Pr tarmtas Mabe ag Per ates MOURN Vo ses Oven Sijsnieesy Praag yt eway Voastatin “Tbs Vedas with SA EIMANSi haa at ier eas sMevater ays Pane Wersgh se Dard tH pen} Mas . sehen Yyiskous Seen Reser Fviunyy rere vel tea wins . Rarer roe nen Wdeinee wade veigiat an iée. Loatarercrerey citys har heres a : Whe getty Rte sdearespeaty gheqers three sot ete aay at Dag sh ete ee ors, Bi Eday Lai, Shtcaty hia erteag (bets vac Tet Palpaete vas (nat ret SONY ny srg teea tty wae 2 Pay a Ree Lee Ea Seseeta Pete Masti neal ta VE Been by y ‘ i eat PIC RL er Bea 4 " a Cee they ete Dear 1) a bees Poe rer aa da Sate at Vane sas pitt sa beads ot ENG Md gh ol par oh nw Sihatnchan td a st Ms pesittd i hp ak, SP AAA ie waht +i) ere! Paes | 4 R ans oe oI t Nad Ni8s gaye ait aha MaMoiN sesdeyseae , Pape ahanl Res ate. Named hy SSodgh FoR a tae Sera see Haase inh sides VTE aN the he prin ias Poy Sabre: pT ere Satee awed at Si iecadilatarty Mats Tiss SPAN ot al PONT we Sehurehe pony rere Pas ee eeerys telidy PSPCEREC IN Vey aeeynges Ass Smt edhe sts erste ae USCEYET Tata yy) PCO Fe RS (Mie aistiiete htyeete Pres Paverare hired Tigh ereeese Pease r ap ase aay care ere wasbuiea tds o Vers yas a Fae neal ee Bet oh Het ely Hay RP heas, Th tea ta AGRA Tag tung Miner ay Bae ieee Wet ree we sesh SPUD ee ie TNFR aed ty hate dak Bet i aise a, v heh La hh bee er aie et Sh veer tetiete she Thatayty« Ow, DRE er Yh UP Ore + LIBRARY OF PRINCETON 5 .L/24 On ee AUL S EPISTLES TO THE 4-0 Po ee ed pure 4 Mt T x CERTATIONS / .J B | TGHTEOR Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/saintpaulsepistl1880ligh THE EPISTLES OF ST PAUL. EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. OTHER BOOKS IN THE “CLASSIC COMMENTARY LIBRARY” COMMENTARY ON THE PROPHECIES OF ISAIAH by J. A. ALEXANDER THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN by ROBERT S, CANDLISH THE EPISELE (OF ST. JAMES by JOSEPH B. Mayor THE EPISTLE OF ST, PAUL’ TO) THE) GALATIANS by J. B. LigHTFOOT ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE PHEEIPPIANS by J. B. LiGHTFOOT COMMENTARY ON THE PSALMS by JOSEPH ADDISON ALEXANDER . int Teal, EPISTLES TO THE Colossians AND TO Philemon A ‘REVISED TEXT WITH INTRODUCTIONS, NOTES AND DISSERTATIONS Ue Lihifoot ke ZONDERVAN PUBLISHING HOUSE GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN This edition is reprinted com- plete and unabridged from the revised 1879 edition published by MacMillan and Company. PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 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. MIMHTAl MOY fINECOE KAOMC KdAr@ ypicToY IlavAos yevopevos péyioros vmroypappos. CLEMENT. Ovx ws Matdos Stataccopa vpiv' éxeivos dmécroXos, > A ‘ anes: o > , Seaek \ , - a €yd Karakpitos” exeivos ehevOepos, eyo S€ péxpt viv dovdAos. IaNnaTIUS. ¥ a Oire eyed ovTe GdAos Gpuotos epot Svvatat Kataxodovbjaat “ , ~ , a > , ‘ 7 copia Tov pakapiov kai evdofov Ilavdou. PouyoaRP. 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 Hpistle 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 viii 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 Eth CRUPCREE OF UO DyCiee cs. a scadeseoncteageteran anasto I—72 Mi RE es COLISStAID SELON ORY sc udchccl sca aloebucdeten vices antecbuater 73—113 III. Character and Contents of the Epistle .............6.00 I14—128 eh ND) IVT PES oc scsincde eves na gure sehes beads dbvobe voce cuuuten ee 13I—245 On some Various Readings in the Epistle ..........0..0.005 246—256 On the Meaning. of mri popd............0sc0scescedscsaseesseeresses 257—273 The Epistle SPOTL A EOUICOIDS Oc itis ccs be svinng Baa aawedseratvee aa te 274—300 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON JES INN ILE 19 1s SRR © OSA SESE REEDS GPRS APE eaPaEE ae a 303—329 ae et NED INO TPES. ms torso nes cad savas bins dace dae cakes adeedbeoweuas 333—346 DISSERTATIONS. Te ete NEDO | PRSOTE 8.5 Cotas merakiaelssoaxsureeteasesenes 349—354 2. Origin and Affinities of the Essenes .......0cceeceeee 355—396 3. Essenism and Christiantty.........ccccccceccvecevseccscces 397—419 See SA Re ees Soe ics oak ua sonebii na aSe avs see dakesasiaweuceecs 421I-—430 (a iy PA ve i at, \ 7 ve i THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. YING in, or overhanging, the valley of the Lycus, Meee t ‘tributary of the Meander, were three neighbouring ies cities, towns, Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colossze’. 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. 11, Part m, London 1745; Chandler Travels in Asia Minor etc., Oxford 17753; 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, etc. The best maps are those of Hamilton and Tchihatcheff: to which should be added the Karte von Klein-Asien by vy. 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 Survey 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 Rev. H. B. Tristram. This is a selection from a larger series of Svoboda’s photo- graphs, published separately. Their neigh- bourhood 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 Colosse is somewhat higher up the stream, at a distance of perhaps ten or twelve miles® from the point where the road between Laodicea and Hierapolis crosses the Lycus. Unlike Laodicea and Hierapolis, which overhang the valley on opposite sides, Colosse 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 of travellers always agree. The direc- tion of the river, as given in the text, accords with the maps of Hamilton and Tchihatcheff, and with the accounts of the most accurate writers. 2 Anton. Itin. p. 337 (Wesseling) gives the distance as 6 miles, See also I. p. 514. The relative position of the two cities appears in Laborde’s view, pl. xxxix. 3 I do not find any distinct notice of the distance; but, to judge from the maps and itineraries of modern tra- vellers, this estimate will probably be found not very far wrong. 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 a 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 by these forces from beneath, another agency is actively em- enn ployed above ground in laying a new surface. If fire has its fitful outbursts of devastation, water is only less powerful in its gradual work of reconstruction. 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- markable in the world, surpassing even the striking pheno- mena of Tivoli and Clermont*. 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 1 Strabo xii. 8(p. 578) 76 modUrpyrov of Denizli, which is close to Laodicea, THS XwWpas Kal TO evcetoTov* el yap Tis GdAn, Kal 7 Aaodlkea evoeoros, Kal THS WAnGLoxwWpov 6é Kadpovpa, Ioann. Lyd. p. 349 (ed. Bonn.) ruxvodrepov celerat, ola Ta wept THv Ppvylas Aaod- welay kal THY wap altp ‘Lepdv modu. 2 Thus Pococke (p. 71) in 1745 writes ‘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 8q., 15. 2 < Produce and manu- factures of the dis- trict. THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. of twenty miles’, and form a singularly striking feature in scenery of more than common beauty and impressiveness. 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 valued by the dyer’. 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 appears in the inscriptions as an important and influential body*. Their colours vied in brilliancy with the richest scarlets and purples of the farther East*. lLaodicea again was famous for the colour of its fleeces, probably a glossy black, which was much esteemed’, Here also we read of a guild of dyers®, And lastly, Colosse gave its name to a peculiar the chief source of prosperity to these towns. 1 Fellows Asia Minor p. 283. 2 See note 4. 3 Boeckh no. 3924 (comp. Anatolica P. 104) TOUTO To Npwov Zrep~ary 7 épya- ata rav Badéwr, at Hierapolis. See Laborde, pl. xxxv. In another inscrip- tion too (Le Bas and Waddington, no. 1687) there is mention of the purple- dyers, roppupaBadels. 4 Strabo xiii. 4. 14 (p. 630) gore 62 kal mpos Badyy éplwy Oavuacras ovp- peTpov TO Kara THY ‘Iepay modw Vdwp, wore Ta éx THY pifav Bamwrouera évd- pitdra elvac rots €x THs KOKKOV Kal Tors adoupyéow. 5 Strabo xii. 8. 16 (p. 578) péper 5 6 ment tHv Aaodlkeav témos mpoBdrwv dperas ovk els padakornra povoy triav éplwy, F Kal Trav Midryolav diadéper, adAd Kal els THv Kopaknv xpoay, Wore kal mpocodetovrat Aammpwos dm ator, womep Kat ol KoXooonvol dro Tov ouw- voov Xpwyaros, wAnolov olkovvres. For this strange adjective xopatds (which seems to be derived from xépaé 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 (It. 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. 6 Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3938 [7 ép- yacla] trav yvadelwy wat Badéwy Tov] adoupy[a]v. 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 jy. Siri among the ladies of the royal house of the Seleucide, as antes Antiochus was among the p-inces. 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. 26I1—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 vepribus nascitur cyclaminum ... flos ejus colossinus in coronas admit- titur,’ a passage which assists in de- termining the colour. 2 éml Avxw, Boeckh Corp. Inscr. no. 3938, Ptol. Geogr. v. 2, Tab. Peut. ‘laudicium pilycum’; mpds [Te] Avy, Iickhel Num. Vet. 111. p. 166, Strabo l.c., Boeckh C. I. 5881, 5893; mpds Avxov, Boeckh 6478. A citizen was styled Aaodixeds amd Avxov, Diog. Laert. ix. 12 § 116; C.I.L. vt. 3743 comp. zrepl Tov Avxov Appian. Mithr. 20. 3 Plin. N. H. v. 29. 4 Steph. Byz. s. v., who quotes the oracle in obedience to which (ws éxédev- ce Zeds vWiBpeuérns) it was founded. * For descriptions of Laodicea see Smith p. 250 sq., Pococke p. 71 8q., Chandler p. 224 sq., Arundell Seven Behind it rise the snow-capped Churches p.84 sq., Asia Minor 11. p, 180 sq., Fellows Asia Minor 280 sq., Hamil- ton I. p. 514 8q., Davis Anatolica p. 92 8q., Tchihatcheff P. 1. p. 252 sq., 258sq. See also the views in Laborde, pl. xxxix, Allom and Walsh 11. 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. v. 29 ‘Imposita est Lyco flumini, la- tera affluentibus Asopo et Capro’; see Tchihatcheff P. 1. p. 258. Strabo xii. (l. ¢.) 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 LYOUS. heights of Cadmus, the lofty mountain barrier which shuts in the south side of the main valley. A place of 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 now’ 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), évrat@a dé Kal 6 Karpos cat 6 Avxos cupBare Te Madvipw morau@ morauds evpeyébns, where évraida refers to 6 wept ry Aaodlkecay romos, and where by the. junction of the stream with the Ma- ander must be intended the junction of the combined stream of the Lycus and Caprus. On the coins of Lao- dicea (Eckhel m1. p. 166, Mionnet Iv. p- 330, ib. Suppl. vir. 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 Tchoruk Sd. 1 The modern name of Cadmus is Baba-Dagh, ‘ The father of mountains.’ 2 Strabo xii. 1. c. qf dé Aaodlxea puxpa mpbrepov ovca avénow éaBev 颒 quay Kal rév nuetépwy marépwy, Kalroe KaxwOetoa €x modtopklas émt Mi@piddrov Tov Evrdropos. 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. 111. p. 162, 163 sq. 4 Rev. iii. 17; see below p. 43. 5 Strabo l. c. On this family see Ephemeris Epigraphica i. p. 270 8q. 6 The ruins of Laodicea have formed THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. Z Not less important, as throwing light on the Apostolic Its politi- history, is the political status of Laodicea, Asia Minor Rees under the Romans was divided into districts, each compris- ele 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’. gregates was styled in Latin conventus, in Greek dvoienows— 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 Each of these political ag- his court®; hither at stated 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, etc. 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 Becker and Marquardt Rom. Alterth. 11. 1. p. 136 8q. 2 See Cic. ad Att. v. 21, ‘Idibus Februariis ... forum institueram agere Laodiceew 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 Phrygie est. Con- veniunt eo xxv civitates, celeberrima urbe Laodicea.’ seasons flocked suitors, advo- Besides these passages, testimony is borne to the importance of the Ciby- ratic ‘conventus’ by Strabo, xiii. 4 § 17 (p. 631), év rats peyloras é&erdfe- rat Seocxnoeot THS Aclas 4 KiBvparexn. 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, iii. 5, 7, 8, ix. 25, xiii. 54, 67, xV. 4; ad Att. v.16, 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 Cilici#, mirabilia que- dam efficimus; ita multe civitates, Its religi- ous wor- ship. THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. cates, clerks, sheriffs’-officers, 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- 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 Laodicenus®. 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 East—a con- nexion far from improbable, considering that Laodicea was formation exists. etc.’ Altogether Laodicea seems to quardtl.c. p.138sq. It had lost its have been second in importance to none of the cities in his province, ex- cept perhaps Tarsus. See also the notice, in Verr. Act. il. 1. ¢. 30. 1 The description which Dion Chry- sostom gives in his eulogy of Celanz (Apamea Cibotus), the metropolis of a neighbouring ‘ dioececis,’ enables us to realise the concourse which gather- ed together on these occasions: Orat. XXXV (II. p. 69) Evvd-yerar AROS dvOpw- muy Sixagopever, Sixafdvrwv, iyyeudvur, inmnper Gy, olkerGv, K.T.D. 2 On this word see Becker and Mar- original sense, as the mother city of a colony. Laodicea is styled ‘ metropolis’ on the coins, Mionnet tv. 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. iii. 14. 5 See Eckhel 111. p. 159 8q. (passim), Mionnet Iv. p. 315 8q., ib. Suppl. vu. p- 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 6q., Suppl. vit. pp. 586, 589. 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. Hizra- hills which mark the site of Laodicea, is a broad level terrace Ite et jutting out from the mountain side and overhanging the plain Hee with almost precipitous sides. On this plateau are scattered the vast ruins of HIERAPOLIS’. it abuts occupy the wedge of ground between the Meander The mountains upon which and the Lycus; but, as the Meander above its junction with the Lycus passes through a narrow ravine, they blend, 1 ACEIC or ACEIC AAOAIKE@N. See 2 For descriptions of Hierapolis, Waddington Voyage en Asie Mineure au point de vue Numismatique (Paris 1853) pp. 25, 26 sq. Mr Waddington adopts a suggestion communicated to him by M. de Longpérier that this word represents the Aramaic NIY ‘the | strong, mighty,’ which appears also in the Arabic ‘Aziz.’ This view gains some confirmation from the fact, not mentioned by Mr Waddington, that “Agigfos 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 written”A (.fosor Azizus: see Garrucci in the Arch@ologia xuu1t. p. 45 ‘ Tyrio Sep- timio Azizo,’ and Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 9893 "Asttos ’Ayplira Zvpos. M. de Long- périer offers the alternative that ACEIC, i.e. “Aols, is equivalent to “Aciatixés. An objection to this view, stronger than those urged by Mr Waddingion, is the fact that ’Acfs 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 6b TST). 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. ‘Iepamédes, Leake Num. Hell. p. 67), appears not to occur as a designation of the Phrygian city, which seems always to be written Hie- rapolis. The citizens however are sometimes called ‘Ieporo\trac 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, Tchihatcheff, 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 Tabiék-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 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 At one time overhanging in cornices fringed the southern, the broad valley stretching between. in their descent. 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 to the Colossians and Laodiceans were written. Were it otherwise, we can hardly suppose that, educated under widely different influences and occupied with deeper and more absorb- 1 Strabo xiii. 4. 14 (p. 629) says drepBarodar 5& Thy Meowylda...rddres elol mpos pev TH Meowylét katavrixpd Aaodixelas ‘Iepa ods, x.7.X. 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 Meander), 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 Laodicea. Strabo had himself visited the place and 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 Mx- ander) is the Laodicean Hierapolis’ (to distinguish it from others of the name); but xaravrixpd cannot be separated from Aaodixelas without violence. THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. If 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 Hicrapolis and a growing city, though not like Laodicea holding metro- ee politan rank’. Besides the trade in dyed wools, which it Pl 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 AMsculapius 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 ers 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- evdpelns mpopepécrarov otdas amdvruv, tropolis, see below, p. 69. 2 Strabo lic. otrw & early &pOovov 70 TAOS Tod VdaTos Wore 7 TONS METTH Tév avtoudtwv Badavelwy éori. 3 Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3909, ’Acidos xalpos, xpuodmoAs lepdrons, roTva Nup- Pav, vauaciv, ayatyot, Kexaouévy. 4 Mionnet tv. p. 297, 306, 307, ib. Suppl. viz. p. 567; Waddington Voyage etc. p. 24. 12 Tis religi- ous WOr- ship. The Plu- ton.um., 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 palestra 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. Indeed this city appears to have been a chief centre of the passionate mystical devotion of ancient Phrygia. 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 Iv. 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 Iv. p. 303, ib. Suppl. vir. 572, 573, 574; Wad- dington Voyage etc. p. 25; and see Eckhel 1m. 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 l.c. He himself had seen the phenomenon and was doubtful how to account for the immunity of these priests, etre Oela mpovolg...cite dvTi6i- ros Tiol duvdyeot TovTov oupBalvovTos. See also Plin. N. H. ii. 93 § 95 ‘lo- cum...matris tanftum magne sacerdoti innoxium.’ Dion Cass. (Xiphil. ) lxviii. 27, who also witnessedthe phenomenon, adds ov phy kal THv airlav avTod cuvvon- oar éxyw, Aéyw 6é & TE eldov ws el doy kal & #kovca ws Heovoa. Ammian. Marc. Xxili. 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. vi1. p. 190 Ei ris drayéacOa pév dxvel Oavarov 6’ ériOupet, €& ‘lepas wodews Wuxpdv vowp miérw; Stobeus Hcl. 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 giveu. THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 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- sae ay 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 wee ci release he paid his long-promised visit to the valley of the Lycus? 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. Such a meeting would solve more than one riddle. 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®. It must be confessed however, that of any outward intercourse between the Apostle and the philosopher history furnishes no hint. 3. While the sites of Laodicea and Hierapolis are con- 3. Cotos- spicuous, so that they were early identified by their ruins, Difficulty the same is not the case with CoLoss&. Only within the seni 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 etc. p. 24. See also Mionnet tv. 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. dd rod iepd wod- Ad exe. 3 See Philippians, pp. 312, 313. 14 Subterra- neanchan- nel of the Lycus, THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. inscription found in situ and giving the name!. Herodotus states that in Colosse the river Lycus disappears in a sub- 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... HNN, found near Chone. 2 Herod. vii. 30 dalxero és Kodoooas, mow pweyadnv Ppvylys, ev Ty AvKos mo- Taos és xdoua ys éoBadd\wv dadavi fe- Tat, @reira dud oTadiwy ws mévre pd- hora Kn dvadawomevos éxdid02 Kal otros és Tov Malavédpor. 3 This is the explanation of Hamil- ton (1. p. 509 8q.), who (with the doubt- ful exception of Laborde) has the merit of having first identified and gescribed the site of Colosse. It stands on the Tchoruk 84 (Lycus) at the point where it is joined by two other streams, the Bounar Bashi 84 and the Ak-S4. 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 Bpos Kaduos é& od cal 6 Avxos pet xai Gos cuwvupos TY Spat To wréov ovTos vrd vis puels lr’ dvaxiWas ouvé- mecev els TavTO Tois dots ToTapols, é-- galvwv dua kal TO modvTpyTov THs Xapas kal To eUoecorov. If the Lycus is meant, may not cuvérecev 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 Colosse, 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. 15 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 : : : . ‘ . : ., Stream, city a river 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 Colossze then, as determined by these considerations, lies two or three miles north of the present town of Chonos, the medieval Chonez, 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 ee Eastern and Western Asia, Colossa 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®” But after this time its glory seems to wane. The political supremacy the precise év rf 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 p. 117 sq. Arundell’s account (Seven Churches p- 98 sq., Asia Minor p. 160 sq.) is 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. H. xxxi.2§20. This is the Ak-S4, which has strongly petrify- ing qualities. ? Herod. vii. 30. See p. 14, note 2. 3 Xen. Anab. i. 2. 6 éfeAavver 51a Ppv- ylas...els KoXooods, médww olxovpévny, evdaiuova Kal meyadny. 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 district of which Laodicea was the capital. We shall there- fore be prepared to find that, while Laodicea and Hierapolis both hold important places in the early records of the Church, Colossze disappears wholly from the pages of history. Its com- 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- ness to their ancient prosperity and magnificence. It is not even mentioned by Ptolemy, though his enumeration of towns includes several inconsiderable places*. Without doubt Colosse was the least important church to which any epistle of St Paul was 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 Colasse ? clusion would seem to be that, while Colosse alone occurs during the classical period and im St Paul's time, it was after- wards supplanted by Colassze, when the town itself had either disappeared altogether or was already passing out of notice*. 1 rédoua, Strabo xii. 8. 13 (Pp. 576). Plin. N. H. v. 32. § 41 writes ‘Phrygia ...oppida ibi celeberrima preter jam v. 28, 29 § 29), so that only decayed and third-rate towns remain. The Ancyra here mentioned is not the dicta, Ancyra, Andria, Celenz, 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 capital of Galatia, but a much smailer Phrygian town. 2 Laborde p. 102 ‘De cette grande célébrité de Coloss# il ne reste presque rien: ce sont des substructions sans suite, des fragments sans grandeur; les restes d’un théA&tre de médiocre dimension, une acropole sans hardi- esse,’ etc.; comp. Anatolica p. 115. 3 Geogr. V. 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 Se regarded as belonging to Phrygia. But as they are situated abla on the western border of Phrygia, and as the frontier line the three cities, separating Phrygia from Lydia and Caria was not distinctly Kodoooal: so Herod. vii. 30, Xen. hand év Kodaccais is read by KP. 17. Anab. i. 2. 6, Strabo xii. 8. 13, Diod. xiv. 80, Polyen. Strat. vil. 16. 13 though in one or more mss of some of these authors it is written Ko\accal, 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 KOAOCCHNO! (or KO- AOCHNO!); Mionnet rv. p. 267 s8q.: see Babington Numismatic Chronicle New series 111. p. 1 8q., 6. In Hie- rocles (Synecd. p. 666, Wessel.) and in the Apostolic Constitutions (vii. 46) Ko\acoat 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 koAogods, 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 Kodoooai was the old form and that Kodacoal 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 epistle (i. 1) the authorities for éy Kodogsais 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. 37. 47, and among the versions by the Memphitic and the Philoxenian Syriac (conmrd\an, though the marg. gives KOACCaICc). In the Peshito also the present reading represents Ko\ac- cais, 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 form in a. Kodaccaers is the reading of AB* KP . 37 (Koha- caes). 47. CO is wanting here, but has Kodaooaes in the subscription. On the other hand Kodogcaes (or Kodoo- gais) appears in NB! (according to Tregelles, but B Tisch.; see his introd. p. xxxxviii) DFG (but G has left Ko- Aacoaes in the heading of one page, and Ko\aogaes in another) L, 17 (Ko- Aocaers), 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 Kodaccaers. ' Taking into account the obvious tendency which there would be in scribes to make the title rpds Kodoo- gaeis OY mpds Kodacoae’s conform to the opening éy KoXogcais or év Kodac- cats, aS shown in G, we seem to arrive at the conclusion that, while é Kodogcais was indisputably the original reading in the opening, mpds Kodac- oaeis was probably the earlier reading in the title. If so, the title must have 2 18 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 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. Their Phrygia however ceased to have any political significance, eee 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, -yvéds or -ae’s. Parallels to this double ter- mination occur in other words; e.g. Aoxiunvds, Aoximets; Aaodixnvds, Aao- duces 3 Nexanvds, Nixaevs ; Dayadaoon- vés, Laryadaccevs, etc. The coins, while they universally exhibit the form in 0, are equally persistent in the termina- ‘tion -nvés, KOAOCCHNOON 5 and it is curious that to the form Kodogonvol in Strabo xii. 8 § 16 (p. 578) there is a various reading Kodaccae’s. Thus, though there is no necessary con- nexion between the two, the termina- tion -yv4s seems to go with the o form, and the termination -aev’s with the’a form. For the above reasons I have written confidently év Kodogcats in the text, and with more hesitation wpds Kodac- cae’s in the superscription. 1 Strabo, xiii, 4. 12 (p. 628) 7a & é&Gs ért ra viria pépy Tots Toros TOUTS éumdokas exer péxpt mpds tov Tadpor, wate kal ra Ppvyca kal ra Kapixd cat ra Avda cal re Ta THY Muody ducdd- kpita elvac mapamlrrovra els AAAn\a* els 68 Thy ovyxvow Tairnvy od pKpd ou\AapBdvec Td Tors: ‘Pwuatlovs wy Kara pira dvedety adrovs K.T.r. 2 To Phrygia, Strabo xii. 8. 13 (p. 576), Polyb. v. 57, and so generally; to Caria, Orac. Sibyll. iii. 472 Kapav dy\aov dorv, Ptol. v. 2, Philostr. Vit. Soph. i. 25 (though in the context Philostratus adds that at one time 7g Ppvylg Ewerdrrero); to Lydia, Steph. Byz. s.v. On the coins the city is sometimes represented as seated be- tween two female figures @pyria and Kapila; Eckhel mr. 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, p. 65, note 4, and comp. Wesseling, Itin. p. 665. 3 Steph. Byz. s. v. says peratd Bpv- ylas kat Avilas rods. But generally Hierapolis is assigned to Phrygia: e.g. Ptol. v. 2, Vitruv. viil. 3 § ro. 4 Coloss# is assigned to Phrygia in Herod. vii. 30, Xen. Anab. i. 2. 6, Strabo xii. 8. 13, Diod. xiv. 80, Plin. N. H. v. 32 § 41, Polyen. Strat. vii. 16. I. THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 19 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 fourth century, when a new distribution of the Roman empire was made, and the province of Phrygia Pacatiana created with Lao- dicea as its capital *. The Epistle to the Colossians supposes a powerful Jewish Important colony in Laodicea and the neighbourhood. We are not how- 222 |, ever left to draw this inference from the epistle alone, but the ees 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 of we can hardly doubt that among the principal stations of these jogens new colonists would be the two most thriving cities of Phrygia, which were also the two most important settlements of the Syrian kings, Apamea and Laodivea, 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 sense, as applying to the Roman pro- 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 11. 4 (1847) p. 641 sq. See Becker and Marquardt Rom. Alterth. 111. 1. p. 130 sq. Lao- dicea is assigned to ‘ Asia’ in Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 6512, 6541, 6626. The name ‘Asia’ will be used throughout this chapter in its political vince. 2 Cic. ad Fam. xiii. 67 ‘ex pro- vincia mea Ciliciensi, cui scis tpets Siouxyjoers Asiaticas [i.e. Cibyraticam, Apamensem, Synnadensem] attributas fuisse’; ad Att. v. 21 ‘mea expectatio Asis nostrarum dicecesium’ and ‘in hac mea Asia.’ See also above, p. 7, notes 2, 3. 8 Hierocles Synecd. p. 664 sq. (Wes- sel.): see below, p. 69. # Joseph. Antig. xii. 3, 4. 2—z2 Confisca- tions of TIlaccus. THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. as a centre of trade), the political rank of Laodicea stood higher’. 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 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 *. 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) efra *Andpuea % KiBwrds Aeyouévn Kal Aao- Sixera almep elot péyiorae TG KaTa THY Ppvylav wbdewv. Below § 15 (p. 577) he says ’Arduea 6 éorlv dumdbpiov péya Ths ldiws Aeyouévns ’Aclas devrepevov pera thy “Edecov. The relative im- portance of 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, c. the words are 7a kara THv Ppvytay cat Aviéiav, the two names being under the vinculum of the one article: while immediately afterwards Lydia is dropped and Phry- gia alone named, méupae Twas... els Ppvylav. 3 Cic. pro Flacc. 28 ‘Sequitur auri illa invidia Judaici...Quum aurum Ju- deorum nomine quotannis ex Itaha et ex omnibus provinciis Hierosolyma exportari soleret, Flaccus sanxit edicto ne ex Asia exportari liceret...multitu- dinem Judzorum, flagrantem non- numquam in concionibus, pro repub- lica -contemnere gravitatis summp fuit...Apames manifesto comprehen- sum ante pedes pretoris in foro ex- pensum est auri pondo centum paullo minus... Laodices viginti pondo paullo amplius.’ Josephus (Antig. xiv. 7. 2), quoting the words of Strabo, réuyas 6 Mcpi- ddrns els KG édaBe...7a tav “lovdalwy éxrakoowa TdAavra, 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 gs050 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. Somewhat later we have a Other evidence. 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 dispersion in Asia Minor. To the same effect may be quoted the extravagant hyperbole in the Talmud, that when on a cer- 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®, This place was doubtless singled 1 The coinage of Apamea affords a stated to have rested there. Whether 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 N@€. Outside are two standing figures, a 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 & passage in one of the Sibylline Oracles (i. 261 sq.), where the moun- tain overhanging Apamea is identified with Ararat, and the ark (k:Bwrds) is 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. u1. p. 132 sq., and the paper of Sir F. Madden in the Numismatic Chronicle N.S. vr. p. 173 sq. (1866), where they are figured. 2 Joseph. Ant, xiv. 10. 21. 3 Talm. Babl. Moéd Katon 26a, quot- ed by Neubauer, La Géographie du 21 22 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. Inscr. 9916) runs thus; €NO6A . KITE . AMMIA . [e]ioyAea . arto . AAAIKIAC. «.7.2., l.e. @vOa xeirac "Auula "Iovdala dd Aaodixelas. Probably Laodicea on the Lycus is meant. Perhaps also we may refer another inscription (6478), which mentions one Trypho from Lao- dicea on the Lycus, to a Jewish source. 2 Acts ii. ro. 3 See p. 4. # Acts xvi. 14. Is there an allusion to this branch of trade in the message to the Church of Laodicea, Rev. iii. 17 ov oldas dre od ef 6...yuuvds* oupBov- AeUw gor ayopdoa... iudria evKa Wa mepiBarn, K.7.\.? 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 Bapya Zapdiavixov (Arist. Pax 1174, Acharn, 112) and the gowkldes Dapdia- vixal (Plato Com. in Athen. 11. p. 48 £) of the comic poets. 5 Talm. Rabl. Sabbath 147 b, quoted by Neubauer La Géographie du Talmud p- 317: see Wiesner Schol. zum Babyl. Talm. p. 259 8q., and p. 207 sq. On — the word translated ‘baths,’ see Rapo- port’s Erech Millin p. 113, col. 1. 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 aaa in which he evinces so deep an interest. Whether we ex- eat 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 suppbdsition of a visit to the district. It is true that St Luke more than once mentions Phrygia What is ’ meant by as lying on St Paul’s route or as witnessing his labours. parygia'in 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 through Phrygia, is this the case. I. On his second missionary journey, after he has revisited 1.StPaul’s and confirmed the churches of Pisidia and Lycaonia founded venue on his first visit, he passes through ‘the Phrygian and Galatian ae ee 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 riv @pvylav cal Tada- iii. 1 ris “Irovpalas xa Tpaxwvlridos Tixhy xdpav, the correct reading. For xdépas, Acts xiii. 14’Avrioyecay rv Tioe- this use of pvylavy as an adjective diay (the correct reading). comp. Mark i. § raca % Iovéala xdpa, 2 See Galatians, p. 18 8q., 22. Joh. iii. 22 els rhv "Iovdalay viv, Luke 24 2. Hisvisit 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 lie 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 2 M. Renan (Saint Paul pp. 51 8q., 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 o 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 8q., 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 8q-, 356 8q., 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 8q., 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 official 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 f 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 even 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. (2) 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, Thv Ppvyiav kal Tadarixhy xwpav (see Galatians p. 22), though it has an important bearing on St Paul’s proba- ble route. (6) 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 by a 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 heis 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 Ephesus. (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. Hven 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. 27 He represents his knowledge of their continued progress, ee ous and even of their first initiation, in the truths of the Gospel, Paul’sowa as derived from the report of others. He describes himself gay 13) while his companions sailed, would not be deterred by any rough or un- frequented paths. But the facts ad- duced by Perrot do not lend them- selyes to any such inference, nor does he himself draw it. He cites an in- scription of the year a.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 8q.); there was a good road through Syria and Cilicia to Ancyra (Itin. Anton. p. 205 8q., 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 LYCUS. as 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 from any such reference. 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 Colosse, it must appear strange that he should not once allude to any incident occurring during his sojourn 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 (1 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 8” do®éveray ris oupKds (iv. 13), i.e. because he was detained by sickness (see Galatians pp. 23 8q.,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 did Tobro Kal jets, dd’ 7s hue- pas hKkovoaper, ov mavoueda K.T.A. This corresponds to ver. 6 KaOws kal év dur, ad’ fs tuépas jKovcate kal éréyvwre tiv xdpw Tod Oecd év ddnOelg. 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. i, 5—8, 21—23, 25, 28, 29. ii. 5: Os 4 ii, 1 0é\w ydp vuds elddvar HAlKov dyava exw vrep vudv kal rav év Aaodc- kela Kal Soo ovx éewpaxav TO mpoowmor pou év capkl, Wa mapaxrAnddow al Kap- THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 29 But, if he was not directly their evangelist, yet to him Epaphras they were indirectly indebted for their knowledge of the truth. anual Epaphras had been his delegate to them, his representative sea in Christ. By Epaphras they had been converted to the Gos- pel. 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’ Slat avrav, cumBiBacbevres x.7.A. The question of interpretation is whether the people of Colosse and Laodicea belong to the same category with the Sco, 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 Jzép is not repeated, so that all. the persons mentioned are included under a vinculum. (2) No adequate sense can be extracted from the pas- sage, 80 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. If not intended to be exhaustive, it is meaningless; for there is no reason why the Colossians and Laodiceans ‘verat quos ante non viderat.’ 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, dumiaxat juxta fa- ciem corporalem. Alioquin interior homo pulcre sibi cognitus est illa notitia qua et Paulus apostolus Co- lossenses multosque credentium no- For parallels to this use of xal Sool, see the note on the passage. 13.6 é& ravrl 7@ Koouw éorly Kap- mogopovmevoy Kal avéavouevov, Kabws Kal év vuiv, ad’ js hucpas jeovoare xal éréyvure Thy xdpw Tod Oeod év ddnOelg, Kaus éuddere dwo Emagppé rod ayarn- TOU guvdovAov huay, os éorw motos 30 St Paul’s residence atEphesus We have no direct information. instru- mental in their con- version. A.D. 54—57- THE CHURCHES OF THE LYOUS. How or when the conversion of the Colossians took place, Yet it can hardly be wrong to connect the event with St Paul’s long sojourn at Ephesus. Here he remained preaching for three whole years. 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 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. It was hardly an exag- 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*’ In accordance with these notices 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 urép tua duKxoros Tod Xpicrov, 6 cat Syrdoas Huiv Thy Ymov dyarny év mrev- part. The various readings which obscure the meaning are these. (i) The re- ceived text for xaOws éuddere has xa0ws kal éuddere. With this reading the passage suggests that the instructions of Epaphras were superadded to, and so distinct from, the original evangeli- zation of Colossss ; whereas the correct text identifies them. (ii) For vrép judy the received reading is uUrép vpur. 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 Kaas [kal] éuddere dro ’Eradgpéa, 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 év d\nOelg. 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, Xlil. 1) during this period, other interruptions of long duration should not be postulated. 2 Acts xix. 26. 3 Acts xix. 10. 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- Close alli- polis would doubtless be the cities lying in the valley of the pcan Lycus. The bonds of amity between these places and Ephesus eens appear to have been unusually strong. 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 pene sad Laodicean Nymphas’, would fall in with the Apostle of the S7™phas 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 pei 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 y Cor. xvi. 19 domdtovrar vuds al éxxAnolac ris ’Acias. 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). ? Acts xix. ro ‘disputing daily in the School of Tyrannus ; and this con- tinued for two years, so that all they which dwelt in Asia, etc,’ * AAOAIKEMN . EECION . OMO- NOId, Eckhel mz. p. 165, Mionnet 1v. P. 324, 325, 33%, 332, Suppl. vil. p. 583, 586, 589; IEPATTOAEITON . EE- CIWN . OMONOIA, Eckhel 11. 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. § 20. 4 Philem. 1, 2, 19. 5 Col. iv. 15. On the question whether the name is Nymphas or Nympha, see the notes there. 6 iv. 12, 13 52 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. St Paul We pass over a period of five or six years. St Paul’s ea first captivity in Rome is now drawing to a close. During raged 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 ment at uring 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’. Colosss We have seen that Colosse was an unimportant place, and brought that it had no direct personal claims on the Apostle. We notice by might therefore feel surprise that, thus doubly disqualified, dents. | 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 Colosse prominently before his notice. 1. The 1. He had received a visit from EPAPHRAS. The dangerous alee 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—and was already spreading rapidly. His distress was 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 1 Acts xx. 16, 17. 8 Col. iv. 10, 11. See Philippians 2 See Philippians p. 6 sq. p- 17 8q. i Oe ns THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 33 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, owzsr- was also in communication with another Colossian, who had vitiv Ag 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 in 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 at- qn, Ren tention to the Churches of the Lycus, and more especially to ens Colosse. His letters, which had been found ‘weighty and three let- powerful’ in other cases, might not be unavailing now; and seer) in this hope he took up his pen. Three epistles were written and despatched at the same time to this district. I. He addresses a special letter to the COLOSSIANS, written 1. The in the joint names of himself and Timothy, warning them papi against the errors of the false teachers. He gratefully ac- yaa 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 thco- ; . logical and is endangered by two errors, recommended to them by their the pestis: : : : cal error of heretical leaders—the one theological, the other practical— th. Gotos. sians, ATV, 12; 13. 4 Col. iv. 9; comp. Philem. 16. 2 Tac. Ann. Xv. 44. 5 i. 3—9, 21 8q, 3 Philem. 11 ry aord cou dxpnorov © anor sq. K.T.A. 7 Me 45'S) 1Ss 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 veto Same source, they must be corrected by the application of the Eeyilee same remedy, the Christ of the Gospel. In the Person of Christ, Christ of the one mediator between heaven and earth, is the true solution st gi 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 ee time he enforces his lesson by the claims of personal affection, appealing to the devotion of their evangelist Epaphras on their behalf”. Of Epaphras himself we know nothing beyond wae tew but significant notices which connect him with Colosse*. He did not return to Colossz as the bearer of the letter, but remained 1 i, 1—20, ii. 9, iil. 4. Tho two threads are closely interwoven in St Paul’s refutation, as these references will show. The connexion of the two errors, a8 arising from the same false principle, will be considered more in detail in the next chapter. 24. 9, IV. 12s 3 For the reasons why Epaphras cannot be identified with Epaphrodi- tus, who is mentioned in the Phi- lippian letter, see Philippians p. 61, note 4. The later tradition, which makes him bishop of Colossz, 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 S. 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 ®, Tychicus ; : Sy he Pern ke . .,. 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* ppmpey. 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 communicate all inforination to the Colossians®, But he sends The salu- one or 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 Colossz, according to instructions which they had already received; and Jesus the Just, of whose relations with the 1 Col. iv. 12. 2 Philem. 23 6 cuvaryuddrwrdbs 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 (vit. p. 762) gives the story that St Paul’s parents were natives of Giscala and, when the Romans invaded and wasted Judea, 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 Colossa. 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. iv. 12, 4 See below, p. 37. 5 Col. iv. 7—9. 6 Acts xix. 29. 7 Acts xiii. 13, XV. 37—39. 5 eae 36 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS, 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 *. Charge re- | Lastly, the Laodiceans were closely connected with the ppecting 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 *. olaten 2. But, while providing for the spiritual welfare of the rales To 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 Colosse 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 *. 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—r14. 8 Philem. 11, 16. 2 iv. 15—17. * ver. 19. THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 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 *. 37 3. But at the same time with the two letters destined espe- 3. The cially for Colosse, the Apostle despatched a third, which had a wider scope. It has been already mentioned that Tychicus was charged with a mission to the Asiatic Churches. It has sent to LaopIcea. been noticed also that the Colossians were directed to procure and read a letter in the possession of the Laodiceans. These two facts are closely connected. The Apostle wrote at this time a circular letter 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®. 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 *. 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 Colossze 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 eopy should be circu- lated and read at Colossz. CrRcuLaR Letter, of which a, Thus the three letters are closely related. Tychicus is the Personal personal link of connexion between the Epistles to the Ephe- sians and to the Colossians; Onesimus between those to the 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 8 See the introduction to the epis- Philippian Epistle at an earlier, and tle. the others at a later stage in the # Ephes, vi. 21, 22. Apostle’s captivity. § Ccon- the three 38 Earth- 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 fourishing 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 3B.c. 125, Orac. Sibyll. iii. 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 suffering 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. §79, Dion Cass, liv.30. Strabo names only Laodicea and Tralles, but Dion Cas- sius says 7 ’Acla 7rd @Ovos ézixouplas Twos id cercpuovs pddiora €delTo. (3) 4D. 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, Vii. 23). (4) Between a.p. 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. NV. 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.D. 138—142, under Antoninus Pius, ‘Rhodiorum et Asie oppida’ (Capitol. Anton. Pius 9g, Aristid. Or. xliv); A.D. 151 or 152, under the same emperor, Mitylene and other places (Aristid. Or. xxv); A.D. 180, under M. Aurelius, Smyrna (Chron. Pasch, 1. p. 489, ed. Dind., Aristid. Or. xx, xxi, xli; see Clinton Fast. Rom. 1. p. 176 sq., Hertzberg Griechenland cic. II. pp. 371, 410, and esp. Waddington Mémoire sur la Chronologie du Rhéteur Ailius Aristide pp. 242 sq., 267, in Mém. de VAcad. des Inscr. xxv1, 1867, who has corrected the dates); A.D. 262, under Gallienus 11 (Trebell. Gallien. 5 ‘Malum tristius in Asie urbibus fvit ...hiatus terre plurimis in locis fue- runt, cum aqua salsa in fossis appa- reret,’ io. 6 ‘vastatam Asiam...elemen- torum concussionibus’). Strabo says (p. 579) that Philadelphia is more or less shaken daily (xaé’ judpav), and that Apamea has suffered from nu- merous earthquakes. 2 Tac, Ann. xiv. 27 ‘Hodem anno ex inlustribus Asiw urbibus Laodicea, tremore terre prolapsa, nullo a nobis remedio propriis opibus revaluit.’ The year is given ‘Nerone iv, 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- ” arg polis and Colossze 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 (Ann. ii. 47). By this earlier earthquake ‘duodecim celebres Asis 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 6q., 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 Oxo- sius, Vil. 7. 3 I 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. Schéne), names thirteen cities, coinciding with Tacitus as far as he goes, but including Ephesus also. Now a monument was found at Puteoli (see Gronoyv. Thes. Grec. Ant. VII. 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 Cibyre. 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. 111. p. 621) as erected to commemorate the liberality of Tiberius in contributing to the re- svoration 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 neccessary to explain 40 Bearing on the chron- ology of these let- ters. St Mark’s intended visit. THE CHURCHES OF THE LYOUS. gives the correct date’. In this case the catastrophe was sub- sequent to the writing of these letters. If on the other hand the year named by Tacitus be adopted, we gain a subsidiary 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 *. the monument. It should be added that Nipperdey (on Tac. Ann. ii. 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 A.D. 29—31; but this bare hypothesis cannot out- weigh the direct testimony of Huse- bius. 1 Hertzberg (Geschichte Griechen- lands unter der Herrschaft der Romer 11. p. 96) supposes that Tacitus and Eu- 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 TAjpor Aaodlkea, oé 6¢ tpwoe more cetouds mpynrléas, orjoe Of St Paul himself it is reasonable to assume, 6é wad wékw evpudyuay, where orice 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, note6), would form part of this work of recon- struction. 3 See below, p. 43. 4 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 Mdpxoy dvakaBav aye wera ceavrod). Thus it THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 4I that in the interval between his first and second Roman cap- St Paul tivity he found some opportunity of carrying out his design. he ag At all events we find him at Miletus, near to the mouth of ©l0ss#. 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 direction of the Asiatic Churches is drawing to a close. With St John his death they pass into the hands of St John’, who takes up ly his abode in Asia Minor. Of Colossee and Hierapolis we hear nothing more in the New Testament: but from his exile in Patmos the beloved disciple delivers his Lord’s message to the The mes- Church of Laodicea*; a message doubtless intended to be pete communicated aiso to the two subordinate Churches, to which it would apply almost equally well. The message communicated by St John to Laodicea pro- Corres- longs the note which was struck by St Paul in the letter to Seika Colossee. An interval of a very few years has not materially Lebo eg altered the character of these churches. Obviously the same nae temper prevails, the same errors are rife, the same correction. ; must be applied. 1. Thus, while St Paul finds it necessary to enforce the 1. The truth that Christ is the image of the invisible God, that in {one of Him all the divine fulness dwells, that He existed before all] of Christ, things, that through Him all things were created and in Him all things are sustained, that He is the primary source (dpyy) seems fairly probable that St Mark’s projected visit to Colosse was paid. 1 2 Tim. iv. 20. By a strange error Lequien (Oriens Christ. 1. p. 833) substitutes Hierapolis for Nicopolis in Tit. ili, 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 (1 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 is among the provinces mentioned in the address of the First Epistle. 3 Rev. iii. 14—21. 42 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 (apyn) 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 prac- And the practical duty also, which follows from the recog- pean nition of the theological truth, is enforced by both Apostles gs upon 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, Warn- 2. But again; after a parting salutation to the Church of ingagainst T aodicea St Paul closes with a warning to Archippus, ap- lukewarm- ness. parently its chief pastor, to take heed to his ministry®, Some 1 Col. i. 15—18. 2 Rey. iii, 14. It should be ob- served that this designation of our Lord (7 dpxh ris Krloews Tod Geot), 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. 9 Cole uit.ar: 4 Ephes. ii. 6 cuvryyeipev Kal ouve- Kadicev K.T.d. 5 Rev. iii, 21 dow atrd xabloa per €uod, x.7.X. Here again it must be noticed that there is no such re- semblance in the language of the 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, @ Col.avs Ty: THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 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 pride of wealth de- 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 however was not her chief title to respect. While other cities 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. ‘Nullo a nobis remedio, says the Roman his- torian, ‘propriis opibus revaluit®.’ Thus she had asserted a proud independence, to which neither far-famed metropolitan Ephesus, nor old imperial Sardis, nor her prosperous commer- 1 Rev. iii. 19. If the common view, 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- cidence 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 sq.), this interpretation of the angels seems to me incorrect, 2 Rev. iii. 17, 18, where the correct reading with the repetition of the definite articles, 6 radaimwpos kal 6 é\ewds, signifies the type, the em- bodiment of wretchedness, etc. 3 Tac. Ann, XIV. 27. of Laodi- » cea. Pride of intellectu- al wealth. THE CHURCHES 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- quake which Tacitus records as hap- pening in these Asiatic cities, Ann. ii. 47 (the twelve cities), iv. 13 (Ci- byra), xii. 58 (Apamea), he mentions the fact of their obtaining relief from the Senate or the Emperor. On an earlier occasion Laodicea herself had not disdained under similar circum- stances to receive assistance from Au- gustus: Strabo, xii. p. 579. 2 See the next chapter of this intro- duction. 3 Col. ii. 8, 18, 23. 41. 24. dig Bae Pe § Comp. Eph. i. 18 ‘The eyes of your understanding being enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints.’ THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 45 fixed his abode at Ephesus, it would appear that not a few of The early eis oe disciples the oldest surviving members of the Palestinian Church ac- settle in companied him into ‘Asia,’ which henceforward became the }raca 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. This fact explains how these Phrygian Churches Harpe. assumed a prominence in the ecclesiastical history of the second 1s 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. £. iii. 39. 2 Papias in Kuseb. H. EL. iii. 39. 3 Polycrates in EKuseb. H. £. iii. 31, ‘vy. 24 Piturrop [roy] TGv Sdexa dro- oTéAwy, Os Kexolunrat év ‘Iepamo)er, kat Ovo Ouyarépes avrou yeynpaxvias mapbévot, Kal 9 érépa avrov Ouvyarnp év ayly mvedmare wodwtTevoapévn, 9 ev "Edéow dvaraverat. 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. E. iii. 30) 9 Kal rods drooToXOUs dmodo- Kydoovor’ Ilérpos pév yap kal Pidurmos éraooroijoavro, Pidummos 6é Kal Tos Ovyarépas avipaow e&édwxe. On the other hand in the Dialogue between Gaius and Proclus, Philip the Evan- gelist was represented as residing at Hierapolis (Huseb. H. EZ. iii. 31) pera tourov O€ mpopirides réooapes al Pl- Aummov yeyevnvra év ‘leparoder TH Kara tiv Acta 6 rddos adra&y éariv éxe?, Kat 6 Tov marpds a’Tay, 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 office is created to relieve the Twelve of some onerous duties (Acts vi. 2—s). (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. 14—~17). (3) When St Paul and his companions visit Philip at Cesarea, 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. Z. ‘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 (cvvgdwvr)’ the language of Polycrates, And accordingly in another passage (H. E, iii. 39), when he has occasion 46 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. Philip the early friend and fellow-townsman of St John, and the first Apostle who is recorded to have held communication with Apostle with his daughters, the Gentiles’. to mention the conversations of Panias 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. I. 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 Polycrates. In all respects therefore his authority is inferior. Moreover it ig suspicious inform. 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, Here he died and was buried; and here after as it also drew Andrew. And, when we turn to St John’s Gospel, we can hardly resist the impression that inei- dents relating to Andrew and Philip had a special interest, not only for the writer of the Gospel, but also for his hearers (John i, 40, 43—46, Vi. 5—8, xii. 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- tles rt ’Avipéas ... elev 9 Tl Pidurros, 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 fromthe 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 LYOCUS. 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 47 her body rested*, It was from the two daughters who resided Their tra. at Hierapolis, that Papias heard several stories of the first collected preachers of the Gospel, which he transmitted to posterity in by 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 Huseb. 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. * Kusep. I. c. ds 52 card rods adrovs 6 Tlamlas yevduevos duiyynow mapedy- gévar Gavuaclay bwd [d7d?] raev Tov Dilrrov Ovyarépwv pvynpovevter, Ta viv onuelwTéov’ vexpov yap dvdoracw Kar’ adrov yeyovuiay lorope?, kal ad mddw €repov mapddotov epi lotcroy rov émt- k\nbévra BapoaBav yeyovbs x.7.A. 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 {xar’ atrév). It will be remembered that even Ireneus 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 Papras. THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. If we may judge by his name, PAPIAS 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. Inscr. no. 3930, 3912 a 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 Ilamtg Act cwrfpr), jusi as in Bithynia this same god was called IIdras (Liobeck Aglaoph. p. 1048; see Boeckh Corp. Inscr. Il. p. 1051). Hence as the name of a mortal it is equivalent to the Greek Diogenes ; e.g. Boeckh no. 3912 a add., Iazias rot Xrpdrwvos 6 karovpevos Aroyévns. 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 iadd.) Ilarmlas Tpo- gluov Kal Tuxixfs 7.A. (see Wad- dington on Le Bas, Inscr. 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 accordiugly 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. 2 Chron. Pasch. sub. ann. 163 ody 73 ayly 5é TlodvKdprw@ Kal ddror 0’ dro Diradergelas waptupovow ev Duvpvy’ kat év Tlepyduw 68 érepor, év ofs qv cai Ia- mlas kat dAdo woNdol, wy Kal &yypada gépovrae Ta papripia. See also the Syrian epitome of Euseb, Chron. (1. p. 216 ed. Schdne) ‘Cum persecutio in Asia esset, Polycarpos martyrium subiit et Papias, quorum martyria in libro (scripta) extant,’ but the Armenian version of the Chronicon mentions only Pelycarp, while Jerome says ‘ Poly- carpus et Pionius fecere martyrium.’ In his history (iv. 15) Eusebius, after quoting the Martyrdom of Polycarp at length, adds év rij airq de wept adrov ypapp kal dAAa mapTipia cuvqrro .-. wed Gy Kal Mnrpdbdwpos ... dvipyrac Tu ye why Té6TE TeptBonTwY papTopwv ets tis éypwplfero Iedvios... qs dé Kat d\Nwv év Ilepydup moder THs Actas brro- pojpara peuaptupnkbrwy péperat, Kap- mov kal Ilamvdov kal yuvaKos ’Aya- Govixns x.t.’