect by name in the Talmud, and all the identifications thoughnot of the word Essene with diverse expressions occurring there et als have failed us on examination, it might still happen that allusions ποῦν to them were so frequent as to leave no doubt about the persons meant. Their organisation or their practices or their tenets might be precisely described, though their name was suppressed. Such allusions Frankel finds scattered up and down the Talmud in great profusion. (1) The (1) He sees a reference to the Exssenes in the snyan chdbura or eget ‘Society,’ which is mentioned several times in talmudical writers *. ciate. The chaber (n1n) or ‘ Associate’ is, he supposes, a member of this brotherhood. He is obliged to confess that the word cannot always have this sense, but still he considers this to be a common desig-
1 Essenes p. 30; comp. Kitto’s Cy- 1862, no. 33, p. 459, a reference pointed clopaedia, 8. v. Eissenes. out to me by a friend.
2 It is given by Landsberg in the 3 Zeitschr. Ὁ. 450 Sq-., Monatsschr. Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums pp. 31, 7o.
THE ESSENES.
nation of the Essenes. The chaber was bound to observe certain rules of ceremonial purity, and a period of probation was imposed upon him before he was admitted. With this fact Frankel connects the passage in Mishna Chagigah ii. 5, 6, where several degrees of cere- monial purity are specified. Having done this, he considers that he has the explanation of the statement in Josephus (B. J. ii. 8. 7, 10), that the Essenes were divided into four different grades or orders according to the time of their continuance in the ascetic practices demanded by the sect.
363
But in the first place there is no reference direct or indirect A passage
to the chaber, or indeed to any organisation of any kind, in the
in Cha- gigah con-
passage of Chagigah. It simply contemplates different degrees of sidered.
purification as qualifying for the performance of certain Levitical There is no indication that these lustrations are more than temporary and immediate in their applica-
rites in an ascending scale.
tion ; and not the faintest hint is given of distinct orders of men, each separated from the other by formal barriers and each demand- ing a period of probation before admission from the order below, as was the case with the grades of the Essene brotherhood described
by Josephus,
1 As the notices in Josephus (B. J. ii. 8) relating to this point have been frequently misunderstood, it may be well once for all to explain his mean- ing. The grades of the Essene order are mentioned in two separate notices, apparently, though not really, discord- ant. (1) In § to he says that they are ‘divided into four sections according to the duration of their discipline’ (διήρηνται κατὰ χρόνον τῆς ἀσκήσεως εἰς μοίρας τέσσαρας), adding that the older members are considered to be defiled by contact with the younger, i.e. each superior grade by contact with the inferior. So far his meaning is clear. (2) In § 8 he states that one who is anxious to become a member of the sect undergoes a year’s probation, submitting to discipline but ‘remain- ing outside.’ Then, ‘after he has given evidence of his perseverance (μετὰ τὴν τῆς καρτερίας ἐπίδειξιν), his character is tested for two years more; and, if found worthy, he is accordingly ad-
Moreover the orders in Josephus are four in number’,
mitted into the soeiety. A comparison with the other passage shows that these two years comprise the period spent in the second and third grades, each extending over a year. After passing through these three stages in three successive years, he enters upon the fourth and highest grade, thus becoming a perfect member.
It is stated by Dr Ginsburg (Essenes p. 12 sq., comp. Kitto’s Cyclopaedia 5.0. p. 828) that the Essenes passed through eight stages ‘from the be- ginning of the noviciate to the achieve- ment of the highest spiritual state,’ this last stage qualifying them, like Elias, to be forerunners of the Mes- siah. But it is a pure hypothesis that the Talmudical notices thus combined have anything to do with the Essenes ; and, as I shall have occasion to point out afterwards, there is no ground for ascribing to this sect any Messianic expectations whatever.
364,
Difference between the chaber and the Tissene,
THE ESSENES.
while the degrees of ceremonial purity in Chagigah are five. Frankel indeed is inclined to maintain that only four degrees are intended in Chagigah, though this interpretation is opposed to the plain sense of the passage. But, even if he should be obliged to grant that the number of degrees is five’, he will not surrender the allusion to the Essenes, but meets the difficulty by supposing (it is a pure hypothesis) that there was a fifth and highest degree of purity among the Essenes, to which very few attained, and which, as I understand him, is not mentioned by Josephus on this account. But enough has already been said to show, that this passage in Chagigah can have no con- nexion with the Essenes and gives no countenance to Frankel’s views.
As this artificial combination has failed, we are compelled to fall back on the notices relating to the chaber, and to ask whether these suggest any connexion with the account of the Essenes in Josephus. And the facts oblige us to answer this question in the negative. Not only do they not suggest such a connexion, but they are wholly irreconcilable with the account in the Jewish historian. This association or confraternity (if indeed the term is applicable to an organisation so loose and so comprehensive) was maintained for the sake of securing a more accurate study and a better ob- servance of the ceremonial law. Two grades of purity are men- tioned in connexion with it, designated by different names and _pre- senting some difficulties’, into which it is not necessary to enter here. A chaber, it would appear, was one who had entered upon the second or higher stage. For this a period of a year’s probation was necessary. The chaber enrolled himself in the presence of three others who were already members of the association, This ap- parently was all the formality necessary : and in the case of a teacher even this was dispensed with, for being presumably acquainted with the law of things clean and unclean he was regarded as ex officio a chaber. The chaber was bound to keep himself from ceremonial defilements, and was thus distinguished from the gam haarets or common people*; but he was under no external surveillance and
1 Zeitschr. p. 452, note, sion ; see e.g. Herzfeld 1. p. 390 8q., 2 The entrance into the lower grade Frankel Monatsschr. p. 33 sq. was described as ‘taking 0°55’ or 3 The contempt with which a chaber
‘wings.’ The meaning of thisexpression would look down upon the vulgar herd, has been the subject of much discus- the gam haarets, finds expression in
THE ESSENES.
decided for himself as to his own purity. Moreover he was, or might be a married man: for the doctors disputed whether the wives and children of an associate were not themselves to be regarded as associates. In one passage, Sanhedrin 41 a, it is even assumed, as a matter of course, that a woman may be an associate (m72n). In another (Widdah 33 6)? there is mention of a Sadducee and even of a Samaritan as ἃ chaber. An organisation so flexible as this has obviously only the most superficial resemblances with the rigid rules of the Essene order; and in many points it presents a
direct contrast to the characteristic tenets of that sect.
(2) Having discussed Frankel’s hypothesis respecting the chaber, (2) The
I need hardly follow his speculations on the Déné-hakkéneseth,. np23n 33, ‘sons of the congregation’ (Zabim 111. 2), in which ex- pression probably few would discover the reference, which he finds, to the lowest of the Essene orders’.
Bene hak- 7 keneseth.
(3) But mention is also made of a ‘holy congregation’ or ‘as- (3) The
sembly’ (ΝΡ xdap, ΠΡ my) ‘in Jerusalem’; and, following
‘holy con- gregation
Rapoport, Frankel sees in this expression also an allusion to the a Be
Essenes *, sage (Berakhoth 9 6) they are mentioned in connexion with prayer at daybreak, and in another (Midrash Qoheleth ix. 9) two persons are stated to belong to this ‘holy congregation,’ because they divided
The grounds for this identification are, that in one pas-
their day into three parts, devoting one-third to learning, another to prayer, and another to work. The first notice would suit the Essenes very well, though the practice mentioned was not 80 distinc- tively Essene as to afford any safe ground for this hypothesis. Of the second it should be observed, that no such division of the day is recorded of the Essenes, and indeed both Josephus (B. J. ii. 8. 5) and Philo (fragm. p. 633) describe them as working from morning till night with the single interruption of their mid-day meal*. But
the language of the Pharisees, Joh. vil. 49 ὁ ὄχλος οὗτος ὃ μὴ γινώσκων τὸν νόμον ἐπάρατοί εἰσιν. Again in Acts iv. 13, where the Apostles are de- scribed as ἰδιῶται, the expression is equivalent to gam haarets. See the passages quoted in Buxtorf, Lez. p. 1626.
1 All these particulars and others may be gathered from Bekhoroth 30 ὃ, Mishna Demai ii. 2. 3, Jerus. Demat
li. 3, v. 1, Tosifta Demat 2, Aboth R. Nathan c. 41.
2 See Herzfeld 11. p. 386.
3 Monatsschr. Ὁ. 35-
4 Zeitschr. pp. 458, 461, Monatsschr. PP- 32, 34-
5 Τὸ is added however in Midrash Qoheleth ix. g ‘Some say that they (the holy congregation) devoted the whole of the winter to studying the Scriptures and the summer to work,’
266
not an BEssene commu- nity.
(4) The Vathikin.
(5) The ‘ primitive elders.’
(6) The ‘morning bathers.’
THE ESSENES.
in fact the identification is beset with other and more serious diffi- culties. For this ‘holy congregation’ at Jerusalem is mentioned long after the second destruction of the city under Hadrian’, when on Frankel’s own showing* the Essene society had in all probability ceased to exist. And again certain members of it, e.g. Jose ben Meshullam (Mishna Bekhoroth iii, 3, vi. 1), are represented as uttering precepts respecting animals fit for sacrifice, though we have it on the authority of Josephus and Philo that the Essenes avoided the temple sacrifices altogether. The probability therefore seems to be that this ‘holy congregation’ was an assemblage of devout Jews who were drawn to the neighbourhood of the sanctuary after the destruction of the nation, and whose practices were regarded with peculiar reverence by the later Jews*.
(4) Neither can we with Frankel* discern any reference to the Essenes in those [᾽ΠῚ Vathikin, ‘pious’ or ‘learned’ men (whatever may be the exact sense of the word), who are mentioned in Berakhoth 9 b as praying before sunrise; because the word itself seems quite general, and the practice, though enforced among the Essenes, as we know from Josephus (B. J. 11. 8. 5), would be common to all devout and earnest Jews. If we are not justified in saying that these j)p’n} were not Essenes, we have no sufficient grounds for maintaining that they were.
(5) Nor again can we find any such reference in the ppt Dw or ‘primitive elders’.’ It may readily be granted that this term is used synonymously, or nearly so, with DWN ODN ‘the primitive chasidim’; but, as we failed to see anything more than a general expression in the one, so we are naturally led to take the other in the same sense. The passages where the expression occurs (e.g. Shabbath 64 Ὁ) simply refer to the stricter observances of early times, and do not indicate any reference to a particular society or body of men.
(6) Again Frankel finds another reference to this sect in the mony ap Zoblé-shacharith, or ‘morning-bathers,’ mentioned in Tosifta Yadayim ec. 2% The identity of these with the ἡμεροβα- πτισταὶ of Greek writers seems highly probable. The latter how- ever, though they may have had some affinities with Essene practices
1 Monatsschr. p. 32. 4 Monatsschr. p. 32. 3. 70. Ὁ. 70: 5 Monatsschr. pp. 32, 68. 3 See Derenbourg p. 175. 6 Ib. p. 67.
THE ESSENES.
and tenets, are nevertheless distinguished from this sect wherever they are mentioned’. But the point to be observed is that, even though we should identify these Toble-shacharith with the Essenes, the passage in Tosifta Yadayim, so far from favouring, is distinctly adverse to Frankel’s view which regards the Essenes as only a branch of Pharisees: for the two are here represented as in direct an- tagonism. The Toble-shacharith say, ‘ We grieve over you, Pharisees, because you pronounce the (sacred) Name in the morning without having bathed.’ The Pharisees retort, ‘We grieve over you, Toble- shacharith, because you pronounce the Name from this body in which is impurity.’
(7) ‘In connexion with the Toble-shacharith we may consider another name, Bandim (O°N)3), in which also Frankel discovers an allusion to the Essenes*. In Mishna IMikvaoth ix. 6 the word is opposed to “3 bor, ‘an ignorant or stupid person’; and this points to its proper meaning ‘the builders,’ ie. the edifiers or teachers, according to the common metaphor in Biblical language. The word is discussed in Shabbath 114 and explained to mean ‘learned.’ But, because in Mikvaoth it is mentioned in connexion with ceremonial purity, and because in Josephus the Essenes are stated to have carried an ‘axe and shovel’ (8. J. ii. 8. 7, 9), and be- cause moreover the Jewish historian in another place (Vi. 2) mentions having spent some time with one Banus a dweller in the wilderness, who lived on vegetables and fruits and bathed often day and night for the sake of purity, and who is generally considered to have been an Essene; therefore Frankel holds these Banaim to have been Es- senes. This is a specimen of the misplaced ingenuity which distin- guishes Frankel’s learned speculations on the Essenes, Josephus does not mention an ‘axe and shovel, but an axe only (§ 7 ἀξινάριον), which he afterwards defines more accurately as a spade (δ 9 τῇ σκαλίδι, τοιοῦτον γάρ ἐστι τὸ διδόμενον ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀξινίδιον τοῖς νεοσυ- στάτοις) and which, as he distinctly states, was given them for the purpose of burying impurities out of sight (comp. Deut. xxiii, 12—14). Thus it has no connexion whatever with any ‘building’ implement. And again, it is true that Banus has frequently been regarded as an Essene, but there is absolutely no ground for this supposition. On the contrary the narrative of Josephus in his Life seems to
1 See below, p. 404. 2 Zeitschr. p. 455.
367
(7) The Banaim.
Josephus misinter-
preted. -
368
Another derivation of Bana- im.
Results of this inves- tigation.
Philo and Josephus our main authori- ties.
Frankel’s deprecia- tion of them is unreason- able, and explains nothing.
THE ESSENES,
exclude it, as I shall have occasion to show hereafter’. I should add that Sachs interprets Banaim ‘the bathers,’ regarding the explanation in Shabbath 1. c. as a ‘later accommodation’.’ This seems to me very improbable ; but, if it were conceded, the Banaim would then ap- parently be connected not with the Essenes, but with the Hemero- baptists.
From the preceding investigation it will have appeared how little Frankel has succeeded in establishing his thesis that ‘the ‘talmudical sources are acquainted with the Essenes and make mention of them constantly*®’ We have seen not only that no instance of the name Essene has been produced, but that all those passages which are supposed to refer to them under other designa- tions, or to describe their practices or tenets, fail us on closer exa- mination. In no case can we feel sure that there is any direct reference to this sect, while in most cases such reference seems to be excluded by the language or the attendant circumstances*. Thus we are obliged to fall back upon the representations of Philo and Josephus. Their accounts are penned by eye-witnesses. They are direct and explicit, if not so precise or so full as we could have wished. The writers obviously consider that they are describing a distinct and exceptional phenomenon, And it would be a reversal of all esta- blished rules of historical criticism to desert the solid standing- ground of contemporary history for the artificial combinations and shadowy hypotheses which Frankel would substitute in its place.
But here we are confronted with Frankel’s depreciation of these ancient writers, which has been echoed by several later critics. They were interested, it is argued, in making their accounts attractive to their heathen contemporaries, and they coloured them highly for this purpose’. We may readily allow that they would not be
uninfluenced by such a motive, but the concession does not touch the Ἵ
main points at issue. This aim might have led Josephus, for example, to throw into bold relief the coincidences between the Essenes and Pythagoreans ; it might even have induced him to give a semi-pagan
1 See below, p. 399, senes in our patristic (i.e. rabbinical)
2 Beitrige τι. p. 199. In this deri- literature,’ says Herzfeld truly (1. vation he is followed by Graetz (11. Ῥ. 397), ‘has led to a splendid hypo- Ῥ. 82, 468) and Derenbourg (p. 166). thesis-hunt (einer stattlichen Hypo-
3 Monatsschr. p. 31. thesenjagd).’
4 «The attempt to point ont the Hs- 5 Monatsschr. p. 31.
THE ESSENES. 369
tinge to the Essene doctrine of the future state of the blessed (B. J. ii. 8. 11). But it entirely fails to explain those peculiarities of the sect which marked them off by a sharp line from orthodox Judaism, and which fully justify the term ‘separatists’ as applied to them by a recent writer. [ἢ three main features especially the portrait of the Essenes retains its distinctive character unaffected by this con- sideration.
(i) How, for instance, could this principle of accommodation have (i) The led both Philo and Josephus to lay so much stress on their divergence po peri from Judaic orthodoxy in the matter of sacrifices? Yet this is fee ee perhaps the most crucial note of heresy which is recorded of the for, Essenes. What was the law to the orthodox Pharisee without the sacrifices, the temple-worship, the hierarchy? Yet the Essene declined to take any part in the sacrifices; he had priests of his own independently of the Levitical priesthood. On Frankel’s hypothesis that Essenism is merely an exaggeration of pure Pharisaism, no ex- planation of this abnormal phenomenon can be given. Frankel does indeed attempt to meet the case by some speculations respecting the red heifer’, which are so obviously inadequate that they have not been repeated by later writers and may safely be passed over in
silence here. On this point indeed the language of Josephus is not The no- tices of Σ ᾿ ; Josephus offerings (ἀναθήματα) to the temple, they perform no sacrifices, and and Philo
quite explicit. He says (Ané. xviii. 1. 5) that, though they send
he assigns as the reason their greater strictness as regards ceremonial aca purity (διαφορότητι ἁγνειῶν ἃς νομίζοιεν), adding that ‘for this reason being excluded from the common sanctuary (τεμενίσματος) they perform their sacrifices by themselves (ἐφ᾽ αὐτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσι)." Frankel therefore supposes that their only reason for abstaining from the temple sacrifices was that according to their severe notions the temple itself was profaned and therefore unfit for sacrificial worship. But if so, why should it not vitiate the offerings, as well as the sacrifices, and make them also unlawful? And indeed, where Josephus is. vague, Philo is explicit. Philo (1. p. 457) dis- tinctly states that the Essenes being more scrupulous than any in the worship of God (ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα θεραπευταὶ Θεοῦ) do not sacrifice ani- mals (ov ζῶα καταθύοντες), but hold it right to dedicate their own hearts as a worthy offering (ἀλλ᾽ ἱεροπρεπεῖς τὰς ἑαυτῶν διανοίας KatacKevaceww
1 Monatsschr. 64. COL. 24
Their state- ments con- firmed by the doc- trine of Christian Essenes.
The Cle- mentine Homilies justify this doc- trine by
THE ESSENES.
ἀξιοῦντες). Thus the greater strictness, which Josephus ascribes to them, consists in the abstention from shedding blood, as a pollution in itself, his own qualifications show that he does not mean the word to be
And, when he speaks of their substituting private sacrifices,
taken literally. Their simple meals are their sacrifices ; their refec- It should be added also that, though we once hear of an Essene apparently within
tory is their sanctuary ; their president is their priest’.
the temple precincts (B. J. i. 3. 5, Ant. xill, 11. 2)”, no mention is Thus it is clear that with the Essene it was the sacrifices which polluted the temple, and not the
ever made of one offering sacrifices, temple which polluted the sacrifices. And this view is further re- commended by the fact that it alone will explain the position of their descendants, the Christianized Essenes, who condemned the slaughter of victims on grounds very different from those alleged in the Epistle to the Hebrews, not because they have been super- seded by the Atonement, but because they are in their very nature repulsive to God; not because they have ceased to be right, but because they never were right from the beginning.
It may be said indeed, that such a view could not be main- tained without impugning the authority, or at least disputing the integrity, of the Old Testament writings. The sacrificial system is so bound up with the Mosaic law, that it can only be rejected by the most arbitrary excision. This violent process however, uncritical as it is, was very likely to have been adopted by the Essenes*%» As a matter of fact, it did recommend itself to those Judaizing Christians who reproduced many of the Essene tenets, and who both theologically and historically may be regarded as the lineal descendants of this Judaic sect* Thus in the Clementine Homilies, an Ebionite work which exhibits many Essene features, the chief spokesman St Peter is represented as laying great stress on the duty
of distinguishing the true and the false elements in the current
1B. J. 11. 8. 5 καθάπερ els ἁγιόν τι τέμενος παραγίνονται τὸ δειπνητήριον: see also the passages quoted above p. 89, note 3.
2 See below, p. 377.
3 Herzfeld (11. p. 403) is unable to reconcile any rejection of the Old Tes- tament Scriptures with the reverence paid to Moses by the Essenes (B. J. ii.
8.9, 10). The Christian Essenes how- ever did combine both these incongru- ous tenets by the expedient which is explained in the text. Herzfeld him- self suggests that allegorical interpre- tation may have been employed to justify this abstention from the temple sacrifices. 4 See Galatians, p. 322 8q.
THE ESSENES. 371 Scriptures (ii. 38, 51, ill. 4,5, 10, 42, 47, 49, 50, comp. xviii. 19). The arbitrary saying traditionally ascribed to our Lord, ‘Show yourselves approved ea
money-changers’ (γίνεσθε τραπεζῖται δόκιμοι), is more than once quoted Scriptures. by the Apostle as enforcing this duty (11. 51, iii, 50, xviii. 20). Among these false elements he places all those passages which repre- sent God as enjoining sacrifices (ill. 45, xviii. 19). It is plain, so he argues, that God did not desire sacrifices, for did He not kill those who lusted after the taste of flesh in the wilderness? and, if the slaughter of animals was thus displeasing to Him, how could He possibly have commanded victims to be offered to Himself (iii. 45) ? It is equally clear from other considerations that this was no part of God’s genuine law. For instance, Christ declared that He came to fulfil every tittle of the Law; yet Christ abolished sacrifices (iii. Bt).
a condemnation of this practice (iii. 56).
And again, the saying ‘I will have mercy and not sacrifice’ is The true prophet ‘hates sacrifices, bloodshed, libations’; he ‘extinguishes the fire of altars’ (ili. 26). produced by the reeking fumes of sacrifice (iii. 13).
The frenzy of the lying soothsayer is a mere intoxication
When in the immediate context of these denunciations we find it reckoned among
the highest achievements of man ‘to know the names of angels, to
drive away demons, to endeavour to heal diseases by charms (φαρ- paxiats), and to find incantations (ἐπαοιδαάς) against venomous ser-
pents (iil. 36)’; when again St Peter is made to condemn as false Essene | those scriptures which speak of God swearing, and to set against them paces Christ’s command ‘Let your yea be yea’ (111. 55); we feel how thoroughly this strange production of Ebionite Christianity is satu-
rated with Essene ideas’.
