Page images
PDF
EPUB

2. St. Basil (in the latter half of the fourth century) had learned from those before him that the Ephesians (to whom, however, he believes the Epistle to have been addressed) were not named in the superscription, which ran tоiç ayioɩs toïç ovσi kaì ñiσrois, and so he had himself seen it in ancient copies. This again attests the fact of the words having been at least questioned very early, which is also confirmed by Tertullian, Jerome, and Epiphanius, who are however referring to the very controversy raised by Marcion, in which the explanation of the doubt is to be found.

σov (Eph. i. 1)—where it is at once evident how difficult it is to make sense of the phrase, roiç ovoɩ kaì πσTois, which is also a construction without a parallel in St. Paul's writings. On the other hand, this formula, with the name of the place, is precisely parallel to the superscriptions of the Epistles to the Romans, the Corinthians (second Epistle), and the Philippians. As a matter of textual evidence, the omission is outweighed by the presence of the words in all the other principal MSS., and in all the ancient versions. In reference to modern authority, Tischendorf has now removed the brackets within which he formerly placed the words. Nor must it be overlooked that most, if not all, the advocates for their rejection-constrained by their acceptance of Marcion's authority (see below), as well as by the desire both to make sense of the passage and to de-versally charged by the Christian Facide who really were the persons addressed-not only omit év 'Epéow, but insert έv Aaodikɛia, thus themselves rejecting that very authority of the Codex B, which is their main external argu

ment.

3. As early as the first half of the third century (about a century and a half before Basil), the heretic Marcion asserted that the words Пpòç AaodiKέaç were in the title of the MSS. which he used; but Marcion is uni

thers with making arbitrary alterations in those books of the Scripture which he accepted. It is indeed argued that he tampered with the text on doctrinal grounds which could not induce him to alter the title of an epistle.

Of course the omission, which in But the testimony of a persuch a MS. could hardly be accident- son who corrupts documents in some al, indicates a doubt as to the genu- points becomes worthless in all; and ineness of the word at a very early Marcion is actually accused by his period. The existence of such a contemporary, Tertullian, of insertdoubt, which we are about to prove, ing the words Hpós Aaodɩkéac in the accounts for the peculiar form of the title. Nor can we admit that the omission. The doubt being whether statement about Marcion's adding the the words ἐν Εφέσῳ or ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ | words proves that there was no adshould be inserted, the transcriber appears to have compromised the matter by omitting both, at the expense of leaving the sense imperfect. Thus the absence of the words, which is the only fact attested by the MS., is accounted for, while the preponderating testimony of the MSS. and Versions proves the opinion of Christian antiquity that the doubt was not well founded.

dress in the copies known to Tertullian, or even, if so, that the conclusion would have much force. For it is admitted on all hands that the Epistle was addressed to some particular church or churches, and the whole question is about the substitution of one name for another.

Archbishop Ussher propounded the ingenious conjecture, that the Epistle was a circular letter, addressed to

several churches, in the same way as The suggestion that Paul had no the Epistle to the Galatians was ad- personal friends to greet among the dressed to all the churches in Gala- Laodiceans, "who had not seen his tia, and those to Corinth to the face in the flesh," is answered by the Christians "in the whole province fact, that of the only two persons saof Achaia" (2 Cor. i. 1); and that luted by name in the Epistle to the Tychicus carried several copies of it, | Colossians, Nymphas is a Laodicean differently superscribed, one for Lao- (Col. iv. 15: some suppose the same dicea, another for Hierapolis, anoth- of Archippus, ver. 17). In the Episer for Philadelphia, and so on. Hence tle to the Philippians, also distinmany of the early copyists, perplexed guished for their close relations to the by this diversity in their copies, might Apostle, the personal salutations are be led to omit the words in which the equally "conspicuous by their abvariation consisted; and thus the sence;" for the two ladies, Euodia state of the earliest known text of the and Syntyche, are not named in the Epistle (that of the Codex Vaticanus) way of salutation, but of exhortation would be explained. When the to make up some quarrel (Phil. iv. Epistle was afterward spread over the 20). Tychicus might well be charged world, Ephesus, the great commercial capital of Asia, being the place from which copies of it were mostly procured, it would obtain the title of the "Epistle from Ephesus," and lastly the name of Ephesus would be inserted in the text. This theory, however, besides wanting the substratum of any positive evidence, is open to the objection, that in the examples cited of a plurality of address, as well as in John's Epistles to the Seven Churches of Asia (the very churches now in question), there is one common superscription indicating all those who were addressed; and so here we should expect some such phrase as Tois ovσi év 'Aola (with an extension, if necessary, to include the churches beyond the limits of the province).