. He here apparently falls into the error of imagining that Metro- dorus, Pionius, Carpus, Papylus, and the others were martyred under M. Aurelius, whereas we know from their extant Acts that they suffered in the Decian persecution. For the Martyr- doms 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 8q., 1689) are appa- THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 49 wise he must have lived to a very advanced age. Eusebius, to Account of 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. This disparaging account, 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- nzus’, who possibly may have known him personally, and who certainly must have been well acquainted with his reputation and character. Much has been written respecting the relation of this 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 rently the same which were seen by Eusebius. Those of the latter are a late compilation of the Metaphrast, but were perhaps founded on the earlier document. At all events the tradition of the persecution in which they suffered could hardly have heen perverted or lost, Eusebius seems to have found their Acts bound up in the same volume with those of Polycarp, and without reading them through, to have drawn the hasty inference that they suffered at the same time. But notwithstanding the error, or perhaps owing to it, this passage in the Eccle- siastical History, by a confusion of the names Papias and Papylus, seems to have given rise to the statement re- specting Papias in the Chronicon Pas- chale and in the Syrian epitome, as it obviously has misled Jerome respecting Pionius. This part of the Chronicon Paschale is plainly taken from Eu- sebius, as the coincidences of expres- CoOL. sion and the sequence of events alike show. The martyrdom of Papias there- fore appears to be a fiction, and he may have died a natural death at an earlier date. Polycarp’s martyrdom is shown by M. Waddington’s investigations to have taken place a.p. 155 or 156; see Mémoire sur la Chronologie du Rhéteur filius Aristide p. 232 8q., in the Mém. de V' Acad. des Inscr. xxvt (1867). 1H. E. iii. 39 ocdpa opixpos rov vouv. In another passage (iii. 36), as commonly read, Eusebius makes par- tial amends to Papias by calling him dvip Ta mwavra ore padsora Aoywraros kal THs ypapys elijuwy, but this pas- sage is found to be a spurious inter- polation (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 3 See on this subject Westcott Canon 4 50 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. as affecting the progress of the Gospel in these parts, has been raised by modern criticism and must not be passed over in silence. A modern It has been supposed that there was an entire dislocation eee, and discontinuity in the history of Christianity in Asia Minor erie at a certain epoch; that the Apostle of the Gentiles was Aare ignored and his teaching repudiated, if not anathematized; discussed. 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 strong-hold, a repulse at this point must involve its ultimate defeat along the whole line. The posi- Of St John himself I have already spoken® It has been ton Of St 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 andof lay the chief stress of their argument on the silence of Papias, Papias. or rather of Eusebius. Eusebius quotes a passage from Papias, in which the bishop of Hierapolis mentions collecting from 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 p. 64.8q.; Contemporary Review, Au- or in Schwegler’s Nachapostolisches gust and September, 1875. Zeitalter. It has been reproduced (at 1 The theory of the Tiibingen school least as far as regards the Asiatic: may be studied in Baur’s Christliche Churches) by Renan S. Paul p. 366 sq. Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte 2 See above p. 41 sq. THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 5! 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 ee fc able to collect depended on his opportunities. Before he had collected grown up to manhood, the personal reminiscences of St Paul ili 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 disciples of Christ, of whom alone he is speaking in this preface to his work, which Eusebius quotes. (2) But, though we have no right to expect any mention 2. His re- of St Paul where the appeal is to personal testimony, yet with mame 4—2 52 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. theCa- quotations from or references to the Canonical writings nonical 4 ee 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- ° : ° tached to quoted St Paul again and again, and yet Eusebius would see the silence no yeason 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 Irenzus also. Ire- 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 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 2 § 3. Polycarp, in which St Paul’s name 2 H.E. iv. 14 6 yé rot TlodNKapros is mentioned; but the quotation is év ri Sn\wOelon pds Siirmyolovs avrod _ brought to illustrate the life of Igna- ypady pepouévy els Sedpo xéxpyral tit tius, and the mention of the Apostle papruptaus dd ris Tlérpov mporépas éri- _ there is purely accidental. orod\js. This is all that Eusebius 3H. E. v. 8 péuynrat 68 xal rhs says with reference to Polycarp’s know- “Iwdvvov mpurns émiotodijs, Mapripia ef ledge of the Canonical writings. It aurfs mdetora elopépwr, dpolws 52 nat so happens that in an earlier passage fs Ilérpov mporépas. (iii. 36) he has given an extract from THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 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 we any grounds for saying that it is also highly improbable ? Here it seems fair to argue from the well-known to the un- known. Of the opinions of Papias respecting St Paul we know absolutely nothing ; of the opinions of Polycarp and Irenzus ample evidence lies before us. Noscitur a socits is a sound maxim to apply in such a case, Papias was a companion of Polycarp, and he is quoted with deference by Irenzus?, Is it probable that his opinions should be diametrically opposed to those of his friend and contemporary on a cardinal point affect- 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 1 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 Ttibingen 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 Irenezus, 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. E. iii. 38), he alludes to the coincidences with the Epistle to the Hebrews, but omits to mention the direct references to St 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, Pp. 169 sq. 2 Tren. Har. v. 33. 4. 53 The views of Papias inferred from his associates. 54 Millenna- rian views consistent with the recogni- tion of St Paul. ABERCIUS THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 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 Ireneus 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. As the successor of Papias and the predecessor of Claudius Apollinaris in the see of Hierapolis, we may perhaps name ABERCIUS or AvircIUS’ His legendary Acts assign his epi- 1 The life of this Abercius is print- ed in the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum Oct. 22. It may safely be pronounced spurious. Among other incidents, the saint goes to Rome and casts out a demon from Lucilla, the daughter of M. Aurelius and Faustina, at the same time compelling the demon to take up an altar from Rome and transport it through the air to Hierapolis, But these Acts, though legendary them- selves, contain an epitaph which has the ring of genuineness and which seems to have suggested the story to the pious forger who invented the Acts, This very interesting memorial is given and discussed at length by Pitra, Spicil. Solesm. 111. p. 532 8q. Itis inscribed by one Abercius of Hierapolis on his tomb, which he erected during his life-time. He declares himself a disciple of the good shepherd, who THE CHURCHES OF THE LYOUS. 55 scupate to the reign of Marcus Aurelius; and, though they Probably . 1s succes- are disfigured by extravagant fictions, yet the date may perhaps gor. be accepted, as it seems to be confirmed by other evidence. An inscription on his tombstone recorded how he had paid one taught him trustworthy writings (ypayu- para mord) and sent him to visit queenly Rome, where he saw a people sealed with the bright seal [of bap- tism]. He recounts also a journey to Syria and the East, when he crossed the Euphrates. He says that faith served up to him as a banquet the iy8yc from the fountain, giving him bread and wine. He states that he has reached his 72nd year. And he closes by threatening with severe pe- nalties those who disturb his tomb. The resemblance of this inscription to others found in situ in the cemetery at Hierapolis, after allowance made for the Christian element, is very striking. The commencement ’ExXexr#s rodews closely resembles the form of another Hierapolitan inscription, Boeckh Corp. Inser. 3906; the enumeration of fo- reign tours has a counterpart in the monument of one Flavius Zeuxis which states that the deceased had made 72 voyages round the promontory of Ma- lea to Italy (ib. 3920); and lastly, the prohibition against putting another grave upon his, and the imposition of fines to be paid to the treasury and the city if this injunction is violated, are echos of language which occurs again and again on tombstones in this city (ib. 3915, 3916, 3922, 3923, etc.). Out of this epitaph, which he found probably at Hierapolis, and which, as he himself tells us (§ 41), was in a much mutilated condition, the legend-writer apparently created his story, interpret- ing the queen, by which Abercius him- self probably meant the city of Rome, to be the empress Faustina, with whom the saint is represented as having an interview, M. Aurelius himself being absent at the time on his German cam- paign. This view, that the epitaph is genuine and gave rise to the Acts, is also maintained by Garrucci (Civilta Cattolica 1856, I. p.683, 11. p.84, quoted in the Acta Sanct. 1. ¢.), whose criti- cisms however are not always sound; and indeed as a whole it bears every mark of authenticity, though possibly it may contain some interpolations, which its mutilated condition would encourage. The name Aburcius oc- curs in Corp. Inscr. Lat. vi. 127. The inscription itself however does not tell us what office Abercius held or when he lived. There was a person of this name, bishop of Hierapolis, present at the Council of Chalcedon a.p. 451 (Labb. Cone. tv. 862, 1204, 1341, 1392, 1496,1744, ed. Coleti). But achief pastor of the Church at this late date would have declared hisoffice plainly; and the inscription points to a more primitive age, for the expressions are archaic and the writer seems to veil his profession of Christianity under language studiously obscure. The open profession of Chris- tianity on inscriptions occurs at an earlier date in these parts than else- where. Already the word yPICTIANOC or YPHCTIANOC is found on tomb- stones of the third century; Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3857 g, 3857 p, 3865 1; see Renan Saint Paul p. 363. Thus we are entirely at fault unless we accept the statement in the Acts. And it is not unreasonable to sup- pose that, so far as regards the date and office of Abercius, the writer of these Acts followed some adequate historical tradition. Nor indeed is his statement altogether without con- firmation. We have evidence that a 56 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. His jour- visit to the city of Rome, and another to the banks of the Euphrates, ‘hese long journeys are not without parallels in the lives of contemporary bishops. Polycarp of Smyrna visited Rome, hoping to adjust the Paschal controversy; Melito of neys. person bearing this name lived in these parts of Asia Minor, somewhere about this time. An unknown writer of a polemical tract against Montanism de- dicates ‘his work to one Avircius Mar- cellus, at whose instigation it was written. Eusebius (H. E. v. 16), who is our authority for this fact, relates that Montanism found a determined and formidable opponent in Apollina- ris at Hierapolis and ‘several other learned men of that day with him,’ who left large materials for a his- tory of the movement. He then goes on to say; dpxduevos yotv THs Kar’ atrav ypadas Trav elpnuévwr 64 Tis ---Tpooudserar...roorov Tov Tpbmov* "Ex wrelarov Scov Kal ikavwrdrov xpévou, dyamnre ’Aoulpxie Mdpxedde, ércraxdels trd cot ovyypdyar Tid Abyov K.T.A., i.e. ‘One of the aforesaid writers at the commencement of his treatise against them (the Montanists) etc.’ May not the person here addressed be the Abercius of the epitaph? But if so, who is the writer that addresses him, and when did he live? Some mss oxtit 54 71s, and others sub- stitute 76, thus making Apollinaris himself the writer. But the words seem certainly to have been part of the original text, as the sense requires them; for if they are omitted, ray el- pnuévwy must be connected with xar’ airav, where it is not wanted. Thus Eusebius quotes the writer anony- mously; and those who assign the treatise to Apollinaris cannot plead the authority of the original text of the historian himself. But after all may it not have been written by Apollinaris, though Euse- bius was uncertain about the author. ship? He quotes in succession three ovyypdupara or treatises, speaking of them as though they emanated from the same author. The first of these, from which the address to Avircius Marcellus is quoted, might very well have been composed soon after the Montanist controversy broke out (as Eusebius himself elsewhere states was the case with the work of Apollinaris, iv. 27 Kara ris tTav Ppvydv alpécews ...aomep éxpiew apxouérvns); but the second and third distinctly state that they were written some time after the death of Montanus. May not Eusé- bius have had before him a volume containing a collection of tracts against Montanism ‘by Claudius Apollinaris and others,’ in which the authorship of the several tracts was not distinctly marked? This hypothesis would ex- plain the words with which he pre- faces his extracts, and would also ac- count for his vague manner of quota- tion. It would also explain the omis- sion of 6 vis in some texts (the ancient Syriac version boldly sub- stitutes the name of Apollinaris), and would explain how Rufinus, Nicepho- rus, and others, who might have had independent information, ascribed the treatise to this father. I have al- ready pointed out how Eusebius was led into a similar error of connecting together several martyrologies and treating them as contemporaneous, be- cause they were collected in the same volume (p. 48, note 2). Elsewhere too I have endeavoured to show that he mistook the authorship of a tract which was bound up with others, THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. Sardis went as far as Palestine, desiring to ascertain on the spot the facts relating to the Canon of the Old Testament These or similar motives may have influenced If we may assume Scriptures. Abercius to undertake his distant journeys. the identification of this bishop with one Avircius Marcellus who is mentioned in a contemporary document, he took an active interest in the Montanist controversy, as from his position he was likely to do. 57 The literary character of the see of Hierapolis, which had Cxauniws been inaugurated by Papias, was ably sustained by CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS. owing to the absence of a title (Caius or Hippolytus? in the Journal of Phi- lology 1. p. 98 8q.). On this hypothesis, Claudius Apol- linaris would very probably be the author of the first of these treatises. If so, it would appear to have been written while he was still a presbyter, at the instigation of his bishop Avir- cius Marcellus whom he succeeded not long after in the see of Hierapolis. If on the other hand Eusebius has correctly assigned the first treatise to the same writer as the second and third, who must have written after the beginning of the third century, Avir- cius Marcellus to whom it is addressed cannot have held the see of Hierapolis during the reign of M. Aurelius (a.D. 161—180); and, if he was ever bishop of this city, must have been a successor, not a predecessor, of Claudius Apolli- naris. In this case we have the alter- native of abandoning the identification of this Avircius with the Hierapolitan bishop of the same name, or of reject- ing the statement of the Acts which places his episcopate in this reign. The occurrence of the name Aber- cins in the later history of the see of Hierapolis (see p. 55) is no argument His surname, which seems to have been co mon in these parts’, may have been derived from the patron lis. against the existence of this earlier bishop. It was no uncommon practice for the later occupants of sees to assume the name of some famous predecessor who lived in primitive or early times. The case of Ignatius at Antioch is only one of several examples which might be produced. There is some ground for supposing that, like Papias and Apollinaris, Abercius earned a place in literary history. Baronio had in his hands an epistle to M. Aurelius, purporting to have been written by this Abercius, which he obviously considered genuine and which he describes as ‘apostoli- cum redolens spiritum,’ promising to publish it in his Annals (Martyr. Rom. Oct. 22). To his great grief however he afterwards lost it (‘doluimus vehe- menter e manibus nostris elapsam nescio quomodo’), and was therefore unable to fulfil his promise (Annal, s.a. 163, n. 15). A BiBdos didacxadias by Abercius is mentioned in the Acts (§ 39); but this, if it ever existed, was doubtless spurious. 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 NARIS bi- _ Shop of mt Hierapo- 58 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 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’. His liter- Of his works, which were very numerous, only a few scanty sche fragments have survived*, The imperfect lists however, which have reached us, bear ample testimony both to the literary 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. He takes The two questions, which especially agitated the Churches See of Asia Minor during the last thirty years of the first century, sae were the celebration of the Easter festival and the pretensions day. of the Montanist prophets. In both disputes Claudius Apolli- naris took an active and conspicuous part. 1. The Paschal controversy, after smouldering long both 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 (4.D. 198), we find the name of KAAYAIOC . ATTOAAINAPIOC . AYPHAIO- NOC, Boeckh 3837 (see m1. 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, CTPATHTOYNTOC. TO. B. KA . ATIOAAINAPIOY ; Boeckh 3840, ib. p. 1067. See also the inscriptions 3842 ¢, 3846 z (ib. pp. 1069, 1078) at the same place, where again the name Apollinarius occurs. It is found also at Appia no. 3857 b (ib. p. 1086). Atan earlier date one Claudius Apollinaris appears in command of the Roman fleet at Misenum (Tac. Hist. iii. 57, 76; 77). The name occurs also at Hiera- polis itself, Boeckh, no. 3915, TT. AIAIOC . Th. AIAIOY . ATTOAAINAPIOY « loyAlano[y].yioc . ce[...]. aTtoAAl- NAPIC . MAKEAODN . K.T-Aey 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 (rov Kahov Hudy mdmav’Arodvdpiov), of whom nothing more is known. 1 Apollo Archegetes; see above p. 12, note I. 2 Kuseb. H. E. iv. 26, Chron. 8. a. 171, 172, ‘ Apollinaris Asianus, Hiera- politanus episcopus, insignis habetur.’ 3 Collected in Routh’s Reliquie Sa- cr@ I. p. 159 8q., and more recently in Otto’s Corp. Apol. Christ. 1x. p. 479 8q. THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 59 here and elsewhere, first burst into flames in the neighbouring 1. The Church of Laodicea’, An able bishop of Hierapolis therefore Pees 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 2.Montan- more famous, and are recommended as an authority on the subject by Serapion of Antioch a few years after the author’s 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. Ifa 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 1 See below, p. 63. # See Polycrates of Ephesus in 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. 8 Eusebius represents the dioceses of ‘Asia’ and the neighbourhood, as absolutely unanimous; H. E. v. 23 ris *Aclas dmdons al mapotklat, V. 24 Tis "Aclas maons dua Tals dubpots exxAnolas Tas mapolas. -‘Asia’ includes all this district, as appears from Polycrates, ib. Euseb. H. E. v. 24. 5 In Euseb. H. E. v. 19. 6 Kusebius (H. E. iv. 27) at the close of his list of the works of Apol- linaris gives cal d wera ravdra ouv- éypaye card ris [Trav] Ppvyav aipé- gews per’ od odtv Katvorounbelons xpivov, Thre ye piv domep exptew dp- xouévns, rt TOD Movravov dua rats av- Tov Wevdorpodiyriow apxds THs mapex- Tpow7js mo.oupévov, i.e. the vagaries of Montanus and his followers had al- ready begun when Apollinaris wrote, but Montanism assumed a new phase shortly after. 60 His other heresiolo- gical writ- ings. THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. himself, where this heresy was condemned and sentence of excommunication pronounced against Montanus together with his adherent the pretended prophetess Maximilla’, 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 doctrine and the 1 Included in the Libellus Synodi- cus published by Pappus; see Labb. Conc. I. 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 Monitanists is recognised by Eu- sebius H. EH. v. 16, mpos THv Aeyouévnv Kara Ppivyas alpecw Srdov loxupov Kat dxaraydévicrov émt ris ‘Iepamddews Tov *Arrohvd pov. After mentioning the council the compiler of this Synodicon speaks thus of the false prophets ; of cal Br\acg7- pws, nTor Sawovwvres, Kabus pyow 6 auvrés marip [i.e. ’Amodiwdpros], Tov Blov karéorpevay, adv avrois 6é Kkaréxpiwe kal Gebdorov rov oxuréa, He evidently has before him the fragments of the anonymous treatises quoted by Euse- bius (H. EZ. v. 16), as the following parallels taken from these fragments show: ws éml évepyounévy kal Sacpo- vaovTt..BrAacpynuety SiddoKxovros Tov drnvOadiouevov mvevuaros...Tdv Budv Karaoctpéwat Iovda mpoddrov dlknv ...olov érirporby tia Oeddorov monrvs alpe? Noyos...rereAeurjKace Movravés Te kal Qeddoros kal 7} mpoeipnuévn yur}. Thus he must have had before him a text of Eusebius which omitted the words 64 ris at the commencement, as they are omitted in some existing mss (see above, p. 56, note); and ac- cordingly he ascribed all the treatises to Apollinaris, The parallels are taken from the first and second trea- tises; the first might have been written by Apollinaris, but the second was certainly not by his hand, as it re- fers to much later events (see above, p- 56). Hefele (Conciliengeschichte 1. 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 p. 59, note 6), and this Apology was not written till after a.p. 174 (see p. 61, noter). The chronology of Montanism is very perplexing, but Hefele’s dates appear to be much too early. The Chronicon of Eusebius gives the rise of Montanism under 4.D. 172 or 173, and this statement is consistent with the notices in his History. But if this date be correct, it most probably refers to Montanism as a distinct system; and the fires had probably been smouldering within the Church for some time before 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. 2 Theodoret. H. F. i. 21. 3 Soor. H. E. iii. 7. THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 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 asceticism. 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 61 pale of the Church. On the one hand he was the author of an His apolo- apology addressed to M. Aurelius’, of a controversial treatise in an five books against the Greeks, and of a second in two books against the Jews”; on the other we find mentioned among his writings a work in two books on Truth, and a second on Piety, oat ae 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 1 Kuseb. H. EH. iv. 26, 27. He re- ferred in this Apology to the incident of the so-called Thundering Legion, which happened A.D. 174; and as re- ported by Eusebius (H. E. v. 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 (e.g. éruvupov Ths ovvruxlas), which Eusebius and later writers misunderstood ; just as Eusebius himself (vy. 24) speaks of Irenzus as depwvupudss ris dv TH mpoon- yoplg abr@ te TO Tpdry elpnvorois. Of the words used by Eusebius, olxelay rg yeyovérs mpds Tod Bacitéws eldndévar mwpooryoplay, we may suspect that ol- xelay T@ yeyovbts mpoonyoplay is an ex- pression borrowed from Apollinaris himself, while wpds rod Bacidéws eld\n- gévac gives Eusebius’ own erroneous interpretation of his author’s mean- ing. The name of this legion was Ful- minata, not Fulminatriz, as it is often carelessly written out, where the in- scriptions have merely FVLM.; see Becker and Marquardt Rim, Alterth. Ill. 2, Pp. 353- 2 The words cal wpds "Iovdalous rpd- tov Kal devrepov 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 hommote- leuton, as they are immediately pre- ceded by xal wept ddnOclas rp&rov Kal dedrepov. 8 A list of his works is given by Eusebius (H. LE. 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. 62 Important bearing of these facts on the history of Christi- anity. Solidarity of the Church in the second century. THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 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 in the Church of Hierapolis as the theory in question assumes, if the Pauline Gospel was repudiated in the later years of the first century and rank Judaism adopted in its stead, how can we explain the position of Apollinaris? 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— Irenzeus 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 our view. For the solidarity of the Church is the one striking fact unmistakably revealed to us, as here and there the veil 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 Irenzus in Gaul, Philippus 1 Theodoret. Her. Fab. iii. 2 dvhp fame literature. diiérawos Kal mpds TH yywoe Tay Oelwv 2 Photius lc., dgibdoyos 52 6 dvhp kal Thy ewer mardelan mpocerygus. Kal dpdoer akiodoyy Kexpnucvos. So too Jerome, Ep. 7o (1. p. 428, ed. 3 Kuseb. H. E. iv. 21, Jerome 1, «., Vallarsi), names him among those who Theodoret.1c¢., Socr. H. E. iii, 7. were equally versed in sacred and pro- THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 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 Irenzeus that the difference of the usage establishes the harmony of the faith’. Though Laodicea cannot show the same intellectual activity Activity of as Hierapolis, yet in practical energy she is not wanting. One of those fitful persecutions, which sullied the rule of Martyr- the imperial Stoic, deprived Laodicea of her bishop Sagaris?. : 63 Laodicea. The exact date of his martyrdom is not known; but we cannot % 4? 165 be far wrong in assigning it to an early year in the reign of M. Aurelius, His name appears to have been 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. Coincident with the martyrdom of Sagaris was the outburst of "eV: 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 1 Tren. in Euseb. H. E. v. 24 % dia- -durla rijs vnoretas (the fast which pre- ceded the Paschal festival) rjv ouovoray Ths mlorews cwloryc.. 2 Melito in Euseb. H. E. iv. 26 ém ZepourrAlov Iavdov dvOurdrov rijs *Aclas, @ Zdyapis Kaipg~ euapripycer, éyévero Syrynois wodkdn év Aaodixelg mept ToU wacxXa éumecdvros KaTa Katpov év éxeivars Tals huépats, kal éypagyn Tatra (i.e. Melito’s own treatise on the Paschal festival). 3 The proconsulate of Paullus, under whom this martyrdom took place, is dated by Borghesi (Guvres vii. p. 507) somewhere between A.D. 163—168; by Waddington (Fastes des Provinces Asia- tiques p. 731, in Le Bas and Wadding- ton Voyage Archéologique etc.) probably A.D. 164—166. This rests 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 rv. p. 493, VIII. p. 504, Mommsen Rém. Forsch. 1. p. 8, Ephem. Epigr. 11. 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. Ruffinus however writes it correctly Sergius. * Besides Melito (1.c.), Polycrates of Ephesus refers to him with respect; Euseb. H. E. v. 24, rl 58 def réyew LZdyapw erloxorov kat pcprupa, bs év Aaodixeig. Kexolunrat. of fhe Pas- chal con- 64 THH OHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. Council of Nicwa. 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 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. Hierapolis Ata later date the influence of both Hierapolis and Laodicea og ‘1 has sensibly declined. In the great controversies of the fourth iy : and fifth centuries they take no conspicuous part. Among their 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. At Nicaea Hierapolis was represented re by Flaccus’, Laodicea by Nunechius*. They both acquiesced A.D. 325: in its decrees, and the latter as metropolitan published them throughout the Phrygian Churches’, Soon after, both sees Philippo- lapsed into Arianism. At the synod of Philippopolis, com- eae 47. posed of bishops who had seceded from the Council of Sardica, the representatives of these two sees were present and joined in the condemnation of the Athanasians. On this occasion Hierapolis was still represented by Flaccus, who had thus turned traitor to his former faith’, On the other hand Laodicea had changed its bishop twice meanwhile. Cecropius had won the 1 Labb. Cone. 1. 57, 62, ed. Coleti; 2 Labb, Conc. 11. 57, 62; Cowper’s Cowper’s Syriac Miscellanies p.11, 28. Syriac Miscellanies pp. 11, 28, 34. He It is remarkable that after Papias had also been present at the Synod all the early bishops of Hierapolis of Ancyra held about a.p. 314 (see of whom we hear have Roman names; Galatians p. 34); ib. p. 41. Avircius Marcellus (?), Claudius Apolli- 3 Labb. Conc. 1. 236. naris, Flaccus, Lucius, Venantius. 4 ib. 744. THE CHURCHES OF THE LYOCUS. 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 signed the Arian decree at Philippopolis *. When these sees recovered their orthodoxy we 65 do not know; but it is perhaps a significant fact, that neither [Constax- TINOPLE, is represented at the second general Council, held at Constan- 4». 3g1.] tinople (A.D. 381)*. At the third general Council, which met tbe hee an an at Ephesus, Laodicea is represented by Aristonicus, Hierapolis | Encyenian by Venantius‘. Both bishops sign the decrees condemning Nestorius. agitated the Church the two sees bear their part. At. the heresies. EPHESUS. Again in the next Christological controversy which 4-. 431- notorious Robbers’ Synod, held also at Ephesus, Laodicea was ne represented by another Nunechius, Hierapolis by Stephanus. 4 ree “449. Both bishops committed themselves to the policy of Dioscorus and the opinions of the heretic Eutyches *. Yet with the fickle- ness which characterized these sees at an earlier date during the Arian controversy, we find their representatives two years later at the Council of Chalcedon siding with the orthodox rae party and condemning the Eutychian heresy which they had a». 451 1 Athanas. ad Epise, Zgypt. 8 (Op. 1. p. 219), Hist. Arian. ad Mon. 74 (ib. p. 307). * Labb. Cone. 1. 744. ® Cowper’s Syriac Miscell. p. 39. 4 Labb. Conc. 11. 1085, 1222, Mans. Cone. tv. 1357. The name of this bishop of Hierapolis is variously writ- ten, but Venantius seems to be the true orthography. For some unex- plained reason, though present in person, he signs by deputy. He had before subscribed the protest to Cyril against commencing the proceedings before the arrival of John of Antioch (Mans. Conc. v. 767), and perhaps his acquiescence in the decisions of the Council was not very hearty. 5 Labb. Conc. iv. 892, 925, 928, XI07, 1170, 1171, 1185. In the Acts of this herctical council, as occasion- COL. ally in those of the Council of Chal- cedon, Laodicea is surnamed Trimi- taria (see above, p. 18, note 2). Fol- lowing Le Quien (Or. Christ. 1. p. 835), I have assumed the Stephanus who was present at the Latrocinium to have been bishop of the Phrygian Hierapolis, though I have not found any decisive indication which Hie- rapolis is meant, On the other hand the bishop of the Syrian Hierapolis at this time certainly bore the name Stephanus (Labb. Cone. rv. 727, 1506, [1550], 1644, 1836, v. 46); and the synod held under Stephanus A.D. 445, which Wiltsch (Geography and Statis- tics of the Church 1. p. 170, Eng. Trans.) assigns to our Hierapolis, belongs to the Syrian city of the same name, as the connexion with Perrha shews: Labb. Conc. Iv. 727, 1644. 5 66 Later vacillation of these sees. Theircom- parative unimpor- tance. CouNncIL or Laopt- CEA an eX- ception. THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. so lately supported. Nunechius is still bishop of Laodicea, and reverses his former vote. Stephanus has been succeeded at Hierapolis by Abercius, whose orthodoxy, so far as we know, had not been compromised by any previous expression of opinion®. The history of these churches at a later date is such as might have been anticipated from their attitude during the period of the first Four General Councils. The sees of Laodicea and Hierapolis, one or both, are represented at all the more important assemblies of the Church; and the same vacillation and infirmity of purpose, which had characterized their holders in the earlier councils, marks the proceedings of their later successors *, But, though the two sees thus continue to bear witness to their existence by the repeated presence of their occupants at councils and synods, yet the real influence of Laodicea and Hierapolis on the Church at large has terminated with the close of the second century. On one occasion only did either community assume a position of prominence, About the middle of the fourth century a council was held at Laodicea*, 1 Labb. Conc. tv. 853, 862, 1204, 1241, 1312, 1337) 1383; 1444, 1445, 1463, 1480, 1481, I501, 1505, 1716, 1732, 1736, 1746, 1751. 2 The bishops of both sees are addressed by the Emperor Leo in his letter respecting the Council of Chalcedon: but their replies are not preserved. Nunechius is still bishop of Laodicea; but Hierapolis has again changed hands, and Philippus has succeeded Abercius (Labb. Conc. iv. 1836 sq.). Nunechius of Laodicea was one of those who signed the decree against simony at the Council of Con- stantinople (A.D. 459): Conc. v. 50, 3 See for instance the tergiversa- tion of Theodorus of Laodicea and Ig- natius of Hierapolis in the matter of Photius and the 8th General Council. 4 This council cannot have been I 195; 1392, 1496, 17445 It 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 (4.D. 341), and before that of Constantinople (A.D, 381). Dr Westcott (History of the Canon p. 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 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, DCCOVI, p. 1030 8q.). These lists have been published by Cowper (Syriac Miscell. p. 42 sq., Analecta Nicena THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 67 was convened more especially to settle some points of ecclesi- tg decree astical discipline ; but incidentally the assembled bishops were alae led to make an order respecting the Canon of Scripture’. As 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 Ccelesyria, Phcenicia, Palestine, Cilicia, and Isauria, whereas apparently not one comes from Phrygia, Lydia, or the other western districts of Asia Minor. Supposing that this is a genuine Lacdicean list, we are led by the first result to place it as near in time as possible to the Council of Nicea; 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 to some 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 ; [‘H] ayla cuvodos 7 év Aaodixela ris Bpvylas Tuy Ke érioxdtrev yéyovev da Movravoy ké [r]a{s] Noras épéoets* rov[rous] ws alperixods Kai éxOpods rijs ddebelas 4 dyla ouvodos dveQeudrioey (Ciampini de Sacr. didif. a Constant. constr. p. 156; comp. Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 8953). The mention of Montanus might sug- gest that this was one of those Asiatic 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. 116g. see Boeckh C. I. 8736. 1 The canons of this Council, 59 in number, will be found in Labb. Cone. 1. 1530 8q., 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 6oth canon) & list of the Canonical books; but Dr Westcott has shown that this list is a later addition and does not belong to the original decrees of the couneil (Canon p. 400 8q.): 5-2 68 Its decrees illustrate the Epis- tle to the Colos- sians. Col. ii. 14, 16, 17. Col. ii, 18. THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 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 con- firmed and adopted by later councils both in the East and in the West’. More important however for my special purpose, than the influence of this synod on the Church at large, is the light which its canons throw on the heretical tendencies of this district, and on the warnings of St Paul in the Colossian Epistle. To illustrate this fact it will only be necessary to write out some of these canons at length: 29. ‘Itis not right for Christians to Judaize and abstain 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, abstain from labour on it as Christians. But if they should be found Judaizers, let them be anathema in the sight of Christ.’ 35. ‘It is not right for Christians to abandon the Church of God and go away and invoke angels (ayyedous ovouatev)? 1 By the Quinisextine Council (a.p. 692) in the East (Labb. Cone. vu. 1345), and by the Synod of Aix-la- Chapelle (4.p. 789) in the West (Conc. IX. 10 8q.). 2 Theodoret about a century after the Laodicean Council, commenting on Col. ii. 18, states that this disease (rd maGos) 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. 70, note 3. 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 the same invocation, ari€. PYAATON. THN . TIOAIN . MIAHCION . Kal . TIANTAC ° TOYC . KATOIKOYNTAC, while at the common base is written APYArPeAOl . PYAACCETAI . H . TTO- Alc . MIAHCIOON . Kal. TIANTEC. Ol. KdT... 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- THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 69 and hold conventicles (cvvd&eus trovetv) ; 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. ‘It is not right for priests or clergy to be magicians or enchanters or mathematicians or astrologers’, or to make safeguards (puAaxTypia) as they are called, for such things are prisons (Secuwrrpia) 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. ‘It is not right to receive unleavened bread from the Jews or to participate in their impieties.’ It is strange, at this late date, to find still lingering in 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. During the flourishing period of the Eastern Church, Lao- feclesias- dicea appears as the metropolis of the province of Phrygia tics! status Pacatiana, counting among its suffragan bishoprics the see of oe bed Colosse*. On the other hand Hierapolis, though only six lis. miles distant, belonged to the neighbouring province of Phrygia Salutaris ‘, whose metropolis was Synnada, and of which it was mentum insigne sit.’ The idea of parixol is used in this decree in its the seven yo, combined in the one dpxayyedos, seems certainly to point to Jewish, if not Christian, influences: Rev. i. 4, iii. x, iv. 5, v. 6. 1 Though there is no direcf men- tion of ‘magic’ in the letter to the Colossians, yet it was a characteristic tendency of this part of Asia: Acts xix. 19, 2 Tim. iii. 8, 13. See the note on Gal. v. 20. The term puadn- ordinary sense of astrologers, sooth- payers. 2 A play on the double sense of ¢v- Aaxripiov (1) @ safeguard or amulet, (2) a guard-house. 3 A list of the bishoprics belonging to this province at the time of the Council of Chalcedon is given, Labb. Cone, Iv. 1501, 1716. 4 Cone. rv. 1716, 1744. 70 Obscurity of Colossz. It is sup- planted by Chone. THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. one of the most important sees. The stream of the Lycus seems to have formed the boundary line between the two At a later date Hierapolis itself was raised to metropolitan rank’. But while Laodicea and Hierapolis held the foremost place in the records of the early Church, and continued to bear an active, though inconspicuous part, in later Christian history, Colossee was from the very first a cipher. ecclesiastical provinces. 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 Colosse 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 °, 1 At the sth and 6th General Coun- cils (A.D. 553 and a.p. 680) Hierapolis is styled a metropolis (Labb. Cone. v1. 220, VII. 1068, 1097, 1117); and in the latter case it is designated metropclis 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. In the Notitie it generally occurs twice—first as a suf- fragan see of Phrygia Salutaris, and secondly as metropolis of another Phrygia Pacatiana (distinct from that which has Laodicea for its metropolis) : Hieroclis Synecdemus et Notitie (ed. Parthey) Not. 1, pp. 56, 57, 69, 733 We may conjecture also that its ruin was hastened by Not. 3, pp. 114, 124; Not. 7, pp. 152, 161; Not. 8, pp. 164, 176, 180; Not. 9, pp- 193, 197; Not. 10, pp. 212, 220. In this latter position it is placed quite out of the proper geographical order, thus showing that its metro- politan jurisdiction was created com- paratively late. 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 Ilaxariavfjs, e.g. Karmariavijs, Karra- doxias. Unless the ecclesiastical posi- tion of Hierapolis was altogether ano- malous, as a province within a pro- vince, its double mention in the No- titie must be explained by a confusion of its earlier and later status. 2 See Mionnet rv. p. 269, Leake Numism. Hellen. p. 45. 3 Joannes Curopalata p. 686 (ed. THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. a renewed assault of its ancient enemy, the earthquake’. It is commonly said that Chonz is built on the site of the ancient Colosse ; but the later town stands at some distance from the Bonn.) ¢jun ... Tods Tovpkous drayyéd- Aovoa Thy év Xwvats modcrelav kal avrev Tov mwepiBdnrov év Oatwact Kal dvaby- fact TOO dpxiorpaTiyou vaov KaradaPety év paxalog... kal To dy oxeTAcwrepor, pndée Tas TOO xdouaTos onpayyas év wep ol srapappéovres Torapol éxeice XwvEevo- Mevot Oia THs TOU dpxLoTparyyou Ta- ads émidnulas Kal Ocoonulas ws dia mpavous dorarouv 7d peta Kal ray evdpomouv exovot, Tos KaTamepevydras dsarnphoa, 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. 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.); Ppvylav re xai Aaodixecav OeAOav ddixvetrar és Kwvas, modu ev- Saluova kal weyadnv, mada Tas Kodac- ods, rnv éuov Tov ovyypadéws tarpléa, kal Tov apxayyercKdy vadv elowwy weyéber péyiorov Kal Kader KadAMCTOY SvTa Kal Gavpactas xeipds dmravra epyov K.T.X., where a corrupt reading IlaXacods for Kodagods had misled some. It will be remembered that the words méd\w evdaluova kal weyddnv 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. ii. 2, pp. 52, 3 rods Aaodixets 5é Ppvyas uvpiaxGs éxdxwoev, Gorep kal Tovs Tov Xwvav Tov éuwy olkjropas, and Urbs Capta 16, p. 842, 7d 5é Fv éuov Tov cuvyypadéws Nixyjra marpls al Xdvac kal ) ayxirépuwy Tairy Ppvyiky Aaodl- Kela, 1 We may conjecture that it was the disastrous earthquake under Gallienus (A.D. 262) which proved fatal to Colos- se (see above p. 38, note 1). 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 §8t Chrysostom wrote, the city existed no longer, as may be in- ferred from his comment (x1. p. 323) ‘H rors tas Ppvylas qv* Kal d7pAov éx Tov THv Aaodlkerav wrnolov elvat. 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 ; 4nd 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 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. 71 72 Turkish conquest. THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 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 Chon by way of explanation, till at length the name of this primitive Apostolic Church passes wholly out of sight’. The Turkish conquest pressed with more than common severity on these districts. the Church was taken by surprise. When the day of visitation came, Occupied with ignoble quarrels and selfish interests, she had no ear for the voice of Him who demanded admission. The long-impending doom overtook the knock unheeded. The door was barred and her, and the golden candlestick was removed for ever from the Eternal Presence’, 1 At the Council of Chalcedon (a.p. 451) Nunechius of Laodicea subscribes ‘for the absent bishops under him,’ among whom is mentioned ’Em@avilov moAews Kodagowv (Labb. Conc. iv. 1501, ed. Coleti; comp. ib, 1745). At the Quinisextine Council (4.p. 692) occurs the signature of Kocuas éricxoros md- News Kodacoas (sic) Iaxariayns (Conc. vir, 1408). At the 2nd Council of Nicwa (a.D. 787) the name of the see is in a transition state; the bishop Theodosius (or Dositheus) signs him- self sometimes Xwvrav yroe Kodacouv, sometimes Xwvay simply (Cone. vil. 689, 796, 988, 1200, 1222, 1357, 1378, 1432, 1523, 1533, in many of which passages the word Xwrwy is grossly corrupted). At later Councils the see is called XGvac; and this is the name which it bears in the Notitie (pp. 97, 127, 199, 222, 303, ed. Parthey). 2 For the remains of Christian churches at Laodicea see Fellows Asia Minor p. 282, Pococke p. 74. ‘ >’ ral TANNwWMA THIS GeotnTos TwuaTiKkws, Kal ETTE EV AUTH have been exalted into the sphere of the Spirit: do not plunge yourselves again into the atmosphere of material and sensuous things (rod Kécpov).’ ov kara. Xpiorov| ‘ 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 (cara thy mapadoot tov avOpamrev); not the substance, for they replace Him by formal ordinances (kara Ta oTorxeia Tov Koogpov) and by angelic mediators,’ 9g sq. 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. I1 —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., 79, 87, 114 sq. dru k.t.A.]| The Apostle justifies the foregoing charge that this doctrine was not xara Xpiorov; ‘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. katotkei] ‘has its fixed abode? On the force of this compound in relation to the false teaching, see the note on 10: may To TANp@pal ‘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. tis Oeornros] ‘of the Godhead, ‘Non modo divinae virtutes, sed ipsa divina natura, writes Bengel. For the difference between Georns ‘ deitas,’ the essence, and Oevrns ‘ divinitas, the quality, see Trench NV. 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 maow Alyumrious Oevornra moddAjy Kat SiKavoodyny pap- tupnoas (where it means a divine inspiration or faculty, and where no one would have used 6edrnra), and Mor. 415 © ék 8€ jpaav eis Saipovas at Bedrloves uxat thy peraBoAry AapBa- vovaow, ex O€ Saipovwy odtyat pev ert Xpovm ToAA@ Sv aperis KabapOcioar mavramragt Oedrntos petéoxov (where Gevdrnros would be quite out of place, because all Saiyoves without exception were Geior, though they only became 6cot 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 ro Gciov, 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 meeting the hea- then philosophers on their own ground and arguing with them in their own language. Elsewhere he instinctively avoids a term which tends to obscure the idea of a personal God. In the Latin versions, owing to the poverty of 182 / cf 9 ¢ TETANPWUEVOL, OS ETTLY 4 the language, both @eorys and Oevorns are translated by the same term divi- nitas; but this was felt to be inade- quate, and the word dectas was coined ut a later date to represent Oedrns: August. de Civ. Det vii. § 1, VII. p. 162 (quoted in Trench) ‘Hane divinitatem vel, ut sic dixerim, dettatem: nam et hoc verbo uti jam nostros non piget, ut de Graeco expressius transferant id quod illi dedrnra appellant etc.’ copaticas| ‘bodily-wise, ‘corpo- really, i.e. ‘assuming a bodily form, becoming incarnate. This is an ad- dition to the previous statement in i, 19 €v avr@ evdoxnoey Trav TO TAN popa Katouknoa. The indwelling of the ple- roma refers to the Eternal Word, and not to the Incarnate Christ: but co- parikos 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 xarocxet may TO mAnpopa tis Oedtnros Of St Paul corresponds to the opening sentence 6 Aoyos Av mpos Tov Ody Kal Geds ny 6 Aoyos of St John, the subsidiary ad- verb caparixos of St Paul has its counterpart in the additional state- ment kal 6 Aoyos aap& eyévero Of St John. All other meanings which have been assigned to caparixas here, as ‘wholly’ (Hieron. i Js. xi. I 8q., IV. p. 156, ‘nequaquam per partes, ut in ceteris sanctis’), or ‘really’ (Aug. Zpist. cexlix, IL p. 513 ‘Ideo corporaliter dixit, quia illi umbratiliter seducebant’), or ‘essentially’ (Hilar. de Zin. viii. 54, IL p. 252 ‘ Dei ex Deo significat veri- tatem etc.,’ Cyril. Alex. in Theodoret. Op. V. p. 34. Touréoti, ov oxETIK@S, Isid. Pelus, Zp. iv. 166 dyri tov ovar- dos), 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 loc.). According to these two last inter- EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. [Ii. ‘re \ ie 9 ~ kepadyn maons apxyns Kal pretations ro mAnpapa tas Oedrnros is taken to mean the Universe (‘ univer- sam naturam repletam ab eo’) and the Church (rjv éexkAnoiay menAnpopévnv v70 TAS OedtnTos avTov, See Ephes. 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 (caparixés). But these forced interpretations have nothing to re- commend them. St Pauls language is carefully guarded. He does not say ev copart, for the Godhead cannot be confined to any limits of space; nor owparoe:- dés, for this might suggest the un- reality of Christ’s human body; but coparixds, ‘in bodily wise,’ ‘with a bodily manifestation” The relation of copartikas to the clause which it quali- fies will vary with the circumstances, e.g. Plut. Mor. p. 424 8 To pécov ov TomiKas GAAa oopaticas héyeo Oat, i.e. ‘ratione corporis habita, Athan. Exp. Fid. 4 (% p. 81) caparixads eis tov ‘Inoovy yéypanrat, i.e. ‘secundum corpus, Ptolem. in Epiphan. Haer. RERUL 5 Kata pev TO pawdpevov kat THMATLKOS extedeia bat avypebn, Orig. Cs Cels. ii. 69 dgavj yevea Oat Twparikas, ib. Vi. 68 Kai cwparikas ye Aadovpevos, Macar. Magn. ili. 14 copartixds yopi- Cew tay pabntrar. 10. kal €oré ev attra] ‘and ye are in Him, where éoré should be sepa- rated from the following wemAnpope- vot; 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 ov kparav thy Kearny, €& ov K.T.A. memAnpopevot| ‘being fulfilled, with a direct reference to the preceding mAjnpopa; ‘Your fulness comes from His fulness; His wAnpopa is trans- fused into you by virtue of your in- corporation in Him? So too John i. 16 é€k Tov mAnp@paros avrov. jpeis mavres é\dBopev, Ephes. iii. 19 va mAn- AT fox] EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 183 > A ’ oe \ , la c) €fovglas “EV @ Ket TEpLETMYNONTE TEPLTOMN aXELDO- pwOnre cis may TO TANP@UA TOD C6cod, ly. 13 eis perpov nAtxias Tov mAnpdpa- tos Tov Xpiorov, comp. Ign. Lphes. init. t7 evdAoynuevn ev peyeber Ccod marpos mAnpopart. Hence also the Church, as ideally regarded, is called the mAnpopa of Christ, because all [is graces and energies are communicated to her; Ephes. i. 23 77s eoriv ro odpa avTov, TO TANPwWa TOU Ta TMavTAa ey TA- ow mAnpovupevov. és] For the various reading 6 see the detached note. It was perhaps a correction made on the false suppo- sition that év aird referred to the 7wAnpopa. At all events it must be re- garded as an impossible reading; for the image would be altogether con- fused and lost, if the wAjpwpya were represented as the head. And again 7 Kecbady is persistently said elsewhere of Christ; i. 18, ii. 19, Ephes. i. 22, iv..15, v. 23.. Hilary de Zrin: ix. 8 (11. p. 264) explains the 6 as referring to the whole sentence 6 eivat ev avra memAnpwpevovs, but this also is an in- conceivable sense. Again it has been suggested that o €orw (like rouréorw) may be taken as equivalent to scilicet (comp. Clem. Hom. viii. 22); but this would require 77 xedady, even if it were otherwise admissible here. 7 Kearny | 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. maons apxis k.7.A.] Sof every prin- cipality and power,’ and therefore of those angelic beings whom the false teachers adopted as mediators, thus transferring to the inferior mem- bers the allegiance due to the Head: comp. ver. 18 sq. For dpyijs kat efov- cias, see the note on i. 16. 11. The previous verses have dealt with the theological tencts 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, sccondly its extent, and thirdly its author. mepteTunOnre| The moment at which this is conceived as taking place is defined by the other aorists, cuvra- evtes, ovvnyepOnre, etc., as the time of their baptism, when they ‘put on Christ.’ axetporroujre | i.e. ‘immaterial,’ ‘spi- ritual,’ as Mark xiv. 58, 2 Cor. v. 1. So xerporoinros, which is used in the N. T. of material temples and their furniture (Acts vii. 48, xvii. 24, Heb. ix. II, 24, comp. Mark JZ. c.), and of the material circumcision (Ephes. ii. 11 THs Neyomevns meptropns ev capKl xet- poronrov). In the LXX yewporoinra occurs exclusively as a rendering of idols (D2, e.g. Lev. xxvi. 1, Is. ii, 18, etc.) false gods (DNA Is. xxi. 9, where perhaps they read pdx), or images (B°J19N Ley. 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; e.g. év yetpomrounrots karotket in St Stephen’s speech, where the force is broken in the received text by the interpolation of vaois. For illustrations of the typical sig- nificance of circumcision, as a symbol of purity, see the note on Phil. iii. 3. ev tT) k.7.A.| The words are chosen to express the completeness of the spiri- tual change. (1) It is not an ékdvots nor an amddvois, but an dréxdvacs. 184 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. [II. 12 , > ~ b) / ~ if A TONTW, EV TH ATEKOVTEL TOU GDwWMATOS THS oapKos, 9 ~ a a Lond / a €v TH TeptTouN TOV Xpictov, “ouvradevtes avtw ev The word dzéxducus is extremely rare, and no earlier instances of it are pro- duced; see the note on ver. 15 dmexdv- cdpevos. (2) Itis 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 dmexdvodpevot Tov madavoy avOpamoy. Tov caparos K.T.A.] ‘the whole body which consists of the flesh, i.e. ‘ the body with all its corrupt and carnal affections’; as iii, 5 vexpwcare ov ta péAn. For illustrations of the expression see Rom. vi. 6 iva karap- 69 TO oGpa THs apuaprias, Vil. 24 Tov geparos tod Oavarov rovrav, Phil. iii. 21 TO capa THs Tamewooews TUar. Thus ro capa tis capkos 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 TO cGpa ths capkos occurs, but with a different emphasis and meaning: see the note there. The words rév auapriay, inserted be- tween rod owparos and ris capkés 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 4 Karddvots TO ovvarrobaveiv, 4 dvadvats TO ovvavacTi= va. For this twofold image, as it presents itself to St Paul, see es- pecially Rom. vi. 3 sq. ev t@ Bantiouo] ‘in the act of baptism. A distinction seems to be observed elsewhere in the New Tes- tament between Bamricpa ‘baptism’ properly so called, and Bamriopos ‘lustration’ or ‘washing’ of divers kinds, e.g. of vessels (Mark vii. 4, [8,] Heb. ix. 10), Even Heb. vi. 2 Barz- Tigpav O.daxyjs, 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 Bazricuo and Bar- tiowart appear in competition, the preference ought probably to be given to Bamricu@ as being highly supported in itself and as the less usual word in this sense. There is no a@ priort reason why St Paul should not have used Bamricpos with this meaning, for it is so found in Jo- sephus Ant. xvili. 5. 2 Bamricpo cuv- cevat (Of John the Baptist). Doubtless the form Bar7i.ca 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 Barricpos 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 sufficient data for a sound induction, So far as the two words have any inherent difference of meaning, Barricpos denotes rather the act in process and Bamrriopa the result. II. 12] EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 185 a ~ & \ Vd A an) / To ParTicuM, év w Kal cuvnyEepEnTE Cia THS TicTEWS - 5 vod ~ r) , \ o Tis évepyeias TOV Qeov Tov éyelpavTos avTov ex | THV | 12, TO Bamrtlopmare ev @| i.e. Barricuo. Others would understand Xpior@ for the sake of i the parallelism with ver. 11 & @ kat...€v @ kai. But this parallelism is not suggested by the sense: while on the other hand there is obviously a very close connexion between cuvta- gevres and ovynyepOnre as the two complementary aspects of baptism; comp. Rom. vi. 4 sq. cvveradnpev avT@ Oia tov Banticpatos iva domep ny€pOn Xpioros...ovT@s Kat Hpeis...€ yap cvupuros yeyovapev TH Opormpare Tov @Oavatov avrov, aA\a kal THS dvactacews éooueba, 2 Tim. ii. 11 ei yap cuvareOdvopey, kat cuv(n- gopev. In fact the idea of Xpiore must be reserved for ovynyéepOnre where it is wanted, ‘ye were raised together with Him? dua tis miorews KT.A.] ‘through your faith in the operation, évepyeias being the objective genitive. So St Chrysostom, ricrews Sov eoriv’ emi- aTevoate ore OvvaTat 6 Oeos eyeipat, kal outws nyépOnte. 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. lic. Others take ris évepyeias 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 Tnv évépyecay should be connected, not with rovs morevovras, but with ri rd vmepBadrov péyeOos k.t.A.). The former explanation however yields a better sense, and the genitive after mioris 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 o Geds is the nominative to cuv- e(woroinaev: 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 éyeipe:, ovveyeipes, (worotet, cvvCworrotei, etc., with or in or through Christ. (3) Though it might be possible to assign otv avré to the subject of cvve(worroincev (see the note on i. 20), yeta reference to some other person is more natural. These reasons seem to decide the subject of cvvetw- oroingey. But at the same time it appears quite impossible to continue the same subject, 6 Geos, to the end of the sentence. No grammatical mean- ing can be assigned to dmexdvadpevos, by which it could be understood of God the Father. We must suppose therefore that a new subject, o Xpuc- ros, is introduced meanwhile, either with jpxev or with drexdvcduevos 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 e.g. i. 17 8q. kat vpas] i.e. you Gentiles’ This will appear from a study of the parallel passages iii. 7,8, Ephes. i. 13, IE AAG. TE, 03517, 22, i, 2; iv. “17's see the notes on Ephes. i, 13, and on TH dkpoBvaria just below. 186 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. [II. 13 nn \ A A ~ , vexpov’ S’kal vuas vexpous dyTas Tols TapaTTwWUacW \ lon 9 ? ~ \ € > / Kal TH dkpoPvaTia THS TapKos VuwY, TUVECwoTroLnoEY Tots wapaTT@pacey k.T.A.] ‘by reason of your transgressions etc. The ma- pantopara are theactual definite trans- gressions, while the axpoBvoria rhs capxos 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 vexpods pev tH apapria, (avras dé TH Ges, the dative has a wholly different meaning, as the context shows. The éy of the received text, though highly supported, is doubt- less an interpolation for the sake of grammatical clearness. TH axpoBvoria x.7.A.] 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. II ev T7 amexSvoet TOU awparos. Hence Theo- dore’s comment, dxpoBvcriay (éxade- oev) TO TepiketoOa ere THY OvnToTNTA. At the same time the choice of the expression shows that the Colossian converts addressed by St Paul were mainly Gentiles. cuveCworoinagev| 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 salyation, is life. vpas| 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 vpas and 7piv. This latter consideration has led a few good authorities to substitute nas for vas, and others to substitute vpiy for nuiv. For instances of these emphatic repetitions in St Paul see the note on i. 20 SV avroo. avv avt@| ‘ with Christ,’ as in Ephes. il. 5 cuve(woroincey TG Xpiora. On the inadmissibility of the reading aird see the note on els avrov i. 20. xaptoduevos] ‘having forgiven, 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 ra opeAnpata nuov, comp. Luke xi. 4) underlies this expression, as it does also the commoner term for pardon, adeous ‘remission.’ The image is carried out in the cancelled bond, ver. 14. npiv] 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 i. 1O—13, iii. 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. eé&adrecivras] ‘having cancelled, The word éefareipew, like duaypadery, signifying ‘to blot out, to erase,’ is commonly opposed to éyypadew ‘to enter a name, etc”; e.g, Arist. Pag Lier] EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 187 € = > La , eon if \ / UMaS GOV AUT, YaPITaMEVOS HMiy TAaVTa Ta TAapaTTw- > \ ~ / on pata, “*éfadeinbas TO Kal’ nuwv yelpoypapoy Tois 1181, Lysias c. Nicom. p. 183, Plato Resp. vi. p. 501 B. More especially is it so used in reference to an zéem in an account, e.g. Demosth. c. Aristog. i. p. 791 €yypdpovrae wavres of opAt- oxdvortes...e€adnAurTat TO OPAnpa. TO Ka par x.7A.] ‘the bond stand- ing against us.’ The word xerpoypa- 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 Vv. 3 (comp. ix. 5) éOwxev avt@ Td xetpo- ypapoy, Plut. Mor. p. 829 A rev xeLpo- ypapwv Kat oviBoraiwy. It is more common in Latin than in Greck, 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 3.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. Iixod. xxiv. 3); and the primary reference would be to them. But nyiv, juodv, seem to in- clude Gentiles as wellas Jews, so that a wider reference must be given to the expression. The ddypzara 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, are a law to themselves,’ ofrives evdeikvuvTac TO €pyov TOU voHOV YpamToy ev Tais KapOlais avTav, oUppapTupovVEnNs avTay tis guveonoews, Rom. ii, 14, 15. Sce the notes on Gal. ii. 19, iy. 11. Comp. Orig. Hom. in Gen. xiii. 4 (1. p- 96). Tois Odypacw] ‘consisting in ordi- nances’: comp. Ephes. ii. 15 roy vopov Tay evtohav ev Sdypaow. The word Soyua is here used in its proper sense of a ‘decree,’ ‘ ordinance,’ correspond- ing to doypzati¢erGe 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 kad\\uora tov Soypdtav Kal Ta OoiwTaTa TaV ev ToIs vopos, Philo Leg. All. i. 16 (1 p. 54) dvatnpyots Tov ayioy Soyparev, 3 Macc. i. 3 tov matpiay Soyparwv. Comp. Iren. Fragm. 38 (p. 855 Stieren) where, immediately after a reference to our text, rois tdv “IovSaiwy doypact mpoo- épxyec9a. iS opposed to mvevpatixds Aecroupyeiv. 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- pévoy involved in ye:poypapoy (comp. Plat. Zp. vii. p. 243 A Ta yeypappéva turots); aS in I Tim. ii. 6 ro paprvprov kaipois idiows, Where xatpois depends on an implied pepzaprupnpévory. Other- wise it is taken as closely connected with xa@ nay, ‘the bond which was in force against us by reason of the ordinances’: see Winer § xxxi. p. 273, A. Buttmann p. 80. Possibly an év has dropped out of the text before rois Soypaow, owing to the similar ending yelporpaponen (comp. Ephes. ii. 15); ‘but, if so, the omission must 188 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. [Il. 14 ely) SY y eon A ’ \ > Soyuaciv, O Vv UmevavTiov HMivs Kal avTO npKEeV €ék date from the earliest age, since no existing authorities exhibit any traces of such a reading; see the note on ver. 18 & édpaxev, and comp. Phil. ii. I et Tis omAdyxva. A wholly different interpretation however prevails universally among Greek commentators both here and in Ephes. ii. 15. They take rots doy- pacw, ev Soypacw, 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 Cicumenius 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 doyua 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 (II. p. Io), ix. 10 (II. p. 265 sq.), Ambros. Apol. Dav. 13 (1. p. 698), de Fid. iii, 2 (11. p. 499), August. de Pecc. Mer. i. 47 (x. p. 26): though they very commonly took trois Soypacw, ev Sdypaciw, to refer to the decree of condemnation. Jerome however on Ephes. ii. 15 (vit. p. 581) follows the Greeks. The later Christian sense of doyua, mean- ing ‘ doctrine,’ camefrom its secondary classical use, where it was applied to the authoritative and categorical ‘sen- tences’ of the philosophers: comp. Just. Mart. Apol. i. 7 (p. 56 D) of ev "EdAnot Ta avrois dpecta Soypatioavres €k Tavros TO Evi ovopate idocodias mpocayopevovtat, kaimep Tay Soypatov evavriov ovrwv, Cic. Acad. ii. 9 ‘de suis decretis quae philosophi vocant ddypara, Senec. Lpist. xcv. 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 BeBao- Ojva é€v trois Soypacw tov Kupiov kat Tov droato\wy, Barnab. § I tpia ovy Odypara €ariy Kupiov (comp. § 9, 10). o nv K.T.A.] ‘which was directly op- posed to us.” The former expression, To xa@’ npoyv, referred to the validity of the bond; the present, 6 jv vmevav- tiov npiv, describes its active hostility. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the first preposition in vmevavtios mnitigates its force, as in vrodndwats, UmoNevKOS, Umopaivouat, vroonpaivery, 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. i. 7 (p. 323) Anuoxpiros... gnot...rd avTd Kal Gpotoy eivat TO TE mowouv Kat TO TacxoV...€oikace O€ of ToUTOV Toy Tpdomov A€yorTes VmevayTia (i.e. self-contradictory) daiverOa dé- yew" airioy dé rhs éevavriodoyias K.T.A., [Plato] Alcib. Sec. 138 ¢@ 3. To pai- verOar dpa vmevavriov cot Soxet TH dpovety; AA. Idvy pév ovv...139 B 3Q. Kal pny dvo ye vrevavria évi mpaypare mos ay ein; (i.e. how can one thing have two direct opposites?), where the whole argument depends on this sense Of vmevavrios. In compounds with vo the force of the preposition will generally be determined by the meaning of the other element in the compound; and, as évayrios (évavre) II; 15] oo , b A onl o TOU METOU, TPOTHAWGAS AUTO TH TTAVPW implies locality, a local sense is commu- nicated to vd. Thus vmevaytios may be compared with vmadAdocew, v- mavray, vravtiatev, vmotpexew (Xen. Cyrop. i. 2. 12 Anotas vrodpapsiv ‘to hunt down’), vmedavvew (Xen. Anab. i. 8.15 UmeAdoas ws ovvavtjcat, ‘riding up’), vpioravas (Polyb.i. 50 6 Un€arn- oe THY €avTOv vaty ayTimpwpoy Tots sroAepiors,‘ he brought up’ his own ship). With this meaning, ‘over against,’ ‘close in upon,’ the preposition does not weaken but enhance the force of evavtios, so that the compound will denote ‘ direct,’ ‘ close, or ‘ persistent opposition.’ kal avro ypkev K.t.A.] ‘and He, i.e. Christ, hath taken it away” There is a double change in this clause: (1) The participles (yapioapevos, efadei- vas) are replaced by a finite verb. (2) The aorists (cuvefworoincer, xa- pioapevos, é€adeiWas) are replaced by a perfect. The substitution of 7pev for 7jpxev 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 Xpiotos, 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 jpxev, ‘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 atpew éx [rod] péoov, ‘to remove and put out of sight, comp. Lxx Is. lvii. 2, Epictet. iii. 3. 15, Plut. Mor. p. 519 D; so 2 Thess. ii. 7 €k pécou yévnrat. mpoondocas k.t.A.| ‘ The abrogation was even more emphatic. Not only was the writing erased, but the do- cument itself was torn up and cast aside” By mpoondwoas 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 Ov od [rod EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 189 15 GqreKOU- atavpov] euot Kdopos (the world, the sphere of material ordinances) éorav- peta Kdy® xdope, Where the idea is the same. 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. dmexdvoduevos «.t.r.] 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. Hacer. 1p 24 dmrexOucdmevov TO capa 6 meptKeirat. In Joseph. Ant. vi. 14. 2 dzexdds is only a variation for perexdds which seems to be the correct reading. The word also appears in some texts of Babrius Fad. xviii. 3, but it is merely a conjectural emendation. Thus the occurrence of dwexdvecOa here and in iii. 9, and of déxdvors above in ver. IT, 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 drobvecOa and éxdverGac occur toge- ther; c. Theomn. i. 10 (p. 117) da- oxoy Oo.yarioy arodedvcbat 7} Tov XiTO- vioxoy exdedvaba. Here however the sense of dmexduvcdpuevos 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 190 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. [ET ang , \ > \ \ \ > (3 ’ 35 , TaMEVOS TAS apyas Kal Tas efougias ederypati- the voice, we have the choice of two Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodo- interpretations. ret. This also appears to have been (1) The common interpretation of the Latin fathers, ‘putting off the body,’ thus separating drexOuoapevos from ras apxas x.7.A. and understand- ing rv cdpka Or To copa With it; comp. 2 Cor. v. 3 évdvodpevor. So Novat. de Trin. 16 ‘exutus carnem’; Ambros. Expos. Luc. v. § 107 (I. p. 1381) ‘ex- uens se carnem,’ comp. de id. iii. 2 (iL. p. 499); Hilar. de Trin. i. 13 (11. p. 10) ‘exutus carnem’ (comp. ix. 10, p. 265), x. 48 (p. 355) ‘spolians se carne’ (comp. ix. II, p. 265); Au- gustin. Hpist. 149 (I. p. 513) ‘ exuens se carne,’ etc. This appears to have been the sense adopted much earlier in a Docetic work quoted by Hippol. Haer. viii. 10 ux éxeivn €v TO oodpare tpadeioa, arexdvoaunern TO copa kal mpocnAooaca pos TO EvAov Kat Oprap- Bevoaoak.r-rA. It is so paraphrased likewise in the Peshito Syriac and the Gothic. The reading drexdvodpevos THY gapka kai Tas e€ovaias (omitting tas dpxyas kat), found in some an- cient authorities, must be a corrup- tion from an earlier text, which had inserted the gloss rjv oapxa after amexdvodpevos, While retaining ras dpxas kai, 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 dzo- SvecOa, signifying ‘to strip’ and so “to prepare for a contest’; e.g. Plut. Mor. 811 E mpos macay arodvopevor THY TwoAuTiKyy mpaéwv, Diod. Sic. ii. 29 emt dirocodiay amoduvtes. ‘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 of and put away the powers of evil, making dmexdvodpevos govern tas ap- xas x.7.A. So Chrysostom, Severianus, the interpretation of Origen, in Jatt. xii. § 25 (111. p. 544), 2b. § 40 (p. 560), in Ioann. vi. § 37 (IV. p. 155), ib. Xx. § 29 (p. 356), though his language is not explicit, and though his transla- tors, e.g. in Libr. Les. Hom. vii. § 3 (II. 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 Him. 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 dméorn aw avtov dxpt xaipov). Through the voice of His chief disciple the temp- tation was renewed, and He was entreated to decline His appointed sufferings end death. Satan was again driven off (Matt. xvi. 23 draye Omicw pov, Sarava, oxavSadov ef épov : 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 7 ¢€ov- ola Tov oKoTous ; see above i.13), When the prince of the world asserted his tyranny (Joh. xii. 31 6 Gpyoy rob xogpov). 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; ro drobéo Bat THY Oyrornta, says Theodore, 7 nv vmep THs Kowwi}s aceinev evepyeoias, amedvoato Kakewov (1.€. TOY dyTeKetpevan dvva- peor) THY avOevreiav 7mep éxéxpnvro Hy 3] EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 19I ? , U4 ? \ ? ~ cev €v mappyoia, OpiapBevoas avtous év avTo. caf’ juav.. 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 Aim. 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 azex- dvoduevos more especially, see Philo Quod det. poi. ims. 13 (I. p. 199) efava- oravres de Kat Suepecodpevor Tas evTeX- vous aUT@y TepimAoKas evpapas € kOv- oc opea, 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. I1 év 7H dmex- dvoertov ooparostis capkos,and of the verb in iil. 9 drexducapevot rov mada avOpwrov k.t.A. The dréxdvars accom- plished in uswhen we are baptizedinto Hisdeath is a counterpart to the azék- dvots 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 fiesh. 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 apyas k.t.A.] What powers are especially meant here will appear from Ephes. vi. 12 mpos ras dpxas, mpos Tas eoucias, mpos Tous Koo pokparopas TOU oxoTovs TOUTOU, pos Ta MVEVPAaTKa TS movnpias k.7.A. See the note on i, 16. edevryparicev] ‘displayed, as a vic- tor displays his captives or trophies in a triumphal procession: Hor. Lpist. 1.17. 33 ‘ captos ostendere civibus hos- tes” The word is extremely rare; Matt. i. 19 ur O€d@v avryy Sevrypatioat (where it ought probably to be read for the more common word mapadery- patioa), Act. Paul. et Petr. 33 édeye mpus Toy Aady iva pw povov amo THs TOU Zipwvos andrns Piywow GAAG Kai Sery- paticovow avtov. Nowhcre does the word convey the idea of ‘making an example’ (rapaderyparicat) but signi- fies simply ‘to display, publish, pro- claim.’ In the context of the last passage we have as the consequence, Gore wavras tovs evAaBeis avdpas Bbe- AvrreaOat Sipwva roy payov Kat avda.oy avrov katayyéAX eur, ie. to proclaim his impieties. The substantive occurs on the Rosetta stone 1. 30 (Boeckh C. I. 4697) rév ovvrereheopevay ra mpos Tov Serypatiopov Ouaopa. é€v mappnaia] ‘boldly,’ not ‘ publicly. $ rappnoia is ‘unreservedness, plain- ness of speech’ (zav-pyoia, its opposite being dppncia ‘silence’), so while applied still to language, it may be opposed either (1) to ‘fear,’ as John Vil. 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’; eg. 1 Mace. iv. 18 Anwere Ta oKvAa pera mappyias, Test. xii Patr. Rub. 4 ovr etxov Tappyoiav arevicat eis mporwmoy *IaxoB, Jos. Ant. ix. 10. 4m aioxuvns Te TOU oupBEByKoTos Setvod Kal Tov py- kér’ adt@ mappyoiay civar. ‘The idea of publicity may sometimes be connected with the word as a secondary notion, 192 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. [II. 16 16 NJ 7) > e lo , b) / eet) , aN 74 OUV TIS UMass KPLVETW eV Bowoe K@l €V TOCGEL H 16. 7 €v mocet. e.g. in Joh. vii. 4, where ev mappyoia eivac ‘to assume a bold attitude’ is opposed to é€v kpumt@ moveiy (comp. xviii. 20); but it does not displace the primary sense. OptapBevoas| ‘leading them in tri- unuph, the same metaphor asin 2 Cor. ii. 147@ mavrore OprapBevovre nyas ev T@ Xpior@ k.T.A.. 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 @p:ap- Beveww, as found elsewhere. This verb takes an accusative (1) of the person over whom the triumph is celebrated, eg. Plut. Vit. Arat. 54 rovrov Aiwiduos €OprapBevoe, Thes. e¢ Rom. Comp. 4 Baorrets eOpiauBevoe : (2) of the spoils exhibited in the triumph, e.g. Tatian c. Graec. 26 mavcacbe doyous adXorpi- ovs O@ptapBevortes kal, WomEp 6 KUAoLOS, ovk tdtows émtkoopovpevoe mrepois: (3) more rarely of the substance of the triumph, eg. Vit. Camill. 30 6 Sée Kapirddos €OpidapBevoe...rdov droh@dvias catipa tratpidos yevopevor, i.e. ‘in the character of his country’s saviour.’ The passive 6prapBeverOa is ‘to beled in triumph,’ ‘to be triumphed over,’ eg. Vit. C. Mare. 35. So the Latins say ‘triumphare aliquem’ and ‘trium- phari.’ év a’r@] i.€. r@ oravps: comp. Ephes. il. 16 droxaraddaEn Tovs apdo- Tépovs.».dua TOU stavpov. The violence of the metaphor is its justification. The paradox of the crucifixion is thus placed in the strongest light—triumph in helplessness and glory in shame, The convict’s gibbet is the victor’s car. 16—109. ‘Seeing then that the bond is cancelled, that the law of ordinances is repealed, beware of subjecting your- selves 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 offi- 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 —15). 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 II. 17] EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 193 > , € ~ aX / x / 17 i eee. a €v pepe EopTHs 9 veounvias 7 caBBatov, a éotw oKd 17. 68 éoTw cKid. the second paragraph being a conti- nuation of the concluding subject in the first, by the figure called chiasm: comp. Gal. iv. 5. Kpivérw] not ‘condemn you, but ‘take you to task’; as e.g. Rom. xiv. 3. sq. 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 a judg- ment. ev Bowoe x.rAr.] ‘in eating and in drinking’; Rom. xiv. 17 ov ydp €otw 1 Bacireia Tov Geod Bpacis Kai moots, GAAG Sixatocvvn x.T.A., Heb. ix. 10 ém Bpwpacw kal mopaow kai d:a- opos Bamticpois, Stkaiwpata capKos, comp. I Cor. viii. 8 Bpdya dé nuas ov mapaotnoe TO Ged w.t.A. 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 xaOapiCwy mavra ra Bpdpara). 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 (Ley. 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 COL. in St Paul to similar observances not required by the law, see Rom. xiv. 2 6 5€ agOevav Adyava éoGiet, Ver. 21 Ka- Aov to py hayeiv Kpéa pyde mei oivoy k7.A., I Tim. iv. 2, 3 KcoAvovter...die- xeoOa Bpwpdrwy a o Peds ExTivey k.T.AX., Tit. i. 14 py mpooéyovres...evtodais avOporav...mavra kabapa Tots Kabapois. The correct reading seems to be xat ev wocet, thus connecting together the words between which there is a natu- ral affinity. Comp. Philo Vit, Moys. i. § 33 (IL p. 110) deomoivais yaderais ouvetevypevov Bpwoe Kat moo, Ign. Trall. 2 08 yap Bpwpdrey kai moray elolv Staxovot. ev pepe] ‘in the matier of, etc.; comp. 2 Cor. iii. 10, ix. 3 év TO pepes tour». 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 riOévat, moveto Oat, dpi6- pet, etce.: comp. Demosth. c. Aristoer. § 148 dca...orpatidtns dv ev apevdo- vyrou Kat Widow pépet...€aTparevTat, 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) €v peper AOyou TOU mpokoTTOVvTOS KaTa Tov marépa Koopouvra, in Flace. 20 (II. p. 542) dca év peepee xapitos Kat do- peas €AaBov. But Mlian V. Z. viii. 3 Kpivovtes ExaoTov €v TO péper ovov, quoted by the commentators, is a false parallel: for dovov is there governed by kpivovres and ev 76 peépec Means ‘in his turn.’ éopris x.7.A.| 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. ls. i. 13, 14. See also Gal. iv. 10 jpyépas mapa- typeiabe Kal pivas Kat Karpovs Kal / ed, Ve > , 7, A OpnoKeia TWV ayyEeAwyV, a EOpaKEV éuBarevwr, €lKn Gbu- usage or inappropriate to the context. Leclere (ad loc.) and Bentley (Crit. Sacr. p. 59) conjectured @Ayav; Toup (Emend. in Suid. 1. p. 63) more plau- sibly b] , \ aa auEee Tiv avEnsw Tov Qeou. *et ameGaveTe ovy Xpig To Secuor must be taken in its compre- hensive sense; but the relation of the apat to the ovvdeopor in St Paul still remains the same as that of the d:ap- Opaécets to the cvydeopor in Galen. emtxopnyovpevoy k.t.A.] The two func- tions performed by the adai and ovv- decpor are first the supply of nutri- ment etc. (émiyopnyovpevov), and se- condly the compacting of the frame (cvvBiBacopevov). In other words they are the communication of life and energy, and the preservation of unity and order. The source of all (e& ov) is Christ Himself the Head; but the channels of communication (dia Tov k.t.A.) are the different members of His body, in their relation one to another. For éemtyopnyovpevor ‘bounti- fully furnished’ see the note on Gal. iii. 5. Somewhat similarly Aristotle speaks of capa KaAdora meduKos Kal kexopnynuevov, Pol. iv. I (p. 1288). For examples of yopyyia applied to functions of the bodily organs, see Galen. Op. 1. p. 617 év rais elamvoais xopnyla uxpas motornros, Alex. Probl. i. 81 TO mAcioroy THs Tpopns eEvdapov- Pevov Xopnyetrat mpos yeveolv Tov ma- Oouvs. For cvvBiBaCopevoy, ‘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, cvvappodroyovpe- vov kat ovvBiBatopevov. 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. avéeu tv avénow x.t.r.] 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)avénow éxer 8 fag ~ ‘ , €répov TS aTTET Oat kal cunTEpUKE- vat,..dvapéper dé cvppvots adjs,where growth is attributed to the same two physiological conditions as here. tov Gcov| ie. ‘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 human heart is yearning and the human in- tellect is feeling. See above, p. 117 sq. With this conclusion of the sen- tence contrast the parallel passage Iphes. iv. 16 ryv avénow rod oaparos woveiTat eis oiKoOopnY EavToOU ev ayamn, 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; Hippocr. de Morb. Sacr. p. 309 (ed. Foese) xara Taira vopi¢w tov eyxepadoy dvvamy mrelorny exew ev To avOpar@...oi dé opOarpoi Kai ta ovata kat 7 yAdooa kat ai yeipes Kal of modes, ola Gy 6 éyKé- gatos ywooky, ToLadTa VmnpETOUt... II. 20] EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 201 >’ \ a 7 -~ ‘2 , e crn > , aqvvo TWYV TTOLVELWY TOU KOTKOV, Tl WS C@yvTeEs EV KOO HMw es O€ THY oivEeoW G eykeparos €or oO duayyehrov.. Ocore pnp Tov eyxepadoy eivat Tov épanvevovra my over, ai Oe Ppéves GdAws Gvopa Exovot TH TUYN KekTnLevov...Acyovat SE Tives Ws Hpove- omev TH KapOin Kal TO GvL@pEVOY TOUTO €ott kai TO Gpovrifov’ To S€ ovx ovTas exet...THs...pporyawos ovderépw pérec- Tw GAA mavTwy TovTéwy Oo eyxépados airios €oTwv...mpatos aicOdverat o ey- Képados Tav €v TH TwpaTL EvEdVTV (where the theory is mixed up with some curious physiological specula- tions), Galen. Op. I. 235 avros O€ o éykeparos Ore pev apxi ToLs vevpots aract THs Suvapeds corw, évapyas eudboper.. smorepoy d€ ws avros Tots vevpors, ovT@ €xeivo mad erepov Tt Hoptoy _ ET UmeMTrEL, FY myn tls avray early, ér’ adnAov, ib. IV. p. II apx7) pev yap auToy G. @. Tay veupov) 6 0 eyxepados cor, kat Ta 7aGn eis avrov Hepet, oLov eis dpoupdyv twa rhs NoyaTiKHs Wuxis" expuois & évrevbev, oiov mpéuvov Tivos eis SevSpov aynkovros péya, 6 vetiatos €oTt pveAds...cvptray 0’ oUT@ TO Topa petahapBaver O¢ avtav mparns pev Kal Hadtota Kwncews, emt tavtn 8 aicbn- gews, XIV. p. 313 avtn yap (i.e. 7 keadn) kaOdmep tis axporoNis ere TOU ooparos Kal TOY TipiwTaT@Y'Kal avay- kaoTatov dvOparos aicOncewy oiknTH- prov. Plato had made the head the central organ of the reason (Tim. 69 sq.: see Grote’s Plato m1. pp. 272, 287, Aristotle 11. p. 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 d7Ads éort KATEyVOKOS ev aro (i.e. TOU eyKeda- Aov) TeA€ay axpnotiav, havepds S spo- Aoyety aidovpevos (Op, UL. p. 625). The Stoics however (Zyjvev Kat Xpvourmos dua to ohetép@ Xopo mayTi) were even worse oifenders ; and in reply to them more especially Galen elsewhere dis- cusses the question rorepov éyxehados i) Kapdia THY apxny exer, 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 isthe 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 anend 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 incul- 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.’ 202 doymatiCecbe; My avy 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. ei dreOavere| ‘if ye diced, when ye were baptized into Christ.’ For this connexion between baptism and death see the notes on ii. I1, iii. 3. This death has many aspects in St Pauwl’s teaching. It is not only a dying with Christ, 2 Tim. ii. 11 ef yap ovvareda- vonev ; but itis also a dying to or,from something. This is sometimes repre- sented as sin, Rom. vi. 2 oirwes amea- vowev 7] dpaptia (comp. vv. 7, 8); sometimes as self, 2 Cor. V. 14, 15 dpa of mavres améOavov...iva of (avTes pnKere éavtots (aow; sometimes as the Jaz, Rom. vii. 6 carnpynOnyev dao trod vo- pov droOavorres, Gal. ii. 19 dia vopov von améOavov ; sometimes still more widely as the world, regarded as the sphere of all material rules and all mundane interests, so here and iii. 3 dmeOavere yap. In all cases St Paul uses the aorist dwé@avov, never the perfect ré6vnxa ; 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 droéyyjckew is used ; when the perfect, the simple verb @rjcKecy ; see Buttmann Ausf Gramm. § 114. This rule holds universally in the Greek Testament. dro Tov aTotyelov k.T.A.] Le. ‘from EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. [II. ar, 22 pnde yevon pnde Oiryyns *(& the rudimentary, disciplinary, ordi- nances, whose sphere is the mundane and sensuous’: see the note on ver. 8. For the pregnant expression dzo- Oavetv dro comp. Gal. v. 4 xatnpynOnre ard Xpicrov (so too Rom. vii. 2, 6), 2 Cor. xi. 3 Oaph...dwro THs amAornTos, and see A. Buttmann p. 277 note. SoypariCerbe] ‘are ye overridden with precepts, ordinances” In the Lxx the verb doyparti¢ew 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 év “EXXnot ta adrois dpeota Soypaticartes ex mavtos TO évl ovopatt Ptdkogodias mpocayopev- ovrac (comp. § 4), Epict. iii. 7. 17 sq. el Oedeis eivar pirocogos...doyparitov ra aicxypa. Here it would include alike the doypatra of the Mosaic law (ver. 14) and the ddypara 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. Examples are given in the following verse, pa ayn «.7.X. For the construction here, where the more remote object, which would stand in the dative with the active voice (2 Mace. x. 8 edoypadricay...r@ Tay “lovdatwv €Over), becomes the nominative of the passive, compare xpnuaricerOa Matt. ii, 12, 22, dcako- veioOa. Mark x. 45, and see Winer § xxxix. p. 326, A. Buttmann p. 163, Kihner § 378, 1. p. 109. 21. My ay x.7.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 Schéttgen 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 Pelagius, suppose 1522] EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 203 > i > A la > id \ \ COT TAVTA Ets pbopav TH aToxXpncet), KATA Ta these prohibitions to be the Apostle’s own, thus makingacomplete shipwreck 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. cxix (II. 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 trois Soypaow ver. 14. Jerome how- ever (I. p.878) had rightly interpreted the passage, illustrating it by the pre- cepts of the Talmud. At a still earlier date Tertullian, Ady. Mare. vy. 19, 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. 85 sq. For the religious bearing of this asceticism, as springing from the dualism of these heretical teachers, see above, pp. 79, Io4 sq. aWn| The difference between dxrec- 6a and @yyavew is not great, and in some passages where they occur toge- ther, it is hard to distinguish them : e.g. Exod. xix. 12 mpooéyere €avrois Tov avaBynvat els TO dpos Kai Oryetv re av- Tov" mas 6 dWdpevos Tov dpous Oavdrw teevtnoet, Hur. Bacch. 617 ovr ébcyev ov 74 bal tua, Arist. de Gen. et Corr. 1. 8 (p. 326) Ova ri ov yiyverar aWadapeva év, wotep VOwp Ueatos stav Oiyn; Dion Chrys. Or. xxxiv (IL. p. 50) oi & ék mapépyov mpociacw amrtopevor povov Tod mpdypatos, BamTep of orrovdys Otyyavovres, Themist. Paraphr. Arist. 95 ryv dé adny airav anrecba Tav aidO@nray dvayKxaiov’ Kal yap Tov- vowa avThns €k Tov dmreaOat kai Ory- yave.v. But drrecOa 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 @ryyaveww; comp. The- mist. Paraphr. Arist. 94 7 rév Cowv apy Kpiows €ott kat dvTidn us tov Ory- yavovros. Hence in Xen. Cyrop.i. 3. 5 ore oe, ava, Opa, Grav pév Tod aprov ayn, eis ovdev THY xeipa arovapevor, drav b€ ToUT@Y Tivds Oiyns, evOUs arroKa- Gaiper THY xEipa eis TA YELpOpaKTpa k.T.A. Thus the words chosen in the Latin Ver- sions, tangere for amrec Oa and attamt- nare or contrectare for Oryeiv, are un- fortunate, and ought to be transposed. Our English Version, probably infiu- enced by the Latin, has erred in the same direction, translating érrecOa by ‘touch’ and @yeiv 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 amrec@a, which it more nearly represents. Thusthe two words awn and @/yns 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 WV. 7. Syn. § xvii. p. 57) well expresses it, ‘decrescente semper oratione, intelligatur crescere super- stitio.’ On the other hand ayy has been interpreted here as referring to the relation of husband and wife, as e.g. in 1 Cor, vii. I yuvatxos px) arrecbat ; and the prohibition would then be illustrated by the teaching of the he- 204 ENTAAMATA KA] retics in 1 Tim. iv. 3 k@\vdvT@y yapeiv. But, whatever likelihood there may be that the Colossian false teachers also held this doctrine (see above, p. 85 sq.), it nowhere appears in the context, and we should not expect so import- ant a topic to be dismissed thus cur- sorily. Moreover éryyavevy is used as commonly in this meaning as amrecOat (see Gataker Op. Crit. p. 79, and ex- amples might be multiplied); so that all ground for assigning it to anreo- 6a especially is removed. Both ar- recOa and Oryyavey 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 py dy «.7.A. éorw eis pOopay] ‘are destined for corruption. For similar expressions see Acts vill. 20 ein eis amddetay (comp. ver. 23 eis yoAnv muxpias Kal cuvdecpoy adixias...ovra), 2 Pet. ii. 12 yeyevnpeva......ets Goow kal Poopay. For the word ¢6opa, involving the idea of ‘decomposition,’ see the note on Gal. vi. 8. The expression here corresponds to els dhedpava exGadrerar (éxropeve- rat), Matt. xv. 17, Mark vii. 19. th dmoxpnoes| ‘in the consuming. Comp. Senec. de Vit. beat. 7 ‘in ipso usu sui periturum.’ While the verb droxpépat is common, the substantive dréxpnois is extremely rare: Plut. Mor. p. 267 F xaipew rais toravras aroxpnoect kal ovoToAais Tay TepiTTaY (i.e. ‘by such modes of consuming and abridging superfluities’), Dion. Hal. EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. AVNACKAATAE (Pu22 TON ANOPOTON’ A. R. 3.58 ev azoypnoe: ys polpas. he unusual word was chosen for its expressiveness: the ypjous here was an dmoypnots ; 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 Apostie’s argument; while it puts upon etvar eis POopay a meaning which is at least not natural. kara x.7.A.] connected directly with Vv. 20, 21, so that the words a éorw... TH aroxpynoe: are a parenthetical com- ment. ra evradpara «.7.A.] The absence of both preposition and article before 6.- dackadias shows that the two words are closely connected. They are placed here in their proper order ; for évra\- para describes the source of authority and d:daccadias the medium of com- munication. The expression is taken ultimately from Isaiah xxix. 13, where the words run in the Lxx, paryy be oéBovrai pe, OuddoKovres evTadApara av- @pdrev kat GtSacxadias. The Evan- gelists (Matt. xv. 9, Mark vii. 7), quot- ing the passage, substitute in the latter clause O.ddcKovres OudacKxadias évTad- pata avOparey. The coincidences in St Paul’s lan- guage here with our Lord’s words as related in the Gospels (Matt. xv. 1—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 Evangelist em- phasizes the importance of our Lord’s This] EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 205 / , , \ sf ? > Barwa éotiv Noyov pev ExovTa aodias év éFeNoGpn- words on this occasion, as practically abolishing the Mosaic distinction of meats by declaring all alike to be clean (xadapifwy; 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.’ atwa] ‘which sort of things’ Not only these particular precepts, j.7) ayy x.7.A., but all precepts falling under the same category are condemned. For this force of driva as distinguished from da, see the notes on Gal. iv. 24, v. 19, Phil. iv. 3. The antecedent here is not évrd\pata kal didacka- Alas x.7.A., but the prohibitions given in ver, 21. Aoyov pev «.7.A.]' ‘having a reputa- tion for wisdom,’ but not the reality. The corresponding member, which should be introduced by dé, is sup- pressed; the oppositive clause being postponed and appearing later in a new form, ovk év Tiyun Tur Kt.A. Such suppressions are common in classical writers, more especially in Plato; see Kihner § 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’ (Epis. exxi, Op. 11. 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 Acyov éyovra ao- dias is best taken as a single predicate, so that é€orw is disconnected from €xovra. Otherwise the construction €or éxovra (for yer) would be supported by many parallels in the Greek ‘Testament ; sce Winer § xlv. Dp. 437. The phrase Aoyov €xeww tTivos, 80 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. Aisch. Prom, 231 Bporéy O€ trav ra- Aaut@apawv Noyov ovK ~ryxev ovdéva, De- mosth. de Coron. § 199 etmep 7 SoEns i} Tpoyovwv 7 Tov péAdovTos aidvos eixe Noyov, Plut. Vit. Philop. 18 més a&tov ékeivou oyov Exew Tod avdpds k.7.A. (ii) ‘To possess the reason or account or definition of” ‘to have a scientific knowledge of’; Plato Gorg. p- 465 A réxvnv S€ adrjy ov nut eivae GAN epreipiay, dre ov« exet oyov ov- déva ay mpoopéper, oroia arta thy pi- ow éoriv, 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 ¢yew Adyov Tov watpos 7) Tav didroy and exew Adyov Tay pantikar. (B) Two as applied to the object of thought. (iii) ‘To have the credit or reputation of, as here. This sense of exe Aoyov, ‘to be reputed, is more commonly found with an infinitive: e.g. Plato Epin. 987 B avrés ’Adpodi- Tys eivat oxedov €xet Adyov. (iv) ‘To fulfil the definition of, to possess the characteristics, to have the nature of’; e.g. Philo Vit. Cont. 4 (11. p. 477) €xa- tepov d€ mnyns oyoy €xov, Plut. Mor. p. 637 D ro d€ wor ote dpyns Exet do- yov, ov yap vdpiotrarat mparov, ovTe dAdov Pow, arees ydp éativ, ib. 640 ¥ Sei mpos To eudbutevopevoy xwpas Adyov éxew To SeEouevov. The senses of do- you €xe 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. AZor. p. 550 © pyre tov Aoyov éy@v Tod vopodérov, ‘not being in pos- 206 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. [TIvag rf \ , \ > P / / ’ OKELa Kal TaTrELvVoOppocuY [ kat | APELOELA TWUATOS, OUK session of, not knowing, the intention of the legislator’; for the definite ar- ticle removes it from the category of the cases considered. ev €9ehoOpnokeia] ‘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 ; c.g. ébehodovrcia, ebeAoxaxnots, eOedo- xivOuvos, €Ocehoxwpeiv, eOehopnrap, €Oe- Aompofevos: 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 £pist. cxlix. 27 (u. p. 514) ‘Sic enim et vulgo dicitur qui divitem affectat thelodives, et qui sa- pientem thelosapiens, et cetera hujus- modi.’ Epiphanius, when writing of the Pharisees, not content with the word here supplied by St Paul, coins a double compound €@edomepiaooOpn- oxeia, Haer. i. 16 (p. 34). tarewoppoovvy| The word is here disparaged by its connexion, as in ver. 18 (see the note there). The force of €Geho- may be regarded as carried on to it. Real genuine ramrewodppooiry is commended below; iii. 12. apeWeia cdparos| ‘ hard treatment of thebody.” The expression agecdeiv Tov g@paros 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 c however, of a stu- dent’s toil, and 2b. p. 135 E, more gene- rally of the rigorous demands made by the soul on the body. The substan- tive dpeideca or ddecdia does not often occur. On the forms in -eva and -ia derived from adjectives in -ys see Buttmann Ausf Gramm. § 119, It. p. 416 sq. The great preponderance of manuscript authority favours the form ddedeia here: but in such ques- tions of orthography the fact car- ries less weight than in other matters. The cai before ddeideia should proba- bly be omitted; in which case dgedeia becomes an instrumental dative, ex- plaining Acyov ¢yovra codias. While the insertion would naturally occur to scribes, the omission gives more point to the sentence. ‘the e@cdoOpnckeia kal tarewodpoovvn as the religious elements are thus separated from the ddeidera oaparos as the practical rule. ovk e€v Tiny K.T-A.] ‘yet not really of any value to remedy indulgence of the flesh.’ So interpreted the words supply the oppositive clause to Acoyov pev €xovta codias, as the presence of the negative ov« naturally suggests. If the sentence had been undisturbed, this oppositive clause would naturally have been introduced by 8¢, but the interposition of év éOchoOpnokeia x.7.X. has changed its form by a sort of at- traction. For this sense of év trippy comp. Lucian Merc. cond. 17 ra xawa TOV Vroonuarev ev TYLH TLL Kal émipe- Aela €oriv: similarly Hom. JJ. ix. 319 ev O¢€ in tiuy «t.A. The preposition mpos, 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. PAil. 16 (p. 85)mpos rovs BapBa- pous xpynomoyv, Arist. HA. iii. 21 (p. 522) ovpdepes mpos tas Svappoias 7 ToL- avtn padiora, de Respir. 8 (p. 474) dvaykn yiwweoOa Karayvéw, ef péddre revéecOat ocwrnpias’ TovTo yap Bonet mpos ravrny THY pbopay, Lucian Pisce. 27 Xpyowpov your Kal mpos €keivous TO To.ovTov, Galen Op. XII. P. 399 Xpope- vo ye Tivt mpos TO maOos apkteip oTe- [i253] EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 207 3 a ‘ \ A a , a F éy Tin Tive 7poOS TANTMOYHY THS GTapKos art, Pp. 420 Tov Sovtos avta mpds ddo- mexias padakpodcets KT D., p. 430 ouve- Onxayv.. -pappaxa mpos peovoas Tpixas, p- 476 Bpaxutarny exovre dvvapw os mpos TO mpokelpevor oupmrapa, p. 482 rovTo S€ kal mpos Ta ev CAM TO ooparte efayOjpara opddpa Xpnotpor eoTw,p. 514 xpnaoréov € mace Tols dvayeypappevous BonOnpact mpos Tas ywopevas dt éyxav- ow Kkefadarylas, p. 601 kad\uorov mpos auriv ddppaxov éyxedpevoy vapdwov pupov. 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. 86, note 2, p. 94), the Therapeutes of Egypt; de Vit. Cont. § 4 (IL p. 476 sq.) tpupaow iro oo- pias éoridpevot TAOVTIws Kal apOoveas Ta ddypara xopnyovons, ws kal....0- Aus Ov && uepav amoyever Oat tpo- is dvayxaias...o.rovvrat d€...dpTov ev- TEA, Kal OYov GXes...moTov Vowp vaya- Tialov auTois ¢oTiv...tAnTpMoVnY ws €xOpov te Kai émiBovdov exrpemropevot Wuyns cal copatos. 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 doypara; he allows that this mAnopovn 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 mpos mAnoporny tis capkos. (1) It is explained in a good sense: ‘to satisfy the reasonable wants of the body.’ In this case ov« év rij rivi 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 OUK €v TUL TW Tpos TANTPOVAY K.T.A. : but it assigns an impossible sense to mAnopovy ths oapxos. For mAnopovy 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 mavray eiw- Oorwy ov povoy iatpay adda Kal Tay ad- wy ‘EMAnvey To THs TAnTUOrAS Svopa paddov mas éemipépew rais vrepBo- Aais THS TUMPEeT POV ToaoOTHTOS: and certainly neither the Apostle nor 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 Gai. § 1 (1. 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 mAnopovyn, 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 ovk év Tien TW Tpos TANTPOYAY THs TapKos are regarded as an exposition of the doctrine of the false teachers from their own point of view. So Theo- dore of Mopsuestia, od tiptov vopigfor- 208 LEL. EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. (IIL. 3 > > 7 - - > Ei ovv cuvnyeponte Tw Xpioro, Ta avo G- TEeITE, OV 6 XpioTos éotiy év SEELE TOV Qeov Kabypevos: tas TO Ova mavrev TANpoiy THY CapKa, Ga yap paddov aipoupevous awéxeo Oat TOY TOAAGY Sia THY TOU YoOpov mapado- ow. This able expositor however is evidently dissatisfied, for he intro- duces his explanation with the words duages pev eott, Bovrerar O€ cinety k7.A.; 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 i 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. (@) 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 mpos mAnoporny x.7.A., but on the contrary everything points to an unbroken continuity. (8) The sense which it attaches to mAno- port) THs oapkos is either forced and unnatural, or it makes the Apostle say what he could not have said. If mAnopovt) tis capkos 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 mAno- pov) THs capkos conveys a very differ- ent idea from such expressions as To pvowotoba vrd Tod rods Ths owapKos (ver. 18) or ro povnua ths capKos (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 mAnopor THs capkos 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 mpos mAnoporny ths capkos. 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. El ody ovvnyéepOntre x.t.d.] ‘Tf then ye were raised, not ‘ have been raised. The aorist cuvnyépOnre, like dreOavere (ii. 20), refers to their bap- tism; and the «i ody here is a resump- tion of the ei 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 T7253) EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 209 2 NO Cal; ~ \ Ais \ ~ - 3 9 / , Ta avw ppoverTe, My Ta emt THS yns. rameGaveTeE yap, \ \ - / \ ~ a“ ? ~ ~ Kal 4 Con vuwy KexpuTTa ouv Tw XpioTo ev TW Oe 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, ef dmeOavere, ei ody ourmyepOnrte. 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. All these things are of the earth, earthy. The material, the transitory, the mundane, has given place to the moral, the eternal, the heavenly. Ta ave (nteite «t.A.] ‘Cease to concentrate your energies, your thoughts on mundane ordinances, and realise your new and heavenly life, of which Christ is the pole-star’ ev de&a «.7.r.| ‘being seated on the right hand of God, where xaOnpevos must not be connected with ecru; see the note on dmoxpudor, li, 3. This participial clause is pertinent and emphatic, for the session of Christ implies the session of the believer also ; Ephes. ii. 4—6 6 5€ Gcds...npas... ovveC(WOTOINTEY,..---KaL TvYNHyELpEY Kal ocuvekabtoev ev Tois emoupavioss eV Xpiot@ “Inood x.r.d. ; comp. Kev. ili. 21 6 vukaov, Sdc@ avt@ xaicat pet’ epod €v tT Opovm pov, Os Kay® eviknoa kal exabioa pera Tov matpos pov ev TH COL. @pdve@ avrod, in the message addressed to the principal church of this dis- trict: see above, p. 42. BaBai, says Chrysostom, rod tov vodv amyyaye Tov nerepov 5 wos Ppovnuaros avtovs émAn- pace peyadou; ovK mpxer Ta avo ei- Mev, ovde, OU 6 Xptords é€aTiv, GAdA ti; “Ev de£ia rov Geov KaOnpevos’ éxei- Oev Aoirdv THY yiv opay mapeckevace. 2. ta avw| The same expression repeated for emphasis; ‘You must not only seek heaven; you must also think heaven.” For the opposition of Ta avo and ta emi rhs yjs in connexion with dpoveiv, comp. Puil. iii, 19, 20 oi ra émiyera Ppovovyres, nuav yap TO ToNiTevpa €v ovVpavois UmapXeEt; see also Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 17. Iixtremes mect. Here the Apostle 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. ameOavere| ‘ye died’ in baptism. The aorist awedavere denotes the past act; the perfect xéxpumra: the perma- nent effects. For ame@davere see the notes on ii. 12, 20. kexputtra| ‘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. I17—I9Q To mvedpa THs aAn- Oeias 6 6 Koopos ov Svvarat AaBeiv, ore ov Oewpet avTo ovdé yivdaores 14 210 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. [TIl. 4 e/ A ~ > , 40Tav 6 Xpirtos Paveowhy, 1 Con juov, TOTE Kae Umels ody avTa Pavepwhjceabe év SoEN. 4. 9 fwh vuar. avrd, vets [Se] yuwaokere avTo...0 KO- apos pe ovK ert Oewpet, tyeis S€ Oew- peiré pe’ OTe eye (a, Kal vpeis (noere. 4. 6 Xptoros}] A fourth occur- rence of the name of Christ in this context; comp. ver. 2 T@ XpioT@, o Xpicrds, ver. 3 ovy ta Xpioro. A pronoun would have been more natu- ral, but less emphatic. 7 Con jnuov] This is an advance on the previous statement, 7 (a7 vpor kéxpuTTat oly T@ Xpiora@, 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 zs Christ. Comp. 1 Joh. y. 12 6 €yav rov viov éxee THY Cwnv, Ign. Ephes. 7 €v Oa- var@ Con adn (of Christ), Smyrn. 4 Incods Xpioros TO adnOuvov nyav Cyr, Ephes. 3 \noovs Xpioros to ddvaxptrov jpav thy, Magn. 1 “Inoot Xpiorod tow Starravrés ypaov Cyv. (2) For dpav is substituted judy. 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 duav 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. Tore Kal vpets 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, will then be blinded with the dazzling glory of the revelation.’ Comp. 1 Joh. iii. 1, 2 6 Kdapos ov yweoKker nuas, Ste ovK, &yy@ aurov. ayamnrol, viv réxva Qeov eopev, Kal ovrw épavepabn ti ecopeba’ oidapev dre éav HavepwO7, Spoor avt@ €a0- peda x.r.A., Clem. Rom. 50 of davepa- Onoovra év TH emioxomy THs BacWeias tov Xptcrov. ev d0&] Joh. xvii. 22 rnv Sokav Av d€daxas por, SéSmxa avrois, Rom. viii. 17 wa kal ovvdoéacOauev. 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. Ill. 5] EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. Z2It 5 / 2 \ , ee ae a, lod ~ , Nexpwoate ovv Ta weAn Ta ert THS ys’ Topvelay, r / 5) - / \ \ dxabapoiav, ma0os, émiOupiay Kakyv, Kat THY TAéEov- Nexpwaare ovr] i.e. ‘Carry out this principle of death to the world (ii. 20 ameOavere, iii. 3 ameOavere), and kill everything that is mundane and car- nal in your being.’ ta péAn x«.7.A.| Each person has a twofold moral personality. There is in him the ‘old man, and there is in him also ‘the new’ (vv. 9, 10). The old man with all his members must be pitilessly slain. It is plain that ra peAn here is used, like avOpwros in ver. 9, not physically, but morally. Our actual limbs may be either ra émi Tis ys Or Ta €v Tots ovpavors, 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 wadaws avOpwros or with the véos advOpwros 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. ei de o ddpOah- pos wou oO Oekitos oxavdadiCer oe, Eee uvTov K.T-A. I have ventured to punctuate after ra émt ris yjs. Thus ropveiav K.T.A. are prospective accusatives, which should be governed directly by some such word as drdéecbe. But several dependent clauses interpose ; the last of these incidentally suggests & 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, vuvi dé dmdbecbe kal vpeis Ta Tavra, in disregard of the original construc- tion. This opposition of roré and viv has a tendency to dislocate the con- struction in St Paul, as in i. 22 yuri dé dmroxatnAAaynrte (Or droxarnAAaégev),i. 26 vov d€ épavepwOn: 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) compare Ephes. ii. I—5 kal vpas...év als 7roTé...€Y Og Kal-»-7rOTe,..6 O€ Oeds... kal ovras nas ouveCworoinaer. With the common punctuation the interpretation is equally awkward, whether we treat ra péAn and zrop- velav k.T.A. a8 in direct apposition, or as double accusatives, or in any other way. The case is best put by Seve- rianus, capka kadei Thy duaptiay, ns Kat Ta péAn KatapiOpet...0 madras avOpw- mos egtw TO Ppornua TO THs auaprias, pedn 6€ avrod ai mpakers Tov apaprn- parev; 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. mopveiav x.t.A.] The general order is from the less comprehensive to the more comprehensive. Thus zopveia is a special kind of uncleanness, while dxa@apcia is uncleanness in any form, Ephes. v. 3 mopveta S€ kai dxadapoia saga; comp. Gal. v. 19 mopveia, axa- Oapoia, doédyera, With the note there. Thus again da%os, though frequently referring to this class of sins (Kom. i. 26, 1 'I'hess. iv. 5), would include other base passions which do not fall under the category of dxa@apcia, as for in- stance gluttony and intemperance. maos, émiOupiav] The two words occur together in 1 Thess. iv. 5 pn év mabe emOupias. So ina passage closely resembling the text, Gal. v. 24 of de Tov Xptorov “Inaov tiv oapKa é€oTavpw- gav avy Tois maOnpacw Kal Tais émbv- pias. The same vice may be viewed as a maGos from its passive and an ém- 6upia from its active side. The word emtOvpia 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 mados as the species to the genus (see Gal. 1. c. note). In the Greek Testament é¢m:Ovpia has a much more 14—2 212 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. (III. 6 , e/ > \ 2 / 6 ale e > A eLlay, nTIs Eat elowAoAaTpelia, “Ol a EpxEeTat 1) 6pyn comprehensive sense; e.g. Joh. viii. 44 ras émOuplas Tov matpos vay Oédere mwotv. Here, if anything, émdupia is wider than maOos. While wados in- cludes all ungovernable affections, ézu- @vpia xaxy reaches to all evil longings. *1dov, says Chrysostom, yevex@s To may eine’ Tavta yap emOupia Kakn, BacKa- via, opyn, Av’7n. The epithet is added because ériOupia is capable of a good sense: comp. I Cor. x. 6 éxifupnras KaK@V. kat THY mAeovekiav] and especially covetousness. 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. Vv. 3 mopveta b€ kat dxabapolu maca 7} mwAcovesia. * Homo extra Deum,’ says Bengel (on Rom. i. 29), ‘quaerit pabu- lum in creatura materiali vel per vo- luptatem vel per avaritiam.” Comp. Test. vit Patr. Jud. 18 dvddkacbe oty, Texva pov, amd THs Topveias Kal THs girapyuptas...0Te Tatra aditta vopov Genv. Similarly Lysis Pythag. 4 (£pi- stol. Graec. p. 602, ed. ILercher) ovo- pasa & av adray i.e. the vices] Tparoy emerdav Tas patepas axpaciay Te Kat mAcoveElav’ apdw O€ modvyovot mwedbixavtt. it must be remembered that mdeoveEia is much wider than iAapyvpia (see Trench N. 7. Syn. \ xxiv. p. 77 sq.), Which itself is called pita mavtev tov Kaxov (1 Tim. vi. 10). The attempt to give weoveEia here and in other passezes the sense of ‘im- purity’ (see e.g. Llammond on Rom, i. 29) is founded on a misconception. The words mAecovexteiv, meoveEla, 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 ro py vmep- Bawew kat weovexrety ev TE Tpdypare Tov adeAdoy avrov (see the note there). In other passages again there will be an accidental connexion; e.g. Ephes. iv. 19 eis épyaciav dxabapcias maons €v mAcovekia, i.e. ‘with greedi- ness,’ ‘with entire disregard for the rights of others. But nowhere do the words in themselves suggest this meaning. Here the particles xat thy show that a new type of sin is intro- duced with wheovefiavy: and in the parallel passage Ephes. v. 3 (quoted above) the saine distinction is indi- cated by the change from the con- Junctive particle xai to the disjunctive 7. It is an error to suppose that this sense of mXeoveéia is supported by Clem. Alex. Strom. iii, 12 (p. 551 sq.) os yap 7 TAeoveSia mopveia Néeyerat, TH avrapksia evayriovpévn. On the con- verse error of explaining dxaGapaia to mean ‘ greediness,’ ‘covetousness,’ see the note on 1 Thess. il. 3. qris K.T.A.] ‘for té ts idolatry’: comp. Ephes. v. 5 wAeovextys, 6 (or ds) €or eidwAodatpyns, 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 misecr 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 dvvacGe Ceo SovAevew Kal papwva, 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 sq.) mav- TayoOev prev apyvptov Kat xpuvalov €xro- pitovat, To b€ mopiabev ws ayadpa Oeiov ev addvrots OncavpopvAakovow (with the whole context), and Shemoth Rabba fol. 121. 3 ‘Qui opes suas multiplicat per feenus, ile est idololatra’ (with III. 7, 8] EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS, 213 ~ - La \ lod / , ¢ Tov Qeov> 7épy ols Kal Vues TEPLETATHOATE TOTE, OTE »oA > ld e 3 et nda! ’ ’ Ahoe ~ \ / ECnTE Evy TovTOIs’ “vuVt d€ amroder Ge Kal UuEls Ta TaVTA, other passages quoted by Wetstein and Schéttgen on Ephes. v. 5). St Chrysostom, fom. tn Joann. lxv (VIII. p. 392 sq.), enlarges on the cult of wealth—the consecration of it, the worship paid to it, the sacrifices de- manded by it: 7 d€ dirapyupia Aéyer, Cicov por THY cavTov Wuyny, Kal Treiber opas otous €xer Bwpous, ota Séxerar Ov- para (p. 393). The passage in TZesté. wit Patr. Jud. 18 n didtapyupia rpos eiooAa ddnyet is no real parallel to St Paul’s language, though at first sight it seems to resemble it. For 7rus, ‘seeing that it, see the note on Phil. iv. 3. Gi7-wyou vax) | Phe received text requires correction in two points. (1) It inserts the words émi rods viovs Tis areOeias after tov Geov. Though this insertion has preponderating sup- port, yet the words are evidently in- terpolated from the parallel passage, Ephes. v. 6 6a tatra yap e€pyera 7 Opy) Tov Geov emt Tovs viods THs aret- Gcias. 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 80’ d...ev ois kal...may be compared with Ephes. i. 11 ev d kal exAnpoOnper...év @ kal bpeis...ev @ kal muaTevoartes eappa- yioOnre, and ii. 21, 22 ev & waca [7] oikodop7...€2 @ Kal vpeis cuvotKkodo- peicbe. (2) The vast preponder- ance of authority obliges us to substi- tute rovto.s for avrots. 6. épxera:] This may refer either to the present and continuous dispen- sation, or to the future and final judg- ment. The present épyecGa is fre- quently used to denote the certainty of a future event, e.g. Matt. xvii. 11, Joh. iv. 21, xiv. 3, whence 6 épxdpevos is a designation of the Messiah : sce Winer § xl. p. 332. 7. ev ois x.t.A.] The clause ext rods vious Ths ameiOcias having been struck out, €v ois must necessarily be neuter and refer to the same as 6’ a. Inde- pendently of the rejection of the clause, this neuter seems more proba- ble in itself than the masculine: for (1) The expression mepirareiy ev is most commonly used of things, not of persons, especially in this and the companion epistle: iv. 5, Ephes. 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 é€v ois kat nets waves ave- otpadnuev mote ev tais eniOvpias Tis Gapkos juav (where ois seems to be masculine), does not hold, because the addition ev rats émiOupias x.7.A. makes all the difference. Thus the rejection of the clause, which was decided by textual considerations, is confirmed by exegetical reasons. kai vpeis |‘ ye, like the other heathen’ (i. 6 kai ev dvpiv), but in the next verse xal -vueis is rather ‘ye your- selves,’ ‘ye notwithstanding your for- mer lives.’ ore entre x.7.A.] ‘When ye lived in this atmosphere of sin, when ye had not yet died to the world’ ev tovtas] ‘in these things’ We should have expected avrvis, but rovtots is substituted as more empha- tic and condemnatory: comp. Ephes. v. 6 dua ratra yap épxetarn.t.r. The two expressions (jv ev and repurareiv ev 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 el (Suey mvevpati, mvevpat. Kal OTOI- XOBEM 214 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. > , 7 / , > 7 ; opyiv, Guuov, Kaxiav, BrAacdnulav, aioypo\oyiay €x a e € — TOU OTOMATOS UMW)’ 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; see the note on ver. 5. ra mavra | ‘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. opynv, Oupov] Sanger, 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 0 d€ Oupos eorw opy?) dpxopern. So Ammonius Oupos peév €ote TpoaKaupos, opyy S€ moAvypo- vios pynowkaxia, Greg. Naz. Carm. 34 (11. p. 612) Oupds pév eorw adpoos Céars dpevcs, opy) Sé Oupos eppévov. 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 NOT. Syn} Xxxvil, p.423'sq) On other synonymes connected with 6v- pos and opyy see the note on Ephes. iv. 31. kaxiav]| ‘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 xaxia and movnpia 9 un WevderGe eis aXAnAOUS* areEK- (which frequently occur together, e.g. 1 Cor. y. 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. T. Syn. § xi. p. 35 sq. Bracdnpiay| ‘evil speaking, rail- ing, slundering, as frequently, e.g. Rom. iii. 8, xiv. 16, 1 Cor. iv. 13 (v.1.), x. 30, Ephes. iv. 31, Tit. iii. 2. The word has the same twofold sense, ‘ evil speaking ’ and ‘ blasphemy,’ in classi- cal writers, which it has in the New Testament. air xpodoyiay] ‘ foul-mouthed abuse.’ The word, as used elsewhere, has two meanings: (1) ‘ Filthy-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. dor. 9, and so com- monly; (2) ‘ Abusive language, as e.g. Polyby vill. £3.'S0xiL 145.3) peer 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 alayporns kat pwporoyia 7 eutpavedia; the second by the con- nexion with Bracdnyia 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. Q. dmexdvodpevoe xk.t.r.] ‘putting of? Do these aorist participles de- scribe an action coincident with or prior to the Wevderbe? 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 off’? The former seems the more probable interpreta- tion; for (1) Though both ideas are Lif, 10, 11] EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 215 , \ \ of \ ~ / duoauevot Tov TaXaov avOpwrov cuv Tals rpakeow - \ / A / A / avuTov, "Kal évovTapevol TOV VEOV, TOY aVaKaLVOUMEVOV , ? / ~ / , e/ Els ETIYVWOLV KAT ElKOVa TOU KTiGayTos avToV* ™ O7roU found in St Paul, the imperative is the more usual; e.g. Rom. xiii. 12 sq. drodw- peba ovv Ta épya Tod oKoTous, evdvad- peda S€ ra GrAa TOD hwrtos...evddcacbe rov Kupiov’Incotv Xpiorov, Ephes. vi. 11 évdvcacbe tHv mavorAiayv With ver. 14 oTire ovv...evdvodpuevot x.T.A., L Thess. v. 8 yipopev evdvodpevor wt-A. The one exception is Gal. iii. 27 dco: yap eis Xpiotov é€BanricOnre, Xpiorov éve- dvcacGe. (2) The ‘putting on’ in the parallel passage, Ephes. iv. 24, is imperative, not affirmative, whether we read evdvcacOa or éevdvcacée. (3) The participles here are followed immediately by an imperative in the context, ver. 12 ¢vdtcacde ovv, where the idea seems to be the same. For the synchronous aorist participle see Winer § xlv. p. 430. St Paul uses dmekOvodpevot, evdvodpevot (not dzrex- dvopevor, évdvouevor), for the same reason for which he uses éevdvcac de (not évdverGe), because it is a thing to be done once for all. For the double compound dmexdverOa see the notes onli. II, 15. madaov avOpwrov| as Rom. vi. 6, Ephes. iv. 22. With this expression compare o ¢£a, 6 €ow dvOpwmos, Rom. vii. 22, 2 Cor. iv. 16, Ephes. iii. 16; 6 Kpumros tis Kapdias avOpwmos, I Pet. iii. 4.3; 6 puxpos pov avOpwros, ‘my in- significance, Polycr. in Euseb. H. £. V2, Io, rov veov x.t.A.] In Ephes. iv. 24 it is évdvcacOa Tov Katvov avbpo- mov. Of the two words véos and ka- 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 xatvos gives in the parallel passage, is more than supplied by the addition rov dvaxa- VOUMEVOY K.T.A. The véos or katvos avOpwros in these passages is not Christ Himself, as the parallel expression Xpicrov évdvca- c$a might suggest, and as it is actu- ally used in Ign. Ephes. 20 eis roy Kat- vov avOpwmoy "Incotv Xpiorov, but the regenerate man formed after Christ. The idea here is the same as in xawv7 kriots, 2 Cor. v. 17, Gal. vi. 15: comp. Rom. vi. 4 xaworns (w%s, Barnab. 16 eyevoueba kawvoi, madw €& dpyns Krito- pevot. Tov avakawwovpevoy] ‘which is ever being renewed. The forceof the pre- sent tense is explained by 2 Cor. iv. 16 6 €ow nyav [avOpwros] dvaxawovrat imépa katyuépa. Compare also the use of the tenses in the parallel pas- sage, Ephes. iv. 22 sq. amodécOa, ava- veovabat, evdvcacba. For the op- posite see Ephes. iv. 22 roy madaov avOpwmoy tov POerpopevoy K.T.r. eis emlyvoow] ‘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. 44,99 sq. (comp. the notes on i. 9, ii. 3), and for the word ériyvwors the note on i. 9. The words here are to be connected closely with dvaxawovpevoy: comp. Heb. vi. 6 wadw dvakatvicery eis pe- Tavotay. kat eixova k.t.A.] The reference is to Gen. i. 26 xal eimev 6 Geos, THoun- cwpev avOpwrov Kar’ eikova nuerépay K.T.A.3; comp. ver. 28 xar’ eixova Geod éroingev avrov. See also Ephes, iv. 24 Tov Katvov avOpwrov Tov Kata Ocoy kTi- oevra. This reference however does not imply an identity of the creation here mentioned with the creation of Genesis, but only an analogy between 216 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. (ILI. 11 > > ~ \ \ ovk évtENAnv Kal “lovdatos, mepitoun Kal axpoBuaTia, 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 xawy7 xriots in this respect resembles the dpxaia xriots. The pronoun avroy cannot be referred to anything else but the véos ayOpwmos, the regene- rate man; and the aorist kxricavros (compare xtioOevra in the parallel passage Ephes. iv. 24) refers to the time of this dvayévyno.s in Christ. Sce Barnab. 6 dvaxatvicas nuas év TH apecet THY GuapTLey eroingey Nas G@\Xov turov...ocay 5) dvamAaacor- Tos avrov nuas, 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 tod xricav- tos 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 6 xricas. But if Christ is not 6 xrioas, may He not be intended by the eikav rod xricavros ? In favour of this interpretation it may be urged (1) That Christ elsewhere is called the eikoy 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. 5 M) 76 dpyérumov mapadetypa, idea TOY ie@v O Ocod o- yos (comp. ib. §§ 7, 23, 24, 48), Fragm. Il. p.625 M Ovnrov yap ovdev amerkouc- Ojvat mpos Tov avwrarw kal matépa TOY OAwy €dvVYaTO, GAA Tpos TOY SevTE- pov Ocov Os e€otiy e€kelvov Aoyos xK.T.A. Leg. Alleg. i. 31,32. (1. p. 106 8q,), Hence Philo speaks of the first man as eixav eixovos (de Mund. Op. 6), and aS mayxadov mapadelypatos mayKaNov pipnua (ib. § 48). A pregnant mean- ing is thus given to card, and kar’ «i- cova 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 xara Gedy, which may be re- garded as equivalent to xar’ eixova tov ktioavtos here; (2) The Alexandriau explanation of Gen. i. 26 just quoted is very closely allied to the Platonic doctrine of ideas (for the eixdy, so 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- nended the Alexandrian terminology of the Logos to the Apostles, as a fit vehicle for communicating the truths of Christianity. II. ozov] ie. ‘in this regenerate life, in this spiritual region into which the believer is transferred in Christ.’ ovx éu| ‘Not only does the dis- tinction not exist, but it cannot exist, It is a mundane distinction, and there- fore it has disappeared. For the sense of é, negativing not merely the fact, but the possibility, see the note on Gal. iii. 28. "EAAnvk.t.A.