1 Epiphanius (Her. xviii. 1, p. 38) πατέρων γεγενῆσθαι. Here we have in
again describes, as the account was handed down to him (ὡς 6 εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐλθὼν περιέχει λύγος), the tenets of a Jewish sect which he calls the Nasareans, αὐτὴν δὲ οὐ παρεδέχετο τὴν πεντάτευχον, ἀλλὰ ὡμολόγει μὲν τὸν Μωύσέα, καὶ ὅτι ἐδέ- ξατο νομοθεσίαν ἐπίστευεν, οὐ ταύτην δέ φησιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἑτέραν. ὅθεν τὰ μὲν πάντα φυλάττουσι τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων ᾿Τουδαῖοι ὄντες, θυσίαν δὲ οὐκ ἔθυον οὔτε ἐμψύχων μετεῖχον, ἀλλὰ ἀθέμιτον ἣν παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς τὸ κρεῶν μεταλαμβάνειν ἢ θυσιάζειν av- τούς. ἔφασκον γὰρ πεπλάσθαιταῦτα τὰ βιβλία καὶ μηδὲν τούτων ὑπὸ τῶν
combination all the features which we are seeking. The cradle of this sect is placed by him in Gilead and Bashan and ‘the regions beyond the Jordan.’ He uses similar language also (xxx. 18, p. 142) in describing the Ebionites, whom he places in much the same localities (naming Moab also), and whose Essene features are unmistake- able: οὔτε yap δέχονται Thy πεντάτευχον Mwiicéws ὅλην ἀλλά Twa ῥήματα ἀπο- βάλλουσιν. ὅταν δὲ αὐτοῖς εἴπῃς περὶ ἐμψύχων βρώσεως x.7.r. These parallels will speak for themselves.
24—2
372 THE ESSENES.
(ii) The (ii) Nor again is Frankel successful in explaining the Essene Ὁ ΚΑ prayers to the sun by rabbinical practices’, Following Rapoport, eee he supposes that Josephus and Philo refer to the beautiful hymn not be ex- Of praise for the creation of light and the return of day, which ὌΝ forms part of the morning-prayer of the Jews to the present time’, and which seems to be enjoined in the Mishna itself*; and this view has been adopted by many subsequent writers. But the language of Josephus is not satisfied by this explanation. For he says plainly (B. J. 11. 8. 5) that they addressed prayers to the sun*, and it is difficult to suppose that he has wantonly intro- duced a dash of paganism into his picture ; nor indeed was there any adequate motive for his doing so. Similarly Philo relates of the Therapeutes (Vit. Cont. 11, τι. p. 485), that they ‘stand with their faces and their whole body towards the East, and when they see that the sun is risen, holding out their hands to heaven they pray for a happy day (εὐημερίαν) and for truth and for keen vision of reason (ὀξυωπίαν λογισμοῦ). And here again it is impossible to overlook the confirmation which these accounts receive from the history of certain Christian heretics deriving their descent from this Judaic sect. The Samp- Epiphanius (Her. xix. 2, xx. 3, pp. 40 sq., 47) speaks of a sect a ae called the Sampseans or ‘Sun-worshippers’,’ as existing in his sect, own time in Perza on the borders of Moab and on the shores of
the Dead Sea. He describes them as a remnant of the Ossenes
(i.e. Essenes), who have accepted a spurious form of Christianity
and are neither Jews nor Christians. This debased Christianity
which they adopted is embodied, he tells us, in the pretended
revelation of the Book of Elchasai, and dates from the time of
Trajan®. Elsewhere (xxx. 3, p. 127) he seems to use the terms
Sampsean, Ossene, and Elchasaite as synonymous (παρὰ τοῖς Σαμψη-
νοῖς kat Ooonvots καὶ ᾿᾽Ελκεσσαίοις καλουμένοις). Now we happen to
know something of this book of Elchasai, not only from Epiphanius
himself (xix. 1 sq., p. 40 sq., XXX. 17, p. 141), but also from Hippo- as appears lytus (Hr. ix. 13 54.) who describes it at considerable length. From ge these accounts it appears that the principal feature in the book
sacred.
Book of , was the injunction of frequent bathings for the remission of sins
1 Zeitschr. p. 458. 4 See above, p. 85, note 1. 2 See Ginsburg Hssenes p. 69 sq. 5 See above, p. 81. 3 Berakhoth i. 4; see Derenbourg, 6 Galatians p. 3248q. See also be-
Ὡς 169 sq. low, p. 405.
——
THE ESSENES. 373
(Hipp. Her. ix. 13, 15 sq.). We are likewise told that it ‘anathema-
tizes immolations and sacrifices (θυσίας καὶ ἱερουργίας) as being alien
to God and certainly not offered to God by tradition from (ἐκ) the
fathers and the law,’ while at the same time it ‘says that men ought
to pray there at Jerusalem, where the altar was and the sacrifices
(were offered), prohibiting the eating of flesh which exists among
the Jews, and the rest (of their customs), and the altar and the fire,
as being alien to God’ (Epiph. Her. xix. 3, p. 42). Notwithstanding,
we are informed that the sect retained the rite of circumcision, the Its Essene observance of the sabbath, and other practices of the Mosaic law eg
(Hipp. Her. ix. 14; Epiph. Her. xix. 5, p. 43, comp. xxx. 17,
p- 141). Epiphanius (1. c.) that they treated the Scriptures in the same way as the Nasareans’ ; that is, they submitted them to a process of arbitrary excision, as recommended in the Clementine Homilies, and thus rejected as falsifications all statements which did not square with their own theory. Hippolytus also speaks of the Elchasaites as studying astrology and magic, and as practising charms and incantations on the sick and the demoniacs (ὃ 14). Moreover in two formularies, one of expiation, another of purification, which this father has extracted from the book, invocation is made to ‘the holy spirits and the angels of prayer’ (δ 15, comp. Epiph. Her. xix. 1). It should be added that the word Elchasai probably signifies the ‘hidden power’*®; while the book itself directed that its mysteries should be guarded as precious pearls, and should not be communicated to the world at large, but only to the faithful few (Hipp. Her. ix.15,17). It is hardly necessary to call attention to the number of Essene features which are here combined®. I would only remark that the value of the notice is not at all diminished, but rather enhanced, by the uncri- tical character of Epiphanius’ work ; for this very fact prevents us from ascribing the coincidences, which here reveal themselves, to this
This inconsistency is explained by a further notice in
father’s own invention.
1 See p. 370, note 3. In this respect they departed from the
3 Galatians p. 325, note 1. For another derivation see below, p. 405.
3 Celibacy however is not one of these: comp. Epiphan, Her. xix.1 (p. 40) ἀπεχθάνεται δὲ τῇ παρθενίᾳ, μισεῖ δὲ τὴν ἐγκράτειαν, ἀναγκάζει δὲ γάμον.
original principles of Essenism, alleg- ing, as it would appear, a special reve- lation (ὡς δῆθεν ἀποκαλύψεωΞ) in justifi- cation. In like manner marriage is commended in the Clementine Ho- milies.
374
Doubtful bearing of this Sun- worship.
The practice repugnant to Jewish orthodoxy.
(iii) The deprecia- tion of marriage not ac- counted for.
THE ESSENES.
In this heresy we have plainly the dregs of Essenism, which has only been corrupted from its earlier and nobler type by the admixture of a spurious Christianity. But how came the Essenes to be called Sampseeans? What was the original meaning of this outward reverence which they paid to the sun? Did they regard it merely as the symbol of Divine illumination, just as Philo frequently treats it as a type of God, the centre of all light (e.g. de Somn. i. 13 8q., 1. p. 631 sq.), and even calls the heavenly bodies ὁ visible and sensible gods’ (de Mund. Op. 7,1. p. 6)'t Or did they honour the light, as the pure ethereal element in contrast to gross terrestrial matter, according to a suggestion of a recent writer®?? Whatever may have been the motive of this reverence, it is strangely repugnant to the spirit of orthodox Judaism. In Ezek. viii. 16 it is denounced as an abomination, that men shall turn towards the east and worship the sun; and accordingly in Berakhoth 7a a saying of R. Meir is reported to the effect that God is angry when the sun appears and the kings of the East and the West prostrate themselves before this luminary*®. We cannot fail therefore to recognise the action of some foreign influence in this Essene practice—whether Greek or Syrian or Persian, it will be time to consider hereafter.
(iii) On the subject of marriage again, talmudical and rabbinical notices contribute nothing towards elucidating the practices of this sect. Least of all do they point to any affinity between the Essenes and the Pharisees. The nearest resemblance, which Frankel can produce, to any approximation in this respect is an injunction in Mishna Kethuboth v. 8 respecting the duties of the husband in pro- viding for the wife in case of his separating from her, and this he ascribes to Essene influences*; but this mishna does not express any approval of such a separation. The direction seems to be framed entirely in the interests of the wife: nor can I see that it is at all inconsistent, as Frankel urges, with Mishna Kethuboth vii. 1 which allows her to claim a divorce under such circumstances. But how- ever this may be, Essene and Pharisaic opinion stand generally in the sharpest contrast to each other with respect to marriage. The talmudic
1 The important place which the 2 Keim 1. p. 289. heavenly bodies held in the system 3 See Wiesner Schol. zum Babyl. of Philo, who regarded them as ani- JTalm.1. pp. 18, 20.
mated beings, may be seen from 4 Monatsschr. p. 37. Gfrdrer’s Philo τ. p. 349 8g.
THE ESSENES.
writings teem with passages implying not only the superior sanctity, but even the imperative duty, of marriage. The words ‘ Be fruitful and multiply’ (Gen. 1, 28) were regarded not merely as a promise, but as a command which was binding on all. It is a maxim of the Talmud that ‘Any Jew who has not a wife is no man’ (O58 WN), Yebamoth 63a. The fact indeed is so patent, that any accumula- tion of examples would be superfluous, and I shall content myself with referring to Pesachim 113 4, 6, as fairly illustrating the doctrine of orthodox Judaism on this point’. As this question affects the whole framework not only of religious, but also of social life, the antagonism between the Essene and the Pharisee in a matter so
vital could not be overlooked.
375
(iv) Nor again is it probable that the magical rites and incan- (iv) The
Essene
tations which are so prominent in the practice of the Essenes would, practice
as a rule, have been received with any favour by the Pharisaic Jew. of magic In Mishna Pesachim iv. 9 (comp. Berakhoth 10 6) it is mentioned difficulty.
with approval that Hezekiah put away a ‘book of healings’ ; where doubtless the author of the tradition had in view some volume of charms ascribed to Solomon, like those which apparently formed part of the esoteric literature of the Essenes*. In the same spirit in Mishna Sanhedrin xi. 1 R. Akiba shuts out from the hope of eternal life any ‘who read profane or foreign (i.e. perhaps, apocryphal) books, and who mutter over a wound’ the words of Exod. xv. 26. On this point of difference however no great stress can be laid. Though the nobler teachers among the orthodox Jews set themselves stead- fastly against the introduction of magic, they were unable to resist the inpouring tide of superstition, In the middle of the second century Justin Martyr alludes to exorcists and magicians among the Jews, as though they were neither few nor obscure*, Whether these were a remnant of Essene Judaism, or whether such practices
1 Justin Martyr more than once taunts the Jewish rabbis with their reckless encouragement of polygamy. See Dial. 134, p. 363 D, τοῖς ἀσυνέτοις καὶ τυφλοῖς διδασκάλοις ὑμῶν, οἵτινες καὶ μέχρι νῦν καὶ τέσσαρας καὶ πέντε ἔχειν ὑμᾶς γυναῖκας ἕκαστον συγχωροῦσι" καὶ ἐὰν εὔμορφόν τις ἰδὼν ἐπιθυμήσῃ αὐτῆς κιτ.λ., ἰδ. 141, P. 371 A, B, ὁποῖον πράττουσιν οἱ ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους ὑμῶν dv-
θρωποι, κατὰ πᾶσαν γῆν ἔνθα ἂν ἐπιδη- μήσωσιν ἢ προσπεμφθῶσιν ἀγόμενοι ὀνό- ματι γάμου γυναῖκας κιτ.Ὰ., with Otto’s note on the first passage.
2 See above, p. 89, note 2.
8 Dial. 85, p. 311 C, ἤδη μέντοι οἱ ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐπορκισταὶ τῇ τέχνῃ, ὥσπερ Kal τὰ ἔθνη, χρώμενοι ἐξορκίζουσι καὶ θυμιάμασι καὶ καταδέσμοις χρῶνται.
376 THE ESSENES.
had by this time spread throughout the whole body, it is impossible to say; but the fact of their existence prevents us from founding an argument on the use of magic, as an absolutely distinctive feature of Essenism.
General Other divergences also have been enumerated’; but, as these do
result. not for the most part involve any great principles, and refer only to practical details in which much fluctuation was possible, they cannot under any circumstances be taken as crucial tests, and I have not thought it worth while to discuss them. But the antagonisms on which I have dwelt will tell their own tale. In three respects more especially, in the avoidance of marriage, in the abstention from the temple sacrifices, and (if the view which I have adopted be correct) in the outward reverence paid to the sun, we have seen that there is an impassable gulf between the Essenes and the Pharisees. No known influences within the sphere of Judaism proper will serve to account for the position of the Essenes in these respects; and we are obliged to look elsewhere for an explanation.
ἘΠ ΠῚ It was shown above that the investigations of Frankel and others ee failed to discover in the talmudical writings a single reference to the blishing Essenes, which is at once direct and indisputable. It has now ue Poise appeared that they have also failed (and this is the really important point) in showing that the ideas and practices generally considered characteristic of the Essenes are recognised and incorporated in these representative books of Jewish orthodoxy ; and thus the hypothesis that Hssenism was merely a type, though an exaggerated type, of pure Judaism falls to the ground. Affinities Some affinities indeed have been made out by Frankel and by penecn those who have anticipated or followed him. But these are exactly and Phari- such as we might have expected. Two distinct features combine to Fens ~ make up the portrait of the Essene. The Judaic element is quite pen caale as prominent in this sect as the non-Judaic. It could not be more strongly emphasized than in the description given by Josephus him- self. In everything therefore which relates to the strictly Judaic side of their tenets and practices, we should expect to discover not only affinities, but even close affinities, in talmudic and rabbinic authorities. And this is exactly what, as a matter of fact, we do
1 Herzfeld, 11. p. 392 sq.
THE ESSENES. 377
find. The Essene rules respecting the observance of the sabbath, the rites of lustration, and the like, have often very exact parallels in the writings of more orthodox Judaism, But I have not thought it necessary to dwell on these coincidences, because they may well be taken for granted, and my immediate purpose did not require me to emphasize them. And again; it must be remembered that the separation between The di-
Pharisee and Essene cannot always have been so great as it appears Mean ats in the Apostolic age. Both sects apparently arose out of one great Essenes : from the
movement, of which the motive was the avoidance of pollution’. The Pharisees divergence therefore must have been gradual. At the same time, it gradual. does not seem a very profitable task to write a hypothetical history
of the growth of Essenism, where the data are wanting; and I shall therefore abstain from the attempt. Frankel indeed has not been deterred by this difficulty ; but he has been obliged to assume his
data by postulating that such and such a person, of whom notices
are preserved, was an Essene, and thence inferring the character
of Essenism at the period in question from his recorded sayings or
doings. But without attempting any such reconstruction of history,
we may fairly allow that there must have been a gradual develop-
ment ; and consequently in the earlier stages of its growth we should
not expect to find that sharp antagonism between the two sects, which
the principles of the Essenes when fully matured would involve.
If therefore it should be shown that the talmudical and rabbinical Hence the writings here and there preserve with approval the sayings of certain ee pepe ω Essenes, this fact would present no difficulty. At present however no Spee decisive example has been produced ; and the discoveries of Jellinek cords of for instance*, who traces the influence of this sect in almost every ere page of Pirke Aboth, can only be regarded as another illustration of
the extravagance with which the whole subject has been treated by
a large section of modern Jewish writers. More to the point is a
notice of an earlier Essene preserved in Josephus himself. We learn
from this historian that one Judas, a member of the sect, who had prophesied the death of Antigonus, saw this prince ‘ passing by through
the temple’? when his prophecy was on the point of fulfilment
1 See above, p. 353 54. In the parallel narrative, Ant. xii.
2 Orient 1849, pp. 489; 537; 553- 11. 2, the expression is παριόντα τὸ 3 B. J. i. 3. 5 παριόντα διὰ τοῦ ἱεροῦ. ἱερόν, which does not imply so much;
378 THE ESSENES.
(about B.c. 110). At this moment Judas is represented as sitting in the midst of his disciples, instructing them in the science of pre- diction. ‘The expression quoted would seem to imply that he was actually teaching within the temple area. Thus he would appear not only as mixing in the ordinary life of the Jews, but also as frequenting the national sanctuary. But even supposing this to be the right explanation of the passage, it will not present any serious difficulty. Even at a later date, when (as we may suppose) the principles of the sect had stiffened, the scruples of the Essene were directed, if I have rightly interpreted the account of Josephus, rather against the sacrifices than against the locality’, The temple itself, independently of its accompaniments, would not suggest any offence to his conscience.
The appro- Nor again, is it any obstacle to the view which is here maintained,
ΒΟΟΣ, that the Essenes are regarded with so much sympathy by Philo and
Josephus Josephus themselves. Even though the purity of Judaism might
is no evi- : ᾿ ; : dence of have been somewhat sullied in this sect by the admixture of foreign
orthodoxy. elements, this fact would attract rather than repel an eclectic like Philo, and a latitudinarian like Josephus. The former, as an Alexan- drian, absorbed into his system many and diverse elements of heathen philosophy, Platonic, Stoic, and Pythagorean. The latter, though professedly a Pharisee, lost no opportunity of ingratiating himself with his heathen conquerors, and would not be unwilling to gratify their curiosity respecting a society with whose fame, as we infer from
the notice of Pliny, they were already acquainted.
What was But if Essenism owed the features which distinguished it from the foreign element in Essenism? influences derived? From the philosophers of Greece or from the
Pharisaic Judaism to an alien admixture, whence were these foreign
religious mystics of the East? On this point recent writers are divided.
Theory of Those who trace the distinctive characteristics of the sect to Neopytha- gorean in- fluence. on the stem of Judaism. This solution is suggested by the state-
Greece, regard it is an offshoot of the Neopythagorean School grafted
ment of Josephus, that ‘they practise the mode of life which among
but the less precise notice must be that Judas himself was within the interpreted by the more precise. Even temple area. then however it is not directly stated 1 See above, pp. 87, 369 sq.
THE ESSENES.
Os “NI \O
the Greeks was introduced (καταδεδειγμένῃ) by Pythagoras’” It is thought to be confirmed by the strong resemblances which as a matter of fact are found to exist between the institutions and prac- tices of the two.
This theory, which is maintained also by other writers, as for Statement instance by Baur and Herzfeld, has found its ablest and most per- iraaty by sistent advocate in Zeller, who draws out the parallels with great Zeller. force and precision. ‘The Essenes,’ he writes, ‘like the Pythagoreans, desire to attain a higher sanctity by an ascetic life; and the absten- tions, which they impose on themselves for this end, are the same with both. They reject animal food and bloody sacrifices; they avoid wine, warm baths, and oil for anointing ; they set a high value on celibate life: or, so far as they allow marriage, they require that it be restricted to the one object of procreating children. Both wear only white garments and consider linen purer than wool. Washings and purifications are prescribed by both, though for the Essenes they have a yet higher significance as religious acts. Both prohibit oaths and (what is more) on the same grounds. Both find their social ideal in those institutions, which indeed the Essenes alone set them- selves to realise—in a corporate life with entire community of goods, in sharply defined orders of rank, in the unconditional submission of all the members to their superiors, in a society carefully barred from without, into which new members are received only after a severe probation of several years, and from which the unworthy are inexorably excluded. Both require a strict initiation, both desire to maintain a traditional doctrine inviolable ; both pay the highest respect to the men from whom it was derived, as instruments of the deity: yet both also love figurative clothing for their doctrines, and treat the old traditions as symbols of deeper truths, which they must extract from them by means of allegorical explanation. In order to prove the later form of teaching original, newly-composed writings were unhesitatingly forged by the one as by the other, and fathered upon illustrious names of the past. Both parties pay honour to divine powers in the elements, both invoke the rising sun, both seek to withdraw everything unclean from his sight, and with this view give special directions, in which they agree as well with each other as with older Greek superstition, in a remarkable
1 Ant. XV. ΤῸ" 4-
380 THE ESSENES.
way. For both the belief in intermediate beings between God and the world has an importance which is higher in proportion as their own conception of God is purer ; both appear not to have disdained magic; yet both regard the gift of prophecy as the highest fruit of wisdom and piety, which they pique themselves on possessing in their most distinguished members. Finally, both agree (along with the dualistic character of their whole conception of the world...) in their tenets respecting the origin of the soul, its relation to the body, and the life after death’...’ Absence of This array of coincidences is formidable, and thus skilfully ἘΠ πο marshalled might appear at first sight invincible. But a closer rean fea- examination detracts from its value. In the first place the two turesinthe |... ο. ses ; - Essenes, distinctive characteristics of the Pythagorean philosophy are wanting to the Essenes. The Jewish sect did not believe in the trans- migration of souls; and the doctrine of numbers, at least so far as_ our information goes, had no place in their system. Yet these con- stitute the very essence of the Pythagorean teaching. In the next place several of the coincidences are more apparent than real. Thus The coin- for instance the demons who in the Pythagorean system held an_ cidences termediate place between the Supreme God and man, and were the
are in some cases result of a compromise between polytheism and philosophy, have no
sag near relation to the angelology of the Essenes, which arose out of a wholly different motive. Nor again can we find distinct traces among the Pythagoreans of any such reverence for the sun as is ascribed to the Essenes, the only notice which is adduced having no prominence whatever in its own context, and referring to a rule which would be dictated by natural decency and certainly was not peculiar to the Pythagoreans*. When these imperfect and (for the purpose) value- less resemblances have been subtracted, the only basis on which the theory of a direct affiliation can rest is withdrawn, All the re- maining coincidences are unimportant. Thus the respect paid to founders is not confined to any one sect or any one age. The reverence of the Essenes for Moses, and the reverence of the
1 Zeller Philosophie der Griechen Life of Apollonius by Philostratus (e.g. Th. m1. Abth. 2, p. 281. vi. 10) considerable stress is laid on
2 Diog. Laert. viii. 17; see Zeller the worship of the sun (Zeller 1. ὁ. p. 1. c. p. 282, note 5. The precept in 137, note 6); but the syncretism of question occurs among a number of this late work detracts from its value as insignificant details, and has no spe- representing Pythagorean doctrine. cial prominence given to it. In the
THE ESSENES. 381
Pythagoreans for Pythagoras, are indications of a common humanity, but not of a common philosophy. And again the forgery of suppo- sititious documents is unhappily not the badge of any one school. The Solomonian books of the Essenes, so far as we can judge from the extant notices, were about as unlike the tracts ascribed to Pythagoras and his disciples by the Neopythagoreans as two such forgeries could well be. All or nearly all that remains in common to the Greek school and the Jewish sect after these deductions is a certain similarity in the type of life. But granted that two bodies and in
5 : : others do of men each held an esoteric teaching of their own, they would notsuggest
any his- . . . . - . . . . torical initiation, by a solemn form of oath, by a rigid distinction of orders. connexion.
secure it independently in a similar way, by a recognised process of
Granted also, that they both maintained the excellence of an ascetic life, their asceticism would naturally take the same form ; they would avoid wine and flesh ; they would abstain from anointing themselves with oil; they would depreciate, and perhaps altogether prohibit, marriage. Unless therefore the historical conditions are themselves favourable to a direct and immediate connexion between the Pytha- goreans and the Essenes, this theory of affiliation has little to recommend it.