II. INTERNAL EVIDENCE.-1. The absence of any salutation to individual members of a church so familiar to Paul as the Ephesians is too negative to be of any weight, and if of any, it would only go to prove the very point which the objectors themselves give up, that it was a General Epistle. Its special character is conclusively proved by chap. vi. 21, 22, as well as by the mention of the brethren in ver. 23.

with individual salutations to those
friends whose very number made it
difficult for the Apostle to indite his
wonted autograph with that fettered
hand to which he pathetically refers
in the salutation of the sister epistle,
as if apologizing for its brevity:-
"The salutation by the hand of me
Paul: remember my bonds" (Col. iv.
18).

2. The Christians to whom he writes are addressed as exclusively Gentiles, recent converts, of whose conversion Paul knew only by report, and who only knew him as an Apostle by hearsay, so that he might need credentials to accredit him with them (Eph. i. 13, 15, ii. 11, 13, iii. 2, 4, iv. 17, v. 8); all of which points are inappropriate to the Ephesians, and exactly suitable to the Laodiceans. We answer in one word, that these texts do not seem to sustain the inferences drawn from them.

(i.) The magnificent statement of the position of the Gentiles in the Church (not without important allusions to their communion with their Jewish brethren, ii. 12-22) is surely far too suitable to the Christians of such a city as Ephesus, to be affected by any question of how many Jews

were included in that Church.

It is which he can refer in proof of the

enough for us to know (what is clear Apostle's being only known to them

by hearsay, and needing credentials (v. 4) to accredit him with them! Surely enough has been said to show the haste of the same author's judgment concerning the destination of the Epistle-"The least disputable fact is, that it was not addressed to the Church of Ephesus."

from Acts xix. 8-10) that the majority of the Ephesian Christians were Gentiles; and it might just as well be argued, from Rom. xi. 13, that there were no Jews in the Church at Rome. (ii.) It is in connection with this same argument, to impress upon them the duties resulting from their translation from the kingdom of dark- 3. There still remains the most imness into the kingdom of light, that portant and difficult point, the alluthe Apostle dwells so emphatically- sion in the salutation of the Epistle not upon the newness of their conver- to the Colossians: "Salute the brethsion, but upon the magnitude of the ren which are in Laodicea, and Nymchange (ch. i. 13, ii. 13, v. 8). What phas, and the church which is in his he had heard of their faith and love house. And, when this Epistle is refers evidently, not to first intelli- read among you [i. e., when you have gence, but to the cheering news brought to him in his confinement at Rome (i. 15); while the converse reference in iii. 1, foll., to what not the Ephesians only-but all the Gentiles, as whose representatives Paul deals with them-had heard of "the dispensation of the grace of God committed to him for them," is called forth from "Paul the prisoner of Jesus Christ" by his inability to converse with them in person of this great revelation. The eye (which Conybeare strains into if, as I suppose, ye have heard) is surely rhetorical, and not hypothetical, an appeal to their certain knowledge. The phrase,

done reading it], cause that it be read also in the Church of the Laodiceans; AND THAT YE LIKEWISE READ THAT FROM LAODICEA (TV Èk Aaodıkɛíaç, i. e., the Epistle sent to that city, and which you will get from it). No stress can be laid upon De Wette's argument, that this Laodicean letter must have been written some time before, or else Paul would not now be saluting the Laodiceans through another Church; nor upon the internal evidence that the Epistle to the Colossians was written before that to the Ephesians, for, as they were sent together, this passage may be a postscript, or may refer to a letter which Paul was about to write and send by the same hand. The clear common sense of the passage is, that Paul was sending by Tychicus a letter to Laodicea, as well as this to Colossæ, and that the two Churches were to exchange the reading of the two Epis