| 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- Saios,"EAAny), social caste (SodAos, €Aev- Gepos), natural sex (@poev, O7dv). 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”EAAnv kal Iovdaios, and as it manifested it- self especially in enforcing circumci- sion, this is further emphasized by meptroun Kai axpoSvoria (see above, p- 73).- (2) Their Gnosticism again is met by BdpBapos, SkvOns. They laid special stress on intelligence, penetra- tion, gnosis. The Apostle offers the full privileges of the Gospel to barba- rians and eyen barbarians of the low- III. 11] EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 217 BapBapos, ZKvOns, dovdAos, erEvVCEpos, ad\\a Ta TavTa est type (see p. 99 sq.). In Rom. i. 14 the division "E\Anoiy re Kal BapBapors is almost synonymous with codois Te Kat avorjros. (3) Special cir- cumstances, connected with an emi- nent member of the Church of Colos- se, had directed his attention at this moment to the relation of masters and slaves. Hence he cannot leave the subject without adding SodXos, édev- depos, 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 Hpistle to Philemon. meptrouy «.t.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 (‘EAAny kal “Iov- datos), but also as assumed by adop- tion (mepitopr Kal dxpoBvoria). If it is no adyantage to be born a Jew, it is none to become as a Jew; comp. I Cor. vii. 19, Gal. v. 6, vi. 15. BapBapos] To the Jew the whole world was divided into "Iovdator and “EdAnves, 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 “EAAnves and BapBapo, 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 "EdAnyv is contrasted disadvantage- ously with the “Iovdaios, while from the other he is contrasted advantage- ously with the BapSapos. 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 BdpBapos 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 Greck exclusiveness and pride to stigmatize the rest of mankind, a feeling embodied in the proverb mas pn "EMA BapBapos (Ser- vius on Verg. Aen. 1. 504) ; comp. Plato Polit. 262 1 15 pey “EXAnvixoy @s év amo TmavTwy apatpobvres Yapis, ovpmact 5€ Tois adXos yéeveow...Bap- Bapov pia kAnoet mpoceimovtes aro k.7.A., Dionys. Hal. het. xi. 5 durdovv dé ro €Ovos, "EMAnv 4} BapBapos x.t.d. So Philo Vit. AZoys. ii. 5 (11. p. 138) speaks of ro jucou TuRpa Tod dvOpo- Tay yevous, TO BapBapexoy, aS Opposed to ro ‘EXAnrxov. It is not necessary to suppose that they adopted it from the Egyptians, who seem to have call- ed non-Egyptian peoples berber (sce 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) otuae Sé ro Bap- Bapov kat apxas éexrehovncbar otras kaT ovopatoroulay emt Tov Sucexpdopws Kal oKAnpe@s Kal Tpayews AadovyTaY, ws ro Batrapifev «tA. The Latins, adopting the Greek culture, adopted he Greek distinction also, e.g. Cic. 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 v. 8, haying meutioned the Romans, he goes on to speak of of aXor" Daves: 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 Sieger as barbaria; e.g. Plaut. AZil. Glor. ii. 2. 58 ‘ poetae barbaro’ (of Naevius), Asin. Prol. 11. 218 sh > - ie Kal €V Tact XploTos. ‘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. |. c.); but elsewhere he resents it, Leg. ad Gai. 31 (11. p. 578) vad dpo- vnpatos, os pev evar Tov SvaBadAdvr@v elovev av, BapBapikod, ws S yet Td ddnOes, eXevdepiov kai evyevods. On the other hand the Christian Apolo- gists with a true instinct glory in the ‘barbarous’ origin of their religion : Justin Apol. i. 5 (p. 56 A) dAAa kat év BapBapots Um’ avrov Tov Adyou poppaber- Tos Kat avOpwrov yevopevov, ib. § 46 (p. 83 D) év BapBdpoas dé ’ABpadu «.r.X., Tatian. ad Graec. 29 ypadais rioiv evtuxeity BapBapixais, ib. 31 Tov de (Mavoqv) maons BapBapov codias ap- xnyov, ib. 35 tis Ka’ nyas BapBapov gtdocodpias. 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- deavours to prove that ov pdvov dido- copias adda kal maons cxedov TéExuNsS evpetat BapBapor. ‘Not till that word Uarbarian,’ 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 yain 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 EPISTLH TO THE COLOSSIANS. PEITS x2 / > ec > ™évouoacGe ovv, Ws EKAEKTOL 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 “EAAny nor BapBapos, or as in Rom. i. 14 that he himself was a debtor equally "EAAnciv re kat BapBapots. The only other passage in the New Testament (besides those quoted) in which BapBapos occurs is Acts xxviii. 2, 4, where it is used of the people of Melita. If this Melita be Malta, they would be of Phoenician descent. Sxv@ns| The lowest type of barba- rian. There is the same collocation of words in Dionys. Halic. Rhet. xi. 5, 6 marnp, BapBapos, ZxvOns, rvéos, Aesch. c. Ctes. 172 Sxt6ns, BapBapos, éAAnvifev ry heovn (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 8q.,p. 300 sq.). Aeschylus for instance called them evvopor Sxvda, Fragm. 189 (comp. Lum. 703). Like the other Ilyperboreans, they were a simple, righteous people, living be- yond the vices and the miseries of civilisation, But the common estimate was far different, and pro- bably far more true: e.g. 3 Mace. Vii. 5 vopov Skvdav aypiwrépay...wpo- tyra (comp. 2 Mace. iv. 47), Joseph. Lg Re ey EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 219 = ~ A \ , / ’ = TOU GEou, aytot [Kae | HYATHMEVOL, OTAAYX VA OLKTLO MOU," c. Ap. li. 37 Sxvat...Bpayd tav Ojpioy diadeporres, Philo Leg. ad Gai. 2 (II. p. 547) Sapparay yevn kat ZKvdav, dep ovx WTTOV eényplata Tov Teppay- cov, Tertull. adv. Aare. i. 1 ‘Seytha tetrior, Orig. c. Cels. i. 1 SkvOav, kal el TL SkvOay daeBéeorepov. 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. aAnacharsis the Scythian is said to have retorted é€yot d€ mavres "EXAnves oKvOi- ¢cvow, 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- vaders has found expression in the prophets (Ezek. xxviii, xxxix, Jer. i. 13 Sq., Vi. I 8q.), and they left behind them a memorial in the Greek name of Beth-shean, SxvOayv wodts (Judith iii. 10, 2 Mace. xii. 29: comp. Judges i. 27 LXX) or Sxvdd7oAcs, Which seems to have been derived from a settlement on this occasion (Plin. WV. HZ. v. 16; see Ewald Gesch. m1. 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 xav Sxv6ns 7 tus } Tépons, exer O€ tTHy To’ Geod yvoow kal tov Xpictov avrov kal puhagcer Ta aiova dikaa...pidos éoti TO Oca, 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. Pued. i. 7, p. 131, Strom. iii. 2, p. 515, and the Apologists generally). So too the Pseudo-Lucian, Philopatris 17, sati- rising Christianity, KP. rode eime, ef Kal Ta TOY SxvOav ev TH ovpavd eyyxapar- rovot, TP. mdvta, ef TUyou ye ypnotos kal €v €Oveot. From a misconception of this passage in the Colossians, heresiologers distinguished four main forms of heresy in the pre-Christian world, BapBapiopos, oxvOiopos, €AAy- vigpos, tovdaicpos ; 80 Epiphan. Epist. ad Acac. 2 capas yap rept TovTev Trav Tegoapwv aipéceay o amoaToXos emrte- hav én, Ev yap Xpiote Incod ov Bap- Bapos, ov SxvOns, ovx "EAn», ovK "lov- Oaios, GAAa Kav Ktiows: comp. Haer. i. 4, 7 8q..1. pp. 5, 8 sq.. Anaceph. 11. pp. 127, 129 sq. Ta wavra xtA.| ‘Christ ts all things and in all things’? Christ has dispossessed and obliterated all distinctions of religious prerogative and intellectual preeminence and so- cial caste; Christ hus substituted Himself for all these; Christ occupies the whole sphere of human life and permeates all its developments : comp. Ephes. i. 23 rod ra mdavra ev maow mAn- pouzevov. For ra mavra, which is stronger than of waves, see Gal. iii. 22 ouvexdercev 1 ypapy Ta mavta Um ayapriav with the note. In this pas- sage ev maow is probably neuter, as in 2 Cor. xi. 6, Phil. iv. 12, 1 Tim. iii. II, 2 Tim. ii. 7, iv. 5, Ephes. iv. 6, vi. 16. In the parallel passage Gal. iii. 28 the corresponding clause is zavres Upeis els core ev Xptor@ “Inoov. 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 vpeis ev enol, Kayo ev Upiv. 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- 220 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. [IIl. 12 . : de XONTTOTITA, TaTrEewopposvvny, TOAUTYTA, paxpobu- 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. evdicacbe ovv] ‘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. iil. I, 5. ws exdexTol TOU Ceov| ‘as elect ones of God” Comp. Rom. viii. 3, Tit. i. 1. In the Gospels kAnroi and éexXexroi are distinguished as an outer and an in- ner circle (Matt. xxii. 14 wodAol yap eiowy KAnTOL, OAiyot O€ exAeKToi), KANTOL being those summoned to the privi- leges of the Gospel and éxdexroi those appointed to final salvation (Matt. MAIV22, 24, 91, Mark mit. 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, xAnroi having special reference to the goal and ékx\exroi to the starting- point. The same persons are ‘ called’ to Christ, and ‘chosen out’ from the world. Thus in 1 Thess. i. 4 eiddres Ty exdoyny vpov K7.d. 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 dua rovs éxXexrovs, adding iva kal avrot caTnplas TUxwow k.7.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 Brémere Thy Kdjow UEOY...TA Opa TOU Kdopouv e&ede~arTo, 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 éxAexroi (1 Pet. i. 1; comp. Vv. 13 7 ovvekdexT?) ev BaSvdov, i.e. probably exkAnoia), aS St Paul under similar circumstances (Rom. i. 6, 7, 1 Cor. i. 2) designates them «Antoi; and in anothér passage (2 Pet. i. 10) he ap- peals to his readers to make their kAjows and éxdoyyn sure. The use of exdextos in 2 Joh. I, 13, is apparently the same; and in Apoe. xvii. 14 of per avrov KAnTol Kal ékXexTol Kal m- otot this is also the case, as we may infer from the addition of mero, which points to those who have been true to their ‘ calling and election” Thus the Gospels stand alone in this respect. In fact éxAoyn 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 Paui (Acts ix. 15) is called oxedos exdoyjs, the object of the ‘election’ being defined in the words following, tod Baotdca TO dvowad pov éevemtov [rav| edvav re Kat Bacrhewy k.T.A.5 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 kAjous and é€kdoyn as CO- extensive, Rom. xi. 28, 29 xara d5€ thy €xAXoynyv ayanntot dia tovs marépas* duetapéAnta yap Ta xapicpara Kat 7 kAjoLs TOU Ceo. aysou x.T.A.] These are not to be taken as vocatives, but as predicates TET; /¥3' EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 221 U4 - I > / > pean f € a piav? “Saveyouevot a\Andwy, Kal yapiComevot EavTots, further defining the meaning of ék\ex- rot. All the three terms éxXexrot, dytor, nyamnuevot, 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. 1 Pet. il. 9 yevos éxXexrov ...€6vos ayoy; and for the sense of ayo, ‘ the consecrated people of God,’ see the note on Phil. i. 1. For the third word, ryarnpuevor, see Is. v. 1 "Aco 61 TO Hyarnpeva x.t.A., Hos. ii, 25 tHv ovK Hyamnpéevny Hyamnperny (as quoted in Rom. ix. 25). In the New Testament it secms to be used always of the objects of God’s love ; e.g. I Thess. 1. 4 efddres, adeAol nya- T_Eevor VITO Oeov, THY ekNoyNY VOY, 2 Thess. il. 13 adeAqdot nyarnpevor v0 Kupfov (comp. Jude 1); and so proba- bly Rey. xx. 9 tv modu Tiv yyarnpe- vnv. Kor the connexion of God’s elec- tion and God’s love see Rom. xi. 28 (quoted above), 1 Thess. lc. The kat is omitted in one or two exccllent 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, exexrol Geov, ay:or, Hyarnuevor; comp. I Pet. i. 6. onmhayxva oixtippov] ‘a heart of pity” For the meaning of om\dyxva see the note on Phil. i. 8, and for the whole expression comp. omAdyyva eXé- ovs Luke 1. 78, Test. vit Patr. Gab. hs 8. xepnotornta «7.d.] The two words ypnorotns and rarewoppoovrn, * kind- liness’ and ‘humility, describe the Christian temper of mind generally, and this in two aspects, as it affects cither (1) our relation to others (ypyo- Tots), or (2) our estimate of self (ra- mewogppoorrn). Lor ypnototns see the note on Gal. v. 22: for rarewodpoovrn, the note on Phil. i. 3. mpaitnta kt.A.] ‘These next two words, mpaitns and paxpobupia, de- note the evercise of the Christian temper in its ontward bearing to- wards others. They are best distin- guished by their opposites. mpairns is opposed to ‘rudeness, harshness,’ dypuotns (Plato Symp. 197 D), xader- ms (Arist. H..A. ix. 1); paxpobvpia to ‘resentment, revenge, wrath,’ sopy7 (Prov. xvi. 32), o€vxoAia (Herm. Mand. y. I, 2) For the meaning of paxpo- Ovpia see above, oni. 11; for the form of mpaitns (xpadtns), on Gal. v. 23. The words are discussed in Trench NeT. Syn. 5 sii: ps t40 (sq) Sexi: p. 145 sq., § lili p. 184 sq. They ap- pear in connexion Ephes. iv. 2, Ign. Polyc. © paxpoOvpnoate ody per adAr- Av €v mpavTnte. 13. aAdjAwy, eavtois| The pro- noun is varied, as in Ephes. iv. 32 yweobe cis dAXnAOVS xXpHOTOL...xapt- Comevor €avTois K7.A., I Pet. iv.8—10 Thy eis EauTOVS dyamny exTEevyn ExovTES ...Pirdgevoe eis AAANXoOvs...€ls Eav- Tous avto [rd yaptopa] dcaxovotvtes. The reciprocal €avréy differs from the reciprocal d\AnA@y in emphasizing the idea of corporate unity: hence it is nore appropriate here (comp. Ephes. iv. 2, 32) with yapeCopevor than with dvexopevoe: comp. Xen. Mem. iii. 5. 16 avril ey TOU TuvEpyely EaUT OLS Ta OUp- e€povta, emnpeagovow addnAors, Kab Oovovow €avtots paddov 7 Tois ad- Aots avOpozros...kal Tpoatpovvrar pan- Nov ovt@ kepdaivery am adAAnrAov 7 guvwpedovvres avTovs, where the pro- pricty of the two words in their re- spective places will be evident: and ip, ll. 7. 12 avtl vpopwopévorv Eavras 7 ews GAA Aas Ewpwv, Where the vari- ation is more subtle but not less ap- propriate. For instances of this use of eavtav see Bleck Hebriierbrief ili. 13 (p. 453 sq.), Kiihner Giiech. Gramm. § 455 (IL p. 497 8q.). xapCopevor| i.e. ‘forgiving’; see the note on ii. 13. An @ fortioré argu- ment lurks under the use of éavrots (rather than ddAnAors): if Christ for- gave them, much more should they furgive themselres. 222 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. (III. 14 €av TIS moos Tliva é) O pny: Kabws Kal o Kupio / Pe / xa at ‘ >’ \ \ i 2 éxapicaTo uly, OUTWS Kal UuEis* *émt TaoW O€ TOUTOLS pougyy] ‘a complaint.’ As péep- deo Oar is ‘ to find fault with,’ referring most commonly to errors of omission, so poudy 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 popdyy yew occurs several times in classical Greek, but generally in poetry: e.g. Eur. Orest. 1069, Arist. Pax 664. xaOos kai «.t.A.] This must not be connected with the preceding words, but treated as an independent sen- tence, the cafes xai being answered by the oUrws xai. For the presence of kai 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 domep cal tov GdAwv Epywy of dSidackadot...ovT® Kal ov x.t.A.; see the references in Hein- dorf on Plato Phaedo 64 c, Sophist. 217 B, and Kiihner Griech. Gramm. § 524 (IL. p. 799). 6 Kuptos] This reading, which is better supported than 6 Xpuoros, 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 omdayxvicbeis 5€ 6 KUpLOS Tov SovAov eéxeivou améAvoev avTov Kal TO davecov abyxev avT@ k.r.d.: comp. below iv. I eidores Ort Kal vets Cxere KUPLOV evovpare. The reading Xpiords perhaps comes from the parallel passage Ephes. iv. 32 yapiopevor eavtois, Kabas Kai oO Ccds €v XpioT@ €xapicaro nyiv (or vyiv). oUT@s Kal vpets] SC. xapicerOe éav- Tots. 14. emt maow]} ‘overand above all these,” comp. Luke iii. 20 mpoaé@nxev Kat TovTo ext maow. In Luke xvi. 26, Ephes. vi. 16, the correct reading is probably ev raowv. Love is the outer garment which holds the others in their places. thy dyanny] sc. evdvcacde, from ver. i2: o|‘ which thing, i.e. ‘love’; comp. Ephes. v. 5 wAcovextns, 6 €orw €idwdo- Aarpns, Ign. Rom. 7 dprov Geod béda, 6 éorw oapé Xpicrod, Magn. 10 pera- Bureobe eis veav Cupny 6 éotiv “Incovs Xpioros, Trall. 8 avaxtncacbe éavrovs ev miotes & é€otw cap Tov Kupiov. Though there are various readings in the passages of the Ignatian Epistles, the o seems to be generally right. These instances will show that 6 may be referred to ri dyamny alone. O- therwise we might suppose the ante- cedent to be ro évdvcacbau thy dyarny, but this hardly suits the sense. The common reading 77s is obviously a scribe’s correction. ovvdecpos k.t.A.] ‘the bond of per- fection, i.e. the power, which unites and holds together all those graces and virtues, which together make up perfection. Iavra ékxeiva, says Chry- sostom, avrn ovagdiyyev’ dmep av eimns ayabov, tavtns amovons ovdev éoTw a\Aa Stappet: comp. Clem. Rom. 49 tov Seapov THs ayanns Tov Ceov Tis dvvara: €Enynoacba; Thus the Pytha- goreans (Simplic. in Epictet. p. 208 a) TEeptocas Tay GAAwy aperav Thy Pidiav éripwv kai ovvSeopov avTny magav Tov dperav édeyov. So too Themist. Orat. i. (p. 5 ©) Baowdixy (dpetn) mapa tas @AXas eis Nv EvvdSodvrat Kai ai Aourai, Gorep eis piay kopupny avnupéenn. The word will take a genitive either of the object bound or of the binding force: eg. Plato Polit. 310 A rovrov Oevdrepov eivar tov Evvdecpor aperhs pepav hicews dvopoior xal ert Tavayria epouevav, where the dpery Evvdei and the pépn dicews Evydeira, We have an instance of the one genitive (the objective) here, of the other (the sub- jective) in Ephes. iv. 3 €vr@ ocvvdéop@ ris eipnyns (see the note.there). Another explanation makes ovvdec- III. 15] 24 / e/ > / ~ / THY ayaTnV, O ETTW cuvoer os THS TENELOTNTOS. EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 223 ‘ SKaL € 2 / _ a“ / , =~ id e 5 4 elpnyn TOU Xpixtod BpaBeveTw. év Tais Kapoiats Uuwv, > ra \ > I 5) eat / els nv Kat éxAnOnTte év évi Cwatt. pos=oavvbeats here, ‘the bundle, the totality, as e.g. Herodian. iv. 12 wav- Ta TOY avydecpoy Tay emitToAay (comp. Ign. Trall. 3 cdvdecpov drocrodor) ; but this unusual metaphor is highly improbable and inappropriate here, not to mention that we should expect the definite article o advdecpos in this case. With either interpretation, the function assigned to dyamn here is the same as when it is declared to be rAnp@pa vopov, Rom. xiii. 10 (comp. Gal. v. 14). See also the all-embracing office which is assigned to it in 1 Cor. mill, 15. 1 €tpnvn Tov Xptorov| ‘ Christ’s peace, which He left as a legacy to His disciples: Joh. xiv. 27 eipyjyny apinue viv, eipnyny tTHy é€uny Sidope vpiv; comp. Ephes. ii. 14 adros yap éorw 7 eipnyn nuov With the context. The common reading 7 eipyvn rod Gcov has a parallel in Phil. iv. 7. BpaBeveroa|] ‘be umpire, for the idea of a contest is only less promi- nent here, than in BpaBeioy 1 Cor. ix. 24, Phil. iii. 14 (see the note there). Srad.ov evSov erroincey ev Tois Aoyiopors, writes Chrysostom, cai dyava kai GOAn- ow kal BpaBevrnv. 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 Oupos BpaBevérw, says Chrysostom again, a prroverxia, ai avO,arivn eipnyn’ 1 yap avOpomrivn elpnvn ek TOU dpuverOae yiverat, ex TOU pndev macxew Oewvov. For this metaphor of some one paramount consideration acting as umpire, where there is a conflict of internal motives, see Polyb. ii. 35. 3 amayv TO yryvouevov vo tav Tadarwv Oup@ paddov Aoytopa BpaBeve- Oa, Philo de Migr. Abr. 12 (1. p. 446) mropeverar 6 appar &’ audorépov @upod te kal emOupias del...tov nvioxoy EVYAPLOTOL kai BpaBeuvtyvy Aoyov armoBarav (comp. de Ebriet. 19, 1. p. 368), Jos. B. J. vi. 2. 6 éBpaBeve ras todpas 6. do80s. Somewhat similarly re) (Polyb. xxvii. 14. 4) or @uows (Athen. XV. p. 670 A) are made BpaBeverw. In other passages, where 6 Geos or To @ctov is said BpaBevew, this implies that, while man proposes, God dis- poses. In Philo ddnGera BpaBevovoa (Qui rer. div. her. 19,1. p. 486) is a rough synonyme for dAnOeva Sixafovsa (de Abrah. 14, Ul. p. 10, etc.): and in Josephus (Ant. vi. 3. 1) ducagecy and BpaBevey 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 nv x.t.A.] Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 15 ev dé elpnyn KéxAnkev nas 6 Geos. ev evi owparte| ‘ As ye were called as members of one body, so let there be one spirit animating that body’: Ephes. iv. 4 év oa@pa kal év tvetpa. This passage strikes the keynote of the companion Epistle to the Ephe- sians (see esp. ii. 16 8q., iv. 3 sq.). evyapiaro] * And to crown all for- get yourselves in thanksgiving towards God’: see the notes on i. 12, ii. 7. The adjective edyapioros, though not oc- curring elsewhere in the Greek Bible, is not uncommon in classical writers, and like the English ‘grateful,’ has two meanings; enon) ‘pleasurable’ (e.g. Xen. Cyr. ii. 2.1); or (2) ‘ thank- \ Kal ful’ (e.g. Boeckh C. I, 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 224 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. [III. 16 , a ~ , (Ie es yiverbe. *°O Novos TOO Xpio Tou évoikeiTw év Uuiv Tov- , 9 / / Giws ey Tracy copia: 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 Aoyos Tov Xpicrov] ‘the word of Christ,’ rot Xpiorov being the sub- jective genitive, so that Christ is the speaker. Though 6 oyos tov Gcod and 6 Adyos rov Kupiov oceur fre- quently, o Aeyos Tod Xprorov is found here only. There seems to be no di- rect reference in this expression to any definite body of truths either written or oral, but 6 Aoyos rod Xpic- rov denotes the presence of Christ in the heart, as an inward monitor: comp. I Joh. ii. 14 6 Adyos rod Ccov ev vpiv pevet, With 7b. 1. 10 6 Aoyos a‘- TOU OvK €oTLV ev juiv, and so perhaps Acts xvill. 5 cuveiyero T@ Aodyw (the correct reading). ev vp] ‘in your hearts, not ‘among you’ ; comp. Rom. vili. 9, 11 ré évorkovy avtov mvevpa ev viv, 2 Tim. i. 5, 14, and Lev. xxvi. 12, as quoted in 2 Cor. Vi. 16, evotxnow ev avrois. Tovaiws] See above, p. 43sq.,and the note on i. 27. ev macy codia| ‘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 foliows. For this position of é€v mdon copia, 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 vovGerotvres mavta avOpwmov kat diSacxovres mavra avOpwrov év macy cogia has a double bearing: while the connexion favours our taking év macy copia here with the following words, OuoaaKOVTES Kal vouvGerouvTes the order suggests their being at- tached to the preceding clause. didaoxovres x.t.A.]| 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 [?], iii. 1,7, 9, 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, § xlv. Pp. 441 8q., § lxii. p. 707, § lsiii. 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 S.da- okey ad vovOereivy see the note oni. 28 ; they describerespectively the posi- tive and the negative side of instruc- tion. On the reciprocal €avrovs see the note on iii. 13. Wadpois x.7.A.] To be connected with the preceding sentence, as suggested by Ephes. v. 18 sq. dda wAnpotobe év mvevpatt, hadovvres éavrois [év] Wad- pots kal Davos kal @dais [wrvevparixais |, aSovtes kat Waddovtes TH Kapdia vpav T@ Kupio. The datives describe the instruments of the didayy and vov- devia. The three words yados, Buvos, 3d}, are distinguished, so far as they are distinguishable, in Trench WV.7. Syn. § Ixxviii. p. 279 sq. They are cor- rectly defined by Gregory Nyssen in Psalm. ¢. iil (I. P. 295) ahpos pev ect 7 Oia Tod opyavov Tov povatKoD III. 16] EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 225 ¢ \ a 4 > - ~ > ~ éavTous Waduois vuvors wdats mvevpatiKais év TH pedwdia, gon S€ 7 Sud oroparos yevo- Hévn Tod péAous pera pnudrav emipd- vnots...vpvos S€ 9 emt Tois vmapxovew nuiv ayabois dvariOepevn TS Oe@ evpn- pia; see also Hippol. p. 191 sq. (ed. de Lagarde). In other words, while the leading idea of Wadpos is a musi- cal accompaniment and that of dpuvos praise to God, @5y 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 yadpos, duos, and @dn. In the text the reference in Wadyots, 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 dpyvos 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 mvevparixai. St Chry- sostom treats vuvor here as an advance upon Wadpoi, which in one aspect they are; of Wadpoi, he says, ravra ¢xovow, of O€ Upvoe mad ovdey avOpdmuvoy dray €v Tois Wadpois paGn, Tore Kal Up- vous eloetat, are Oevorepov mpaypa. Psalmody and hymnody were highly developed in the religious services of the Jews at this time: see Philo in Flace. 14. (IL. p. 535) mavvvxor dé dia- Teheoartes ev vuvois Kal @dais, de Vit. Cont. § 3 (If. p. 476) mowotow dopara kal Upvous eis Geov Oia wavroiay péerpwv kat peA@r, & pvOpois cepvorépors avay- kalws yaparrovot, § 10 (p. 484) 6 dva- otas tpvov adet Temoinpevoy eis Tov Gecov, 7) Kawvov avTos memoinKas 7} ap- xalov Tia Tov madat ToinTay’ pérpa yap kal wéAn karaXeAoimract moa éray COL. TplueTpwY, Tpogodiav, Uuvwv, mapa- arov0eiwv, mapaBopiov, oracipey, xo- pixay, oTpodais modvorpopors ev Stape- perpnuevoy x.T.A., § II (p. 485) adovat Temoinuevous els TOY Oeov Uuvous ToA- hois perpors kal peAeoe k.7.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 psalms in the Apostolic age sce Acts ive (22 wna aga Cors aeivitne ree: 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. HZ, E. v. 28 adpoi S€ dcoe Kat @dat adeApav dm adpxiis vro m- oTav ypadeioa: Tov Adyov Tov Geod Tov Xpicrov vpvodvat Oeodoyouvres. 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- vocant quis melius Domino suo cantet.’ On the psalmody etc. of the early Christians see Bingham Anfig. xiv. c. I, and especially Probst Lehre und Gebet p. 256 sq. év ty xapitt] ‘in God’s grace’; comp. 2 Cor. i. 12 ovk €v copia cap- Kuk GAN év xapite Ocod. These words are perhaps best connected with the preceding clause, as by Chryso- stom, Thus the parallelism with ey maicn copia is preserved. The cor- rect reading is év rH xapirt, not ev xapirt, For 7 ydpus, ‘Divine grace’ 15 226 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. [III. 17, 18 , 0 5) ~ él € = = a) an 17 \ YapiTt, OOVTES EV Tals Kapdlals UUwWY TH OEw Kal ~ e/ ; \ - 9 / \ > af ‘ an > qwav 0 TL €av TomTEe Ev AOYHW EV ENYHW, TavTa EV > , / > ~ > ~ ~ ~ \ ovonate Kupiov ‘Inoov, evyapistouvtes Tw Cew rratel ov avTou. 18 ‘= ~ e I e ~ > I/ e De Al yuvaixes, uoTacceole TOS avopacLY, WS avy- see Phil. i. 7 cuveowavovs pov ths xaptros with the note. The definite article seems to exclude all lower senses of ydpis 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. Govres x.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 adovres kat addovtes 77 kapdia (probably the correct reading), where t7 xapdia ‘with the heart’ brings out the sense more distinctly. 17. wav 6 tux.7.A.] This is proba- bly a nominative absolute, as Mati. x. 32 mas ovv dotis opodoynoel... Cpo- hoyjow Kayo é€v atte (comp. Luke xli. 8), Luke xii. 10 was Os épet Adyov ...apednoetat avT@, John xvii. 2 wav 0 dédaxas avto, dwon avTois K7.A.; comp. Matt. vii. 24 (v. 1.). mwavra| SC. moveire, aS the following evxapioTourres suggests; comp. ver. 23: ev ovopart «.7.A.| This is the great practical lesson which flows from the theological teaching of the epistle, Hence the reiteration of Kupio, év Kupi, etc., Vv. 18, 20, 22, 23, 24. See above p. 104. evxaptorotvres] On this refrain see the notes on i. 12, ii. 7. T@ Ge@ rwatpi| This, which is quite the best authenticated reading, gives a very unusual, if not unique, colloca- tion of words, the usual form being either 6 Geds kai matnp Or Geds rarnp. The xai before marpi in the received 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, I Pet. ii. 18 —iii. 7, Tit. ii, I sa.; see also Clem. Rom. 1, Polye. Phil. 4 sa. Ai yuvaixes| ‘ Ye wives, the nomina- tive with the definite article being used for a vocative, as frequently in the New Testament, e.g. Matt. xi. 26, Mark y. 41, Luke viii. 54; see Winer § xxix. p. 2278q. 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. trois avdpaow] The idios 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. ii. PGS RV. DE III. 19—22] 7 kev €v Kuplw. pan mKkpaiveabe mpos avtas. EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 207 Oi avo t t ikas Kal PES, AYATATE Tas Yyuvaikas Kal \ V6 , °° Ta TEKVa, UTAKOVETE - ~ \ , ~ \ at! / TOLS YOvevaolyv KATA TAVTA’ TOUTO yae Evapeo TOV €OTIV ev Kupiw. c \ 5 - wa py aQupwow. avnjxev] The imperfect, as Ephes. v. 4 @ ovK avijxey (the correct reading) ; comp. Clem. Hom. Contest. 3 rovde pi) peradovva yap, Ss ov TpoT KEY, Xen. de Re Equestr. xii. 14 & immapx@ mpoonkev eidévat Te Kal mparrew; and see D’Orville on Charito viii. 2 (p. 699 sq.). The common uses of the imper- fect ede, émperev, 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 ov yap xa6j- kev avtov (qv (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 xpjv, expny, 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 dvjxew, mpoonkev, xadnxewy, ‘aiming at or pertaining to,’ with their ultimate meaning of moral obligation. The word dynxeww occurs in the New Testament only here and in the contemporary epistles, Ephes. v. 4, Philem. 8. ev Kupia| Probably to be connected with os avjxev, rather than with vmo- tagoecGe; comp. ver. 20 evdpecroy eat ev Kupio. 19. 1) mkpaiveoe x.r.A.] ‘show no bitterness, behave not harshly’; comp. Lynceus in Athen. vi. p. 242 © mxpav- Gein mpos Twa Tav ovledvrwv, Joseph. Ant. Y. 7.1 Sewas mpds tovs tod &- kaiov mpoiorauevous exmixpatvopevos, Plut. Mor. p. 457 A mpos yuvaa d.a- or € / A! ’ / \ / e La Oi qwatépes, py epebiCere Ta TEKVa UuwY, re) ~ e / / 22Qi dovAOl, UTaKOVETE KATA TavTa mixpaivovrat, So also mkpaiveoOar éri riva in the Lxx, Jerem. xliv (xxxvii), 15, 3 Esdr. iv. 31. This verb muxpai- veo$ar and its compounds occur fre- quently in classical writers. 20. kata mavra] As in ver.22. The rule is stated absolutely, because the exceptions are so few that they may be disregarded. evapectov éatw] ‘is well pleasing, commendable” The received text supplies this adjective with a dative of reference r@ Kupio (from Hphes. Vv. 10), but ev Kupie is unquestionably the right reading. With the reading thus corrected evapeortov, like avijxev ver. 18, must be taken absolutely, as perhaps in Rom. xii. 2 ro OeAnua Tov Geov TO dyafoy Kal evapectoy kal réNecov: comp. Phil. iv. 8 dca ceva ...dca mpoopiry. The qualification év Kupio implies ‘as judged by a Christian standard” ‘as judged by those who are members of Christ’s body.’ 21. epebicere] ‘provoke, irritate? The other reading mapopyi¢ere 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 épeOifew is used in a good sense and produces the opposite result, not despondency but energy. abupaow] ‘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 dOvpia is opposed to mpobvyia, and in Thue. ii. 88 and elsewhere dévpeiv is opposed to Oapceiv. 15—2 228 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. (III. 23 ~ \ / , \ > > i} ¢ Tois KaTa oapKa kupioi, py év OPOadpodovdrcia ws > / , dvOpwraperkot, GAN €v dmAoOTHTL Kapdias, oBoupevor tov Kupiov. ¢ > i = 2 / € 36 dav mote, éx Wuxns épyalerbe ws 22. év dp0arpodouvrelacs. 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.. Oi dSovAx] 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. II. opOarpodovrcia] ‘eye-service,” as Ephes, vi. 6: comp. Apost. Const. iv. I2 pr os oPOadpddovros GAN os gu- odéororos. This happy expression would seem to be the Apostle’s own coinage. At least there are no traces of it earlier. Compare éedoOpnekeia ii. 23. The reading dp@adpodovreia is better supported than odéadpodov- Aeiacs, though the plural is rendered slightly more probable in itself by its greater difficulty. dvOpwrapecxo|] Again in Ephes. vi. 6. It is a Lxx word, Ps. lii. 6, where the Greek entirely departs from the Hebrew: comp. also avépamapecketv Ign. Rom. 2, avOpwrapéckera Justin Apol.i.2 (p. 53 E). So dxAoapécns or dxAoapeckos, Timo Phiias. in Diog. Laert. iv. 42 (vv. 11). amornre kapdias| As in Ephes. vi. 5, i.e. ‘with wndivided service’; a LXx expression, I Chron. xxix. 17, Wisd.i.1. Tov Kupwov] ‘the one Lord and Master, as contrasted with rois cara odpka kupios: the idea being carried out in the following verses. The re- ceived text, by substituting tov Qecop, blunts the edge of the contrast. 23. épyatecbe] i.e. ‘do it dili- gently, an advance upon ro:jre. ovk dvOpemros| For the use of ov rather than p7 in antitheses, see Wi- ner § lv. p. 601 sq. The negative here is wholly unconnected with the imperative, and refers solely to ro Kupio. 24. do Kupiov] ‘ However you may be treated by your earthly masters, you have still @ Master who will re- compense you.’ The absence of tho definite article here (comp. iv. 1) is the more remarkabie, because it is studiously inserted in the context, vv. 22—24, tov Kupiov, T@ Kupig, r@ Kv- pio. In the parallel passage Hphes. vi. 8 it is mapa Kvupiov: for the differ- ence between the two see Gal. i, 12. LIT. 24, 25] EPISTLE TO THI COLOSSIANS. 229 ~ la id/ A To Kupiw, kai ovk dvOpwroas, *eid0Tes OT dro Kupiov ’ "A \ > / - , ~ aroAnpryerOe tiv dvtTarodocw Tis KAnpovouiass Te , ~~ } VA 2 25 € \ i) ~ y ed Kupiw Xpiot@ SovAevete? 50 yap adikav KopioeTat O TY avrarcdocw]| ‘the just recom- pense,’ a common word both in the Lxx and in classical writers, though not occurring elsewhere in the New Testament; comp. dvramodoua Luke xiv. 12, Rom. xi. 9. The double com- pound involves the idea of ‘exact re- quital.’ Tis KAnpovopias] ‘which consists in the inheritance, the genitive of appo- sition: see the note on rv pepida rod kAnpov, i. 12. There isa paradox in- volved in this word: elsewhere the SodAos and the xAnpovopos are con- trasted (Matt. xxi. 35—38, etc., Rom. Vili. 15—17, Gal. iv. 1, 7), but here the dodAos is the kAnpovouos. This he is because, though doddos avOperear, he is deevOepos Kupiov (1 Cor. vii. 22) and thus xAnpovopyos da Ccod (Gal. iv. 7); comp. Hermas Sim. v. 2 iva ovy- KAnpovouos yévnrat o SovAos TO vid (with the context). T@ Kupio x.7.A.] Le. 6 you serve as your master the great Master Christ, This clause is added to explain how is meant by the preceding azo Kupiov. For this application of Kvpios com- pare (besides the parallel passage, fiphes. vi. 6—9) 1 Cor. vii. 22 6 yap ev Kupio kdyeis SovAos dmedevbepos Kupiov €otiy x.7.A. It seems best to take dovAevere here as an indicative, rather than as an imperative; for (1) The indicative is wanted to explain the previous dé Kupiov; (2) The i im- perative would seem to require os rd Kupi, as in Ephes. vi. 7 (the corr ect text). On the other hand see Rom. xii. II. 25. 6 yap ddikov «7.A.] 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 adcxav (where yap, not dé, is certainly the right reading) points to the slave. On the other hand the expression which follows, rd Sikavov Kat tiv ico- TyTa K.T.A., Suggests the master. Thus there seems to be a twofold reference ; the warning is suggested by the case of the slave, but it is extended to the case of the master; and this accords with the > parallel passage, Ephes. , vi. 8 €kaaTos 6 ay Toon dyaboy TOUTO Kopi- oerat mapa Kupiov, etre dovAos etre éeXevOepos. 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 nodikyoev 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 the slave. The philosophers of Greece taught, and the laws of Rome assumed, that the slave was a chattel. Buta chattel could have no rights. 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 mpocamoAnpyia. With Him the claims of the slave are as real as the claims of the master. kopioerat] 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 duapriav Kope- ovvrat, 2 Cor. v. 10 Koulonra éxactos ta Ova tov owpatos; comp. Barnab, 230 297 \ > a / noliKnoev, Kal OUK EoTIV TpocwmoAnpYia. EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. [IV. x LVeA* Ot , \ , \ \ Sy, = , l Kuplol, TO OlKaLOV Kat THV lOOTHTA TOLLS OovAols Ta E- 6 i} , if e/ > f AY, c ~ UMWY TAVTOTE EV KaPLTL, ANATL HOTUMEVOS, ELOEVaL UMA ~ me No Ve / ’ / Tws O€f Eve EKaoTw amroKpiver Oat. GI \ > > \ / , , € > Ta kav’ €ue mavTa yvwpioe: vuty Tuxixos 0 aya- likewise dwelt on the connexion be- tween yapis and des; e.g. Plut. Mor. Pp. 514 F yapw twa mapackevagortes GdAjols, @omep adat Tois Noyors epy- Suvovar thy ScatpiBnv, p.697 D (comp. p. 685 A) of moAXol yapiras Kadodow [rov Gda], ore emt ta mAeioTa pryvipevos eUdppoota TH yevoet Kal TpoTiAf mrovet kat Kexapiopeva, p. 669 A 7 O€ Tav ddav Svvauus...xapw avt@ kali ndoviy mpoc- riOnot, Dion Chrys. Or. xviii. § 13. Their notion of ‘salt’ however was wit, and generally the kind of wit which degenerated into the evrpame- Aia denounced by St Paul in Ephes. vy. 4 (see the note there). The form ddas is common in the Lxx and Greek Testament. Other- wise it is rare: see Buttmann Gramm. I. p. 220, and comp. Plut. Mor. 668 Fr. eidévar] ‘so as to know’; see the note on AaAjoa Ver. 3. évi éxdot@] ‘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 Trois magw mayta, iva ravtas TI- vas o@on (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 kar’ eye mavra] ‘all that relates to me’; see the note on Phil. i. 12,"and comp. Bion in Diog. Laert. iv. 47. So Acts xxv. 14 ra xard Tov IlavAov. yvopicer] On this word see the note Phil. i. 22. Tuxtxos] 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 Tuytkos and ’Ovyjouos 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 4.D. 58 (Acts xx. 4), and probably like Trophimus (Acts xxi. 29) went with him to Jeru- salem (for the words dyp: rs "Acias 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 234 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. [IV. 8 \ of \ 4 \ 2 > wyTos adeApos Kat TLoTOS 6iakovos Kal GivoouNos év Kupiw: *dv émeurba sapos bear the contributions of his brethren to the poor Christians of Judsea; and if so, he may possibly be the person commended as the brother ov 6 éra- vos €v T@ evayyeNi Oia Tacay TaV ék- kAnutov (2 Cor. viii. 18): but this will depend on the interpretation of the best supported reading in Acts xx. 5 ovrot d€ mpocedOovres ewevoy nuas év Tpwadi. (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 p. 31 8q.). (3) Once more, at the close of St Paul’s life (about a.p. 67), he appears again to have associated himself with the Apostle, when his name is mentioned in connexion witii a mission to Crete (Tit. iii. 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 (m1. 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. I. 2918, 3665, [3857 c], 3857 r, (comp. 3865 i, etc.); and persons bearing it are commemo- rated on the coins of both Magnesia ad Maeandrum (Mionnet 111. p. 153 sq., Suppl. vi. p. 236) and Magnesia ad Sipylum (i. Iv. p. 70). The name occurs also in Roman inscriptions; e.g. Muratori, pp. DOCCOXVII, MCOCXCIV, MMLY. Along with several other proper names similarly formed, this word is commonly accentuated Tuyxexds (Chandler Greek Accentuation § 255), and so it stands in all the critical editions, though according to rule (Winer § vi. p. 58) it should be Tuxtkos. kat muoros k.7.A.| The connexion of the words is not quite obvious. It seems best however to take év Kupio Uuas €ls aVTO TOTO, iva as referring to the whole clause muorés Oudkovos kat advOovdos rather than to avvdovdos alone: for (1) The two sub- stantives are thus bound together by the preceding micros and the following ev Kupio in a natural way: (2) The at- tachment of év Kupio to motos dtako- vos is suggested by the parallel pas- sage Ephes. Vi. 21 TuyuKos 6 dyanntos adehhos kat mords dudxovos ev Kupio. The question of connecting év Kupio with adeh pos as well need 1 not be en- tertained, since the idea of ddehdis, ‘a Christian brother,’ is complete in itself: see the note on Phil.i.14. The adjective mores will here have its passive sense, ‘trustworthy, sted fast,’ as also in ver. 9: see Galatians p. 154 sq. duaxovos] ‘iminister,” but to whom? To the churches, or to St Paul him- self? The following ovvdovdos sug- gests the latter as the prominent idea here. So in Acts xix. 22 Timothy and Erastus are described as dvo0 rév d:a- kovovvtwy ait. 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 dcdxovos has here its strict official sense, ‘a deacon,’ as in Rom. xvi. 1, Phil}. 23 1 Timea, 12: auvdovros}| 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 d:axo- vot, that civdovdAos 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. 235 a \ \ e lo \ if \ 4 ¢ c YVWTE mee TWEOL MOV Kat TapakaXery Tas Kapoias UMW), 9 \ b} , OC qt cuy Ovyoimw Toe miTTH ECT EF ULOY. 8. emeuwa] ‘I send) or ‘I have seni, eémepa being the epistolary aorist; see the note on ¢ypawa, Gal. vi. 11. Tychicus appears to have ac- companied the letter itself. For simi- lar instances of the epistolary émreuwa, ereorewAa, etc., see 2 Cor. viii. 18, 22, ix. 3, Ephes. vi. 22, Phil. ii. 25, 28, Philem. 11, Hebr. xiii. 22, Polyc. Phil. 13. yore Ta wept juay| This must be preferred to the received reading, yr Ta tept vuav, for two independent reasons. (1) The preponderance of ancient authority is decidedly in its favour. (2) The emphatic eis avro tovro iva seems imperatively to de- mand it. St Paul in the context twice states the object of Tychicus’ visit to be that the Colossians miglit be informed about the Apostle’s own doings, ra kar’ €ué mavra yrvwpioes vpiv (ver. 7), and ravra vpiv yrepicovew Ta ode. 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 yrdre ra wept jay to yrd Ta wept vuov in the author himself is improbable. On the other hand a transcriber was under a great temp- tation to substitute yv@ for yydre ow- ing to the following mapaxadéon, and this temptation would become almost irresistible, if by any chance epi tuay had been written for rept judy in the copy before him, as we find to be the case in some mss. See the detached note on various readings, mapakadéon x«.T.A.] ie. ‘encourage / -~ TWAaVTA UE \ 3 ~ > a «/ Kal ayamnTw aoeAha, os 7, \ ©. yywpicovelw Ta woe. you to persevere by his tidings and ex- hortations.” The phrase occurs again, Hphes. 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. atv ’Ovncin@] See above, p. 33, and the introduction to the Epistle to Philemon. TO TLoT@ «.tT.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, 16. yvopicovow] This form has rather better support from the mss than yvwp.ovow: see also above iii. 25. On the Attic future from verbs in -c¢@ 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) 1o—14. ‘I send you greeting from Aristarchus who is a 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- 230 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. [IV. 10 Ste ~ , , '’AowaceTat vuas “Apistapyos 6 ouvatypadwros 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 trom 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. ’Apicrapxos| 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 8q.). If so, he must have rejoined him at Rome at a later date. On this Aristarchus see Philippians p. 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, XXVii. 2. ovvatyyddwtos pov] In Philem. 23 this honourable title is withheld from Aristarchus 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 déc- pos, he was not strictly an aiypdadwros ‘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 cvvatypadwros 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. Mapxos| doubtless John Mark, who had been associated with St Paul in his earlier missionary work; Acts xii. 25, xv. 37 8q. This commendatory notice is especially interesting as be- ing the first mention of him since the separation some twelve years before, Acts xv. 39. In the later years of the Apostle’s life he entirely effaced the unfavourable impression left by his earlier desertion ; 2 Tim.iv.11 €or yap pot evxpnoros eis Staxoviay. 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. To 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 : Pet. v. 13, if BaBvAwy 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). 6 aveyos] ‘the cousin?’ The term aveioi 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 avraveyiou. Means neither more nor less than dveyuoi. AS & synonyme we find efddeAdos, which however is condemned as a vulgarism; Phryn. p. 306 (ed. Lobeck). Many instances of aveyioi are found in different authors of various ages (e.g. Herod. vii. 5, 82, ix. 10, Thucyd. i. 132, Plato Charm. 154 B, Gorg. 471 B, Andoc. da Jlyst. § 47, Isaeus Hagn. Her. § 8 s8q., Demosth. c. Macart. § 24, 27, etc., Dion. Hal. A. &. i. 79, Plut. Vit. Thes. 7, Vit. Caes. 1, Vit. Brut. 13, Lucian Dial. Mort. xxix. 1, Hegesipp. in Tuseb. H. E, iv. 22), where the rela- IV. 10] EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 237 ’ \ / Cp pov, Kai Mapxos 6 aveyios BapvaBa, mepi ov éhaBere tionship is directly defined or already known, and there is no wavering as to the meaning. This sense also it has in the Lxx, Num. xxxvi. 11. In very late writers however (e.g. Io. Malalas Chron. xvii. p. 424, lo. Damase. adv. Const. Cab. 12, 11. p.621; but in Theodt. H, E. v. 39, which is also quoted by KE. A. Sophocles Gr. Lex. 8. v. for this meaning, the text is doubtful) the word comes to be used for a nephew, properly ddeAdidots; and to this later use the rendering of our English versions must be traced. The German translations also (Luther and the Ziirich) have ‘Neffe’ 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 Earnabas 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 efface 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, XV. 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. Lcel. 11. p. 89 8q., 503 8q.) 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. Z. 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. BapvaBa| 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.pD. 57. The notices bearing on the biography of Barnabas are collected and discussed by Hefele, p. 1 sq. €hdBere evrodds] These injunctions must have been communicated pre- viously either by letter or by word of mouth: for it cannot be a question 238 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. LV. Er > / \ of \ rod , évroNas, ‘Eav €XOy pos vuds, deEacbe av’tov, “kai ro € , lod sf ro Incovs 0 AEeyouevos “lovaoros, ol OvTEs EK TEpLTOMIs* e 2 NaS \ ms tilt OUTOL MOVoL GUVEpYol Els THV BactrElay Tou QEoU, oLTIVES 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 éay €\@y «7A. By an abrupt change to the oratio recta the injunction is repeat- ed as it was delivered; comp. Ps. cv (civ). 15 7Aey£ev vmép airav Ba- aireis’ M7 dw nobe x.7.A. 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 de- €acOa 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. kat “Incovs}] 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. Hor the story which makes him bishop of Hleutheropolis in Palestine, see Le Quien Oriens Christ. m1. p. 633. *Iovoros|_ A common name or sur- name of Jews and proselytes, denot- ing obedience and devotion to the law. Itis 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 (2b. $1). It occurs in the rabbinical writ- ings (SD) or ‘OD, Schéttgen on Acts i. 23, Zunz Judennamen p. 20), and in monumental inscriptions from Jewish cemeteries in various places (Boeckh C. £. no. 9922, 9925; Revue Archéologigue 1860, 11. p. 348; Gar- rucci Dissertazionit Archeologiche 1. p. 182). So also the corresponding female name Justa (Garrucci /.c. p. 180). In Clem. Hom. ii. 19, iii. 73, iv. I, xiii. 7, the Syrophcenician woman of the Gospels is named ‘lodcra, doubtless because she is represented in this Judaizing romance as a prose- lytess (poonduros xiii. 7) who strictly observes the Mosaic ordinances (rny voutpov avade~apéevn modsreiay il. 20), and is contrasted with the heathen ‘dogs’ (ra €Oyn é€oixdta xvoiv 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, 6 dixaios, is the recognised epithet of James the Lord’s brother: see Galatians, p. 348. of dvres x.7.A.] ie. ‘converts from Judaism’ (see the note Gal. ii. 12), or perhaps ‘belonging to the Cir- cumcision’; but in this latter case neptrours, though without the article, must be used in a concrete sense, like ris meptropfjs, 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. povor] i.e. 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 Ly 12] éyernOnoav fo Tapnyopia. EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 239 “aomaceTat Uuas "Eradpas ce i9 € es ~ + a , 0 €& vue, dovAos Xpictov “Incov, mavToTeE aywnCo~ lant > an ~~ / ~ Mevos UTEM UuwY év Tails TpoTEvyais, iva oTabyTe Té- 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 ovdéva exo isoWuyoy ... mavres yap x.t.A. (with the note). tiv BactXeiav x.t.A.] See the note on ae i 8 oirwes x.t.A.| ‘men whom I found etc”; comp. Acts xxviii. 15 ovs idov 6 IlavAos evxapiotncas TH Oew EhaBev Oapoos, and see Philippians p. 17. For oirives, not specifying the indi- viduals, but referring them to their class characteristics, see the notes on Gal. iv. 24, v. 19, Phil. iii. 7, iv. 3. mapnyopia] ‘ encouragement, ‘ com- fort. The range of meaning in this word is even wider than in mapapv- Gia Or mapaxdnors (see the note Phil. ii. 1). The verb mapnyopeiy 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 Tapnyopia, mapyyopyya, mapnyoptKds, mapnyopytikes, 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. 43D, 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 émi trois druxipact mapnyopias, p. 118 A Trois apatpoupevars tas Avmas Oia Tis yevvalas Kai cepvis mapnyopias, Vit. Cim. 4 én mapnyopia tov meévOouvs. In Plut. Mor. p. 599 B Zapnyopia and ovvryopia 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 mappyotatopéver kat OiOacKxovr@y OTe TO AvmEicbat Kar Tamewovv éavTov emt mavtl wey axpn- OTOV €OTL K.T.A. 12. *Eradpas] 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 Phi- lippians p. 60), who also was with St Paul at one period of his Roman captivity. Of Epaphras, as the Evan- gelist of Colossee, and perhaps of the neighbouring towns, see above, pp. 29 8q., 34 Sq. 0 €€ vuar] ‘who belongs to you,’ ‘who is one of you,’ i.e. a native, or at least an inhabitant, of Colossz, as in the case of Onesimus ver. 9 ; comp. Acts iv. 6, xxi. 8, Rom. xvi. 10, 11, I Cor. xii. 16, Phil. iv. 22, ete. dovdAos X. 71.] 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. ayorifopevos| ‘wrestling’; comp. Rom. xv. 30 ovvaywvicacbai pow ev Tais mpooevxais. See also the great ayovia of prayer in Luke xxii. 44. Comp. Justin Apol. ii. 13 (p. 51 B) kal evxomevos Kal Tappayws dyouco- pevos. See also i. 29, ii. 1, with the notes. arabare| ‘stand fast, doubtless the correct reading rather than orjre which the received text has; comp. Matt. ii. 9, xxvii. 11, where also the received text substitutes the weaker word, 240 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. [EV. 13 4 Ld = Aelot Kal TET AnpIPopyMeEvot é€y wavTt GeAnmarte TOU ~ 13 ~ \ 9 ~ J of \ / e \ Ceov. MapTupwW yao avTW OTL EXEL TOAUY TOVOY UTED tmemAnpopopnpevor| ‘fully persuad- ed.’ The verb rAnpodopeiv has several senses. (1) ‘To fulfil,accomplish’; 2 Tim. iv. 5 rv Scaxoviay gov mAnpo- opycov, ib. ver. 17 TO Knpvypa mAn- popopnOn, Clem. Hom. xix. 24 memdn- popopnpevay viv On Tpiay nuepaor. So perhaps Hermas Sim. 2 mdnpodo- povow Tov mAovToy avTor... TANpopo- podottas Wuyas avray, 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 wAnpodopnbeis dru 6 emypy- yedtat Suvatos €otw kai toujoa, Xiv. 5 ev T@ tdi vot mAnpohopeicbw, Clem. Rom. 42 mAnpodopnbevres Sia ths dva- ordcews KT... Ign. Magn. 8 eis ro mAnpopopnOnvat Tovs drevOovvras, ib. 11 mem\npopopiabat €v TH yevynoet K.T.r., Philad. inser. év rH dvactaces adbtod men Anpopopnpevy ev mavTiedcer, SMYYN, I memAnpopopnpyevous eis tov Kupioy npav, Mart. Ign. 7 mrnpohopicat rovs dodeveis muds emi trois mpoyeyovdou, Clem. Hom. Ep. ad Lac. 10 rexAnpodo- pnpévos ott ex Ceod Sixaiov, ib, xvii. 13, 14, XIX. 24 cuvetiOéunv ws mAnpo- opovpevos. So too Luxx Heeles. viii. 11 exAnpoopydn Kapdia tov momoa Td movnpov. (3) ‘To fill’; Rom. xv. 13 mAn- popopnoat buas maons yapas (a doubtful v.1.), Clem. Rom. 54 ris rexAnpogopnpe- vos ayanns; Test. xii Patr. Dan 2 79 meoveia emrAnpopopyOny rhs avaipéeoews avrov, 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 rép memnpohopypévey év ruiv mpaypator, 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) woddois Adyous Kat Spkots mAnoopopnaavtes MeyaSutov is not quoted with verbal exactness. In Isocr. Zrapez. § 8 the word is now expunged from the text on the autho- rity of the mss. For the substantive mAnpopopia see the note on ii. 2 above. The reading of the received text here, TeTAnpwpevor, must be rejected as of inferior authority. ev mavtt x.tA.| Sin every thing willed by God’; comp. 1 Kings ix. 11. So the plural ra OeAnpara in Acts Xill. 22, Ephes. ii. 3, and several times in the txx. The words are best con- nected directly with remAnpodopnpevor. 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 évr@ iSi@ vot; or (2) The object of the conviction, as Ign. MZagn. 11 &v tH yevrnoet, Philad. inser. ev tH avacta- get; or (3) The atmosphere, the surroundings, of the conviction, as Philad. inser. év mavri édée. This last seems to be its sense here. The connexion otaéjre...¢v, though legiti- mate in itself (Rom. v. 2, 1 Cor. xv. 1), is not favoured by the order of the words here. 13. modvy rovor] ‘much totl, both inward and outward, though from the connexion the former notion seems to predominate, as in ayéva ii. I ; comp. Plat. Phaedr. p. 247 B wovos re kat ayo €axatos ux mpoxerrar. OF the two variations which transcribers have substituted for the correct read- ing ¢jAov emphasizes the former idea and xorov the latter. The true read- ing is more expressive than either. The word zovos however is very rare in the New Testament (occur- ring only Rev... Xvi. 10, 31, XXi. 4, besides this passage), and was there- fore liable to be changed. kat tov «7.A.] The neighbouring cities are taken in their geographical IV. 14] EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 241 wn ~ / \ ~ / UM@V Kal TwY é€v Aaooikia Kal Twy €v ‘TepamroAet. . Ce ca Chg \ ¢ ? , 4 “armaCeTat uuas Aoukas o laTpos 0 ayamnTos, Kat Anpas. order, commencing from Colossze; see above, p. 2. Epaphras, though a Co- lossian, may have been the evangelist of the two larger cities also. Aaodixia] This formhas not the same overwhelming preponderance of au- thority in its favour here and in vy. 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 Aaodixia and Aaodikeca indifferently. Even the form Aao- dcxya is found in Mionnet, Suppl. vu. p. 581. Another variation is the con- traction of Aaod- into Aad-; e.g. Aa- dexnvos, Which occurs frequently in the edict of Diocletian. 14. Aovxas] 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 sq.). 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/ii- ippians, p. 35), and this will account for his name not occurring in the Kpistle 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 mss 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 Ephem. Epigr. 11. p. 28 (1874). The shortened form Lucas however seems to be rare. He is here distinguished from of dvtes ek mepiropas (ver. 11). This alone is fatal to his identification (mentioned as a tradition by Origen COL. 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. Haer. 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) showsthatsuch 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. 0 iatpds] 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 o dyamnros. 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- 16 242 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. [IV. 1s, 16 , A a Ae? > N ’Agmacacbe tous év Aaodikia ddehpous kal Nup- nw \ A > ~ > € pay Kat THY Kav’ oikov avTwyv exkAnoiay, “Kai dray tioned together in this context, as also in Philem. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 11. 6 dyannros] ‘ the beloved one, not to be closely connected with o iarpos, for 6 dyarnros is complete in itself ; comp. Philem. 1, Rom. xvi. 12 (comp. VV. 5, 8, 9), 3 Joh.1. For the form compare the expression in the Gospels, Matt. iii. 17, etc. 0 vids pov, o dyamnros k.T.A. ; where a comparison of Is. xlii. 1, as quoted in Matt. xii. 18, seems to show that 6 dyamnros «.7.d. forms a distinct clause from 6 vids pov. Anpas] 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. 10 their conduct is placed in direct contrast, Anuas pe éyxarédurev...AodKas éotiv po- vos per’ €uov. There is perhaps a fore- shadowing of this contrast in the lan- guage here. While Luke is described with special tenderness as 0 farpos, o dyarnros, Demas alone is dismissed with a bare mention and without any epithet of commendation. 1s—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. Nupdav] 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- dorus, Theudas (Acts v. 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 v. /.), Antipas (Antipater), Demas (Deme- trius ?), 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; e.g.’AcK\ds, Anwoobas, Atopas, ‘Eppoyas, Nixopas, "Ovnoas, Tpodas, etc.; see esp. Boeckh C. J, 111. 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. vi. p. 88, Boeckh C.Z. no. 158, ete. The con- tracted form Nupdas however is very rare, though it occurs in an Athenian inscription, Boeckh C. I. 269 Nuvdas, and apparently also in a Spartan, ib. 1240 Evruyos Nuva. In Murat. MDXXXxv. 6, is an inscription to one Vw. Aquilius Nymphas, a freedman, where the dative is Nymphadi. 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 ars in the fol- lowing clause, take it as a woman’s name (Nupdar, not Nuzday); and the name Nymphe, Nympha, Nympa, etc., occurs from time to time in Latin inscriptions; e.g. C. J. ZL. 1. 1099, 1783, 3763, III. 525, V. 607, etc. Mura- tor. CMXXIV. I, MOLIX. 8, MCOXCV. 9, IV. 16] EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 243 > “ > ea e r) / / e/ A dvayvwcIn map viv nH éemioToAn, TomjoaTe iva Kal ! 3 MDXxcI. 3. But a Doric form of the Greek name here seems in the highest degree improbable. Tv Kat oikov x.r.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 Colossze or at Laodicea is somewhat uncertain (Phi- lem. 2); comp. Acts xii. 12 rv oixiay Tis Mapias...o0 joav ixavot cuvnOporopevor kal mpooevxopuevor, and see Philippi- ans p. 56. Perhaps similar gather- ings may be implied by the expres- sions in Rom. xvi. 14, 15 rovs ody av- Tois adeAgovs, Tovs avy avTois TavTas ayiovs (Probst Kirchliche Disciplin p. 182, 1873). See also Act. Mart. Justin. § 3 (IL 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 i. 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 vaoi till quite late (Ignat. Magn. 7 is not really an exception), but ofko: Gcov, oikot €xkAnolay, oikot evatypro, and the like (Kuseb. H. £. vii. 30, viii. 13, ix. 9, etc.). attav| The difficulty of this read- ing has led to the two corrections, av- rov and avrns, 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, avroi is con- demned by its simplicity, and avris has arisen from the form Nuyday, which prima facie would look like a woman’s name, and yet hardly can be so. We should require to know more of the circumstances to feel any con- fidence in explaining avrayv. A sim- ple explanation is that adrév denotes ‘ Nymphas and his friends,’ by a trans- ition which is common in classical writers; e.g. Xen. Anab. iii. 3. 7 mpoo- net pey (McOpidarns)...mpos Tovs "EAAn- vas’ eret & éyyds éyévovto xt.A., iv. 5. 33 émet O nAOov mpos Xeupicodor, kaTreAapBavoy Kal é€xeivous oKnvour- ras: see also Kithner Gramm. § 371 (11. p. 77), Bernhardy Syntaz p. 288. Or perhaps rods év Aaodixia ddegovs 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 éxcAnoia is only a section of 7 Aaodixéwv exkAnoia mentioned in ver. 16. On the authorities for the vari- ous readings see the detached note. 16. 7 émuarodn) ‘the letter,’ which has’ just been concluded, for these salutations have the character of a postscript; comp. Rom. xvi. 22 Tép- Tios 6 ypavvas THY emioroAny, 2 Thess. iii. 14 d1a THs emiotoAyns, Mart. Polyc. 20 thy éemictoAny Staréuacbe. Such examples however do not countenance the explanation which refers éypayva vp ev tH éemoToAn in I Cor. v. 9g to the First Epistle itself, occurring (as it does) in the middle of the letter (comp. 2 Cor. vii. 8). momoare wa] ‘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—2 244 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. {IV.-17 om , , ~ év ti Aaodixéwy éxkAyoia dvayvwobn, Kal TH €K , / \ e ~ ~ Aaodikias iva Kal Upeis avayvwre. Kal el7ate "Ap- , , \ , my / 3 i xinmw, Bree Tyv diakoviay nv mapéAaBes ev Kupiw, / > \ ~~ iva avTnv WANpols. expression is moveiy ws Or Sas, e.g. Xen. Cyr. vi. 3. 