And a closer examination must pronounce them to be most Twofold unfavourable. Chronology and geography alike present serious orn obstacles to any solution which derives the peculiarities of the theory. Kssenes from the Pythagoreans,
(i) The priority of time, if it can be pleaded on either side, must (i) Chro- be urged in favour of the Essenes. The Pythagoreans as a philo- repeal sophical school entirely disappear from history before the middle of adverse. the fourth century before Christ. The last Pythagoreans were scholars of Philolaus and Eurytus, the contemporaries of Socrates and Plato’. For nearly two centuries after their extinction we hear nothing of them. Here and there persons like Diodorus of Aspendus Disappear- are satirised by the Attic poets of the middle comedy as ‘ pytha- eee gorizers,’ in other words, as total abstainers and vegetarians*; but 8°reans.
1 Zeller 1. 6. p. 68 (comp. I. p. 242). 2 Athen. iv. p. 161, Diog. Laert. While disputing Zeller’s position, 7 viii. 37. See the index to Meineke have freely made use of his references. Fragm. Com. 8. vv. πυθαγορικός, etc. It is impossible not to admire the The words commonly used by these mastery of detail and clearness of ex- _satirists are πυθαγορίζειν, πυθαγοριστής, position in this work, even when the uvdayopicuds. The persons so satirised conclusions seem questionable. were probably in many cases not more
THE ESSENES,
Ὁ oa ta
This is the universal testimony of ancient writers. It is not till the first century
the philosophy had wholly died or was fast dying out.
before Christ, that we meet with any distinct traces of a revival. In Alexander Polyhistor’, a younger contemporary of Sulla, for the
first time we find references to certain writings, which would seem to have emanated from this incipient Neopythagorcanism, rather than And a little later Cicero commends his friend Nigidius Figulus as one specially raised up to
from the elder school of Pythagoreans. revive the extinct philosophy’. But so slow or so chequered was its progress, that a whole century after Seneca can still speak of the Yet long before this the Essenes formed a compact, well-organized, numerous society with a peculiar We have seen that Pliny the elder speaks of this celibate society as having existed
Priority of school as practically defunct*. Hssenism to Neopy-
thagorean- system of doctrine and a definite rule of life. ism.
‘through thousands of ages*.’ This is a gross exaggeration, but it must at least be taken to imply that in Pliny’s time the origin of the Essenes was lost in the obscurity of the past, or at least seemed so to 1 as !
I have given reasons for supposing’, Pliny’s authority in this passage
those who had not access to special sources of information.
is the same Alexander Polyhistor to whom I have just referred, and if this particular statement, however exaggerated in expression,
But
on any showing the priority in time is distinctly in favour of the
is derived from him, the fact becomes still more significant.
Essenes as against the Neopythagoreans.
The Es- And accordingly we find that what is only a tendency in the
sene tenets . : f oles doveloned Neopythagoreans is with the Essenes an avowed principle and a
more than definite rule of life.
the Neopy- . : 5 . Pano AG ijaserenn. which Pliny says that it has existed as an institution among the
Essenes per seculorum millia, and which is a chief corner-stone of
Such for instance is the case with celibacy, of
torem non invenit.’
4 N.H.v.15. The passage is quoted above p. 83,note 3. The point of time, at which Josephus thinks it necessary to insert an account of the Essenes as already flourishing (Ant. xiii. 5. 9), is prior to the revival of the Neopytha-
Pythagoreans than modern tectotallers are Rechabites.
1 Diog. Laert. viii. 24.sq.; see Zeller 1. 6. p. 74—78-
2 Cie. Tim. 1 ‘sic judico, post illos nobiles Pythagoreos quorum disci-
plina eaxtincta est quodammodo, cum aliquot secula in Italia Siciliaque vi- guisset, hunc exstitisse qui ilam reno- varet.’
3 Sen. N. Q. vii. 32 ‘Pythagorica ila invidiosa turbe schola prmcep-
gorean school. How much earlier the Jewish sect arose, we are without data for determining.
5 See p. 81, note I.
THE ESSENES.
their practical system. The Pythagorean notices (whether truly or not, it is unimportant for my purpose to enquire) speak of Pythagoras as having a wife and a daughter’. Only at a late date do we find the attempt to represent their founder in another light ; and if virginity is ascribed to Apollonius of Tyana, the great Pythagorean of the first Christian century, in the fictitious biography of Philostratus’, this representation is plainly due to the general plan of the novelist, whose hero is perhaps intended to rival the Founder of Christianity, and whose work is saturated with Christian ideas. In fact virginity can never be said to have been a Pythagorean principle, though it may have been an exalted ideal of some not very early adherents of the school. And the same remark applies to other resemblances between the Essene and Neopythagorean teaching. The clearness of con- ception and the definiteness of practice are in almost every instance on the side of the Essenes; so that, looking at the comparative chronology of the two, it will appear almost inconceivable that they can have derived their principles from the Neopythagoreans,
(ii) But the geographical difficulty also, which this theory of affiliation involves, must be added to the chronological. The home of the Essene sect is allowed on all hands to have been on the eastern borders of Palestine, the shores of the Dead Sea, a region least of all exposed to the influences of Greek philosophy. It is true that we find near Alexandria a closely allied school of Jewish recluses, the Therapeutes; and, as Alexandria may have been the home of Neopythagoreanism, a possible link of connexion is here disclosed. But, as Zeller himself has pointed out, it is not among the Therapeutes, but among the Essenes, that the principles in question appear fully developed and consistently carried out*; and therefore, if there be a relation of paternity between Essene and Therapeute, the latter must be derived from the former and not conversely. How then can we suppose this influence of Neopytha- goreanism brought to bear on a Jewish community in the south- eastern border of Palestine? Zeller’s answer is as follows*, Judea was for more than a hundred and fifty years before the Maccabean period under the sovereignty first of the Egyptian and then of the
1 Diog. Laert. viii. 42. had been differently represented by 2 Vit. Apol. i. 15 sq. At the same _ others. time Philostratus informs us that the 8.1, 6, p. 288 sq.
conduct of his hero in this respect 4 1, 6, p. 290 sq.
383
(ii) Geo- ἡ graphical difficulties
in the
theory.
384
The fo- reign ele- ment of Essenism to be sought in the East,
to which also Py- thago- reanism may have been in- debted.
THE ESSENES,
Syrian Greeks. We know that at this time Hellenizing influences did infuse themselves largely into Judaism: and what more natural than that among these the Pythagorean philosophy and discipline should have recommended itself to a section of the Jewish people? It may be said in reply, that at all events the special locality of the Essenes is the least favourable to such a solution: but, without pressing this fact, Zeller’s hypothesis is open to two serious objections which combined seem fatal to it, unsupported as it is by any historical notice. First, this influence of Pythagoreanism is assumed to have taken place at the very time when the Pythagorean school was practically extinct: and secondly, it is supposed to have acted upon that very section of the Jewish community, which was the most vigorous advocate of national exclusiveness and the most averse to Hellenizing influences.
It is not therefore to Greek but to Oriental influences that con- siderations of time and place, as well as of internal character, lead us to look for an explanation of the alien elements in Essene Judaism. And have we not here also the account of any real coincidences which may exist between Essenism and Neopythagoreanism? We should perhaps be hardly more justified in tracing Neopythagoreanism directly to Essenism than conversely (though, if we had no other alternative, this would appear to be the more probable solution of the two): but were not both alike due to substantially the same influences acting in different degrees? I think it will hardly be denied that the characteristic features of Pythagoreanism, and especially of Neopythagoreanism, which distinguish it from other schools of Greek philosophy, are much more Oriental in type, than Hellenic. The asceticism, the magic, the mysticism, of the sect all point in the same direction, And history moreover contains indications that such was the case. There seems to be sufficient ground for the statement that Pythagoras himself was indebted to intercourse with the Egyptians, if not with more strictly Oriental nations, for some leading ideas of his system, But, however this may be, the fact that in the legendary accounts, which the Neopythagoreans invented to do honour to the founder of the school, he is represented as taking lessons from the Chaldeans, Persians, Brahmins, and others, may be taken as an evidence that their own philosophy at all events was partially derived from eastern sources ’.
1 See the references in Zeller 1. p. 218 sq.; comp. ΠΙ. 2, p. 67.
THE ESSENES. 385
But, if the alien elements of Essenism were borrowed not so much from Greek philosophy as from Oriental mysticism, to what nation or what religion was it chiefly indebted? To this question it is difficult, with our very imperfect knowledge of the East at the
Christian era, to reply with any confidence. Yet there is one system Resem-
blances to : ἘΣ Pre eT. Parsism. The Medo-Persian religion supplies just those elements which dis-
to which we naturally look, as furnishing the most probable answ
tinguish the tenets and practices of the Essenes from the normal
type of Judaism. (1) First; we have here a very definite form of (i) Dual-
dualism, which exercised the greatest influence on subsequent Gnostic a sects, and of which Manicheism, the most matured development of dualistic doctrine in connexion with Christianity, was the ultimate fruit. of the Zend-Avesta in its unadulterated form, yet long before the
For though dualism may not represent the oldest theolog
era of which we are speaking it had become the fundamental prin-
ciple of the Persian religion, (2) Again; the Zoroastrian symbolism (ii) Sun-
of light, and consequent worship of the sun as the fountain of light, worslap: will explain those anomalous notices of the Essenes in which they are
(3) Moreover ; (iii) Angel- the ‘worship of angels’ in the Essene system has a striking parallel οἰ Δ.
represented as paying reverence to this luminary’.
in the invocations of spirits, which form a very prominent feature in the ritual of the Zend-Avesta. is illustrated, and not improbably was suggested, by the doctrine of
And altogether their angelology
intermediate beings concerned in the government of nature and of man, such as the Amshaspands, which is an integral part of the Zoroastrian system*®. (4) And once more; the magic, which was 50 (iv) Magic. attractive to the Essene, may have received its impulse from the priestly caste of Persia, to whose world-wide fame this form of super-
(5) If to these parallels I venture (y) Striy- ing after purity.
stition is indebted for its name. also to add the intense striving after purity, which is the noblest feature in the Persian religion, I do so, not because the Essenes
1 Keim (Geschichte Jesu von Nazara %. p. 303) refers to Tac. Hist. ili. 24 ‘Undique clamor; et orientem solem (ita in Syria mos est) tertiani salu- tavere,’ as illustrating this Essene practice. The commentators on Ta- citus quote a similar notice of the Parthians in Herodian iv. 15 ἅμα δὲ ἡλίῳ ἀνίσχοντι ἐφάνη ᾿Αρτάβανος σὺν
COL.
μεγίστῳ πλήθει στρατοῦ" ἀσπασάμενοι δὲ τὸν ἥλιον, ὡς ἔθος αὐτοῖς, οἱ βάρβαροι K.T.A.
2 See e.g. Vendidad Farg. xix; and the liturgical portions of the book are largely taken up with invocations of these intermediate beings. Some ex- tracts are given in Dayies’ Colossians
p. 146 sq.
Other coinci- dences ac- cidental.
The de- struction of the Persian empire not ad- verse
THE ESSENES.
might not have derived this impulse from a higher source, but because this feature was very likely to recommend the Zoroastrian system to their favourable notice, and because also the particular form which the zeal for purity took among them was at all events congenial to the teaching of the Zend-Avesta, and may not have been altogether free from its influences,
I have preferred dwelling on these broader resemblances, because they are much more significant than any mere coincidence of details, which may or may not have been accidental. Thus for instance the magi, like the Essenes, wore white garments, and eschewed gold and ornaments; they practised frequent lustrations; they avoided flesh, living on bread and cheese or on herbs and fruits; they had different orders in their society ; and the like’. All these, as I have already remarked, may be the independent out-growth of the same temper and direction of conduct, and need not imply any direct historical connexion. Nor is there any temptation to press such resemblances; for even without their aid the general connexion seems to be sufficiently established *,
But it is said, that the history of Persia does not favour the hypothesis of such an influence as is here assumed. The destruction of the Persian empire by Alexander, argues Zeller’, and the subse- quent erection of the Parthian domination on its ruins, must have been fatal to the spread of Zoroastrianism. From the middle of the third century before Christ, when the Parthian empire was esta- blished, till towards the middle of the third century of our era,
1 Hilgenfeld (Zeitschrift x. p. 99 54.) finds coincidences even more special than these. He is answered by Zeller (111. 2, p. 276), but defends his posi- tion again (Zeitschrift x1. Ὁ. 347 8q.), though with no great success. Among other points of coincidence Hilgenfeld remarks on the axe (Jos. B. J. ii. 8. 7) which was given to the novices among the Essenes, and connects it with the déwouarrela (Plin. N. H. xxxvi, 1g) of the magi. Zeller con- tents himself with replying that the use of the axe among the Essenes for purposes of divination is a pure con- jecture, not resting on any known fact. He might have answered with
much more effect that Josephus else- where (§ 9) defines it as a spade or shovel, and assigns to it a very dif- ferent use. Hilgenfeld has damaged his cause by laying stress on these accidental resemblances. So far as regards minor coincidences, Zeller makes out as good a case for his Pythagoreans, as Hilgenfeld for his magians.
2 Those who allow any foreign Oriental element in Essenism most commonly ascribe it to Persia: e. g. among the more recent writers, Hil- genfeld (1. ¢.), and Lipsius Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexikon 5.0. Essaer p. 189.
815 Caps 27155
THE ESSENES. 387
when the Persian monarchy and religion were once more restored’, its influence must have been reduced within the narrowest limits.
But does analogy really suggest such an inference? Does not the butfayvour- able to the spread of a people on the world at large may begin just where its national Parsism.
history of the Jews themselves show that the religious influence of
life ends? The very dispersion of Zoroastrianism, consequent on the fall of the empire, would impregnate the atmosphere far and wide ; and the germs of new religious developments would thus be implanted in alien soils. For in tracing Essenism to Persian influences I have not wished to imply that this Jewish sect consciously incorporated the Zoroastrian philosophy and religion as such, but only that Zoroastrian ideas were infused into its system by more or less direct contact. And, as a matter of fact, it seems quite certain that Persian ideas were widely spread during this very interval, when the Persian
nationality was eclipsed. It was then that Hermippus gave to the Indica- tions of its influence It was then that its tenets suggested or moulded during this
Greeks the most detailed account of this religion which had ever been laid before them’. the speculations of the various Gnostic sects. It was then that the worship of the Persian Mithras spread throughout the Roman Empire. It was then, if not earlier, that the magian system took root in Asia Minor, making for itself (as it were) a second home in Cappadocia®. It was then, if not earlier, that the Zoroastrian demon- ology stamped itself so deeply on the apocryphal literature of the Jews themselves, which borrowed even the names of evil spirits * from the Persians. There are indeed abundant indications that Palestine was surrounded by Persian influences during this period, when the Persian empire was in abeyance.
Thus we seem to have ample ground for the view that certain
1 See Gibbon Decline and Fall 6. viii, Milman History of Christianity Il. p. 247 sq. The latter speaks of this restoration of Zoroastrianism, as ‘perhaps the only instance of the vigorous revival of a Pagan religion.’ It was far purer and less Pagan than the system which it superseded; and this may account for its renewed life.
2 See Miiller Fragm. Hist. Graec. Il. p. 53 sq. for this work of Hermip- pus περὶ Μάγων. He flourished about B.c. 200. See Max Miiller Lectures on
the Science of Language ist ser. Ὁ. 86.
3 Strabo xv. 3. 15 (p. 733) Ev δὲ τῇ Καππαδοκίᾳ (πολὺ yap ἐκεῖ τὸ τῶν Ma- γων φῦλον, οἱ καὶ πύραιθοι καλοῦνται" πολλὰ δὲ καὶ τῶν Περσικῶν θεῶν ἱερα) κιτ.λ.
4 At least in one instance, Asmo- deus (Tob. iii. 17); see M. Miiller Chips from a German Workshop 1. p. 148 sq. For the different dates as- signed to the book of Tobit see Dr Westcott’s article Tobit in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible p. 1525.
25—2
388
Aro Bud- dhist in- fluences also per- ceptible?
Supposed Buddhist establish- ment at Alexan- dria.
The an- thority misinter- preted
THE ESSENES.
alien features in Essene Judaism were derived from the Zoroastrian religion. But are we justified in going a step further, and attribut- ing other elements in this eclectic system to the more distant East ? The monasticism of the Buddhist will naturally occur to our minds, as a precursor of the cenobitic life among the Essenes; and Hilgenfeld accordingly has not hesitated to ascribe this characteristic of Essenism directly to Buddhist influences’. But at the outset we are obliged to ask whether history gives any such indication of the presence of Buddhism in the West as this hypothesis requires. Hilgenfeld answers this question in the affirmative. He points confidently to the fact that as early as the middle of the second century before Christ the Buddhist records speak of their faith as flourishing in Alasanda the chief city of the land of Yavana, The place intended, he conceives, can be none other than the great Alexandria, the most famous of the many places bearing the name’. In this opinion however he stands quite alone. Neither Képpen ὅ, who is his authority for this statement, nor any other Indian scholar *, so far as I am aware, for a moment contemplates this identi- fication. Yavana, or Yona, was the common Indian name for the Greco-Bactrian kingdom and its dependencies’; and to this region we naturally turn. The Alasanda or Alasadda therefore, which is here mentioned, will be one of several Eastern cities bearing the name
of the great conqueror, most probably Alexandria ad Caucasum.
1 Zeitschrift xX. Pp. 103 Sq.; comp. ΧΙ. p. 351. M. Renan also (Langues Sémitiques ut. iv. 1, Vie de Jésus p- 98) suggests that Buddhist influences operated in Palestine.
* x. p. 105 ‘was schon an sich, zumal in dieser Zeit, schwerlich Alex- andria ad Caucasum, sondern nur Alexandrien in Aegypten bedeuten kann.’ Comp. ΧΙ. p. 351, where he repeats the same argument in reply to Zeller. This'is a very natural in- ference from a western point of view ; but, when we place ourselves in the position of a Buddhist writer to whom Bactria was Greece, the relative pro- portions of things are wholly changed.
3 Die Religion des Buddha τ. p. 193.
4 Comp. e.g. Weber Die Verbin- dungen Indiens mit den Lindern im Westen p.675 in the Allgem. Monatsschr.
f. Wissensch. u. Literatur, Braun- schweig 1853; Lassen Indische Alter- thumskunde τι. Ὁ. 236; Hardy Manual of Budhism p. 516.
5 For its geographical meaning in older Indian writers see Képpen 1]. ὁ. Since then it has entirely departed from its original signification, and Yavana is now a common term used by the Hindoos to designate the Mo- hammedans. Thus the Greek name has come to be applied to a people which of all others is most unlike the Greeks. This change of meaning ad- mirably illustrates the use of Ἕλλην among the Jews, which in like man- ner, from being the name of an alien nation, became the name of an alien religion, irrespective of nationality ; see the note on Gal. ii. 3.
THE ESSENES. 389
But indeed I hardly think that, if Hilgenfeld had referred to the original authority for the statement, the great Buddhist history Mahawanso, he would have ventured to lay any stress at all on
this notice, as.supporting his theory. The historian, or rather and wholly
untrust- : worthy in lating the foundation of the Maha thipo, or great tope, at Ruanwelli itself.
Beyond the fact that this tope was erected by this king the rest is plainly legendary.
fabulist (for such he is in this earlier part of his chronicle), is _re- by the king Dutthagamini in the year B.c. 157.
All the materials for the construction of the building, we are told, appeared spontaneously as by miracle—the bricks, the metals, the precious stones. The dewos, or demons, lent their aid in the erection.
In fact
the fabric huge Rose like an exhalation.
Priests gathered in enormous numbers from all the great Buddhist One place alone sent not less than 96,000. Among the rest it is mentioned
monasteries to do honour to the festival of the foundation.
that ‘Maha Dhammarakkito, théro (i.e. senior priest) of Yona, accom- panied by 30,000 priests from the vicinity of Alasadda, the capital of the Y6na country, attended’ It is obvious that no weight can be attached to a statement occurring as part of a story of which the other details are so manifestly false. An establishment of
30,000 Buddhist priests at Alexandria would indeed be a pheno-
menon of which historians have shown a strange neglect.
Nor is the presence of any Buddhist establishment even on a General
much smaller scale in this important centre of western civilisation aan aac
which the dhism in
at all reconcilable with the ignorance of this religion, the West.
Greeks and Romans betray at a much later date*, For some centu- ries after the Christian era we find that the information possessed by western writers was most shadowy and confused; and in almost every instance we are able to trace it to some other cause than the
actual presence of Buddhists in the Roman Empire*. Thus Strabo, Strabo.
1 Mahawanso p. 171, Turnour’s may allow that single Indians would
translation.
2 How for instance, if any such establishment had ever existed at Alexandria, could Strabo have used the language which is quoted in the next note?
3 Consistently with this view, we
visit Alexandria from time to time for purposes of trade or for other reasons, and not more than this is required by the rhetorical passage in Dion Chry- sost. Or. xxxii (p. 373) ὁρῶ γὰρ ἔγωγε οὐ μόνον Ἕλληνας παρ᾽ ὑμῖν...... ἀλλὰ καὶ Βακτρίους καὶ Σκύθας καὶ ἹΤέρσας καὶ
390
THE ESSENES.
who wrote under Augustus and Tiberius, apparently mentions the
Buddhist priests, the srwmanas, under the designation sarmanw (Zap-
μάνας)" ; but he avowedly obtains his information from Megasthenes,
Ἰνδῶν τινάς. The qualifying τινάς shows how very slight was the com- munication between India and Alex- andria. The mission of Pantenus may have been suggested by the pre- sence of such stray visitors. Jerome (Vir. Ill. 36) says that he went ‘roga- tus ab illius gentis legatis.’ It must remain doubtful however, whether some other region than Hindostan, such as Aithiopia for instance, is not meant, when Pantenus is said to have gone to India: see Cave’s Lives of the Primitive Fathers p. 188 sq.