66 as I wrote afore in few words," might seem, at first sight, to support the opinion that Paul had for the first time opened the subject to them in some previous letter. He might indeed have availed himself of his enforced leisure to write more fully of the nature of that ministry to the Gen-tles. tiles, which he had practically exer- Now to answer, or fail to answer, cised when among them; but the the very difficult question, What and truth seems to be that he is simply where is the Epistle to the Laodiceans? referring back to a passage in this is a very long way from the concluvery Epistle (i. 9, 10). This inter- sion that it was the "Epistle to the pretation is adopted by Conybeare, Ephesians." The appositeness of the and yet this is the sole passage to identification is just the most suspi

Epistles, even with such high authorities as Ussher and Paley, Conybeare and Lewin.

cious sort of argument; for it is the very consideration that would tempt a speculative critic, like Marcion, to make the identification. Such cases The idea of Wieseler, that the Laoare of constant occurrence in all dicean Epistle is that to Philemon, is branches of inquiry. For example, open to the like objection, and is the Greek verb has three Voices; and negatived by the proofs that Philemon it has three Perfects; the 1st and 2d and Onesimus were Colossians. Even Perfect Active, and the 3d form, commentators must sometimes subwhich is common to the Middle and mit to confess, that when a thing is the Passive: so the grammarians lost they don't know where it is. All make the symmetrical re-adjustment admit the probability that Paul wrote of assigning one to each Voice, like many letters that have been lost; and Cyrus in the fable with the-two coats. the general likeness of two Epistles, So Paul sent by Tychicus Epistles to intended for readers in neighboring the Colossians and to the Laodiceans. cities, may be a sufficient reason for We have the one to the Colossians, the preservation of only one. It may and another addressed (in the exist- however be said, without hesitation, ing title) to the Ephesians. But now that the apocryphal Epistola ad Laothe Epistle to the Laodiceans is want- dicenses is a late and clumsy forgery. ing: so take the one away from the It exists only in Latin MSS., and is Ephesians and give it to the Laodi- evidently a cento from the Galatians ceans! Assuredly far stronger di- and Ephesians. A full account of it rect evidence than we possess is re- is given by Jones (On the Canon, ii. quired to justify this redistribution of 31-49).

[graphic][merged small][merged small]

THE LAST DAYS OF ST. PAUL AND ST. PETER; AND THE COMPLETE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH-FROM THE RELEASE

OF ST. PAUL TO THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM, A.D. 63-70.

§ 1. St. Paul's movements after his release-General indications of the Pastoral Epistles. § 2. Difficulties of detail-Scheme of Mr. Lewin: St. Paul sails for Jerusalem; and goes thence, by Antioch and Asia Minor, visiting Colossæ, to Ephesus. § 3. His labors at Ephesus-State of the Ephesian Church, as shown in the Epistles to Timothy-Church organization-Appearance of heresies. § 4. St. Paul's visit to CreteCommissions of, and Epistles to, TIMOTHY at Ephesus, and TITUS in Crete-Charges to them-Nature of their office. § 5. The work of Timothy at Ephesus-His peculiar trials. § 6. New forms of error; as developments of Judaism-Combination of superstition and philosophy, of ritualism and libertinism-Germs of future heresies-The Great Apostasy-Mysticism, Asceticism and Gnosticism-Severity of Paul in rebuking these heresies. § 7. Further account of them in the Second Epistle to Timothy-Heresy of Hymenæus and Philetus, that the Resurrection was past-Moral corruption-Its prevalence at Crete-Epistle to Titus. § 8. Paul visits Macedonia and Corinth, and winters at Nicopolis-Gessius Florus in Judæa-The burning of Rome, and Nero's persecution of the Christians-Testimony of Tacitus to Christ and the Christians. § 9. Movements of St. Paul-Tradition of his journey to

« PreviousContinue »