18. A similar charge is given in 1 Thess. v.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. thv ék Aaodikias] i.e. ‘the letter left at Laodicea, which you will procure thence” For this abridged expres- sion compare Luke xi. 13 6 mar7jp 6 €& odpavoy Saver mvetpa Gytov, Xvi. 26 (v. 1) pndé of exetOev mpos yas dtarepdov, Susann. 26 ws d€ qKoveav Thy Kpavyyy év T@ mapadeiow of Ex THs oixias, eicennonoay x.7.A. For instances of this proleptic use of the preposi- tion in classical writers, where it is ex- tremely common, see Kiihner Giz. $448 (1. p. 474), Jelf Gr. § 647, Matthize Gr. § 596: e.g. Plat. Apol. 32 B tovs ovK dvedopevous Tovs ek THs vavpaxias, Xen. Cyr. vii. 2. 5 dpmaccpevor ta €k ray oixiay, Isocr. Paneg. § 187 ryv evdarpoviay tiv éx THs ’Acias eis THY Evpamrnv Siaxopicapev. 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. iva kal vpeis k.7.d.] ‘see that ye also read. At first sight it might seem as though this iva also were governed by moincare, like the former; but, inas- much as roujoare Would be somewhat awkward in this connexion, itis perhaps better to treat the second clause as independent and elliptical, (@Xéere) iva w7.A. This is suggested also by the position of tyv éx Aaodixias be- fore iva; comp. Gal. ii. 10 povoy trav mTaXav iva pynpovedopey (with the note). LEllipses before iva are fre- quent; e.g. John ix. 3, 2 Cor. viii. 13, 2 Thess. iii. 9, 1 Joh. ii. 19. 17. Kat etrare] Why does not the Apostle address himself directly te 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. Biére] ‘Look to, as 2 Joh. 8 Bdeérere €avtovs iva py kt.A. More commonly it has the accusative of the thing to be avoided; see Phil. iii. 2 (with the note). tiv Staxoviav] From the stress which is laid upon it, the dcaxovia 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, mAnpody tiv Scaxoviay, 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. mapédaBes| Le. probably map’ éepod. 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. 245 OQ daomacyos TH Eun xetpt TlavAov. Mvnuoveveré fou TwWV OETUWY. charge immediately from St Paul, though ultimately from Christ. ‘Non enim sequitur,’ writes Bengel, ‘a Domino (1 Cor. xi. 23), sed im Domi- no.’ mAnpois| ‘fulfil? i.e. ‘discharge Sully’; comp. 2 Tim. iv. 5 rv dtaxo- viay cov tAnpodopyaop. 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.’ ‘O donacpos x.t.d.] The letter was evidently written by an amanuensis (comp. Rom. xvi. 22). The final salu- tation alone, with the accompanying sentence pynuovevere x.T.A., 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. II). T™ evn xetpt TavAov] The same phrase occurs in 2 Thess. iii. 17,1 Cor. xvi 21. For the construction comp. e.g. Philo Leg.ad Gai. 8 (m1. p. 554) €uov €oTt TOU Maxpavos épyov Taios, ive see Kiihner § 406 (11. p. 242), Jelf 467. tov Secpav] His bonds establish an additional claim to hearing. He who is suffering for Christ has a right to speak on behalf of Christ. The ‘H yapus med” vuwy, appeal is similar in Ephes. iii. 1 rovrov xapwv éyd Tlatdos 6 Séopuos rod X.’L, which is resumed again (after a long digression) in iv. I mapaxaA@ ody bpas eyo 6 Séopuos ev Kupio déiws mept- mTatjoat K.7.A. (comp. Vi. 20 vmep ov mpecBeva év ddrvoet). So too Philem. Q Towvros @y ws Tlatdos ... déopios Xpicrov “Incov. 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 decua Tov evayyediov (Philem. 13). In Heb. x. 34 the right reading is not rois dec pots pov, but trois Seopiois ouvera- Onoare (comp. xiii. 3). Somewhat simi- lar is the appeal to his oriypara in Gal. vi. 17, ‘Henceforth Iet no man trouble me.’ See the notes on Philem. 10, 13. ‘H yapts «.7.A.] This very short form of the final benediction appears only here and in 1 Tim. vi. 21, 2 Tim. iv. 22. In Tit. iii. 15 wdyrwy is inserted, and so in Heb. xiii. 25. In Ephes. vi. 24 the form so far agrees with the ex- amples quoted, that 7 ydpis is used absolutely, though the end is length- ened out. In all the earlier epistles 7 xaprs is defined by the addition of rod Kupiov [npav}’Incot[Xpiorod |; 1 Thess. v. 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 7 xapis in the final benediction may be taken as a chronological note, A similar phenomenon has been al- ready observed (r7 éxxAnoig, rais ék- kAnaias) in the opening addresses: see the note oni. 2. 246 Harmon- istic read- ings. Prepon- derant evidence (1) for the correct reading; (2) against the correct reading. Examples, lil. 6, words in- serted. EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. On some Various Readings in the Epistle’. In one respect the letters to the Ephesians and Colossians hold a unique position among the Epistles of St Paul, as regards textual criticism. They 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. In such cases there is sometimes no difficulty in ascertaining the correct reading. The harmonistic change is condemned by the majority of the oldest and best authorities; or there is at least a nearly even balance of external testimony, and the suspicious character of the reading is quite sufficient to turn the scale. Thus we cannot hesitate for a moment about such readings as i. 14 61a Tod aiparos avrod (from Ephes. i. 7), or iii. 16 yad- pois kal vpvors Kal @duis mvevparikais, and r@ Kvpie (for r@ Ged) in the same verse (both from Ephes. v. 19). In other instances again there can hardly be any doubt about the text, even though the vast preponderance of authority is in favour of the harmo- nistic reading; and these are especially valuable because they enable us to test the worth of our authorities. Such examples are: iii. 6. The omission of the words émi rods viods tis ameibeias (taken from Ephes. v. 6). Apparently the only extant ms in favour of the omission 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 ; Strom. iii. 5, p. 531), by Cyprian (Zpist. lv. 27, p. 645 1 The references to the patristic quo- 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- gion are very incorrectly given even by the principal editors, such as Tregelies and Tischendorf; the translation of Wilkins being commonly adopted, 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 have also observed these places where the text of this version is incor- rectly reported; ii, 7 é avrg not omitted; ii. 13 the second vuas not omitted; ii. 17 the singular (8), not the plural (d); iii. 4 vudy, not yar; iil. 16 T@ Oeg, not rH Kuplw; iii. 22 rov Kipiov, not rdv Oeov; iv. 3 doubtful whether 8’ 8 or 5¢ 8y; and probably there are others. EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 247 ed. Hartel), by an unknown writer (de Sing. Cler. 39, in Cypr. Op. III. p. 215), by the Ambrosian Hilary (ad loc.), and by Jerome (Hpist. xiv. 5, I. p. 32) though now found apparently in all the Latin mss. iii. 21. épei¢ere 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 mapopyi¢ere, €pedisere. 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 received text. 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, as sented. the word used is the Aphel of 1X4, thesame mood of the same verb being employed to translate mapopyifew, 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 OWA Td, but in the margin the alternative EG NS is given. White interprets this as saying that the text is épeOi¢ere and the margin tapopyifere, and he is followed by Tregelles and Tischendorf. But in this version, as in the Peshito, the former word translates mapopyi¢ew in Rom. x. 19, Ephes. vi. 4; while in the Peshito the latter word is adopted to render épedifew in 2 Cor. ix. 2 (the only other passage in the N. T. where épeOifew occurs). In the Harclean of 2 Cor. ix, 2 a different word from either, dissdvss, is used. It seems tolerably clear therefore that mapopyi¢ere was read in the text of both Peshito and Harclean here, while epeOifere was given in the margin of the latter. The Latin versions seem Latin also to have read mapopyifere ; 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 tracundiam provocare in Ephes. vi. 4. The Memphitic too has the same rendering foswmt in both passages. Of the earlier Greek fathers Clement, Strom. iv. 8 (p. 593), reads é€peOitere : 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 B, in extreme cases. For instance, the parallel passages Ephes. v. 19 and Col. iii. 16 stand Parallel thus in the received text : passages. EPHESIANS. CoLOssIANs. Col. iii. 16, Aadovvres EavTois Warpois Kal vp- SiSdoxovres kat vovberodvres éav- Eph. v. 19. vos Kal @dais mvevpatixais ddovres | rovs wadpois Kal vuvors Kal @dais kat Waddovres ev tH Kapdia vay | mvevpatixais év xdpitt ASovres ev TH T& Kupio. kapoia vuav TH Kupio. And A carries the harmonizing tendency still further by inserting év xapire before gdovres in Ephes. from the parallel passage. In B they are read as follows: “ c - - a“ ¢ Aadovvres Eavrois év Warpois kal didacxovres Kal vovbetouvres eav- 4 ‘\ Nv - wv "A Vuvors kat @dais adovres kat yad-| rovs Warpois Tuvos @dais mvevpa- - , ea - e od a - Aovres TH Kapdia tuav ro Kupig. Tikais év TH xapitt adovres ev Tais ’ € ~ - “ ' Kapdlas vpaov TO Cea. 248 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. Altera- § Here are seven divergences from the received text. ( 1) The insertion of ev aes co z before Yarzois in Ephes.; (2) The omission of kai, cai, attaching wWadyois, harmon. vols, @dais in Col. ; (3) The omission of mvevpariKais in Ephes. ; ; (4) The izing. insertion of 7m before xapire in Col.; (5) The omission of ev before 77 xap- Sia in Hphes.; (6) The substitution of rats xapSias for 77 xapdia in Col.: (7) The substitution of r@ Oca for rd Kupio 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: év paruois. (1) ev yadpois B, P, with the cursives 17, 67**, 73, 116, 118, and the Latin, d, 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 Greek ss with several Greek fathers omit év. TVEU[LGTL- (3) mvevparexais omitted in B, d,e. Of the Ambrosian Hilary Tischen- Rats. 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. TH kapélg. (5) 17 xapdia 8* B with Origen in Cramer’s Catena, p. 201. év rj kapdia 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 év 77 xapdia, but it is im- possible to say whether the translator had or had not the pre- position. év rais kapdias ¥°A D 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 év rj xapdia and év ais xapdias. 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 mvevuarikais more especially, where the support is weakest, this impression must, I think, be very strong. Excellence This highly favour able 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 iv. 8, 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 nav mdodros, ii. 7 1H mire, ii, 13 Tos mapamTepacw (omitting éy, a EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 249 v. 12 oradjre, 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 ro pvoryptoy tov Xprorov de 6 Kai déS5enat! there can be little doubt that the great majority of ancient autho- False rities correctly read 6¢ 6, though B F G have 5? dv: but the variation is renee easily explained. A single stroke, whether accidental or deliberate, alone Bris 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 és éorw 1 Kedady, 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, I. 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 ds FG; i. 186 for és F G; i. 24 és for 6 C D* etc; i.27 6s ford 8 C D K Letc,; iii. 14 ds foré68* D. Such readings again as the omission of kal airovpevor i. 9 by B K, or of d¢ adrod ini. 20 by B D* F G etc, or of 7 émorody 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 4 in i. 18, 7 dpxn, by B, 47, 67**, b*, and of xai in ii. 15, cat éSevyparicev, 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 tis before yijs (i. 20), and of évi in év évt o@part (iil. 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 TH OE@ Tarp. On this very unusual collocation I have already remarked in the notes j, 3 7g (p. 133). The authorities stand as follows: beg warpl, (1) ré Oe@ wrarpi B O*. (2) tr Oe@ ro warpi 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) 7 Oe kat rarpi § A C? D°K L 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 7@ Oe marpi 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 roi Geod for roo 7; comp. 1 Cor. il. 1, v. 1.) for a less Xpicrod, thus substituting commoner common (Ephes. iil. 4). 250 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. for getting rid of a very unusual collocation of words. The scribes have compared felt the same difficulty again in iii. 17 evxapiorotvres TH OeG marpi Ov withiii.17, avrod, and there again we find xai inserted before warpi. In this latter instance however the great preponderance of ancient authority is in favour of the unusual form 76 66 warpi. and i. 12. It is worth observing also that in i. 12, where r@ warpi has the highest support, there is sufficient authority for r@ eG marpi to create a suspicion that there too it may be possibly the correct reading. Thus 76 6e6 rarpi is read in 8 37, while 6e6 76 marpi stands in F G. One or other must have 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 r6 marpi simply), of the Arabic (Bedwell), of the Armenian (Uscan), and of Origen (11. p. 451, the Latin translator); while several other authorities, Greek and Latin, read r@ Oe xat rarpi. Unique There is no other instance of this collocation of words, 6 Oeds marnp, colloca- in the Greek Testament, so far as I remember; and it must be regarded ner as peculiar to this epistle. i. 4 THN drdTtHN [HN €yeTe]. iL 4. Here the various readings are ; Thy dydany (1) thy dydrny B. Lyn exerel- (2) rhv dyarnv nv exere ANC D* F G 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) rhv ayamnv tv. D° K 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 dxovwv cov thy dydmny kal thy miotw iy Zxets, while (3) conforms to the other parallel passage Ephes, i. 15 kat [rn aydrny] tiv els mdvras Tovs dylovs. Thus, though jy éxere 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 YEP HM@N AIAKONOC. i.7 Here there is a conflict between mss and Versions. Uméep hav. (1) npav AB * 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) dydv 8 C D*K L P, 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. 251 The Old Latin is doubtful; d, 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 nuay doos not leave much room for doubt: and considerations of internal criticism point in the same direction. See the note on the passage. i, 12 TQ) IKANODCANTI. Against this, which is the reading of all the other ancient authorities, ;, ;2 we have lkavaoavrt. (2) 1 xadécavre 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) 7 kadéoavtt kai txavdcavrt, found in B alone. Here the confusion between TwIIKAN@CANTI and TwIKadAecanT! 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 xadécavre 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 €N @ EXOMEN. For €xouev B, the Memphitic Version, and the Arabic (Bedwell, Leipzig), i, 14 read €cxouev. This is possibly the correct reading. In the parallel pas- éxouev or sage, Ephes. i. 7, several authorities (X* D*, the Memphitie and Ethiopic &*x°H«”? Versions, and the translator of Irenzus v. 14. 3) similarly read éryopev for exovev. It may be conjectured that gcyouey 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. L c. says ‘aut utroque loco exouey aut ecxouvey Paulum scripsisse puto’; but if any infer- ence can be drawn from the phenomena of the ass, they point rather to a different tense in the two passages. i, 22 ATIOKATHAASSHTE. This reading is perhaps the highest testimony of all to the great value i, 22 of B. amroxaTnA- The variations are; ACIS (1) dmoxarnAd\aynre B. This also seems to be the reading of Hilary of Poitiers In xci Psalm. 9 (1. p. 270), who trans- fers the Apostle’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) dmoxarnAXaknrat 17. (3) dmoxaraddayévres D* F G, and the Latin authorities d, e, g, 252 li. 2 Tov Oeov Xpiorod, Original reading. Varia- tions; (a) by in- terpreta- tion, (6) by omission, EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. m, the Gothic Version, the translator of Irenzeus (v. 14. 3), and others. (4) dzroxarn\daéer, 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 dmoxaraddayévras. The reading therefore must lie between amwoxarnAAaynre and amoxatnAdagev. This latter however is probably a grammatical correction to straighten the syntax. In the Memphitic a single letter av for aq would make the difference between doxarn\Naynte and dmoxatrj\Aagev; but no variation from the latter is recorded. ii. 2 TOY OE0Y, XpICTOY. 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 8Eoy ypicToy. This is the reading of B and of Hilary of Poitiers, de Trin. ix. 6z (1. p. 306), who quotes the passage sacramenti Det Christi in quo etc., 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 Oe0y 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 ce. Varim. i. 20 (p. 380), and in a slightly longer form by Augustine de Trin. xiii. 24 (vIIL p. 944) mysterium Dei quod est Chrisius Jesus. (3) Toy @e0y EN yXPICTo. So it is twice quoted by Clement of Alexandria Strom. v. 10 (p. 683), 1. 12 (p. 694); or TOY 6Eoy TOY EN YPICTH, the reading of 17. So the Ambrosian Hilary (both text and commentary) has Dei in Christo. And the Armenian has the same lengthened out, Det in Christo Jesu (Zohrab) or Dei 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) Toy 8eoy, the reading of D by a second hand, of P, 37, 67**, 71, 80, 116. (6) Toy a the reading of Euthalius in Tischendorf’s ms; but Tischendorf adds the caution ‘sed non satis apparet.’ EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 253 All the remaining readings are attempts to remedy the text by ampli- (¢) by fication. They fall into two classes; those which insert warpés so as to rapa make Xpicrod dependent on it, (7), (8), and those which separate Gcod from _ Xptorod by the interposition of a xai, (9), (10), (11). (7) Toy @e0y TaTpoc ypicToy, (i) a in- the reading of 8 (by the first hand). Tischendorf also adds b’”* and sae o“; but I read Scrivener’s coliations differently (Cod. Awg. p. 506): or govern TOY OE0Y TATPOC TOY yPICTOY, Xpiarob ; the reading of A C, 4. One or other is the reading of the Thebaic Version (given by Gries- bach) and of the Arabie (Leipz.). A lengthened form of the same, Det 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) Toy OE€oyY Kal TIATPOC TOY yPICTOY. So & (the third hand) b'™, o, and a corrector in the Harclean Syriac. (9) TOY 8E0Y Kal yPIcToY, (ii) by the simplest form of the other class of emendations by amplification. separating It is found in Cyril. Thes. p. 287. cod from (10) TOY GE0Y TATPpOC KAI TOY ypPICcToOyY. ee 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. 1. 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 G€0Y Kal TlATpOC Kal TOY ypPICTOY. The com- This, which may be regarded as the latest development, is the reading ee of the received text. It is found in D (third hand) KL, and in the great develop- 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; e.g. demid. Dei patris et domini nostri Christi Jesu, tolet. Det Christt Jesu patris et Domint. It is not necessary to add any remarks. The justification of rod Gcod Xpicrod 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 €N Bpawcel Kal €N Tidcel. In this reading B stands alone among the Mss; but it is supported by ij, 6 the Peshito Syriac and Memphitic Versions, by Tertullian (adv. Mare. v. xat or 7° 19), and by Origen (iz 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 254 ii. 18, the omission of the negative. The form €SPAKCr's ii. 23. Is kal to be omitted? EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. The rest have év Bpoae 7 év wooe. This may be explained as a very obvious, though not very intelligent, alteration of scribes to conform to the disjunctive particles in the context, 7 év péper Eoprijs 7) veounvias ) caBBarov. In this same context it is probable that B retains the right form veo- pynvias (supported here by F G and others) as against the Attic vouvynvias. In the same way in iii. 25 xouicerat and iv. 9 yrwpicovow B (with some others) has resisted the tendency to Attic forms. ii, 18 d EOPAKEN. That this is the oldest reading which the existing texts exhibit, will appear from the following comparisen of authorities. (1) & édpaxev (Eopaxev) A BN* D*, 17*, 28, 67** ; the Old Latin au- thorities d, e,m; the Memphitic, Ethiopic, and Arabic (Leipz.) Versions; Tertull. c. Marc. v. 19 (‘ex visionibus angelicis’ ; and apparently Marcion himself also); Origen (c. Cels. v. 8, I, p. 583, though the negative is here inserted by De la Rue, and in Cant. ii, 111. p. 63, in his quae videt); Lucifer (De non conv. c. 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. ut. Appx. p. 156. Jerome (Epist. caxiad Alg. § 10, 1. p. 880) mentions both readings (with and without the negative) as found in the Greek text: and Augus- tine (Hpist. 149, 11. p. 514), while giving the preference to guae non vidit, says that some mss have quae vidit. (2) & py édpaxev (éopaxev) 8° C D* K L P, and the great majority of cursives ; (3) @ ov édpaxey 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. caviit Hap. xx. (I. p. 1222), and in the commentators Pelagius, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia (Spic. Solesm. I. p. 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 @ édpaxey (or édpaxev) represents the prior reading. In my note I have expressed my suspicion that 4 édpa- xev (or édpaxey) is itself corrupt, and that the original reading is lost. The unusual form éopaxev is found in 8 B* C D P, and is therefore to be preferred to éwpaxev. ii, 23 [kai] Adeldia cadmatoc. Here xai is found in all the Greek copies except B, but is omitted in these Latin authorities, m, the translator of Origen (In Rom. ix. § 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.2928q.). We have more than once found B and Hilary alone in supporting the correct reading (i. 22, il. 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 kai so as to make apedia 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 ws éxexrol rot Geov, dytot Kal rya- amnuevot, Where B omits the cai with 17 and the Thebaic Version. In 219 kal ay.ot is read for dyioc kai. 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. iv. 8. fN@TE TA Tepl HMON. Of the various readings of this passage I have already spoken (p. 29 8q., iv. 8 ire Ta epi Huw, note I, p. 235). The authorities are as follows : (I) yore ta epi nudy A B D*FG P, 10, 17, 33, 35, 37s 44, 47, 715 III, 116, 137; d,e,g; the Armenian and Ethiopic Versions; Theodore of Mopsuestia?, Theodoret?, Jerome (on Ephes. vi. 21 sq., Vl. p. 682), and Euthalius (Tischendorf’s ms). This is also the reading of N*, except that it has vudv for judv. (2) yo ta wept vudv 8 CD*°K 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 yore ra wept judy. The reading of & by the first hand exhibits a transitional stage. It would appear as though the transcriber intended it 255 to be read yo re ra mept vucv. At all events this is the reading of 111 The vari- and of Io. Damasc. Op. m1. p. 214. The variation yv rd rept duay is thus ous read- easily explained. (1) juav would be accidentally substituted for vudv; (2) yware would then be read yo re; (3) the awkward and superfluous re would be omitted. In illustration of the tendency to conform the persons of the two verbs yv@, mapaxahécn (see p. 235), it may be mentioned that 17 reads yvere, mapaxadéonre, both here and in Ephes. vi. 22. 1 It is true that in the text (Spicil. Solesm. I. p. 123, Rab. Maur. Op. vu. p. 539, Migne) he is credited with the later Latin reading ut 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 vobis venerat, ut nota vobis faciant quae erga nos sunt [= yore Ta rept judy] et oblectent vos per suum adventum [=kai mapaxadéoy Tas Kapdlas vudr], omnia quae hic aguntur manifesta facientes vobis.’ See Spicil. Solesm. l.c.; the comment is mutilated in Rab. Maur. Op. 1.c. 2 In the text; but in the commen- tary he is made to write wa yw ydop, gnol, Ta wept judy, an impossible reading. ings ac- counted 256 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. iv. 15, KAT OIKON aYTON. iv. 15 The readings here are: abriy. (1) avréy® A OP, 5, 9, 17, 23, 34, 39, 47, 73; together with the Memphitic Version, the Arabic (Leipz.), and Euthalius (Tisch- endorf’s ms). The Memphitic Version is commonly but wrongly quoted in favour of avrovd, owing to a mistranslation of Wilkins. But both Wilkins and Boetticher give without any various reading MovHt, i.e. oikoy avtav. This seems also to be the reading of Theodore of Mopsuestia (Spic. Solesm. i. p. 133) guae in domo eorum est ecclesia ; though in Rab. Maur. Op. vi. p. 540 his text runs guae in domo ejus est eccle- stam, and he is made to say Vympham cum omnibus suis qui in domo ejus sunt, (2) atrijs B 67**, (3) avrob D F G K Land the great majority of cursives; and so the Gothic Version, Chrysostom, and Theodoret (the latter distinctly). The singular, whether avrod or avrijs, is the reading of the old Latin and Vulgate, which have ews, and ofthe Armenian. The pronoun is also sin- Nymphas gular in the Peshito and Harclean Syriac. In this language the same con- or Nym- sonants express masculine and feminine alike, the difference lying in the pha? 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 vocalised as a feminine Numphé (=Nipdn), and yet mduns The Syriac is treated as having a masculine affix, car’ olkov avrov. Inthe text of the versions. Harclean calles is pointed thus, as a feminine avrijs; while the margin gives the alternative reading calsx (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 BapvaBas, Aovkas) or for a feminine (since Demas, Epaphras, are written with The Latin 22 8). The Latin ejus leaving the gender undetermined, the Latin commen- author- _ tators were free to take either Nymphas or Nympha; and, as Nympha was a ities. common Latin form of Niydn, they would naturally adopt the female name. So the commentator Hilary distinctly. It should be added that the word is accentuated as a masculine yupday in De L P, and as a feminine riuday in B° and Euthalius (Tischendorf’s ms). 1 More probably the latter. In lator doubtless considered the name Rom. xvi the terminations -a and ds to be a contraction for Julianus. The for the feminine and masculine names proper Syriac termination -a@ seems respectively are carefully reproduced only to be employed for the Greek -as in the Harclean Version. In ver. 15 in very familiar names such as Bar. indeed we have Julias, but the trans- naba, Luka. EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 257 On the meaning of mrAnpepa. THE verb mAnpody has two senses. It signifies either_(1)‘To fill’,e, g. The mean- Acts ii. 2 émAnpwoev Sdov Tov oikov; or (2) ‘To fulfil, complete, perfect, ae of the accomplish’, e.g. Matt. xxvi. 56 iva wAnpwbdow ai ypadpai, Rom. xiii. 8 sNpaey: vowov mremAnpoxev, Acts xii. 25 mAnpdcavres THY diaxoviay. 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 mAjpopya, as.it occurs in the New Testa- se ae ment, an almost exclusive prominence has been given to the former mean- BW a ing of the verb; and much confusion has arisen in consequence. The question has been discussed whether wAnpopa_has.an active ora 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 19 éxkAnoia See int Htis €oTly TO TOpa avrov, TO TANPopa Tov Ta TavTa év Tac mANpovpEvoL, and an active sense ‘id quod implet’ in Ephes. iii. 19 iva mAnpwOqre eis may TO mApw@pa ToD Gcod. Indeed so long as we see in wAnpodr 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 mAjpopa 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 -»a, formed from the perfect passive, appear always to have a gard of passive sense. They may denote an abstract notion or a concrete thing ; arm art 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 ayyeApa ‘a message’, dupa a eae ‘a knot’, apyvpopa ‘a silver-made vessel’, BovAevya ‘a plan’, dccaiopa ‘a ve righteous deed’ or ‘an ordinance’, ¢jrnwa ‘an investigation’, knpuyypa ‘a roclamation’, x®Avua ‘a hindrance’, duoimpua ‘a likeness’, épaya ‘a vision’ ’ Nes ee epee ? 1 The meaning of this word wAjpwua is the subject of a paper De vocis 1)7- pwua vario sensu in N. YL. in Storr’s Opusc. Acad. 1. 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 COL. it two main senses, ‘id quod imple- tur’ and ‘id quo res impletur’, the 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 mA7jpwua vouov he concedes an active sense ‘legis completio’, h. e. ‘observatio’, 17 258 Apparent excep- tions. TAHpPWLA connected with the second sense of mAnpovv. Its uses in classical writers. (1) ‘A ship’s crew.’ EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. orpopa ‘a carpet’, cdaipopa ‘a round thing’, ete. In many cases the same 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. dprayyua the ‘robbery’ or the ‘booty’, dyra\\aypa the ‘exchange’ or the ‘thing given or taken in exchange’, Ojpevpa the ‘hunt’ or the ‘prey’, matnpa 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 xca\vppya ‘a veil’ seems to denote ‘that which covers’, but it is really derived from another sense and construction of xadvrrecy, not ‘to hide’, but ‘to wrap round’ (e.g. Hom. JU. v. 315 mpdobe dé of wémdo1o haewod mrvyp’ exadupev, XXi. 321 Tocony of dow Kaburepbe kav), 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 © dyAwpa tod mpoxorrew 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 evdcvyya rs Stxaias xpicews must we explain évdevypa ‘a thing proving’, but ‘a thing proved’, ‘a proof’, And the same is probably the case also with such expressions as cupmrociwy épéO.opa (Critias in Athen. xiii. p. 600 D), réEou pipa (Asch. Pers. 147), and the like ; where the substantives in -~a are no more deprived of their passive sense by the connexion, than they are in vodnpa moder Or orpdpa kAiyns; 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 Znvis éxers kvAik@v mANpopa, kadXicoray Aarpetay, 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 mAnpodv, it seems possible to explain wAjpopa 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 mAnpody is ‘to complete’, 80 mAjpepa 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 dia Tro €« mo\dGv TANpopdtav és édlyas (vais) ékdedéxOat rods dpiorovs épéras. 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 m\npody vaiv 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 @ 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, mAjpwua 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. 259 Xen. Hell. i. 6.24. But wdjpoua 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 mapovolay Tov TANpwpaTer...Ta mpoopdatws Twapayeyovora mANpa- para, Lucian Ver. Hist. ii. 37, 38, awd dvo0 mAnpopdtwy éuaxorro...mévre yap eixyov mAxpopuara ; 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. 11. 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, v.c. 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. I. p. 381 pijre avrapkers €reo Oat mANPwua Evds oikeiov oTparevpaTos (2) ‘Popu- mapacyécba. (2) It sometimes signifies ‘the population of a city’, Arist. lation.’ Pol, iii. 13 (p. 1284) pr) pevroe Suvarot rARpwpa wapacyerba ToAews (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. R&. vi. 51 rot & ddtyou Kal ovk agcouaxyov mAnpoparos TO mActov eore Syporekov K.7.A., Hur. Lon 663 rév hirtov wAjpwpu’ aOpoicas (3) ‘Total ‘the whole body of his friends’. (3) ‘The entire sum’, Arist. Vesp. 660 amount.’ TovT@Y TAnpopa TadavT eyyds Surxidia yiyverac jpiv, “ From these sources a (4) ‘Entire total of nearly two thousand talents accrues to us’. (4) ‘The full term’, term.’ Herod. iii. 22 dySaxovra & rea Cons mAjpwpa advdpt paxporaroy mpoxéeo Oat. (5) ‘Fulfil- (5) ‘The perfect attainment’, ‘ the full accomplishment’, e.g. Philo de Abr. ment.’ 46 (IL. p. 39) wAjpopa xpnotav €Aridov. 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 atpee yap 7d wAnpo@pa adrod amd Tod ivariov Kat xeipoy cxicua TANPYHA yivera, it refers to the émiBAnyua paxous dyvapou which has gone before ; but =i eGoe mdjpopa need not therefore be equivalent to émiBAnua so as to mean the Matt. ix. patch itself, as is often assumed. The following pronoun avrov is most 16. naturally referred to émiSAnpa; and if so mAnpwpa 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 scems certainly 21. to be aipes ro mANpopa am avTod, TO Katvov TOD madaov k.t.A. The reccived text omits the preposition before avrod, but a glance at the authorities is convincing in favour of its insertion. In this case the construction will be aiper TO mANpopa (NOM.) am’ adrod (i.e. Tov iwariov, which has been men- tioned immediately before), 7d kxawov (rAnpwpa) tod madatod (ipariou) ; ‘The completeness takes away from the garment, the new completeness 17—2 260 Mark vi. 43+ Mark viii. 20. Usage in St Paul’s Epistles 1 Cor. x. 26, Rom. xiii. 10. Rom, xv. 29. Gal. iv. 4. Eph. i, 10. Rom. xi. 25. Rom. xi. 12, General result. EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. of the oid garment’, where the paradox is put still more emphatically. (2) In Mark vi. 43 the right reading is kai jjpav kdacpdtav Sddexa Kopi- vous mAnpouara, i.e. ‘full’ or ‘complete measures’, where the apposition to kopivous obviates the temptation to explain wAypepara as ‘ea quae im- plent’. On the other hand in Mark viii. 20 mocwv omvpidov mhynpopata k\acparev npate; this would be the prima facie explanation; comp. Eccles. iv. 6 dyaov é€ore sAjpopa Spakos dvamaicews vmep TAnpepata Svo Spaxdv poyOov. But it is objectionable to give an active sense to rAjpopa 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 tod Kupiov yap 7 yn Kal ro TAnpopa avrjs it occurs in a quotation from Ps, xxiv (xxiii). 1. The ex- pressions ro 7Anpopa ths ys, TO TANpwpa THS Gadacons, Occur several times in the uxx (e.g. Ps. xevi (xcv). 11, Jer. viii. 16), where ro mAnpopa is a translation of xdp, 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 7Anpopa, and indeed the other is excluded altogether in some passages, e.g. Cant. v. 13 emt mAnpepata vddrwv. (2) In Rom. xiii. 10 TAnpwpa vouou 7 ayarn, the best comment on the meaning of the word is the context, ver. 8 o dyamdy roy €repov vopov meTAnpoxev, 80 that mypopa here means the ‘completeness’ and so ‘fulfilment, accomplishment’: see the note on Gal. v.14. (3) In Rom. xv. 29 ev wAnpwpare edrAoyias Xpiorod édevoopat, it plainly has the sense of ‘fulness, abundance’. (4) In Gal. iv. 4 dre dé HAOev TO TANP@pa Tov xpovov and Hphes. i. 10 eis oixovopiay rod mAnp®patos Toy Katpoy, its force is illustrated by such passages as Mark i. 15 mwemAnpwtat 6 Katpos Kal Hyytkey 7 Baowdeia x.7.A., Luke xxi, 24 dype ov tAnpabadow xatpot eOvav (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 mépwois dri pépous TH “Iopand yéyo- vev Gypis ov TO TANpopa Tov eOvay eioeAOn, 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 ef d€ ro mapamr@pa avtay mAovTos Kogpov kat TO HTTHa avTav TAovTOS ebvav, TOT® paddov TO TANpwpLA adTav. Here the antithesis between #rrnyza and mAjpeya, ‘failure’ and ‘fulness’, is not sufficiently direct to fix the sense of mAnpwya; 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 mAjpopa has its proper passive force, as a derivative from mAnpovy ‘ to make com- plete’. It is ‘the full complement, the entire measure, the plenitude, the EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS, 261 fulness’. There is therefore a presumption in favour of this meaning in other passages where it occurs in this Apostle’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 ©! pas- which this investigation has been undertaken. They are as follows; Reerh ae Col. i. 19 ev adr@ evddxnoey mav TO TANp@pa KaTOLKH CAL, Colossians Col. ii. 9 év avdr@ Karoiket wavy TO mAnpwpa Tis OedtnTOs Topatikds, Kai 2nd Ephe- €oTé ev AUTO TeTANP@pEVOL. siaraatay Ephes. i. 23 avrov edaxev xehadyy vmép mavta TH exkAnoig, Aris eat Td TOpa avtod, TO TANP@pa Tov Ta mavra ev Tao TANPOUpEVOV. Ephes. iii, 19 iva wAnp@bire eis wav TO TANP@pa TOU Ccod. Ephes. iv. 13 eis dvdpa réAevov, eis érpov ydckias Tod mAnpwparos Tod Xptorov. John i. 14, 16, cat 6 Adyos capé eyévero Kat eoxyvacey ev piv (kal ebea- St John. capeba thy dd€av aitod, ddéav ds povoyevods mapa matpds) mANpys xXaprTos kal ddnOelas...€k ToD TAnpw@patos avToU Nuets mavTes EAdBopev Kal Xap avTt xapiros. To these should be added two passages from the Ignatian Epistles, Ignatius, which as belonging to the confines of the Apostolic age afford valuable illustration of the Apostolic language. Ephes. inscr. "Iyvatws, 6 kai Ocohopos, TH evAoynpevn ev peyeber Ocod marpos mAnpoparte®...7H exkAnoia TH a€topaxapioTe TH ovon ev Edéo k.t.d. Trail. inscr. "Iyvarios, 6 kat Gcopdpos...€xkAnoia ayia TH ovon ev Tpadde- ow...ny Kat domagopat ev TS TANPa@paTL, ev ATooTOALK@ XapakTipt. It will be evident, I think, from the passages in St Paul, that the word The term TAnpopa ‘fulness, plenitude’, must have had a more or less definite theo- has a re- logical value when he wrote. This inference, which is suggested by the eee 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, ray ré Ajpewpa ‘all the fulness’, would otherwise be unintelli- gible, for it does not explain itself. In my notes I have taken o eds to be the nominative to evddxycev, but if the subject of the verb were ray rd mAnpopa, 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. Theseven 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 kal wAnpu- part, but there can be little doubt (from a comparison of the authorities) that xai should be struck out. ‘The present Syriac text has et perfectae for awAnpouatt; but there is no reason for supposing that the Syriac trans- lator had another reading before him. A slight change in the Syriac, ralxazs for réulmoxz sna, 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 tAnpduare here is translated repletae, 262 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- rence in this sense is produced from Philo. We may therefore conjecture lestineand that it had a Palestinian origin, and that the Essene Judaizers of Colosse, not Alex- : : : : : ; : andria. Whom St Paul is confronting, derived it from this source. In this case it would represent the Hebrew 7, of which it is a translation in the Lxx, and the Aramaic wulass 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 thetotality which he found already attached to it. He means, as he explicitly states in nel en * the second Christological passage of the Colossian Epistle (ii. 9), the ple- 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 ris Geornros, the signi- Colossian fication required by the context is the same. The true doctrine of the one oral 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 duvdyes, 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 oer itself it conveys exactly the same idea as before. It implies that all the several elements which are required to realise the conception specified are in Philo, present, «nd that each appears in its full proportions. Thus Philo, describing ae the ideal state of prosperity which will result from absolute obedience Y> to God’s law, mentions among other blessings the perfect development of the family: ‘Men shail 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, public of Plato, writes; ‘Socrates says that a city (or state) is composed of ee four classes, as its indispensable elements (ray dvayxaorarwv): by these he 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 (ratra wavta yiverar mAnpwpua THs MpeTNs TodEws); 1 See the notes on Col. i. 15 sq. 7 dvduaros tay boa éemipnulferat K.T.r. 2 de Praem. et Poen. 18 (11. p. 425). The construction of the subsequent The important words are ds éxacrov part of the sentence is obscure; and oixov mAjpwua elvac modvavOpdrov cuvy- for duolovs we should probably read yevelas, pndevds édrecPOdvros i} mépovs opolws. EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 263 thus he assumes that a city is formed to supply the bare necessities of life (rév dvayxaiwy xdpw) 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. 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 setae uo : arabe ng tis e- is to assert the supremacy of the Person of Christ, in the latter his prin- isn. 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- plenitude of Divine graces and virtues which is communicated through sponding Christ to the Church as His body. The Church, as 7deally regarded, the eg bride ‘without spot or wrinkle or any such thing’, becomes in a manner 74,410 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 holiness 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 povoyerns, i.e. the unique and absolute representative of the Father, and as such ‘tull (wAjpys) 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. il. 19 (p. 266). 3 Ephes. v. 27 sq. 4 The Apostle in this passage (Hphes. iv. 13) is evidently contem- plating the collective body, and not the individual believers. He writes of awdyres, not mdvres, and dvipa rédecov, not dvdpas redelovs. As he has said before évd éxdory tua €656n [h] xdpus KaTa TO wérpov Tis Swpeds rod Xpr- arod, so now he describes the result of these various partial graces bestowed cn individuals to be the unity and mature growth of the whole, ‘the building up of the body’, wexpl Karav- THhowpev ol mavres els Thy évérnra... els &vdpa Tédevov, els wérpov HAtklas TOO wAnpwuaros Tov Xpicrod. 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. 264 Tenatian letters. Gnostic sects. The Ce- rinthians, EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. vidual believer in his degree receives a fraction of that pleroma which is communicated whole to the ideal Church. The use of the word is not very different in the Ignatian letters. St Tenatius 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’, ie. 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 év 7@ mAnpe@pare is almost equivalent to ev 7 Kupio or €v TO mvevpart. When we turn from Catholic Christianity to the Gnostic 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 llis 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 reai 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 heaven 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 iii, 16. 1 ‘Quoniam autem sunt pleroma’. This expression is the con- 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 ji. 26. 1 ‘post baptismum descen- disse in eum ab ea principalitate, quae est super omnia, Christum figura co- lumbae; et tunc annuntiasse incog- nitum Patrem et virtutes perfecisse: in fine autem revolasse iterum Christam de Iesu et Iesum passum esse et resurrexisse, etc.’ 8 jii, x1. 1 ‘iterum revolasse in suum necting link between the other two passages. This third passage is quoted more at length above, p. 112. 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 Gnostics generally, and that Ire- ngus mentions in illustration the principal errors of Gnostic teaching, irrespective of the schools to which EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 265 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 we St . F . . «, Paul and St Paul and the Colossian heretics whom he controverts. To both alike it yin 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 lam 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, V#!enti- a few words on this subject may not be out of place. TE 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’. 1 IT have not been able however to verify the statement in Harvey’s Ire- néus I. 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. 1or sq., and the notes on i. 19. 3 p. 107 sq. 4 Hippol. R. H. vii. 22 gpevyer yap mdvu Kal dédocke Tas KaTa& mpoBodnv Tov yeyovétav ovcias 6 Baowrelins. 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, 266 of Valen- tinus. Topogra- phical conception of the ple- roma. Antithesis of pleroma and keno- ma, Pleroma the abode of the ons. Different forms of Valenti- nianism. 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 as a locality. The Valentinian system accordingly maps out the universe of things into two great regions, called respectively the pleroma 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 Aions 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 ons 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 Mons 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 yest by Horus ("Opos), a personified Boundary or Fence, whom none, not even the Aions themselves, could pass!, The former mode of representa- 1 For the various modes in which former type. There are good, though the relation of the absolute first prin- ciple to the pleroma was represented in different Valentinian schools, see Wrens: Tet, 1. 204, Te VES TNS, 5) eas 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 Budés and Xvy7, included within the pleroma but fenced off from the other eons. The Valentinian doctrine as given by Hippolytus (vi. 29 sq.) represents the perhaps not absolutely decisive, rea- sons for supposing that this father gives 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. 267 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 Kenoma, Boundary, which, or who, like the former is impassable, lies the ‘kenoma’ the ree or ‘void’—the kingdom of this world, the region of matter and material ohana things, the land of shadow and darkness. Here is the empire of the Demiurge or Creator, who is not a celestial Aon 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 Platonism reaches its climax. All things are set off one against another in these two of this an- regions?: just as tithesis. 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 ons 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 Mon 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. It seems most na- of the first principle as a dyad seems 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 Ptolemzus 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 of his exposition, tural therefore that he should have taken the system of the founder as his basis. On the other hand Irenzus (i. r1. 1) states that Valentinus re- presented the first principle as a dyad ("Appyros or BuOés, and Zey7): 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. a netie ds ae P ey Sse BT. aah gS) Mi bia, cil. 8. i—3, 3 T4. By dit. 25. G; 7, etc. Shrew sel. a dehy oik BQey dle Tas! 3, Ui. )15. 3, 84.4 11. 20..5, ll. 90. 3, ete. 3 Tren. isi Be "45 Ube ges 35 | COMP, Hippol. vi. 34. 268 The locali- sation of the plero- ma carried EPISTLE TO THE 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 out in de- mother, cast out of the pleroma, and left ‘stranded’ in the void beyond}, tail. The con- nexion with St Paul’s use of theterm obscured, owing partly to the false antithesis Kevan 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 Aions?—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 vacuum 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 xévwua 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 mAjpns and kevos Was obvious, and because the word xévepa materially assisted the imagery as a description of the kingdom of waste and shadow. But in li. 7 daurdv éxévwoev; Clem, Alex. Exc. Theod. 35 (p. 978). 4 Tren. i. 7. 1 Kal Todro elvar vup- 1 Tren. i. 4. 1 Aéyoucw éy oxials [oxeds] cal Kevmaros rémos éxBeBpa- o@at x«.7.X. The Greek ms reads xal oxnvapatos, but the rendering of the early Latin translation ‘in umbrae [et?] 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 Ulud 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, dlov Kat viudnv, vuudadva dé Td wap mAjpwyna: comp. Hippol. vi. 34 6 vup- dlos airys. 5 This language is so frequent that special references are needless. In Tren. ii. 5. 3 we have a still stronger expression, ‘in ventre pleromatis’. 6 Tren. ii. r4. 3 ‘Umbram autem et vacuum ipsorum a Democrito et Epi- curo sumentes sibimetipsis aptaverunt, quum illi primum multum sermonem fecorint de vacuo et de atomis’, EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. itself it is a false antithesis. 269 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- tinus himself, it is called not xévwpa ‘the void’, but vorépnua ‘the defi- ciency, incompleteness’}, sical phi- losophers; but re- Moreover the common phraseology of the appears in Valentinian schools shows that the idea suggested by this opposition to their com- xévopa was not the original idea of the term. They speak of rd wAnpopa TOY aidvey, TO Tay TAnPopa Tay aiwvwr, ‘the whole aggregate of the ions’?. 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 2a! mean- kingdom as a whole bear this name, but each separate Aion, of which that kingdom is the aggregation, is likewise called a pleroma’. This designa- tion is given to an Aton, 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. But the manner in which the theory was carried out is curiously- illus- trated by the commentary of the Valentinian Heracleon on our Lord’s discourse with the Samaritan woman*. This woman, such is his explana- ce 1 Hippol. vi. 31 xadeirae dé dpos pev curos bre adoplgec amd Tod mAnpwparos diw 7d borépnua’ petoxeds 5é OTe pcré- xet Kal TOU VoTepjparos (i.e. as standing between the wAjpwua and vordpynua): oraupds 5é, re mémnyev axkwus kal duera- vojTws, ws wy SivacOat pndev Tod baTEp7- Laros katayevécBat éyyls TOv évTbs AN- pwyuarosaldéywy. Irenzeus represents the Marcosians as designating the Demi- urge kapmoés vorepimaros 1. 17. 2, 1. 19. I, i, praef. 1, ii. 1, 1 (comp. i. 14. 1). This was perhaps intended originally as an antithesis to the name of the Christ, who was xaprés mAnpdyaros. The Marcosians however apparently meant Sophia Achamoth by this toré- pnua. This transference from the whole to the part would be in strict accordance with their terminology: for as they called the supramundane xons mAnpwopara (Iren. i. 14. 2,5; quoted in Hippol. vi. 43, 46), so also by analogy they might designate the mundane powers vorepjyara (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 xévwua, 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. 266) that we have here a work of Valentinus h-mself. The word toré- pnua appears also in Exc, Theod. 22 (P. 974). 2 e.g. Hippol. vi. 34, Iren. i. 2. 6. See especially Iren. ii. 7. 3 ‘Quoniam enim pleroma ipsorum triginta Aeones sunt, ipsi testantur ’. 3 See the passages from Ireneus quoted above, note 1; comp. Exc. Theod. 32, 33 (p- 977). Similarly Aéyot is @ synonym for the Hons, duuvtuws TO Adyy, Exc. Theod. 25 (p. 975): 4 Heracleon in Orig. in Joann. xiii, Iv. p. 205 sq. The passages are collect- ed in Stieren’s Irenzus p. 9478q. See especially p. 950 oferar [6 ‘Hpaxdéwr] ris mon phra- seology. ing shown by other uses. John iv, 17, 18. 270 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’ (rip Svvapiv Kal THY Evwowy Kal THY avaKpacw THY mpos TO TANPa@pa avTfs). ‘For’, adds Heracleon, ‘ He did not speak of a mundane (koopixod) 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 difficulty. 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 Hons 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 Lapapelridos Tov NeySmevoy vd TOU cw- Thoos dvipa TO WAHpPwWma elvat auTAs, iva odbv éxelvw yevomévn mpos TOY TwT7pa kouloecOar map avrod ri dvvauw Kal Thy évwow Kal Thy avdxpacw Thy mpds TO TAApwWKA avTHS Suynby’ od yap mept avdpds, pyol, KoouiKoU Edeyer...... Aéyw airG Tov cwrhpa eipneeva, Bid- vynodv cou Tov dvdpa Kal édOé évOdde* On- Aobvra Tov dd TOU TANPHMaTOS aU- ¢tuvyov. Lower down Heracleon says qv aiths 6 dvip év TG Aléu, By this last expression I suppose he means that the great zon 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 participation in this higher region) but of the spiritual portion thereof. 1 Origen expressly states that Hera- cleon read é& for révre. 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 6 Kowvds Tod +\y- pwparos kapros in Hippolytus vi. 32, 34, 30 (Pp. 190, 191, 192, 193, 196). In Trenzus i. 8. 5 it is kapros mavrés Tod TANPYMATOS. 3 Tren. i. 2. 6 TeNecdrarov KddXos TE kal dorpov Tod mAnpwuaros. EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. a71 a'so he was designated ‘ All’ (way) and ‘All things’ (aavra)'. 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’’. So too they styled him EvSdxnros, 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’*, 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®. 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 term by was not real flesh and blood, but merely a phantom body. Their views on a oes 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 Alons. 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 Avons’$, The Ophite heresy, Proteus-like, assumes so many various forms, that 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 8°: 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- (i) Naas- rowed from the Christian and Jewish Scriptures, as well as from heathen senes. poetry, they described the region of true knowledge—their kingdom of 2 drew: 596,01. 35 4. 2 Tren. i. 3. 4. The passages are given in the text as they are quoted by Ireneus from the Valentinians, Three out of the four are incorrect. ‘3 Tren. i. 12. 4; comp. Exc. Theod. dopara, Opsvot, kupLornres, BactAelat, Oed- Tyres, AetTovpylat’ 616 Kal d Qeos adroy UrepUpwoer k.T.r. (the last words being taken from Phil. ii. 9 sq.). 5 Thus they interpreted Ephes. iit. 21 els mdcas Tas yeveds TOU alwvos TwY 31 (p. 977) ef 6 KaTe\Ody ebdoxia Tod Srou qv" &v adr@ yap wav TO TAI pwpa Av TWMATLKOS. 4 Tren. i. 4. 5 darws ev aire Ta rdvra KTiOy, TH dpard Kal Ta ddpara, Opdvor, Gebrynres, Kupidrnres, Where the mis- quotation is remarkable. In Eze. Theod. 43 (p.979) the words run rdvra yap év air@ éxtlaOy Ta opard Kal Tao aljvwy as referring to their generated eons: Tren. 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: ib. i. 8. 5. 6 R. H. viii. ro (p. 267). 7 id. viii. g. 8 ib. viii. 10 (p. 266). 272 (ii)Peratae. Their theology and corre- sponding applica- tion of TAHPWLte 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 (aBa- giAevrous) 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 (rexAnpwra) 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 phcnomenal 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, ii. 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 (ris odtw Siypnyévns tpiddos)’*. 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. arly 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 (xedadyv) of the Universe’ and ‘the whole pleroma’’. Here we seem to have an allusion to the Platonic kingdom of ideas, i Rh. Hv. 8. aR. He Ne 12 Tiibingen 1854, p. 185. * See Kostlin in Theolog. Jahrb. 4 Distis Sophia p. 3 sq. EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 273 i.e. 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 (mapa) 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 ""+ 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. p. 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. mrApwua is opposed to dpx7, ap- « R. A. vill. 13: EOL: 18 274 Different theories classified. EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. The Epistle from Laodicea’. Tue different opinions respecting the epistle thus designated by St Paul, which have been held in ancient or modern times, will be seen from the following table; 1. An Epistle written by the Laodiceans; to (a) St Paul; (8) Epaphras ; (y) Colossee. i) (a) 1 Timothy; (8) 1 Thessalonians; (y) 2 Thessalonians; (8) Galatians. An Epistle written by St Paul from Laodicea. 3. An Epistle addressed to the Laodiceans by (a) St John (the First Epistle) ; (6) 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. Ee epistle written by commentators. the Laodi- ceans. Advocates of this theory. ject? I. The opinion that the epistle was addressed by the Laodiceans to St.Paul, and not conversely, found much support in the age of the Greek It is mentioned by St Chrysostom as held by ‘some per- sons’, though he himself does not pronounce a definite opinion on the sub- It is eagerly advocated by Theodore of Mopsuestia. He supposes that the letter of the Laodiceans contained some reflexions on the Colos- sian Church, and that St Paul thought it good for the Colossians to hear 1 The work of 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 Laodicenserbriej (Lubeck 1853),is much slighter and contributes nothing new. 2 ad loc. twés A€éyovow sre odxl Thy Ilavdov wpos avrovs drecrahuévnv, adda Thy wap avrow Ilavdw ov yap elre rv mpos Aaodtxéas adda Thy éx Aaod- Kelas. EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. what their neighbours said of them’. 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 (cumenian Catena. This view seems to have been very widely entertained in ancient times. It possibly underlies the Latin Version ‘ea que Laodicensium est’?; it is distinctly expressed in the rendering of the Peshito, ‘that which was written by the Laodiceans’4, 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 & 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. The underlying motive of this interpretation was to withdraw the sup- Reasons port which the apocryphal epistle seemed to derive from this reference, fF 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, rv éx Aaodiukeias. 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. vi. p. 540 (Migne) ‘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 tiv éx Aaod.- kelas, Theodoret says eixds 5¢ avrovs 7 Ta &v Kodacoals yevdueva alridcacbat Ta avtTa TovUTos vevoonKévat. % 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 é« Aaodixelas, and complain that the other interpre- tation depends on the erroneous Latin rendering. 4 Or, ‘that which was written from Laodicea.’ The difference depends on the vocalisation of rant 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 intev- pretation of St Paul’s language. 6 ad loc. ‘Multo feedius errarunt qui ex hoc 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 11. p. 326. 8 Ann. Eccl. 8. a. 60, § xiil. 9 e.g. Tillemont Mem. Eccl. 1. p- 576. 1S—2 276 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 rv é« Aaodieias 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?. Wows The vast majority of those who interpret the expression in this way respecting assume that the letter was written to (a) St Paul. The modifications of the person this view, which suppose it addressed to some one else, need hardly be addressed. aonsidered. 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. Why then should St Paul so stu- diously charge them to see that they read it? Why above all should he say kat vueis, ‘ye also’, when they were the only persons who would read it as a matter of course ? 2. Aletter 2: A second class of identifications rests on the supposition that it was a letter written from Laodicea, though not by the Laodiceans them- written from Lao- selves. The considerations which recommend this hypothesis for accept- ay et ance are the same as in the last case. It withdraws all support from the i 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 1 Timothy. 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 éypady aro Aaodixeias are found in AKL 47 etc., and many of these define the place meant by the addition jris éort pntpomodis Ppvyias ths Tlakarcavis. 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 1 See the note on iv. 16. 2 e.g. Storr Opuse. 11. p. 124 sq. 3 So for instance Corn. 4 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. * Op. 11. p. 214 (ed. Lequien) ri mpos Tibbeov mpuirnv réyer. But he adds rwes gacly 8re ovxt rhv Tavdou mpos auvrovs émecrahpévny...d\d\a Tip map avrav Ilavhw éx Aaodixelas ypa- peioav. 5 ad loc. rls 62 qv 7% éx Aaodtxelas; wpos Tipb0eov xrpwrn attrn ydp éx Aaodtxelas éypdgdn. twes 6€ ghacw sre qv of Aaodixe?s Tatyw émréoreidav, GAN’ ov olda rh dv éxelyns e5ec avdrots mpos Bertiwoww. 