How very slight the communication was between India and the West in the early years of the Christian era, appears from this passage of Strabo Xv. τ. 4 (Ὁ. 686); καὶ ol viv δὲ ἐξ Αἰγύπ- του πλέοντες ἐμπορικοὶ τῷ Νείλῳ καὶ τῷ ᾿Αραβίῳ κόλπῳ μέχρι τῆς ᾿Ινδικῆς σπά- νιοι μὲν καὶ περιπεπλεύκασι μέχρι τοῦ Γάγγου, καὶ οὗτοι δ᾽ ἰδιῶται καὶ οὐδὲν πρὸς ἱστορίαν τῶν τόπων χρήσιμοι, after which he goes on to say that the only instance of Indian travellers in the West was the embassy sent to Augus- tus (see below p. 392), which came ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς τόπου Kal παρ᾽ ἑνὸς βασιλέως.
The communications between India and the West are investigated by two recent writers, Reinaud Relations Poli- tiques et Commerciales de VEmpire Romain avec VAsie Centrale, Paris 1863, and Priaulx The Indian Travels of Apollonius of Tyana and the Indian Embassies to Rome, 1873. The latter work, which is very thorough and satisfactory, would have saved me much labour of independent investiga- tion, if I had seen it in time.
1 Strabo xv. 1. 59, p. 712. In the Mss it is written Tapudvas, but this must be an error either introduced by Strabo’s transcribers or found in the copy of Megasthenes which this author used. This is plain not only from the Indian word itself, but also from the parallel passage in Clement of Alexan- dria (Strom. 1. 15). From the coin-
cidences of language it is clear that Clement also derived his information from Megasthenes, whose name he mentions just below. The fragments of Megasthenes relating to the Indian philosophers will be found in Miiller Fragm. Hist. Graec. τι. p. 437. They were previously edited by Schwanbeck, Megasthenis Indica (Bonne 1846).
For Σαρμᾶναι we also find the form Σαμαναῖοι in other writers; e.g. Clem. Alex. 1. ¢., Bardesanes in Porphyr. de Abstin. iv. τῇ, Orig. c. Cels. i. 19 (1. p- 342). This divergence is explained by the fact that the Pali word sammana corresponds to the Sanskrit sramana. See Schwanbeck, 1. 6. p. 17, quoted by Miiller, p. 437.
It should be borne in mind however, that several eminent Indian scholars believe Megasthenes to have meant not Buddhists but Brahmins by his Zapudvas. So for instance Lassen Rhein. Mus. 1833, p. 180 sq., Ind. Alterth. τι. p. 7oo: and Prof. Max. Miiller (Pref. to Rogers’s Translation of Buddhaghosha’s Parables, London 1870, p. lii) says; ‘That Lassen is right in taking the Σαρμᾶναι, men- tioned by Megasthenes, for Brahmanie, not for Buddhist ascetics, might be proved also by their dress. Dresses made of the bark of trees are not Buddhistiec.’ If this opinion be correct, the earlier notices of Buddhism in Greek writers entirely disappear, and my position is strengthened. But for the following reasons the other view appears to me more probable: (1) The term sramana is the common term for the Buddhist ascetic, whereas it is very seldom used of the Brahmin. (2) The Zapyavos (another form of sramana), mentioned below p. 392, note 2, appears to have been a Buddhist. This view is taken even by Lassen, Ind. Alterth. m1. p. 60. (3) The distinction of Βραχμᾶνες and Σαρμᾶναι in Megasthenes or the writers following him corresponds to the dis-
THE ESSENES. 391
who travelled in India somewhere about the year 300 B.c. and wrote a book on Indian affairs. Thus too Bardesanes at a much later date Barde- gives an account of these Buddhist ascetics, without however naming pera the founder of the religion ; but he was indebted for his knowledge
of them to conversations with certain Indian ambassadors who visited
Syria on their way westward in the reign of one of the Antonines’.
Clement of Alexandria, writing in the latest years of the second Clement century or the earliest of the third, for the first? time mentions ee na Buddha by name; and even he betrays a strange ignorance of this
Eastern religion®.
tinction of Bpaxudves and Σαμαναῖοι in Bardesanes, Origen, and others; and, as Schwanbeck has shown (1. ¢.), the account of the Σαρμᾶναι in Mega- sthenes for the most part is a close parallel to the account of the Σαμαναῖοι in Bardesanes (or at least in Por- phyry’s report of Bardesanes). It seems more probable therefore that Megasthenes has been guilty of con- fusion in describing the dress of the Σαρμᾶναι, than that Brahmins are in- tended by the term.
The Pali form, Σαμαναῖοι, as a de- signation of the Buddhists, first occurs in Clement of Alexandria or Barde- sapes, whichever may be the earlier writer. It is generally ascribed to Alexander Polyhistor, who flourished B.c. 80—60, because his authority is quoted by Cyril of Alexandria (ec. Julian. iv. p. 133) in the same context in which the Σαμαναῖοι are mentioned. This inference is drawn by Schwan- beck, Max Miiller, Lassen, and others. An examination of Cyril’s language however shows that the statement for which he quotes the authority of Alex- ander Polyhistor does not extend to the mention of the Samanzi. Indeed all the facts given in this passage of Cyril (including the reference to Poly- histor) are taken from Clement of Alexandria (Strom. i. 15; see below n. 3), Whose account Cyril has abridged. It is possible indeed that Clement himself derived the statement from Polyhistor, but nothing in Clement’s own language points to this.
1 The narrative of Bardesanes is
given by Porphyry de Abst. iv. 17. The Buddhist ascetics are there called Σαμαναῖοι (see the last note). The work of Bardesanes, recounting his conversations with these Indian am- bassadors, is quoted again by Porphyry in a fragment preserved by Stobzus Ecl. iii. 56 (p. 141). In this last pas- sage the embassy is said to have arrived ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας τῆς ᾿Αντωνίνου τοῦ ἐξ μισῶν, by which, if the words be correct, must be meant Hlagabalus (A.D. 218—222), the spurious Antonine (see Hilgenfeld Bardesanes Ὁ. 12 sq.). Other ancient authorities however place Bardesanes in the reign of one of the older Antonines ; and, as the context is somewhat corrupt, we cannot feel quite certain about the date. Barde- sanes gives by far the most accurate account of the Buddhists to be found in any ancient Greek writer; but even here the monstrous stories, which the Indian ambassadors related to him, show how little trustworthy such sources of information were.
2 Except possibly Arrian, Ind. viii. 1, who mentions an ancient Indian king, Budyas (Βουδύας) by name; but what he relates of him is quite incon- sistent with the history of Buddha, and probably some one else is intended.
3 In this passage (Strom. i. 15, p. 359) Clement apparently mentions these same persons three times, sup- posing that he is describing three dif- ferent schools of Oriental philosophers. (1) He speaks of Σαμαναῖοι Βάκτρων (comp. Cyrill. Alex. 1. ¢.); (2) He dis- tinguishes two classes of Indian gymno-
392
Hippoly- tus.
A Bud- dhist at Athens.
THE ESSENES.
Still later than this, Hippolytus, while he gives a fairly intelligent,
though brief, account of the Brahmins’, says not a word about the
Buddhists, though, if he had been acquainted with their teaching,
he would assuredly have seen in them a fresh support to his theory
of the affinity between Christian heresies and pre-existing heathen phi-
losophies.
With one doubtful exception
an Indian fanatic attached
to an embassy sent by king Porus to Augustus, who astonished the
Greeks and Romans by burning
sophists, whom he calls Σαρμᾶναι and Βραχμᾶναι. These are Buddhists and Brahmins respectively (see p. 390, note 1); (3) He says afterwards εἰσὶ δὲ τῶν ᾿Ινδῶν οἱ τοῖς Βοῦττα πειθόμενοι παραγγέλμασιν, ὃν δι’ ὑπερβολὴν σεμ- νότητος εἰς [ὡς] θεὸν τετιμήκασι. Schwanbeck indeed maintains that Cle- ment here intends to describe the same persons whom he has just mentioned as Dapuavac; but this is not the natural interpretation of his language, which must mean ‘There are also among the Indians those who obey the pre- cepts of Buddha.’ Probably Schwan- beck is right in identifying the Σαρμᾶ- ναι with the Buddhist ascetics, but Clement appears not to have known this. In fact he has obtained his in- formation from different sources, and so repeated himself without being aware of it. Where he got the first fact it is impossible to say. The second, as we saw, was derived from Megasthenes, The third, relating to Buddha, came, as we may conjecture, either from Pantenus (if indeed Hindostan is really meant by the India of his mis- sionary labours) or from some chance Indian visitor at Alexandria.
In another passage (Strom. iii. 7, Ῥ.- 539) Clement speaks of certain In- dian celibates and ascetics, who are called Σεμνοί. As he distinguishes them from the gymnosophists, and mentions the pyramid as a sacred building with them, the identification with the Buddhists can hardly be doubted. Here therefore Σεμνοί is a Grecized form of Σαμαναῖοι ; and this modification of the word would occur naturally to Clement, because σεμνοί, σεμν εἴον, were already used of the ascetic
himself alive at Athens?—there
life: e.g. Philo de Vit. Cont. 3 (p. 475M) ἱερὸν ὃ καλεῖται σεμνεῖον καὶ μοναστήριον ἐν ᾧ μονούμενοι τὰ τοῦ σεμνοῦ βίου μυστήρια τελοῦνται.
1 Haer, i. 24.
2 The chief authority is Nicolaus of Damascus in Strabo xy. 1. 73 (p. 270). The incident is mentioned also in Dion Cass. liv. 9. Nicolaus had met these ambassadors at Antioch, and gives an interesting account of the motley com- pany and their strange presents. This fanatic, who was one of the number, immolated himself in the presence of an astonished crowd, and perhaps of the emperor himself, at Athens. He anointed himself and then leapt smil- ing on the pyre. The inscription on his tomb was Ζαρμανοχηγὰς Ινδὸς ἀπὸ Bapyoons κατὰ ta πάτρια ᾿Ινδών ἔθη ἑαυτὸν ἀπαθανατίσας κεῖται. The tomb was visible at least as late as the age of Plutarch, who recording the self- immolation of Calanus before Alexan- der (Vit. Alex. 69) says, τοῦτο πολλοῖς ἔτεσιν ὕστερον ἄλλος ᾿Ινδὸς ἐν ᾿Αθήναις Καίσαρι συνὼν ἐποίησε, καὶ δείκνυται μέχρι νῦν τὸ μνημεῖον ᾿Ινδοῦ προσαγο- ρευόμενον. Strabo also places the two incidents in conjunction in another passage in which he refers to this person, xv. 1. 4 (p. 686) ὁ κατακαύσας ἑαυτὸν ᾿Αθήνῃσι σοφιστὴς Ivdds, καθάπερ kalo Κάλανος κ.τ.λ.
The reasons for supposing this per- son to have been a Buddhist, rather than a Brahmin, are: (1) The name Zappavoxnyas (which appears with some variations in the mss of Strabo) being apparently the Indian sramana- karja, i.e. ‘teacher of the ascetics,’ in other words, a Buddhist priest; (2) The place Bargosa, i.e. Barygaza,
THE ESSENES. 393
is apparently no notice in either heathen or Christian writers, which points to the presence of a Buddhist within the limits of the Roman Empire, till long after the Essenes had ceased to exist’.
And if so, the coincidences must be very precise, before we are The al-
justified in attributing any peculiarities of Essenism to Buddhist pi ees
influences. This however is far from being the case. They both Prove exhibit a well-organized monastic society: but the monasticism aac of the Buddhist priests, with its systematized mendicancy, has little Monasti- in common with the monasticism of the Essene recluse, whose life iets
was largely spent in manual labour. They both enjoin celibacy, Asceti-
both prohibit the use of flesh and of wine, both abstain from the CShe slaughter of animals. But, as we have already seen, such resem- blances prove nothing, for they may be explained by the inde- pendent development of the same religious principles. One coincidence, and one only, is noticed by Hilgenfeld, which at first sight seems
more striking and might suggest a historical connexion. He observes Four or- ders and
that the four orders of the Essene community are derived from the ἔραν steps
where Buddhism flourished in that age. See Priaulx p. 78 sq. In Dion Cassius it is written Zdpuapos.
And have we not here an explana- tion of 1 Cor. xiii. 3, if ἵνα καυθήσο- pot be the right reading? The pas- sage, being written before the fires of the Neronian persecution, requires ex- planation, Now it is clear from Plu- tarch that the ‘Tomb of the Indian’ was one of the sights shown to stran- gers at Athens: and the Apostle, who observed the altar ATN@CTW! θεῶι, was not likely to overlook the sepul- chre with the strange inscription ΕΔΥΤΟΝ ATIADANATICAC KEITAL In- deed the incident would probably be pressed on his notice in his discussions with Stoics and Epicureans, and he would be forced to declare himself as to the value of these Indian self-im- molations, when he preached the doc- trine of self-sacrifice. We may well imagine therefore that the fate of this poor Buddhist fanatic was present to his mind when he penned the words kal ἐὰν παραδῶ τὸ σωμά μου... ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω, οὐδὲν ὠφελοῦμαι. Indeed it would furnish an almost equally good illus- tration of the text, whether we read ἵνα
καυθήσομαι or ἵνα καυχήσωμαι. Dion Cassius (]. 6.) suggests that the deed was done ὑπὸ φιλοτίμιας or els ἐπίδειξιν. How much attention these religious suicides of the Indians attracted in the Apostolic age (doubtless because the act of this Buddhist priest had brought the subject vividly before men’s minds in the West), we may infer from the speech which Josephus puts in the mouth of Eleazar (B. J. vii. 8. 7), βλέ- ψωμεν els Ἰνδοὺς τοὺς σοφίαν ἀσκεῖν ὑπ- ισχνουμένους ... οἱ δὲ... πυρὶ τὸ σῶμα παραδόντες, ὅπως δὴ καὶ καθαρωτάτην ἀποκρίνωσι τοῦ σώματος τὴν ψυχήν, ὑμ- νούμενοι τελευτῶσι... ἄρ᾽ οὖν οὐκ αἰδού- μεθα χεῖρον ᾿Ινδῶν φρονοῦντες ;
1 Τὴ the reign of Claudius an em- bassy arrived from Taprobane (Ceylon) ; and from these ambassadors Pliny de- rived his information regarding the island, N. H. vi. 24. Respecting their religion however he says only two words ‘coli Hereulem,’ by whom pro- bably Rama is meant (Priaulx p. 116). From this and other statements it appears that they were Tamils and not Singalese, and thus belonged to the non-Buddhist part of the island; see Priaulx p. gt sq.
394
Buddhist influences seen first in Mani- cheism.
THE ESSENES.
four steps of Buddhism, Against this it might fairly be argued that such coincidences of numbers are often purely accidental, and that in the present instance there is no more reason for con- necting the four steps of Buddhism with the four orders of Essenism than there would be for connecting the ten precepts of Buddha with the Ten Commandments of Moses. But examination will show that the two have nothing whatever in
The four steps or paths of Buddhism
indeed a nearer
common except the number. are not four grades of an external order, but four degrees of spiritual progress on the way to nirvana or annihilation, the ultimate goal of the Buddhist’s religious aspirations. They are wholly uncon- nected with the Buddhist monastic system, as an organization. A reference to the Buddhist notices collected in Hardy’s Eastern Monachism (p. 280 sq.) will at once dispel any suspicion of a resemblance. A man may attain to the highest of these four stages of Buddhist illumination instantaneously. He does not need to have passed through the lower grades, but may even be a layman at the time. Some merit obtained in a previous state of existence may raise him per saltwm to the elevation of a rahat, when all earthly desires are crushed and no future birth stands between him and nirvana. There remains therefore no coincidence which would suggest any historical connexion between Essenism and Buddhism, Indeed it is not till some centuries later, when Manicheism’ starts into being, that we find for the first time any traces of the influence
of Buddhism on the religions of the West’.
1 Even its influence on Manicheism however is disputed in a learned article in the Home and Foreign Review 111. p. 143 sq. (1863), by Mr P. Le Page Renouf (see Academy 1873, p. 3099).
2 An extant inscription, containing an edict of the great Buddhist king Asoka and dating about the middle of the 3rd century B.c., was explained by Prinsep as recording a treaty of this monarch with Ptolemy and other suc-
cessors of Alexander, by whichreligious freedom was secured for the Buddhists throughout their dominions. If this interpretation had been correct, we must have supposed that, so far as regards Egypt and Western Asia, the treaty remained a dead letter. But later critics have rejected this interpre- tation of its purport: see Thomas’s edition of Prinsep’s Essays on Indian Antiquities 11. p. 18 sq.
111.
ESSENISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
T has become a common practice with a certain class of writers to Thetheory
call Essenism to their aid in accounting for any distinctive features ae re of Christianity, which they are unable to explain in any other ee = way. Wherever some external power is needed to solve a perplexity, outgrowth here is the deus ex machina whose aid they most readily invoke. Oe youd
Constant repetition is sure to produce its effect, and probably not a few persons, who want either the leisure or the opportunity to investigate the subject for themselves, have a lurking suspicion that the Founder of Christianity may have been an Essene, or at all events that Christianity was largely indebted to Essenism for its doctrinal and ethical teaching’, Indeed, when very confident and sweeping assertions are made, it is natural to presume that they rest on a substantial basis of fact. Thus for instance we are told by one writer that Christianity is ‘Essenism alloyed with foreign ele- ments’*: while another, who however approaches the subject in a different spirit, says; ‘It will hardly be doubted that our Saviour himself belonged to this holy brotherhood. This will especially be apparent, when we remember that the whole Jewish community at the advent of Christ was divided into three parties, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes, and that every Jew had to belong to one of these sects. Jesus who in all things conformed to the Jewish law, and who was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, would therefore naturally associate Himself with that order
1 De Quincey’s attempt to prove ceived in a wholly different spirit from that the Essenes were actually Chris- the theories of the writers mentioned tians (Works vi. p. 270 8q., IX. p. 253 in the text; but if is even more un- sq.), who used the machinery of an tenable and does not deserve serious
esoteric society to inculcate their doc- refutation. trines ‘for fear of the Jews,’ is con- 2 Gritz I. p. 217.
396
tested by facts.
Our Lord need not have be- longed to any sect.
The argu- ment from the silence of the New Testa- ment an- swered.
THE ESSENES.
of Judaism which was most congenial to His nature'.’ I purpose testing these strong assertions by an appeal to facts.
For the statements involved in those words of the last extract which I have underlined, no authority is given by the writer him- self; nor have I been able to find confirmation of them in any quarter. On the contrary the frequent allusions which we find to the vulgar herd, the ἰδιῶται, the gam haarets, who are distinguished from the disciples of the schools*, suggest that a large proportion of the people was unattached to any sect. If it had been otherwise, we might reasonably presume that our Lord, as one who ‘in all things conformed to the Jewish law,’ would have preferred attaching Him- self to the Pharisees who ‘sat in Moses’ seat’ and whose precepts He recommended His disciples to obey *, rather than to the Essenes who in one important respect at least—the repudiation of the temple sacrifices—acted in flagrant violation of the Mosaic ordinances.
This preliminary barrier being removed, we are free to investi- gate the evidence for their presumed connexion, And here we are met first with a negative argument, which obviously has great weight with many persons. Why, it is asked, does Jesus, who so unsparingly denounces the vices and the falsehoods of Pharisees and Sadducees, never once mention the Essenes by way of condemnation, or indeed mention them by name ai all? Why, except that He Himself belonged to this sect and looked favourably on their teaching? This question is best answered by another. How can we explain the fact, that throughout the enormous mass of tal- mudical and early rabbinical literature this sect is not once men- tioned by name, and that even the supposed allusions to them, which have been discovered for the first time in the present century, turn out on investigation to be hypothetical and illusory? The difficulty is much greater in this latter instance ; but the answer is the same in both cases. The silence is explained by the comparative insig- nificance of the sect, their small numbers and their retired habits. Their settlements were far removed from the great centres of political and religious life. Their recluse habits, as a rule, prevented them from interfering in the common business of the world. Philo and Josephus have given prominence to them, because their ascetic
1 Ginsburg Essenes p. 24. 3 Matt. xxiii. 2, 3. 2 See above, p. 364.
THE ESSENES. 397
practices invested them with the character of philosophers and interested the Greeks and Romans in their history; but in the
If the Sadducees, who held the highest offices in the hierarchy, are only
national life of the Jews they bere a very insignificant part’.
mentioned directly on three occasions in the Gospels*, it can be no
surprise that the Essenes are not named at all.
As no stress therefore can be laid on the argument from silence, The posi- any hypothesis of connexion between Essenism and Christianity ine ree must make good its claims by establishing one or both of these two 2 Connex- points: first, that there is direct historical evidence of close inter- ἘΠΕ ΩΝ course between the two; and secondly, that the resemblances of doctrine and practice are so striking as to oblige, or at least to
If both these lines of argument fail, the case must be considered to have broken down,
1. On the former point it must be premised that the Gospel ᾿ Absence
f direct narrative does not suggest any hint of a connexion. Indeed its general ἢ histoneal
From first to last evidence ἃ con-
Jesus and His disciples move about freely, taking part in the nexion.
warrant, the belief in such a connexion.
tenor is directly adverse to such a supposition.
common business, even in the common recreations, of Jewish life.
The recluse ascetic brotherhood, which was gathered about the shores
of the Dead Sea, does not once appear above the Evangelists’ horizon.
Of this close society, as such, there is not the faintest indication.
But two individuals have been singled out, as holding an important Two indi- place either in the Evangelical narrative or in the Apostolic Church, Mia Ἢ who, it is contended, form direct and personal links of communi- lesed. These are John the Baptist and James the
The one is the forerunner of the Gospel, the first
cation with this sect. Lord’s brother.
1 This fact is fully recognised by several recent writers, who will not be suspected of any undue bias towards traditional views of Christian history. Thus Lipsius writes (p. 190), ‘In the general development of Jewish life Essenism occupies a far more sub- ordinate place than is commonly ascribed to it.’ And Keim expresses himself to the same effect (1. p. 305). Derenbourg also, after using similar language, adds this wise caution, ‘In any case, in the present state of our acquaintance with the Essenes, which
is so imperfect and has no chance of being extended, the greatest prudence is required of science, if she prefers to be true rather than adventurous, if she has at heart rather to enlighten than to surprise’ (p. 461). Even Gratz in one passage can write soberly on this sub- ject: ‘The Essenes had throughout no influence on political movements, from which they held aloof as far as possible’ (111. p. 86).
2 These are (1) Matt. iii. 7; (2) Matt. xvi. 1 54. ; (3) Matt. xxii. 23 56.» Mark xii. 18, Luke xx. 27.
398
(i) John the Bap- tist
not an Es- gene,
External resem- blances to John in Banus,
THE ESSENES.
herald of the Kingdom; the other is the most prominent figure in the early Church of Jerusalem,
(i) John the Baptist was an ascetic. His abode was the desert ; his clothing was rough; his food was spare; he baptized his penitents, Therefore, it is argued, he was an Essene. Between the premisses and the conclusion however there is a broad gulf, which can- not very easily be bridged over. The solitary independent life, which John led, presents a type wholly different from the cenobitic esta- blishments of the Essenes, who had common property, common meals, common hours of labour and of prayer. It may even be questioned whether his food of locusts would have been permitted by the Essenes, if they really ate nothing which had life (ἔμψυχον ᾿). And again; his baptism as narrated by the Evangelists, and their lustrations as described by Josephus, have nothing in common except the use of water for a religious purpose. When therefore we are told confidently that ‘his manner of life was altogether after the Essene pattern’, and that ‘he without doubt baptized his converts into the Essene order,’ we know what value to attach to this bold assertion. If positive statements are allowable, it would be more true to fact to say that he could not possibly have been an Essene. The rule of his life was isolation ; the principle of theirs, community’.
In this mode of life John was not singular. It would appear that not a few devout Jews at this time retired from the world and buried themselves in the wilderness, that they might devote them- selves unmolested to ascetic discipline and religious meditation. One such instance at all events we have in Banus the master of Josephus, with whom the Jewish historian, when a youth, spent three years in the desert. This anchorite was clothed in garments made of bark or of leaves; his food was the natural produce of the earth; he bathed day and night in cold water for purposes of purification. To the careless observer doubtless John and Banus would appear to be men of the same stamp. In their outward mode of life there was perhaps not very much difference*. The conscious-
1 See above p. 84. Banus as representing an extravagant 2 Gritz II. p. 100. development of the school of John, 3 τὸ κοινωνητικόν, Joseph. B. J. ii. and thus supplying a link between the 8.3. See also Philo Fragm. 632 ὑπὲρ real teaching of the Baptist and the τοῦ κοινωφελοῦς, and the context. dcctrine of the Hemerobaptists pro- 4 Ewald (v1. p. 649) regards this fessing to be derived from him,
THE ESSENES. 300
ness of a divine mission, the gift of a prophetic insight, in John was
But here who was not an Essene.
the real and all-important distinction between the two. also the same mistake is made ; and we not uncommonly find Banus described as an Essene. It is not too much to say however, that the whole tenor of Josephus’ narrative is opposed to this supposition’. He says that when sixteen years old he desired to acquire a know- ledge of the three sects of the Jews before making his choice of one; that accordingly he went through (διῆλθον) all the three at the cost of much rough discipline and toil ; that he was not satisfied with the experience thus gained, and hearing of this Banus he attached himself to him as his zealous disciple (ζηλωτὴς ἐγενόμην αὐτοῦ) ; that having remained three years with him he returned to Jerusalem ; and that then, being nineteen years old, he gave in his adhesion to the sect of the Pharisees. necting this Banus with the Essenes than with the Pharisees.
Thus there is no more reason for con- The only natural interpretation of the narrative is that he did not belong to any of the three sects, but represented a distinct type of religious life, of which Josephus was anxious to gain experience. And his hermit life seems to demand this solution, which the sequence of the narrative suggests.
Of John himself therefore no traits are handed down which General suggest that he was a member of the Essene community. He was an sare ascetic, and the Essenes were ascetics; but this is plainly an inade- quate basis for any such inference. Nor indeed is the relation of his asceticism to theirs a question of much moment for the matter in hand ; since this was the very point in which Christ’s mode of life was so essentially different from John’s as to provoke criticism and to point a contrast’. But the later history of his real or sup- posed disciples has, or may seem to have, some bearing on this
1 The passage is so important that I give it in full; Joseph. Vit. 2 περὶ ἑκκαίδεκα δὲ ἔτη γενόμενος ἐβουλήθην τῶν map ἡμῖν αἱρέσεων ἐμπειρίαν λαβεῖν. τρεῖς δ᾽ εἰσὶν αὗται: Φαρισαίων μὲν 7 πρώτη, καὶ Σαδδουκαίων ἡ δευτέρα, τρίτη δὲ ἡ ᾿Εσσηνῶν, καθὼς πολλάκις εἴπαμεν. οὕτως γὰρ φόμην αἱρήσεσθαι τὴν ἀρίστην, εἰ πάσας καταμάθοιμι. σκληραγωγήσας γοῦν ἐμαυτὸν καὶ πολλὰ πονηθεὶς τὰς τρεῖς διῆλθον. καὶ μηδὲ τὴν ἐντεῦθεν ἐμπει- ρίαν ἱκανὴν ἐμαυτῷ νομίσας εἶναι, πυθό- μενός τινα Βανοῦν ὄνομα κατὰ τὴν ἐρημίαν
διατρίβειν, ἐσθῆτι μὲν ἀπὸ δένδρων χρώ- μενον, τροφὴν δὲ τὴν αὐτομάτως φυομένην προσφερόμενον, ψυχρῷ δὲ ὕδατι τὴν ἡμέ- ραν καὶ τὴν νύκτα πολλάκις λουόμενον πρὸς ἁγνείαν, ζηλωτὴς ἐγενόμην αὐτοῦ. καὶ διατρίψας παρ᾽ αὐτῷ ἐνιαυτοὺς τρεῖς καὶ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν τελειώσας εἰς τὴν πόλιν ὑπέστρεφον. ἐννεακαίδεκα δ᾽ ἔτη ἔχων ἠρξάμην τε πολιτεύεσθαι τῇ Φαρισαίων αἱρέσει κατακολουθῶν κ.τ.λ.
2 Matt. ix. 14 sq., xi. 17 sq., Mark ii, 18 sq., Luke y. 33, Vil. 31 sq.
400
TheHeme- robaptists.
(a) Their relation to John the Baptist.
John’s dis- ciples at Ephesus.
THE ESSENES.
investigation. Towards the close of the first and the beginning of the second century we meet with a body of sectarians called in Greek Hemerobaptists', in Hebrew T'oble-shacharith*®, ‘day’ or ‘morning bathers.’ What were their relations to John the Baptist on the one hand, and to the Essenes on the other? Owing to the scantiness of our information the whole subject is wrapped in obscurity, and any restoration of their history must be more or less hypothetical ; but it will be possible at all events to suggest an account which is not improbable in itself, and which does no violence to the extant notices of the sect.
(2) We must not hastily conclude, when we meet with certain persons at Ephesus about the years A.D. 53, 54, who are described as ‘knowing only the baptism of John,’ or as having been ‘ baptized unto John’s baptism*,’ that we have here some early representatives of the Hemerobaptist sect. These were Christians, though imperfectly informed Christians. Of Apollos, who was more fully instructed by Of
the rest, who owed their fuller knowledge of the Gospel to St Paul,
Aquila and Priscilla, this is stated in the most explicit terms *.
the same appears to be implied, though the language is not free from ambiguity’, But these notices have an important bearing on our subject ; for they show how profoundly the effect of John’s preaching was felt in districts as remote ag proconsular Asia, even after a lapse
of a quarter of a century. With these disciples it was the initial
1 The word ἡμεροβαπτισταὶ is gene- rally taken to mean ‘ daily-bathers,’ and this meaning is suggested by Apost. Const. vi. 6 οἵτινες, καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν ἐὰν μὴ βαπτίσωνται, οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, ib. 23 ἀντὶ καθημερινοῦ ἕν μόνον δοὺς βάπτισμα, Epiphan. Haer. xvii. 1 (p. 37) εἰ μή τι ἄρα καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν βαπτίζοιτό τις ἐν ὕδατι. But, if the word is intended as a translation of Toble-shacharith ‘morning bathers,’ as it seems to be, it must signify rather ‘ day-bathers’ ; and this is more in accordance with the analogy of other compounds from ἡμέρα, aS ἡμερόβιος, ἡμεροδρόμος, ἡμερο- σκόπος, etc.
Josephus (B. J. ii. 8. 5) represents the Essenes as bathing, not at dawn, but at the fifth hour, just before their meal. This is hardly consistent either with the name of the Toble-shacharith,
or with the Talmudical anecdote of them quoted above, p. 367. Of Banus he reports (Vit. 2) that he ‘bathed often day and night in cold water.’
2 See above, p. 366 sq.
3 The former expression is used of Apollos, Acts xviii. 24; the latter of ‘certain disciples,’ Acts xix. 1.
4 This appears from the whole nar- rative, but is distinctly stated in ver. 25, as correctly read, ἐδίδασκεν ἀκριβῶς τὰ περὶ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, not τοῦ κυρίου as in the received text.
5 The πιστεύσαντες in xix. 1 is slightly ambiguous, and some expressions in the passage might suggest the oppo- site: but μαθητὰς seems decisive, for the word would not be used absolutely except of Christian disciples; comp. vi. 1, 2, 7, 1X. 10, 19, 26, 38, and fre. quently.
THE ESSENES. 401
impulse towards Christianity ; but to others it represented a widely The Gospel of St John was Professed
followers at a later
the first century. Again and again the Evangelist impresses on his 4@te-
different form of belief and practice. written, according to all tradition, at Ephesus in the later years of
readers, either directly by his own comments or indirectly by the course of the narrative, the transient and subordinate character of John’s ministry. He was not the light, says the Evangelist, but came to bear witness of the light’. He was not the sun in the he was only the waning lamp, which shines when kindled His light might well gladden the Jews while it lasted, but this was only ‘for a season “ἢ
heavens : from without and burns itself away in shining.
John himself lost no opportunity of bearing his testimony to the loftier claims of Jesus*. From such notices it is plain that in the interval between the preaching of St Paul and the Gospel of St John the memory of the Baptist at Ephesus had assumed a new attitude towards Christianity. His name is no longer the sign of imperfect appreciation, but the watchword of direct antagonism. In other
words, this Gospel indicates the spread of Hemerobaptist principles,
John had been set up as a rival Messiah to Jesus.
if not the presence of a Hemerobaptist community, in proconsular
Asia, when it was written. In two respects these Hemerobaptists
distorted the facts of history. They perverted John’s teaching, and ae facts
of history
they misrepresented his office. His baptism was no more a single ἘΣ ἢ
rite, once performed and initiating an amendment of life; it was a Py them.
daily recurrence atoning for sin and sanctifying the person*, He
1 John i. 8.
2 John y. 35 ἐκεῖνος ἣν ὁ λύχνος ὁ καιόμενος καὶ φαίνων κιτ.λ. The word καίειν is not only ‘to burn’, but not unfrequently also ‘to kindle, to set on fire’, as e.g. Xen. Anab. iv. 4. 12 οἱ ἄλλοι ἀναστάντες πῦρ ἔκαιον; so that ὁ καιόμενος May mean either ‘which burns away’ or ‘which is lighted’. With the former meaning it would de- note the transitoriness, with the latter the derivative character, of John’s ministry. There seems no reason for excluding either idea here. Thus the whole expression would mean ‘the lamp which is kindled and burns away, and (only so) gives light’. For an ex- ample of two verbs or participles joined together, where the second describes a
COL.
result conditional upon the first, see 1 Pet. ii. 20 εἰ ἁμαρτάνοντες καὶ κολα- φιζόμενοι ὑπομενεῖτε...εἰ ἀγαθοποιοῦντες καὶ πάσχοντες ὑπομενεῖτε, τ Thess. iv. 1 πῶς δεῖ περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀρέσκειν Θεῷ.
3 See John i. 15—34, ill, 23—30, ν 6%} 56:: Com, 25 Zain ΤΣ dove aspect of St John’s Gospel has been brought out by Ewald Jahrb. der Bibl. Wissensch. II. p. 156 Sq.3 see also Geschichte vil. Ὁ. 152 84., die Johan- neischen Schriften Ὁ. 13. There is perhaps an allusion to these ‘disciples of John’ in 1 Joh, v. 6 οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, GAN ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐν τῷ αἵματι" καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα κ.τ.λ.; comp. Acts i. 5, ΧΙ τοι ΣΥΧ, 7:
4 Apost. Const. vi. 6; See p. 400, note 1.
comp. § 23.
26
402
Spread of Hemero- baptist principles.
A wrong
use made of John’s name.
THE ESSENES.
himself was no longer the forerunner of the Messiah; he was the In the latter half of the first century, it would seem, there was a great movement among large numbers of the
very Messiah’.
Jews in favour of frequent baptism, as the one purificatory rite essential to salvation. Of this superstition we have had an instance already in the anchorite Banus to whom Josephus attached himself as a disciple. Its presence in the western districts of Asia Minor is shown by a Sibylline poem, dating about a.p. 80, which I have already had occasion to quote*. Some years earlier these sectarians are mentioned by name as opposing James the Lord’s brother and the Twelve at Jerusalem *.
their existence as a sect in Palestine during the later years of the
Nor is there any reason for questioning
Apostolic age, though the source from which our information comes is legendary, and the story itself a fabrication, But when or how they first connected themselves with the name of John the Baptist, and whether this assumption was made by all alike or only by one section of them, we do not know. Such a connexion, however false to history, was obvious and natural; nor would it be difficult to accumulate parallels to this false appropriation of an honoured name. Baptism was the fundamental article of their creed ; and John was the Baptist of world-wide fame. Nothing more than this was From St John’s Gospel
it seems clear that this appropriation was already contemplated,
needed for the choice of an eponym.
if not completed, at Ephesus before the first century had drawn to a close. In the second century the assumption is recognised as a characteristic of these Hemerobaptists, or Baptists, as they are
once called*, alike by those who allow and those who deny its
1 Clem. Recogn. i. 54 ‘ex discipulis Galatians pp. 330, 367). Hegesippus
Johannis, qui...magistrum suum veluti Christum praedicarunt,’ ib. § 60 ‘Hicce unus ex discipulis Johannis adfirmabat Christum Johannem fuisse, et non Je- sum; in tantum, inquit, ut et ipse Jesus omnibus hominibus et prophetis Majorem esse pronuntiaverit Johan- nem ete.’; see also § 63.
2 See above, p. 94.
3 Clem. Recogn. 1. 6. This portion of the Clementine Recognitions is ap- parently taken from an older Judaizing romance, the Ascents of James (see
also (in Euseb. H. ΕἸ. iv. 22) mentions the Hemerobaptists in his list of Jewish sects; and it is not improbable that this list was given as an introduction to his account of the labours and mar- tyrdom of St James (see Euseb. H. ΕἸ. ii. 23). Τῇ so, it was probably derived from the same source as the notice in the Recognitions.
4 They are called Baptists by Justin Mart. Dial. το, p. 3074. He mentions them among other Jewish sects, with- out however alluding to John.
THE ESSENES.
justice’. Even in our age the name of ‘John’s disciples’ has been given, though wrongly given, to an obscure sect in Babylonia, the Mandeans, whose doctrine and practice have some affinities to the older sect, and of whom perhaps they are the collateral, if not the
direct, descendants’.
403
(6) Of the connexion between this sect and John the Baptist (Ὁ) Their relation
we have been able to give a probable, though necessarily hypothe- tical account. the Essenes, we find ourselves entangled in a hopeless mesh of perplexities. The notices are so confused, the affinities so subtle, the ramifications so numerous, that it becomes a desperate task to distinguish and classify these abnormal Jewish and Judaizing heresies. One fact however seems clear that, whatever affinities they may have
to the
But when we attempt to determine its relation to Essenes.
had originally, and whatever relations they may have contracted They were
1 By the author of the Recognitions (Il. c.) who denies the claim; and by the author of the Homilies (see below, p. 404, note 3), who allows it.
2 These Mandeans are a rapidly di- minishing sect living in the region about the Tigris and the Euphrates, south of Bagdad. Our most exact knowledge of them is derived from Petermann (Herzog’s Real-Encyklo- pddie s. vv. Mendaer, Zabier, and Deutsche Zeitschrift 1854 p. 181 sq., 1856 Pp. 331 54.; 342 54., 363 54.; 386 54.) who has had personal intercourse with them; and from Chwolson (die Ssabier u. der Ssabismus 1. p. 100 54.) who has inyestigated the Arabie autho- rities for their earlier history. The names by which they are known are (1) Mendeans, or more properly Man- deans, S131) Mandayé, contracted from 87 N13 Manda déchayé ‘the word of life.’ This is their own name among themselves, and points to their Gnostic pretentions. (2) Sabeans, Tsa- biyun, possibly from the root YA¥ ‘to dip’ on account of their frequent lus- trations (Chwolson 1. p. r10; but see Galatians p. 325), though this is not the derivation of the word which they themselves adopt, and other ety- mologies have found favour with some recent writers (see Petermann Herzog’s Real-Encykl. Suppl. xvit. p. 342 5. Υ.
Zabier). This is the name by which they are known in the Koran and in Arabie writers, and by which they call themselves when speaking to others. (3) Nasoreans, NYS) Ndtsorayé. This term is at present confined to those among them who are dis- tinguished in knowledge or in business. (4) ‘Christians of St John, or Disci- ples of St John’ (i.e. the Baptist). This name is not known among them- selves, and was incorrectly given to them by European travellers and mis- sionaries, At the same time John the Baptist has a very prominent place in their theological system, as the one true prophet. On the other hand they are not Christians in any sense. These Mandeans, the true Sabeans, must not be confused with the false Sabeans, polytheists and _ star-wor- shippers, whose locality is Northern Mesopotamia. Chwolson (1. p. 139 sq.) has shown that these last adopted the name in the gth century to escape persecution from the Mohammedans, because in the Koran the Sabeans, as monotheists, are ranged with the Jews and Christians, and viewed in a more favourable light than polytheists. The name however has generally been ap- plied in modern times to the false rather than to the true Sabeans.
22
at first
404
distinct, if notanta- gonistic.
But after the de- struction of the Temple
THE ESSENES.
afterwards with one another, the Hemerobaptists, properly speaking, were not Essenes. The Sibylline poem which may be regarded as in some respects a Hemerobaptist manifesto contains, as we saw, many traits inconsistent with pure Essenism’. In two several accounts, the memoirs of Hegesippus and the Apostolic Constitutions, the Hemerobaptists are expressly distinguished from the Essenes*, In an early production of Judaic Christianity, whose Judaism has a strong Essene tinge, the Clementine Homilies, they and their eponym are condemned in the strongest language. The system of syzygies, or pairs of opposites, is a favourite doctrine of this work, and in these John stands contrasted to Jesus, as Simon Magus to Simon Peter, as the false to the true; for according to this author’s philosophy of history the manifestation of the false always precedes the mani- festation of the true*. And again, Epiphanius speaks of them as agreeing substantially in their doctrines, not with the Essenes, but with the Scribes and Pharisees*, His authority on such a point may be worth very little ; but connected with other notices, it should not be passed over in silence. Yet, whatever may have been their differences, the Hemerobaptists and the Essenes had one point of direct contact, their belief in the moral efficacy of lustrations. When the temple and polity were destroyed, the shock vibrated through the whole fabric of Judaism, loosening and breaking up existing societies, and preparing the way for new combinations. More es- pecially the cessation of the sacrificial rites must have produced a profound effect equally on those who, like the Essenes, had con-
demned them already, and on those who, as possibly was the case
1 See p. 94 sq. point in this writer’s theory, that in
2 Hegesipp. in Euseb. Η. ΕἸ. iv. 22, Apost. Const. vi. 6. So also the Pseudo-Hieronymus in the Indiculus de Haeresibus (Corp. Haeres. 1. p. 283, ed. Oehler).
3 Clem. Hom. Ul. 23 ᾿Ιωάννης tes ἐγένετο ἡμεροβαπτιστής, ὃς Kal τοῦ κυ- ρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ κατὰ τὸν τῆς συζυγίας λόγον ἐγένετο πρόοδος. It is then stated that, as Christ had twelve lead- ing disciples, so John had thirty. This, it is argued, was a providential dispensation—the one number repre- sents the solar, the other the lunar period; and so they illustrate another
the syzygies the true and the false are the male and female principle respect- ively. Among these 30 disciples he places Simon Magus. With this the doctrine of the Mandeans stands in direct opposition. They too have their syzygies, but John with them repre- sents the true principle.
4 Haer, xvii. τ (p. 37) toa τῶν ypap- ματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων φρονοῦσα. But he adds that they resemble the Sad- ducees ‘not only in the matter of the resurrection of the dead, but also in their unbelief and in the other points.’
THE ESSENES. 405
with the Hemerobaptists, had hitherto remained true to the orthodox ritual. One grave obstacle to friendly overtures was thus removed ; and a fusion, more or less complete, may have been the consequence. At all events the relations of the Jewish sects must have been there may materially affected by this great national crisis, as indeed we know to ara have been the case.
In the confusion which follows, it is impossible to attain any clear view of their history. At the beginning of the second century however this pseudo-baptist movement received a fresh impulse from the pretended revelation of Elchasai, which came from the farther East’.
the history of those Jewish and Judaizing sects whose proper home
Henceforth Elchasai is the prominent name in
is east of the Jordan’, and who appear to have reproduced, with various modifications derived from Christian and Heathen sources, the Gnostic theology and the pseudo-baptist ritual of their Essene predecessors. It is still preserved in the records of the only extant people who have any claim to be regarded as the religious heirs of the Essenes. Elchasai is regarded as the founder of the sect of Mandeans*.
(i) But, if great weight has been attached to the supposed (ii) James connexion of John the Baptist with the Essenes, the case of James the ἐπ ΠΡΈΠΩΝ Here, it is said, we have an indisputable Essene connected by the closest
Lord’s brother has been alleged with still more confidence.
family ties with the Founder of Christianity. James is reported to invested
have been holy from his birth; to have drunk no wine nor strong van ΤῊΝ
drink ; to have eaten no flesh ; to have allowed no razor to touch his aa ; : Σ : : 5. head, no oil to anoint his body; to have abstained from using the :
Here we have a description of Nazarite practices at least and (must it not
bath; and lastly to have worn no wool, but only fine linen*.
be granted) of Essene tendencies also. But what is our authority for this description? The writer, from whom the account is immediately taken, is the Jewish-Christian his-
1 See Galatians Ὁ. 324 sq. on this ples, the male and female. This no-
Book of Elchasai.