8 ad loc. ‘Propter eam qu est ad Timotheum dixit.’ EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. Mss (a** 74) the bearing of this subscription on Col. iy. 16 is emphasized, iSod 7 kai 7 €k Aaodixeias. This identification has not been altogether 277 without support in later times!. (8) The First Epistle to the Thessalo- 1 Thessa- nians. Cor. xv. 58. °y Cor, ii. 16. 4 Phil. iv. 8, 9. © Phil. iv. 22. f Phil. iv. 23. & Col, iv. 16. Scanty cir- culation in the East, but wide diffusion in the West. EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. *eEyyapicta® Ta Xpicta én dcH AeHcel Moy, GTI EcTE EN dYT@ MENONTEC Kal TIPOCKAPTEPOYNTEC TOIC Epfolc ayTOY, 7ATEKAEYOMENOI THN €TTarreAlaN °eic HMEPAN KPICEWC. “MHAE YMSC EZATIATHCOOCIN FMaTAIOAOTIAI TIN@N AIAACKONTOON ina ®dtroctpeyocin YmMdc Amd "tAc AAHGElac ‘TOY eYarreAioy TOY eYarreAlcbeNtoc ym emoy. “Kal NYN TrolHcel 6 Ococ fnNa Fra €2 émof €ic TIPOKOTHN TAC dAHOEIAC TOY eYarreAloy * * « AATPEYONTEC KAl TIOIOfNTEC YPHCTOTHTA EPfHN TON THC cwTHpiac [Kal] TAC ai@nioy zwfic. Kal NYN ‘anepol Of AEcMO! MOY, OYC YTTOMEN® EN XpicT@, EN Oic ™yalpw Kal AraAAI@MAL "Kal =TOYTS EcTIN Mot Eic COTHPIAN dIAION, O Kal ATTEBH AIA TAC YM@N AEHCEWC Kal ETTIYOPH- riac TINEYMATOC AfloY, CeiTE AIA ZwWAC ElTe Ald OAaNdTOY. °PEmoil fap TO ZAiN EN XpicT@ Kal TO ATTOBANEIN YAPA. *KAI TO AYTO TrolHcel [Kal] EN YMIN AlA TOY EA€oyC AYTOY, INA 4THN AYTHN APATTHN EYHTE, CYM- yyyol OnTec. **ddcTe, AraTTHTO!, KAOdC YTHKOYCATE EN TH Trapoycia MOY, OYT@C ®MNHMONEYONTEC META @dBoy Kypioy eprazecbe, Kal ECTAl YMIN ZWH eEic TON Ai@Na’ “*OQedc rdép écTIN 6 ENEpr@N EN ymin. “kal “roleiTe yopic AlaAoricCMON *6 TI EAN TIOIATE. *Kai Ytd AOITON, APATTHTO!, yalpeTe EN Xpicta@. BA€rreTe AE Toyc “aicypokepAcic. “#rdNTA TA AITHMATA YMON FNOPIZECO@ TIPUC TON Oedn. kal Pédpatol rinecOe EN °TG Nol TOY Xpictoy. “*dca Te OAGKAHPA Kal AAHOA Kal CEMNA Kal AlKAIA KAl TIPOCHIAA, TAFTA Tpaccete. “A Kal HKOYCATE Kal TIApEABETE, EN TH KapAla KpaTEiTeE, Kal H €IPHNH EcTal MEO YMON. 80? AcTIAZONTAI YMAC O1 STIOl. *°H ydpic toY Kypioy “lHcof Xpicto¥ meta tof tINeyMaToc YMON. kal TroIHcaTe TNA ToIc KoAaccaeYcIN ANAaPN@COH, Kal H TON KoAaccaéwn iNd Kal 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. 293, note 6. 2 See above, p. 279 84. 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 295 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 two1. 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 stadt. is very short and is not reckoned in the Canon, yet still it has some use”’. And between two or three centuries later Hervéy of Dole (c. a.p. 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 Job. xxxv. § 25 (111. 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 quamvis 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. oxvi. 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 rijy éx Aaodixelas 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. 11, p. 866. ‘ 5 Patrol. Lat. CLXXXI. p. 1355 8q. (ed. Migne) ‘et ea similiter epistola, quae Laodicensium est, i.e. quam ego Laodicensibus misi, legatur vobis. Quamvis et hanc 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. 296 English Church. Aelfric. John of Salisbury. The epis- tle repu- diated by Lanfrane, 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, etc. (Col. iv. 16)”, Aclfric 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 Epistle as referring to a letter written by the Laodiceans to the Apostle, and adds that 1 ASaxon Treatise concerning theOld rum dissolvens argutias qui eam Pauli Caeterum and New Testament by Ailfricus Abbas, p- 28 (ed. W. L’Isle, London 1623). 2 Joann. Sarisb. Epist. 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- non esse contendebant. quintadecima est illa 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, 297 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 ae Epistles and most frequently without any marks which imply doubt respect- countries. ing its canonicity. These instances are more common in proportion to the number of extant Mss in the earlier epoch than in the later. 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 5!an- 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®. The prvlogue prefixed to the commoner of the 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 should perhaps read xiiii for xiii, ‘quatuordecim’ for ‘tredecim’, as Lanfranc is not likely to have questioned the Pauline author- written within a few years of the Co- dex Amiatinus. 5 The list of mss given above, p. 282 8q., 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 ship of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 2 The proportion however is very different in different collections. Inthe 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. 282. 4 The Codex Fuldensis, which was 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 8q., p. 166 8q. 9 These two versions are printed in Lewis’s New Testament translated by J. Wiclif (1731) p-99 8q.,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. 298 English prologue. Two Ver- sions of the epis- tle. EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. ‘Laodicensis ben also Colocenses, as tweye townes and oo 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 00 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 yersion 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 ynordeynede vs 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 lijf (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 (t. 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 bial 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 profiz3t of truthe of the gospel, God schal make disseruyng, and doyng benygnyte of werkis, and helthe of everlasting 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.p. 1430. 2 Printed from Forshall and Madden l.c. 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 15th 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 3e, and do 3e in drede of God; and it schal be to 30u lijf 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 30ure axingis ben open anentis God, and 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 3e; and it schal be to jou 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 iust, and able to be loued; and kepe 3e in herte tho thingis that 3e haue herd and take; and pees schal be to 30u. Alle holi men greten 30u weel. The grace of oure Lord Jhesu Crist be with 30ure spirit. And do 3e that pistil of Colocensis to be red to 30u. 299 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. As a rule, Roman and con- demyation of the Catholics and Reformers were equally strong in their condemnation of its epistle. worthlessness. The language of Hrasmus 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 effingere. 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 efficacius 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 D. 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. 293). mus. 300 Excep- tions, Pretorius. Stapleton. EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. But some eccentric spirits on both sides were still found to maintain its genuineness. Thus on the one hand the Lutheran Steph. Praetorius 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. To 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. u. 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 Epistle 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; nec 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. 275, note 3). EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. a a PH, My : be ota libed er oe INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE. Apostle’s writings. It is the only strictly private letter erie which has been preserved. The Pastoral Epistles indeed are °Piste- 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 Pyarossed. 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. Phite- for evil, was not unknown in connexion with Phrygian story. as pe Epistle to Philemon holds a unique place among tho Unique 304 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 nights of Athenian citizenship, though a Phrygian and apparently a slave *, 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 bant’. 1 Ovid. Met. vii. 626 sq. ‘Jupiter hue, specie mortali, cumque parente Venit Atlantiades positis caducifer alis’ etc. 2 Acts xiv. 11 of Geol duorwOévyres dv@pwHrots katéBnoav mpds nuas K.T.X- 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 familiarity with this beautiful story may have suggested to 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, 70edov Ovew. 3 Aristoph. Av. 762 ef d& rvyxdve ris Ov Ppvé...dpuylros Spuis évOds tora, Tod Pirypovos yévous. EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 305 announces the restoration of Onesimus to his master, while in the other he speaks of this same person as revisiting Colossze ’. 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*. At converted what time or under what circumstances he received his first al 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 Colossse *. Philemon proved not unworthy of his spiritual parentage, His evan- Though to Epaphras belongs the chief glory of preaching the ot Gospel at Colosse*, his labours were well seconded by Phi- lemon. The title of ‘fellow-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. All those and wide A ; : ‘ . _ hospita- with whom he came in contact spoke with gratitude of his lity. i 1 Compare Col. iv. 9g with Philem. designates Philemon’s own family (in- II sq. 2 Theodoret in his preface to the epistle says modu 6é elye [6 Pirnuwr] Tas Koddooas’ cat % olkia 62 avrod méxpt Tod mapévros peuévynxe. 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 ver. 19. 4 See above, p. 30 sq. 5 See above, p. 31 sq. 8 ver. I ouvepy@ Tudar. 7 Col. iv. 15. 8 ver. 2 77 Kar’ olkév cov éxk\noig. The Greek commentators, Chrysostom and Theodoret, suppose that St Paul COL. cluding his slaves) by this honourable title of éxxXnola, in order to interest them in his petition. This is plainly wrong. See the note on Col. iv. 15. #2 JOR. 5 8G: 10T take the view that the xvupla 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. vv. 4, 7 8q. The salutation to the ‘elect lady’ (ver. 1) from her ‘elect sister’ (ver. 15) will then be a greeting sent to one church from another; just as in 1 Peter the letter is addressed at the outset éxAexrots IIévrou k.r.d. (i. 1) and contains at the close a salutation from 4 év BaBudanu ouverdexTH (V. 13). 20 306 Legendary kindly attentions’. tain knowledge. martyr- dom. 2. Apphia his wife, A strictly Phrygian name, EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. Of his subsequent career we have no cer- 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. Itisasafe 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 Eumenia and Apamea Cibotus, at Stratonicea, at Philo- melium, at Aizani 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. If no example has been discovered at Colosse itself, we must remember that not a single proper name has been preserved on any monu- mental inscription at this place. It is generally written either Apphia or Aphphia®; more rarely Aphia, which is perhaps Like other direct statements of this same writer, as for instance that the LAR ee 2 Apost. Const. vii. 46 ris 5@ ev Povyla Aaodixelas [érloxomros]”"Apxirmos, Kodaccoaéwy 5¢ Pirnuwr, Bepolas 5¢ r7s kata Maxedovlay ’Ovnoimos 6 Pidjpovos, 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. Inser. 3814 Nelk- avépos kal ’Addla yur) airod. 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, c, d, 2837 b, 3849, 3902 m, 3962, 4141, 4277, 4321 f, 3846 217, etc. M. Renan (Saint Paul p. 360) says ‘Appia, diaconesse de cette ville.’ Colossians sent a deputation to St Paul (L’Antéchrist p. go), this asser- tion rests on no authority. 5 They speak of "Ardila as a softened form of the Latin Appia, and quote Acts xxviii. 15, where however the form is ’Ammlov. Even Ewald writes the word Appia. 8 *Amgla, no. 2782, 2835, 2950, 3432, 3446, 2775 b, ¢, d, 2837 b, 3902 m, 3962, 4124, 4145: "Addla, no. 3814, 4141, 4277, 4321 f, 3827 1, 3846 z, 3846 z7, So far as I could trace any law, the form ’A¢g@la is preferred in the northern and more distant towns like Aizani and Cotiaum, while ’Ard¢la prevails in the southern towns in the more immediate neighbourhood of Colosse, such as Aphrodisias. This EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 307 due merely to the carelessness of the stonecutters'. But, so far Its affini- as I have observed, it always preserves the aspirate. Its dimi- ne 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*. The man’s name correspond- ing to Apphia is Apphianos, but this is rare®, The root would a} pear to be some Phrygian term of endearment or relation- ship®. It occurs commonly in connexion with other Phrygian and ana- names of a like stamp, more especially Ammia, which under- Buy 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 ’Ar@la is the best supported form, though ’A¢¢/a is found in some. In Theod. Mops. (Cramevr’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 @r.’Amdgias dpxrepelas ’Aclas, bentpos Kal ddeXPjs kal uduuns cuvKrn- TLKQV, HiNowaTpLOOS K.T.N. 1 no. 2720, 3827. 2*Amrgiov or “Addioy 2733, 2836, 3295, 3849, 3902 m, 4207; “Aduov, 3846 254 and”Agdeov 3846 z*!; and even “Argew and “Addew, 3167, 3278. In 3902 m the mother’s name is ’Ar¢dla and the daughter’s "Amguov. 3 "Agdlas 3697, 3983; "Adlas 3870. “"Adgdn 3816, -3390, 41433 “Ardy 3796, 4122. 5 It is met with at the neighbouring town of Hierapolis, in the form ’Ar- giaves no. 3911. It also occurs on coins of not very distant parts of Asia Minor, being written either ’Ardlavos or ’Ad¢lavos; Mionnet 11. p. 179, 184, Iv. p. 65, 67, Suppl. vi. p. 293, VII P. 365. § Suidas “Arga ddeXpns xal dded- gov droxbpioua, and so Bekk. Anecd. p. 441. Hustath, Il. p. 565 says argav With these we may also compare Thy adeXdhv "Arrixds pdvn 7] adedpy elrot av, kal mdmrmav Tov marépa pdvos 6 mats K.T.X., and he adds loréoy 8é re €x Tov ws éppéOn drga yx veu Kal 7d amor, vroKkbpicua dv epwuévns* tives 5é kal 73 dra brokdpicud pacw ’Arri- xov. These words were found in writers of Attic comedy (Pollux iii. 74 4 rapa Tois véois Kwpwdois amrdia Kal amdlov kal ampdpiuv; comp. Xenarchus ods bev yépovras bvras émikadovmevar marpl- dua, Tovs 8 arddpia, rods vewrépous, Meineke Fragm. Com. 11. p. 617): and doubtless they were heard com- monly in Attic homes. But were they not learnt in the nursery from Phry- gian slaves? ’Am¢dpiov appears in two inscriptions almost as a proper name, 2637 Kdavila argdpiov, 3277 arddprov Aoddav7. In no. 4207 (at Telmissus) we have ‘EXévn 7 kal “Adguov, so that it seems sometimes to have been em- ployed side by side with a Greek name; comp. no. 39124 Ilamlas...6 kadovmevos Acoyévns, quoted above, p. 48. This will account for the frequency of the names, Apphia, Apphion, etc. In Theocr, xv. 13 we have argis, and in Callim. Hym. Dian. 6 dra, 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; e.g. 3846 28%, 3847 k, 3882 i, Hg 8 aa 308 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 1 Qn the name Papias or Pappias see above, p. 48. 2 See Boeckh Corp. Inscr. m1. p. 108s for the names Navas, etc. 3 We have not only the form “Army several times (e.g. 3827 x, 3846 p, 3846 x, 3846 2%, etc.); but also*Awmns 3827 g, 3846 n, 3846 277, still as a woman’s name. These all occur in the same neighbourhood, at Cotimum 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, 4 In the Greek historians of Rome for instance the personal name is al- ways “Amos and the road ’Amrmla; so too in Acts xxviii. 15 it is ’Amzlov 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 hecomes weaker, and that they almost, though not entirely, disappear in other parts of the Greek and Roman world, 6 ver, 2 77 ddekpq. See the note. 7 So Theodore of Mopsuestia. But Chrysostom érepov riva tows pldrov, and Theodoret 6 6¢ “Apxermos tiv didacKka- Mav atrav éremlorevto. EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 309 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’; His office but what this was, we are not told. St Paul speaks of it as a ‘ministry’ (dvaxovia). Some have interpreted the term tech- nically as signifying the diaconate; but St Paul’s emphatic message seems to imply a more important position than this. Others again suppose that he succeeded Epaphras as bishop of Colosse, 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 *’ Where was he exercising this ministry, whatever it may have been ? At Colosse, or at Laodicea? His connexion with Philemon and abode, would suggest the former place. But in the Epistle to the Colossians his name is mentioned immediately after the salu- tation to the Laodiceans and the directions affecting that Church; and this fact seems to connect him with Laodicea. Laodicea, On the whole this appears to be the more probable solution ®, ae Laodicea was within walking distance of Colosse® Archippus ©0S8®- hypothesis which makes him a presbyter. Another question too arises respecting 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 1 It occurs in two Smyrnean in- scriptions, no. 3143, 3224. 2 Col. iv. 27 Brére tiv Staxoviay jv mapédaBes év Kuply, tva atryy wAnpors. 3 So the Ambrosian Hilary on Col. iv. 17. 4 Ephes. iv. rr bears testimony to the existence of the office of evangelist at this date. 5 It is adopted by Theodore of Mopsuestia. On the other hand Theo- doret argues against this view on critical grounds; tues épacay rotrov Aaodixelas yeyerqcbar diddoKadov, add’ mpos Pirnwova émiorory dSiidoKer ws év KoNaccats otros @ke 7H yap B- Ajpove Kal Tovrov ouvrarres: but he does not allege any traditional support for his own opinion, 6 See above, pp. 2, 15. 310 His eareer. 4. Onesi- mus. A servile name. EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. from the allusion in the Colossian letter, makes him bishop not of Colosse, 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 mexperience. 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. having suffered martyrdom at Colosse with his father and mother. 4. But far more important to the history of Christianity than the parents or the son of the family, is the servant. The name QOnesimus was very commonly borne by slaves, Like other words signifying utility, worth, and so forth, it naturally lent itself to this purpose‘. Accordingly the inscriptions offer a very large number of examples in which it appears as the 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 Tradition represents him as 1 Apost. Const. vii. 46 quoted above, p. 306, note r. 7 See p. 42. 3 yer. 2 7G ouvoTpariwry juwy. See the note. 4 e.g. Chresimus, Chrestus, One- siphorus, Symphorus, Carpus, etc. So too the corresponding female names Onesime,Chreste,Sympherusa,etc.: 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. Inscr. Lat, 111. p. 223, nO. 2146, P. 359,00. 2723, PD. 986, no. 6107 (where it is spelled Ho- nesimus); and in Muratori, cc. 6, DEXIX. 5, CMLXVIII. 4, MIII. 2, MDXVIII. 2, MDXXIII. 4, MDLI. 9, MDLXXI. 5, MDLXXV. I, MDxc1l. 8, MDXOVI. 7, MROVI. 2, MDCX. 19, MDCXIY. 17, 39; and the corre- sponding female name Onesime in MCCKXXIX. 12, MDXLVI. 6, MDCXII. 9. A more diligent search than I have made would probably increase the number of examples very largely. 8 e.g. Corp. Inscr, Lat. ul. p. 238, no. 1467, D. M. 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 ’Ovnoimos addressed is a slave, as appears from the mention of his rpddiuos, i. e. mas- ter; Galen de Opt. Doctr. 1 (1. p. 41) ed. Kiihn), where there is a reference to a work of Phavorinus in which was introduced one Onesimus 6 II\ourdpxou EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. Z1E the social condition naturally suggested by it. In the inscrip- tions of proconsular Asia it is found’; but no stress can be laid en 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- is bishop of Ephesus in the first years of the second century, careers when Ignatius passes through Asia Minor on his way to a ae martyrdom, and is mentioned by the saint in terms of warm sular Asia. affection and respect”, Another, apparently an influential layman, about half a century later urges Melito bishop of 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 least respectable class in the social scale. He was regarded by pay ; philosophers as a ‘live chattel,’ a ‘live implement*’; and he had Onesimus. taken philosophy at her word. He had done what a chattel or an implement 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. abat; see also §§ 2, 5, 6. So0dos ’Emixryntw dvadeyouevos; Anthol. Graec. 11. p. 161, where the context shows that the person addressed as Onesimus is a slave; ib. 11. p. 482, where the master, leaving legacies to his servants, says ’Ovnotmos elkoos wévre | was éxérw Ados 8’ etxoot pds éxérw* | mevrnKovra Lvposs Luvérn déxa, x.7.A. See also the use of the name in the Latin play quoted Suet. Galb. 13 (according to one reading). 1°It occurs as near to Coloss@ as Aphrodisias; Boeckh C, I. no. 2743. 4 Ign. Ephes. 1 év ’Ovnolup ro év ayary aiinynry vuav dé év capkt ém- oKoTy...eUhoynros 6 Xaptoduevos “vuiv dtlois ovow roovroy éxickomov KeKTH- 3 Melito in Euseb. H. E. iv. 26 MeXrwv ’Ovyctuw 7 diekpe xalpev. "Erredn mrodAdkis Hilwoas K.T.d. 4 Aristot. Pol. i. 4 (p. 1253) 6 dovdos KTqua Te Euyvxov, Eth. Nic. viii. 13 (p. 1161) 6 yap SotrAos euwuxov Spyavov, Td 5 bpyavov awuxos SovAos. See also the classification of ‘implements’ in Varro, de Re rust. 1. 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); ib. 1. 17 ‘In per- sonam servilem nulla cadit obligatio’ (Ulpianus). 312 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 popuilar estimate of his class* and nation? by his own conduet. 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, when he gets into trouble. He had ‘packed up some goods and taken to his heels*.’ Rome was the natural cesspool for these offscourings of humanity*. In the thronging crowds of 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 was caught in its meshes. 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 1 Plaut. Pseud. 1. 2, 6 ‘Ubi data mon Lydus esset’: comp, Alciphr. occasiost, rape, clepe, tene, harpaga, bibe, es, fuge; hoc 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 fieri 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 seryus primarum partium Epist. ili, 38 Bpvya olkérny éxw tovn- pov x.7..: Apollod. Com. (Meineke, Iv. Pp. 451) od wavyraxod @pvé elu 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) decAbrepov Aayé Spvyds, Tertull. de Anim. 20 ‘Comici Phrygas timidos illudunt’: see Ribbeck Com. Lat. p. 100. 3 Ter. Phorm. i. 4. 13 ‘aliquid con- vasassem, atque hinc me protinam conjicerem in pedes.’ * Sall. Cat. xxxvii. 5 ‘Romam sicuti in sentinam confluxerant’; comp. Tac. Ann XY. 44. EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 313 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- : ; : ‘ 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 gua man*; and others had held still stronger language to the same effect. The Apostle did not recognise the philosopher’s subtle distinction. For him the conventional barrier between slave and free had altogether vanished before the dissolving presence of an eternal verity *. He found in Onesimus something more than a slave, a beloved St Paul’s brother, both as a slave and as a mau, ‘both in the flesh and in rari 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. 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. To take away Onesimus was to tear out Paul’s heart *. But there was an imperious demand for the sacrifice. One- Necessity simus had repented, but he had not made restitution. He "bis return could only do this by submitting again to the servitude from 1 x Cor, vii. 22. 2 Eth. Nic. vill. 13 (p. 1161) gidla & obk gore mpds Ta Apuxa ode Sixacov* GAN’ 085e pds Yrrov 7@ Bodv, ov58 pds Sovdov 7 SovdAos* ovdev yap Kowdy éoriv" 6 yap So0do0s euyuxov spyavorv, 7d 8 Epyavov &Wuxos Sovdos* 7 ev ovv Soidos, obk gore Gidla mpds abrév, 3 5’ dvOpwros «.7.. On the views of Aristotle re- specting slavery see Becker’s Charihles I. p. 2 sq. (ed. 2, 1854) with the editor K. F. Hermann’s references to the literature of the subject, p. 5. 3 1 Cor. vii. 21 8q., Gal. iii. 28, Col. iii, 11. With this contrast the ex- pression attributed to a speaker in Macrob. Sat. i. rr ‘quasi vero curent divina de servis.’ 4 Philem, 16, 5 ver. 12. 314 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 restoring Onesimus to his master. Tychicus, as the bearer of letters from the Apostle to Laodicea and Colosse, had oceasion 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 saiutation 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 writing. Though he has a right to command, he prefers rather to entreat. He has a petition to prefer on behalf of a child of 1 Dig. i. 6 ‘In potestate sunt servi 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. 219 8g. ‘Pone crucem servo. Meruit quo crimine servus supplicium? quis testis adest? quis detulit?... O demens, ita servus homo est? nil fecerit, esto. Hoc volo, sic jubeo, etc. Compare the words of the slave in Plautus Mil. Glor. ii. 4. 19 ‘Noli minitari: scio crucem futuram mihi sepulerum: Ibi mei sunt majores siti, pater, avos, proayvos, abavos.’ EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 315 his own. This is none other than Onesimus, whom Philemon Analysis will remember only as a worthless creature, altogether untrue ee 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 It is reasonable to suppose however that Philemon would not panel 316 Legendary history. Deprecia- tion of the 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 the Aposile’s petition, and emancipate the penitent. But all this is a mere conjecture. One tradition makes Onesimus bishop of Ephesus*, But this obviously arises from a confusion with his namesake, who lived about half a century later*, Another story points to Bereea 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 of 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. Another story, which gives a circumstantial account of his martyrdom at Puteoli, seems te confuse him with 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 against it. The ‘spirit of the age’ had no sympathy with either the subject or the handling. Like the spirit of more than one later age, it was enamoured of its own narrowness, which it mistook for largeness of view, and it could not condescend to such trivialities as were here offered to it. Its maxim seemed to be De minimis non curat evangelium. Of what account was 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. may be intended. But on the other (11. p. 857 sq. ed. nov.) for the autho- rities, if they deserve the name. 2 If we take the earlier date of the Fpistles of St Ignatius, a.p. 107, we get an interval of 44 years between the Onesimus of St Paul and the Onesimus of Ignatius. It is not altogether impos- sible therefore that the same person hand the language of Ignatius (Ephes. r sq.) leaves the impression that he is speaking of a person comparatively young and untried in office. 3 Apost. Const. vii. 46, quoted above, p. 206, note 1. 4 For the legend compare Act. Sanct. 1. c, 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 fathers. 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. 317 In modern times there has been no disposition to under-rate High es- its value. Even Luther and Calvin, whose bias tended to the timate of modern depreciation of the ethical as compared with the doctrinal Yr portions of the scriptures, show a true appreciation of its beauty and significance. ‘This epistle’, writes Luther, ‘showeth a Luther. right noble loyely example of Christian love. Here we see how note on the Ignatian Mart. Rom. to. 1 Hieron. Comm. in Philem. praef. vir. 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 breyitas sua profuit, ut fal- Sarias manus Marcionis evaderet.’ 7 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- ritusferre potuisset etc.,. His et cacteris istius modi volunt aut epistolam non esse Pauli quae ad Philemonem scri- bitur aut, etiamsi Pauli sit, nihil ha- bere quod aedificare nos possit etc.... 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. adn’ érecdy twés pact wepitrov elvac Td Kal TavTyY mpoc- Keto bat Thy értoroAjy, elye brép mpdypua- Tos miKpov nilwaev, Uép évds avbpbs, wa- Oérwoav boot TavTa éyKkadovow sre puplwy elsiv éyxAnuarwy Géiot x.T.X., and he goes on to discuss the value of the epistle at some length. * Spicil. Solesm. 1. 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 nunc superius dixi, quod non omnes similiter arbitror potius se (potuisse?) prospicere.’ 318 Calvin. Later writers. The epi- stle com- pared with a letter of Pliny, 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, 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. ‘The single Epistle to Philemon, says one quoted by Bengel, ‘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 Epistle to Philemon has more than once been com- pared with the following letter addressed to a friend by the younger Pliny on a somewhat similar occasion ° : 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 ete. p. 458. realised, 6 Adyos Yudy wdvrore év xdpiTt, 3 L’ Antéchrist p. 96. dare npruuévos x.7.d. (Col. iy. 6).’ 4 L’Apétre Paul p. 194. He goes on 5 Paulus p. 476. to say; ‘ Never has the precept which 6 Plin. Ep. ix. 21. EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 319 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 readily 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 2s torture to you, when one of your gentle temper is angry. J 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 unreservedly, because I scolded the man himself with sharpness and severity ; for I 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 ag an ex- gentleman, and this touching letter needs no words of praise. ess Yet, if purity of diction be excepted, there will hardly be any racter. 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 ts higher an expression of individual character is far less important than ™**t®**- 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, 320 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. Slavery But though the same in name, it was in its actual working ces Lome something wholly different. The Hebrew was not suffered either by law-giver er 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 and violence of their masters. Considering the conditions of 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 Pires Shain 2 ‘ slavesin different. In our enthusiastic eulogies of free, enlightened, ee democratic Athens, we are apt to forget that the interests of the many were ruthlessly sacrificed to the selfishness of the 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. 1 8q. 2 In 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 8q. 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 Atgina, 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®. And these vast masses of human beings had no protection Cruelty of from Roman law *. jugal rights. pleasure, but not marriage. assigned to him by lot® The slave was absolutely at his master’s disposal; for the smallest offence he might be scourged, His companion was sometimes mutilated, crucified, thrown to the wild beasts *% which is adopted in the text. For other calculations see Wallon Histoire de VEsclavage 1. p. 221 sq. 1 Athen, l.c. p. 272 B,D. The state- ment respecting Aigina is given on the authority of Aristotle; that re- specting Corinth on the authority of Epitimeus. 2 Athen. l.c. ‘Pwualwy &xacros... mrelarous Scous KexTnuévos olkéras* Kal yap puplous kal Sicuuplous Kal Ere wdelous 5é mdproddoe Kéxrnvraz. See Becker Gallus 1, p. 113 (ed. 3). *) Pins Ne. xxaiit. 47- 4 On the condition of Greek and Roman slaves the able and exhaust- ive work of Wallon Histoire de lEs- clavage dans VAntiquité (Paris 1847) is the chief authority. See also Becker and Marquardt Rom. Alterth. v. 1. p. 139 sq.; Becker Charikles 11. p. 1 8q., Gallus u. p. 99 sq. The practical COL, 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 I. p. 158 sq. 5 Rom, Alterth.1.¢. p. 184 8q.; Gallus Ir p. 144 8q. Itt 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 8q.; Rom. Alterth. l.c.; Gallus 1. p. 145 8q.; Rein Privat. 2I The slave had no relationships, no con- Bom Cohabitation was allowed to him at his owner’s Mia 322 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 had been enacted under the sanction of the law*. Pedanius Secundus, a senator, had been slain by one of his slaves in a fit of anger or jealousy. The law demanded that in such cases all the slaves under the same roof at the time should be put to death. On the present occasion four hundred persons were condemned to suffer by this inhuman enactment. The populace however interposed to rescue them, and a tumult ensued. The Senate accordingly took the matter into delibera- tion. Among the speakers C. Cassius strongly advocated the enforcement of the law. ‘The dispositions of slaves,’ he argued, ‘were regarded with suspicion by our ancestors, even when they were born on the same estates or in the same houses and learnt to feel an affection for their masters from the first. Now however, when we have several nations among our slaves, with various rites, with foreign religions or none at all, it is not possible to keep down such a rabble except by fear’ These sentiments prevailed, and the law was put in force. But the roads were lined by a military guard, as the prisoners were 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 Romer 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. D, Io. 2 Senec. Ep. Mor. 47 ‘Deinde ejus- dem arrogantiae proverbium jactatur totidem hostes esse quot servos’; comp. Macrob. i. rr. 13. See also Festus p. 261 (Hd. Mueller) ‘Quot servi tot hostes in proverbio est’. EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 323 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 ea in conflict. How was the evil to be met? Slavery was in- revolu- woven into the texture of society; and to prohibit slavery was "°°": 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- lution®’ It belongs to all time: and therefore, instead of attacking special abuses, it lays down universal principles which shall undermine the evil. Hence the Gospel never directly attacks slavery as an in- St Faul's reatment stitution: the Apostles never command the liberation of slaves of the as an absolute duty. It is a remarkable fact that St Paul in roar 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 n’avait rien. oils le principe; et tout ce qu’on en peut tirer par voice de conséquence formait aussi, en fait, l'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 destinde par Bes rigueurs comme par son indif- ference. Dans lage de la force et dans la plénitude de leurs facultés, elle les vouait, & 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 a son 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...’ 2G. Smith Does the Bible etc. ? pp. 95) 96. 2I—2 324 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 his lot in life. 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 1 1 Cor. vii. 21 sq. 2 The clause, d\N’ ef Kal divaca éNevOepos yevécOat, waddov xpjoa, 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, SovAov wréuacev dvayKkalws Tov vyeyaunkéra. 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 el divacat éAevIepwOjvat, EhevOepwOnrt, himself supposes St Paul to advise the slave’s remaining in slavery. And so Theodoret and others, The balance of argument seems tc be decidedly in favour of the former view. (1) The actual language must be considered first. And here (i) the particles ef xat will suit either inter- pretation. Ifthey are translated ‘even though’, the clause recommends the continuance in slavery. But xai may be equally well taken with divaca, and the words will then mean ‘if it should be in your power to obtain your free- dom’. So above ver. 11 éav dé xat xwpicd7: comp. Luke xi, 18 ef dé Kat 6 Laravas ép’ éavrév diepepioOy, 1 Pet. iii, 14 GAN’ el kal macxoire did dixatogv- vyv. (ii) The expression “addov xpyoae 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 d\n’ e EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 325 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 | in the end prove fatal to slavery. When the Gospel taught ante that God had made all men and women upon earth of one * *!very- 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 im short the Apostolic precept that ‘in Christ Jesus is neither bond nor free’ was not only recognised but acted upon, then slavery was doomed. MHenceforward 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. kal...ua\X\ov xpyoae is 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- vantageous 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. 1r édv 6¢ xal ywpicOF K.T.r., Ver. 15 el 62 6 dmicros xwplterat x.7.. This last passage is an exact parallel, for the yap 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 ‘The brotherhood of man, in short, is the idea (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 Paul’s injunctions here may be seen from vv. 8, 11, 15; 26, 27 etc. 1 Ephes. vi. s—g, Col. iii. 22—iy. 1. 326 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. Its general which Christianity in its social phase has been always striving meen’ 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’.’ Its effects And this beneficent tendency of the Gospel was felt at onslavery- 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 Protection chivalry of the Gospel which regarded the weak and helpless and manu- : : : . mission of from whatever cause, as its special charge, which extended its slaves. —_ 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*. Honours But even more important than overt acts like these was the paid to ‘ : : - slave mar- Moral and social importance with which the slave was now ayra. 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. bington Abolition of Slavery p. 20 sq. 2 Athenag. Suppl. 35 Soidof elow 3 Ignat. Polyc. 4 wh épdrwoav dao hyutv, rots pev Kal whelous rots 8’ éXarrovs. Tov Kowod édevOepovcba, Apost. Const. It would even appear that the domes- iv. 9 7a é& airdv, ws mpoeipjKaper, tic servant who betrayed Polycarp d6potdueva xphyara diardocere dsaxo- (Mart. Polyc. 6) was a slave, for he voivres els dyopacpods Tw dyluv, pud- was put to the torture. Comp. Justin. pmevoe dovrous Kal alxwadwrovs, de- Apol. ii. 12. See also passages from oylous, x.7.r. EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 327 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 pe ah 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 Pea. mixed character indeed it reflects the transitional position of "*- 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. 321, 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 111. p. 60 8q., Rom. Alterth. v. I. 197, Rein Privatrecht d. Rimer p. 5608q. 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) Aaxrltover Kal tos édPOadpuods ¢£oput- Tougt Kal ypadelw xevrovow k.T.d. (comp. ib. p. 584), or Seneca de Ira iii. 3. 6 ‘eculei et fidiculae et ergastula et crn- 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 caveae.,’ On the causes of these ameliorations in the lawsee Rom. Alterth. v. 1. p. 199. 2 On the legislation of Constan- tine affecting slavery see De Broglie 328 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. Subse- And on the whole this part has been faithfully and courage- prea ously performed by the Church. There have been shameful Chan’, 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 a violent social revolution. 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» The emancipation of slaves was 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. The con- And at length we seem to see the beginning of the end. eseilegg The rapid strides towards emancipation during the present aale ,, 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 L’Eglise et L’Empire Romain t. p. 304 gq. (ed. 5), Chawner Influence of Chris- tianity upon the Legislation of Con- stantine the Great p. 73 sq., Wallon m1. p. 4148q. The legislation of Justinian is still more honourably distinguished for its alleviation of the evils of slavery. 1 E.g. Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia (Spic. Solesm. 1. p. 152)- Yet St Chrysostom himself pleads the cause of slaves earnestly elsewhere. In Hom. xl ad 1 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 whatcanIdo? For this purpose I am appointed, and I will not cease speak- ing so.’ 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 Vl Abolition de VEsclavage Ancien en Occident (1840), Ch. Ba- bington Influence of Christianity in promoting the Abolition of Slavery etc. (1846), Schmidt Essai historique sur la Société Civile dans le Monde Romain etc. p. 228 sq. (1853), Mohler Gesam- melte Schriften 11. p. 54 8q., G. Smith Does the Bible etc.? p. 95 8q., EH. 8. Talbot Slavery as affected by Christianity (1869), Lecky Rationalism in Europe 11. p. 255 8q., European Morals u. p. 65 sq., Overbeck Studien etc. 1. 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. 3 Mohler p. 99 8q., Schmidt p. 246 8q., Lecky EZ, M. 11. p. 73 8q- 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 II., 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. 329 HPOS ®IAHMONA. WHERE THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS, THERE IS LIBERTY. WHO IS WEAK, AND I AM NOT WEAK 4 WHO IS OFFENDED, AND I BURN NOT? Such ever was love's way: to rise, it stoops. IrPos ®IAHMONA. AYAOZX, Séopuos Xpiorov “Incot Kai Tipobeos 6 dderhos, Piro TO ayannTw kal cuvepyw nbav = Kal Ampig ™ aden Kat Apxyinrw TW wail an 4 MOY Kal ™ KaT oikov cou éxkAnola: I—3. ‘PAUL, now a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and TimotHy a brother in the faith, unto PHi~emMoNn our dearly-beloved and fellow-labourer in the Gospel, and unto Arpura our sis- ter, and unto Ancuirrus 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.’ I, décptos] 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. Tiuddeos| 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 adedgos applied to Timothy see the note on Col. i. 1. Prjuou xr.A.] On the persons here addressed, and the language in which they are ’ described, see the in- troduction p. 303 sq. auvepyo|} It would probably be during St Paul's long sojourn at Ephe- 3yapis Upiy sus that Philemon had laboured with him: see above p. 31 sq. npav] should probably be attached to dyanrnré as well as to cuvepyd; comp. Rom. xvi. 5, 8,9, 1 Cor. x. 14, Phill 31.712, 2. ty adeAp7] For this the re- ceived text has 77 ayarnr7. Internal probabilities can be urged in favour of both readings. On the one hand dyarntn might have been introduced for the sake of conformity to the pre- ceding dyarynr@; on the other adedpy might have been substituted for dya- mtn On grounds of false delicacy. Theodore of Mopsuestia (Spicil. So- lesm. 1. p. 154), who had the reading dyarntn, 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 r7 adekdp7, because the preponderance of ancient authority is very decidedly in its favour. ovvotpariatn] These spiritual cam- paigns, in which Archippus was his comrade, probably took place while St Paul was at Ephesus (a.p. 24—57). For the word ovvotpatiarns see Phil. ii. 25. The metaphor of orpareia, orparevecOa, is common in St Paul. T7 kat oikov x.r.A.] probably at Co- lossze; see above p. 304.8q. For the 334 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. (4, 5 \ reat 4 > \ lol A e ~ \ , > - Kai elonvn amo Qeov Tatpos nuwy Kat Kupiov “Inoou Xpiotov. pax anton Tw Oew pou TAVTOTE, [LVElaAY OU TOLOU- mevos él TMV TPOTEVXWY MoU, SdKOVWY GoU THY ayarTNY 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 is my 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 dxovwy k.r.A. is separated from evxyapioTe x.7.A., On which it depends, by the intervening clause pveiay gov x.t.A. Which intro- duces another thought. It itself in- terposes between two clauses, pyeiav gov x.t.A. and Omws 79 kKowovia k.T.d., 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 xa- pay yap x.7.A. there is again a recur- rence to a topic which has occurred in an earlier part of the sentence (rv dyamnyv...eis mavras tovs ayiouvs) but which has been dropped, before it was exhausted, owing to the pressure of another more importunate thought. 4. Evxapicro] See the note on 1 Thess, i. 2. mavrore| should probably be taken with evyapicro (rather than with pveiay x.t.A.), according to St Paul’s usual collocation in these opening thanksgivings: see the notes on Col. 1°35 Phils 3 pveiav cov k.7.A.] ‘making mention of thee. For preiay roeicbar see the note on 1 Thess. i. 2: Here the ‘ men- tion’ involves the idea of intercession on behalf of Philemon, and so intro- duces the dws «rd. of ver. 6. See the note there. 5. dxovev] Thisinformation would probably come from Epaphras (Ool. i. 7, 8, iv. 12) rather than from Onesi- mus. The participle is connected more directly with evxapioro than with the intervening words, and ex- plains the grounds of the Apostle’s thanksgiving. Tv ayannv x.7.A.] ie. ‘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 i is Philemon’s love. This suggests the mention of his faith, 6] EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 335 \ \ , Se i) \ l - a reer Kal THY TLOTLW HV EXELS TOS TOV Kupioy ‘Incovy Kai Eis / \ Ce 0 6 WAaAVTAS TOUS AYLOUS, J , lon , / OTWS 4 KOLVWVIa THS TiCGTEWS Cou 5 ° / \ ~ n > évepyns yevnrat év émiyvwoe. mavtos dyabov tov év 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 ryy micrw Kai Thy dya- mv—an obvious emendation. Others would obviate the difficulty by giving to rior the meaning ‘ fidelity, sted- fastness’; Winer §1. p. 511 sq. Thus they are enabled to refer both words, miotw Kat aydmnv, equally to both the clauses which follow. But though this is a legitimate sense of mioris in St Paul (see Galatians p. 155), yet in immediate connexion with jv exets mpos tov Kupiov “Ingovy, 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. mpos x.t.\.] The change of prepo- sitions, mpos tov Kupiov ‘ towards the Lord’ and cis rovs dyiovs ‘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 (zpo-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 eds is much more common with riotts (morevewv), as it is also with dydmn, mpds being quite exceptional (1 Thess. i. 8 4 mioris Judy 1) mpos Tov Gedv; comp. 2 Cor. iii. 4), But where a distinction is necessary, there is a propriety in using mpds of the faith which aspires towards Christ, and eis of the love which is exerted upon men. Some good copies read eis here in both clauses. 6. Gras x.r..] to be taken with pveiay cov Trovovpevos k.T.r., aS giving the aim and purport of St Paul’s prayer. Others connect it with jy éxes, a8 if it described the tendency of Philemon’s faith, ‘ita ut’; but, even if daws could bear this meaning, such a connexion is altogether harsh and improbable. 7 kowovia k.7.A.] 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 emi rf kowavia Upav els To evayyéArov, Heb. xiii. 16 tis evmotias Kal Kowwvias, Whence kowowvia is uged especially of ‘contributions, almsgiving’, Rom. EV. 226, 62. Cor. vill 4,, 1X92 35 (2) ‘Your communion with God through faith’: comp. 1 Cor. i, 9, and see also 2 Cor. xiii. 13, 1 Joh. i. 3, 6,7. The 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; ef xowovos ei, noi, kata thy miotiv, writes Chrysos- tom, kai xara Ta GdAa odeires Kowo- veiv (comp. Tit. i. 3 cata xowny ricrw): but it is out of place in this context. evepyns| ‘effective’. The Latin translators must have read évapyns, for they render the word evidens or manifesta. Jerome (ad. loc.) speaks of evidens as the reading of the Latin, and eficax of the Greek text. The converse error appears in the mss of Clem. Hom. xvii. 5, évépyea for évdp- 336 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. [7 ea bd x “4 9 4 “A \ 4 \ / nuiv ets Xpiotov. 7 yapav yap ToANAHY Eoyov kat Tapa- \ ae , e/ \ , = KAnow €mt TH ayaTy Gov, OTL TA OTAAYXVA THY ayiwY / \ ~ > / avAaTETTAVTaL Ola TOU, ddEAPE. 6. ev vyiv els Xpiordv. yeca. See also similar vy. ll in Orig. c. Cels. 1.25, ii. 52, iv. 89. ev emvyvocet K.t.A.] ‘in the perfect knowledge of every good thing’. This entyvwots, 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 émiyvwors: see the note on Col. i. 9. This éiyvwors is the result and the reward of faith manifesting itself in deeds of love, éras 9 xowwvia tis mi- orews x.t.A. For the sequence comp. Ephes. iv. 13 eis thy évornta tis. wi- oTews kal Ths éemtyvdceas k.T.A., Tit. i. I kata miotww éxexTav Ocov kal eni- yvoow adnbeias ths Kar’ evoeBecav. The émiyvaors 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’. rou ev nuiv| ‘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 rod év vpiv be adopted, the reference will be restricted to the brotherhood at Colosse, but the meaning must be substantially the same. Though vuiv has somewhat better support, we seem to be justi- fied in preferring jyiv 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 nui into vpiv 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 rod, which seemed to be superfluous but is really required for the sense. ets Xprorov] ‘unto Christ’, i.e. lead- ing to Him as the goal. The words should be connected not with rov év nuiv, but with the main statement of the sentence évepyns yevnrat k.T.A. 7. xapav yap] 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. ‘“his 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 evyapiota To Oc@ pov...... dxovwy gov TY ayarnv +--xapay yap moAAqy éoxov k.t-r. For xapav the received text (Steph. but not Elz.) reads xapiv, 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. ra omdayxval| ‘the heart, the spi- rits’, On ra omdayxva, 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, etc. dvaréravrat| ‘have been relieved, refreshed’, comp. ver. 20. The com- pound dvaraverOa expresses a tem- porary relief, as the simple mavec@a expresses a final cessation: Plut. Vie. Lucull. 5 moddGv adits dvakwotvrav Tov MiOpidarixov modeynov hn Mdpxos 8, 9] EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 337 8 Ao moAAnv év Xpiorte wappnolay exw émiTacocey ool TO aviKov, 90a THY ayaTnv padroy mapakado, TowvTos wy ws TlavAos mpesBuTns vuvi dé Kai déopuos g. viv dé Kal déopuos. avuTov ov metavaOat add’ avaTe- mavoOat. 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. adekpé] 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 entreat, where I might command. My office gives me authority to dictate thy duty in plajn 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. But 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 COL. 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. Avo] ice. ‘Seeing that I have these proofs of thy love, I prefer to entreat, where I might command’, mappnoiav| ‘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 €v Xpiore. To avixov|] ‘what is fitting’: see the note on Col. iii. 18. 9. dia tiv dyarny] ‘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. TowouTos @y x.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 towovtos wy to be connected with or separated from ws IlatAos x.r.\.? If se-" parated, rovodros wy will mean ‘though as an Apostle I am armed with such authority’, and ws Taddos x.t.A. will describe his condescension to entreaty, ‘yet as simply Paul, etc. But the other construction is much more pro- bable for the following reasons. (qa) TowuvTos @v SO used, implying, as it would, something of a personal boast, seems unlike St Paul’s usual mode of speaking. Several interpreters in- 22 338 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON, [10 Ba ay Tl; es 10 a AW Z \ ~ 9 ~ , plo7 OV WOOU. TANAKA @ TE TEGL TOU € [Ou TEKVOU, deed, taking rootros @v separately, refer it to ver. 8, ‘seeing that this is my disposition’, i.e. ‘seeing that I desire to entreat’; but rovotros sug- gests more than an accidental impulse. (b) As rovodros and os are correlative words, itismorenatural to connectthem together; comp. Plato Symp. 181 E mpocavayxately TO TOLOLTOY woTrEp Kal xr.A., Alexis (Meineke Fragm. Com. IIL p. 399) rowdro to (nv eotw worep oi kvBo.. Such passages are an answer to the objection that rovodros would require some stronger word than as, such as oios, 6s, or ore. Even after such expressions a8 6 avrés, TO auro, instances occur of ws (domep): see Lobeck PAryn. p. 427, Stallbaum on Plat. Phoed. 86 A. Indeed it may be questioned whether any word but ws would give exactly St Paul’s meaning here. (c) All the Greek commentators without a single exception connect the words rowitros ev ws TatXos to- gether. (2) Assuming that the words To.ovTos @y ws xk.7.A. 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 apaxade@ (ver. 10) begins a new sentence, which introduces a fresh subject. The Apostle has before de- scribed the character of his appeal; he now speaks of its object. (3) In either connexion, what is the point of the words rowitos dy ws TavAos xt.A.? Do they lay down the grounds of his entreaty, or do they enforce his right to command? If the view of mpeoBurns adopted below be correct, the latter must be the true interpre- tation; but even though mpeoBurns be taken in its ordinary sense, this will still remain the more probable alternative; for, while mpeoBurns and Séopuos would suit either entreaty or command, the addition Xpicrod *Inaod suggests an appeal to authority. os Iladdos] The mention of his per- sonal name inyolves an assertion of authority, as in Ephes. iii. 1; comp. Gal. v. 2, with the note there. Theo- doret writes, o IlatAov dxovoas tis olxoupevns dkovet TOV KNpUKA, ‘yis Kat Oadarrns Tov yewpyov, THS ExAoyhs TO oKevos, k.T.A. mpecBurns] Comparing a passage in the contemporary epistle, Ephes. vi. 20 Unrép ov mpecBevw ev advoe, it had occurred to me that we should read mpeaBevtns 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. gqued. 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 apecBiztns may have been written indifferently for mpeoBevrjs 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 oc mpeoBv- repo. (a corruption of o. mpeoBura ot, for the common reading is oi mpec- Bevrai oi); in xiv. 22 it reads apecBu- rat Iovdawyv; but in xiii. 21 mpeoBev- ras: though in all passages alike the meaning is ‘ambassadors’. Again the Alexandrian Ms has mpeoBuras in xiii. 21, but mpeoBevra in xiv. 22, and ot moeoBeure ot (i.e. of mpeoBevrat of) in xiv. 21. In 2 Macc. xi. 34 this same MS has mpeoBure, and the reading of the common texts of the Lxx (even Tischendorf and Fritzsche) here is mpeoBora. 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 speoBurns in 1 Macc. xiii. 21. In 2 Chron. xxxii. 31 again the word for ‘ambassador’ 11] EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 339 e > ~ ~ , , , ov [eyo] éyevyvnoa év Tots beapots, Ovnoysov, Tov TrOTE is written thus in the Vatican ms, though the ¢« is added above the line; and here too several mss in Holmes and Parsons agree in reading mpec- Bvras. Thus it is plain that, 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 6 d€ ’AxvAas mpeoBitas e&€8wxev ei a@v, ‘O dmoaréAN wv ev Oaddoon Tpeo- Buras. Again in Ignat. Smyrn. 11 OeompeaButns is the form in all the mss of either recension, though the meaning is plainly ‘an ambassador of God.” So too in Clem. Hom. Ep. Clem. 6 the mss read o tas adnOeias mpeaBurns, Which even Schwegler and Dressel tacitly retain. See also Ap- pian Samn. 7, where mpeoBevrov is due to the later editors, and Acta Thomae § 10, where there is a v. 1. mpeoBirtns in at least one ms. And probably ex- amples of this substitution might be largely multiplied. 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. y / \ , averreprba col. “avTov, TovTéesTI Ta Eua OTAaYYVA, dear to the Apostle, as being the child of his sorrows. ’Ovicipov] for Ovncipov by attrac- tion, as e.g. Mark vi. 16 dv éyd drexe- dadica Iaavyny, odrds €or. Hence- forward he will be true to his name, no longer avovnros, but ovnoipos: comp. tuth i. 20 ‘Call me not Naomi (plea- sant) but call me Mara (bitter) etc.’ The word dypyoros is a synonyme for avovntos, Demosth. Phil. ili. § 40 (p. 12!) dravta tadta dypnora ampakra dvoévnta «.7.Xr.: comp. Pseudophocyl. 37 (34) xpnoros ornoipos é€ort, pidos & ddicov dvovnros. 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. 1-45, Flin. WN. 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 sq-, 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. fH. E. V. 24.6 Eipnvaios depavupos tis dy th mpoonyopia, a’t@ te TH Tpo- 7® eipnvomrotos. II, dypyorov,evxpyaroy | Comp. Plat. Resp. iii. p. AI1 A xpnowmov €& aypn- arov...eroingev. Of these words, aypy- otos is found only here, evypyoros occurs also 2 Tim. ii. 21, iv. 11, in the New Testament. Both appear in the Lxx. In Matt. xxv. 30a slave is de- scribed as dypeios. For the mode of expression comp. Ephes. v. 15 pa) ds acodot add’ es coho. Some have dis- covered in these words a reference to xptoros, aS commonly pronounced ypn- otros; comp. Theoph. ad Autoé, i. 12 TO xpiorov Od Kal evypnotoy x.T.X. and see Philippians p.16 note. Any such allusion however, even ifit should not involve an anachronism, is far too recondite to be probable here. The play on words is exhausted in the reference to ’Ovncipos. kai euoi] An after-thought ; comp. Phil. ii. 27 7Aenoev adrév, ovK adrov d€ povoy adda kat évé. This accounts for the exceptional order, where ac- cording to common Greek usage the first person would naturally precede the second. dvereppa] ‘I send back’, the epis- tolary aorist used for the present: see the notes on Phil. ii. 25,28. So too ¢ypa- 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. avrov x.t.A.] The reading of the received text is ov Oé adrov, rour- €oTt Ta éud omdayxva, mpoocdafPod. 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 mpocAaBov avrov ws eye, the grammar haying been meanwhile dis- located. For the emphatic position of avrov comp. John ix. 21, 23, Ephes. Ie 2s ta epa orrayxval ‘my very heart’, a mode of speech common in all lan- guages. For the meaning of omAayxva see the note on Phil. i. 8. Comp. Test. Patr. Zab. 8, Neph. 4, in both which passages Christ is called 76 omAayxvoy of God, and in the first it is said ¢yere evomAayxviav...iva Kal 6 Kuptos eis twas omrayxuobeis eXenon Uuas’ dott xalye em éoydTav nuepav 0 Geos amooréAXet TO OMAayXVOV av- Tov emt ths yns Kt.A. Otherwise Ta éua omAdyxva has been interpreted ‘my son’ (comp. ver. 10 ov éyévynoa k.r.A.), and it is so rendered here in 13, 14] EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 341 13 rat 9 \ > , \ ’ \ / / e \ OV Eyw €BouNomny Tpos EMUAUTOV KATENVELY, lva UTTEO n a= na ~ land / A Gov mot dlakovn ev TOls SEooIs TOU EvayyeALou: “+ ywpis t the Peshito. For this sense of om\ay- xva comp. Artemid. Oneir. i. 44 of maides omdayxva Aéyovra, tb. V. 57 ra O€ omAayxva [éojpave] rov maida, oUT@ yap kal Tov maida KaXetv bos eori. With this meaning it is used not less of the father than of the mother; e.g. Philo de Joseph. 5 (11. p. 45) Anp- ow evoyia Kal Ooivn yéyovas yevoape- vols...TOY Euav omdrayxvev, Basil. Op. IIL. p. 501 6 ev mporetverar ta oTAdy- xva tinny trav tpopev. 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 oy éyévynoa x.t.d., and (what is a more serious objection) it is wholly unsupported by St Paul’s usage elsewhere, which connects omayxva with a different class of ideas: see e.g. VV. 7, 20. 