2 See above, p. 372.
3 See Chwolson 1. p. 112 sq., I. Ῥ. 5438q. TheArabic writer En-Nedim, who lived towards the close of the tenth century, says that the founder of the Sabeans (i.e. Mandeans) was
El-chasaich ( - \) who taught
the doctrine of two coordinate princi-
tice, as far as it goes, agrees with the account of Elchasai or Elxai in Hip- polytus (Haer. ix. 13 sq.) and Epipha- nius (Haer. xix. 1 sq.). But the deri- vation of the name Elchasai given by Epiphanius (Haer. xix. 2) δύναμις κεκα- λυμμένη (°DD 25M) is different and pro- bably correct (see Galatians p. 325).
4 Hegesippus in Euseb. H. E. ii. 23.
406
But the account comes from untrust- worthy sources.
No Essene features in the true portraits of James or of the earliest disciples.
THE ESSENES.
He cannot there- And
his whole narrative betrays its legendary character. Thus his account
torian Hegesippus, who flourished about A.D. 170. fore have been an eye-witness of the facts which he relates.
of James’s death, which follows immediately on this description, is highly improbable and melodramatic in itself, and directly con- tradicts the contemporary notice of Josephus in its main facts’. From whatever source therefore Hegesippus may have derived his information, it is wholly untrustworthy. Nor can we doubt that he was indebted to one of those romances with which the Judaizing Christians of Essene tendencies loved to gratify the natural curiosity of In like manner Essene portraits are elsewhere preserved of the Apostles Peter®
their disciples respecting the first founders of the Church’.
and Matthew* which represent them as living on a spare diet of herbs and berries. I believe also that I have elsewhere pointed out the true source of this description in Hegesippus, and that it is taken from the ‘Ascents of James’, a Judeo-Christian work stamped, as we happen to know, with the most distinctive Essene features’. But if we turn from these religious novels of Judaic Christianity to earlier and more trustworthy sources of information—to the Gospels or the Acts or the Epistles of St Paul—we fail to discover the faintest traces of Essenism in James. ‘The historical James,’ says a recent writer, ‘shows Pharisaic but not Essene sympathies ’.’ This is true of James, as it is true of the early disciples in the mother Church of Jerusalem generally. The temple-ritual, the daily sacrifices, suggested no scruples to them, The only distinction of meats, which they recognised, was the distinction of animals clean and unclean as The only sacrificial victims, which
They took their part in
laid down by the Mosaic law. they abhorred, were victims offered to idols. the religious offices, and mixed freely in the common life, of their fellow-Israelites, distinguished from them only in this, that to their Hebrew inheritance they superadded the knowledge of a higher truth
1 See Galatians p. 366 sq.
2 See Galatians p. 324.
3 Clem. Hom. xii. 6, where St Peter is made to say ἄρτῳ μόνῳ καὶ ἐλαίαις χρῶμαι, καὶ σπανίως Aaxdvos; comp. Xv. 7 ὕδατος μόνου καὶ ἄρτου.
4 Clem. Alex. Paedag. ii. τ (p. 174) σπερμάτων καὶ ἀκροδρύων καὶ λαχάνων ἄνευ κρεῶν μετελάμβανεν.
> See Galatians p. 367, note.
6 Epiphanius (Haer. xxx. 16) men- tions two points especially, in which the character of this work is shown: (1) It represented James as condemn- ing the sacrifices and the fire on the altar (see above, pp. 371—373): (2) It published the most unfounded calum- nies against St Paul.
7 Lipsius, Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexicon,
p- 191.
THE ESSENES. 407
and the joy of a better hope. It was altogether within the sphere of orthodox Judaism that the Jewish element in the Christian brother- hood found its scope. Essene peculiarities are the objects neither of sympathy nor of antipathy. In the history of the infant Church for the first quarter of a century Essenism is as though it were not.
But a time came, when all this was changed. Even as early as the Essene influences cs γεν, visible be- Christian community of the metropolis, which may possibly have been fore the
due to Essene influences’. Five or six years later, the heretical Ae es teaching which threatened the integrity of the Gospel at Colosse Stolic age. shows that this type of Judaism was already strong enough within
the Church to exert a dangerous influence on its doctrinal purity.
Then came the great convulsion—the overthrow of the Jewish polity
and nation. This was the turning-point in the relations between Essenism and Christianity, at least in Palestine. The Essenes were Conse. extreme sufferers in the Roman war of extermination. It seems eee probable that their organization was entirely broken up. Thus cast war. adrift, they were free to enter into other combinations, while the
shock of the recent catastrophe would naturally turn their thoughts
into new channels. At the same time the nearer proximity of the Christians, who had migrated to Persea during the war, would bring
them into close contact with the new faith and subject them to its influences, as they had never been subjected before*. But, whatever
may be the explanation, the fact seems certain, that after the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem the Christian body was largely reinforced from their
ranks. The Judaizing tendencies among the Hebrew Christians, which
hitherto had been wholly Pharisaic, are henceforth largely Essene.
2. If then history fails to reveal any such external connexion 2, Do the
with Essenism in Christ and His Apostles as to justify the opinion Beene, that Essene influences contributed largely to the characteristic features roles 168 of the Gospel, such a view, if tenable at all, must find its support in a con- some striking coincidence between the doctrines and practices of the nexion? Essenes and those which its Founder stamped upon Christianity, This indeed is the really important point ; for without it the external connexion, even if proved, would be valueless. The question is not whether Christianity arose amid such and such circumstances, but how far it was created and moulded by those circumstances,
1 Rom. xiv. 2, 21. 2 See Galatians p. 322 Sq.
year 58, when St Paul wrote to the Romans, we detect practices in the
408
(i) Observ- ance of the sabbath.
THE ESSENES.
(i) Now one point which especially strikes us in the Jewish historian’s account of the Essenes, is their strict observance of
certain points in the Mosaic ceremonial law, more especially the ultra-Pharisaic rigour with which they kept the sabbath. How far their conduct in this respect was consistent with the teaching and practice of Christ may be seen from the passages quoted in the
parallel columns which follow :
‘Jesus went on the sabbath-day through the corn fields; and his disci- ples began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat1. ...But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, ‘Behold, thy disciples do that which it is not lawful to do upon the sabbath-day. But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did...The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is Lord even of the sabbath-day...’
‘Tt is lawful to do well on the sab- bath-days’ (Matt. xii. r—12; Mark ii. 23—i1i. 6; Luke vi. 1—11, xiv. 1—6.
1 Gratz (I. p. 233) considers this narrative an interpolation made from a Pauline point of view (‘eine pau- linistische Tendenz -interpolation’), This theory of interpolation, inter- posing wherever the evidence is unfa- yourable, cuts up all argument by the roots. In this instance however Gritz is consistently carrying out a princi- ple which he broadly lays down else- where. He regards it as the great merit of Baur and his school, that they explained the origin of the Gos- pels by the conflict of two opposing camps, the Ebionite and the Pauline. ‘By this master-key,’ he adds, ‘ criti- cism was first put in a position to test what is historical in the Gospels, and what bears the stamp of a polemical tendency (was einen tendentidsen po- lemischen Charakter hat). Indeed by this means the element of trust- worthy history in the Gospels melts down to a minimum’ (11. p. 224). In other words the judgment is not to be pronounced upon the evidence, but
‘And they avoid...touching any work (ἐφάπτεσθαι ἔργων) on the sabbath-day more scrupulously than any of the Jews (διαφορώτατα ᾿Ιουδαίων ἁπάντων); for
the evidence must be mutilated to suit the judgment. The method is not new. The sectarians of the second century, whether Judaic or anti-Judaic, had severally their ‘master-key.’ The master-key of Marcion was a conflict also—the antagonism of the Old and New Testaments. Under his hands the historical element in the New Tes- tament dissolved rapidly. The mas- ter-key of the anti-Marcionite writer of the Clementine Homilies was like- wise a conflict, though of another kind—the conflict of fire and water, of the sacrificial and the baptismal sys- tems. Wherever sacrifice was men- tioned with approval, there was a ‘Tendenz-interpolation’ (see above, p- 370 8q.). In this manner again the genuine element in the Old Testament melted down to a minimum.
2 Gritz however (111. p. 228) sees a coincidence between Christ’s teaching and Hssenism in this notice. Not to do him injustice, I will translate his own words (correcting however several
THE ESSENES.
See also a similar incident in Luke xiii, 1o—17).
‘The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured ; It is the sabbath-day; it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. But he answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed and walk.... Therefore the Jews did persecute Jesus and sought to slay him, because he did these things on the sabbath-day. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work, ete. (John vy. 1o—18; comp. vil. 22, 23).’
‘And it was the sabbath-day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his ΘΥΘ68....... Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, be- cause he keepeth not the sabbath-day (John ix, 14, 16).’
they do not venture so much as to move a vessel*, nor to perform the most ne- cessary offices of life (B. J. ii. 8. 9).’
409
(ἃ) But there were other points of ceremonial observance, in (ii) Lus- which the Essenes superadded to the law. Of these the most re-
markable was their practice of constant lustrations.
In this respect
trations and other ceremo- nial ob-
the Pharisee was sufficiently minute and scrupulous in his obser- gervances. vances ; but with the Essene these ablutions were the predominant
feature of his religious ritual.
Here again it will be instructive
to compare the practice of Christ and His disciples with the practice
of the Essenes.
‘And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled (that is to say, unwashen) hands; for the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft (πυγμῇ), eat not...The Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples ac- cording to the tradition of the elders
misprints in the Greek): ‘For the con- nexion of Jesus with the Essenes com- pare moreover Mark xi. 16 καὶ οὐκ ἤφιεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἵνα τις διενέγκῃ σκεῦος διὰ τοῦ ἱεροῦ with Josephus B.J. ii. 8. g ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ σκεῦός Te μετακινῆσαι θαρροῦσιν (οἱ *Eocato).’ He does not explain what this notice, which refers solely to the scrupulous observance of the sabbath, has to do with the profanation of the temple, with which the passage in the
‘So they wash their whole body (ἀπολούονται τὸ σῶμα) in cold water; and after this purification (ἁγνείαν)... being clean (καθαροί) they come to the refectory (to dine)...... And when they have returned (from their day’s work) they sup in like manner (B. J. ii. Sern) ee
Gospel is alone concerned. I have seen Gritz’s history described as a ‘masterly’ work. The first requisites in a historian are accuracy in stating facts and sobriety in drawing infer- ences. Without these, it is difficult to see what claims a history can have to this honourable epithet: and in those portions of his work, which I have consulted, I have not found either.
410
Avoid- ance of strangers.
THE ESSENES.
sorte But he answered...Ye hypocrites, laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men....’
‘Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth the man...... Let them alone, they be blind leaders of the blind...’
‘To eat with unwashen hands de- fileth not the man (Matt. xv. 1—20, Mark vii. t—23).’
‘And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner (τοῦ ἀρίστου. And the Lord said unto him: Now do ye Pha- risees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter... Ye fools...behold all things are clean unto you (Luke xi, 38—41).’
‘After a year’s probation (the novice) is admitted to closer intercourse (mpoo- evow ἔγγιον τῇ διαίτῃ), and the lustral waters in which he participates have a higher degree of purity (kal καθαρωτέ- ρων τῶν πρὸς dyvelay ὑδάτων μεταλαμ-
βάνει, § 7).’
‘It is a custom to wash after it, as if polluted by it (8 g).’
‘Racked and dislocated, burnt and crushed, and subjected to every in- strument of torture ...to make them eat strange food {τι τῶν ἀσυνήθων).., they were not induced to submit (8 10).’
‘Exercising themselves in.,.divers lustrations (διαφόροις dyvelas...éumat- δοτριβούμενοι, § 12).
Connected with this idea of external purity is the avoidance of
contact with strangers, as persons who would communicate cere-
monial defilement. the Pharisee.
And here too the Essene went much beyond The Pharisee avoided Gentiles or aliens, or those
whose profession or character placed them in the category of ‘sinners’; but the Essene shrunk even from the probationers and inferior grades of his own exclusive community. Here again we may profitably compare the sayings and doings of Christ with the
principles of this sect.
‘And when the scribes and Phari- sees saw him eat with the publicans and sinners they said unto the disci- ples, Why eateth your Master with the publicans and the sinners...’ (Mark ii. 15 sq., Matth. ix. το sq., Luke v. 30 Sq.).
‘They say...a friend of publicans and sinners (Matth. xi. 19).’
‘The Pharisees and the scribes mur- mured, saying, This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them (Luke xv. 2).
‘They all murmured saying that he was gone to be a guest with a man that is a sinner (Luke xix. 7).’
‘And after this purification they assemble in a private room, where no person of a different belief (τῶν érepo- δόξων, i.e, not an Essene) is permitted to enter ; and (so) being by themselves and clean (αὐτοὶ καθαροί) they present themselves at the refectory (δειπνητή- pov), as if it were a sacred precinct
(§ 5).
THE ESSENES.
‘Behold, a woman in the city that was ἃ sinner...began to wash his feet with her tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head and kissed his feet...... Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he had been a prophet, would have
‘And they are divided into four grades according to the time passed under the discipline: and the juniors are regarded as so far inferior to the seniors, that, if they touch them, the latter wash their bodies clean (ἀπο- λούεσθαι), as if they had come in con- tact with a foreigner (καθάπερ ἀλλο-
known who and what manner of wo- man this is that toucheth him; for she is a sinner (Luke vii. 37 sq.).’
φύλῳ συμφυρέντας, ὃ I0).”
In all these minute scruples relating to ceremonial observances, the denunciations which are hurled against the Pharisees in the Gospels would apply with tenfold force to the Essenes.
411
(ii) If the lustrations of the Essenes far outstripped the en- (iii) Ae- actments of the Mosaic law, so also did their asceticism. I have ¢¢ticism.
given reasons above for believing that this asceticism was founded on a false principle, which postulates the malignity of matter and is wholly inconsistent with the teaching of the Gospel’. But without pressing this point, of which no absolutely demonstrative proof can be given, it will be sufficient to call attention to the trenchant contrast in practice which Essene habits present to the life of Christ. He
who ‘came eating and drinking’ and was denounced in consequence Rating as ‘a glutton and a wine-bibber’,’ He whose first exercise of power * ue drink-
is recorded to have been the multiplication of wine at a festive enter- tainment, and whose last meal was attended with the drinking of wine and the eating of flesh, could only have excited the pity, if not the indignation, of these rigid abstainers. And again, attention should be directed to another kind of abstinence, where the contrast is all the more speaking, because the matter is so trivial and the
scruple so minute.
‘My head with oil thou didst not anoint (Luke vii. 46).’
‘Thou, when thou fastest, anoint thy head (Matt. vi. 17).’
‘And they consider oil a pollution (κηλῖδα), and though one is smeared involuntarily, he rubs his body clean
(σμήχεται τὸ σῶμα, § 3).
And yet it has been stated that ‘the Saviour of the world...... showed what is required for a holy life in the Sermon on the Mount
by a description of the Essenes*/
But much stress has been laid on the celibacy of the Essenes ;
1 See above, p. 85.
2 Matt. xi. 19, Luke vii. 34.
3 Ginsburg Essenes p. 14.
412 Celibacy.
(iv) Avoid- ance of the Temple sacrifices.
THE ESSENES.
and our Lord’s saying in Matt. xix. 12 is quoted to establish an identity of doctrine. Yet there is nothing special in the language there used. Nor is there any close affinity between the stern invectives against marriage which Josephus and Philo attribute to the Essene, and the gentle concession ‘He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.’ The best comment on our Lord’s meaning here is the advice of St Paul', who was educated not in the Essene, but in the Pharisaic school. Moreover this saying must be balanced by the general tenour of the Gospel narrative. When we find Christ discussing the relations of man and wife, gracing the marriage festival by His presence, again and again employing wedding ban- quets and wedded life as apt symbols of the highest theological truths, without a word of disparagement or rebuke, we see plainly that we are confronted with a spirit very different from the narrow rigour of the Essenes.
(iv) But not only where the Essenes superadded to the cere- monial law, does their teaching present a direct contrast to the pheno- mena of the Gospel narrative. The same is true also of those points in which they fell short of the Mosaic enactments. I have already discussed at some length the Essene abstention from the temple
sacrifices’, There can, I think, be little doubt that they objected το.
the slaughter of sacrificial victims altogether. But for my present purpose it matters nothing whether they avoided the temple on account of the sacrifices, or the sacrifices on account of the temple. Christ did neither. Certainly He could not have regarded the temple as unholy ; for His whole time during His sojourns at Jeru- salem was spent within its precincts. It was the scene of His miracles, of His ministrations, of His daily teaching*. And in like manner it is the common rendezvous of His disciples after Him’. Nor again does He evince any abhorrence of the sacrifices. On the contrary He says that the altar consecrates the gifts®; He charges the cleansed lepers to go and fulfil the Mosaic ordinance and offer the sacrificial offerings to the priests®. And His practice also is
11 Cor. vil. 26—31. John ii. 14 8q., V. 14, Vil. 14, Vill. 2, 2 See p. 369 sq. 20, 59, X- 23, ΣΙ. 56, XVill. 20. 3 Matt. xxi. 12 sq., 23 Sq., XXIV. 1 56.» 4 Luke xxiv. 53, Acts ii. 46, iii. xxvi. 55, Mark xi. 11, 15 8Q., 27, X11, 8Q., V. 20 8q., 42. 35, xiii. 1 sq., xiv. 49, Luke ii. 46, xix. δ Matt. xxiii. 18 sq.: comp. v. 23, 24.
45, XX. I 8d., Xx. 37 8q., XXil. 53, 6 Matt. viii. 4, Marki. 44, Lukev. 14.
THE ESSENES. 413
conformable to His teaching. He comes to Jerusalem regularly to Practice attend the great festivals, where sacrifices formed the most striking coe ΕΙΣ part of the ceremonial, and He himself enjoins preparation to be ‘sciples. made for the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb. If He repeats the inspired warning of the older prophets, that mercy is better than sacrifice’, this very qualification shows approval of the practice in
itself. Nor is His silence less eloquent than His utterances or His actions. Throughout the Gospels there is not one word which can
be construed as condemning the sacrificial system or as implying a
desire for its cessation until everything is fulfilled.
(v) This last contrast refers to the ceremonial law. But not (v) Denial of the re- surrection resurrection of the body is a fundamental article in the belief of the of the
less wide is the divergence on an important point of doctrine. The
early disciples. This was distinctly denied by the Essenes’. How- ever gross and sensuous may have been the conceptions of the _ Pharisees on this point, still they so far agreed with the teaching of Christianity, as against the Essenes, in that the risen man could not, as they held, be pure soul or spirit, but must necessarily be body and soul conjoint. Thus at whatever point we test the teaching and practice of our Some sup-
Lord by the characteristic tenets of Essenism, the theory of affinity ἀπ Ἐπὴν fails. There are indeed several coincidences on which much stress ¢on-
. : orc dered. has been laid, but they cannot be placed in the category of distinct- ae
ive features. They are either exemplifications of a higher morality, which may indeed have been honourably illustrated in the Essenes, but is in no sense confined to them, being the natural outgrowth of the moral sense of mankind whenever circumstances are favourable. Or they are more special, but still independent developments, which owe their similarity to the same influences of climate and soil, though they do not spring from the same root. To this latter class belong such manifestations as are due to the social conditions of the age or nation, whether they result from sympathy with, or from repulsion to, those conditions.
Thus, for instance, much stress has been laid on the aversion to Simplicity war and warlike pursuits, on the simplicity of living, and on the yeas feeling of brotherhood which distinguished Christians and Essenes love. alike. But what is gained by all this? It is quite plain that
1 Matt. ix. 13, xi. 7. 2 See above, p. 86.
414
Prohi- bition of oaths.
Commu- nity of goods.
THE ESSENES.
Christ would have approved whatever was pure and lovely in the morality of the Essenes, just as He approved whatever was true in the doctrine of the Pharisees, if any occasion had presented itself when His approval was called for. But it is the merest assumption to postulate direct obligation on such grounds. It is said however, There is
for instance Christ’s precept ‘Swear not at all...but let your commu-
that the moral resemblances are more particular than this, nication be Yea, yea, Nay, nay.’ Have we not here, it is urged, Yet it would surely be quite as reasonable to say that both alike enforce that
the very counterpart to the Essene prohibition of oaths’?
simplicity and truthfulness in conversation which is its own credential and does not require the support of adjuration, both having the same reason for laying stress on this duty, because the leaders of religious opinion made artificial distinctions between oath and oath, as regards their binding force, and thus sapped the foundations of public and private honesty *. And indeed this avoidance of oaths is anything but a special badge of the Essenes. It was inculeated by Pytha- goreans, by Stoics, by philosophers and moralists of all schools’. When Josephus and Philo called the attention of Greeks and Romans to this feature in the Essenes, they were simply asking them to admire in these practical philosophers among the ‘barbarians’ the realisation of an ideal which their own great men had laid down. Even within the circles of Pharisaism language is occasionally heard, which meets the Essene principle half-way *.
And again ; attention has been called to the community of goods
‘in the infant Church of Christ, as though this were a legacy of Es-
senism. But here too the reasonable explanation is, that we have
1 Jos. B. J. ii. 8. 6 πᾶν τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἰσχυρότερον ὅρκου" τὸ δὲ ὀμνύειν αὐτοῖς περιΐσταται, χεῖρόν τι τῆς ἐπιορκίας ὑπολαμβάνοντες: ἤδη γὰρ κατεγνῶσθαί φασι τὸν ἀπιστούμενον δίχα Θεοῦ, Philo Omn. prob. lib. 12 (τι. p. 458) τοῦ φι- λοθέου δείγματα παρέχονται pupla...7d ἀνώμοτον κιτ.λ. Accordingly Josephus relates (Ant. xv. 10. 4) that Herod the Great excused the Essenes from taking the oath of allegiance to him. Yet they were not altogether true to their principles ; for Josephus says (B. J. ii. 8. 7), that on initiation into the sect the members were bound by fearful oaths (ὅρκους φρικώδει5) to fulfil certain
conditions; and he twice again in the same passage mentions oaths (ὀμνύουσι, τοιούτοις ὅρκοιϑ) in this connexion.
3 On the distinctions which the Jewish doctors made between the va- lidity of different kinds of oaths, see the passages quoted in Lightfoot and Schottgen on Matt. v. 33 sq. The Tal- mudical tract Shebhuoth tells its own tale, and is the best comment on the precepts in the Sermon on the Mount.
3 See e.g. the passages in Wetstein on Matt. v. 37.
4 Baba Metsia 49 a. See also Light- foot on Matt. v. 34.
THE ESSENES.
an independent attempt to realise the idea of brotherhood—an attempt which naturally suggested itself without any direct imitation, but which was soon abandoned under the pressure of circumstances. Indeed the communism of tbe Christians was from the first wholly unlike the communism of the Essenes. The surrender of property with the Christians was not a necessary condition of entrance into an order ; it was a purely voluntary act, which might be withheld without foregoing the privileges of the brotherhood’. And the com- mon life too was obviously different in kind, at once more free and more sociable, unfettered by rigid ordinances, respecting individual liberty, and altogether unlike a monastic rule.
415
Not less irrelevant is the stress, which has been laid on an- Prohi-
other point of supposed coincidence in the social doctrines of the two communities. The prohibition of slavery was indeed a highly honour- able feature in the Essene order’, but it affords no indication of a direct connexion with Christianity. It is true that this social insti- tution of antiquity was not less antagonistic to the spirit of the Gospel, than it was abhorrent to the feelings of the Essene ; and ulti- mately the influence of Christianity has triumphed over it. But the immediate treatment of the question was altogether different in the two cases, The Essene brothers proscribed slavery wholly ; they produced no appreciable results by the proscription. The Christian Apostles, without attempting an immediate and violent revolution in society, proclaimed the great principle that all men are equal in Christ, and left it to work. It did work, like leaven, silently but surely, till the whole lump was leavened. In the matter of slavery the resemblance to the Stoic is much closer than to the Essene*, The Stoic however began and ended in barren declamation, and no practical fruits were reaped from his doctrine.
bition of
slavery.
Moreover prominence has been given to the fact that riches are Respect
decried, and a preference is given to the poor, in the teaching of our Lord and His Apostles. Here again, it is urged, we have a dis- tinctly Essene feature. We need not stop to enquire with what limitations this prerogative of poverty, which appears in the Gospels, must be interpreted ; but, quite independently of this question, we may
1 Acts v. 4. p. 632 οὐκ ἀνδράποδον, Jos. Ant. xviii. 2 Philo Omn. prob. lib. ὃ 12 (U. p. 1. 5 οὔτε δούλων ἐπιτηδεύουσι κτῆσιν. 458) δοῦλός τε παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς οὐδὲ εἷς ἐστιν 3 See for instance the passages from
ἀλλ᾽ ἐλεύθεροι πάντες κ.τ.λ., Fragm. τι. Seneca quoted in Philippians p. 307.
paid to poverty.
416
The preaching of the Kingdom wrongly ascribed to the Hissenes,
The Es- senes not prophets, but for- tune-tell- ers.
THE ESSENES.
fairly decline to lay any stress on such a coincidence, where all other indications of a direct connexion have failed. The Essenes, pursuing a simple and ascetic life, made it their chief aim to reduce their material wants as far as possible, and in doing so they necessarily exalted poverty. Ascetic philosophers in Greece and Rome had done the same. Christianity was entrusted with the mission of proclaiming the equal rights of all men before God, of setting a truer standard of human worth than the outward conventions of the world, of protest- ing against the tyranny of the strong and the luxury of the rich, of redressing social inequalities, if not always by a present compen- sation, at least by a future hope. The needy and oppressed were the special charge of its preachers. It was the characteristic feature of the ‘Kingdom of Heaven,’ as described by the prophet whose words gave the keynote to the Messianic hopes of the nation, that the glad tidings should be preached to the poor’. The exaltation of poverty therefore was an absolute condition of the Gospel.
The mention of the kingdom of heaven leads to the last point on which it will be necessary to touch before leaving this subject. ‘The whole ascetic life of the Essenes,’ it has been said, ‘aimed only Thus John the Baptist was the proper representative of this sect. ‘ From the Essenes went forth the first call that the Messiah must shortly
‘The announcement of
at furthering the Kingdom of Heaven and the Coming Age.’
appear, Zhe kingdom of heaven is at hand”. the kingdom of heaven unquestionably went forth from the Essenes’”*. For this confident assertion there is absolutely no foundation in fact ; and, as a conjectural hypothesis, the assumption is highly improbable.
As fortune-tellers or soothsayers, the Essenes might be called prophets; but as preachers of righteousness, as heralds of the king- dom, they had no claim to the title. Throughout the notices in Josephus and Philo we cannot trace the faintest indication of Mes- sianic hopes. Nor indeed was their position at all likely to foster
such hopes*. The Messianic idea was built on a belief in the resur-
1 Ts. Ixi. 1 εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς, quoted in Luke iv. 18. There are references to this particular part of the prophecy again in Matt. xi. 5, Luke vii. 22, and probably also in the beati- tude μακάριοι of πτωχοί x.7.d., Matt. v. 3, Luke vi. 20.
® Gritz Gesch. 11. Ῥ. 219.
3) τῷ. Ρ. 470.
4 Lipsius Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexikon s. v. Essier p. 190, Keim Jesus von Nazarat. p. 303. Both these writers ex- press themselves very decidedly against the view maintained by Gratz. ‘The Essene art of soothsaying,’ writes Lipsius, ‘has absolutely nothing to do
THE ESSENES. 417
rection of the body. The Essenes entirely denied this doctrine,
The Messianic idea was intimately bound up with the national hopes
and sufferings, with the national life, of the Jews. The Essenes had
no interest in the Jewish polity ; they separated themselves almost They had entirely from public affairs. The deliverance of the individual in the Lovie shipwreck of the whole, it has been well said, was the plain watch- reel word of Essenism’. How entirely the conception of a Messiah might
be obliterated, where Judaism was regarded only from the side of a
mystic philosophy, we see from the case of Philo. Throughout the
works of this voluminous writer only one or two faint and doubtful allusions to a personal Messiah are found*. The philosophical tenets
of the Essenes no doubt differed widely from those of Philo; but in
the substitution of the individual and contemplative aspect of reli-
gion for the national and practical they were united ; and the effect
in obscuring the Messianic idea would be the same. When there-
fore it is said that the prominence given to the proclamation of the Messiah’s kingdom is a main link which connects Essenism and Christianity, we may dismiss the statement as a mere hypothesis, unsupported by evidence and improbable in itself.
with the Messianic prophecy.’ ‘Ofall Gfrérer’s treatment of the subject, this,’ says Keim,’ ‘ there is no trace.’ Philot. p. 486 sq. The treatises which 1 Keim J. c. bear on this topic are the de Praemiis 2 How little can be made out of et Poenis (1. p. 408, ed. Mangey) and Philo’s Messianic utterances by one the de Execrationibus (1. p. 429). They who is anxious to make the most pos- deserve to be read, if only for the nega- sible out of them, may be seen from _ tive results which they yield.
col. 27
INDEX.
Abercius (Avircius), Bp. of Hierapolis, Ρ- 54, 66
Acts of the Apostles; passages ex- plained, p. 23 (xiii. 4, xvi. 6); p. 93 (xix. 13, 19); p. 302 (xiv. 11)
edificatorie, the sufferings of Christ as, 1. 24
Elfrie on the Epistle to Laodiceans, Ρ- 294
Alasanda or Alasadda, p. 388 sq.
Alexander of Tralles on charms, p. go
Alexander Polyhistor, p. 81, 391
Alexandria, a supposed Buddhist es- tablishment at, p. 388 sq.
Andrew, St, in Asia, p. 45
angelolatry condemned, p. 99, 101, 116, i. 16, ii. 10, 15, 18; forbidden by the Council of Laodicea, p. 65 sq.
angelology of Cerinthus, p. 108; of Essenism, p. 94; of the Jews, ii. 18
angels, orders of, i. 16
Anselm of Laon, p. 293
Antiochus the Great, colony of, in Asia Minor, p. 19
Antiochus Theos refounds Laodicea, Ρ. 5
aorist, epistolary, iv. 8, Ph. 11, 19, 213 contrasted with perfect, i. 16
Apamea, p. 19, 20; Jews at, p. 21
Apocalypse, correspondences with St Paul’s Epistles to Asia, 41 sq.
apocrypha, use of word, p. go, ii. 3
Apollinaris, see Claudius Apollinaris
Apollo Archegetes worshipped at Hie- rapolis, p. 12
Apostolic Fathers, Christology of, p. 122
Apostolic Writings, Christology of, p. 121
Apphia, wife of Philemon, p. 304; the name Phrygian, 304 sq.
Archippus, iv. 17; son of Philemon, 306; his office and abode, 307; re- buke to, 43
Arian heresy in Hierapolis and Lao- dicea, p. 62
Avian use of the expression ‘Firstborn of all creation,’ i, 15
Aristarchus, iv. 10
Aristion, p. 45
Aristotle, on slavery, p. 311; definition of ‘knowledge,’ ii. 3; of ‘wisdom,’ i.
Armagh, Book of, p. 278, 280, 284
article, omission of the definite, i. 4
asah, a supposed derivation of Essenes, Ρ- 351, 360
Ascents of James, p. 406
Asceticism among the Jewish sects, p. 85; among Colossian heretics, p. 102; Essenes, p. 406; a result of Gnostic- ism, p. 77
Aseis, a Laodicean title of Zeus, p. 8
Asia, meaning of, p. 19
Asia Minor, geography of, p. 1 sq.; list of writers on, p. 1; how divided under the Romans, p. 7; a modern hypothesis about Christianity in, p. 50 sq.
Asideans, p. 353
asya, a supposed derivation of Essene, Ρ- 350
Athanasius, on ‘Firstborn of all Crea- tion,’ i. 15
PGI -
<
420
Athens, slavery at, p. 318; a Buddhist burnt alive at, p. 392
Augustine, on ‘Firstborn of all Crea- tion,’ i. 15; on ‘wisdom and know- ledge,’ ii. 3
ἀγάπη, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ, 1. 13
ἅγιος, i. 2
ἀγών, ἀγωνία, ἀγωνίζεσθαι, i. 20, li. 1, iv. 12
ἀδελῴός (ὁ), i. 1
ἀθυμεῖν, lil. 21
αἰσχρολογία, 111. 8
ἀκαθαρσία, 111. 5
ἅλας, iv. 5
ἀλήθεια, ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 1. 5 ; ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, 1. 6
ἀλλά, in apodosis after εἰ, li. 5
ἄμωμος, i. 22
ἀναπαύεσθαι, Ph. 7
ἀναπληροῦν, i. 24
ἀνέγκλητος, i. 22
ἀνεψιός, iV. 10
ἀνήκειν, 111, 18; τὸ ἀνῆκον, Ph. 8
ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι, 1ἰϊ. 22
ἀνταναπληροῦν, 1. 24
ἀνταπόδοσις, lil. 24
ἀόρατος, i. 16
ἀπεκδύεσθαι, ii. 15
ἀπέκδυσις, ii, 11
ἀπέχειν, Ph. 15
ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι, 1. 21
ἀποθνήσκειν, li. 20
ἀποκαταλλάσσειν, i, 20, 21
ἀπόκρυφος, il. 3
ἀπολύτρωσις, 1. 14
ἀπόχρησις, ii. 22
ἅπτεσθαι, li, 21
ἀρέσκεια, 1. 10
ἀρχή, applied to Christ, p. 41; i. 16, 18
αὐξάνειν, 1. 6
αὐτὸς ἔστιν, i. 17
ἀφείδεια, li, 23
ἁφή, li. 19
ἀχειροποίητος, ii. It
axpnoros, Ph. 11
B (Cod. Vaticanus), excellence of, p.
245 Banaim, p. 367 sq.
INDEX.
Banus, p. 367, 398 84.
Bardesanes, on Buddhists, p. 391; his date, ib.
Barnabas, life of, iv. 10; epistle ascribed to, ib.
basilica, iv. 15
Basilides, p. 263
Baur, p. 75, 79, 316
Bene-hakkeneseth, p. 365
Brahminism, p. 391, 392
Buddhism, assumed influence on 1}8- senism, p. 388 sq.; supposed esta- blishment of, in Alexandria, p. 388; unknown in the West, p. 389 sq., four steps of, p. 393 sq.
Buddhist at Athens, p. 392
βάπτισμα, βαπτισμός, ii. 12
βάρβαρος, 111. rr
βλασφημία, 111. 8
βούλεσθαι, Ph. 13
βραβεύειν, iil, 15
Cabbala, see Kabbala
Cainites, p. 77
Calvin, ili. 8, p. 273, 316
Canonical writings and Papias, p. 50
Carpocratians, p. 77, 78
Cataphryges, p. 96
Cavensis, codex, p. 280
celibacy, p. 373, 374, 411 Sq.
Cerinthus, p. 105 sq.; Judaism of, p. 106; Gnosticism of, ib.; cosmogony of, p. 107; Christology of, p. tog sq.; pleroma of, p. 262
chaber, p. 362
Chagigah, on ceremonial purity, p. 363 54.
Chalcedon, council of, p. 62
chasha, chashaim, a derivation of Es- sene, p. 352
chesi, chasyo, a derivation of Essene, p- 351 8q.; connexion with chasid, p. 358
chasid, a false derlvation of Essene, p. 348 sq.
Chasidim, p. 353, 355 8q.; not a proper name for the Essenes, p. 356
chasin, chosin, a false derivation for Essene, p. 349
INDEX.
chaza, chazya, a derivation of Essene, Ῥ- 350 sq.
Chonos or Chone, p. 15, 69
Christ, the Person of, p. 34; St Paul’s doctrine about, p. 41, 113 sq., i. 15— 20, li. g—15; the Word Incarnate, Pp. 99, 100; the pleroma in Him, Ῥ: τοῦ, i. 19, li. g, 10; life in Him, the remedy against sin, p. 34, 118 sq.; His teaching and practice not Essene, p. 407 sq.
Christianity, not an outgrowth of Es- senism, p. 395 sq.; in relation to Epictetus, p. 13; to Gnosticism, p. 78; to slavery, p. 321 sq.
Christianity in Asia Minor, p. 50
Christianized Essenes, p. 87, 88,370 54.
Christians of St John, p. 403
Christology of Ep. to Col. p. 99, 120; of other Apostolic writings, p. 121; of succeeding ages, p. 122
Chronicon Paschale, p. 48, 59
Chrysostom, i. 13, 15, 111. 16, p. 272, Ph. 15,.p- 315
Cibotus, p. 21
Cibyratic convention, p. 7
circular letter—the Ep. to the Ephe- slans—p. 37
Claudius, embassy from Ceylon in the reign of, p. 393
Claudius Apollinaris, the name, p. 54 sq.; his works, p. 55 sq.
Clement of Alexandria, p. 77, 96, i. 9, 15, ll. 8, ili. 5, 16, p. 391 Sq.
Clement of Rome (§ 7) i. 3 ; (§ 58) i-115 (§ 33) i. 153 (Ep. il. 8 9), p. 102
Clementine Homilies, p. 370 sq., 373; 404
Clementine Recognitions, p. 402
Clermont, p. 3
collegia, iv. 15
Colosse, orthography of, p. 16, i. 2; situation, etc., p. 1 sq.; site, p. 13; ancient greatness and decline, p. 15; a Phrygian city, p. 18 sq.; Jewish colony at, p. 19; not visited by St Paul when the epistle was written, p- 23; Epaphras the evangelist of, p- 29; intended visit of Mark to, p.
421:
40; visit of St Paul to, p. 41; ob- scurity of, p. 67; a suffragan see of Laodicea, p. 67; Turkish conquest of, p. 69
Colossian heresy, nature of, p. 71 sq., 87, li. 8; writers upon, p. 72; had regard to the Person of Christ, p. 110; relation to Gnosticism, p. 96; St Paul’s answer to, p. 113 sq.
Colossians, Epistle to, p. 33; bearers of, p. 35; salutations in, ib.; charge respecting Laodicea, p. 36; written by an amanuensis, iv. 18; Christo- logy of, p. 120; style of, p. 123; analysis of, p. 124; various read- ings, see readings
colossinus, p. 4
community of goods, p. 414
Concord of the Laodiceans and Ephe- sians, etc., p. 31
congregation, the holy, at Jerusalem, p. 365
Constantine, legislation of, p. 325
Constantinople, Council of, p. 62
conventus, p. 7
Corinth, visit of St Paul to, during his residence at Ephesus, p. 30
Corinthians, First Epistle to; passages explained: (i. 19) 1- 0; (ii. 6, 7) i. 28; (Υ. 9) iv. 16; (vii. 21) p. 322 Βα.; (viii. 6) p. 120; (ix. 24) ii. 18; (xi. 7) 1.153 (xiii. 3) Ὁ. 392; (xiii. 12) 1.0; (xv. 24) i. 16
Corinthians, Second Epistle to; pas- sages explained: (i. 7) i. 24; (iii. 6) I. 12} (iv. 4) 1s τῷ; {ν- 14, 15) 1 20» (vi. τὴ 1. 6 ; (vi. 4, 6) i. 11; (viii. 9) i. 6; (ix. 12) ib.; (xiii. 5) i. 27
Cornelius a Lapide, p. 231, 274
Creation, Gnostic speculations about, p- 76 sq.; Essene do., p. 88
Cyril of Alexandria, p. 391
καθὼς καί, 1. 6, iil. τ
καὶ in both members of a comparison, i. 6
καὶ ὅσοι, il. 1
καινός and νέος, ii. 10
κακία, ili. 8
καρποφορεῖσθαι, 1. 6
422
καταβραβεύειν, li. 18
κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ, i. 22
κατοικεῖν, 1. 19
κενεμβατεύειν, li. 18
κεφαλή, i. 18
κληρονομία, iil. 24
κλῆρος, 1. 12
κλῆτός, lil. 12
κοινωνία, Ph. 6
κομίζειν, ili. 25
κοπιάν, i. 29
κοραζός, Ῥ. 4
κόσμος, il. 8
κρατεῖν, il. 19
κράτος, 1. ΤΙ
κρίνειν, il. 16
κτίσις, 1. 15
κύριος, 0, (Christ) i. το; (master), ili. 24
κυριότης, 1. 16
χαρακτήρ, 1. 18
χαρίζεσθαι, ii. 13, iii. 13, Ph. 22
χάρις, i. 2, (ἡ) 111. 16; ἡ χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ, 1. 6
χειρόγραφον, ii. 14
χρηστότης, iil. 12
Damascene: see John Damascene
Darmstadiensis Codex, p. 280
dative (of instrument), ii. 7, ili. τό; (of part affected), i. 4
Demas, p. 36, iv. 14, Ph. 24
Denizli, p. 7; earthquake at, p. 3
diocese, p. 7
Diognetus, Epistle to, i. 18
Dion Chrysostom, p. 79, 389
Diospolis, an old name of Laodicea,
Ρ. 5
Divinity of Christ, p. 99 54., 114 56.» rh, ot
Docete, use of pleroma by, p. 269
dualism, p. 76, 85, 385
dyes of Colosse and the neighbour- hood, p. 4
δειγματίζειν, li. 15
δέσμιος, Ph. 1, 10
δεσμός, Ph. 13
διά with gen., used of the Logos, p. 120, i. 16, 20
διακονία, διάκονος, 1V. 7, 17
INDEX.
διδάσκειν, i. 28
διοίκησις, Ῥ- 7
δόγμα, li. 14
δογματίζειν, ii. 20
δόξα, 1. II, 27
δοῦλος, Ph. 163; δοῦλος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, iv. 12
δύναμις, 1. τό
δυναμοῦν, i, 11
Earthquakes in the valley of the Ly- cus, p. 38
Ebionite Christology of Cerinthus, p. 108
Elchasai, founder of the Mandeans, p. 405
Elchasai, Book of, p. 373
elders, primitive, p. 366
Eleazar expels evil spirits, p. 89
English Church on the Epistle to Lao- dicea, p. 294
English versions of the Epistle to Lao- dicea, p. 295 84.
Epaphras, p. 34; evangelist of Co- loss, p. 29, 31; mission to St Paul, p- 32; iv. 12, Ph. 23
Epaphroditus, p. 34
Ephesians, Epistle to; a circular letter, p. 37; readings in, harmonistic with Epist. to Col. p. 244 sq.; passages explained, i. 18 (i. 23); i. 21 (i. 16); i. 23 (i. 18); ii. 3 (iii. 6); ii. 4 (ii. 1); ii. 4, 5 (1: 13); ne 12 (1: 21): ii, 14 (i. 17); ii. 15 (i. 14); ii. 16 (i. 20); 11. 20 (ii. 7); iii. 17 (1. 17); ili, 25 (1. 26); IVa 10. 11 {1- ΤΠ; ἔν" 18 (i, 21); iv. 19, V. 3. (iil. 5); Vv. 32 (i. 26)
Ephesus, Council of, p. 62
Ephesus, St Paul at, p. 30, 93; exor- cists at, p. 93
Epictetus, p. 13
Epiphanius, account of Cerinthus, p. 105; on the Nasareans, p. 371
epistolary aorist, Ph. 11, 19, 21
epulones of Ephesian Artemis called Essenes, p. 94
Erasmus on the Epistle to Laodicea, Ρ. 297
Essene, meaning of term, p. 92; the
INDEX.
name, p. 347 84.; Frankel’s theory, P- 354 Βα.
Essenes, p. 80, ii. 8; list of writers upon, p. 81; localities of, p. 91; asceticism of, p. 83; speculations of, Ῥ. 85; exclusiveness of, p. 90; Jo- sephus and Philo chief authorities upon, p. 368; oath taken by, p. 360; their grades, p. 363; origin and af- finities, p. 353 84.; relation to Chris- tianity, p. 395 sq.; to Pharisaism, p. 99, 354; to Neopythagoreanism, p. 378sq.; to Hemerobaptists, p. 400 8q.; to Gnosticism, p. 90 54.; to Parsism, p- 385 sq.; to Buddhism, p. 388 sq.; avoidance of oaths, p. 413 8q.; for- tune-tellers, p. 416; silence of New Test. about, p. 396; relation to John the Baptist, p. 398 sq.; to James the Lord’s brother, p. 405 sq.; Chris- tianized Essenes, p. 87, 88, 370 sq.