13. é€Bovdouny] ‘I was of a mina’, distinguished from 76éAnca, which follows, in two respects; (1) While Bovrecba involves the idea of ‘ pur- pose, deliberation, desire, mind’, 6é- Aew denotes simply ‘ will’; Epictet. i. 12. 13 BovAopat ypadev, ws Gedo, TO Aiwvos dvopa; ov* dda OidacKopa Oé- Aew ws Sei ypaperba, ili. 24. 54 Tov- tov Oéde opay, kat ov BovAe oer. (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 ¢Bovddopunv pev otk epifew evOdde, Antiph. de Herod. caed. I (p. 129) €BovAouny pev...viv Sé K.7.A. 5 Isaeus de Arist. haer. 1. (p. 79) éBovdd- pnv pev...vov S€ ovK e& toov xkt.d, Misch. c. Ctes. 2 (p. 53) €Bovdopuny pev ovv, @ ’AOnvaiot...emerd) Sé mavra «.7.A., Lucian Abd. I é€BovAdunyv pev ovy thy tatpikny K.T.A....vuvt 52 K.T.A.3 see Kihner § 392 0 (11. p. 177). So Acts xxv. 22 éBovAcunv Kal avros Tov avOpamov dxovoa, 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 nOedov Gal. iy. 20, nvyounv 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’. karéxew] ‘to detain’ or ‘retain’, opposed to the following dméxns, ver. suis vmep gov k.7.A.] Comp. Phil. ii. 30 iva dvarAnpoon TO vuav voTépnpa Tis mpos pe etroupyias, I Cor. Xvi. 17 TO VpETEpov VoTEepnua avToOL dvemAnpacay. See the note on Col.i.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 tots Secpois| An indirect appeal to his compassion: see vv. 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- Alov, describing the origin, comp. Col. i. 23 THs eAridos Tov evayyedlov. 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: Trail. 12 mapaxadet vuas Ta Seoud pov, Philad. 7 paptus 342 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. [15, 16 \ ~ lod fe Nw | pwawd - e/ \ € O€ THS Hs yveopns OUcEV nena Toujoat, twa pa} os KaTa dvarykny TO ayabov oou ns adANa@ KaTa EkoUGctov" Sraxee rap eal pon éxwoploOn Tpos wpay, ive QiwVvLoy auTov aTEXNS, * 6 oUKETL WS d€é pou ev d dédepat, Ephes. 11 év @ (i.€. Xpior@ Inco’) Ta Seopa mepipepa, Tous mVEUpaTLKOS papyapiras, Smyrn. 10 dvriyuxov vuay TO Tyeda pou Kal ra Seopa pov, Magn. 1 év ois mepipepw Seopois ada Tas exkAnogias; see also Ephes. 1, 3, 21, Magn. 12, Trall. 1,5, 10, Smyrn. 4, 11, Polyc. 2, Rom. 1, 4, 5, Philad. 5. 14. xopis K.T.A.] § without thy ap- proval, consent’; Polyb. ii. 21. 1, 3, xopis THs oeréepas yvopns, xapis THs avrod yvouns: similarly dvev [ris] yvopns, &g. Polyb. xxi. 8.7, Ign. Polye. 4. os kata avaykny] St Paul does not say xara dvayxny but ds xara avaykny. He will not suppose that it would really be by constraint; but it must not even wear the appearance (as) of being so; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 17 os év ddpoovyy. See Plin. Hp.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. To dyabov cov] ‘the benefit arising from thee’, i.e. ‘the good which I should get from the continued pre- sence of Onesimus, and which would be owing to thee’. kata exovo.oyv] asin Num. xv. 3. The form xa@’ éxovoiav is perhaps more classical: Thue. viii. 27 xa@’ éxovciav 4} mavu ye avayky, The word under- stood in the one case appears to be rpomov (Porphyr. de Abst. i. 9 xaé’ éxovotov tporov, comp. Eur. Med. 751 Exovoi@ tpor@); in the other, yrouny (so éxovoia, €& Exovaias, etc.) : comp. Lobeck Phryn. p. 4. 15. taxa yap x.7-A.] The yap ex- plains an additional motive which guided the Apostle’s decision: ‘I did not dare to detain him, however SovNov, dANa UaeEp SovAoy, much I desired it. I might have de- feated the purpose for which God in His good providence allowed him to leave thee’. éywpic6n] ‘ He does not say’, writes Chrysostom, ‘ For 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? mpos w@pav] ‘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 afew months ; he returns to be with you for all time and for eternity’. This sense of aiévoy 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. aréxns| In this connexion dméxew may bear either of two senses: (1) ‘to have back, to have in return’: or (2) ‘to have to the Sull, to have wholly’, - as in Phil. iv. 18 awéyw mavra (see the note). In other words the prominent idea in the word may be either vresti- tution, or completeness. The former is the more probable sense here, as suggested by xaréyeu in verse 13 and by é¢xpio6n in this verse. 16. os Sovdov] St Paul does not say SovAov but ws dSotdAov. It was a 17—19] EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 343 > \ 5] , / > , (ig \ cad addekhov adyarntov, padioTta éuol, moow Oé padXov \ \ > \ 4 > / OL Kal EV TapKi Kal EV Kupiw. ? a 7 Tet OUV ME EXELS KOL- / ~ > \ ¢ ? / TS 43 4 2Q/ , VWwVOV, mTpooAaou avTov ws euer et O€ TL HOlKNOEV OE ed / = ? NAD 4 n opetrel, TOUTO Euar EAAOYA. matter of indifference whether he were outwardly dSovAos or outwardly €\evOepos, 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 pykért, but ovxére. The negation is thus wholly independent of iva...azé- xns. It 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. adeApoy ayamnroyv] Kal Td xpdv@ ke- képdaxas Kat TH movotntt, writes Chry- sostom, apostrophizing Philemon. moow dé paddov x.r.A.] Having first said ‘most of all to me’, he goes a step further, ‘more than most of all to thee’. kal ev capki k.r.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. Zvall. 12 xara mavta pe avemavoay capi Te Kal mvev- part. 17. éxeus xowavoyv] ‘thou holdest me to be a comrade, an intimate Sriend? For this use of €yew comp. Luke xiv. 18 exe pe Tapntnuevoy, Phil. ii. 29 Tovs rovovrous évTipous ExETE. Those are xowvwvoi, who have common interests, common feelings, common work. 18—22. ‘Butif hehas done thee any injury, or if he stands in thy debt, setit downto my account. Hereis my signature—Paul—in my own hand- 9 éywo TlaiXNos éypava writing. Accept this as 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 I hope that through your prayers I shall be set free and given to you once more.’ 18. ef d¢€ rt] The case is stated hypothetically 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. 7) odpeider] defining the offence which has been indicated in 7diknoev. But still the Apostle refrains from using the plain word ékA\eyer. He would spare the penitent slave, and avoid irritating the injured master. €AXdyal ‘ reckon it in’, ‘ set it down’. This form must be adopted instead of é\Aoyet Which stands in the received text, as the great preponderance of authority shows. On the other hand we have eAdoyeirac Rom. v. 13 (though with a v.L éAdoyarar), €ANoyoupevav Boeckh C.J. no. 1732 A, and évoyei- cba Edict. Diocl. in Corp. Inscr. Lat. 1. p.836. But the word is so rare in any form, that these occurrences of é\Xoyeiv afford no ground for exclud- ing é\\oyayv as impossible. The two forms might be employed side by side, just as we find edeav and édeceiv, Evpay and éupeiv, épwrav and éepwreiv (Matt. 344 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. [20 ~ gun vel, yw amotiow iva un Néyw ool, OTL Kat TH nin xeLpl, ey yn A€yw cor, / OeavTOV Mol Tpcc~oPetNers. 7 / / , yal, adehPe, Eyw cou ovai- bd / / f \ y 9 a yyy év Kupiw* avaravooy pou Ta omAayxva ev XploTo. xy. 23), and the like; see Buttmann Ausf. Gramm. § 112 (IL p. 53). The word Aoyay, as used by Lucian Lexiph, 15 (where it is a desiderative ‘to be cager to speak’, like dovav, Oavarar, appaxar, etc.), has nothing to do with the use of €Adoyay here. 19. é€y® Haddos|] The introduc- tion of his own name gives it the cha- racter of a formal and binding signa- ture: comp. 1 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, éeyad o deiva,— I so and so’; where weshould omit the marks of the first person. éypawa| An epistolary or docu- mentary aorist, as in ver. 21; so too avérepva ver. 11. See the note on éypawa Gal. vi. 11. The aorist is the tense commonly used in signatures ; e.g. Umeypaya 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. d.¢. iva py eyo] ‘not to say’, as 2 Cor. ix. 4. There isa suppressed thought, ‘though indeed you cannot fairly claim repayment’, ‘though indeed you owe me (ddeiAers)as muchas this’, on which the iva pr x.7.A. is dependent. Hence mpocopeires ‘owest besides’; for this 1s the common meaning of the word. ceavrovy] 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. Pp. 717 B os Oéuts oeidovta amorivew Tu TPOTa Te Kal péyiora oeAnuara... vowitew S€, & KéxtTnTat Kat €xel, TavTa elvat TOY YEeVvYNGaYTOV...apYopevoy aro THs ovcias, SevTepa TUTOU TapaTos, Tpita Ta THS Wuyps, dmotivoyta Oa- velopata K.T.A. 20, vai| introducing an affectionate appeal as in Phil. iv. 3 vai épwrd Kat oe. addedpe] Itis 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. éyd] ‘I seem to be entreating for Onesimus; but I am pleading for my- self; the favour wiil be done to me’; comp. ver. 17 mpocAaBov avrov ds eye. The emphatic ¢yw identifies the cause of Onesimus with his own. ° cov ovaipny] ‘may I have satis- JSaction, 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 tho word ovaiuny would suggest the thought of filial offices; eg. Arist. Thesm. 469 ovtws ovaiuny trav TéK- vov, Lucian Philops. 27 mpos thy oy tov viéwy, ovTws dvaipny, en, rourov, Ps-Ignat. Hero 6 ovaipny cov, matdlov mobewor, Synes. Ep. 44 otra THs tepas Pitocodias ovaipny kal mpoc- éTL TOY TaLOlwy Tay é€uavrod, With other passages quoted in Wetstein. So too for ovacOa, dynos, compare Eur. Med. 1025 sq. mpiv ofov dva- oGat... GAdkws Gp vpas, @ TéKY, e&e- Opewapnv, Alc. 333 ddis dé waidor Tavd Ovnao.y evxopnat Bevis yeverOat, Philem. Jnc. 64 (Iv. p. 55 Meineke) ETEKES ME, PTEP, Kal YEvoLTO ToL TEK- vov dynos, womep kal Sixaidy éeoti oo, Ecclus, xxx. 2 0 maidevav Tov vidv avrod ovnaetat em aro (the BI, 22 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 345 an \ mA the a ” L , BIS Y \ *Vlerowws TH virakon cou Eypatla oot, Eldws OTL Kal L é ¢ \ \ / / uTep a EYW TOLNCELS. 3 eae Oc \ ¢€ , / Kal éTOimace uot Eeviav’ éArriCw yap OTe dia TwWY TpoTEVYwY UMaV ya- S # x pig Oijcomat piv. only passage in the Luxx where the word occurs). The prayer cvaipny cov, Ovaipny vor, etc., occurs several times in Ignatius; Polyc.1, 6, Magn. 2, 12, Ephes.2. It isnot unlikely that ovai- pynv 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 Kupia| As he had begotten Phi- lemon ¢v Kupio (comp. I Cor. iv. 15, 17), so it was ev Kupi that he looked for the recompense of filial offices. avaravoov k.t.A.] See the note ver. 7. 21. éypaa] ‘I write’: see the note on ver. 19. dmep @ A€yw «.t.A.] What was the thought upmost inthe 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. dua de x.7A.] When St Paul first contemplated visiting Rome, he had intended, after leaving the me- tropolis, to pass westward into Spain; Rom. xv. 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 sce for himself that Philemon had not disappointed his expectations. Simi- larly Serapion in Eus. 4. £, vi. 12 mpoodokaré me év Taxel. Eeviay| ‘alodging’; comp. Clem. Flom. xii. 2 mpodéwow ras Eevias éroi- pagovres. So the Latin parare hospi- tium Cic. 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 £evia is probably the place of entertainment: but in such _ ‘phrases as xaheiv emt Evia, mapaxadeiv emt Eeviav, hporrigew Eevias, and the like, it denotes the offices of hospital- ity. The Latin hospitium also in- cludes both senses. The é&evia, as a lodging, may denote either quarters in aninn or a room ina private house: see Philippians p.9. For the latter comp.. Plato Tim. 20 © mapa Kpuiriav mpos Tov fevdva, ov Kal katradvouer, ddixopeba, In this case the response would doubtless be a hospitable recep- tion in Philemon’s home; but the request does not assume so much as this. xXapicOjooua]| ‘I shall be granted to you. The grant (yapifec@a) of one person to another, may be for purposes either (1) of destruction, as Acts xxv. II ovdeis pe SUvarat avrois xXapicacGa (comp. yer. 16), or (2) of preservation, as Acts iii. 14 7rnocacbe avipa ovéa xapicOjvac viv, 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 see the notes on Col. iv. 10osq. Epaphras 346 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. [23—25 23? , , ’ ~ ¢e l4 , 9 AomaceTat oe Emrappas O ouvatypuadwTos jou év ”~ 3) mn 3 wn ~ Xpistw “Incov, **Mapxos, Apiotrapyos, Anuas, Aouxas, ol guvEepyol jou. *5*H yapis Tov Kupiou [ipo | Inoov Xpixrov mera ~ Pe ~ TOU TTVEUMATOS UMW. is mentioned first because he was a Colossian (Col.iv. 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. 6 cuvatxpadatos| On the possible meanings of this title see Col. iv. 10, where it is given not to Epaphras but to Aristarchus, 25. ‘H xapis «.7.A.] The same form of farewell as in Gal. vi. 18; comp. 2 Tim. iy, 22. vpov]| The persons whose names are mentioned in the opening saluta- tion. DISSERTATIONS. On some points connected with the Essenes. I. THE NAME ESSENE. if ORIGIN AND AFFINITY OF THE ESSENES. Tif, ESSENISM AND CHRISTIANITY. I. THE NAME ESSENE. The name is variously written in Greek : Various : , oe aie ... forms of 1. ‘Eoonvos: Joseph. Ant. xiii. 5. 9, xili. 10. 6, XV. 10. 5, XViil. the name Tae RE Fae Bl ahr Vee 2s) Plinth W: A ag ay Gree (Essenus); Dion Chrys. in Synes. Dion 3; Hippol. Haer. ix. 18, 28 (MS éoyvos); Epiphan. Haer. p. 28 sq., 127 (ed. Pe, )s 2. “Eooatos: Philo 1. pp. 457, 471, 632 (ed. Mang.); Hegesip- pus in Kuseb. H. H. iv. 22; Porphyr. de Abstin. iv. 11. So Loovslopepl ad. We 7.3, 1). 20, 4; iit. 2. 1+ Ant. Xv.. TOA: though in the immediate context of this last passage he writes "Eoonvos, if the common texts may be trusted. 3. ‘Oocatos: Epiphan. Haer. pp. 40 sq., 125, 462. The common texts very frequently make him write “‘Ocoynvds, but see Dindorf’s notes, Epiphan. Op. 1. pp. 380, 425. With Epi- 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. “Ieccatos, Epiphan. Haer. p. 117. From the connexion the Same sect again seems to be meant: but owing to the form Epiphanius conjectures (ofwac) that the name is derived from Jesse, the father of David. If any certain example could be produced where the name occurs All etymo- in any early Hebrew or Aramaic writing, the question of its deriva- recat tion would probably be settled; but in the absence of a single decisive Which de- 2 rive the instance a wide field is opened for conjecture, and critics have not name 350 THE ESSENES. been backward in availing themselves of the license. In discussing the claims of the different etymologies proposed we may reject: (i) From First : derivations from the Greek. Thus Philo connects the word the Greek; Sith gauos ‘holy’: Quod omn. prob. 12, p. 457 ‘Eocatou...d.adékrov EdAnviKhs wapwvyzor covoryros, § 13, Pp. 459 Tav “Eocaiwy 7) ooiwy, Fragm. p. 632 xadotvrar pév "Eooator, tape tyv dovoryta, pot doxo [Soxet 2], rs mpoonyopias agwhévres. 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 dovos. The last supposition is the least probable ; but he certainly does not reject this derivation ‘as incor- rect’ (Ginsburg Lssenes p. 27), nor can wapuvupor oordrytos be ren- dered ‘from an incorrect derivation from the Greek homonym hosiotes’ (ib. p. 32), since the word zapwyupos 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 ioos, ‘companion, associate,’ suggested by Rapoport, Hrech Mullin p- 41. Several others again are suggested by Lowy, s. v. Essiier, e.g. éow from their esoteric doctrine, or atoa from their fatalism, All such may be rejected as instances of ingenious trifling, if imdeed they deserve to be called ingenious. (ii) From Secondly: derivations from proper names whether of persons or ees ce of places. Thus the word has been derived from Jesse the father places; of David (Epiphan. 1.c.), or from one ‘yw Jsai, the disciple of R. Joshua ben Perachia who migrated to Egypt in the time of Alexander Janneus (Liw in Ben Chananja I. 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. (iii) From Thirdly: etymologies from the Hebrew or Aramaic, which do cet dl not supply the right consonants, or do not supply them in the right eee order. Under this head several must be rejected ; conso- “DN dsar ‘to bind,’ Adler Volkslehrer v1. p. 50, referred to by nants, —_ Ginsburg Essenes p. 29. "DM chasid ‘pious,’ which is represented by ’Acwdatos (1 Mace. ii. 42 (v. 1), vii. 13, 2 Mace. xiv. 6), and could not possibly assume THE ESSENES. 351 the form ’Eaaaios or "Eoonvds. Yet this derivation appears in Josip- pon ben Gorion (iv. 6, 7, v. 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. NAD s’chad ‘to bathe,’ from which with an Aleph prefixed we might get ‘NNDN as’chati ‘bathers’ (a word however which does not occur): Griitz Gesch. der Juden 11. pp. 82, 468. YS tsantiag ‘retired, modest,’ adopted by Frankel (Zettschri/t 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 } as the third consonant of the root; since the comparison er of the parallel forms "Eocatos and “Ecoynves shows that in the latter make x word the v is only formative. On this ground we must reject: iar k ‘DM chdasin ; see below under py. yn chotsen ‘a fold’ of a garment, and so supposed to signify the mepilwpa 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. py edshin ‘strong’: see Cohn in Frankel’s Monatsschrift vit. p. 271. This etymology is suggested to explain Epiphanius Haer. Pp. 40 todro b& TO yevos Tay ‘Ocanvav Epynvederar did THs exddcEws TOU ovopmatos oriBapoy yéevos (‘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 Zlif and not Ain, it is plain that he got this interpretation from some one else, probably from Epiphanius. The correct reading however in Epiphanius is Occaiwy, not ‘Ocoyvav; and it would therefore appear that this father or his informant derived the word from the Hebrew root yy rather than from the Aramaic jwy. The ‘Occato. would then be the oy, 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 }'Dn 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- rivations consider- cals might be any of the gutturals &, n, n, Y; and the Greek g, as the ed: bable, considerable uncertainty still remains. The 1st and 3rd radi- 2nd radical, might represent any one of several Shemitic sibilants, 352 (1) NYDN ‘a physician’; (2) SN ‘a seer’; THE ESSENES. Thus we have the choice of the following etymologies, which have found more or less favour. (1) NDS ds@ ‘to heal,’ whence 'DN asyd, ‘a physician.’ The Essenes are supposed to be so called because Josephus states (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 (xpos Oepareiav maQav). This etymology is supported likewise by an appeal to the name Oeparevrai, which Philo gives to an allied sect in Egypt (de Vit. Cont. § 1, 1. 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 (1. c.), bent upon extracting from it as much moral significance as possible, says, Qepamevrat kal Oepamevtpides Kxa- AotvTat, Aror wap doov iatpukny émayyéAAovTat Kpeiooova THS KaTa moves (7 bev yap cupata Oeparever povov, éxeivy dé Kal Wuyds k.7.A.) wap ooov ek pvcews kal Tay tepdy vopwv eradevOnoav Oeparedew 70 ov x.7.A.: but the latter meaning alone accords with the usage of the word; for Oepamevrjs, used absolutely, signifies ‘a worshipper, devotee,’ not ‘a physician, healer.’ This etymology of “Eocaios is ascribed, though wrongly, to Philo by Asaria de’ Rossi (Meor Enayim 3, fol. 33 a) and has been very widely received. Among more recent writers, who have adopted or favoured it, are Bellermann (Ueber Essder u. Therapeuten p. 7), Gfrorer (Philo 11. p. 341), Dihne (Ersch u. Gruber, s. v.), Baur (Christl. Kirche der drei erst. Jahrh. p. 20), Herzfeld (Gesch. des Judenthums I. p. 371, 395, 397 8q.), Geiger (Urschrift p. 126), Derenbourg (L’ Histoire et la Géographie de la Palestine pp. 170, 175, notes), Keim (Jesus von Nazara 1. p. 284 sq.), and Hamburger (Real-Encyclopddie fiir Bibel u. Talmud, s. v.). -Several of these writers identify the Essenes with the Baithusians (}'p}n’2) of the Talmud, though in the Talmud the Baithusians are connected with the Sadducees. This identification was suggested by Asaria de’ Rossi (1. c. fol. 33 6), who interprets ‘ Baithusians’ as ‘ the school of the Essenes’ (8'D'S na): while subsequent writers, going a step further, have explained it ‘the school of the physicians’ (S‘D M3). (2) SIM chdzad ‘to see’, whence x'tn chazyad ‘a seer’, in re- ference to the prophetic powers which the Essenes claimed, as the result of ascetic contemplation: Joseph. B. J. i. 8. 12 eiot Sé ev adrois THE ESSENES. 3 ea f eS) oi kal Ta péAdovTa TpoywwoKkew dricxvotvrat K.t-A, For instances of such Essene prophets see Ant. xi. 11. 2, xv. 10.5, B. J. i. 3. 5, ii. 7. 3. Suidas, s.v. "Eooato, says: Oewpla ta moAAd tapapevovow, evOev kat “Eooato. xadovvtat, Todto SnAovvTos Tov ovdpatos, TovTéaTi, Jewpy- vuot. For this derivation, which was suggested by Baumgarten (see Bellermann p. 10) and is adopted by Hilgenfeld (Jiid. Apocal. p. 278), there is something to be said: but Nin is rather opay than dewpetv; and thus it must denote the result rather than the process, the vision which was the privilege of the few rather than the con- templation which was the duty of all. Indeed in a later paper (Zeitschr. X1. p. 346, 1868) Hilgenfeld expresses himself doubtfully about this derivation, feeling the difficulty of explaining the oo from the t. This is a real objection. In the transliteration of the Lx¥x the} is persistently represented by % and the y by c. 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) Mwy easah ‘to do,’ so that “Eooato. would signify ‘the (3) ney doers, the observers of the law,’ thus referring to the strictness of ee Hssene practices: see Oppenheim in Frankel’s Monatsschrift 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 pwyn vox, interpreted ‘men of prac- tice, of good deeds,’ is supposed to refer to the Essenes (see Frankel’s Zeitschrift 11. p. 458, Monatsschrift 11. p. 70). In some passages indeed (see Surenhuis Mishna 111. p. 313) it may possibly mean ‘ workers of miracles’ (as €pyov Joh. v. 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) as8asy chast (poms, ch’s2) Or pLasass chasyo, ‘pious,’ in (4) chasyo Syriac. This derivation, which is also given by de Sacy (Chrestom. pea Ke Arab. 1. p. 347), is adopted by Ewald (Gesch. des V. Isr. tv. p. 484, COL. 20 (5) DNYN ‘silent ones,’ THE ESSENES. ed. 3, 1864, VII. pp. 154, 477, ed. 2, 1859), who abandons in its fa- vour another etymology (jtn chazzan ‘watcher, worshipper’ = epa- meuvtys) 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 dcvos, of which it is a common rendering in the Peshito (Acts i. 27, xiii. 35, Tit. i. 8). Thus it explains the derivation given by Philo (see above, p. 350), and it also accounts for the tendency to write "Occatos for "Eocatos in Greek. Ewald moreover points out how an Essenizing Sibylline poem (Orac. Sib. iv; see above, p. 96) dwells on the Greek equiva- lents, etoeBys, edoeBin, etc. (vv. 26, 35, 42 8q., 148 8q., 162, 165 sq., 178 sq., ed. Alexandre), as if they had a special value for the writer : see Gesch. VI. p. 154, Sibyll. Biicher p. 46. Lipsius (Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexicon, s, v.) also considers this the most probable etymology. (5) SNWM chasha (also pwn) Heb. ‘to be silent’; whence pyxwn 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. ili. 7. 5, ili. 8. 9) writes out }wn, choshen ‘the high-priest’s breast-plate’ (Exod. xxviii. 15 sq.), éooyv or éoonvys in Greek, and explains it onpaiver tovro Kata tv “EAAnVev yAGrrav doyeioy (i.e. the ‘place of oracles’ or ‘of reason’: comp. Philo de Mon. ii. § 5, 11. p. 226, xadetrar Aoyetov érdpws, ered) Ta ev otpava mavta Adyows Kal avadoylas Sedyurovpyyrat x.7.A.), as it is translated in the txx. Even though modern critics should be right in connect- ing wn with the Arab. ,~.> ‘pulcher fuit, ornavit’ (see Gesen. Thes. ps 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 rots éwhev ws pvorypiov te ppixtov Wy TOV %Sov own Karadaiverae; and perhaps this will also explain the Greek equivalent Oewpytixot, which Suidas gives for “Eocaio.. The use of the Hebrew word o'xwn 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 Ohalddisches Worterbuch 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. TT 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 oe aie nations. Only by the rigorous application of this principle was it Ttion. 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 Asideans (Acidaior), the ‘pious’ or ‘devout,’ ee 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 pee were historically connected with the Chasidim as divergent offshoots traced to of the original sect, or whether they represent independent develop- recisls: ments of the same principle, we are without the proper data for deciding. The principle itself appears in the name of the Pharisees, 23—2 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 Zssene 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; while nearly all speak of his investigations as throwing great light on the subject. THE ESSENES. It is perhaps dangerous to dissent from a view which has found but so much favour; but nevertheless I am obliged to confess my belief ? tag 357 round- s and that, whatever value Frankel’s investigations may have as contribu- agin in tions to our knowledge of Jewish religious thought and practice, they throw little or no light on the Essenes specially ; and that the blind acceptance of his results by later writers has greatly obscured the distinctive 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 "Eooatos, "Eaonvos, represent two different Hebrew words, the former pn chdsid, the latter piyy tsandazg, both clothed in suit- name. able Greek dresses'. Wherever therefore either of these words occurs, there is, or there may be, a direct reference to the Essenes. derivation It is not too much to say that these etymologies are impossible ; Fatal ob- and this for several reasons. (1) The two words “Eovaios, “Eoor- j; vds, are plainly duplicate forms of the same Hebrew or Aramaic original, like Saywatos and Sapiynves (Epiphan. Haer. pp. 40, 47, 127, and even Sauwirys p. 46), Nafwpatos and Nafapyros, Turratos and Trryvos (Steph. Byz. s. v., Hippol. Her. vi. 7), with which we may compare Boorpatos and Boortpyves, MeAraios and Medurnvos, and numberless other examples. (2) Again; when we consider either word singly, the derivation offered is attended with the most serious difficulties. There is no reason why in ‘Eooatos the d should have disappeared from chasid, while it is hardly possible to conceive that tsanuag, should have taken such an incongruous form as "Eoonvds. (3) And lastly ; the more important of the two words, chasid, had already a recognised Greek equivalent in ’AciSaios; and it seems highly improbable that a form so divergent as "Eacatos should have taken its place. eae to Indeed Frankel’s derivations are generally, if not universally, Depend- abandoned by later writers; and yet these same writers repeat his 1 Zeitschrift p.449 ‘Fiir Essder liegt, nach einer Bemerkung des Herrn L. wie schon von anderen Seiten bemerkt Léw im Orient, das Hebr. y\)¥ nahe’; wurde, das Hebr. pn, fiir Essener, seoalsopp. 454,455; Monatsschriftp. 32 ence of the theory 358 on the deriva- tion. The term chasid not ap- plied specially to the Hssenes. 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. 351). 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 ‘Eocatos or Eooyvos is not a Greek form of chasid, it might still happen that this word was applied to them as an epithet, though not asa 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 Asidceans, as for instance when Jose ben Joezer, who lived during the Maccabzan 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')}WN1n ODN, ‘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 (p. 166, 461 sq.), who both derive in an earlier volume, Monatsschr. 1. Essene from §'DN ‘a physician.’ Pp. 405 8q. 2 Mishna Chagigah ii. 7; Zeitschr. % Zeitschr. p. 457, Monatsschr. p. 69 p. 454, Monatsschr. pp. 33, 62. See sq.3; see below, p. 362. 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 Softah iii. 4, ‘The foolish chasid and the clever villain (nyny yun) nD 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 illustrations given. Again; the saying in Mishna Purke Aboth v. 10, ‘He who says Mine is thine and thine is thine is [a] chasid (on aby abun aby by), 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 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 (yw), show plainly that >\5n 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.v. Es- supposes, reciprocation or community ser. of goods, substituting ‘Thine is mine’ 2 Mishna Kerithuth vi. 3, Nedarim 10 a; see Monatsschr. p. 65. 3 Thus Gratz (111 p. 81) speaking of the community of goods among the Essenes writes, ‘From thisview springs the proverb; Every Chassid says; Mine 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 have found no traces. It certainly is not suggested in the pas- sage of Pirke Aboth. Later in the vo- lume (p. 467) Gratz tacitly alters the words to make them express, as he 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 (sy spon ‘Sy aby 3dw)? 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. 366), who expect to receive again as much as they give. In this loose way Gratz treats the whole subject. Keim (p. 2y4) 359 360 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 “Eocatos, ‘Eaonvds, to be and chasyo the Syriac rSass, ratass, ch’sé, chasyo (a possible derivation), discussed. Usage is unfayvour- able to this view. Frankel’s second derivation tsanua & 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 “pn (comp. pin) 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 “Acidator, which is still used later than the Maccabeean era, would also have gone with it; rather than that a new Greek word ‘Eocatos (or “Eaonvos) should have been invented to take its place. But indeed the Syriac Version of the Old Testament furnishes an argument against this convertibility of 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, xxv 28, liirr,, lexaxt2) Ikxxy, 0, xevil! ro, exvieins,) Cxaext-aay exlix. g: comp. xxxil. 6, cxlix. 1, 5), seem to have suggested the assumption of the name to the original Asideans. But in such passages 4'!DM is commonly, if not universally, rendered in the Peshito not by mSas9, radags, but by a wholly different word ms zadik, And again, in the Books of Maccabees the Syriac rendering for the name "Acudaio, 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 ’Acidaias and “Eooatos is removed. Frankel’s other derivation yyy, tsaniiag, suggested as an equi- valent to “Eoonvos, 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. ssenes 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’ pp. 32. THE ESSENES. 361 to this sect. Thus in Mishna Demat, vi. 6, we are told that the school of Hillel permits a certain license in a particular matter, but it is added, ‘The spy 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 pyy3y, i.e. 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; 49) '¥M2 TOY) IWIY) PIV’, ‘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 ee. the Talmud, x'px, asya, ‘a physician,’ is the one which has found in the : : ae ee almud. most favour. For the reasons given above (p. 352) this derivation (1) Asyu seems highly improbable, and the passages quoted are quite insufi- ire 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 (ox) 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 ag the tithes—this being regarded as a disqualification, apparently sages _ because it was inconsistent with the highest degree of ceremonial sae 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.c.) 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 8q. 2 Zeitschr. p. 455. 4 See Lowy Krit.-Talm. Lez. s. v. 8 Frankel Monatsschr. p. 71: comp. Hssier, 362 (2) gasah ‘to do.’ THE ESSENES. for Frankel’s conclusion that this particular physician was an Essene, or for the derivation of the word Essene which others maintain. Again, in the 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 Essenes*. In like manner the passage from Sanhedrin 99 b, where a physician is mentioned*, supports no such inference. Indeed, as this last passage relates to the family of the Ast, he obviously can have had no connexion with the celibate Essenes. Hitherto our search for the name in the Talmud has been unsuc- cessful. One possibility however still remains. The talmudical writers speak of certain mwy wix ‘men of deeds’; and if (as some suppose) the name Essene is derived from mwy have we not here the 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 wo mwyy. Thus, Frankel concludes, ‘the identity of these with po pn becomes still more plain.’ Now it seems clear that this expression mwynd wos in some places cannot refer to miraculous powers, but must mean ‘men of practical goodness,’ as for instance in Succa/; 5I a, 53 4; 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. B. J. ii. 8. 7) currnpycerp... Ta THs alpécews airav BiBNa can have nothing to do with accuracy in tran- scribing copies, as Herzfeld (11. pp. 398, 407) seemstothink, The natural mean- ing of cuvrnpetv, ‘to keep safe or close’ and s0 ‘not to divulge’ (e.g, Polyb. Xxxi, 6. 5 ovx éfégawe Thy éauTis yvu- Mnv GG ouverjpe wap’ éavT7), is also the meaning suggested here by the context. 3 The passage is adduced in support of this derivation by Derenbourg p. 175. 4 See Zeitschr. p. 438, Monatsschr. pp. 68—yo. 5 See above, p. 353- 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 insufficient. 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 MwWyDd ‘wo, since his claims to being considered an Essene are barred at the outset by this fact’. 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. Dr Ginsburg’s authority for this statement is a passage from The au- hority the Aboth of Rabbi Nathan, c. 37, which, as he gives it, appears a this 3 { 3 conclusive ; ‘There are eight kinds of Pharisees...and those Phari- d¢rivation 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.D. 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 modern work. On this point all or almost all recent writers on Hebrew literature are agreed*, Secondly ; Dr Ginsburg has taken the reading xwy ynDpinD, 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, 1 Taanith 24 b, Yoma 53 b; see Su- renhuis Mishna 111. 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. 85): 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 8q.; Zunz Gottes- dienstliche Vortraige p. 108 8q.: comp. Steinschneider Catal. Heb. Bibl. Bodl. col. 2032 sq. These two last references are given by Dr Ginsburg himself. traced to But what are the facts an error. & nn a4 Are the Hissenes alluded to, THE ESSENES. Babl. Sotah fol. 22 6, Jerus. Sotah v. 5, Jerus. Berakhoth ix. 5, (quoted by Buxtorf and Levy, s.v. wp), distinctly prove. In Babl. Sotah l.c., the corresponding expression is FIwYyN) nan ND ‘What is my duty, and I will do it,’ and the passage in Jerus. Berakhoth 1.c. is to the same effect. These parallels show that the reading powyN) ‘nin nD must be taken also in Aboth c. 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 s%pn ‘ pious’,’ it is difficult to see how he could translate »;~wy ‘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 4 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. But, though we have not succeeded in finding any direct mention of this sect by name in the Talmud, and all the identifications thoughnot of the word Essene with diverse expressions occurring there named, in the Tal- mud? (1) The chaber or Agso- ciate. have failed us on examination, it might still happen that allusions 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) He sees a reference to the Essenes in the ~nj)2n chdbira or ‘Society,’ which is mentioned several times in talmudical writers *. The chaber (nan) 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, s. v. Essenes. out to me by a friend. 2 It is given by Landsberg in the 3 Zeitschr. p. 450 8q-, Monatsschr. Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums pp. 31, 70 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. 365 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 passage of Chagigah. purification as qualifying for the performance of certain Levitical rites in an ascending scale. There is no indication that these lustrations are more than temporary and immediate in their applica- 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 § 10 he says that they are ‘divided into four sections according to the duration of their discipline’ (Sinpnvrat KaT& xpovoy THs doxhoews eis polpas réccapas), 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 (pera Thp Tihs Kapreplas émldeéw), 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 society.’ 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 8q., comp. Kitto’s Cyclopaedia 8.v. 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, in Cha- gigah con- It simply contemplates different degrees of sidered. 366 Difference between the chaber and the Essene, 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 Kssenes, 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 aam 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 8q. was described as ‘taking O55’ or 8 The contempt with which a chaber ‘wings.’ The meaning ofthis expression 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 (m73n). In another (Widdah 33 6)? there is mention of a Sadducee and even of a Samaritan as a 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. 367 (2) Having discussed Frankel’s hypothesis respecting the chaber, (2) The I need hardly follow his speculations on the Béné-hakkéneseth, noi3n 33, ‘sons of the congregation’ (Zabim iii. 2), in which ex- pression probably few would discover the reference, which he finds, to the lowest of the Essene orders*. Bene hak- keneseth. (3) But mention is also made of a ‘holy congregation’ or ‘as- (3) The sembly’ (xwp xdnp, musp may) ‘in Jerusalem’; and, following ‘holy con- gregation Rapoport, Frankel sees in this expression also an allusion to the oy eee Essenes *, The grounds for this identification are, that in one pas- 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 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 so 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. vii. 49 0 8xdos obTOS O Mi) YiwwoKwY Tov vowov émaparol elow. Again in Acts iv. 13, Where the Apostles are de- scribed as li:@ra:, 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}, Mishna Demai ii. 2. 3, Jerus. Demat ii. 3, v. 1, Tosifta Demai 2, Aboth R. Nathan ¢. 41. 2 See Herzfeld 1. p. 386. 3 Monatsschr. p. 35. * Zeitschr. pp. 458, 461, Monatsschr. PP- 32, 34+ 5 It 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.’ 368 not an Essene 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 »p'n) Vathikin, ‘pious’ or ‘learned’ men (whatever may be the exact sense of the word), who are mentioned in Berakhoth 9 6 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. ii. 8. 5), would be common to all devout and earnest Jews. If we are not justified in saying that these jpn) 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 Dwain or ‘primitive elders®.’ It may readily be granted that this term is used synonymously, or nearly so, with D’WNIn 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 6) 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 nonw sap To6blé-shachdrith, or ‘morning-bathers,’ mentioned in Tosifta Yadayim ec. 2°. The identity of these with the ypepoPa- mruotat 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. 2 Ib. p: 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 EHssenes 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.’ 369 (7) In connexion with the Toble-shacharith we may consider (7) The another name, Bandim (O°S)3), in which also Frankel discovers an allusion to the Hssenes*» In Mishna Mikvaoth ix. 6 the word is opposed to N23 bdr, ‘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 Shabdath 114 and explained to mean ‘learned.’ But, because in AMikvaoth it is mentioned in connexion with ceremonial purity, and because in Josephus the Essenes are stated to have carried an ‘axe and shovel’ (B. J. ii. 8. 7, 9), and be- cause moreover the Jewish historian in another place (Vit. 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 isa specimen of the misplaced ingenuity which distin- guishes Frankel’s learned speculations on the Essenes. Josephus does Banaim. not mention an ‘axe and shovel,’ but an axe only (§ 7 agwdapiov), Josephus which he afterwards defines more accurately as a spade (§ 9 7H eee oKanid:, ToLotrov yap éare TO Siddopevov vr avtrav agwidioy Tots veoov- oratots) 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. 406. 2 Zeitschr. p. 455. COL, 24 370 Another derivaticn 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 |.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 Hssenes, 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 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. 401. senes in our patristic (i.e. rabbinical) 2 Beitrige u. p. 199. In this deri- literature,’ says Herzfeld truly (11. vation he is followed by Graetz (111. pp. 397), ‘has led to a splendid hypo p. 82, 468) and Derenbourg (p. 166). thesis-hunt (einer stattlichen Hypo- 3 Monatsschr. p. 31. thesenjagd).’ 4 «The attempt to point out the Es- 5 Monatsschr. p. 31. THE ESSENES. 371 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. Jn 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 ee from Judaic orthodoxy in the matter of sacrifices? Yet this is Ae leita 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- quite explicit. He says (Ané. xviii. 1. 5) that, though they send oui ES offerings (avajpara) to the temple, they perform no sacrifices, and and Philo he assigns as the reason their greater strictness as regards ceremonial rey purity (Scapopornte ayveiv as vouiouv), adding that ‘for this reason being excluded from the common sanctuary (reyeviopartos) they perform their sacrifices by themselves (颒 avrdv tas Ovatas émiteXovot). 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 (i. p. 457) dis- tinctly states that the Essenes being more scrupulous than any in the worship of God (év rots padwora Yeparevtal @cod) do not sacrifice ani- mals (ov {da Karavovres), but hold it right to dedicate their own hearts as a worthy offering (aAN tepompemets tas éavrdy Siavolas KatacKevalev 1 Monatsschr, 64. 24—2 372 Their state- ments con- firmed by the doc- trine of Christian Essenes, The Cle- mentine Homilies justify this doc- trine by THE ESSENES. agvotvres). Thus the greater strictness, which Josephus ascribes to them, consists in the abstention from shedding blood, as a pollution in itself, And, when he speaks of their substituting private sacrifices, his own qualifications show that he does not mean the word to be 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 the temple precincts (B. J. i. 3. 5, Ant. xiii. 11. 2)?, no mention is Thus it is clear that with the Essene it was the sacrifices which polluted the temple, and not the tory is their sanctuary ; their president is their priest’. 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 im 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 1 BJ. ii. 8. § Kaddmrep els dyidv rt 8.9, 10). The Christian Essenes how- Téuevos tmapaylvorrat 7d Semvnrjpiov: see also the passages quoted above p. 89, note 3. 2 See below, p. 379. 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 Hssenes (B. d. ii. 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. * See Galatians, p. 322 8q. THE ESSENES. 373 a Scriptures (il. 38, 51, ill. 4,5, 10, 42, 47, 49, 5, comp. xviii. 19). The arbitrary saying traditionally ascribed to our Lord, ‘Show yourselves approved cena money-changers’ (yiveoOe tpareirar ddxtuor), is more than once quoted Scriptures. by the Apostle as enforcing this duty (ii. 51, ill, 50, xviii. 20). Among these false elements he places all those passages which repre- sent God as enjoining sacrifices (ili. 45, xvili. 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. 5D). a condemnation of this practice (iii. 56). The true prophet ‘hates sacrifices, bloodshed, libations’; he ‘extinguishes the fire of altars’ (iil. 26). produced by the reeking fumes of sacrifice (iii. 13). When in the And again, the saying ‘I will have mercy and not sacrifice’ is The frenzy of the lying soothsayer is a mere intoxication 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 (dap- paxias), and to find incantations (éraoidas) against venomous ser- pents (iii. 36)’; when again St Peter is made to condemn as false Essene those scriptures which speak of God swearing, and to set against them oe Christ’s command ‘Let your yea be yea’ (iii. 55); we feel how thoroughly this strange production of Ebionite Christianity is satu- rated with Essene ideas’. 1 Epiphanius (Her. xviii. 1, p. 38) marépwy yeyevfoGa. Here we have in again describes, as the account was landed down to him (ds 6 els juas €\9av meptéxer Novos), the tenets of a Jewish sect which he calls the Nasareans, airy 8 od mapedéxeTo Ti mevtdrevxov, a\Ad wmorovyer wév TOV Mwiicéa, cal Bri édé- Earo vouobeciav émicrevev, ob tavrny Sé pnow, adr’ érépav, oOev Ta pev ravTa dvAatrovet Tay "Icvdalwy Iovdato bytes, Ovolav Se ovk €Ovoy ovre Eupixwry MeTELXOV, GAA AOEuTOv AY map avrois 7d Kpe@y werarauBaver 7 Ovordgew av- Tous. épackov yap wemAdoPat Taira 7a BtBrla cal udev rovrwv ird ray 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: ore yap déxovrac Thy mevrdrevyov Mwicéws 8Anv adda Twa pyyara dro- Barrovow. drav 5 avrois eirys rept euyuxwv Bodcews x.7.\. These parallels will speak for themselves. 374 THE ESSENES. (ii) The (ii) Nor again is Frankel successful in explaining the Essene eacatip prayers to the sun by rabbinical practices’, Following Rapoport, ee 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 aa 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. i. 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, 11. 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 (evyepiav) and for truth and for keen vision of reason (ofvwriav Noywpot).’ 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 ea ghee called the Sampseans or ‘Sun-worshippers’,’ as existing in his Beet, own time in Pera 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 Sampszean, Ossene, and Elchasaite as synonymous (mapa tots Zauwy- vols kat ‘Ocoyvois kai ’EXxecoatos Kadovpévors). 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 (Her. ix. 13 sq.) who describes it at considerable length. From from 17° these accounts it appears that the principal feature in the book sacred aie? was the injunction of frequent bathings for the remission of sins 1 Zeitschr. p. 458. 4 See above, p. 87, note 1. 2 See Ginsburg Essenes p. 69 sq. 5 See above, p. 83. 3 Berakhoth i. 4; see Derenbourg, 6 Galatians p. 3248q. See also be- p. 169 sq. low, Pp. 407. THE ESSENES. 375 (Hipp. Her. ix. 13, 15 sq.). We are likewise told that it ‘anathema- tizes immolations and sacrifices (@vaias xat iepovpyias) as being alien to God and certainly not offered to God by tradition from (éx) 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. er. 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 elas (Hipp. Her. ix. 14; Epiph. Her. xix. 5, p. 43, comp. xxx. 17, p. 141). This inconsistency is explained by a further notice in 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 (§ 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’ (§ 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 father’s own invention, 1 See p. 372, note 3. 2 Galatians p. 325, note 1. For another derivation see below, p. 407. 3 Celibacy however is not one of these: comp. Epiphan, Her, xix. 1 (p. 40) dmwex@dvera 5¢ TH mapdevia, piqe? dé rhy éyxpdreav, dvayxafe 5é€ yauor. In this respect they departed from the original principles of Essenism, alleg- ing, as it would appear, a special reve- lation (ws 690ev dmoxahv ews) in justifi- cation. In like manner marriage is commended in the Clementine Ho- milies, 376 Doubtful bearing of this Sun- worship. The practice repugnant to Jewish orthodoxy. 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 Sampseans? 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 sq., I. p. 631 sq.), and even calls the heavenly bodies ‘ visible and sensible gods’ (de Mund. Op. 7,1. p. 6)'? 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. vill. 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 (iii) The deprécia- tion of marriage not ac- counted for. 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 % Keim 1. p. 280. heavenly bodies held in the system 3 See Wiesner Schol. zum Babdyl. of Philo, who regarded them as ani- JTalm.1. pp. 18, 20. mated beings, may be seen from 4 Monatsschr. p. 37+ Gfrorer’s Philo 1. p. 349 8q- 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’ (O75N 43s), 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 a, 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. 3 / (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 oe 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, Tots douvéras Kai Tuprots Sudackados tudy, otreves Kal héxpt viv Kal récoapas kal mévre éyew tuads yuvatkas Exacrov ovyxwpotou Kal éav e0uoppor tis lidv éxiOuuhoy adrijs K.T.A.y 70. Y4I, P. 371 A, B, Gzrocov mparrovow ol amd rod yévous Vw dv- Opwrot, kara wacay yiv ev0a dv émidny- Licwow 7) mpooreupbaow aydouevor dvo- Mart yamou yuvatkas K.T.r., With Otto's note on the first passage. 2 See above, p. gr, note 2. 3 Dial. 85, p. 311 C, 757 wévrot of e& Uudy émopxicral Tq Téxvy, Worep Kal Td €0vn, xpdevor éEopxifoucs kal Ovpiduace kal katadécuos xpwrrat, if 378 THE ESSENES. had by this time spread throughout the whols 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 Hssenes 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. Frankel It was shown above that the investigations of Frankel and others eee failed to discover in the talmudical writings a single reference to the blishing Essenes, which is at once direct and indisputable. It has now pe tnt, 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 Essenism 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 between those who have anticipated or followed him. But these are exactly Essenes and Phari- such as we might have expected. Two distinct features combine to Pah oe " make up the portrait of the Essene. The Judaic element is quite Ube 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 aq. THE ESSENES. 379 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 }eifre? in the Apostolic age. Both sects apparently arose out of one great Essenes movement, of which the motive was the avoidance of pollution’. The saielnd divergence therefore must have been gradual. At the same time, it etadual. 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 5; ripen "y Essenes, this fact would present no difficulty. At present however no ou decisive example has been produced ; and the discoveries of Jellinek cords of for instance*, who traces the influence of this sect in almost every cme 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. 355 sq. In the parallel narrative, Ant. xii. 2 Orient 1849, pp. 489, 537, 553- 11. 2, the expression is mapidvra rd * B. J. i. 3. 5 wapidvra did Tod lepod. _lepdv, which does not imply so much; 380 The appro- bation of Philo and Josephus is no evi- dence of orthodoxy. What was the foreign element in Essenism ? Theory of Neopytha- gorean in- fluence. 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. Nor again, is it any obstacle to the view which is here maintained, that the Essenes are regarded with so much sympathy by Philo and Josephus themselves. Even though the purity of Judaism might have been somewhat sullied in this sect by the admixture of foreign elements, this fact would attract rather than repel an eclectic like Philo, and a Jatitudinarian 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. But if Essenism owed the features which distinguished it from Pharisaic Judaism to an alien admixture, whence were these foreign influences derived? From the philosophers of Greece or from the religious mystics of the East? On this point recent writers are divided. Those who trace the distinctive characteristics of the sect to Greece, regard it is an offshoot of the Neopythagorean School grafted on the stem of Judaism. This solution is suggested by the state- 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 See above, pp. 89, 371 Sq- THE ESSENES. 381 the Greeks was introduced (xaradederynévy) 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 ote instance by Baur and Herzfeld, has found its ablest and most per- theory by sistent advocate in Zeller, who draws out the parallels with great 4eller. 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 woel. 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 RU Ant. XV. ‘30:4: 382 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 sonar marshalled might appear at first sight invincible. But a closer rean fea- examination detracts from its value. In the first place the two turesinthe ,... .. mie ; : 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 Beene °8 intermediate place between the Supreme God and man, and were the some cases result of a compromise between polytheism and philosophy, have no only ap- c parent, 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 haying 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. 11. 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. ¢. p, l. 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. 383 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 others do of men each held an esoteric teaching of their own, they would notsuggest secure it independently in a similar way, by a recognised process of pe initiation, by a solemn form of oath, by a rigid distinction of orders. connexion, 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 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 o ee obstacles to any solution which derives the peculiarities of the theory. Essenes 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- poe 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- oes gorizers,’ in other words, as total abstainers and vegetarians’; but 8°reans. 2 Athen. iv. p. 161, Diog. Laert. See the index to Meineke with oil; 1 Zeller 1. c. p. 68 (comp. 1. p. 242). While disputing Zeller’s position, I viii. 37. have freely made use of his references. It is impossible not to admire the mastery of detail and clearness of ex- position in this work, even when the conclusions seem questionable. Fragm. Com. 8. vv. mv@ayopixds, etc. The words commonly used by these satirists are rudayopifev, muPayopiorys, muvaryoptcuos. The persons so satirised were probably in many cases not more 384 THE ESSENES. the philosophy had wholly died or was fast dying out. This is the universal testimony of ancient writers. It is not till the first century 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 wonld seem to have emanated from this incipient Neopythagoreanism, rather than from the elder school of Pythagoreans. And a little later Cicero commends his friend Nigidius Figulus as one specially raised up to revive the extinct philosophy’. But so slow or so cheguered was its progress, that a whole century after Seneca can still speak of the Priority of school as practically defunct*®, Yet long before this the Essenes assenism to Neopy- thagorean- system of doctrine and a definite rule of life. We have seen that ism. formed a compact, well-organized, numerous society with a peculiar Pliny the elder speaks of this celibate society as having existed ‘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 those who had not access to special sources of information. If, as I have given reasons for supposing*, Pliny’s authority in this passage is the same Alexander Polyhistor to whom I have just referred, and if this particular statement, however exaggerated in expression, is derived from him, the fact becomes still more significant. But on any showing the priority in time is distinctly in favour of the Essenes as against the Neopythagoreans, The Es- And accordingly we find that what is only a tendency in the sene tenets Neonythagoreans is with the Essenes an avowed principle and a developed more than definite rule of life. Such for instance is the case with celibacy, of the Neopy- thagorean. W Essenes per seculorum miilia, and which is a chief corner-stone of hich Pliny says that it has existed as an institution among the Pythagoreans than modern teetotallers torem non invenit.’ are Rechabites. 4 N.H.v.15. The passage is quoted 1 Diog. Laert. viii. 24.8q.; see Zeller abovep.85,note 3. The point of time, l.c. p. 74—78. at which Josephus thinks it necessary 2 Cic. Tim. 1 ‘sic judico, post illos to insert an account of the Essenes as nobiles Pythagoreos quorum disci- already flourishing (Ant. xiii. 5. 9), is plina extincta est quodammodo, cum prior to the revival of the Neopytha- aliquot seecula in Italia Siciliaque vi- gorean school. How much earlier the guisset, hunc exstitisse qui illam reno- Jewish sect arose, we are without data varet.’ for determining. 3 Sen. N. Q. vii. 32 ‘Pythagorica 5 See p. 83, note r. ila invidiosa turbm schola precep- 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 acherents 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 3 l.c. p. 288 sq. conduct of his hero in this respect 41. ¢. p. 290 sq. COL. 25 385 (ii) Geo- graphical difficulties in the theory. 386 The fo- reign ele- ment of Hssenism to be sought in the Hast, 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. Tt 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. 111, 2, p. 67. THE ESSENES. 387 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 Yet there is one system Resem- blances to Parsism. Christian era, to reply with any confidence. to which we naturally look, as furnishing the most probable answer. The Medo-Persian religion supplies just those elements which dis- tinguish the tenets and practices of the Essenes from the normal (1) First; we have here a very definite form of (i) Dual- ism, type of Judaism. dualism, which exercised the greatest influence on subsequent Gnostic 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 theology 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, worship. will explain those anomalous notices of the Essenes in which they are (3) Moreover ; (iii) Angel- 1 olatry. represented as paying reverence to this luminary’. the ‘worship of angels’ in the Essene system has a striking paralle 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 so (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 (vy) Striv- 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 I, 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 dua dé HrLw dvlaoxovre épdyn AprdBaves civ heylor@ wARGE oTparod' domacdmevoe dé Tov WALOv, ws os adrors, ol BdpBapor K.Ts\. 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 Davies’ Colossians p. 146 sq. ope 388 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 sq.) finds coincidences even more special than these. He is answered by Zeller (111. 2, p. 276), but defends his posi- tion again (Zeitschrift x1. p. 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. 19) 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. c.), and Lipsius Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexikon s. v. Essier p. 189. 3 1c. p. 275. THE ESSENES. 389 when the Persian monarchy and religion were once more restored’, its influence must have been reduced within the narrowest limits. Does not the butfavour- ate - 1 history of the Jews themselves show that the religious influence of ee ie But does analogy really suggest such an inference ? a people on the world at large may begin just where its national Parsism. 