Essenism, p. 80; main features of, p. 81 sq.; compared with Christianity, p. 407 sq.; the sabbath, p. 408; lustrations, p. 409; avoidance of strangers, p. 410; asceticism, celi- bacy, p. 411; avoidance of the Tem- ple, p. 412; denial of the resurrec- tion of the body, p. 413; certain supposed coincidences with Christ- ianity, p. 413 sq.
Eusebius, on the earthquakes in the valley of the Lycus, p. 39; his mis- take respecting some martyrdoms, p- 48; silence about quotations from Canonical writings, p. 52 sq.; on Papias, p. 49; on the Thundering Legion, p. 58; on Marcellus, i. 15
evil, Gnostic theories about, p. 76
exorcists at Ephesus, p. 93
Ezra, restoration under, p. 351
ἑαυτοῦ and αὑτοῦ, i. 20; and ἀλλήλων, lil. 13
ἐγώ, Ph. 19
ἐθελοθρησκεία, ii. 23
εἴ γε, 1. 23
εἰκών, 1. 15, 111. 11
εἶναι καρποφορούμενον, i. 6
els, 1. 6, li. 22, Ph. 6
423
ἐκ Λαοδικίας (τὴν), iv. τό
ἐκκλησία, iv. 15
ἐκλεκτός, lil. 12
ἐλλογᾶν, Ph. 18
ἐλπίς, 1. 5
ἐν, iv. 12; denoting the sphere, i. 4: ἐν αὐτῷ, i. τό; ἐν μέρει, ii. 16; ἐν παντὶ θελήματι, iV. 12; ἐν πᾶσιν, i. 18; ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις, i. 21; ἐν ὑμῖν, 1. 27, 111. 16; ἐν Χριστῷ, 1. 2
ἐνεργεῖν, ἐνεργεῖσθαι, 1. 29
ἔνι, lil. 11
ἐξαγοράζεσθαι, iv. 5
ἐξαλείφειν, 11. 14
ἐξουσία, 1. 13, 16
ἔξω (ol), iv. 5
ἑορτή, 11. 16
ἐπιγινώσκειν, ἐπίγνωσις, p. 98, 1. 6, 9, Ph. 6
ἐπιθυμία, 111. 5
ἐπιμένειν, i. 23
ἐπιστολή (ἡ), iv. τό
ἐπιχορηγεῖν, li. 19
ἐποικοδομεῖν, 11. 7
ἐργάζεσθαι, 111. 23
ἐρεθίζειν, 111. 21
ἐρριζωμένοι, 11. 7
ἔρχεσθαι, 111. 6
εὐάρεστος, 111. 20
εὐδοκία, εὐδοκεῖν, 1. 19
εὐχαριστεῖν, εὐχαριστία, li. 7, 1. 33 εὐχά- ριστος, ili. 15
᾿Εφέσια γράμματα, p. 93
ἔχειν, Ph. 17
ἐχθροί, 21
F (Codex Augiensis) relation to G, p. 277
Firstborn of all Creation, i. 15
Flaccus, p. 20
Frankel on the Essenes, p. 354 sq.
G (Codex Boernerianus) relation to F, Ρ. 277
Galatia, meaning of, in St Paul and St Luke, p. 24
Galatian and Colossian Judaism com- pared, p. 103, 1. 28
424
Galatians, Epistle to; passages ex- plained, i. 24 (Gal. ii. 20), i. 28 (iv. 19), ii. 8 (iv. 3)
Galen, ii. 19, 20
Ginsburg (Dr), p. 88, 361 8q., 363, 395 Sq.) 411
Gnostic, p. 78 sq.
Gnostic element in Colossian heresy, p- 71 8.
Gnostic sects, use of pleroma by, p. 262 sq.
Gnosticism, list of writers on, p. 75; definition of, p. 74 sq.; intellectual exclusiveness of, p. 75; speculations of, p. 75 54.; practical errors of, 77 sq.; Independent of Christianity, p. 78; relation to Judaism, p. 79; to Kssenism, p. 91; to Colossian heresy, Ρ. 96
Gratz, Ρ. 349, 357, 395» 397, 408, 409
Greece, slavery in, p. 318
Gregory the Great on the Epistle to the Laodiceans, p. 293
guild of dyers, p. 4
Ταρμάνας, p. 390
γνῶσις, 1. 9, 11. 3
γνωστικός, Ὁ. 79
Haymo of Halberstadt, on the Epistle to the Laodiceans, p. 293
Hebrew slavery, p. 317 sq.
Hebrews, Epistle to the; passages ex- plained, i. rr (Heb. x1. 34); i. 15 (i. 2, 3, 6)
Hefele on the date of Claudius Apolli- naris, p. 57
Hemerobaptists, p. 400 84.
Hervey of Dole, on the Epistle to the Laodiceans, p. 293
Hierapolis, p. 2,9; modern name, p. 9; physical features of, p. 10; a fa- mous watering place, p. 11; the Plutonium at, p. 12; dyes of, p. 4; birthplace of Epictetus, p. 13; po- litical relations of, p. 18; attrac- tions for Jews, p. 22; a Christian settlement, p. 45; Philip of Bethsaida at, p. 45 sq.; Council at, p. 57; Papias, Bishop of, p. 48 sq.; Claudius
INDEX.
Apollinaris, bishop of, p. 55 sq.; con- fused with Hieropolis, p. 54, 66
Hilgenfeld, p. 73; on the Essenes, Ὁ. 388 sq.
James the Lord’s brother, p. 405 sq.
Jerome, p. 29; on St Paul’s parents, p- 35; on the Epistle to the Laodi- ceans, p. 201 86.
Jesus Justus, iv. 11
Jews, sects of the, p. 80
imperfect, iii. 18
indicative after βλέπειν μή, i. 8
infinitive of consequence, i. 10, iv. 3, 6
John (St) in Asia Minor, p. 41; Apoca- lypse, passages explained, p. 41 (iii. 14—21)
John (St), Gospel, p. 401 (i. 8, γ. 35); Se- cond Hpistle, p. 303; Third Epistle, ib.
John the Baptist, not an Essene, p. 398 sq.; disciples of, at Ephesus, p. 400; claimed by Hemerobaptists, p. 401 84.
John (St), Christians of, p. 403
John Damascene, p. 15
John of Salisbury on the Epistle to the Laodiceans, p. 294
Josephus on Hssenism, p. 367 sq.
Judaism and Gnosticism, p. 79
ἵνα, iv. τό
᾿Ιοῦστος, iv. Τί
ἱσότης, iv. I
Kabbala, p. 91, i. 16, 11. 8
Lanfranc on the Epistle to the Laodi- ceans, p. 295
Laodicea, situation, p. 2; name and history, p. 5; condition, p. 6; politi- cal rank and relations, p. 7, 18; reli- gious worship at, p. 8; Council of, p. 63; ecclesiastical status, p.67; dyes of, p. 4; surnamed Trimetaria, p. 18; the vaunt of, p. 44
Laodicea, the letter from, iv. 16, p. 272 8q.
Laodiceans, apocryphal Epistle to the, p- 279 sq.; list of mss of, p. 281 sq.; Latin text of, p. 285; notes on, p- 287 sq.; theory of a Greek ori-
INDEX.
ginal, p. 289; restoration of the Greek, p. 291; circulation of, p. 292 sq.; English prologue and versions of, p. 296; strictures of Erasmus on, Ῥ- 297; Opinions on the genuineness of, p. 298
Latrocinium, see Robbers’ Synod
Legio Fulminata, p. 58
legislation of Constantine on slavery, P- 325
Logos, the, i. 15
Luke, St, iv. τᾷ; his narrative of St Paul’s third missionary journey, p. 24 84. ; makes a distinction between Philip the Apostle and Philip the Evangelist, p. 45
lukewarmness at Laodicea, p. 42
lustrations of the Essenes, p. 411
Luther’s estimate of the Epistle to Philemon, p. 315
Lycus, district of the; list of writers on, p. 1 sq.; physical features of, p. 2 sq.; produce of, p. 4; subterranean channel of the, p. 14; earthquakes in the valley of the, p. 38 sq.
Lycus, churches of the, p. 1 sq.; evan- gelised by Epaphras, p. 29 sq.; ecclesiastical status of, p. 67
Λαοδικία, iv. 13
λόγον ἔχειν τινός, li. 23
Magic, forbidden by Council οὗ Laodi- cea, p. 65; among the Essenes, p. 88 sq., 375 Sq.
magical books at Ephesus, p. 93
Mandeans, p. 403
Marcosians, p. 267
Mark (St), iv. 10; visits Colossx, p. 40
Matthew (St), Gospel of, accepted by Cerinthus and the Ebionites, p. 106
Megasthenes, p. 390 sq.
monasticism of the Essenes and Bud- dhists, p. 393
Monoimus, the Arabian, p. 271
Montanism, Claudius Apollinaris on, p- 57; Phrygian origin of, p. 96
morning bathers, p. 366 sq., 400 sq.
Muratorian Fragment on the Epistle to the Laodiceans, p. 200
μακροθυμία, i, 11, 111. 12 μερίς, 1. 12
μνείαν ποιεῖσθαι, Ph. 4 μομφή, iil. 13 μονογενής, 1. 15 μυστήριον, 1. 26
Naassenes, p. 269
Nasareans, Nasoreans, p. 370, 373, 403
Neander on Cerinthus, p. 106
Neopythagoreanism and Essenism, p. 378 sq.
New Testament, relation of, to the Old Testament, p. 116
Nica, Bishops of Hierapolis and Lao- dicea at the Council of, p. 62
Nicetas Choniates, p. 68
Nicolaus of Damascus, p. 392
nominative with definite article for vocative, iii. 18
Novatianism in Phrygia, p. 96
Nymphas, iv. 15, p. 31
veounvia, il. 16
νέος, lil. 10
νουθετεῖν, i. 28
νῦν with aorist, i. 21
Onesimus, p. 309, Ph. 10; at Rome, p- 33; encounters St Paul, p. 310; returns to Philemon, p. 35, 311 sq. ; legendary history of, p. 314
Ophites, p. 79, 96, 269
οἰκονομία, 1. 25
οἶκος, THY κατ᾽ οἶκον, iv. 15
ὁμοίωμα, 1. 25
ὄνασθαι, ὀναίμην, Ph. 20
ὀργή, ili. 8
ὅστις, 111. 5, iv. 11
ὀφθαλμοδουλεία, 111. 23
φδή, lil. τό
ὡς, Ph. 14, 16
Pantenus in India, p. 390
Papias, p. 47; writings of, ib. ; life and teaching of, p. 48; account of, given by Eusebius, p. 49; traditions col- lected by, p. 51 sq.; references to the Canonical writings, p. 51 sq.;
426
silence of Eusebius, p. 52; views in- ferred from his associates, p. 53
Parsism, resemblances to, in Essen- ism, p. 86,385 sq.; spread by the de- struction of the Persian empire, p. 386; influence of, p. 387
participle used for imperative, 111, 16
Paschal controversy, p. 56, 61
Paul (St) visits Phrygia on his second missionary journey, p. 23; had not visited Colosse when he wrote, p. 23 8q.3 visits Phrygia on his third journey, p. 24; silence about per- sonal relations with Colosse, p. 28 ; at Ephesus, p. 30, 93 sq.; at Rome, p- 32; mission of Epaphras to, ib.; meets with Onesimus, p. 33, 310; despatches three letters, p. 33; visits Colosse, p. 41; his plans after his release, Ph. 22; uses an amanuensis, iv. 18; his signature, iv. 18, Ph. 19; coincidences with words of our Lord, li. 22; his teaching on the univer- sality of the Gospel, p. 97; on the kingdom of Christ, i. 13 sq.; on the orders of angels, i. 16 sq.; on phi- losophy, ii. 8; on the Incarnation, ii. 9; on the abolition of distince- tions, 111. 11; on slavery, iii. 22 sq., Ῥ. 321 sq.; his cosmogony and the ology, p. 99 sq.; his answer to the Colossian heresy, p. 113 sq.; his Christology, p. 120, i. 15 sq.; his relations with Philemon, p. 302 sq.; connects baptism and death, ii. rr, 20, ili. 3; makes use of metaphors from the mysteries, i. 26, 28; from the stadium, ii. 18, iii. 14; his rapid change of metaphor, ii. 7
Paul (St) Epistles of, correspondences with the Apocalypse—on the Person of Christ, p. 41; warning against lukewarmness, p. 42; against pride of wealth, p. 43
Paul (St) apocryphal Epistle of, to the Laodiceans, p. 279 sq.
Pedanius Secundus, execution of his slaves, p. 320
Person of Christ, St Paul and St John
INDEX.
on, p. 41 s8q.; St Paul’s answer to the Colossian heresy, p. 113 8q.; i. 15 86.
personal pronoun used for reflexive, i. 20, 22
Peter (St) and the Church in Asia Minor, p. 41
petrifying stream at Colossa, p. 15
Pharisees, p. 80; relation to Essenes, Pp. 80, 354 84. 374, 376
Philemon, p. 31, 368 sq.; legendary history of, p. 303; his wife, p. 304; his son, p. 306
Philemon, Epistle to; introduction to, p- 301 ; character of, p. 302; analy- sis of, p. 312 sq.; different estimates of, p. 314 54.; compared with a letter of Pliny, p. 316
Philip the Apostle, in Asia, p. 45 sq.; confused with Philip the Evangelist, P- 45
Philippopolis, synod of, p. 62
Philo, on the Essenes, p. 348, 378; his use of Logos, i. 15
Phrygia, p. 17 sq.; meaning of the phrase in St Luke, p. 23; religious tendencies of, p. 95; see Paul (St)
Pistis Sophia, p. 271
Pliny the elder, his account of the Essenes, p. 81
Pliny the younger, a letter of, p. 316 Sq.
pleroma, p. 255 sq.
Plutonium, at Hierapolis, p. 12
Polycarp, martyrdom of, p. 49
poverty, respect paid to, by Hssenes and by Christ, p. 415 sq.
Pretorius on the Epistle to the Lao- diceans, p. 298
Pythagoreanism and Essenism, p. 378 sq.; disappearance of, p. 381
πάθος, 111. 5
παρακαλεῖν, 11. 2
παραλαμβάνειν, il. 6
παράπτωμα, il. 13
παρεῖναι eis, 1. 6
παρέχεσθαι, iv. I
παρηγορία, iv. 11 ‘
παρρησία, ἐν παρρησίᾳ, ii. 15, Ph. 8
INDEX.
was, πᾶς ὁ κόσμος, 1. τό; πᾶσα κτίσις, i. 15; τὰ πάντα, 1. 16
πατήρ, ὁ Θεὸς πατήρ, i. 3; πατὴρ ἡμῶν, 1. 2-
παύεσθαι, Ph. 7.
πιθανολογία, il. 4
πικραίνεσθαι, iil. 19
πιστός, πιστοὶ ἀδελφοί, i. 2
πλεονεξία, 111. 5
πληροφορεῖν, iv. 12.
πληροφορία, il. 2
πληροῦν, 1. 25, iv. 17
πλήρωμα, 1. 19, ll. 9, DP. 255 56.
πλησμονή, ii. 23
πλοῦτος, i, 27
πορνεία, 111. 5
mpauTns, 111. 12
πρεσβευτής, πρεσβύτης, Ph. 8
πρὸ πάντων, 1. 17
προακούειν, 1. 5
πρός, li. 23, Ph. 5
προσκαρτερεῖσθαι, iv. 2
προσωπολημψία, 111. 25
πρωτότοκος, 1. 15, 18
φιλοσοφία, 11. 8
φθορά, ii. 22
gpovnsis, i. 9
φυλακτήριον, p. 66
ψαλμός, 111, 16
Quartodeciman controversy, p. 56, 61 Quinisextine Council, p. 64
Readings, harmonized with corre- sponding passages in the Epistle to the Ephesians, p. 244 (iii. 6); p. 245 (il. 21, Υ. 19)
readings, various, p. 247 (i. 3); Ρ. 248 {ΠῚ 1 7); Ὀ' 210 (1 12; 1: τῇ, 1: 22); Ῥ- 250 (ii. 2); p. 251 (ii. 16); p. 252 (ii. 18, ii. 23); p. 253 (iv. 8); p. 254 (iv. 15)
Renan, on the meaning of Galatia in St Paul and St Luke, p. 25; on the Epistle of Philemon, p. 316
resurrection of the body, p. 86, 413
Revelation; see Apocalypse
Robbers’ Synod, p. 62
Roman slavery, p. 319
427
Rome, Onesimus at, p. 310; St Paul at, p. 32 ῥιζοῦν, li. 7
Sabbath, observance of, by Essenes, p. 82, 408
Sabzans, p. 403
sacrifices prohibited by Essenes, p. 87, 369
Sadduceeism, p. 80
Sagaris, bishop of Laodicea, p. 61
Samanei, p. 390 sq.
Sampseans, p. 372
Sarmane, p. 390 sq.
satisfactorie, sufferings of Christ re- garded as, i. 25
Secundus, see Pedanius Secundus
Seven churches, literature relating to, p.1
Sibylline Oracle, p. 94
silence of Eusebius on canonical books, p. 52 sq.; of the New Testament about the Essenes, p. 396
slave martyrs, p. 324
slavery, Hebrew, p. 317; Greek, p. 318; Roman, p. 319; St Paul’s treatment of, p. 321 sq.; attitude of Christian- ity towards, p. 323 sq.; prohibited by Essenes, p. 415; legislation of Constantine, p. 325; of Justinian, Ῥ. 326; abolition of, ib.
Socrates on Novatianism in Phrygia, p- 96
Sophia of Valentinus, p. 263; Sophia Achamoth, p. 266
stadium, metaphor from the, ii. 18
Stapleton on the Epistle to the Laodi- ceans, p. 298
Strabo on Buddhism, p. 389 sq.
sunworship, p. 85, 372 8q., 380, 385
σάββατα, 11. τό
σάρξ, τὸ σώμα τῆς σαρκός, i. 22
Σκύθης, 111. 11
σοφία, i, 9, 28, ii. 3, iii, 16
σπλάγχνα (ra); 111. 12, Ph. 7, 12
στερέωμα, 11. 5
στοιχεῖα (τὰ), 11. 8
συλαγωγεῖν, 11. 8
συμβιβάζειν, li, 2, 19
428
συναιχμάλωτος, lV. 10 σύνδεσμος, il. το, 111. 14 σύνδουλος, i. 7, lV. 7
σύνεσις, 1. 9, 11. 2
συστρατιώτης, Ph. 2
σῶμα, TO σῶμα τῆς σαρκός, il. 11 σωματικῶς, li. 9
Tacitus on the earthquake of Laodicca, Ρ. 39
Talmud, supposed etymologies of Es- sene in, p. 350 56., 355 Sq.; supposed allusions to the Essenes, p. 362 sq.
Testaments, Old and New, p. 117
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, on the orders of angels, i. 16
theanthropism of the New Testament, p. 117
thundering legion, p. 58
Thyatira, dyes of, p. 4
Timotheus, his position in these epi- stles, i. 1, Ph. 1; ‘the brother,’ i. x
Tivoli compared with the valley of the Lycus, p. 3
travertine deposits in the valley of the Lycus, p. 3
Trimetaria, a surname of Laodicea, p.18
Tychicus, iv. 7, p. 35, 312
ταπεινοφροσύνη, 111. 12
τάξις, li. 5
τέλειος, i. 28
τις (indef.), St Paul’s use of, ii. 8
τοιοῦτος ὦν, Ph. 9, 12
θέλειν, Ph. 13; θέλειν ἐν, li, 18
INDEX,
θέλημα Θεοῦ, i. 1 θεμελιοῦν, 1. 23
θεότης, τὸ θεῖον, li. 9 θιγγάνειν, li. 21
θνήσκειν, ἀποθνήσκειν, ll. 20 Oprap Bevery, ll. 15
θυμός, 111. 8
θύρα τοῦ λόγου, iv. 3
ὕμνος, 111. 16
ὑπεναντίος, li. 14 ὑπομονή, 1. 11
ὑστέρημα, i. 24, Pp. 267 54.
Valentinianism, different forms of, p. 264 8q.
Valentinians accept St Paul and St John, p. 268
Valentinus, use of pleroma by, p. 263
vathikin, p. 366
versions of the Epistle to the Lao- diceans, Latin, p. 289; Bohemian, German, and English, p. 295 sq.
Word, the, p. 99; see Logos, Christ Wycliffe, on the apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans, p. 295
Yavana or Yona, p. 388
Zeller on Essenism, p. 378 sq.
Zend Avesta, p. 385
Zoroastrianism and Essenism, p. 385 sq.
CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY Ο. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, Af THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
BINDING SECT. JUN 2 4 182
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
Bible Lightfoot, Joseph Barber Bp. Comment st. Paul's epistles to the Gia. Collossians and to Philemon Colossians
L
wer oo 2. ΠῚ ΤΩΝ
+ wens a
“τὰ ~
teat Bt Α ΑΝΣ ἽΝ tat Wii is that |
ς i ye
3 Agta te ! ma
i } A bah viii HY ‘ae orb τσ
: Ν ue δ ΚΑ ΉΜΝΝ ras fede ιν: Ἶ
ῃ hee Heri ae Beal) “ἣν hae te, settghelat ty it
EEC te Ke tas ΜΉΝ
oi har
ἢ ᾿ς, itt i γ᾽ nit
bere 14) vi
ἩΠΉΒΝΝ
ἡ i pare ν
reper ΚΝ ΜΗ
ΩΣ
ee vy Pr
a ΕΣ
ἐδ] Cee sy) ΤΠ ΠΝ ἢ
ἿΣ
ee Eph BFF
ἐν Cree DEAT aS χὰ PIRES SAVE PS TN ΕΥΣ ἘΣ TS SP ce praca hea yy ea ; ΛΑ ΣΕ DED
Ἢ ἃ eae
Sh 8 Bre" ἜΗΝ
ἣν ΤΗΡΩ͂Ν
fie
ee > *
ships ean ets SRS NYY ay
᾿ £ ἡ vi “4 PEPER Pa Ve ν ἢ Ἢ
ΤΩΝ
hit th
at
a
nant ste
by
neh A ἡ VANE A Dh ede μὲν EL τὺ ὙΠ se ὯΝ
ΤΣ
τ ἐν
Paine {ΔῊ
ψ
᾿
¥p {
ἣν
Ay ἮΝ ΠΝ
veSPiatete anit Dh hat ἐπι γῇ eats
ΔΝ Navjody
oy λῶν, ὃν ΠΣ
ns be
fs ἢ ἜΝ
Ὁ RANGE BAY SHLF POS ITEM C
39 14
016 3
01
03 24