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. not wished to imply that this Jewish sect consciously incorporated For in tracing Essenism to Persian influences I have 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-_ Greeks the most detailed account of this religion which had ever been era ats laid before them’. It was then that its tenets suggested or moulded meer ae the speculations of the various Gnostic sects. It was then that en the worship of the Persian Mithras spread throughout the Roman Empire. root in Asia Minor, making for itself (as it were) a second home in It was then, if not earlier, that the magian system took 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 c. viii, Milman History of Christianity II. p. 247 8q. The latter speaks of the Science of Language ist ser. p. 86. 3 Strabo xv. 3. 15 (p. 733) Ev dé 77 Karradoxig (rodd yap éxed To Tév Ma- this restoration of Zoroastrianism, as ‘perhaps the only instauce 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. II. p. 53 sq. for this work of Hermip- pus repli Mdywy. He flourished ‘about B.C. 200. See Max Miiller Lectures on ywv pirdov, of kat mipadot Kadovvrac’ moda 6é kal tov Ilepoixdv Pedy iepa) K.T.A. 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. 390 Are Bud- dhist in- fluences also per- ceptible? Supposed Buddhist establish- ment at Alexan- aria. The au- 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 4 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’*, 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 x. p. 103 Sq.; comp. xI. p. 351. M. Renan also (Langues Sémitiques ut. iv. 1, Vie de Jésus p. 98) suggests that Buddhist infiuences operated in Palestine. 2 x, p. 105 ‘was schon an sich, zumal in dieser Zeit, schwerlich Alex- andria ad Caucasum, sondern nur Alexandrien in Aegypten bedeuten kann.’ Comp. xI. 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 i. p. 193. 4 Comp. e.g. Weber Die Verbin- dungen Indiens mit den Ldndern im Westen p.675 in the Allgem. Monatsschr. jf. Wissensch. u. Literatur, Braun- schweig 1853; Lassen Indische Alter- thumskunde 1. p. 236; Hardy Manual of Budhism p. 516. 5 For its geographical meaning in older Indian writers see Koppen l. ¢. 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 "E\Ayv 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. 391 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 The historian, or rather and wholly untrust- worthy im lating the foundation of the Mah4 thipo, or great tope, at Ruanwelli itself. by the king Dutthagamini in the year B.c. 157. Beyond the fact that this tope was erected by this king the rest is plainly legendary. All the materials for the construction of the building, we are told, appeared spontaneously as by miracle—the bricks, the metals, the this notice, as supporting his theory. fabulist (for such he is in this earlier part of his chronicle), is re- 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 that ‘Maha Dhammarakkito, théro (i.e. senior priest) of Yéna, accom- panied by 30,000 priests from the vicinity of Alasadda, the capital of the Yona 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- monasteries to do honour to the festival of the foundation. menon of which historians have shown a strange neglect. Nor is the presence of any Buddhist establishment even on a Genera! much smaller scale in this important centre of western civilisation nea at all reconcilable with the ignorance of this religion, which the dbism in the Wesi. Greeks and Romans betray at a much later date*, For some centu- eer 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 Thus Strabo, actual presence of Buddhists in the Roman Empire’. 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) 690 ydp éywye ob pdvov "EXAnvas map’ wyiv...... aro kel Baxrplous kai ZKvOas al Iépcas kai 392 THE ESSENES. who wrote under Augustus and Tiberius, apparently mentions the Buddhist priests, the sramanas, under the designation sarmance (Zap- pavas)'; but he avowedly obtains his information from Megasthenes, "Ividv ruwds. The qualifying rwds 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 Althiopia 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. 1. 4 (p. 686); Kal of viv 5é é& Alyr- Tou mAéovres éusrroptkol TH Nel\w xal TO "ApaBlw Kdd\rw méxpe THs “IvdiKqs oma- viot ev Kal mepuremDevKacte wéxpt TOU Tayyov, kal ovra 8 liudrac Kali ovdév mpos isroplay Trav Témwv xpjomor, 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. 394), which came ag’ évos Témov Kal map’ évos Baciréws. 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 Tapuavas, 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. i. 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. 1. p. 437. They were previously edited by Schwanbeck, Megasthenis Indica (Bonne 1846). For Zapydvac we also find the form Zapavatoc in other writers; e.g. Clem. Alex. 1. c., Bardesanes in Porphyr. de Abstin. iv. 17, Orig. c. Cels. i. 1g (1. p- 342). This divergence is explained by the fact that the Pali word sammana corresponds to the Sanskrit sramana. See Schwanbeck, 1. c. 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. 11. 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 Zapydvar, men- tioned by Megasthenes, for Brahmanice, not for Buddhist ascetics, might be proved also by their dress. Dresses made of the bark of trees are not Buddhistic.’ 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 Zdppavos (another form of sramana), mentioned below p. 394, note 2, appears to have been a Buddhist. This view is taken even by Lassen, Ind. Alterth. 11. p. 60. (3) The distinction of Boaxpudaves and Sapudvac in Megasthenes or the writers following him corresponds to the dis- THE ESSENES. 393 who travelled in India somewhere about the year 300 B.c. and wrote Thus too Bardesanes at a much later date Barde- sanes. a book on Indian affairs. gives an account of these Buddhist ascetics, without however naming 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 ae aaah Buddha by name; and even he betrays a strange ignorance of this Eastern religion’. tinction of Bpayyudves and Zapavator in Bardesanes, Origen, and others; and, as Schwanbeck has shown (1. ¢.), the account of the Dapuavac in Mega- sthenes for the most part is a close parallel to the account of the Zayavaio 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 Zapuava, than that Brahmins are in- tended by the term. The Pali form, Dayavain, as a de- signation of the Buddhists, first occurs in Clement of Alexandria or Barde- sanes, 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 (c. Julian, iv. p. 133) in the same context in which the Zauavatu 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 Zapuavato. (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 Stobz«eus Ecl. iii. 56 (p. 141). ‘In this last pas- sage the embassy is said to have arrived éml ris BaciNelas THs “Avrwrivouv rod ef ’Euiodv, by which, if the words be correct, must be meant Elagabalus (A.D. 218—222), the spurious Antonine (see Hilgenfeld Bardesanes p. 12 8q.). 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 (Bovétas) 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 Sauavaioe Baxrpwy (comp. Cyrill. Alex. 1. ¢.); (2) He dis- tinguishes two classes of Indian gymno- 394 Hippoly- tus. A Bud- dhist at Athens. TilE 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 Zapudvac and Bpaxvavat. These are Buddhists and Brahmins respectively (sce p. 392, noto 1); (3) He says afterwards elot 6¢ riv “Ivédv ol rots Bodrra ecOduevor mapayyéApacw, dy dv’ drepBodrnv ceu- vornros els [ws?] @Oedv rerTiunKact. Schwanbeck indeed maintains that Cle- ment here intends to describe the same persons whom he has just mentioned as Lapuavac; but thisis not the natural interpretation of his language, which must mean ‘There are also amonz the Indians those who obey the pre- cepts of Buddha.’ Probably Schwan- beck is right in identifying the Dapuca- vat 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, p- 539) Clement speaks of certain In- dian celibates and ascetics, who are called Zeuvof. 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 Leprol is a Grecized form of Zauavatoc ; and this modification of the word would occur naturally to Clement, because gepvol, ceuvetov, were already used of the ascetic himself alive at Athens?—-there life: e.g. Philo de Vit. Cont. 3 (p. 475M) lepov & wadetrar cemvetov Kat KovacTipiov év @ povotmevoe Ta TOU genvob Blov pvorypia TedoUyTaL. 1 Haer, i. 24. 2 The chief authority is Nicolaus of Damascus in Strabo xv. 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 Zapyuavoxryas ‘Ivéos dd Bapyéons xard ta wdrow “Ividv &n éaurov dwaPavaricas keira. 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, Toro toXXots éresw worepov addos "Ivdds év ’"AOjvats Kaloape ovvwv érolnoe, kat delxvuTar méxpe viv To pynmetov “Ivdod mpocayo- pevouevov. Strabo also places the two incidents in conjunction in another passage in which he refers to this person, xv. 1. 4 (p. 686) 6 xaraxavoas éavrov AOnvnoe coguoris Ivdds, xabdmep kalo KdXavos k.7.X. The reasons for supposing this per- son to have been a Buddhist, rather than a Brahmin, are: (1) The name Zapuavoxnyas (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. 395 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 rege ee influences. This however is far from being the case. They both ee : nothing. exhibit a well-organized monastic society: but the monasticism of the Buddhist priests, with its systematized mendicancy, has little Monasti- in common with the monasticism of the Essene recluse, whose life” They both enjoin celibacy, Asceti- both prohibit the use of flesh and of wine, both abstain from the a slaughter of animals. was largely spent in manual labour. 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- that the four orders of the Essene community are derived from the ae Ae where Buddhism flourished in that age. See Priaulx p. 78 sq. In Dion kavOnoouae or ta Kavxnowua. Dion Cassius (l.c.) suggests that the deed Cassius it is written Zdpuapos. And have we not here an explana- tion of 1 Cor. xili. 3, if Wa xavOjoo- wat 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 ATNWCTW! 8EUDdI, was not likely to overlook the sepul- chre with the strange inscription EAYTON ATIAOANATICAC 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 éay mapade 7d cad pov...dydarny be pyexw, ovdev WPeXodua. Indeed it would furnish an almost equally good illus- tration of the text, whether we read iva was done vd gidorimas or els érldectw. 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), BXé- Yupev els "Ivdods rods codlayv aoxely br- toxvougevous...ol dé... rupl Td copa wapaddvres, drws 57 Kal Kabapwrarny Groxplywot Tod swuaros THY WuxnY, du- voumevo. TeNeuTGor...ap’ ov ovK aildov- Mea xetpov Ivday ppovodytes ; 1 In 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 Herculem,’ 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 8q. 396 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 indeed a nearer examination will show that the two have nothing whatever in common except the number. The four steps or paths of Buddhism 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 astern Monachism (p. 280 sq.) will at once dispel any suspicion of a A man may attain to the highest of these four stages He does not need to resemblance. of Buddhist illumination instantaneously. 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 saltum 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 ut. p. 143 8q. (1863), by Mr P. Le Page Renouf (see Academy 1873, p. 399). 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. TWEE ESSENISM AND CHRISTIANITY. T has become a common practice with a certain class of writers to Thetheory , A RATS ! ental oe which ex- call Essenism to their aid in accounting for any distinctive features jjaing of Christianity, which they are unable to explain in any other aca oo way. Wherever some external power is needed to solve a perplexity, outgrowth here is the deus ex machina whose aid they most readily invoke. ae wie) 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 Jaw, 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 it is even more un- 8q.), 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 Gratz 11. p. 217. 398 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 idi@ra:, 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 Hssenes by way of condemnation, or indeed mention them by name at 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. 366. THE ESSENES. 399 practices invested them with the character of philosophers and interested the Greeks and Romans in their history; but in the national life of the Jews they bore a very insignificant part’. If the Sadducees, who held the highest offices in the hierarchy, are only 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 aes ments for must make good its claims by establishing one or both of these two fontaiae he points: first, that there is direct historical evidence of close inter- twofold. course between the two; and secondly, that the resemblances of doctrine and practice are so striking as to oblige, or at least to warrant, the belief in such a connexion. 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 1. Absence narrative does not suggest any hint of a connexion. Indeed its general ey ta tenor is directly adverse to such a supposition. From first to last it ences Jesus and His disciples move about freely, taking part in the nexion. 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, Meo: ae who, it is contended, form direct and personal links“ of communi- l¢ged. cation with this sect. These are John the Baptist and James the Lord’s brother. The one is the forerunner of the Gospel, the first 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 8q.; (3) Matt. xxii. 23 sq., Mark xii. 18, Luke xx. 27. 400 (i) John the Bap- tist not an Es- gene. External resem- blanees 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 (€uyvyov’). 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. 86. Banus as representing an extravagant 2 Gritz III. p. 100. development of the school of John, 3 +6 Kowwvytixév, Joseph, B. J. ii. and thus supplying a link between the 8. 3. See also Philo Fragm. 632 urép real teaching of the Baptist and the Tov Kotvwedovs, and the context. dectrine of the Hemerobaptists pro- 4 Ewald (v1. p. 649) regards this fessing to be derived from him, THE ESSENES. 401 ness of a divine mission, the gift of a prophetic insight, in John was the real and all-important distinction between the two. But here who was also the same mistake is made ; and we not uncommonly find Banus riddle sh 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 (8ujAGov) 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 (CyAwrys éyevopnv avrov) ; 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, Thus there is no more reason for con- necting this Banus with the Essenes than with the Pharisees. 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 wasan ical 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 epi éxxaliexa Oé érn -yevduevos EBoudrnOnv Trav map nhuiv aipécewy éymeplay raBelr. tpeis & eloly atta Papicalwy perv 7 mpwTn, Kat Laddovealwy 7 Sevrépa, tplrn 5¢ 4 Eoonvay, xaOws modddxes elraper. oTws yap wdunv aipjrecbar Thy dplorny, el mdcas KaTtaudbouu. okAnpaywyhoas your éuavrov kal moANG tovnbels Tas Tpels SiprOov. Kal pnde rv evredOev éurrec- play ikavnv éuavr@ vouloas elvar, wvOd- Hevds Twa Bavody Svowa Kata Thy épnutav COL. dcarplBew, éoO7re wev dd Sévdpwv xpw- pevov, Tpodiy dé Thy a’roudtws dvopévny mporpepduevov, Wuxpw 6 Voare Thy Hué- pay kal Thy viKTa modddxKis ovduevov mpos ayvelayv, enrwrns éyevdunyv adrod. kal duarplyas map’ airg éuavrovds tpeis kal Thy ércOuulav Tereudioas els THY rédw tréotpepoyv, évveaxaldexa 8 ern exwv nptdunv re todireverOar tH Papicalwy alpéoe. KaTakoNovOay K.T.Ar. 2 Matt. ix. 14 8q., xi. 17 sq., Mark ii, 18 sq., Luke v. 33, vii. 31 sq. 26 402 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 Toble-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. (a) We must not hastily conclude, when we mect 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 Aquila and Priscilla, this is stated in the most explicit terms*. Of the rest, who owed their fuller knowledge of the Gospel to St Paul, 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 as proconsular Asia, even after a lapse of a quarter of a century. With these disciples it was the initial 1 The word jepoBarrioral is gene- rally taken to mean ‘daily-bathers,’ pnd this meaning is suggested by Apost. Const. vi. 6 oiriwes, Kad?’ éxdorny uepav fav un Barrlowvrat, odK ex Oiovow, ib. 23 dvi kaOnuepwwod év udvov dods Bémriopa, Epiphan. Haer. xvii. 1 (p. 37) ef wh Te pa Kad’ éxdorny juépav Bamriford tis év vdart. 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 qwepa, aS NuEpbBios, Nuepodpbuos, Huepo- gKorros, 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. 369. Of Banus he reports (Vit. 2) that he ‘bathed often day and night in cold water.’ 2 See above, p. 368 sq. 3 The former expression is used of Apollos, Acts xviii. 24; the latter of ‘certain disciples,’ Acts xix. r. 4 This appears from the whole nar- rative, but is distinctly stated in ver. 25, as correctly read, édléackev dxpiBds Ta wept Tod Inoov, not rod Kuplov as in the received text. 5 The miorevoayres in xix. 1 is slightly ambiguous, and some expressions in the passage might suggest the oppo- site: but uadynras seems decisive, for the word would not be used absolutely except of Christian disciples; comp. vi. 1, 2, 7, ix. 10, 19, 26, 38, and fre- quently. THE ESSENES. 403 impulse towards Christianity ; but to others it represented a widely different form of belief and practice. The Gospel of St John was Professed written, according to all tradition, at Ephesus in the later years of pps the first century. Again and again the Evangelist impresses on his ‘te. 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 heavens: he was only the waning lamp, which shines when kindled from without and burns itself away in shining. His light might well gladden the Jews while it lasted, but this was only ‘for a season *.’ 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. John had been set up as a rival Messiah to Jesus. In other words, this Gospel indicates the spread of Hemerobaptist principles, 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 The facts ; : of histo His baptism was no more a single Perec they misrepresented his office. rite, once performed and initiating an amendment of life; it was a by them. He result conditional upon the first, see 1 Pet. ii. 20 el duaprdvovres Kal Koda- daily recurrence atoning for sin and sanctifying the person*. 1 John i. 8. 2 John v. 35 éxeivos nv 6 Adxvos 6 kaiduevos kal dalywy x.t.X. The word kalew is not only ‘to burn’, but not unfrequently also ‘to kindle, to set on fire’, as e.g. Xen. Anab. iv. 4. 12 of &Adoe dvacrdvres mop éxaov; so that 6 katduevos 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 gifouevoe Uromeveite...el dyabomoobvres kal maoxovres vropuevetre, 1 Thess. iv. x ms det meptraretv kal dpéoxew Oe@. 3 See John i. 15—34, iii. 23—30, V. 93 sd77 (comp, x.) 40, ad. “hin aspect of St John’s Gospel has been brought out by Ewald Jahrb. der Bibl. Wissensch. 111. p. 156 sq.; see also Geschichte vil. p. 152 8q., die Johan- neischen Schriften p. 13. There is perhaps an allusion to these ‘ disciples of John’ in 1 Joh. v. 6 otc év TO tian pévov, GAN év T@VOaTL Kal év TOatyare’ kal 7d mvedua x.7.A.; comp. Acts i, 5, Kis 16, 31k) 40 4 Apost. Const. vi. 6; comp. § 23. See p. 402, note r. 26-—2 404 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.D. 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® Wor is there any reason for questioning their existence as a sect in Palestine during the later years of the 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 needed for the choice of an eponym. From St John’s Gospel it seems clear that this appropriation was already contemplated, 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 Johannis, qui...magistrum suum veluti Christum praedicarunt,’ ib. § 60 ‘Hece 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 etc.’; see also § 63. 2 See above, p. 96. 3 Clem. Recogn. 1. c. This portion of the Clementine Recognitions is ap- parently taken from an older Judaizing romance, the Ascenis of James (see Galatians pp. 330, 367). Hegesippus also (in Euseb. H. E. 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, E. ii. 23). If so, it was probably derived from the same source as the notice in the Recognitions. 4 They are called Baptists by Justin Mart. Dial. 10, p. 307 4. He mentions them among other Jewish sects, with- out however alluding to John. THE ESSENES. justice '. 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’. (6) Of the connexion between this sect and John the Baptist Even in our age the name of ‘John’s disciples’ has been 405 (b) Their relation we have been able to give a probable, though necessarily hypothe- to the tical account. the Essenes, we find ourselves entangled in a hopeless mesh of perplexities. But when we attempt to determine its relation to 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 Essenes, had originally, and whatever relations they may have contracted They were 1 By the author of the Recognitions (l. c.) who denies the claim; and by the author of the Homilies (see below, p. 406, 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. Mendider, Zabier, and Deutsche Zeitschrift 1854 p. 181 sq., 1856 P. 331 8d.) 342 84., 363 8q-, 386 8q.) who has had personal intercourse with them; and from Chwolson (die Ssabier u. der Ssabismus 1. p. 100 Sq.) who has investigated the Arabic 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 NTI S39 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 YAY ‘to dip’ on account of their frequent lus- trations (Chwolson 1. p. 110; 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. xvii1. p. 342 8. Y. Zabier). This is the name by which they are known in the Koran and in Arabic writers, and by which they call themselves when speaking to others. (3) Nasoreans, NS) Natsdrayé. 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. at first 406 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 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 societies, and preparing the way for new combinations. 1 See p. 96 sq. point in this writer’s theory, that in 2 Hegesipp. in Euseb. H. HE. iv.22, the syzygies the true and the false are Apost. Const. vi. 6. So also the the male and female principle respect- Pseudo-Hieronymus in the Indiculus de Haeresibus (Corp. Haeres. 1. p. 283, ed. Oehler). 3 Clem. Hom. ii. 23 “Iwdvyys tis éyévero tucpoBamriorys, ds Kal Tod Ku- plov iuav "Inood xara tov ris cvgvylas Abyor éyévero mpbodos, 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 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. 1 (p. 37) toa rev ypap- paréwy kal Papicalwy dpovevca. 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. 407 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 have been materially affected by this great national crisis, as indeed we know to 4's. ci5n 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 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 It is still preserved in the records of the only extant Henceforth Elchasai is the prominent name in predecessors, 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’, (ii) 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 megane Lord’s brother has been alleged with still more confidence. Here, it is said, we have an indisputable Essene connected by the closest family ties with the Founder of Christianity. James is reported to invested » With Es- 5 sene cha- drink ; to have eaten no flesh ; to have allowed no razor to touch his rane head, no oil to anoint his body; to have abstained from using the ra bath; and lastly to have worn no wool, but only fine linen*. Here we have a description of Nazarite practices at least and (must it not have been holy from his birth; to have drunk no wine nor stron 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- ples, the male and female. This no- tice, as far as it goes, agrees with the 1 See Galatians p. 324 sq. on this Book of Elchasai. 2 See above, p. 374. 3 See Chwolson 1. p. 112 8q., I. p. 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- 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) dvvams kexa- duuwevn (1D 4M) is different and pro- bably correct (see Galatians p. 325). « Hegesippus in Euseb. H. E. ii. 23, 408 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*® and Matthew* which represent them as living on a spare diet of I believe also that I have elsewhere pointed out their disciples respecting the first founders of the Church’. herbs and berries. 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 laid down by the Mosaic law. The only sacrificial victims, which they abhorred, were victims offered to idols. They took their part in 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 dpry pdvy Kal édAalas XpGpuat, Kal oraviws Aaxdvos; comp. XV. 7 Vdaros pdvou Kal dprov. 4 Clem. Alex. Paedag. ii. 1 (p. 1°74) omeppdruv Kat dxpodptwy kat Aaxdywy dvev Kpecw perehduBaver. 5 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) lt 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- QI, THE ESSENES. 409 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 year 53, when St Paul wrote to the Romans, we detect practices in the ™4uences 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 ieee. 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 Dee 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 Perza 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 eee that Essene influences contributed largely to the characteristic features ee ae of the Gospel, such a view, if tenable at all, must find its support in g mie : nexion? some striking coincidence between the doctrines and practices of the 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, 2 Rom. xiv. 2, 21. 3 See Galatians p. 322 sq. 410 (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 eat!....But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, ‘Behold, tiy 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...’ ‘It is lawful to do well on the sab- bath-days’ (Matt. xii. r—12; Mark ii. 23—iii. 6; Luke vi. 1—11, xiv. 1—6. 1 Gratz (111. 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- vourable, cuts up all argument by the roots. In this instance however Gratz 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 (épdrrecOa épywv) on the sabbath-day more scrupulously than any of the Jews (Scagpopwrara "Iovdalwy amdvtrwyr); 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- 372 sq.). In this manner again the genuine element in the Old Testament melted down to a minimum. 2 Gratz however (111. p. 228) sees a coincidence between Christ’s teaching and Essenism in this notice. Not to do him injustice, I will translate his own words (correcting however several THE ESSZNES. 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, eic. (John vy. ro—18; comp. vii. 22, 23). ‘And it was the sabbath-day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes...... 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).’ AI (ii) But there were other points of ceremonial observance, in (ii) Lus- which the Essenes superadded to the law. In this respect Of these the most re- Bie markable was their practice of constant lustrations. ceremo- nial ob- the Pharisee was sufficiently minute and scrupulous in his obser- seryances. 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 (rvyu7), 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 Hssenes com- pare moreover Mark xi. 16 cal ovk 7optev 6 "Inoots va tis SievéyKy oKedos did Tov tepod with Josephus B. J. ii. 8. 9 dAN’ ovde oxedds Te peTaxwicat Pappotory (oi *Eooaio).’ 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 (dmoAovovrat 7d oma) in cold water; and after this purification (dyvetay)... being clean (ka@apol) 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. 8. 5).’ 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 ean have to this honourable epithet: and in those portions of his work, which I have consulted, I have not found either. 412 Avoid- ance of strangers, THE ESSENES. sibs Sil 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 (rov dpicrov). 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 (mpoa- evo &yy.ov TH Stalry), and the lustral waters in which he participates have a higher degree of purity (kal xa0apwré- pwy Tay mpos ayvelay Vidrwy peTadap- Bdve, § 7). ‘It is a custom to wash after it, as if polluted by it (§ 9).’ ‘Racked and dislocated, burnt and crushed, and subjected to every in- strument of torture ...to make them eat strange food (ru trav dov7Owr)... they were not induced to submit (§ 10).’ ‘Exercising themselves in...divers lustrations (duag¢opas ayveias...éumat- dorprBovpevot, § 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. whose profession or character placed them in the category of And here too the Essene went much beyond The Pharisee avoided Gentiles or aliens, or those ‘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. 10 sq., Luke vy. 30 8q.). ‘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 (ray érepo- dofwv, i.e. not an Essene) is permitted to enter ; and (so) being by themselves and clean (avrol xa@apol) they present themselves at the refectory (demvyr7- ptov), as if it were a sacred precinct (§ 5). THE ESSENES. ‘Behold, a woman in the city that was a 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 known who and what manner of wo- man this is that toucheth him; for she is a sinner (Luke vii. 37 sq.).’ ‘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 (dzo- AoverOat), aS if they had come in con- tact with a foreigner (xa@dmep d))o- pvrAw cuppupévTas, § To).’ 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, (iii) Jf the lustrations of the Essenes far outstripped the en- (iii) As- 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’ 413 and was denounced in consequence Rating as ‘a glutton and a wine-bibber’,’ He whose first exercise of power #24 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 yet it has been stated that ‘the Saviour of the world ‘And they consider oil a pollution (xn\t5a), and though one is smeared involuntarily, he rubs his body clean (cunxerat TO cua, § 3). eeeeee 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. 87. 2 Matt, xi. 19, Luke vii. 34. 3 Ginsburg Essenes p. 14. 414 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 to 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 1 y Cor. vii. 26—31. John ii. 14 8q., V. 14, Vil. 14, Vill. 2, 2 See p. 371 sq. 20, 59, X. 23, Xi. 56, XViil. 20. 3 Matt. xxi. 12 8q., 23 8q., XXIV. 1 8q., 4 Luke xxiv. 53, Acts ii. 46, iii. 1 xxvi. 55, Mark xi. 11, 15 SQ., 27, Xil, 8q., V. 20 8q., 42. 35, xili. 1 8q., xiv. 49, Luke ii. 46, xix. 5 Matt. xxiii. 18 sq.: comp. Vv. 23, 24. 45, XX. I 8Q., X&l. 37 8Q., xxii. 53, 6 Matt. viii. 4, Marki. 44, Lukev. 14. THE ESSENES. 415 conformable to His teaching. He comes to Jerusalem regularly to Practice attend the great festivals, where sacrifices formed the most striking eae 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 eo ite ody. 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 pee fails. There are indeed several coincidences on which much stress abe 5 sidered. has been laid, but they cannot be placed in the category of distinct- 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 and bro- ! ; aye therly feeling of brotherhood which distinguished Christians and Hssenes love. alike. But what is gained by all this? It is quite plain that war and warlike pursuits, on the simplicity of living, and on the 1 Matt. ix. 13, xi. 7. 2 See above, p. 88. A416 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, that the moral resemblances are more particular than this. There is for instance Christ’s precept ‘Swear not at all...but let your commu- nication be Yea, yea, Nay, nay.’ Have we not here, it is urged, the very counterpart to the Essene prohibition of oaths’? Yet it would surely be quite as reasonable to say that both alike enforce that 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 inculcated 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 wav 7d pyndev br’ airav ioxupbrepov Spxov* 7d dé duvvew avbrots mepiiararat, XElpov TL THs Emopklas brodauBdvovres’ Hn yap Kareyvacbal gact Tov dmicrovpevov Sixa Oeod, Philo Omn. prob. lib. 12 (11. p. 458) Tod gu- Nobéov delyuwata mapéxovrat mupla...7d avauorov k.7.\. 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. d. ii. 8. 7), that on initiation into the sect the members were bound by fearful oaths (8pxous ppixwoes) to fulfil certain conditions; and he twice again in the same passage mentions oaths (duvvovat, TovovTors dpxors) in this connexion. 2 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. 338q. 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 the 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. 417 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 ovx dvdparodov, Jos. Ant. xviii, ? Philo Omn. prob. lib, § 12 (11. p. 1. 5 obre SovAwY Emirndevouer Krhow. 458) dovAbs Te wap’ avrois ovdé els éorwv 3 See for instance the passages from GN’ éhevGepor wdvtes x.7.., Vragm. 11. Seneca quoted in Philippians p. 307. COL. 27 d to rty. 418 The preaching of the Kingdom wrongly ascribed to the Essenes, 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 appear, The kingdom of heaven is at hand”. at furthering the Kingdom of Heaven and the Coming Age.’ ‘The announcement of tne 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. lxi. 1 edayyeNoacOa mrwxols, 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 pakaptoe of mrwxol x.7.r., Matt. v. 3, Luke vi. 20. * Gritz Gesch. 11. p. 219. 340. DAI: 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 Gritz. ‘The Essene art of soothsaying,’ writes Lipsius, ‘has absolutely nothing to do TIE ESSENES. 419 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 te“. shipwreck of the whole, it has been well said, was the plain watch- ee 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 l. 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. 27-2 420 ADDENDA. ADDENDA. THE following collation of the text of the Epistle to the Laodi- ceans in the Za Cava ms (see p. 282) was made by the Rev. J. Wordsworth, Fellow of Brasenose. It reached my hands too late for insertion in its proper place (p. 287 sq). Explicit ad colossenses incipit aepistola ad laudicenses. 1 Apostolus] om. Laodiciae] laudiciae. 3 orationem omnem] homnem horationem. in operibus eius] om. in diem] in diae. 4 neque destituant etc.] neque destituit vos quorundam vaniloquentia insinu- antium hut vos evertant. a me] ha me, 5 ut qui...profectum] hut qui sunt ex me perveniant ad profectum. operum etc.] hoperumque salutis aeternae (om. vitae). 6 quibus] in quibus. 7 factum etc.] fletum orationibus vestris est. administrante etc. 8 vivere] vere vita. 9 ut] hut. unanimes] hunanimes. 10 Ergo etc.] ergo dilectissimi hut au- distis praesentiam mei (om. ita) reginete. 11 operatur in vos] hoperatur in vobis. 13 reliquum] om. sordidos etc.] sordidos in lucro homines. sint petitiones. 15 amabilia] add. sunt. 16 Et quae] quae (om. et). 19 Domini Jhesu] domini nostri jhesu christi. 20 colosensibus et] om. Colosensium] colossensium, The capitula of 1 Thessalonians follow immediately. p. 338 sq. The note on zpecBurns. In an inscription given in Wood’s Hphesus, Inscr. vi. 1. p. 24, 1. 72, mpeoBevrépos is engraved for tpecBurépors. This example has the highest value as an illustration of St Paul, since the inscription belongs to the age of Trajan. INDEX. Abercius (Avircius), Bp. of Hierapolis, P- 54 8q- Acts of the Apostles; passages ex- plained, p. 23 (xill. 4, xvi. 6); Dp. 95 (xix. 13, 19); P- 304 (xiv. r1) edificatoris, the sufferings of Christ as, i. 24 Zilfric on the Epistle to Laodiceans, p. 296 Alasanda or Alasadda, p. 390 sq. Alexander of Tralles on charms, p. 92 Alexander Polyhistor, p. 83, 393 Alexandria, a supposed Buddhist es- tablishment at, p. 390 sq. Andrew, St, in Asia, p. 45 angelolatry condemned, p. ror, 103, 118, i. 16, li. 10, 15, 18; forbidden by the Council of Laodicea, p. 68 angelology of Cerinthus, p. 110; of Essenism, p. 96; of the Jews, ii. 18 angels, orders of, i. 16 Anselm of Laon, p. 295 Antiochus the Great, colony of, in Asia Minor, p. 19 Antiochus Theos refounds Laodicea, Pp. § aorist, epistolary, iv. 8, Ph. rr, 19,21; 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. 124 Apostolic Writings, Christology of, p. 123 Apphia, wife of Philemon, p. 306; the name Phrygian, 306 sq. Archippus, iv. 17; son of Philemon, 308; his office and abode, 309; re- buke to, 43 Arian heresy in Hierapolis and Lao- dicea, p. 64 Arian use of the expression ‘ Firstborn of all creation,’ i. 15 Aristarchus, iy. ro Aristion, p. 45 Aristotle, on slavery, p. 313; definition of ‘knowledge,’ ii. 3; of ‘wisdom,’ L Armagh, Book of, p. 280, 282, 286 article, omission of the definite, i. 4 asah, a supposed derivation of Essenes, P- 353, 362 Ascents of James, p. 408 Asceticism among the Jewish sects, p. 87; among Colossian heretics, p. 104; Essenes, p. 408; a result of Gnostio- ism, p. 79 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; @ modern hypothesis about Christianity in, p. 50 Asideans, p. 355 asya, a supposed derivation of Essene, P- 352 Athanasius, on ‘Firstborn of all Crea- tion,’ i. 15 422 Athens, slavery at, p. 320; a Buddhist burnt alive at, p. 394 Augustine, on ‘Firstborn of all Crea- tion,’ i. 15; on ‘wisdom and know- ledge,’ ii. 3 dydrn, 6 vlds Tis dydans adrod, i. 13 dytos, i. 2 cydv, dywrla, dywrltecPat, i, 29, ll. 1, iv. 12 adedpds (6), i. x adupety, lil. 21 aisxpodoyla, ili. 8 dxabapala, ili. 5 adas, iv. 5 ddnbela, 7) GAnOela Tod evaryyerlov, i. 5; év dAnbela, i. 6 ddd, in apodosis after el, ii. 5 dwmos, i. 22 dvaraver Gat, Ph. 7 avarAnpody, 1. 24 avéykXyTOS, 1. 22 aveyuds, iv. 10 dvnxev, iii. 18; 7d dvqxor, Ph. 8 av@pwrdperkot, li, 22 dvravamAnpoor, i. 24 dyramédogts, ill. 24 adparos, i, 16 amexdvecOat, il. 15 améxOvats, li. 11 anéxew, Ph. 15 dmnddorpiwpévot, i, 21 amobvicKe, li. 20 dmroxarahAdooev, 1. 20, 21 dmékpugos, il. 3 dmoNUTpwots, 1. 14 dmoxpnots, il. 22 amrecOat, ii. 21 épéoxera, 1. 10 px, applied to Christ, p. 41; i. 16, 18 aitave, i. 6 autos éoTw, 1. 17 edeldeca, li, 23 apy, ll. 19 axetporoinros, li. 11 expyoros, Ph. 11 B (Cod. Vaticanus), excellence of, p. 247 Banaim, p. 369 sq. INDEX. Banus, p. 369, 400 sq. Bardesanes, on Buddhists, p. 393 ; his date, ib. Barnabas, life of, iv. 10; epistle ascribed toyed: basilica, iv. 15 Basilides, p, 265 Baur, p. 77, 81, 318 Bene-hakkeneseth, p. 367 BGrahminism, p. 393, 394 Buddhism, assumed influence on Es- senism, p. 390 8q.; supposed esta- blishment of, in Alexandria, p. 390; unknown in the West, p. 391 sq., four steps of, p. 395 sq. Buddhist at Athens, p. 394 Bdrrioua, Bartiopds, ii. 12 BapBapos, iil. 11 Br\argonuta, ili. 8 Bovd\ecOat, Ph. 13 BpaBevery, iii, 15 Cabbala, see Kabbala Cainites, p. 79 Calvin, iii. 8, p. 275, 318 Canonical writings and Papias, p. 52 Carpocratians, p. 79, 80 Cataphryges, p. 98 Cavensis, codex, p. 282, 420 celibacy, p. 375, 376; 413 Sq. Cerinthus, p. 107 sq.; Judaism of, p. 108; Gnosticism of, ib.; cosmogony of, p. 109; Christology of, p. 111 sq.; pleroma of, p. 264 chaber, p. 364 8q. Chagigah, on ceremonial purity, p. 365 84. Chalcedon, council of, p. 65 chasha, chashaim, a derivation of Hs- sene, p. 354 chesi, chasyo, a derivation of Essene, p. 353 8q.; connexion with chasid, p. 360 chasid, a false derivation of Essene, p. 350 Sq. Chasidim, p. 355, 357 5q.; not a proper name for the Essenes, p. 358 chasin, chosin, a false derivation for Essene, p. 341 chaza, chazya, a derivation of Essene, P- 352 8q. Chonos or Chone, p. 15, 71 Christ, the Person of, p. 34; St Paul’s doctrine about, p. 41, 115 sq., i. 15— 20, li. g—15; the Word Incarnate, Pp. lot, 102; the pleroma in Him, p. 102, i. 19, ii. 9, 10; life in Him, the remedy against sin, p. 34, 120 sq.; His teaching and practice not Essene, p. 409 sq. Christianity, not an outgrowth of Es- senism, p. 397 8q.; in relation to Epictetus, p. 13; to Gnosticism, p. 80; to slavery, p. 323 sq. Christianity in Asia Minor, p. 50 Christianized Hssenes, p. 89,90, 372 8q. Christians of St John, p. 405 Christology of Ep. to Col. p. ro1, 122; of other Apostolic writings, p. 123; of succeeding ages, p. 124 Chronicon Paschale, p. 48, 61 Chrysostom, i. 13, 15, iii. 16, p. 274, Pars, Pe Sl7 Cibotus, p. 21 Cibyratic convention, p. 7 circular letter—the Ep. to the Ephe- sians—p. 37 Claudius, embassy from Ceylon in the reign of, p. 395 Claudius Apollinaris, the name, p. 57 sq.; his works, p. 58 sq. Clement of Alexandria, p. 79, 98, i. 9, 15, ii. 8, ill. 5, 16, Pp. 393 Sq. Clement of Rome (§ 7) i. 3; (§ 58) i-t1; (§ 33) i. 15; (Ep. ii. $9), p. 104 lementine Homilies, p. 372 sq., 375, 406 Clementine Recognitions, p. 404 Clermont, p. 3 collegia, iv. 15 Colosse, orthography of, p. 16, i. 2; situation, etc., p. 1 8q.; 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. 423 40; visit of St Paul to, p. 41; ob- scurity of, p. 70; a suffragan see of Laodicea, p. 6y; Turkish conquest of, p. 71 Colossian heresy, nature of, p. 73 84.5 89, ii. 8; writers upon, p. 74; had regard to the Person of Christ, p. 112; relation to Gnosticism, p. 98 ; St Paul’s answer to, p. 115 8q. Colossians, Epistle to, p. 33; bearers of, p. 35; salutations in, 1b.; charge respecting Laodicea, p. 36; written by an amanuensis, iv. 18; Christo- logy of, p. 1223; style of, p. 125; analysis of, p. 126; various read- ings, see readings colossinus, p. 4 community of goods, p. 416 Concord of the Laodiceans and Ephe- sians, et¢., p. 31 congregation, the holy, at Jerusalem, Pp. 367 Constantine, legislation of, p. 327 Constantinople, Council of, p. 65 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. g; (il. 6, 7) i. 28; (v.9) iv. 16; (vii. 21) p. 324 8q.; (viii. 6) p. 1223 (ix. 24) ii. 18; (xi. 7) 1.053 (Rt.53) pl goa j) (Rut. 12) 1. os (xv. 24) i. 16 Corinthians, Second Epistle to; pas- sages explained: (i. 7) i, 243 (ill. 6) trans (iv. 4) iste (veka, £3) i.20; (vi. x) 1.65 (vi 4, 6) 1. 123: (vili. 9) Os (ie na)! 20, 5s Bi ay Cornelius a Lapide, p. 233, 276 Creation, Gnostic speculations about, p. 78 sq.; Essene do., p. 90 Cyril of Alexandria, p. 393 xa0ws Kal, i, 6, iii. x kat in both members of a comparison, i. 6 Kal cot, il, 1 xawbs and véos, ii. fo kaxla, ii. 8 KapmropopctaCat, 1. 6 424 KaraBpaBevew, ii. 18 Karevwomioy avrod, 1. 22 KarolKei, i. 19 KevewBarevery, li. 18 xepary, 1. 18 K\npovopla, ili. 24 KNfjpos, i. 12 kAnrés, iil. 12 xowwwrla, Ph. 6 koulfew, iii. 25 Koay, 1. 29 Kopagos, Pp. 4 Kdopos, ii. 8 kpareiy, ii. 19 Kpdros, i, 11 xplvew, ii. 16 krtows, i. 15 kbptos, 6, (Christ) i. 10; (master), iii. 24 Kup.orns, i. 16 XaApakTyp, i. 15 xapltecOat, ii. 13, iii. 13, Ph. 22 xdpis, i. 2, (4) iii. 16; 4 xXdpes Tod Aeod, i. 6 xetpbypagor, li. 14 Xpnororns, iii. 12 Damascene: see John Damascene Darmstadiensis Codex, p. 282 dative (of instrument), ii, 7, iii. 16; (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. 81, 391 Diospolis, an old name of Laodicea, p. 68 Divinity of Christ, p. ror 8q., 116 8q., ae Docetzx, use of pleroma by, p. 271 dualism, p. 78, 87, 387 dyes of Colosse and the neighbour- hood, p. 4 devyparlfew, ii, 15 déoutos, Ph. 1, 10 deouos, Ph. 13 &d& with gen., used of the Logos, p. 122, i. 16, 20 diaxovla, Sudkovos, iv. 7, 17 INDEX. bddoxew, i. 28 duolknots, P. 7 Soypa, ii. 14 doypuarlfer, li, 20 dcéa, i. 11, 27 dovdes, Ph. 163; dovdos “Inoov Xpucroi, iv. 12 dvvapus, i. 16 Suvapour, 1. 11 Earthquakes in the valley of the Ly- cus, p. 38 Ebionite Christology of Cerinthus, p.110 Elchasai, founder of the Mandeans, p. 407 Elchasai, Book of, p. 375 elders, primitive, p. 368 Eleazar expels evil spirits, p. gt English Church on the Epistle to Lao- dicea, p. 296 English versions of the Epistle to Lao- dicea, p. 297 8q. Epaphras, p. 34; evangelist of Co- losse, p. 29, 31; mission to St Paul, p: 32, 1V. 12, ER. 23 Epaphroditus, p. 34 Ephesians, Epistle to; acircular letter, p. 37; readings in, harmonistic with Epist. to Col. p. 246 sq.; passages explained, i. 18 (i. 23); i 21 (i. 16); i; 234.) 18)3 Bs Shi.) ep zan. 1); li. 4675 (Gy eaheeiio aoe er): ii. 4 (i. 24) § 3a.) as) (Ey ag) a ae xO (i. 20); li..20 (il. 7)3 Til. 17. (tl) 5 iii. 21) (1.26); iv. ro, 1P (G@. 17) ay. 1§ (i. 21); iv. 19, V- 3 (iil..5); V. 32 (i. 26) Ephesus, Council of, p. 65 Ephesus, St Paul at, p. 30, 95; exor- cists at, p. 95 Epictetus, p. 13 Epiphanius, account of Cerinthus, p. 107; on the Nasareans, p. 373 epistolary aorist, Ph. 11, 19, 21 epulones of Ephesian Artemis called Essenes, p. 96 Erasmus on the Epistle to Laodicea, p- 299 Essene, meaning of term, p. 94; the INDEX. name, p. 349 8q.; Frankel’s theory, P- 356 sq. Essenes, p. 82, ii. 8; list of writers upon, p. 83; localities of, p. 93; asceticism of, p. 85; speculations of, p. 87; exclusiveness of, p. 92; Jo- sephus and Philo chief authorities upon, p. 370; oath taken by, p. 362; their grades, p. 365; origin and af- finities, p. 355 sq.; relation to Chris- tianity, p. 397 8q.; to Pharisaism, p. Ior, 356; to Neopythagoreanism, p. 380 8q.; to Hemerobaptists, p. 4028q.; to Gnosticism, p. 92 sq.; to Parsism, p- 387 sq.; to Buddhism, p. 3908q.; avoidance of oaths, p. 415 sq.; for- tune-tellers, p. 418; silence of New Test. about, p. 398; relation to John the Baptist, p. 400 sq.; to James the Lord’s brother, p. 407 8q.3 Chris- tianized Essenes, p. 89, 90, 372 8q- Essenism, p. 82; main features of, p. 83 sq.; compared with Christianity, p- 409 8q.; the sabbath, p. 410; lustrations, p. 411; avoidance of strangers, p. 412; asceticism, celi- bacy, p. 413; avoidance of the Tem- ple, p. 414; denial of the resurrec- tion of the body, p. 415; certain supposed coincidences with Christ- janity, p. 415 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; on tracts against Montanism, p. 56; on the Thundering Legion, p. 61; on Mar- cellus, i. 15 evil, Gnostic theories about, p. 78 exorcists at Ephesus, p. 95 Ezra, restoration under, p. 353 éavrov and avrov, i. 20; and ddA7jAwPr, iii. 13 éy, Ph. 19 €bedoOpyckela, ii, 23 el ye, 1. 23 elxwy, 1. 15, lil. 11 elvat Kapmopopovpevor, i. 6 425 els, i. 6, li. 22, Ph. 6 éx Aaodixlas (rv), iv. 16 éxxAnola, iv. 15 éxXexT Os, lil. 12 éd\doyav, Ph. 18 éAmls, i. 5 év, iv. 12; denoting the sphere, i. 4; év air, i. 16; év méper, ii. 16; & mavrt Oedjpart, iv.12; év macy, i. 18; év rots épyos, i. 21; év Uuiv, 1. 27, ili. 16; év Xpior@, i. 2 évepyeiv, evepyeiabat, i, 29 éve, iii. 11 ékaryopaterOat, iv. 5 éfarel peu, li. 14 éfovala, i. 13, 16 é&w (of), iv. 5 €opT?, ii. 16 émiywaoKev, erlyvwots, P. 100, i. 6, 9, Ph. 6 érOupla, lil. 5 éripévery, 1, 23 ériaToAH (n), iv. 16 érixopnyety, li. 19 érroikodopety, li. 7 épyaverOat, iii, 23 épebligery, iii. 21 éppivwueévot, li. 7 epxecOat, ili. 6 evdpeoTos, ili. 20 evdoxla, evdoxety, 1. 19 evxapiorety, evxapioria, ii. 7, i. 3; evxa- ptoros, ili. 15 "Edéova ypaumara, p. 95 éxew, Ph. 17 éxOpol, i. 21 F (Codex Augiensis) relation to G, p. 279 Firstborn of all Creation, i. 15 Flaccus, p. 20 Frankel on the Essenes, p. 356 8q. G (Codex Boernerianus) relation to F, Pp. 279 Galatia, meaning of, in St Paul and St Luke, p. 24 Galatian and Colossian Judaism com- pared, p. 105, i. 28 426 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, 363 84., 365, 397 8q-, 413 Gnostic, p. 80 sq. Gnostic element in Colossian heresy, P- 73 84- Gnostic sects, use of pleroma by, p. 204 8q- Gnosticism, list of writers on, p. 77; definition of, p. 76 sq.; intellectual exclusiveness of, p. 77; speculations of, p. 77 sq.; practical errors of, 79 8q.; independent of Christianity, p. 80; relation to Judaism, p. 81; to Essenism, p.g3; to Colossian heresy, p- 98 Gratz, p. 351, 359, 397, 399, 410, 411 Greece, slavery in, p. 320 Gregory the Great on the Epistle to the Laodiceans, p. 295 guild of dyers, p. 4 Tapudvas, p. 392 years, i. g, ll. 3 yYwOTLKOS, P. 31 Haymo of Halberstadt, on the Epistle to the Laodiceans, p. 295 Hebrew slavery, p. 319 sq. Hebrews, Epistle to the; passages ex- plained, i. rr (Heb. xi. 34); i. 15 (i. 2, 3, 6) Hefele on the date of Claudius Apolli- naris, p. 60 Hemerobaptists, p. 402 sq. Hervey of Dole, on the Epistle to the Laodiceans, p. 295 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; Philipof Bethsaida at, p. 45 8q.; Council at, p. «9; x Papias, bishop of, p. 4&8sq.; Abercius, INDEX. bishop of, p. 54 8q.; Claudius Apolli- naris, bishop of, p. 57 sq. Hilgenfeld, p..75 ; on the Essenes, p. 390 sq. James the Lord’s brother, p. 407 sq. Jerome, p. 29; on St Paul's parents, P- 35; on the Epistle to the Laodi- ceans, p. 293 Sq. Jesus Justus, iv. 11 Jews, sects of the, p. 82 imperfect, iii. 18 indicative after BXérew 7}, ii. 8 infinitive of consequence, i. 10, iv. 3, 6 Jghn (St) in Asia Minor, p. 41; Apoca- lypse, passages explained, p. qr (ili. 14—21!) John (St), Gospel, p. 403 (i. 8, v. 35) ; Se- cond Epistle, p. 305; Third Epistle, ib. John the Baptist, not an Essene, p. 400 8q.; disciples of, at Ephesus, p. 402; claimed by Hemerobaptists, p. 403 Sq. John (St), Christians of, p. 405 John Damascene, p. 15 John of Salisbury on the Epistle to the Laodiceans, p. 296 Josephus on Essenism, p. 369 sq. Judaism and Gnosticism, p. 81 ta, iv. 16 "Toveros, iv. IF loorns, iv. 1 Kabbala, p. 93, i. 16, ii. 8 Lanfranc on the Epistle to the Laodi- ceans, Pp. 297 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. 66; ecclesiastical status, p.69; dyes of, p. 4; surnamed Trimetaria, p. 18; the vaunt of, p. 44 Laodicea, the letter from, iv. 16, p. 274 Sq. Laodiceans, apocryphal Epistle to the, p. 281 sq.; list of mss of, p. 283 sq.; Latin text of, p. 287; notes on, p. 289 sq.; theory of a Greek ori- INDEX. ginal, p. 2913; restoration of the Greek, p. 293; circulation of, p. 294 sq.; English prologue and versions of, p. 298; strictures of Erasmus on, p. 209; opinions on the genuineness of, p. 300 Latrocinium, sce Robbers’ Synod. Legio Fulminata, p. 61 legislation of Constantine on slavery, P. 327 Logos, the, i. 15 Luke, St, iv. 14; his narrative of St Paul’s third missionary journey, p. 24 8q.; makes a distinction between Philip the Apostle and Philip the Evangelist, p. 45, 59 lukewarmness at Laodicea, p. 42 lustrations of the Essenes, p. 413 Luther’s estimate of the Epistle to Philemon, p. 317 Lycus, district of the ; list of writers on, p- 1 8q.; physical features of, p. 2 5q.; 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. 69 Aaodixla, iv. 13 Abyov exew Ties, li. 23 Magic, forbidden by Council of Laodi- cea, p. 69; among the Essenes, p. 90 Sq.» 377 84. magical books at Ephesus, p. 95 Mandeans, p. 405 Marcosians, p. 269 Mark (St) iv. 10; visits Colossm, p. 40 Matthew (St) Gospel of, accepted by Cerinthus and the Ebionites, p. 108 Megasthenes, p. 392 8q.- monasticism of the Essenes and Bud- dhists, p. 395 Monoimus, the Arabian, p. 273 Montanism, Claudius Apollinaris on, p- 59; Phrygian origin of, p. 98 morning bathers, p. 368 sq., 402 sq. Muratorian Fragment on the Epistle to the Laodiccans, p. 292 427 paxpoOuula, i. 11, iil, 12 Mepls, 1. 12 pvelav movetcGar, Ph. 4 Loupn, iil. 13 povoyerns, 1. 15 puoTnptoy, 1. 26 Naassenes, p. 271 Nasareans, Nasoreans, p. 372, 375, 405 Neander on Cerinthus, p. 108 Neopythagoreanism and Essenism, p. 380 sq. New Testament, relation of, to the Old Testament, p. 118 Nica, Bishops of Hierapolis and Lao- dicea at the Council of, p. 65 Nicetas Choniates, p. 71 Nicolaus of Damascus, p. 394 nominative with definite article for vocative, iii. 18 Novatianism in Phrygia, p. 98 Nymphas, iv. 15, p. 31 veounvia, il. 16 véos, lii. 10 vovderety, i. 28 vov with aorist, i. 21 Onesimus, p. 311, Ph. 10; at Rome, p- 33; encounters St Paul, p. 312; returns to Philemon, p. 35, 313 84.3 legendary history of, p. 316 Ophites, p. 81, 98, 271 olxovoula, 1. 25 olxos, THY KaT olkov, iV. 15 omolwua, 1, 25 dvacbat, dvaiunv, Ph. 20 épy%, iii. 8 Sorts, ili. 5, iv. 11 dpOarpodovrcla, ill. 23 woh, iii, 16 ws, Ph. 14, 16 Pantenus in India, p. 392 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 8q.; refercnces to the Canonical writings, p. 51 Sq.; 428 silence of Eusebius, p. 52 ; views in- ferred from his associates, p. 53 Parsism, resemblances to, in Essen- ism, p. 88,387 sq.; spread by the de- struction of the Persian empire, p. 388; influence of, p. 389 participle used for imperative, iii. 16 Paschal controversy, p. 59, 63 Paul (St) visits Phrygia on his second missionary journey, p. 23; had not visited Colosse when he wrote, p. 23 8q.; visits Phrygia on his third journey, p. 24; silence about per- sonal relations with Colossa, p. 28; at Ephesus, p. 30, 95 sq.; at Rome, p- 32; mission of Epaphras to, ib.; meets with Onesimus, p. 33, 3123 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, ii, 22; his teaching on the univer- sality of the Gospel, p. 99; 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. g; on the abolition of distinc- tions, iii. 11; on slavery, iii. 22 sq., Pp. 323 8q.; his cosmogony and the- ology, p. ror sq.; his answer to the Colossian heresy, p. 115 8q.; his Christology, p. 122, i. 15 sq.; his relations with Philemon, p. 304 sq.; connects baptism and death, ii. 11, 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. 281 sq. Pedanius Secundus, execution of his slaves, p. 322 Person of Christ, St Paul and St John INDEX. on, p. 41 8q.; St Paul’s answer to the Colossian heresy, p. 115 sq., i 15 Sq. personal pronoun used for reflexive, 1. 20, 22 Peter (St) and the Church in Asia Minor, p. 41 petrifying stream at Colosse, p. 15 Pharisees, p. 82; relation to Essenes, Pp. 82, 356 8q., 376, 378 Philemon, p. 31, 370, sq.; legendary history of, p. 305; his wife, p. 306; his son, p. 308 Philemon, Epistle to; introduction to, p- 303; character of, p. 304; analy- sis of, p. 314. 8q.; different estimates of, p. 316 sq.; compared with a letter of Pliny, p. 318 Philip the Apostle, in Asia, p. 45 sq.3 confused with Philip the Evangelist, P- 45 Philippopolis, synod of, p. 64 Philo, on the Essenes, p. 350, 380; his use of Logos, i. 15 Phrygia, p. 17 sq.; meaning of the phrase in St Luke, p. 23; religious tendencies of, p. 97 ; see Paul (St) Pistis Sophia, p. 273 Pliny the elder, his account of the Kssenes, p. 83 Pliny the younger, a letter of, p. 318 8q. pleroma, p. 257 sq. Plutonium, at Hierapolis, p. 12 Polycarp, martyrdom of, p. 49 poverty, respect paid to, by Essenes and by Christ, p. 417 sq. Pretorius on the Epistle to the Lao- diceans, p. 300 Pythagoreanism and Essenism, p. 380 8q.; disappearance of, p. 383 mdOos, iil. 5 mapakaNely, ii, 2 maparauBdaverv, li. 6 mapdmrrwpd, i. 13 tapeivat els, i. 6 mapéxecOat, iv. I mapnyopla, iv. 11 mappnola, év mappnalg, ii. 15, Ph. 8 INDEX. was, was 6 kdouos, 1.16; maca xrlots, i. 15; 7a wdvra, i. 16 marhp, 6 Geds marip, i. 33 TaThp Hav, i. 2 maveoOa, Ph. 7 mBavoroyla, li. 4 mixpalvecOat, iii. 19 mioTés, miaTol ddeAgol, 1. 2 mcovetla, ili. 5 adnpopoperv, iv. 12 adnpogopla, li. 2 awdnpodv, i. 25, iv. 17 mAnpwya, i. 19, ii. g, P- 257 84. wANTHLOVH, ll. 23 mdovTos, i, 27 mopvela, ili. 5 mpavrns, lili, 12 mpeoBeurys, mpecBirns, Ph. 8 mpd mdvrww, i. 17 mpoaxovelr, 1. 5 mpés, li. 23, Ph. 5 mpockapreperabat, iv. 2 mpocwmrornuyta, lil. 25 mpwrérokos, i. 15, 18 girocodgla, ii. 8 POopa, li. 22 ppdvyats, i. 9 guraxrnptoy, p. 69 Warués, iii. 16 Quartodeciman controversy, p. 59, 63 Quinisextine Council, p. 68 Readings, harmonized with corre- sponding passages in the Epistle to the Ephesians, p. 246 (iii. 6); p. 247 (ii. 21, V. 19) readings, various, p. 249 (i. 3); Pp. 250 (i. 4,1. 7); p. 251 (i. 12,1. 14,1. 22); P- 252 (ii. 2); p. 253 (il. 16); p. 254 (ii. 18, ii, 23); p. 255 (iv. 8); p. 256 (iv. 15) Renan, on the meaning of Galatia in St Paul and St Luke, p. 25; on the Epistle to Philemon, p. 318 resurrection of the body, p. 88, 415 Revelation ; see Apocalypse Robbers’ Synod, p. 65 Roman slavery, p. 321 429 Rome, Onesimus at, p. 312; St Paul at, p. 32 pigoty, il. 7 Sabbath, observance of, by Essenes, p. 84, 410 Sabewans, p. 405 sacrifices prohibited by Essenes, p. 89, 371 Sadduceeism, p. 82 Sagaris, bishop of Laodicea, p. 63 Samanzi, p. 392 sq. Sampseans, p. 374 Sarmane, p. 392 sq. satisfactorie, sufferings of Christ, re- garded as, i. 25 Secundus, see Pedanius Secundus Seven churches, literature relating to, p.1 Sibylline Oracle, p. 96 silence of Eusebius on canonical books, p- 52 s8q.; of the New Testament about the Essenes, p. 398 slave martyrs, p. 326 slavery, Hebrew, p. 319; Greek, p. 320; Roman, p. 321; St Paul’s treatment of, p. 323 sq.; attitude of Christian- ity towards, p. 325 sq.; prohibited by Essenes, p. 417; legislation of Constantine, p. 327; of Justinian, p. 328; abolition of, ib. Socrates on Novatianism in Phrygia, p. 98 Sophia of Valentinus, p. 267; Sophia Achamoth, p. 268 stadium, metaphor from the, ii. 18 Stapleton on the Epistle to the Laodi- ceans, p. 300 Strabo on Buddhism, p. 391 sq. sunworship, p. 87, 374 8q., 382, 387 odBBara, ii. 16 odpt, 7d cua Tis capKés, i. 22 DKvns, li. 11 gogla, i. 9, 28, il. 3, iii. 16 omhdyxva (Td); iii. 12, Ph. 7, 12 oTepéwma, li. 5 oroxela (rd), li. 8 guvaywyely, li. 8 oupBiBagey, li. 2, 19 430 ouvarxpdrwros, iv. 10 ctivdeouos, il. rg, lil. 14 avvdounos, i. 7, iv. 7 civeots, i. Q, il. 2 ovotpatiorys, Ph. 2 cpa, TO cua THs capkés, ii. 11 TwMATIKS, ll. O Tacitus on the earthquake at Laodicea, P- 39 Talmud, supposed etymologies of Es- sene in, p. 352 8q., 357 Sq.; supposed allusions to the Essenes, p. 364 sq. Testaments, Old and New, p. 119 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, on the orders of angels, i. 16 theanthropism of the New Testament, p- 119 thundering legion, p. 61 Thyatira, dyes of, p. 4 Timotheus, his position in these epi- stles, i. 1, Ph. 1; ‘the brother,’ i. 1 Tivoli compared with the valley of the Lycus, p. 3 travertine deposits in the valley of the Lycus, p. 3 Trimetaria, asurname of Laodicea, p. 18 Tychicus, iv. 7, p. 35, 314 Tamewoppoovry, iii. 12 Takis, li. 5 TéXevos, i. 28 tis (indef.), St Paul’s use of, ii. 8 rototros wy, Ph. g, 12 Gérew, Ph. 13; OédAew ev, ii. 18 INDEX. 6éAnua Oeod, i. 1 Bepedtody, i. 23 Gebrns, TO Oetov, ii. 9 Ovyyaveu, ii. 21 OvnoKkew, arobvncKely, ii. 20 OprapBevew, ii. 15 Ovuss, iii. 8 Ovpa Tod Adyou, iv. 3 Uuvos, iil. 16 Umevavrtos, ii. 14 Umrouovn, i. II vorépnua, i. 24, p. 269 Sq. Valentinianism, different forms of, p. 266 sq. Valentinians accept St Paul and St John, p. 270 Valentinus, use of pleroma by, p. 265 vathikin, p. 368 versions of the Epistle to the Lao- diceans, Latin, p. 291; Bohemian, German, and English, p. 297 sq. Word, the, p. ror, see Logos, Christ Wycliffe, on the apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans, p. 297 Yavana or Yona, p. 390 Zeller on Essenism, p. 380 sq. Zend Avesta, p. 387 Zoroastrianism and Hssenism, p. 387 8q. Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians Princeton Theological Seminary—Speer Library ties te ie Prem vr { i" ae 7 ; v Mn Me - i heat eee tha ErEERATaS Leet tr itu LRT Wee tebe i Wish avele Ein teng dl fe ro Pehaditsri he " BMobot bitte MUR ies tahyse ter ten webu tie Meats noon Bote e pet ted De Bb le 2h. Di te iepies be i aetat Vahpevii's aes { ; ' fh net vst Debate les nah feed HLCP ey or) tial ee, aa 3 od That wryly ce te fi iy Uy hiss stan eee optaer oh Feeney ats Piytraiirirene VEGI 6 séUby Wad Sadek watt ew vis tr et Man ete ten eG i Stet fetes PHEW atat usta el tot inno Be shetcaiy ae Bian ating Praha cmd egy piilapess Facet iar oe tithe ME why ee Suey at WUE yr ae ‘ NCE Oberon ty Sgt ne ieee aht BOWet Ey Oty 4 ‘ eet yer Raa tet Peeiayy Wey Marg Fk Coon wads ae u iat tus ie